[DMoriarty]

Sorry for a new thread, but the other one is entirely pointless, and I am curious to get a fresh take on a single issue.

Many seem to have an understanding that there is something in Merion's original, contemporary record that indicates that Hugh Wilson was chosen by Merion Cricket Club's Board of Governors to design the original and first verion of Merion East.  

Problem is, I am not aware of any evidence even suggesting that MCC's Board appointed Mr. Wilson to do any such thing.    We've been told that the Merion Board minutes have been discovered so surely if Wilson was in charge of designing the course, then the Meeting Minutes would have to have appointed him, or at least mentioned them, wouldn't they?  

But as far as I know, the Meeting Minutes don't contain any such appointment.   Moreover, I have a feeling that they did not even mention Hugh Wilson, at least any time before the Board approved the final layout plan as determined by C.B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.  BUT THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT MACDONALD AND WHIGHAM, IT IS ABOUT HUGH WILSON and I don't see any reason for this to be a long, drawn out thread.  

It is a rather simple and narrow question.   What is the factual basis for believing that MCC's Board chose him to design Merion East?

[John Mayhugh]

Sorry for a new thread, but the other one is entirely pointless, and I am curious to get a fresh take on a single issue.

Thanks for the recognition.  I'm sure that was the only pointless Merion thread you ceased participation in.   

[DMoriarty]

John,

Of course I was referring to the one currently on page 67; the one where Mike Cirba has posted around 800 times.  But why is it again that you are worried about your thread getting out of hand?   I wonder if Mike will vote 800 times in your opinion poll? 

[John Mayhugh]

John,

Of course I was referring to the one currently on page 67; the one where Mike Cirba has posted around 800 times.  But why is it again that you are worried about your thread getting out of hand?   I wonder if Mike will vote 800 times in your opinion poll? 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I think if you delete cookies you can vote multiple times, but I'm trusting people. 

[DMoriarty]

. . . but I'm trusting people.  

Really?  You obviously don't follow the Merion threads.

[Mike_Cirba]

John + David,

Please put it back in your respective pants.

Thanks.

[John Mayhugh]

John + David,

Please put it back in your respective pants.

Thanks.

What do you mean by this tacky, classless remark?  I've said nothing negative about you at all. 

[Kirk Gill]

David - in a quick look I could not find a list of all the members of the construction committee. I know that you believe that the construction committee was working on a design/routing that pre-existed the committee's existence, but let's say for the sake of this thread that the construction committee designed the course. Who was on that Construction committee, and what were their backgrounds in golf?

[Tom MacWood]

There was no mention of Wilson in the press reports either. Based on their stated goal of building one of the best courses in the country and Lloyd & Co's track record of hiring the best of the best it is illogical to believe Wilson was selected to design the course. Wilson was not a nationally recognized golfer or even one of the top golfers in Philadelphia. He had no prior experience in designing golf courses and there is no evidence he had an interest in golf architecture. He was not associated with anyone known to have an interest in golf architecture. And he had not traveled overseas. MCC said no money or effort would be spared in designing and building the golf course.

The timing is not right either. The numerous reports in November said the work would begin immediately. Forming committee in late January is not starting the work immediately.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom where is there any record that the committee was "formed in late January?"

[Tom MacWood]

The first known action by the committee was 2/1/1911, so I guess it could be early February. Sorry.

[Phil_the_Author]

Sorry Tom, but the first "known action" was not the sending of the letter but the production of and/or the gathering of the documents that the letter refers to.

In any case, simply because something may be the first "known" thing done DOESN'T mean it WAS the first thing done. Secondly, the first action a committee takes has NOTHING whatsoever to do with when they are formed. You state(d) definitively that the committee was "formed in late January" and now say it might have been February 1st.

I have no problem with you stating that "It is my BELIEF that the committee was formed in late January" whatsoever. On too many an occasion these threads have gotten very acrimonious over interpretations stated as facts. That is why I feel very strongly that you either produce the proof that makes your statement a fact or change it to being your opinion. Arguing very strongly for it is fine and proper.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
Hugh Wilson said the committee was formed early in 1911 - that could be January or February. The most generous reading is January 1. That is still a month and half after they said work would begin immediately. That ain't immediate.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I never said anything about the work happening or being immediate. I simply asked how you could state something as definitively occuring date-wise.

[Jim Nugent]

David, did MCC officially choose anyone to design Merion East?

[DMoriarty]

David, did MCC officially choose anyone to design Merion East?

I don't know.   I am not privy to the MCC Board of Governor's minutes.   But if anyone was chosen it couldn't have been Hugh Wilson.   Wayne and Tom wouldn't be hiding that.

We do know that Lesley was chair of the Golf Committee, and in the two meetings I know something about Lesley was the one who was doing the reporting to the board concerning the new course.   In the first meeting Lesley, on behalf of his committee, recomended purchase and MCC purchased the land based largely on CBM's recommendation.  The board approved of the purchase.

The second meeting, April 1911, is a bit more hazy because Wayne and TEPaul are still hiding the minutes and have only let out what they thought would help their case.   But even from this we know that, Lesley reported that Macdonald and Whigham had determined the final layout plan, and the board approved that routing.  

So again, without the minutes we don't know who MCC officially chose to design the course.  But I think it is same to conclude that, between Lesley's committee and the Board, they were concerned with what Macdonald and Whigham thought.   Who knows if Wilson was ever even mentioned?

Was he?
_________________________

David - in a quick look I could not find a list of all the members of the construction committee. I know that you believe that the construction committee was working on a design/routing that pre-existed the committee's existence, but let's say for the sake of this thread that the construction committee designed the course. Who was on that Construction committee, and what were their backgrounds in golf?

Kirk,  

Maybe I am mistaken but you seem to think that if there was no earlier planning then the construction committee must have been entirely responsible.  I don't think this was the case.

As for the committee, I haven't reviewed my notes or documents, but here is a brief and loose synopsis.  Wilson was in the insurance business, played golf at Princeton, and was on the green committee at the time princeton laid out their course sometime around the turn of the century.   Lloyd was a very wealthy Wall Street (Market Street?) heavyweight who was on the Site Committee and was very involved on all sides in the transaction between MCC and HDC.  Francis worked for a New York construction company, supervising large projects, buildings and such.   Dr. Toulmin had apparently been on the green committee at Belmont many years before when they redid their course, but I don't remember exactly.  RE Griscom was the son of a shipping line magnate, and a very good golfer.  According the MCC's board, they turned to Griscom to bring in Macdonald and Whigham at the beginning.  

Impressive men in their own fields, but hardly stellar resumes when it came to the new field of golf course design, at least when we compare them to the men from NGLA.  

Is there anything in their resumes that convinces you that they must have been appointed to design the course?    I don't see much.

_________________________________

Phillip,

I may be wrong, but I think you wrote somewhere that Wilson's committee had the contour map created.   I don't believe there is any direct evidence indicating that Wilson's committee had the topo created.    It could just as easily have been the site committee, or even HDC.   In fact, CBM told them they needed a topo in June 1910, so it seems strange they would have waited until January to have one drawn up.    Reportedly the Dallas Estate was secured in August 1910, so there was little reason for them to wait to create a topo was there?

I think that the only prior committee actions indicated in the February 1, 1910 letter were that they spoke to CBM, realized the value of his advice, and immediately wrote to Piper.  

[Kirk Gill]

Thanks for the listing, David. For some reason I had it in my mind that there were more people than that on the committee.

However, given the makeup of that committee, it's obvious that from a golf perspective, Hugh Wilson had more of a golf background than the others, wouldn't you agree? Of course, not as much of a background in design as Barker or Macdonald, but certainly more than the other members. Would you agree that of the members of the Construction Committee, that Wilson ended up having the greatest influence on the course? Historically this seems to be true, after all the notion you wish to debunk is the widely-held belief that he deserves sole design credit. I have not seen any of the minutes, and I certainly wasn't there, but one possibility that comes to mind is that he may not have been specifically chosen to design the course.........but ended up doing the lion's share of it anyway.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You wrote, "I may be wrong, but I think you wrote somewhere that Wilson's committee had the contour map created.   I don't believe there is any direct evidence indicating that Wilson's committee had the topo created..."

Actually you misread the meaning of what I wrote. Here it is, "Sorry Tom, but the first "known action" was not the sending of the letter but the production of and/or the gathering of the documents that the letter refers to..."

I used the phrase "and/or" meaning that they EITHER produced and gathered the documents themselves or JUST gathered them for their uses including the inclusion in the 2/1 letter.

In any case this simply means that they were at work as a committee BEFORE 2/1 and my sole point was that I feel there is an overwhelming need in the Merion threads to separate FACT from BELIEF. That is why I appreciate your use of the word "belief" in the rest of what you wrote in that same post.

It is the gathering of enough FACTS that lead to the CHANGING of one's BELIEF's on both sides...

[tlavin]

OMG.

Sorry is not good enough.  This Merion perseveration has to stop.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for the listing, David. For some reason I had it in my mind that there were more people than that on the committee.

However, given the makeup of that committee, it's obvious that from a golf perspective, Hugh Wilson had more of a golf background than the others, wouldn't you agree? No, I wouldn't agree.  I believe the Griscom was the most accomplished golfer of the bunch and the most well traveled.  Toulmin had been around for a long time, and fairly active at Belmont in the late 1800's.  Francis and Wilson were both pretty young and close to the same age, and I don't know who had been golfing longer.   I'd say that Wilson was pretty accurate when he wrote that none of them knew more than an average golfing club member.  Of course, not as much of a background in design as Barker or Macdonald, but certainly more than the other members. Would you agree that of the members of the Construction Committee, that Wilson ended up having the greatest influence on the course?  Sorry, but no.  At least not with regard to the  initial design.  If Francis' idea truly did make the last five holes possible, then he had a tremendous influence on the course, or at least the greatness of the course.  One could argue that the greatest role was played by Griscom, who reportedly got Macdonald and Whigham involved in the first place.  Same could be said for Lloyd with regard to Barker, as well as M&W. Historically this seems to be true, after all the notion you wish to debunk is the widely-held belief that he deserves sole design credit. I have not seen any of the minutes, and I certainly wasn't there, but one possibility that comes to mind is that he may not have been specifically chosen to design the course.........but ended up doing the lion's share of it anyway.  

Kirk,  

Sorry to be such a stickler, but you seem to be bunching together a whole bunch if conclusions that don't necessarily fit together.  No doubt that among the Committee members Wilson deserves the lion's share of the credit for creating the course.  At least that is what the other Committee members allegedly told Alan Wilson.  But a lot more goes into the creation of a course than just the initial design.   I've never denied that Wilson was primarily responsible for everything but the initial design.  In fact I have repeatedly acknowledged this.     That being said, you and others seem to be equating responsibility for agronomy, layout, construction, modification, etc. with responsibility for design.   My focus has been solely on design, and with regard to the initial design I don't see any facts supporting the notion that Wilson was any more responible than the rest of them.

_________________________________

Phillip,

Thanks for the clarification.

_______________________

OMG.

Sorry is not good enough.  This Merion perseveration has to stop.

It will stop as soon as all the information comes out.  

[Dan Herrmann]

Q:  Was Hugh Wilson Chosen to Design Merion East?
A:  Yes

[DMoriarty]

Q:  Was Hugh Wilson Chosen to Design Merion East?
A:  Yes

Q:  Does Dan have any facts to back up his answer?
A:  No.

Correct me if I am wrong, Dan.

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
Just my opinion based on what I've read. 

[DMoriarty]

Like I said . . .

[Dan Herrmann]

But isn't history frequently decided after the affected "public" makes their own determination?  And, there's nothing wrong with contrasting views of any given historical fact.  We see it all the time - for example, was Gettysburg lost because of lack of Confederate communication or was it the superior strategy of the Union forces?   I think it depends on the reader.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()