Tom,
That's where you're wrong.
You're placing yourself in today's context where the construction of a golf course entails a finished product by opening. Frankly, I'm surprised that you'd make that mistake because you've certainly read enough of these early accounts to know that many of the early courses were anything but.
I'll repeat the germane parts from my earlier posts below because based on your questions, you either haven't read them or chose to ignore them. In either case, this is what I think happened;
If you disagree, then explain why, because otherwise I fear we're just repeating ourselves and covering the same old ground. As much as you might want to gain new converts who don't know the whole story, I really think that's probably a waste of both of our time.
Tom,
I've already stipulated that there were men with more experience designing golf courses than Hugh Wilson at the time Lesley, et.al. selected him for Merion and at the time Geist selected him for Seaview.
Your incredulity over why those rich, influential men saw the value in using Hugh Wilson to create their golf courses is understood and you've previously communicated that you don't understand how they could have done that many, many times here previously.
However, being in denial gets us no closer to actually understanding these events clearly as they happened and as everyone who documented those events at that time understood them to happen.
For instance, your attempt to cast doubt on William Evans as a messenger because you don't like his message is really not valid, because "Joe Bunker", "Billy Bunker", and other writers for other local papers also said Hugh Wilson designed Seaview. What's more, I think we need to look a little deeper at what these men actually wrote about Wilson's trip abroad, particularly in light of the article Joe uncovered that started this thread that shows us clearly that not much was actually done when Merion was originally grassed except that tees and greens were located and grassed, essentially.
Evans wrote;
Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new Merion course was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect."Before attempting to devalue Mr. Evan's opinion, perhaps you can tell me how that differs from what others at the time said and how they said it.
For instance, in February 1916, A.W. Tillinghast wrote;
"Certainly a reference to the Merion Course over which the championship of 1916 will be played, must be of interest. The course was opened in 1912, and the plans were decided upon only after a critical review of the great courses in Great Britain and America."Later that year, in April for the Philadelphia Inquirer, author "Joe Bunker" wrote about Merion;
"Before anything was done to the course originally, Mr. Wilson visited every golf course of any note not only in Great Britain, but in this country as well, with the result being that Merion's East course is the last word in course architecture. It has been improved each year until it is now nearly perfect from a golf point."Earlier, in December, 1914, Joe Bunker wrote;
"Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned. He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “In January 1913, right after the course opened, "Far and Sure" wrote for American Golfer;
"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee ,headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson. Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used."And thanks to an article you found that was reproduced here, we all know what Richard Francis wrote in 1950 about Wilson's trip abroad and its purpose;
So, I think in light of the fact that William Evans and many of these other authors seemed to be talking about "constructing" as creating the man-made golf course features that define the strategies (problems) of the holes, or the "mental hazards" as Alex Findlay termed it, then there is nothing erroneous at all about what William Evans wrote.
These accounts, and others of the time, seem to have given credit to Wilson for the basic "laying out" of the holes in their raw state, as a location and physical placement of tees, fairways, and greens, as well as the design and creation and "construction" of the "mental hazards" over time as play on the course was closely observed and determinations made on how best to challenge the top golfers, while still remaining playable and fun for the average club member.
Tom MacWood,
This is what I think happened;
Let's go back to the Alex Findlay article that Joe posted some months back and start there.
“I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot”. – Alex Findlay, talking about Hugh Wilson in May 1912 after Wilson’s return from overseas
What do you think Findlay means when he says that it will take a lot of making in this context? As we already know, the golf course and the holes have already been routed, the basic tees and greens were placed on the ground, the greens and tees shaped and seeded, and now growing in. That all happened over the previous year and now the course is months from opening so why would some hole concept still “take a lot of making”, or require much more work to be anything resembling the original?
Let’s examine some previously stated assumptions as stated by the author of the Merion whitepaper published here;
1. Wilson has long been credited with designing the course
based upon principles he learned while traveling abroad.
2. This assumes he traveled abroad
before the course was designed and built.
3. But he did not travel abroad until
after the course had been routed, planned, built, and the tees, greens, and fairways seeded, and at least some of the artificial features built.
4. Therefore the initial routing, lay out plan, construction, tees, greens, fairways, and at least some of the artificial features could not have been based on what Wilson learned while traveling abroad.
You may be very surprised to learn that I agree with almost everything written here with the exception perhaps that the first point is an overly broad generalization and oversimplification but the second point is where I’d like to get more specific because I’m not sure it’s a valid assumption.
I want to be sure I address this comprehensively, and I guess we have enough generally agreed examples to work with using Merion holes 3 (redan), 10 (Alps), and 15 green (Eden Green) that consensus concurs that were based on some overseas principles.
Let’s start with the redan hole, the third.
Richard Francis tells us directly that this is one of the holes that “benefitted” from Hugh Wilson’s overseas visit and that
“the location of the hole lent itself to this design”.
You’ll notice he doesn’t say that they found that location while looking for a redan hole. He states that they located the hole first, and only then, working within the possibilities and constraints of their natural conditions, determined that applying some redan principles to that location might work well.
This is wholly consistent with what Francis tells us about the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad. Francis also tells us clearly that the idea all along was to “incorporate their good features on our course” AFTER Wilson returned in May of 1911.
How could this be? Weren’t the holes already “designed” before Wilson went abroad, as you rightfully ask?
The simple answer is, no, they weren’t designed. Eighteen tees and greens were fitted into the property in a routing, again using the natural features and conditions at their disposal on the property that had been selected as their canvas.
None of these tasks required Wilson to go abroad to study first because all they were using at this point was their own carefully studied knowledge of the property, their understanding of good golf holes in the U.S. through their own individual experiences playing golf at a high level nationally for over a decade, as well as what knowledge Macdonald had imparted regarding agronomics and construction techniques, as well has his knowledge of the great holes abroad that he communicated during their visit with him at NGLA.
All of the early accounts mentioned that what was built at first was incomplete, that there were very few bunkers and pits, and that “mental hazards” and additional strategies would be added later. THAT was the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad…to see in person the type of great hole strategies they had discussed with Macdonald and now wished to apply to their evolving golf course.
Some months ago, we had a great debate here re: whether the 3rd hole was indeed a redan, because it does not have the characteristic green sloping front to back, and tilted severely to the low side. In fact, the 3rd green at Merion slopes back to front, the opposite of what you would expect.
If you think about the definition of the great holes abroad, almost every one of them are self-defined by a few key attributes, and in almost every case it’s not due to some natural feature that needs to be present, but due instead to the placement of artificial hazards which determine strategy. THAT is what makes them somewhat repeatable. Almost every template hole is self-defined by its bunkering pattern which defines the hole strategy…the road hole, the redan, the eden, the short, the alps…
I would contend that when the Merion course was first routed, shaped, and seeded, the 3rd hole was simply a tee in a valley, and a green located on a plateau hilltop, much like probably hundreds of uphill par threes in existence, although that barn-top abrupt rise does make it admittedly a bit special.
If nothing else was done to the hole after that it would still be a very good hole…it could even be bunkerless and would be a very good hole.
Yet, to apply some of what they saw as “redan principles”, the Wilson committee decided to build the key “redan bunker” into the face of the hill diagonally to one side (which Francis tells us was the basement of the barn), and also put some “high side” bunkering in on the left to catch the golfer playing a bit too cautiously away from the visually obvious front-right hazard.
I would contend that those bunkers, and thus the entire hole strategy as a “redan” were added AFTER Wilson’s return from abroad. The green design doesn’t exactly fit the redan concept because as you mentioned, that was already done and in place. But we already know they weren’t looking for exact copies…they were simply looking to implement specific features and principles of great holes abroad and apply them to their natural inland conditions.
So it goes with the other examples. Robert Lesley tells us the “principle” of the Alps Hole they wanted to copy was the large crossing bunker in front of the green, and possibly the large mound behind. Well, we already know that when Wilson returned from his trip abroad and spoke with Findlay, he admitted that to create anything like the original Alps, “it would take a lot of making.”
But what about the “Eden Green” on the 15th, I’m sure you’re thinking. Didn’t that require previous intent? After all, it was built with a large back to front slope and we know that it was roundly criticized as too severe, as was the 8th, which Francis tells us “originally…took the contour of the hillside so that players had to play onto a green which sloped sharply away from them.” The 8th green was rebuilt before 1916.
In the case of the 15th, we know that Tillinghast claimed it sloped so much from back to front that players had to “skittle” their approach shots up to the front.
But, was it an Eden green because of the back to front slope, which on the uphill 15th also probably originally took much of “the contour of the hillside”, or was it the typical Eden bunkering pattern, where a large front right bunker cut into the face of the upslope is only matched in challenge and difficulty by the “Hill bunker” to the left, where those playing away from the more obvious frontal attack often end up?
Once again, I’d contend that the bunkering created the strategy of that approach, and defined the principles they wanted to copy from overseas on the 15th.
There was also some previous speclation that the 6th hole had some characteristics of a Road Hole, and I agreed. What made it a road hole?
Well, we know it had a property boundary on the right but that was simply happenstance of the routing. However, Merion CHOSE to utilize that boundary and you told us that they created a tee area that required a carry over the corner, built some large mounding in that corner, and then build a large hazard left of the green to challenge those playing too cautiously away from the boundary on the drive.
Once again, these are/were all artificial touches that created the hole strategies, and that were added AFTER the course was routed, based on what Wilson learned abroad, and based on how the Merion committee determined to apply them to the natural conditions at their disposal.
So, to draw an alternate timeline, this is what it looks like to me;
Jan – early march 1911 – Wilson and Committee create many golf course layouts, none of which they are completely satisfied with.
March 1911 – Visit Macdonald at NGLA and gain some great insight.
March – April 6th – Wilson and Committee take what they’ve learned and created “five different” course layouts. Macdonald makes his second visit to the property and after reviewing the land and the proposed layouts carefully, helps the committee select the best routing.
April 19th – The Merion Board gives approval to the selected and recommended plan and construction proceeds forthwith.
Late April – Fall 1911 – Construction of 18 tees and greens consistent with the routing that attempts to take best advantage of the natural features of the property takes place and by fall the property is seeded.
Winter 1911-12 – Wilson tells us that the committee worked all winter, although it’s unclear what they were doing at this point.
March 1912-May 1912 – Wilson goes abroad to study.
May 1912 – Sept 1912 – Wilson puts the first “overseas touches” on the golf course, almost certainly in the form of bunkers and mounding influence play and creating internal, artificial hole strategies that he emulates based on great holes he has now both seen and discussed with Macdonald through sketches and Mac’s NGLA versions, as well as the originals he’s seen with his own eyes. Some of it was termed "experimental".
Sept 1912 – Sept 1916 – This work continues slowly because the natural hazards make the course difficult and challenging enough for the average member. Work accelerates in mid 1915 when Merion is awaded the US Amateur of 1916.
So Tom...let's wrap this up unless you can shed new insight in some way. In a way, I'm glad you put some of these assumptions to the test because it has caused a few of us to revisit the story and learn some new facts, but in the end, we come back to essentially the same place.