The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[JESII]

___________________________________________________________

By the way I've always found Lesley's further acknowledgements at the conclusion of the description to be particularly interesting.  To me it reads as if he is thanking three distinct groups of men, which I have highlighted in different colors:

So much for the history that led to this remarkable development in American golf. And to the men who built the courses, to the men who subscribed to the stock, to the men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem, the Merion Cricket Club owes its sincere thanks, and Philadelphia golf as a whole is also indebted.

Who were these three groups?  And where do CBM and HJW fit?  

1. The men who built the courses?  Hugh Wilson and his Committee, along with whoever they hired.
2.  The men who subscribed to the stock?  H.G. Lloyd and those who supported his financial plan.
3.  The men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem? Charles Blair Macdonald and Henry James Whigham.  

While it sounds strange now,  phrases like "working out the problem" were often used to describe planning a golf hole or golf course.  
______________________________________________

David,

This partial excerpt from Lesley is probably a good place to distinguish the committee's use of the term "adviser" and your stated "calling the shots".

The article spends the entire first page discusing the initial problem of poor golfers in Philadelphia, connects the cause of that to poor courses and then gets into the congestion at Merion's old course being the impetus for searching out new golf grounds and then soon after the 1912 opening dealing with the same problem. The problem was overcrowding of the golf courses at Merion and the third group being credited in that paragraph are the people that found the land and solved hat problem for them. Lesley had every opportunity in this article to credit CBM and HJW for any portion of the creation as he wanted and he left it as the committees adviser's.

The problem globally of no good golfers coming out pf Philadelphia was solved in large part as the result of the events that took place after this articles problem of over-congestion of Merions courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David ignores the first page, where Lesley tells us the committee laid out the course, which to everyone in the world other than David, means designed it, and focuses on parsing some convoluted thank yous instead to make a point.

Is anyone surprised?  Yet he tells us that these articles don't say what they appear to say, that they are always really saying something different.  I guess only he has the crystal ball.  But, at some point, like my father told me, usually, if the whole world disagrees with you, its time to start thinking you may be wrong.  Yeah, there are many films celebrating the guys who are right despite all odds, and it happens occaisionally in real life, but not that often.

The article says the committee laid it out with CBM and HJW as advisors, and Lesley was a main cog.  As David would say in any other case, its hard to beat contemporaneous evidence like this when evaluating history.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Listen to Jim and Jeff.

And Bryan.

[JESII]

Mike,

I'm always baffled by your thought that the need for the lades aid around the quarry on 16 was the sole reason for the land swap and as such all that was required was added width to an already existing triangle. There are about 5 reasons his baffles me but the leader in the clubhouse is certainly your comments about how long the second shot over the quarry would be in those days. Have you ever really considered the playability of this option? For the players that cannot make the carry on their second shots this option is only "better" for those that can also not reasonably expect to keep a ball in the air for 100 yards becasue that's all it takes after a layup to the end of the fairway...and the angle in from there is greatly superior than off by the 15th hole somewhere.

[DMoriarty]

duplicate post.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  You provided your answer, but left out the question.  I asked "Can anyone come up with any legitimate reason for discarding Whigham's words?"  

I don't think your current quest goes as far as your answer to this question, but no matter.  I am still interested in your list and explanation of the the sources supportint your understanding and discounting my understanding.

Your speculation about "the problem" is rather stretched, don't you think?   To "work out the problem" was sometimes used to connote planning a golf hole or golf course.  

Rather than get lost piecemeal in each document, perhaps you can set all the the sources and explain then all?

[Mike Cirba]

Mike,

I'm always baffled by your thought that the need for the lades aid around the quarry on 16 was the sole reason for the land swap and as such all that was required was added width to an already existing triangle. There are about 5 reasons his baffles me but the leader in the clubhouse is certainly your comments about how long the second shot over the quarry would be in those days. Have you ever really considered the playability of this option? For the players that cannot make the carry on their second shots this option is only "better" for those that can also not reasonably expect to keep a ball in the air for 100 yards becasue that's all it takes after a layup to the end of the fairway...and the angle in from there is greatly superior than off by the 15th hole somewhere.

Jim,

Sure, I'd be happy to answer that question, but I'm frankly surprised David hasn't weighed in yet in my defense on this one.

If memory serves, when David played Cypress Point (using hickory shafts) he came to the mighty 16th hole.   Eschewing the ego-driven attempts that most mere mortals are too weak to resist, David instead played the alternate fairway, choosing to bite off the legendary hole in more manageable 100 or so yard chunks.

Now, that might be my memory failing me here, but I do seem to recall that story being recounted here on GCA.

As far as my own speculation, I do understand your point about someone being able to chip down their second shot perhaps 100 yards or so leaving them a carry of about 100 yards uphill all-carry over the quarry to the green.   But boy, that sure is boring golf, and it also assumes that all ladies and seniors back then could make the carry with hickory, which as David's example shows, is certainly not an assured thing!    

Seriously, I do think that the Merion architects felt that a large enough percentage of their members couldn't make that carry, and had to give them a way around that was grass instead of rocks, sand, rough, and all the other stuff growing in that part of the quarry.   The fact that they DID build it indicates to me that they felt it was necessary.

Now, I know you'll say to yourself, aren't the carries on 17 and 18 longer?   Well, I'd answer that in a few ways.

First, there's NOWHERE to build an alternate fairway on either of those holes.   Second, from the 17th tee one 1) Places the ball on a tee, 2) is elevated high above the target, and 3) early pics of the hole show the quarry below pretty "cleaned up" and playable, a fact bemoaned by Tillinghast.   Ditto on 18.   For that matter, we know that 18 only played about 405 yards so the carry was not nearly as significant as today's, and we really don't know where tees were placed for ladies, but I'm betting they were atop the hill.

In either case, we know what they built.   We can question whether this was "necessary", but it doesn't alter in the least the fact that they felt it was, and the evidence is simply the fact that it's there.

I'd also question whether the carries for the members were actually longer on 17 and 18 from their tees, as seen in this 1916 drawing by William Flynn;

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Lesley clearly identifies the Redan and the Alps holes.

We know, from your timeline in post # 124 that the routing, along with the individual holes designs, including tees and greens, and seeding, was completed in the fall of 1911, six months prior to Wilson's trip abroad.

So, Wilson's trip had nothing to do with the final routing, nothing to do with the individual hole designs, nothing to do with the location/siting of 18 tees and 18 greens, which, by your own admission, were all completed and seeded by the fall of 1911.

We also know from Lesley's account, and I'm assuming that you view it as the gospel, that the course opened on 09-04-12, less than 4 months after Wilson's return.  Hence, it's doubtful, on opening day, that any substantive changes in routing, hole design, and the location of tees and greens occured.

Lastly, Lesley's article isn't about architectural attribution, although he does reference the Redan and the Alps, which were all conceived and built before Wilson departed for the UK.

To declare, because Lesley doesn't discuss architectural attribution, that CBM couldn't have been involved and influential is disingenuous.

Jim Sullivan, Jeff Brauer and David,

The phrase "laid out upon the land" created controversy long before this thread was initiated.
Some felt is described the design process, others the construction process.
What's always bothered me is WHY did Merion name the committee the construction committee ?

A reasonable person could conclude, because the course had already been routed and designed, and therefore, the task falling to that committee was to get the course in/on the ground.

I'm also curious about Francis's role.  I know he pooh pooh's it, but, as an engineer, he had to be a vital cog.
With Raynor an integral member of CBM's team, it would be hard to believe that these two engineers didn't communicate with one another.

And, the inability to produce communication between them, doesn't mean that they weren't in contact with one another.

All of you cretins and morons (there is a distinction) seem to rely solely upon written correspondence and articles in newspapers and magazines, completely neglecting that a sophisticated telephone system was in place in and between NY and Philadelphia, allowing these parties to communicate on a hourly basis if need be.

The complete disregard and disavowing of any phone communication between the parties is stunning.

Your collective opinions seem to be that if it isn't in written form and signed, then the committee members and CBM & HJW couldn't be in contact with one another and nothing could be further from the truth.

David Moriarty, subpoena the phone records !

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

These descriptions of the holes as they played in the 1916 US Amateur that shows some of the design thinking may help as well....the description of the options on the 16th is particularly telling;

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

You're holding a pair of two's and clinging desperately to a rapidly sinking ship.

Time to fold.   Wise men admit when they are wrong.

[JESII]

Mike,

Are you suggesting the quarry on 17 and 18 was cleaned out for playability but they neglected to do this on 16? I wonder about that line of reasoning.


David,

"Stretched"?

Did you read the first page of that article?

Lesley spent the entire first page laying out their problem and used the word problem to do it...it does not matter that people would occassionally use problem to discuss the strategies of golf holes. Lesley was no yet discussing golf holes...he was describing the problem that enabled/predicated Merion's leadership role in the creation of better courses in the region.


The last few words of that first page and first few of the next...

"The Merion Club is celebrated for doing things, and when a situation confronts it its members act and talk about it afterwards. The men who had waited for the opening of the new course, the men who were enjoying their golf on the new course, the men who had given time and trouble to the construction of the new course, were all confronted with the problem of congestion and spoiled sport by reason of congestion and the greatly increased membership."

[Peter Pallotta]

Just FYI - I believe some of us concluded a long time ago that CBM identified many potential greens/hole sites during his visit to Merion, based on his concepts of ideal/template golf holes (thus Whigman's eulogy for him); and that Wilson and the Committee then used several of those potential green sites/holes as part of the 5 routings that they, the Committee, designed/planned out (thus the early and still traditional accreditation); and that CBM then chose the best of the Wilson Committee's 5 potential plans/designs (thus the forthright thanks and praise for CBM by Wilson); and that Wilson then travelled overseas to study how fairway and greenside hazards/obstacles and contouring in general were an essential part of the greatness of golf's great holes, and came back to truly finish/complete Merion East based on this enriched understanding (thus the compliments for Wilson in particular found in the co-temporarneaous news articles of the day, and his future work/assignments on other golf courses).  It's a shame that this debate/discussion from the very beginning was framed by two stark and extreme and diametrically opposed positions -- as without the blinkers of either agenda the most likely scenario/history seems pretty clear, at least to the outside eye.  See you all in another 6-8 months or so....

Peter    

[Mike Cirba]

Peter,

If you're going to insist on being reasonable, I'm going to have to ask you to leave this thread.  

Jim,

Why do you think they built the alternate route on 16?   

More importantly, do you think that their purposeful decision to build the alternate route on 16 affected the possible placement of holes 14 AND 15?

[paul cowley]

Peter...God loves you!

[Mike Cirba]

Paul,

I agree that a wise God would have to love Peter.   

I'm pretty sure a wise God wouldn't give a flying flip who designed Merion, however.   

[JESII]

Lastly, Lesley's article isn't about architectural attribution, although he does reference the Redan and the Alps, which were all conceived and built before Wilson departed for the UK.

To declare, because Lesley doesn't discuss architectural attribution, that CBM couldn't have been involved and influential is disingenuous.

Jim Sullivan, Jeff Brauer and David,

The phrase "laid out upon the land" created controversy long before this thread was initiated.
Some felt is described the design process, others the construction process.

Pat,

It may not have been about attribution, but Lesley certainly weighs in with his opinion of how attribution should be allocated.


Mike,

I think they built that option because they could...

I read you version, if I boil t down, to say that they had a fixed boundary based on the November Map and had to change deal to enable some of the members to go around the quarry when thay would have a longer carry on each of the next two holes. Seriously! I saw your drawing from Flynn, not to scale by the way. But I've also seen Google Earth. It's actually no too close.

I'm not perfectly clear on your question of how I think the building of that ladies aid affected 14 and 15. Clearly it would have effected 15 but at that time people played crossing holes all the time...also wasn't the tee originally over by the road?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You're holding a pair of two's and clinging desperately to a rapidly sinking ship.

Time to fold.   Wise men admit when they are wrong.[

Mike, I quoted YOUR time line.

It's YOUR declaration on the chronological order of the design, routing, construction and seeding of the golf course, all of which occurred six months PRIOR to Wilson's trip to the U.K.

I'd say that's equivalent to a royal flush, an unbeatable hand.

If you can point out any flaws in my facts or logic, please do so.
Failure to identify any flaws in my facts and/or reasoning would mean that my facts and reasoning are sound.[/b]

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

No way did people play crossing holes at that time coming at each other from directly opposing directions, essentially shooting right each other!

Not sure I understand your question about playing over the road?   The alternate route necessitated the 14th green being moved well to the west of it, and check out the location of the 15th tee, as well.

If one holds any stock in the November 1910 Land Plan, the ENTIRE 14th green would fall outside of it, as would the 15th tee and the entire left half of the 15th fairway.

I don't think that Land Plan was the exact Contour Map they were working with in early 1911, but they were certainly trying to work within some 117 acre boundary (plus three acres leased from the RR company) for 120 total.

Given that the property was made up of;

21 acres of the Dallas Estate
3 acres of RR land

And given that they used the historic eastern, southern, and northern boundaries of the Johnson Farm (as well as the western border below Ardmore Avenue), they certainly wanted to keep the western border above Ardmore Avenue within the 96 acres they originally agreed to purchase in November 1910, and which their agreements with HDC were based on.

As things happened, they needed an additional three acres to complete their desired routing, for a total of 123.   That happened on the Johnson Farm property along the western boundary above Ardmore Avenue.

THAT is indisputable.

Where do you think that additional three acres came from?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

X2.  I have been saying for a while that perhaps in many respects we are closer than we think. But, some argue the time line (well, like me!) and others argue triangles or alternate fw.  CBM was a valued advisor and the course wouldn't have looked like it looked oriiginally (and in many ways, as it does now) without his valuble advice.

David,

I am still trying to understand why all the contemporaneous comments aren't reason enough to discard Whigham many years later.  Again, I can see some middle ground, because as time went on, it appears CBM didn't do a lot more for other clients than he did with Merion, but he had his own guy Raynor do the bulk of the work, and simply red marked the plans, etc.

But, in the end, so many folks said that the committee was responsible, I think its more than reasonable to say the committee was largely responsible.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Actually, in thinking about it, your argument that they created the alternate fairway on 16 because they "could", is belied by the fact that they had to go back to the board in April 1911 and request permission to purchase an additional 3 acres beyond what they had originally secured in November 1910.

How big is that alternate fairway again?  

We know the 21 acres of the Dallas Estate and the 3 acres of the RR Land were fixed amounts.

The only variable was the western edge of the Johnson Farm above Ardmore Avenue.   They believed they'd need 96 acres, but instead needed to buy 99 acres.

The triangle above Haverford College is 4.8 acres

What does that tell you?

btw, Jim...what does the knowledge that they bought the Dallas Estate in its entirety, leased the RR property in its entirety, and also purchased the Johnson Farm in its entirety to EVERY historic border (north, east, south, west below Ardmore Avenue) except that on the western edge adjoining the real estate property of HDC above Ardmore Avenue do to your theory that they only bought the specific land they needed for their previously routed golf course?

[JESII]

btw, Jim...what does the knowledge that they bought the Dallas Estate in its entirety, leased the RR property in its entirety, and also purchased the Johnson Farm in its entirety to EVERY historic border (north, east, south, west below Ardmore Avenue) except that on the western edge adjoining the real estate property of HDC above Ardmore Avenue do to your theory that they only bought the specific land they needed for their previously routed golf course?

It confirms it.

[JESII]

Mike,

What would you say if I told you the end result was that Merion had to buy 3 acres or roads for their share of these transactions? How would it impact yourvision of Mr Thompson's April motion to 'exchange already purchased for adjoining and buy three more acres'?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

1. I understand what you are saying about "the problem" but don't agree that it fits in the context of the acknowledgement.   We'll have to agree to disagree.

2. Can you explain to me where "Lesley certainly weighs in with his opinion of how attribution should be allocated?"

"The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman, R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham."

I agree with every word.
____________________________________

Jeff Brauer wrote:

David,

I am still trying to understand why all the contemporaneous comments aren't reason enough to discard Whigham many years later.  Again, I can see some middle ground, because as time went on, it appears CBM didn't do a lot more for other clients than he did with Merion, but he had his own guy Raynor do the bulk of the work, and simply red marked the plans, etc.

But, in the end, so many folks said that the committee was responsible, I think its more than reasonable to say the committee was largely responsible.

You guys keep making such claims but I don't think you can support them.  That is was Jim is supposed to be doing, and so far he has come up with only the Lesley article, yet Lesley credited CBM and HJW right along with the Committee! 

I'd like to see a list of every instance where someone directly involved wrote that the committee and not CBM/HJW who designed the course, but you guys have not ever come up with such a list. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

How many times are we going around this circle?

The club minutes say they prepared many plans, etc. and then CBM came back and approved them.  What happened happened and it is all pretty well documented.  There are also many articles crediting Wilson and the Committee, with an assist from CBM for the course.

I understand your position that many say they constructed the coruse, and they did.  But, there is no real reference to CBM designing it either, other than Whigham's contention many years later. I happen to believe (and this pains me as a gca!) that getting the damn thing constructed was foremost in everyone's mind, and design was almost a necessity, and a means to the end, rather than the exhalted thing we discuss it as today.

Looking for someone to use our exact phrases back then is imposing a will on them that just annot be done.

IMHO.  What happened happened and its well documented, word parsing aside.

[DMoriarty]

There are also many articles crediting Wilson and the Committee, with an assist from CBM for the course.

Not true.  At least not if you are talking about articles written by those who were there and involved.  Hugh Wilson thanked CBM and HJW profusely.  Lesley thanked CBM and HJW right along with the Committee.   Whigham credited CBM.

And Merion's board Minutes do not even mention Wilson's Committee, yet you claim that the board minutes credit them? Not so.    The board minutes do acknowledge that CBM and HJW chose the final plan.