The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Bryan Izatt]

....................................

The following is from Tom Paul, which I'm happy to relay to clarify a few matters on questions that were asked.
   
Jim Sullivan said this:
"Lloyd didn't buy the land on behalf of Merion in December, he took title for HDC and paid them $85K for the priveledge."
 
 
Technically that is not accurate. Lloyd did not pay anyone $85,000 when he took deed to 161 acres on December 19, 1910 from James Rothwell (a transfer agent).

Rothwell took deed to the 161 acres (the entire 140 acre Johnson farm and the 21 acre Dallas estate) from HDC on the same day SUBJECT TO the payment of $85,000 for 117 acres. Technically these were two separate transactions, one for the Johnson Farm and the other for the Dallas Estate, both on December 16, 1910.  The Johnson farm transaction was with the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land company, not HDC, to be accurate.  For clarity, PALCO and HDC were not one and the same company, they had different Presidents and different Secretarys.  There is no mention of an indenture of $85,000 for 117 acres in either transaction.  Perhaps Tom has some other document that these numbers are coming from.

Lloyd took deed to 161 acres from Rothwell for $1.00 (the minimum payment to constitute a formal real estate contract). Lloyd took that deed (161 acres) SUBJECT TO three payments----eg one for $85,000, one for $60,000 and one for $34,000. The $85,000 for the 117 acres for MCCGA Corp (actually 120.1)   The deed has no mention of 117 acres (or 120.1) or that it was for what would be the MCCGA.   was not actually paid  How do you know that?   until Lloyd (The Grantor) transferred the property (120.1 acres) by deed back to Rothwell on July 19, 1911 for $1.00 who transferred it by deed to MCCGA Corp the same day SUBJECT TO an immediate payment (by mortgage et al) of $85,000  What makes you say it was an immediate payment?   .

So what were the payments of $60,000 and $34,000 that Lloyd's December 19, 1911 deed was SUBJECT TO? I would assume the $34,000 was for the 21 acre Dallas estate  Why would you assume this?  The Dallas estate was already in the 117 (or 120) acres paid for by the $85,000.  Why assume there was an additional charge?  The mortgage on the Dallas Estate when HDC got it was $14,020)   and the $60,000 was for the approximately 40 acres of the original Johnson farm that MCC (MCCGA Corp) did not use and would not buy (it probably was transferred back to HDC or perhaps held by Lloyd since he essentially was a large part of HDC).  Beats me what the $60,000 and $34,000 payments were for.  Why bother speculating.  Seems likely to me that Lloyd transferred the leftovers to HDC.  Otherwise he would be personally liable for paying out the indentures.  Why would he want to do that.

I could determine at some point what the deed transfers were with the remainder of the Johnson Farm (app 40 acres) in the future by simply going to the County Recorder of Deeds and checking that 40 acres since all specific land transfers are recorded in Pennsylvania. 
 
 
 
Bryan Izatt said this:
"I don't suppose you have an image of the November 1910 Evans letter "securing" the 117 acres or Nicholoson's offer? The 338 acres wasn't available at that time. HDC didn't own it at that point."
 
 
HDC did not technically need to own those 338 acres at that point as they had all of it in five parcels "secured" with a purchase by a "purchase agent" (Freeman with the Dallas estate) and deeds and options "assigned in blank" for the Davis and Taylor farms and the land north of College Ave.  Where is this information coming from?  The transfer of the Johnson farm was basically between two development entities that were the same or an evolution of one into the other (Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co into the Haverford Development Co).  They both existed at the same time in December 1910 and they had different officers, so it seems unlikely that they were the same company at that point.  Perhaps they merged later - who knows?
 
All this stuff is essentially Real Estate 101. This is what I used to have to get involved with when I sold real estate, mostly farms. So why go through all these technicalities with transfer agents and purchasing agents and deed transfers between various people the same day for a payment of $1.00 "SUBJECT TO" a later payment for the agreed upon price between ultimate buyer and seller? It is generally done that way between development sellers and potential buyers and entities such as golf clubs because it often takes some time for the buyer (in this case the MCCGA Corp) to raise the money by stock and bond subscription or cash generation or to raise the money by mortgage placement (in MCCGA's case the Girard Trust Co). This was the case with the MCCGA Corp and if you will note Cuyler's correspondence with MCC (Evans) he mentions precisely this (that MCCA has some months to actually come up with the money to buy the land and raise money to construct the course and redo the potential clubhouse et al). The other reason deeds are transferred back and forth like this for $1.00 is so that real estate transfer taxes are essentially negated in these kinds of technical business transactions. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

No, its not reasonable.  Saying "Do you have any evidence that he didn't ?" when the record shows he didn't is...well, I won't go there.  

Jeff, if the documented record showed he didn't that would be sufficient proof.
But, the documented record doesn't show that

Its argument by trying to prove a negative.

NO, it's not,
If you,me, Dave and Mike played in a foursome and the NewYork post reported that Jeff, Pat and Dave were seen playing golf at Bethpage
yesterday and someone says that there's no evidence that Mike was there, than I can say with absolute certainty, that there's no evidence that
Mike  wasn't there.  That's not proving a negative as you declared

  The documents that have been availalbe for 100 years show what days CBM was there and involved.  If they aren't going to show up by now, they ain't gonnar show up (most likely)

So, it's your position that for well over a year Macdonald never spoke on the phone to anyone at Merion ?

As to the documents, they're of little help in determining attribution 

Please don't ask anyone to prove a negative.  Its not history.

David,

Well, you jumped on the bandwagon.  I won't keep repeating the opinion that reasonable inference from thin air doesn't equate to good history
either.  Let's face it, Mike is right. If, at least for now, there are no documents saying CBM was involved more than he was involved, its time to let that drop until some come to light.

And as you know, I believe the time line portion of your theories always seem to be prefaced with the "facts" that none of these men ever seemed
 to write what they meant, that they don't mean what they say, etc.  Seriously, I would think most would feel that those portions of your essay aren't nearly as strong as finding ship manifiests for Wilson's trip.

By finding those, you set a pretty high standard for yourself, and fail to match it consistently throughout the essay.  When some parts are
supported by undeniable fact, its only natural that the theories made up of what you consider to be plausible inference come under more scrutiny.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Byran, et. Al.,

Aren't the half dozen or so  template holes the "smoking gun" ?

Or, do you think the design and incorporation of those holes into the routing was just a mind boggling anomaly, a one in ten billion random occurrence ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I think the sum total of the documents is pretty damn good at providing attribution.  The people involved wrote repeatedly who was involved, and it all seems to come back to the committee.  They were there, and based on what the club did and what CBM did, they wrote he was an advisor.  Contemporaneous stuff, not 100 years later murder mystery stuff of "what did the secret code really mean."  

You have to read what a lot of folks wrote in very obtuse ways to come up with a conclusion different than theirs.  Even with the few isolated instances (like the HJW eulogy) that contradict and we have to parse out why, there is just a lot to say the committee did the bulk of the work, and used CBM as a trusted advisor at key checkpoints along the way.  And, BTW, it was still theirs to make, just as a Donald Trump can choose to credit himself with designing a course now.

Was CBM's help really more than in the record?  Perhaps, but perhaps not.  Why would they write in detail about the three meetings they did have with CBM but leave out others?  As to phone calls, no one can know. But, it would be hard to approve a routing over the phone, wouldn't it?  And the record says that is not what happened.  However, I have already admitted they probably rang him up or vice versa to set up the NGLA meeting, although, in those days, that might have also been done by letter.  Maybe they got some other clarifications along the way, about soils or what not.  I just don't know. I just don't think it matters.

CBM was of great value to MCC and many other clubs, and was later a golf course architect.  If he himself never publicized it, why should we?


Just saw your question to Bryan, and no doubt he gave those ideas to MCC.  They went there to get those ideas.  So, if they implement a basic idea - like a Redan - using Pickering to and themselves to interpret, is CBM the designer because he came up with the idea of copying classic holes?  IMHO, he is the designer if he picked the specifically for Merion (which he may) and executed them to his (or his staffs) satisfaction.

So, no, the template holes are not to me a smoking gun that CBM designed MCC.  For that matter, I think it makes more sense as evidenec that those rank ams designed MCC.  I would be incredulous as you that they did it if they came up with 18 original holes withough some help.  But, again, all semantics.

[Adam_Messix]

Patrick--

Are using template holes exclusive to MacDonald/Raynor/Banks?  I ask for two reasons; one I just played a Ross course that a pretty definitive redan on it so I'm curious as to where he got the idea and two, don't MacDonald/Raynor/Banks template have a particular style to them that is pretty distinctive.  Just curious as to your thoughts. 

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

That really says. It all.

David,

Are we supposed to be surprised to learn the CBM was the architect of White Sulphur using Raynor as a surrogate?

Are we supposed to be surprised that an architect can also give "advice", such as suggesting an existing golf course be moved because of fundamental drainage issues?

What does any of that have to do with Merion?

We're still waiting for actual evidence from you...if you dont believe in what's been published then you should make arrangements to go there yourself.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I think it does.  In Scotland's Gift, CBM mentioned many clubs he assisted and many he designed.  Why in God's name wouldn't he claim credit for Merion when he had the chance?

David says its only an overview, and I agree.  That said, I don't know too many career recollections that start with their second course designed.....

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

This is from Tom Paul.   I hope it helps.   Thanks.


In post #2110 Bryan Izatt asked me a series of questions interspersed into what I said about the technical details of the land transfers involving HDC, Lloyd and MCCGA.
 
The following are my answers to his questions in the first two paragraphs:
 
 
"Rothwell took deed to the 161 acres (the entire 140 acre Johnson farm and the 21 acre Dallas estate) from HDC on the same day SUBJECT TO the payment of $85,000 for 117 acres. Technically these were two separate transactions, one for the Johnson Farm and the other for the Dallas Estate, both on December 16, 1910. The Johnson farm transaction was with the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land company, not HDC, to be accurate. For clarity, PALCO and HDC were not one and the same company, they had different Presidents and different Secretarys. There is no mention of an indenture of $85,000 for 117 acres in either transaction. Perhaps Tom has some other document that these numbers are coming from.

Lloyd took deed to 161 acres from Rothwell for $1.00 (the minimum payment to constitute a formal real estate contract). Lloyd took that deed (161 acres) SUBJECT TO three payments----eg one for $85,000, one for $60,000 and one for $34,000. The $85,000 for the 117 acres for MCCGA Corp (actually 120.1) The deed has no mention of 117 acres (or 120.1) or that it was for what would be the MCCGA. was not actually paid How do you know that? until Lloyd (The Grantor) transferred the property (120.1 acres) by deed back to Rothwell on July 19, 1911 for $1.00 who transferred it by deed to MCCGA Corp the same day SUBJECT TO an immediate payment (by mortgage et al) of $85,000 What makes you say it was an immediate payment? .

 
Bryan:
 
The land transfer and deed you're referring to of Dec 16, 1911 is the land transfer and deed between HDC (Dallas estate) and PALCO (the Johnson farm) which is a total of 161 acres. This deed took two separate land parcels and put them together in a deed as a single land parcel in the name of a "transfer agent" (James Rothwell). I do not have that deed because it does not technically involve MCC or the MCCGA or Lloyd at that point (of course I could get it at the Delaware Co. Recorder of Deeds but that isn't really necessary). Three days later (Dec. 19, 1910) Rothwell transferred the same 161 acres not as two separate parcels but as a single land parcel (161 acres) to Horatio Gates Lloyd (that is actually explained in that Dec 19, 1910 deed). The "consideration" (price) on the Dec 19, 1910 deed from Rothwell (Grantor) to Lloyd (Grantee) was for one dollar ($1.00). However, in that Dec 19, 1910 deed from Rothwell to Lloyd there is language that the deed is "SUBJECT TO" three separate payments----eg $85,000, $60,000 and $34,000. That deed does not specify or identify which specific parcel of the 161 acre entirety those three separate payments pertain to. It doesn't have to at that point because the entirety was technically "undivided" by deed or otherwise at that point and for the next seven months. We can also understand why it was done this way because MCC's lawyer (Cuylers) explained to MCC (president Allen Evans) on Dec 23, 1910 that it was being done this way for some months so that Lloyd could be in a position to move boundaries around at will for the specific land of the golf course. We also can understand that neither Lloyd nor MCCGA paid the $85,000 for their land (agreed upon in Nov. 1910 in an "agreement in principle" with a letter from HDC making an offer for 117 acres and in a letter from MCC accepting HDC's offer) because in that same Cuylers letter he explained to MCC that the new corporation (MCCGA) that was in the process of being formed and in the process of raising capital to buy the land and pay for the construction of the course and clubhouse had that much time to raise the money to pay the agreed upon price of $85,000). Consequently, there would not be a separate parcel transferred by deed of 117 acres (actually 120.01 acres) until July 19, 1910 when Lloyd transferred that amount of land back to Rothwell who the same day transferred it by deed to the MCCGA Corp for a payment of $85,000 in Dec 1910. Those deeds also have a "consideration" (price) of $1.00 on them but the deed from Rothwell to MCCGA Corp. on July 19, 1911has a clause that explains that the transfer and deed is SUBJECT TO a payment of $85,000 by mortgage (to the Girard Trust) or principal payment of $85,000 that is also to be recorded on July 19, 1911. Obviously Lloyd did not pay $85,000 for the land in Dec. 1910 to go to MCCGA in July 1911 because HDC did not ask him to and there is no principal payment recorded with that Dec. 19, 1910 deed.*
 
 
*The reasons HDC did not ask him to make that payment at that time should be pretty obvious to all who are familiar with Lloyd's position with the corporation of HDC at that point (Dec 1910 and on----eg he essentially was responsible for underwriting a capitalization of $300,000 for HDC. In 1910 and 1911 Lloyd was a partner in Drexel & Co, a financial firm (stock underwriters and such) based in Philadelphia. In 1912 Lloyd would transfer as a partner to J.P. Morgan & Co----not an uncommon practice with those two firms as their partners were somewhat transferable because in the 19th century for a time one iteration of them was Drexel, Morgan & Co. It is probably interesting and significant to note that Macdonald's letter of June 29, 1910 that was his response to MCC following his initial visit to Ardmore with Whigam was written not to MCC or to the chairman of the MCC "Search" Committee but to Lloyd c/o Drexel & Co, Philadelphia. George Thomas Jr's father, George Thomas Sr., was also a partner of Drexel & Co at this time and one of the reason George Thomas Jr was wealthy and apparently never took a nickel directly for anything he did in architecture which was the same with Macdonald, Wilson and his committee members and all those responsible for the creation of Merion East and West at this time. The club was very clear, as was Macdonald with his NGLA, that they would not be using a professional architect with the development of those golf courses (NGLA, Merion East and West) at that time. The long time secretary and eventual president of MCC, Edward Sayers, articulated this point in writing as did Hugh Wilson's brother, Alan Wilson, in writing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick--

Are using template holes exclusive to MacDonald/Raynor/Banks?  I ask for two reasons; one I just played a Ross course that a pretty definitive redan on it so I'm curious as to where he got the idea and two, don't MacDonald/Raynor/Banks template have a particular style to them that is pretty distinctive.  Just curious as to your thoughts. 

Adam, other architects used them, such as Tillinghast, but, I don't think that other architects used them as the central theme of their design.
I think that's what seperates CBM/SR/CB's use of the templates versus other architects

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but, I think you should remove TEPaul's comment or quote.

If he wants to post on GCA.com, he shouldn't be doing so through a surrogate.

Let him come back to the site and post on his own as he did for years.

Posting selective material, without any opportunity to question the author, isn't in the spirit of this website.

I don't know if others agree, and I don't care if others agree, this is improper and self serving.

I've asked him to come back, publically and privately, so you know my feelings about TEPaul participating again, but posting on his behalf is improper.

Please delete your quote.

Thanks

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Arguably, there were three template holes at Merion...the redan (today's 3rd), the Alps (original 10th), and the Road (today's 6th).

We have clear evidence that two of the three of them were "constructed" after Wilson's return from abroad through the building of essential bunker and mounding schemes that defined their characteristics.   We KNOW this because Richard Francis and Alex Findlay told us so.

We do not know if the 6th was originally designed as a Road Hole because no one mentioned it as such in the early accounts.   The first we heard of that was 1915 and who knows if the tee was moved over by OB and a left bunker built into the greenside any time after Wilson's return from Europe.   To claim that it happened before then is PURE speculation.

We also know that Wilson incorporated other "features" from abroad, but they do not fit the CBM orthodoxy.   For instance, the 15th green is supposedly an "eden"  (because of the sloped green or the rote bunkering pattern we don't know), but how many par four Edens did CBM create?   Ditto the supposed Biarritz on the 2nd hole, a par five!?

We also know that many Philadelphians either peripherally or directly involved had direct knowledge of the template holes and travelled abroad frequently, among them Tillinghast, Findlay, Robert Lesley, and Francis Griscom.

Smoking gun?   Patrick, it's not even a pea shooter.


As relates to posting for TePaul, I have some misgivings being a courier as well.

I decided as long as it's simply reiterating factual material in answer to a direct question that I'll do it....opinion pieces and counterarguments, no.

[Bryan Izatt]

Byran, et. Al.,

Aren't the half dozen or so  template holes the "smoking gun" ?

Or, do you think the design and incorporation of those holes into the routing was just a mind boggling anomaly, a one in ten billion random occurrence ?

A smoking gun of what?  That they went to NGLA and talked to CBM about template holes?  Sure, they did that.  It would have been a surprise if they hadn't named some of their holes after the famous holes.  Is it a smoking gun that CBM routed the course and designed the holes?  Not to me.  And, based on what I've read about the supposed template holes that got built, they weren't very good or near what I'd expect of a template hole.  For instance, the Alps was found wanting and got ripped up in relatively short order, didn't it.  If CBM designed it, surely it would have been better.

As a tangential thought, if CBM did the original routing and design, and he was the supreme expert designer of the age, why did so much of the course get "renovated" in the following years?

As another tangential thought from the other thread where you are debating the Committee's (Wilson's) ability to come up with 5 routing plans in 30 days, what is your alternate theory?  Did CBM/HJW draw up the 5 plans in 30 days.  Did CBM give instructions to the Committee on the phone on how to do it over those 30 days?  Some other way?  Do we accept that there were 5 plans developed in that time frame?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Byran,

So, it's your position that a one night stay qualified them to construct and design template holes without any further assistance ?

Mike,

I think it's wrong, but, you have to decide for yourself.
It makes you look like a flunky, a shill for TEPaul.

And, it's a method that prevents an honest exchange.

Unless he's paying you a handsome sum, I'd suggest that you resign the position.

Mike,

The ROUTING was in place a year before Wilson left for the UK.
As were the individual hole designs>

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Seriously,  how much TIME do you think it would take a Princeton man to grasp the concept and look of a road hole or an Alps, or Eden, especially surrounded by others like Findlay, Tillinghast, Lesley, Griscom and others who had surely seen them prior?    And ESPECIALLY after seeing CBM's own versions (many improved on the originals, by the way) on the ground at NGLA.

I mean, it's not like they were discussing brain surgery!  

And Patrick, what exactly about the routing being in place determined what type of holes they were?

With the Redan, you had a tee in a valley and a green on a hill that was a barn bank.   Francis tells us that the hole benefited from Wilson's trip abroad and that it's location suggested that perhaps a redan touch was needed.   They built the defining corner bunker, but the rest of the hole is no like a redan.

With the Eden, there was a par four dogleg uphill in place?   What made that an Eden?

The Alps, Wilson told Findlay on his return, would take a "lot of making".    When routed, it was a par four that went down then back uphill for about 250 yards, then flattened out for the last 100.    Lesley tells us that the Alps principle there was defined by the front cross bunker and the mounding behind.   THOSE features could have been added ANY TIME.

And so on...

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Perhaps it was enough for them to design and construct not-so-good template holes.     If I was David, I would also accuse you of twisting my words.  But, I'm not, so let's just say that I didn't say that they had no more contact with CBM.  Too bad that we don't have an ancestry.com for telephone calls from that era.

As another tangential thought, if Wilson was in frequent (or even not so frequent) contact with CBM, do you think he would have learned how to spell his name.  In the Oakley letters he misspelled it on the two occasions that he mentioned CBM. 

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I think we've been through this before, haven't we?   You don't like the conclusions I draw from the factual record and want to substitute your own conclusions for mine.   Well I am not convinced that yours are better.   I think they are worse.

We're back to the question of who drew the 5 plans.  At the moment we don't know definitively.  In that circumstance how can we give primary or equal credit to CBM/HJW for the routing and design.  Equally, I guess, we cannot give the Committee (whichever one it was) primary or equal credit.

I am glad that you finally seem to agree with me that crediting the committee over CBM is not a viable default position.   If we don't know what happened we don't know it for both.

We don't know definitely, but looking at the context gives us a good idea of what is most likely to have happened. Merion laid out the plans after having just spent two days with CBM where CBM was helping them plan the layout!    So I think it unreasonable to think that these plans were created without the input of CBM.  Also, these plans were created in the context of a rearranged course, so I think it unreasonable to think there were five distinct plans rather than variations.

In short, I don't think you can insulate the "five plans" from CBM and the trip to NGLA that they had just taken.

Merion called CBM and HJW "advisors" because Merion sought out their expert advice on what land to purchase and how to lay a first class golf course out on that land.    These are both suppositions on your part.  In the former were they not brought in to advise on the suitability of the HDC land for a golf course.  That's not the same as advising on what land to purchase. And all indications are that Merion realized the value of CBM/HJW's expert advice and acted according to that expert advice.  Merion was so dependent upon their advice that Merion wouldn't even go it alone after having spent two days working on the plan with CBM at NGLA.  Instead they brought CBM and HJW back to the site so CBM/HJW could choose the final lay out plan.  As they said, they valued CBM's advice.  Perhaps they brought him back to assure themselves that their plan was good and right.  That he approved of it.  No response required; I know you don't agree.

I think the evidence directly supports my statements.  CBM and HJW did not just rubber stamp what Merion was going to buy.  The recommended the purchase of the additional acreage behind the clubhouse.    

Your supposition about why they might have brought him back is contrary to the record, to who CBM was, to how he worked, to how Merion treated him, to the context of the times, etc.

But why do you think Lesley's report mentioned that CBM approved the plan? (Not approved of the plan. Approved the plan.)  Because the Committee on whose behalf Lesley was reporting, felt that CBM approving "of" the plan would help them sell it.  As good an explanation as any.  Do you really think that CBM had some formal hierarchical authority over the Committee's work to approve it or disapprove it before it was submitted to the Board?  Do you not think that the Committee may have just wanted their expert adviser to tell them that the plan was right and good?

Why do you keep saying approved "of" the plan?   Is there yet another version of this thing floating around out there?  

Your explanation is NOT as good as any.  At least not in my opinion.   This was CBM.  He didn't need "formal hierarchical authority" in order to call the shots when it came creating a golf course.  They realized the value of his advice and they  followed his direction.  Had he not had a real role,  Merion not have brought him down and he wouldn't have come down!  Had he not played a real role then he would not be mentioned again and again in the minutes as playing a real role!    He made the decision as to what plan would go to the board for goodness sake!  How much more in charge could he be?

Was this just idle chat?  Why do you suppose Merion brought CBM/HJW back to Merion after just having spent two days with them a few weeks earlier?  No, it wasn't just idle chatter.  They wanted to know that their expert adviser felt the plan was right and good and fit on their land.

Interesting speculation, but WHY?   Unless they were planning on following their advice, then why ask, and ask, and ask?   Why go see him for two days?  Why bring him and Whigham back down? Why not just show them THE plan instead of the five versions?  Why waste the time of of these men if they were just there for rhetorical support?

For that matter, why include the bit about going to NGLA and "looking over his plans?"    As debated ad nauseum, we don't know what his plans were of.And why are CBM and HJW the only ones mentioned?   If Wilson was running the show, then why isn't Lesley telling the committee whether Wilson approved the plan?  Wasn't Lesley reporting to the Board on the Golf Committee's behalf.  Why would he need to mention Wilson was running the show.  The Board already knew that.  Lesley was presenting their report.  Mention of CBM was noted because they weren't part of the Committee and as I suggested above, it would no doubt have helped sell the Board on the plan knowing that the expert advisers were in favor of it.  

Again, Lesley and Wilson were not on the same committee.  Wilson was not on the golf committee, which was the committee for whom Lesley was speaking.

Help sell the board?  Now that is some speculation.   H.G. Lloyd was a governor of the club.  Lesley would be President of the club and was chair of the Golf Committee.  Yet they didn't have the chops "to sell the Board on the plan" without dragging CBM and HJW into it?   Was the board so hostile to the idea that they needed to call in the biggest name in golf to lobby for the plan?   Were they just using CBM for name recognition at the highest level of the board?  

Before construction, who do you think the Board would have thought had called the shots on the design?   And what is your basis for so thinking?  

With  my few little editorial changes, here is the minute as transcribed by Tom.  BTW, why do you accept on faith the "approved" statement when you question virtually everything else that Tom has put forward from the minutes?

Bryan, Are you really rewriting the report to your liking?   I thought only TEPaul tried such stuff.  It is hard enough to trust without you now changing it to suit your purposes.

And I do have a problem with everything in that report, including the way they have played with "approved."   I think reviewing the actual records would help tremendously in figuring this out but unfortunately the History Fakers have arranged it so that an impartial review of the actual documents is impossible.  

That said, these guys have always manipulated the evidence to try and help their case.  I can't imagine why they would change it to "approved,"  unless it formally said something that made it even clearer that CBM was calling the shots.
_______________________________________________________________

Adam Messix asked:

Are using template holes exclusive to MacDonald/Raynor/Banks?  I ask for two reasons; one I just played a Ross course that a pretty definitive redan on it so I'm curious as to where he got the idea and two, don't MacDonald/Raynor/Banks template have a particular style to them that is pretty distinctive.  Just curious as to your thoughts.

1. Interesting question as to Ross.  He was probably familiar with many of the holes early on, but after NGLA got going and designing based on the great holes became the rage, even Ross traveled back abroad to (further?) study the great golf courses.   When was the course to which you refer built?  Was he working with anyone else?

At Merion, given CBM's extensive involvement with Merion throughout the process there is little or no doubt as to where the ideas for the "template" holes at Merion came from.  

2.  Most or all of what we think of as CBM courses were built by Raynor  and Raynor had a recognizable aesthetic style.   Merion was NOT built by Raynor or Banks, so I don't think we ought to expect that same aesthetic style.   Besides there are plenty of design features at Merion that are distinctive of CBM's style, just not aesthetic stylings.
__________________________________________________

Bryan,  

You are wrong about the template holes and features.  Most are still there but in need of a haircut. The Alps was was one of the highlighted holes early on, lasted a dozen years, and got ripped up because it crossed a road, not because it was a bad hole.

What is your ultimate theory?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

What exactly about the routing being in place determined what type of holes they were?

With the Redan, you had a tee in a valley and a green on a hill that was a barn bank.   Francis tells us that the hole benefited from Wilson's trip abroad and that it's location suggested that perhaps a redan touch was needed.   They built the defining corner bunker, but the rest of the hole is not like a redan as the green tilts back to front.

With the Eden, there was a par four dogleg uphill in place?   What made that an Eden?

The Alps, Wilson told Findlay on his return, would take a "lot of making".    When routed, it was a par four that went down then back uphill for about 250 yards, then flattened out for the last 100.    Lesley tells us that the Alps principle there was defined by the front cross bunker and the mounding behind.   THOSE features could have been added ANY TIME.

On the road hole, they could have built a tee behind the OB fence and a bunker to the left at ANY TIME.   We also know that green was reconstructed and the bunker was enlarged in 1915.

The par five second hole had a green originally that had three levels.   David says that must mean it was a Biarritz (as if multi-level greens didn't exist prior to CBM)  but when routed, it was simply an uphill par five.

And so on...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Byran, et. Al.,

Aren't the half dozen or so  template holes the "smoking gun" ?

Or, do you think the design and incorporation of those holes into the routing was just a mind boggling anomaly, a one in ten billion random occurrence ?

A smoking gun of what?  That they went to NGLA and talked to CBM about template holes?  Sure, they did that.  It would have been a surprise if they hadn't named some of their holes after the famous holes.  Is it a smoking gun that CBM routed the course and designed the holes?  Not to me.  And, based on what I've read about the supposed template holes that got built, they weren't very good or near what I'd expect of a template hole.  For instance, the Alps was found wanting and got ripped up in relatively short order, didn't it.  If CBM designed it, surely it would have been better.

So, as a designer CBM excelled, but as an advisor he was terrible ?

The land forms didn't lend themselves to template holes like NGLA did.
There you might remember, CBM found a lot of the templates sitting naturally upon the land.

As a tangential thought, if CBM did the original routing and design, and he was the supreme expert designer of the age, why did so much of the course get "renovated" in the following years?

I explained that previously.  The phenomenon has also been indirectly explained by Mike Sweeney.

It's my belief that they looked to CBM to build their course (route & design) and he did so, but, as time went on, they didn't want to be identified as a CBM course, they wanted their own identity, and as such began their modification process.

As another tangential thought from the other thread where you are debating the Committee's (Wilson's) ability to come up with 5 routing plans in 30 days, what is your alternate theory?  

Did CBM/HJW draw up the 5 plans in 30 days.  Did CBM give instructions to the Committee on the phone on how to do it over those 30 days?  Some other way?  Do we accept that there were 5 plans developed in that time frame?

None of the above.

My theory ?  My theory is that CBM began the routing process from the get go and that he worked with the committee via the phone, AND/OR that committee members visited him, eventually resulting in a meeting at NGLA to go over plans, routings and individual hole designs.  I think from June of 1910 to March of 1911 the parties worked on routing and hole design, culminating in the meeting at NGLA where CBM showed the committee the product of his research abroad.

And, that the committee, so enamored of NGLA, (and whom in the last 100 years hasn't been) that they began finalizing CBM's vision for Merion.
Culminating with the selection of the final plan less than 30 days later.  A plan that was almost immediately approved by the board.

Now stop and think for a second.
Today, if a committee came in and presented five plans or iterations of the same basic plan, do you know of any board that would rubber stamp it in a heartbeat ?

I don't.

I don't think this was an "instant" golf course, crafted in an overnight visit.
I think it was crafted, by CBM or CBM and the committee prior to the March meeting at NLGA.

I think the March meeting at NGLA solidified the committee in terms of the proposed plans and that upon seeing NGLA in the flesh, they were significantly impressed and convinced that they had done their job, that they agreed on their final plan and course of action, returned to Merion, got immediate informal approval, subsequently made their final presentation to the Board which approved it on April 19th.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

What exactly about the routing being in place determined what type of holes they were?

Mike, that has to be one of the dumbest questions ever asked.

Think about what you just asked.

Please think GLOBALLY (MACRO) first, and MICRO second

With the Redan, you had a tee in a valley and a green on a hill that was a barn bank.   Francis tells us that the hole benefited from Wilson's trip abroad and that it's location suggested that perhaps a redan touch was needed.   They built the defining corner bunker, but the rest of the hole is not like a redan as the green tilts back to front.

With the Eden, there was a par four dogleg uphill in place?   What made that an Eden?

The Alps, Wilson told Findlay on his return, would take a "lot of making".    When routed, it was a par four that went down then back uphill for about 250 yards, then flattened out for the last 100.    Lesley tells us that the Alps principle there was defined by the front cross bunker and the mounding behind.   THOSE features could have been added ANY TIME.

On the road hole, they could have built a tee behind the OB fence and a bunker to the left at ANY TIME.   We also know that green was reconstructed and the bunker was enlarged in 1915.

The par five second hole had a green originally that had three levels.   David says that must mean it was a Biarritz (as if multi-level greens didn't exist prior to CBM)  but when routed, it was simply an uphill par five.

And so on...

[Adam_Messix]

Patrick--

The hole in question is the 9th at Biltmore Forest.  It has been the subject of some argument on this site regarding whether it's a redan or not, but everything from the bunker placement to the green slope has it following the principles of the redan with the exception of the lack of a rear bunker.  The original drawing hanging in the clubhouse says "Donald Ross--Walter Hatch." 

Your answer leads me to a second question...

Leaving Merion out of this for the moment; From NGLA onward, were there any MacDonald courses where Raynor and/or Banks weren't involved in the construction and/or design? 

[Niall C]

Bryan - re routing 5 different layouts in 30 days, I would suggest that its not that difficult,  particularly if several of the routings had similar elements to them. The real question is whether they would be any good. I would have thought, and here Jeff can advise, that you would likely come up with two or three different basic routings fairly quickly when looking at a tract of land and from that choosing the best and refining it from there.

Template holes and CBM - has anyone considered that Merion already had a Scottish pro at the time they were conceiving the course and that furthermore when Wilson visited the UK, as well as bringing back plans he also brought back George Sayers, son of Ben Sayers, long standing North Berwick pro and golf architect. George Sayers stayed at Merion as pro for a good number of years thereafter and it occurs to me that if I was looking to incorporate a Redan into my course I would be saving myself the price of a phone call to Long Island and instead asking the resident pro if he didn't mind giving me the benefit of his thoughts.

Niall

[DMoriarty]

Niall,

I think your timeline of events might be off.   I don't think Sayers was hired until later.  And Wilson hadn't yet studied the holes abroad before building Merion East.

- CBM approved the plan submitted to Merion's board in Spring of 1911. 
- Construction began shortly thereafter.
- The greens, tees, and all but three fairways were seeded in September 1911. (They would try (unsuccessfully) to use the existing grass on the 10th, 11th, and 12th fairways.)
-  Wilson traveled abroad in the Spring of 1912.
-  Merion East opened in September 1912.
- George Sayers came to work for the club in, I believe, 1913.

In the spring of 1912, before Wilson returned from his trip, it had already been reported that many of the holes at Merion were based on the great holes abroad.

There are a lot of mysteries surrounding Merion East, but the source and inspiration of the template holes is not one of them. CBM was involved with the project from before they purchased the property!  The committee traveled to NGLA so that CBM could help plan the layout and so they could study his holes.  A few weeks later CBM went over Merion's land again and approved the layout plan which would be submitted to the board!

So it is a bit far fetched to think it some sort of coincidence that all these template holes got built at Merion, and that the source must have been anyone other than CBM!

[DMoriarty]

Leaving Merion out of this for the moment; From NGLA onward, were there any MacDonald courses where Raynor and/or Banks weren't involved in the construction and/or design?  

According the H. J. Whigham, with the creation of NGLA Macdonald became inundated with requests from around the country from those who wanted him to design or redesign their courses.  He was never a professional architect and couldn't (and/or didn't want to) spend all his designing courses for other people, so he would instead send Raynor to be the person on the ground, and CBM would correct the plans. CBM hired Raynor on behalf of Piping Rock (CBM was on the Green Committee there as well) on all CBM projects subsequent to Piping Rock, Raynor seems to have been involved. While there might have been some overlap, the timing of CBM's involvement at Merion predates that of his involvement at Piping Rock.

Whigham listed some of the more famous post-NGLA courses, and Merion is the only one mentioned where Raynor was not involved.

_____________________________________________

Also Adam,  Biltmore Forest was built in 1922.   CBM and NGLA popularized this notion of building golf holes based on the great holes abroad starting in 1906 when writing about his plan for NGLA.   At the time Merion was built this was still a very novel idea. 

[DMoriarty]

Here is an excerpt from the December 1914 Golf Illustrated, "Our Green Committee Page" about the state of golf course architecture in America at the time.  (my emphasis.)

There is no excuse now for any new golf club making the mistakes which were sure to be made ten years ago. From Long Island to St. Louis there are courses which bear the imprint of Mr. C. B. Macdonald and the National.   And anyone interested in laying out a new course can surely afford a journey to the National where he can get ocular demonstration of what should be done. Then there are a number of golf courses dotted about the country such as that of the Old Elm Tree Club near Chicago and the Detroit Country Club. They have not, perhaps, quite the variety and boldness of the courses inspired by the National; but they are very good, and they also form living text books of the agricultural side of course making. The chief rules are gradually getting to be stereotyped among the experts; but they are not written down anywhere. And there will always be wide scope for improvement and for imagination. For example it is only written the last three years that the wisest green committees are beginning to realize the necessity of watering the fair green in summer. The initial expense of the water plant is amply covered by the annual saving of good turf.   We are indeed in a new era of course making and course keeping; but there is still much to be done that is new; and the results of experience are not tabulated.   That is why a forum in GOLF ILLUSTRATED for the ventilating of ideas may be made a most valuable asset to the green keeper; and for that reason we welcome any enquiries and any information that may come to us; so that this department may become a circulating medium of ideas.

[DMoriarty]

Along the same lines, from the same issue of Illustrated by John G. Anderson:

The highest sort of advancement has been made this year in the architecture of courses. The members of clubs all over the United States have been obsessed with the idea that they must have the best course that money could buy and have it quick. The demand for course architects has exceeded the supply, but the results are seen on every hand. Visitors from across the water confess that The National Golf Links of America is just about the best course that there is to be found anywhere.  New courses in the Philadelphia district are going to surpass anything which they have and thereby increase the ability of the golfers; away out in St. Louis there is a new course which promises to become the rival of any in the land; the war hasn't affected the pocketbooks when it comes to needed golf improvements. The golf course to-be at Long Beach, when finished, will be the last word in architecture and prodigious labor; there never was a greater attempt anywhere to bring order out of chaos, to shape and mold a golf links out of such perfectly apparent difficulties. Every branch of industry, every profession, every avocation, has its geniuses; golfing America should be proud of the fact that she has the finest golf architectural genius of modern times in Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, whose constructive work on these lines is unequalled.

Surely it is just another coincidence that in this apparent tribute to CBM the courses mentioned are NGLA, Lido, St. Louis, and new courses in the Philadelphia district.