David,
Were there any multi-level greens in the US before Macdonald built NLGA? Why or why not were any of them "Double Plateau"s or "Biarritz" greens? At the time Merion built the second green at with a dip in the middle CBM had yet to build a Biarritz hole. Where would Wilson have seen that before? Care to guess?
The above was Mike's response to my pointing out that Merion's original course included attempts at a Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, another double plateau oriented like a biarritz green, an Eden green, and other features typical of CBM. The course may have had more attempts at typical CBM features than other contemporary CBM courses, yet all Mike can come up with in response is to suggest (without any evidence whatsoever) the
mere possibility that Wilson could have been exposed to a "multi-tier" green somewhere else?
This goes back to what I was saying to Bryan about the double standards at work here. Those who think CBM was significantly involved are being held to a standard proving each design contribution to an
absolute certainty, while those who disagree think they have made their case by suggesting the
mere possibility that it didn't happen exactly as theorized! Such a double standard is misplaced.
To put this in proper perspective, let's pretend this was not Merion but some other course outside the Merionettes' fiefdom. Would there be any question that this was a CBM course in the sense that
CBM played a significant role in designing it? Whigham's statement alone would establish this. Yet, in addition to Whigham's statement, we have CBM's design fingerprints all over the place, such as Merion's attempt at a Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, another double plateau oriented like a biarritz green, and an Eden green. And there are plenty of other CBM "tells" that I haven't even mentioned in this thread so as to not derail the conversation! And this is leaving aside all the other evidence of CBM's and HJW's direct involvement. CBM and HJW chose the final layout plan.
Yet, in the face of this, Mike thinks that if he can find another "multi-tier" green that maybe Wilson saw, then this means that CBM didn't have substantial say as to the design of the course? No way.
As to Mike's specific questions, it is largely irrelevant whether another "multi-tiered" green existed around this time. As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle pointed out, the 2nd green at Merion resembled the 6th at Sleepy Hollow, which was built within a few years of Merion. Regarding Mike's speculation and questions about the biarritz-like orientation of the swale, he is probably barking up the wrong tree. The 6th at Sleepy Hollow was NOT Sleepy Hollow's biarritz hole. The hole was 400+ yards and offhand I think I read that it was called something like "plateau." If anything, the inclusion at Merion of a typical CBM green not used at NGLA suggests that CBM's involvement went much deeper than merely discussing broad ideas and concepts. As for what constituted a "Biarritz" in 1910 Mike has himself confused. I didn't say the 2nd was a biarritz. All I said was that the swale on the 2nd green was oriented like a biarritz swale, meaning it was horizontal across the green. As some of you may recall, I suspect that CBM's first designed a "biarritz" based upon his early biarritz concept at Merion, but it was not the 2nd hole. But let's stick with what is most obvious for now.
_________________________________________________
Whigham's Estimated Budget.
Mike is also playing his typical games regarding the Whigham statement about the budget. He is demanding that I produce the "itemized verson" of Whigham's "smoking gun" budget, but
I never made any claim that Whigham produced an itemized budget. All I know is what the Fakers tell us was in Lesley's report to the Committee written after CBM's first visit, where Lesley wrote that Whigham estimated it would cost $25,000 to put the ground into condition for play, and $5000 to bring water for the site.
As usual, Mike overstates the record in his favor, writing:
"All Whigham produced was a single estimated number for the entire project..." First, this is false on its face. He reportedly produced at least two numbers, one for the cost of getting the ground in shape and one for irrigation. Second, Mike's claim is not only false on its face, it is purely speculative. We have no way of knowing whether or not the Lesley contained the same level of detail as Whigham provided or whether Lesley was summarizing more detailed information. Mike pretends he knows for sure, but he does not.
Anyway, regardless of whether Whigham listed just two line items or whether he listed twenty, my points remain the same:
1. Whether during the visit Summer 1910 visit or by separate letter or communication, Whigham's advice evidences that
additional communication between CBM/HJW and Lesley's committee, aside from that letter.
2. Along the same lines, Whigham and CBM's advice was NOT limited in topic to only that which shows up in CBM's letter.
3. Even early on, Whigham and CBM were not just advising them generally about vague principles, they were instructing them on the specifics of how to create their golf course.
Mike makes a big deal about how Lesley also mentions how much it cost Mr. Heebner to build Whitemarsh. So what? But I wonder if Mike noticed that Heebner's estimate was on the low end when compared to Whigham's and Merion apparently trusted HJW and went with the high end.
_________________________________________
Patrick,
While they have obviously been playing games with the source material throughout (see Bryan's comments for just one example), I don't recall exactly whether these guys had previously told us about this particular report or not. Wayne certainly didn't, but with as much as TEPaul posted on the issue he may have. If so, then I am wrong about having learned something about Merion from the Faker pdf.
__________________________________________
Jim Sullivan,
1. Your recollection of the circumstances surrounding Wayne's exit from the website is quite different than mine.
2. The mention of Whigham providing a cost estimate was NOT in the posted transcription of CBM's letter from late June 1910.
3. Regarding the routing, I agree that CBM/HJW were not solely responsible for routing the course. It seems most likely to me that they would have worked off of Barker's routing to come up with their rough routing, and then Francis/Lloyd modified the rough routing with the swap to make the holes in the corner fit, and then the details were worked out at NGLA and subsequently. If you recall, CBM mentioned that
without a contour map CBM and HJW could not say for sure whether the course would fit on the land. They thought it would fit if Merion added land behind the clubhouse (likely the additional three acres for which you guys are searching,) but it apparently was going to be a tight squeeze.
Apparently Merion couldn't make the last five holes fit, thus necessitating the swap.
That all said, I don't see it is all or nothing and don't understand how you can definitively exclude CBM/HJW from the routing process based on the swap. You stated:
"Regardless, if CBM had participated in actually creating the routing and couldn't figure out a way to actually fit the holes on the property as they are now, well then he doesn't get credit." Really? Such an all or nothing requirement seems rather arbitrary and penal to me. Hypothetically, what if CBM and Raynor had explained the routing they envisioned to the committee in June but when Merion tried map this out, it didn't quite fit, so Merion swapped land to lengthen 15 and 16 (and maybe 14) to make it fit? If this was the case then how could you say that CBM and Raynor were not among those responsible for the routing?
4. Regarding your suggestion that we should be discussing the actual holes, I keep throwing them in but Mike doesn't seem to be capable of discussing them in an intelligent and productive manner, and Niall and Adam did not answer my questions. While I am glad to discuss them, maybe it is for the best that the other side has been unwilling or unable to do so. I don't know that this is the right format, and I am pretty sure this is not the right thread.
That said, what is there to talk about, really? CBM's fingerprints are all over the course in terms of its design, Merion tried to build a Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, a biarritz oriented double plateau, and an Eden Green. Again, there are more, but shouldn't that be more than enough? There were only four or five actual "templates" at NGLA (not coincidentally some of these same holes as at Merion.) So how many typical CBM concepts and combinations must we find at Merion before we acknowledge that Merion attempted to build a course based upon CBM's ideas?
5. Like Mike, your reading of the Hugh Wilson chapter is rather selective. He not only wrote about how CBM taught them the principles, he also wrote about how CBM taught them how to apply those principles on Merion's site. If there is any doubt, look to Alan Wilson, who is quite clear that CBM was providing valuable help planning
the layout of Merion East at both NGLA and on the subsequent visit to Merion.
6. As I explain above, Mike was just guessing when he claims that it was a "rough guess at the total dollar amount" and he guessed wrong. Whigham provided a separate estimate for preparing the land and for the irrigation, and since we are not privy to his communications with Lesley's committee we don't know the amount of detail beyond this. Why would Lesley report it to the board, if Lesley thought it was nothing an unworthy and rough guess?
7. Regarding the "tone" of CBM's letter, I think you may be reading your own subjective feelings into the letter. At the very least, don't you think you are drawing a rather broad conclusion about the relationship based on what is at best a speculative interpretation? This was a letter after CBM's and HJW's first visit. It is reasonable to judge the entirety of the continuing relationship based on a letter at the opening? We know a few things that bring your conclusion into question.
- According to Merion, CBM and HJW "c[a]me over from New York" to help them. Why would they they have bothered if your reading of the "tone" is correct?
- And CBM and HJW obviously continued to be involved throughout the planning. Again, if your reading of the tone is correct, then why would they have bothered? It sure seems like they gave Merion plenty of their time and trouble, and I am not sure that is consistent with your reading of the "tone."
- Perhaps you should compare the "tone" of this letter to the tone of CBM's later letter to Wilson about agronomy matters (after the course was designed.)
8. You make a number of statements about the evolution of course with which I might not agree, among them your statement that
"the Road Hole green was pretty soon altered to reduce it's implication." Here is a photo of Bobby Jones on the green from 1924. Note that orientation is as before and the expanded bunker is still very much playing the role of a hell bunker.
