[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

My take on routing is the exact same as Jeff's, as well as agree with him about Francis telling us where the problem was...the last five holes.

[JESII]

Jeff and Mike,

Are you suggesting the "five plans" were only involving the final five holes?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

No.  I think the problem of fitting the final five likely drove different iterations of the first 13, as well, particularly those that crossed the road and likely different spins on 12 & 13 as well.

You can't often change one piece without affecting stuff upstream and downstream.

[JESII]

Mike,

I agree. So then how do you reconcile that with your repeated claim that the first 13 were routed first?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Francis told us the first thirteen were routed first.  Who are we to disagree?

That said, its hard not to believe on a 123 acre site where the holes fit together snugly, that at least the holes 10-12 that crossed the road didn't impact the exact routings of the last five.

As to your questions whether those five plans were only for the last five holes, while the details are lost to antiquity, I would say no.  As you know, I think the part south of Ardmore was four holes wide.  But, those five routings may have explored different lengths and combos.  Having 2 and 5 run the same direction is somewhat unusual, and I wouldn't be surprised if some verion flipped four and five around.  It would also be possible to vary lengths within corridors.

Would they have wanted another par 5 on the last five holes if they could?  One par five on the back nine?  In any case, 10-12 are similar lengths, and what if 14, 15, and 16 were different lengths?  Would they have changed the exact yardage of a hole on the other side to hit their ideal CBM suggested yardages?


Rule number one of routing is (singing.....) Da Knee Bone Connected to the Thigh bone....Da Thigh bone......

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Well, quite easily actually.    

First of all, Richard Francis told us that it was pretty easy to get the first 13 holes in place, and I think they generally liked them as they were, and as I think they ended up being.

I just think that once they couldn't fit the final five they created a number of different iterations that affected those first 13.

I think Francis likely came up with his brainstorm and I think they all implicitly knew it was the best of all, but since it required a land swap and the purchase of additional acreage I think they wanted validation from CBM first before going to the Board.

So, they brought him down, showed him five iterations, and voila!, I think he picked the one they were hoping for.

Of course, this is all speculation, but it is based on factual info that we do know such as Francis's account, as well as the MCC Minutes.

I may be wrong, but this would make a lot of sense to me as projects go.  

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Our posts crossed.

Great minds...   

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'll hate myself in the morning, but in Re-reading David’s essay again, (just to be sure I am not the imbecile he portrays me as……)  I noticed another snippet from the Merion records in his essay that begs to be interpreted:

From the letter recommending purchase of the property, Merion’s Site Committee said this about their two renowned amateur golfers and golf course designers, C.B. Macdonald and H.G Whigham:

“These gentlemen, besides being famous golfers, have given the matter of Golf Course construction much study, and are perfectly familiar with the qualities of grasses, soils, etc. It was Mr. Macdonald, assisted by Mr. Whigham, who conceived and constructed the National Course at Southampton.”

Note that while CBM was clearly a designer, they credited him with conceiving and construction of NGLA, but not specifically mentioning design of the course.

Later, in Wilson’s contribution to Piper and Oakley’s book, he writes:

“May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as NGLA and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.”

Do we really think he is recommending a visit to PV or NGLA to learn “construction principles?”  Is he recommending committees visit those courses for design ideas they can adopt to their own courses? 

And, is he recommending it because that is the way Merion learned the correct design principles.  In both quotes, it is clear that they think in terms of getting it built more than designing the course.

And yet, David parses the fine distinction of the “Construction Committee” using modern terms.  I believe that the Construction Committee was charged with both design and construction of the golf course, even though they favored the term construction.

When did CBM even coin the phrase “Golf Architect?”  Is it possible that it just hadn’t entered their thinking yet?

Just TePaul’s $0.02 worth!

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I've seen many articles from back then where the term "Construction" incorporated the design process.

For instance, Crump's original committee at PV that designed a number of holes and a routing well before Colt's arrival was also called the "Construction Committee" from inception.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have too.  But so much of this three year debate has been driven by the words "construction committee" and "golf course layout."  And, only because one person thinks he knows the ONLY way those terms were used 100 years ago, despite being presented obvious evidence to the contrary.  At the same time, five plans doesn't mean five plans, somehow.

I read the essay again, as I mentioned.  The only thing it convinced me of is the need for blood pressure meds!

[Tom MacWood]

That is some serious reading in between the lines. Any objective person who reads the P&O account and the numerous Wilson letters realizes his responsibility was construction, at least early on. The turning point for Wilson was his trip overseas, in the Spring of 1912, and after the course had been constructed and seeded. It was from that point on that he began to exert his design influence on Merion, or should I say redesign influence. He also began dabbling in the design of other courses, some successful, some not so successful. The Piper & Oakley book was published in 1917.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Would you have expected him to discuss routing options and design theory with Piper and Oakley?

You make blanket statements such as telling us when Wilson supposedly became interested in design that have absolutely no basis in fact yet have the audacity to tell us Jeff Brauer is damaging to the discovery of accurate history?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

It does read between the lines, but then again, so do so many things.  But I don't think HW was recommending a trip to NGLA or PV to study construction techniques, do you?

And I don't doubt his main focus was construction in the early period.  MCC was under contract to get a course built soon.  It appears that they felt improvements could always come later, but they had promised to be seeded that year, and that certainly would be a focus.

Even now, getting the dang thing built is always a primary focus, and design is seen as a necessary step in the process in most cases.  Not to mention that the greatest uncertainty in that time period for golf course builders was soils, grasses, irrigation, as evidenced by all the early struggles at many previous courses.  Design don't mean squat if your grass doesn't grow.

It may well be that we have now officially discussed Merion's original design more than they ever did!

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Here's two articles about Pine Valley written by Tillinghast early in 1913 several months before Harry Colt arrived.

Note the name of the Committee in the bottom article.   It's clear that Crump and his committee were both designing and building the course despite David and Tom's insistence that the terminology only referred to building and not design.   In fact, that term "Construction Committee" was one of the linchpins of David's essay that attempted to diminish Wilson's role, relegating him to construction foreman.

It's also interesting that as late as 1913, we're told that "the course is to be planned by the leading exponents of golf in Philadelphia", meaning amateur sportsmen, none of whom had previous design experience but all of whom would have been termed "experts" due to their competitive excellence in local circles.


January 12, 1913




March 23, 1913



   

[JESII]

Jim,

Francis told us the first thirteen were routed first.  Who are we to disagree?

That said, its hard not to believe on a 123 acre site where the holes fit together snugly, that at least the holes 10-12 that crossed the road didn't impact the exact routings of the last five.

As to your questions whether those five plans were only for the last five holes, while the details are lost to antiquity, I would say no.  As you know, I think the part south of Ardmore was four holes wide.  But, those five routings may have explored different lengths and combos.  Having 2 and 5 run the same direction is somewhat unusual, and I wouldn't be surprised if some verion flipped four and five around.  It would also be possible to vary lengths within corridors.

Would they have wanted another par 5 on the last five holes if they could?  One par five on the back nine?  In any case, 10-12 are similar lengths, and what if 14, 15, and 16 were different lengths?  Would they have changed the exact yardage of a hole on the other side to hit their ideal CBM suggested yardages?


Rule number one of routing is (singing.....) Da Knee Bone Connected to the Thigh bone....Da Thigh bone......

So which is it guys? Were the first 13 routed and ready to go at the time of Francis' Swap (whenever it was) or not? You've both said yes and yes...

I disagree that Francis said the first 13 were done first, just that they were relatively easy. Agree with that or no?

[JESII]

Let's look at Francis' remembrance again...

Does he really say the first 13 were complete and they were trying to figure out how to put in the last 5? Would any sane human being who was tasked with designing or building 18 holes have 13 of them set in stone with no viable solution for the other 5?

My point is, that regardless of the timing, once the swap occurred all other "plans" would have been tweaks within the corridor such as various lengths of 14 and 15 or 2 and 6 or 7 - 9.

Also, I think suggesting the Thompson motion in the April minutes was without a doubt the Francis Swap is a bit aggressive. Could be, but not without question at this point.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Would you have expected him to discuss routing options and design theory with Piper and Oakley?

You make blanket statements such as telling us when Wilson supposedly became interested in design that have absolutely no basis in fact yet have the audacity to tell us Jeff Brauer is damaging to the discovery of accurate history?

No, I would not expect him discuss routing options with P&O because the course was already routed and staked out by February 1911, and the letters support that as well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wouldn't expect him to discuss routing options with Piper because Piper would have no advice to offer on that subject, as he wasn't an expert.  I do not think the course was routed and staked out by Feb 1911, because there are no documents suggesting it was, and several documents confirming routing was completed on April 6, 1911.

Talk about reading between the lines!

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

It does read between the lines, but then again, so do so many things.  But I don't think HW was recommending a trip to NGLA or PV to study construction techniques, do you?

And I don't doubt his main focus was construction in the early period.  MCC was under contract to get a course built soon.  It appears that they felt improvements could always come later, but they had promised to be seeded that year, and that certainly would be a focus.

Even now, getting the dang thing built is always a primary focus, and design is seen as a necessary step in the process in most cases.  Not to mention that the greatest uncertainty in that time period for golf course builders was soils, grasses, irrigation, as evidenced by all the early struggles at many previous courses.  Design don't mean squat if your grass doesn't grow.

It may well be that we have now officially discussed Merion's original design more than they ever did!

Its difficult to say why he recommended going to NGLA and/or PVGC in 1917.  NGLA was a finished product in 1917 (a design and maintenance triumph); PVGC was a complete mess in 1917 (and Crump would kill himself the following year). By 1917 Wilson had redesigned the East course, designed the West and been involved in other design projects. Whatever his reasoning for that particular statement I don't believe it has any bearing on what occured in 1911.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I guess all we know for sure is that the plan that included the land swap was one of the five presented to CBM on April 6 for review and approval and that is was the final routing plan, approved at the April meeting.

You are correct that his idea could have come at any time, and for that matter, it might not have been the last idea anyone had on the subject.  I tend to infer that by the blasting within a few days, which suggests once approved, they were off to the races, but if you think Francis embellished the story a bit in 1950, I would agree its not totally conclusive.  Nor is the rush to Lloyd's. I have speculated it was done just before CBM came back on April 6, but maybe Francis just got so excited about his idea he had to tell someone.  I have had those moments!

As to the 13/5 routing, as I have mentioned before, I think Ardmore Ave splits the property to the point where they really could nearly finish those holes close to independent of the ones on the other side of the road.  But, just think of it - had they figured a way to get 14 holes, the last 4 should have been easy!  Who knows what options came up and were discussed.

TMac,

Perhaps. But it would appear Wilson was asked to write his remembrances as a committee chair who got a nice golf course built, and was talking to the same kind of people, wherever they may be.  The line may have been a throwaway, or whatever, but if we think he was offering serious advice (and I think he was)  I think it was based on the success MCC had, and the process they used, which included studying NGLA for design ideas.

[Tom MacWood]

I wouldn't expect him to discuss routing options with Piper because Piper would have no advice to offer on that subject, as he wasn't an expert.  I do not think the course was routed and staked out by Feb 1911, because there are no documents suggesting it was, and several documents confirming routing was completed on April 6, 1911.

Talk about reading between the lines!

It is clear in those letters there was a golf course on the ground (a staked out course that is) when he first engaged P&O.

[JESII]

Regarding the letters to and from P&O, were they found at the Department of Ag. or somewhere similar?



Jeff,

So you think holes 15 and 16 in their current configuration would have only been on one of the five plans? That's what I just can't reconcile in my mind...they would have used that land exactly as they did beginning in November (or earlier) or not at all and I don't understand how they would agree to buy that much land that could not be used. Do that make sense?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I don't think so.

Mike,

While I appreciate the info on terms and I brought it up, I am actually trying to avoid the constant word parse conversations that TMac and DM engage us in endlessly.

Why should anyone spend time deciding what certain phrases mean in determining history when club minutes tell us exactly when the routing was finalized (April 6) and approved?  They can say we don't understand their method, but we understand it all too well - discount contemporaneous official records upon which legal actions were taken (i.e. swap boundaries) but rely on narrow definitions of phrases, ot interpretations of letters to suit your agenda?

What kind of method is that?

[Tom MacWood]

Jim,

I guess all we know for sure is that the plan that included the land swap was one of the five presented to CBM on April 6 for review and approval and that is was the final routing plan, approved at the April meeting.

IMO the five plans, or whatever they were, is red herring. Has that document ever been reproduced so we can see what exactly it says, and the context? At that time Wilson had already been treating the site, fairways and greens getting slightly different treatments.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Yes, my understanding is that they were found at the Ag Dept. Or, in Osama Bin Laden's compound, can't recall which.....

Interesting speculation on whether only one of the five routings had the tweaks to 15 and 16.  As I said, I have presumed that only one and only the final one was it.  Just because once you've hit the mother load, you usually know it.  Who knows, maybe they flipped 14-18 on one plan, but with the curve, I know putting the tee in the corner makes sense.  In other words, once you have the idea to reshape the corner, you could still do some detail tweaking.

I understand your dilema to a point regarding knowing that they had flexibility along Golf House Road since November and not exploring that option until April.  If they were given that flexibility specifically, I agree that their routings would probably explore that from the beginning.  I hadn't really thought of it that way, but it makes sense.

Again, maybe the recollection had some hyperbole, but the other clue was the idea that the land west of the clubhouse fit no golf plans, before he had the swap idea.  So, at least a few plans were examined first within the boundaries tentatively shown on the Nov map.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()