The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[DMoriarty]

Jeff  Brauer,

I stand my what I wrote about TEPaul using you as a shill.  You apparently forget that (inadvertently or not) he sometimes sent me his exchanges with you where the two of you would discuss various matters before you took it public.

As for my holding myself out as an expert, I wrote an IMO piece and put out out there for comment free of charge to everyone, in the hopes that my doing so would prompt a discussion advancing our collective understanding of early gca.  I never asked to be shielded from critique like these two arrogant Fakers and their $70 pdf.  

[Niall C]

The other aspect to it is how to you define blindness. For me because you can't see every inch of a hole or indeed a green, doesn't make it blind. I think if you can get an idea of the lay of the land for what is concealed then it isn't entirely blind. That said I think HJW was quite explicit in what he said but again speaking from memory.

Niall, there's a good degree of varying blindness at NGLA on almost every hole.
# 6 and # 13 may be the only holes were it's not normally in evidence.

Re routing a course, I note what you say and if you have actually been responsible for designing/constructing a course then you are way ahead of me. Anything I did was sadly only an academic exercise. In terms of what we used, from my dodgy memory all we used OS plans (1:5000 ?) with 5m (?) contour lines and a scale rule, nothing more than that really.

Of course we could use Google Earth but it was really just an aide memoire to recall what the vegetation was like in various parts of the site. The Merion gang wouldn't have had that but then they would have been on site so wouldn't need it.

Again we routed some fairly restrictive sites and came up with a variety of solutions, some of which worked better than others, but the point is that its not rocket science. These were educated men with an interest in golf course design, they would have read all the articles about ideal hole lengths, the ideal holes even, and would have been more than equipped to give it a go.

Niall,

As to routings, anyone can sink a 4 foot putt in a casual setting, but, if you'll lose the U.S. or British Open if you miss, or you'll lose 10,000 if you miss, that putt brings with it untold pressure, so, as an exercise with no consequences for screwing up, anyone can route a golf course, but, when you're doing it for real, and the product is permanent, the pressure is enormous for member-novices.

I've no doubt CBM could offer some practical tips but I'm kind of struggling to imagine him riding roughshod over there ideas (my words). As you say also, this was a hundred years ago. How much earth were they shifting ? How sophisticated was the drainage ? Did they not do a lot of the bunkering after the course was built as was the fashion of the time ? In summary, how big an engineering project was this compared to modern course building, do you really think they couldn't have done it ?

Niall, "riding roughshod" is a poor choice of words, one that predisposes the reader.
But, pretend for a second that you were charged with designing a course, and Tom Doak was selected as the consulting architect.
Are you going to ignore his advice ?  Fight with him on the routing ?  Disagree with him on the individual hole designs ?
Contest his placement of features ?

I wouldn't think so, but, as the Professional, the expert, you're going to listen to Tom Doak, especially if you and your committee, individually and collectively have zero experience in this area, yet you have the enormous responsibility of producing a quality product for your club.

Why would you expect any less from Merion and it's committee members and Charles Blair Macdonald ?

Also wiith regards to getting assistance, I thought that is what they did by going to Oakley and Piper for agronomy advice ?
I don't think you can compare agronomic advice with architectural advice, they're far removed from one another in terms of disciplines.

Patrick

Re your 4 foot putt analogy, how permanent was the routing/course ? Has not been changed and altered since it was first laid out ? Indeed, how good a course was it when it was first laid out and how much was that down to the routing anyway ? Did they declare before they started that they were going to build a world class golf course ? Or did they simply set out to do the best they could ? When in fact did Merion become "great" ?

Patrick, if there's one thing I've learned reading over old articles and news reports, its how frequently courses were altered, almost from the point they were first laid out. In fact it was still common for courses at that point to have the bunkers put in afterwards which from memory might have happened at Merion, so I really don't think your extreme pressure argument holds up. You characterise Committee as novices which suggests they were starting from scratch. Didn't some members of that committee have engineering experience, didn't Wilson for one not have some previous experience in course design, had none of the members really not been abroad and played the great holes in GB&I (and indeed elsewhere in the US) and did none of them ever read any golfing literature on ideal hole lengths etc. ?

Re your Tom Doak analogy, do you really think the gulf between CBM and the Merion Committee was as big as the gulf in knowledge between me and TD ? Seriously ?

Niall

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Your purposeful refusal to acknowledge and accept the obvious truth of the evidence I've presented throughout this entire thread should not be construed as my shading of it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

"You characterise Committee as novices which suggests they were starting from scratch. Didn't some members of that committee have engineering experience, didn't Wilson for one not have some previous experience in course design, had none of the members really not been abroad and played the great holes in GB&I (and indeed elsewhere in the US) and did none of them ever read any golfing literature on ideal hole lengths etc. ?

Re your Tom Doak analogy, do you really think the gulf between CBM and the Merion Committee was as big as the gulf in knowledge between me and TD ? Seriously ? "

Now THAT is an interesting perspective I don't think we have considered here.  Yes, having made the first trip to Scotland to map out the best holes made CBM famous, but was he considered a more expert router by those guys back in those days, with his sum total of what, 3 courses routed (2 at Chicago Golf plus NGLA)?  Granted, they did ask him to come back and review/approve their routings, but it strikes me that the rush to NGLA was more for the hole study than routing advice, as reported in Merion's Lesley report, read to the board.

And, it may just well be that his inspiration was both the study of famous holes and the desire to route one's own dream course, such as he did. 

[Adam_Messix]

Pat--

Interesting point....  But if you're going to use that argument, why didn't CBM and HJW go the committee and say, we have a guy here who helped put our ideas on the ground at NGLA in Seth Raynor, you guys are too busy in your professional lives to be worried about doing this, let's bring Raynor in and he'll put my ideas on the ground for you.  That, of course, didn't happen.  To argue for significant MacDonald involvement works completely against the grain of everything else he's done.  Also, the argument has been made that the Merion Committee were novices and needed as much as help as possible.  Why didn't they bring in an "expert" to construct the course too? 

If CBM were as involved with Merion as your side is arguing, and given CBM's track record of being very much in control of golf course design projects, don't you think he would have been vociferous and downright demanding in wanting Raynor to be involved? 

David--

I see where you're headed with the Merion West/Seaview argument that they weren't of the quality of Merion East?  Then again, how many course are that good?  But, with this in mind,  Hugh Wilson's talents that were so highly thought of that he and HIS BROTHER ALAN were the ones brought in to finish Pine Valley; not C H Alison, H S Colt, C B MacDonald, Tillinghast or anyone else.  Some food for thought.....

[DMoriarty]

For those who wonder whether Wayne and TEPaul have really ever left the site, and for those who are curious about the quality of intellect of these two "gentleman," here is a message  received from Wayne Morrison in response to my comments a few posts ago:
Subject: "The Missing Brain of Moriarty
. . .
You owe the beard you used to buy the Flynn book for you $5.  The price of the book is and always has been $75 and not $70.  You are too much the wimp, I guess it comes from wearing the dress in the family, to purchase it directly yourself.    By the way, at free, you still overcharged everyone for that poorly researched and analyzed crap you call an essay."

It seems our resident (in hiding) Merion expert has the sensibilities and maturity of a grade schooler.  Those who have bothered to look at the  $70 $75 Faker pdf aren't surprised, I am sure.
________________________________________________

Niall,

I'll comment further on your posts when I get the chance, but I will say that I believe the gulf in knowledge was much greater between Merion and CBM/HJW, as compared to Tom Doak and many of those here.  
______________________________________________

Adam,

There aren't to many courses of the quality of Merion East, but there are no other great courses designed by Hugh Wilson.   And at the time Merion East was built and for a few years after, there were very few approaching its quality. Generally, judging from the various reports at the time, there were perhaps a few by Colt and Ross, maybe a few oldies but goodies (Garden City and Myopia) and then the various CBM courses.  Pine Valley was already hyped but not anywhere near opened, and even there one of he great designers, Colt, had been involved.

My understanding is that the Wilsons were brought into Pine Valley for their agronomy expertise.  The issue there was not one of design - numerous reports were that the the course was to be finished according to the Crump/Colt plan.  Pine Valley had serious agronomy issues because of the pure sandy soil.  And Hugh Wilson (and perhaps to a lesser degree Alan) were among the foremost agronomy experts of their time.  Given the region and their relationship with PV, they were logical choices to get the course in shape for play.

As an aside, the later history of Pine Valley seems to be another classic case where people convolute design with construction and even grow in. Everyone on wants to put their guy's name on that course as designer.   In my opinion carrying out the Crump/Colt plan on the few holes remaining does not make those later involved the designers of the course.  At least not in my mind.  

This was common during this era though.  The person who did the building often receives the credit for coming up with the idea.

[Mike Cirba]

When Merion East opened it was not acknowledged as a great golf course.

Not even close.

It was acknowledged as having considerable potential, but all conceded that would take time and effort and no one, not Tilinghast, nor Findlay, nor Evans, nor anyone else gave anything but guarded, faint praise.

The Merion East we know today resembles the Merion East of 1912 in the way a beautiful 45 year old woman resembled herself when she was a skinny nine year old kid.

The routing dramatically changed over the years, many greens were rebuilt and/or moved, whole bunkering strategies were created and/or changed, and new tees were adapted to changing technologies.

To compare Merion East in its final Championship course product, having been a labor of love for Hugh Wilson for 14 years, and William Flynn continuing that work for the next six, to Seaview and or Merion West is simply asinine and shows both the historical ignorance and frankly the stupidity of those making that argument.

Yes, stupidity.   In bucketfuls, no matter how cleverly argued.

Because one would have to either be stupid, willfully ignorant of early golf course history, or wholly and purposefully disingenuous and deceptive to make that ridiculous argument.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Well, the evolution of Merion West is of interest to me also. Did it get the constant makeovers like the East, or was that a result of the staging of many tournaments at the East Course?  I know some say the West is the equal of the East, but it never gets much national attention.  What is the highest level tourney it has hosted, if you know?

BTW, I know you were thinking of DM's last post above, but I will say this - his opening a reexamination of CBM's role at Merion East is not a ridiculous idea at all, not was it total folly.  He did find some new or forgotten things.  Arguing that CBM was largely forgotten is not totally nuts either, because he sort of was.  Arguing that he might, under modern standards, have gotten more design credit is not totally wrong either.

In other words, there was nothing wrong with DM's original premise of research.  We all agree/disagree with his conclusions to different degrees, oft expressed here, but the real problem here is a bunch of childish personalities, including, to various degrees, you, me, TePaul, Wayne, TMac and David.  (I will not analyze just who is more or less childish, but we all are for letting this come to this point) 

I say we all try to reduce the use of disingenous, liar, ridiculous, etc.  We are all guilty.

Or better yet, just stop the nonsense!

[Adam_Messix]

The red pen/blue pen drawing of Pine Valley is the one that you really find out what Colt did and the number of changes in terms of strategy and in terms of 12-14, hole placement.  From that you can find out how the course evolved from Crump's plan to what was finally put in place and if the Wilsons made any adjustments in the field which if memory serves they did.  Pine Valley's histories document the Wilsons' involement in finishing their course and that's a pretty good barometer.  I can't see a club saying, "Hey let's give someone credit when their involvement was minimal."  

The one other thing that may be affecting how we today perceive a project like Merion in 1911-12 is that the early 20th century was  a totally different era in terms of how people operated in society and also how golf and sports in general were handled.  With the exception of Raynor, Ross and Flynn, these guys were all amateur sportsmen and were friends to varying degrees.  They were all more than willing to help each other with their projects.  Just look at the pictures of MacKenzie with Thomas at Riviera.  NGLA was a team effort to some extent although it was definitely MacDonald's deal, Pine Valley was a team effort of Crump who brought Colt in and then had Tillinghast, Thomas, Ross, and I'm pretty sure MacDonald who all offered advice and counsel.  There's no debate that MacDonald and Whigham were advising the Merion Committee, I'm not sure their involvement is as much as you're going with it though.  There are way too many questions marks and things that go opposite of MacDonald's track record.  We look at all of this in the more professional light of the late 20th and early 21st century where golf design became big business starting with RT Jones and Dick Wilson and working through  today with Dye, Nicklaus, and Fazio with Doak, Crenshaw and Coore, Hanse, and many others.  

I would guess that "golf course architecture" in the US began with Scottish emigre professionals coming and spreading the game and designing courses, maintaining them, playing exhibitions, and teaching the game.  I guess starting with Dev Emmet you started seeing the "amateur sportsman" who started desiging and building courses for their club and for their friends.  CBM, HJW, Crmp, Hugh Wilson, The Fownes, and Thomas laid out courses but weren't getting paid for their work.  I think that you have to put yourself in the mindset of that era to try to figure out how things happened and it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer.  

Mike--

Interesting point, they were trumpeting Pine Valley's quality barely into construction. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Re your 4 foot putt analogy, how permanent was the routing/course ?

Permanent.  The Board approved it.  You can't get much more permanent than that.

Has not been changed and altered since it was first laid out ?

Very little.


Indeed, how good a course was it when it was first laid out and how much was that down to the routing anyway ?

Not having played it, I couldn't offer my evaluation of how it played.
Since the essential routing has lasted for 100 years, I'd have to say that that's a major part of it.

Did they declare before they started that they were going to build a world class golf course ?

No, they declared that they wanted to build a lousy golf course, mediocre at best.
That's why they called in Charles Blair Macdonald to advise them.
Certainly he could provide routing plans and hole designs that would forever doom the course to mediocrity, at best.

Or did they simply set out to do the best they could ?

Isn't that what every architect aspires to ?
To create the best they can ?

When in fact did Merion become "great" ?

I guess that answer lies within the eye of the beholder.

Patrick, if there's one thing I've learned reading over old articles and news reports, its how frequently courses were altered, almost from the point they were first laid out.

Then why don't you tell us, without the help of the Merioniettes, how the course was altered and the date upon which it came to be recognized as great ?

In fact it was still common for courses at that point to have the bunkers put in afterwards which from memory might have happened at Merion, so I really don't think your extreme pressure argument holds up.

Bunkers are a micro feature.
Your position is absurd.  Anyone who's a member of a club that's been charged with the responsibility of creating a golf course or redesigning a golf course knows how pressure packed the burden is.

You characterise Committee as novices which suggests they were starting from scratch.

They were.
NONE had every designed or built a golf course.
That' makes them novices when it comes to designing and building a golf course.

Didn't some members of that committee have engineering experience,

I believe Francis was a civil engineer.

didn't Wilson for one not have some previous experience in course design,

NO, I don't believe he did.
Would you cite his previous experience in course design

had none of the members really not been abroad and played the great holes in GB&I (and indeed elsewhere in the US) and did none of them ever read any golfing literature on ideal hole lengths etc. ?

And you think that playing courses abroad, and reading books qualifies you to design and build a golf course ?
Please, stop the absurdity.
You've already drawn your conclusion and now you're searching for info to fill in the blanks

Re your Tom Doak analogy, do you really think the gulf between CBM and the Merion Committee was as big as the gulf in knowledge between me and TD ?

YES.  Don't forget, this is 1910.

Seriously ?

Seriously, YES

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat--

Interesting point....  But if you're going to use that argument, why didn't CBM and HJW go the committee and say, we have a guy here who helped put our ideas on the ground at NGLA in Seth Raynor, you guys are too busy in your professional lives to be worried about doing this, let's bring Raynor in and he'll put my ideas on the ground for you.  That, of course, didn't happen.

It didn't happen because the construction committee already had an engineer on site in Francis.
I've brought up the point, time after time, that it would be worth exploring possible communication between Raynor and Francis.
Lawyer to lawyer, doctor to doctor, engineer to engineer, the professionals talk to each other differently than they talk to lay people.

 To argue for significant MacDonald involvement works completely against the grain of everything else he's done.

Not at all.  It's in perfect harmony.  You wouldn't need Raynor for engineering since Francis could fill that bill.

Also, the argument has been made that the Merion Committee were novices and needed as much as help as possible.  
Why didn't they bring in an "expert" to construct the course too?  

Eventually they did, in the form of Pickering.

If CBM were as involved with Merion as your side is arguing, and given CBM's track record of being very much in control of golf course design projects, don't you think he would have been vociferous and downright demanding in wanting Raynor to be involved?  


Not at all, why would he be, Raynor's counterpart was already on site and available to be on site 24/7.

Why do you and others seek to dismiss CBM's involvement rather than engage in due diligence to ascertain a better understanding of his role ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Your purposeful refusal to acknowledge and accept the obvious truth of the evidence I've presented throughout this entire thread should not be construed as my shading of it.

Mike, when I have the time, I'll reread every post and cite specific examples, unless they've been edited out..

[Mike Cirba]

Both Rodman Griscom (second nine at the original Merion Cricket Club course in 1901) and Dr. Harry Toulmin (Belmont Golf Club) had previous design and course construction experience.   Griscom had been head of the Green Committee since the inception of golf at Merion and the building of the original Willie Campbell nine-hole course in 1896.

Hugh Wilson was a member of the Green Committee at Princeton during his junior and senior years, and his tenure was smack dab while the club was building its new course that was designed by Willie Dunn and modified by home pro James Swann.

HG Lloyd may have been on the Green Committee at MCC who designed and built the second nine holes...I haven't been able to verify yet but he was a member of the Merion Green Committee by 1903.

Francis, as Patrick mentioned, was a surveyor/engineer.   There is no record at all of Francis contacting Raynor, nor does Francis mention CBM, Whigham, much less Raynor in his remembrances, instead clearly crediting Hugh Wilson's committee for the design and construction of Merion East.   But, what would he know?   He was only there every day through the entire design and construction.   

The five committee members were 5 of the top 6 golfers (by handicap) of the hundreds of players at Merion, with the 6th, Howard Perrin, being a relative newcomer in 1910.  

Lets stick to facts instead of the speculative CBM-hero-worshiping dream world that some insist on taking this thread into.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

In your last sentence you admonish everyone to stick to the facts, but, in the very same post, just a few lines above, you resort to speculation.

How do you reconcile that disparity.

Or is it simply a double standard, "do as I say, not as I do"

You should heed your own advice

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I stated clearly what was fact and what was speculation, that's how.

I've been trying to verify if HG Lloyd was on the Merion Green Committee in the 1900-02 timeframe when the second nine at the original Merion Cricket Club was DESIGNED AND BUILT BY THE MERION GREEN COMMITTEE...I know he was on by 1903.

Rodman Griscom, on the other hand, was the Chairman of said Green Committee at the time the second nine was designed and built.

Hugh Wilson's very modest, self-effacing statement that the members of his committee had the same knowledge of construction and agronomy as the average club member was simply being humble, yet it had some element of truth as much had been learned about soil content and grass-growing in the ten years between then and the creation of Merion East.

You'll notice almost every reference to CBM made within the Merion records cites his study and knowledge of agronomy and soils, as well as other agronomic issues.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

If you think that being on a green committee qualifies someone to route and design a golf course, you're in for a big surprise.

However, I'll defer to the architects on this site, who have to interface with green committees on an almost daily basis, to answer that question.

I'd like to know, in their opinion, does serving on a green committee automatically qualify the green committee member to route and design a golf course ?

The other issue that should be brought up is the stifling of the creative process inherent within committees and consensus management.

Tom Doak, if given the choice will never, or probably never embark upon another joint venture project.
There's a reason for that.

I've often stated that I've seen a lot of statues honoring a leader, mounted on his steed, leading the charge, but, I've never seen a statue commemorating a committee.  Why is that ?

The forced compromise inherent in the committee structure stifles and often mutes or destroys creativity.

Think for a second about designing a golf course by committee.
Think of the problems associated with that process.

So, who made the design decisions ?  Who crafted the routing ?
Were there 3-2 split decisions, 4-1, 5-0. 
Or, did CBM craft the routing and individual holes ?  Did he represent the creative process, with the committee reviewing and discussing the relative merits and voting accordingly ?

If other committee members had more experience than Wilson at design and construction, then why weren't they appointed Chairman ?

There is a great deal that is unknown about the creation of Merion.
You and the Merionettes want to cease all future discussions.  WHY ?

If you stifle, censure and end all discussions, surely nothing will be discovered.

But, if there's are ongoing efforts, like your current effort to ascertain information relative to the committee, then nothing will be learned.

WHY is it OK for you to continue to research this issue, but, forbidden for anyone else to engage in any research.

I'm sure one or more of the Merionettes will assist you in your efforts, whereas David and Tom MacWood have to access other sources in their efforts to conduct research.

[Tom MacWood]

Pat--

Interesting point....  But if you're going to use that argument, why didn't CBM and HJW go the committee and say, we have a guy here who helped put our ideas on the ground at NGLA in Seth Raynor, you guys are too busy in your professional lives to be worried about doing this, let's bring Raynor in and he'll put my ideas on the ground for you.  That, of course, didn't happen.  To argue for significant MacDonald involvement works completely against the grain of everything else he's done.  Also, the argument has been made that the Merion Committee were novices and needed as much as help as possible.  Why didn't they bring in an "expert" to construct the course too?  

Probably because Raynor was basically an unknown untested commonity in early 1911. He was involved at the NGLA but there was another group in charge of construction.

If CBM were as involved with Merion as your side is arguing, and given CBM's track record of being very much in control of golf course design projects, don't you think he would have been vociferous and downright demanding in wanting Raynor to be involved?

Based on what I have seen and read CBM was a lot more generous and a lot less demanding than what you believe. What do you base your opinion upon?

David--

I see where you're headed with the Merion West/Seaview argument that they weren't of the quality of Merion East?  Then again, how many course are that good?  But, with this in mind,  Hugh Wilson's talents that were so highly thought of that he and HIS BROTHER ALAN were the ones brought in to finish Pine Valley; not C H Alison, H S Colt, C B MacDonald, Tillinghast or anyone else.  Some food for thought.....

Are sure about that? I thought they brought in CH Alison to finish the course.

[Tom MacWood]

The red pen/blue pen drawing of Pine Valley is the one that you really find out what Colt did and the number of changes in terms of strategy and in terms of 12-14, hole placement.  From that you can find out how the course evolved from Crump's plan to what was finally put in place and if the Wilsons made any adjustments in the field which if memory serves they did.  Pine Valley's histories document the Wilsons' involement in finishing their course and that's a pretty good barometer.  I can't see a club saying, "Hey let's give someone credit when their involvement was minimal."  

The one other thing that may be affecting how we today perceive a project like Merion in 1911-12 is that the early 20th century was  a totally different era in terms of how people operated in society and also how golf and sports in general were handled.  With the exception of Raynor, Ross and Flynn, these guys were all amateur sportsmen and were friends to varying degrees.  They were all more than willing to help each other with their projects.  Just look at the pictures of MacKenzie with Thomas at Riviera.  NGLA was a team effort to some extent although it was definitely MacDonald's deal, Pine Valley was a team effort of Crump who brought Colt in and then had Tillinghast, Thomas, Ross, and I'm pretty sure MacDonald who all offered advice and counsel.  There's no debate that MacDonald and Whigham were advising the Merion Committee, I'm not sure their involvement is as much as you're going with it though.  There are way too many questions marks and things that go opposite of MacDonald's track record.  We look at all of this in the more professional light of the late 20th and early 21st century where golf design became big business starting with RT Jones and Dick Wilson and working through  today with Dye, Nicklaus, and Fazio with Doak, Crenshaw and Coore, Hanse, and many others.  

I would guess that "golf course architecture" in the US began with Scottish emigre professionals coming and spreading the game and designing courses, maintaining them, playing exhibitions, and teaching the game.  I guess starting with Dev Emmet you started seeing the "amateur sportsman" who started desiging and building courses for their club and for their friends.  CBM, HJW, Crmp, Hugh Wilson, The Fownes, and Thomas laid out courses but weren't getting paid for their work.  I think that you have to put yourself in the mindset of that era to try to figure out how things happened and it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer.  

No one knows who is responsible for the red or the blue drawings, but I've got to give you credit for some fantastic speculation.

[DMoriarty]

Adam,

You seem to be judging CBM's involvement at Merion based on Raynor's involvement, or lack thereof.  I don't understand this logic at all.

Would have CBM and HJW made their involvement contingent upon Raynor building the course?  Obviously not, because they were involved at Merion, they went to Merion to help Merion choose the land, CBM hosted the committee at NGLA where CBM provided them with valuable help planning the layout of the course.  As if that weren't enough, they returned to Merion a few weeks later and chose the final routing plan!  The plan went to Merion's Board as the plan approved by CBM and HJW.   Hugh Wilson was not even mentioned.

Obviously, had Raynor built Merion in his usual style, we wouldn't have to have this conversation.  And it is interesting to speculate why Raynor didn't built Merion.  But to jump from Raynor didn't build Merion to therefore CBM didn't have much influence?   I don't buy that at all, nor do I think you have justified it.

Interesting point....  But if you're going to use that argument, why didn't CBM and HJW go the committee and say, we have a guy here who helped put our ideas on the ground at NGLA in Seth Raynor, you guys are too busy in your professional lives to be worried about doing this, let's bring Raynor in and he'll put my ideas on the ground for you.  That, of course, didn't happen.

First, as I said above I don't understand your justification for the imposition of this somewhat arbitrary condition.

Second, I believe CBM and HJW did send him the same construction crew they had used at NGLA --Pickering and Johnson Construction.  CBM also sent them to Piper and Oakley.   Whigham estimated their budget for them.  (This may be the one thing I learned about Merion from the Faker book.  Thanks guys!)

To argue for significant MacDonald involvement works completely against the grain of everything else he's done.  Also, the argument has been made that the Merion Committee were novices and needed as much as help as possible.  Why didn't they bring in an "expert" to construct the course too?

I am not sure what you mean here, but by "everything else he's done" it sure seems like you simply mean that Raynor didn't build the course.  Is there more to this?  If so, then what?    

The reason I ask is that there is a heck of a lot that is entirely consistent with what else he had done and would do. The hole lengths for example, were not only as recommended by CBM, they were also typical of CBM.  And then there are Merion's 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.

Look at that list.  A Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, a biarritz oriented double plateau, an Eden Green.   Do those ring familiar to you?   There are more, but how many more do we need?   These ones require no speculation!

If CBM/HJW weren't significantly involved in the design, then why did Merion try to build a CBM course?  

Or alternatively, if Merion wanted to build a CBM course, then would they have shut CBM and HJW out of the design process?

Keep in mind that this was 1910 and early 1911.  The landscape was filled with dark ages courses, and reportedly things were especially dire in Philadelphia. Hugh Wilson had not yet gone abroad to study the great courses.   Despite the speculation about what this committee might have known, WILSON TOLD US THEY WERE COMPLETE NOVICES WHEN IT CAME TO THIS STUFF.  Wilson is quite clear that it was CBM who brought these concepts to Merion, so why should we doubt him?
And again, I may be misremembering, but I believe that Merion did bring an expert builder- I believe the same ones used at NGLA. And Merion brought in the agronomists that CBM recommended as well.  
 

http://If CBM were as involved with Merion as your side is arguing, and given CBM's track record of being very much in control of golf course design projects, don't you think he would have been vociferous and downright demanding in wanting Raynor to be involved?

I suspect you might have bought into many of the inaccurate caricatures of CBM.  At the very least, I don't think you have accurately portrayed the way CBM operated at all.  So far as I can tell, he didn't operate that way either before or after NGLA.  

Your speculation about the necessity of Raynor is really way out there

[DMoriarty]

Niall,

As I read your various comments on this thread I cannot help but think back to your "Template Holes: Did CBM really invent them?" thread and on the related threads. I think that, generally, you may be discounting just own revolutionary NGLA was to American golf course design.

I'd like to ask you the same basic questions I asked Adam.  What about Merion's attempt 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?

If CBM/HJW weren't significantly involved in the design, then why did Merion try to build a CBM course?  

Or alternatively, if Merion wanted to build a CBM course, then would they have shut CBM and HJW out of the design process?  

I haven't counted, but I wonder if Merion had more typical CBM holes than either Piping Rock or Sleepy Hollow?  Except not in the Raynor style, of course.  

A few comments on your post to Patrick:
- It was Hugh Wilson who claimed they were novices and Hugh Wilson who said that it was CBM who taught them.   Who are we to question Hugh Wilson on this fact?  
- As for the Doak analogy, as I said above I think the gap in knowledge was greater for CBM and Wilson's Committee than for Doak and some here.    You are underestimating CBM, and over estimating those at Merion.  Wilson said they were novices and that they were in way over their heads, until CBM set them straight.  He said they learned more from CBM than in all the years of playing.   Why don't you believe him?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

When you're talking about leaders and decision-makers, did you ever read what Max Behr wrote about Hugh Wilson back then?

I don't think you'd be asking the questions you did in your last post if you had.

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?

I also see that you contend Whigham "estimated their budget for them".   Why wouldn't you produce the whole segment?   Robert Lesley makes clear that they've also talked to Philadelphian Samuel Heebner in that regard, the Heebner who was involved in designing the first Philly Cricket course, who was involved in designing Whitemarsh Valley, the Heebner who was involved in designing Spring Lake and Sunnybrook, as well.

Hugh Wilson told us in 1916 that he conferred with CBM, Whigham, and all the local experts around Philadelphia, such as EK Bispham, Heebner, and others.   WHy was this a revelation to you and why would you not share the entire passage in the Paul/Morrison book and share the entire story instead of simply telling us that Whigham did their budget?   All Whigham produced was a single estimated number for the entire project...that's quite a bit different from what you've implied.

Also, could you show us what evidence you have that CBM used Johnson Contractors and Fred Pickering to build NGLA??

All along I thought that was Mortimer Payne, a local contractor, working under Raynor's direction?   That's what George Bahto's research indicates, and this 1908 article seems to concur.   Where's Pickering?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Here is a link to what Max Behr wrote in December 1914. How does what Behr wrote in 1914 relate to Pat's point?

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi23g.pdf

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Thanks for the link...here is the article.

As far as your question, I think it relates in many ways to both this thread, as well as Patrick's last set of questions about design by "committee" vs having a "dictator" in charge.

It's interesting that Behr uses that word, dictator, to describe Hugh Wilson in 1914.   What month was that article written?   Was the West course at Merion even open yet and had Behr seen it?   He had to be speaking about the East course, no?

Comparing Wilson as being like Leeds at Myopia and Macdonald at NGLA, Behr writes;

These dictators have not been averse to seeking advice.   In fact ,they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting.   They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before.

It's also interesting how even by 1914 Behr rages against using a "professional" golfer to design a course simply because they have the ability to hit a ball.   I thought you told us that NOBODY used amateurs to design golf courses after 1910?  

It's also interesting how Behr expands on his original statement about the course at NGLA "laying itself out", saying that while the "main outlines" at National were obvious at first glance, but the details took 'months of study".

It's also interesting that Behr points out the problems that have plagued most Green Committees to date at that point...1) Selecting a "pro" and assuming he knows what he's doing, 2) Not taking time to understand the soil and general features of the landscape prior to proceeding, and 3) Not taking the time to actually understand agronomy and construction themselves, all of which combined to create situations that took thousands of dollars over time to correct.  

It also answers the question of when the National was actually routed and laid out.   It tells us "seven years ago when the National was being laid out", which would have been 1907, consistent with the articles I've posted here.

As you know, Macdonald secured the property in December 1906, but at that time the course had not been yet "laid out", and the articles tell us that Macdonald said the work of defining the holes and their lengths would take place over the next several months.

I've tried to make this point to Jim Sullivan, who has assumed that one needed to fully route a golf course prior to securing property back then.   Especially in those cases where one could secure some fixed acreage of land at a fixed price out of a larger parcel (as was the case at Merion and NGLA), the historical record shows, I believe, that acreage was first procured with undetermined boundaries, and then the courses were routed over the next several months.

I think the article is fabulous, Tom, and makes many points I've been driving at for a long time here.  Thanks, again.

[Jim Nugent]

Maybe I'm confused.  The article Tom linked has Robert White's name at the end. 

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Robert White wrote the article on natural bunker construction.   The first article is Behr, although not apparent unless one is familiar with the format of the magazine.   Behr always wrote the "Our Green Committee" page as the Editor.

Hope that helps!