News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2200 on: May 31, 2011, 09:22:58 AM »
Jim
There are actually two articles. The second article was written by White.

Mike
Most of the Behr articles deals with issues of maintenance, and the part dealing with design emphasises CBM's importance in that area (and Colt's). You didn't really answer my question. How does this article relate to Pat's questions about qualifications and fitness to design a golf course. This article was not written in 1911; it was written in 1914.

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2201 on: May 31, 2011, 09:32:27 AM »
Tom MacWood,

I think my answer and its relevance is clear to everyone, but perhaps...let me guess...you, David, and Patrick?  ;)  ;D

That's ok.

Perhaps you can tell us where Hugh Wilson magically acquired course architecture skills between 1911 and 1914 if all he had done to that point was "lay the course upon the ground"   (for some strange reason that term reminds me of the scene in "Silence of the Lambs" where the crazy killer keeps repeating "it rubs the lotion on itself"), to someone else's plans, especially when we know that he had an expert in Pickering to oversee that operation?

Was it simply his two-month vacation abroad that caused what you've been claiming is an alchemic transformation from mild-mannered Insurance Man to renowned Architectural Superman?

Are you really still telling us that all this acclaim came his way because he designed the West course?

Give us a break, Tom.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2202 on: May 31, 2011, 10:28:18 AM »
Magically acquired golf architecture skills? I don't think there was any magic involved. This is what Wilson said about his and the others qualifications when the process began (1911): "The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member."

From that point he was mentored by CBM at the NGLA and at Merion, over a period of months. Traded hundreds of correspondences and wet with Piper & Oakley, over a period of years. Corresponded with Reginald Beale, one of the foremost grass and constrcution experts in the world. Met with Colt either in America or Britain or both. Traveled to the UK to study the latest in modern golf architecture. Oversaw the construction of the East, acquiring experience through success and failure. Designed and built the West and was involved with the Seaview project, again gaining experience through success and failure. And last but not least became green committee chairman of Merion. I'd be hard pressed to cite anyone with a similar wealth of quality experience over a realtively brief three year period.

I also think the jury is out on how much skill Wilson actually had...his results appear to be a mixed bag.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 10:49:28 AM by Tom MacWood »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2203 on: May 31, 2011, 11:48:03 AM »

"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. ?


Jeff,

Here's how Wilson characterized his committee.

 "The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member."


Would you say that MY characterizaion and WILSON'S characterization are in PERFECT HARMONY ?

Stop looking at things in only one light, to prove me wrong and start trying to discover who did what and when. ;D


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 ?

Again, here's what WILSON said:

"The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member."


So, would you equate your knowledge of GCA to that of the average club member ?


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.

The study of holes that were incorporated into the design of Merion ?

What you forget, or exclude is Macdonald's status in golf in the U.S. at the time.
He was a nationally prominent golfer.
He was at the epicenter of the formation of the USGA.
He was one of the signatories of the five clubs that began that organization.
He wasn't just some guy who spent time abroad studying golf holes.
He was one of, if not THE preeminent figure in American golf at the time.
He was in charge-co-chair of the rules committee.
He began studying golf/golf courses in the UK in 1872, 38 years prior to being invited to Merion.
I know that you've always discounted or dismissed the ODG's, but, your attempt to minimalize his status and influence is misguided.




Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2204 on: May 31, 2011, 12:04:30 PM »
David Moriarty,

In your reply # 2203, you state that Whigham did the budget estimate for Merion for the golf course.
You also state that you learned this from reading Wayne's and TEPaul's book/DVD.

If that's true, that means that Wayne and/or TEPaul withheld that information from the discussion.

All along their claim has been that CBM and HJW visited the site twice, and that the committee visited them once.

But, here we have Whigham's direct involvement with planning the course (budgetary), now, I'm sure he didn't do this on his first visit and he probably didn't wait until his last visit to prepare the budget, so, it must have been an ongoing exercise in conjunction with the committee.

Could you expand more on the time frame in which this occured and how you/they know the extent of this work ?

Why would they withhold evidence of Whigham's involvement ?

Which goes to a question you had at the very begining of this debate, which ties into a statement I made about your concerns.

You were concerned that information regarding CBM's and HJW's involvement might be being meted out selectively.
I opined, that perhaps, like the tip of the iceberg, there was more information beneath the surface.

The revelation that Whigham prepared the budget for the committee is an interesting revelation and raises more questions about the existance or extent of any additional information that might be being withheld.

I'm very surprised that any of the Merionettes who were privileged to this information didn't reveal it at the appropriate time.
And, WHY didn't they reveal it ?

Instead, they continued to argue that CBM and HJW were held at arms length from committee involvement.

Interesting.

Have you accessed the AT& T records yet ?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2205 on: May 31, 2011, 12:53:24 PM »
Pat,

In his reply #2205 Mike indicates it was hardly a budget provided by Wigham, rather it was a rough guess at the total dollar amount to complete the task. A budget should have the items broken out, no?

I don't have the "whole segment" Mike refers to, but I assume it puts this budget estimate into a different perspective than you are implying.

In my opinion, the best place for these conversations to get to the heart of CBM's contribution is through the actual holes produced. David has identified a handful of template, or template like holes. Nobody is denying that CBM was involved in some capacity. Determining just how much those holes (and any other ideas) were from his hand should be the focus for those of you who know the template model. We know CBM didn't route the golf course and to say he approved of a routing means he routed it would be a stretch to just about anyone paying attention so the words of the committee on the reason for going to NGLA should be heeded...to learn the principles of building golf holes!

Once that's determined however, we'll have to look into who Wilson thought his Apls would 'need alot of work' and why the double-plateau oriented like a Biaritz was later called a mess by Francis and the Road Hole green was pretty soon altered to reduce it's implication...but that can take up the next decade...

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2206 on: May 31, 2011, 01:30:51 PM »
Jim,

Quote
In my opinion, the best place for these conversations to get to the heart of CBM's contribution is through the actual holes produced. David has identified a handful of template, or template like holes. Nobody is denying that CBM was involved in some capacity. Determining just how much those holes (and any other ideas) were from his hand should be the focus for those of you who know the template model. We know CBM didn't route the golf course and to say he approved of a routing means he routed it would be a stretch to just about anyone paying attention so the words of the committee on the reason for going to NGLA should be heeded...to learn the principles of building golf holes!

Once that's determined however, we'll have to look into who Wilson thought his Apls would 'need alot of work' and why the double-plateau oriented like a Biaritz was later called a mess by Francis and the Road Hole green was pretty soon altered to reduce it's implication...but that can take up the next decade...

Hopefully, Mike or David will produce the source document about the "budget" and put this little tidbit to rest one way or the other.  I'm surprised that Pat is on about information being suppressed.  Surely he remembers that Tom P wouldn't share the publicly accessible deeds to the Merion land transactions.

Re your quote above, I agree that it would be interesting to focus in on the templates, although I would think that even a dissection of the supposed ones on Merion East will only lead to more rancorous argument, and would not prove that CBM "designed" the specific holes within the routing.  No doubt he "educated the Committee" (whoever they were) on the concepts of template holes and their principles, but that does not mean that he actually designed those specific holes into the Merion routing or on the specific ground at Merion.  The Committee may have taken their education to heart and designed the concepts into their holes and routing.  None of this said to diminish CBM's role.

I was wondering why you say definitively that "We know that CBM didn't route the golf course".  I thought  that David, Tom M and Patrick think that he did to some degree. 

As to why the template holes needed work after being built, it seems to me it could possibly be because the inexpert construction committee didn't exactly get the concepts, as taught by CBM right, when they laid them out on the ground.  Arguably this doesn't mean that CBM designed those specific holes, and it was just a less than ideal construction job.  You think we could limit this to a decade, eh .....................  ;D


Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2207 on: May 31, 2011, 01:42:32 PM »
David,

Yes, please show us Whigham's "smoking gun" budget.

If you would. Please include the itemized version. 

You may just want to include the whole section, including the Sam Heebner portion.

Im sure it will be enlightening.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2208 on: May 31, 2011, 02:10:23 PM »

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

Bunkers are a micro feature ? I suggest you visit the 4th hole at Woking.

With regards to how the course changed over time, I note what you say. I also note you haven't played the course either but seem fairly sure of its evolution. I won't even pretend I know any detail about the evolution of the course but I do recall the praise Flynn was getting for changes he did and some of the wonderful old photographs with their crude  features which David has produced in the past. I also note Mike Cirba's post on how the course has evolved and how it was rated back then. So respectfully, maybe you want to rethink that one.

I have to tell you Patrick, that I've got no real interest in Merion or NGLA specifically and frankly I don't recall all the detail that has been produced in these threads. I'm more interested in the general ideas. The general idea that you have that you can compare the gca's of back then to the work guys like TD, Jeff or Robin Hiseman or whoever are doing now is interesting. I would suggeast that the construction/design of the average course back then compared to the average course now would be like night and day. Back then they were only just getting into using heavy equipment but still largely went with the lay of the land. These days building a course is a much bigger engineering project. To suggest that CBM, an amateur in the field of construction, compares to a moden gca just doesn't hold up.

As for your contention that playing courses abroad and reading books doesn't qualify you to design and build a golf course, well, how did CBM get started ? As you're fond of saying, you can't have it both ways.

Niall

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2209 on: May 31, 2011, 02:27:38 PM »


In his reply #2205 Mike indicates it was hardly a budget provided by Wigham, rather it was a rough guess at the total dollar amount to complete the task. A budget should have the items broken out, no?

Jim, to whom did HJW provide this information ?
To the committee ?
To Wilson ?
And, when did he provide it ?

In 1910 would we expect that a budget be broken out on a line item basis on an excel spreadsheet ?

I'd like to see a copy of the breakdown.


I don't have the "whole segment" Mike refers to, but I assume it puts this budget estimate into a different perspective than you are implying.


Again, you'd have to see the document or documents and how they were communicated to the interested parties before drawing a final conclusion.


In my opinion, the best place for these conversations to get to the heart of CBM's contribution is through the actual holes produced. David has identified a handful of template, or template like holes. Nobody is denying that CBM was involved in some capacity. Determining just how much those holes (and any other ideas) were from his hand should be the focus for those of you who know the template model.


Jim, even contemporaneously, it's difficult to quantify attribution on individual hole designs.
Just look at Hidden Creek and Sebonack
But, with the incorporation of template holes, in either faithful or hybrid iterations, one can't deny CBM's influence.
Whether that influence was direct, in terms of hole design, or indirect, in terms of hole design, remains a mystery.
But, If I was designing and building a golf course and my architectural expert had previously studied and replicated specific holes (templates) I'd certainly defer to his concepts and designs in formulating the individual replica holes.  Hence, I'd be more prone to heighten his involvement in the routing and individual hole design process.  Especially when the Chairman of the committee defines the committee as "novices" in the world of GCA.  


We know CBM didn't route the golf course and to say he approved of a routing means he routed it would be a stretch to just about anyone paying attention so the words of the committee on the reason for going to NGLA should be heeded...to learn the principles of building golf holes!

Do you really think that that task can be accomplished with just an overnight vist ?
Do you really think that you could, starting from scratch, learn the principles of routing and building golf holes in an overnight visit ?

I can't state who routed the golf course
I can't state who designed each of the 18 holes.
But, with the incorporation of templates you can't discount or dismiss CBM's influence.
The question remains, what's the extent of that influence ?
And by that, I mean, "specific influence" not "general influence"


Once that's determined however, we'll have to look into who Wilson thought his Apls would 'need alot of work' and why the double-plateau oriented like a Biaritz was later called a mess by Francis and the Road Hole green was pretty soon altered to reduce it's implication...but that can take up the next decade...

Jim, did you ever consider that the reason for those less than spectacular holes might be rooted in the "committee" system of design ?
That a concept was presented, vis a vis drawings, maps and on site examination, but, upon construction, internal compromises were agreed to which might have transitioned a pure template to a hybrid template to a mongrelized template ?  

Don't forget that the committee was composed of five guys who were well intended, but, had the collective knowledge of the average member.

So, why would you expect a perfect product, especially on that terrain, from that committee ?
Even after Wilson's return from the UK, assuming that he had visited Prestwick, his alterations to the 10th hole (alps) was less than creative, functional or artistic in terms of the basic concept.

While CBM went on to design other courses with his templates, this wasn't his course, he wasn't the sole party responsible, and as such, he might have encouraged hybrid or mongrelized designs rather than his purebreds


Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2210 on: May 31, 2011, 03:51:50 PM »
Niall,

Patrick's contention that the routing of Merion has changed "very little" since inception simply shows you exactly how LARGE the gap is between how his actual knowledge of golf course history versus the way he presents himself here.

Seven of the holes have been significantly re-routed, most in whole.

Several other holes had their greens completely rebuilt and reconfigured.

The bunkering patterns of Merion, the "White Faces" of Merion, are generally acknowledged to largely create the strategy and challenge, and were virtually all added AFTER the course first opened.   In fact, most didn't come until over three years later, in 1915/16 for the first US Amateur and were added and refined for at least the next 15-20 years by Wilson and Flynn.

To say otherwise betrays both an agenda as well as a complete misunderstanding of the course evolution in totality.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 03:53:31 PM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2211 on: May 31, 2011, 03:55:26 PM »
What course(s) of renown did CBM design/build prior to the opening of NGLA in 1910 and when?

Should I post the routing of the original Chicago GC?

I keep hearing that Merion had the best architect in the world at their disposal in 1910 but he was extremely busy trying to get NGLA opened....so what exact courses did he build that reputation on?

There is no question that he made a great study and put in an enormous effort to route, design, and build NGLA, as well as to get grass to grow, but what other golf course design and creation efforts can we point to that would have illustrated his genius as of June 1910?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 04:01:34 PM by MCirba »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2212 on: May 31, 2011, 04:12:30 PM »

Bunkers are a micro feature ? I suggest you visit the 4th hole at Woking.

Yes, they are.
What's applicable at the 4th hole at Woking isn't necessarily applicable to Merion.


With regards to how the course changed over time, I note what you say. I also note you haven't played the course either but seem fairly sure of its evolution.

Where did you get the notion that I never played Merion ?
I've played Merion dozens of times over a long period of time.


I won't even pretend I know any detail about the evolution of the course but I do recall the praise Flynn was getting for changes he did and some of the wonderful old photographs with their crude  features which David has produced in the past. I also note Mike Cirba's post on how the course has evolved and how it was rated back then. So respectfully, maybe you want to rethink that one.

Tom Doak was praised for the changes he made to Atlantic City Golf Club, but that doesn't mean the golf course was inferior or mediocre to begin with.  ACCC was a terrific course prior to Tom Doak's involvement.  Just because an architect or an architect's work is praised, doesn't automatically mean that the prior course was inferior in quality.


I have to tell you Patrick, that I've got no real interest in Merion or NGLA specifically and frankly I don't recall all the detail that has been produced in these threads. I'm more interested in the general ideas. The general idea that you have that you can compare the gca's of back then to the work guys like TD, Jeff or Robin Hiseman or whoever are doing now is interesting.

I would suggeast that the construction/design of the average course back then compared to the average course now would be like night and day. Back then they were only just getting into using heavy equipment but still largely went with the lay of the land. These days building a course is a much bigger engineering project. To suggest that CBM, an amateur in the field of construction, compares to a moden gca just doesn't hold up.

Niall, CBM studied courses in the UK an the U.S. for 38 years prior to setting foot on Merion.
His involvement with golf is legendary.
But, since you want to diminish his expertise and accomplishments, tell me, over the last 100 years how have his design principles and the courses he designed, routed and built held up ?

A century later NGLA is still a top 10 golf course.
How do you reconcile your position that CBM, and amateur, compares to the modern GCA ?
How does CBM's body of work compare to modern day architects ?
Will their courses remain in the top echelon of golf courses a century from now ?


As for your contention that playing courses abroad and reading books doesn't qualify you to design and build a golf course, well, how did CBM get started ? As you're fond of saying, you can't have it both ways.

Sure I can.
What you conveniently forget is that CBM spent 38 years playing and studying before setting foot on Merion, NOT a day, or a week or two weeks, but 38 years.  Tell me you understand the distincition between a fleeting glimpse at architecture and the life long study of architecture.



Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2213 on: May 31, 2011, 04:35:05 PM »

What course(s) of renown did CBM design/build prior to the opening of NGLA in 1910 and when?

Mike, that's a disingenuous question.
The question has nothing to do with the opening of NGLA, it has everything to do with the opening of Merion.
CBM had conceptualized, designed and built NGLA.
In addition, CBM and others were playing NGLA in 1909.

The proof is in the pudding.  CBM designed a masterpiece, a course for the ages.  And, he did it after 38 years of study.
His work at NGLA remains critically acclaimed a century later, with the golf course ranked in the top 10.

That you continue to try to devalue his work at NGLA and elsewhere is comical.


Should I post the routing of the original Chicago GC?

I keep hearing that Merion had the best architect in the world at their disposal in 1910 but he was extremely busy trying to get NGLA opened....so what exact courses did he build that reputation on?

His 38 years of study, his position with the USGA, his status as a golfer, and the courses he designed and build previous to the building of Merion.


There is no question that he made a great study and put in an enormous effort to route, design, and build NGLA, as well as to get grass to grow, but what other golf course design and creation efforts can we point to that would have illustrated his genius as of June 1910?


Mike, didn't CBM design the first 18 hole golf course in the U.S. ? Chicago

Would that feat seperate him from others ?

In addition, CBM was a member of Shinneock, GCGC, Chicago and perhaps other courses.

He was enormously prominent, as a golfer, an administrator and as an architect.

Only you and the other Merionettes would attempt to diminish his accomplishments and stature in the golf world circa 1910.

If he was so insignificant as you absurdly suggest, why did Merion invite him it to help them ?
Why did Merion recruit him to guide their group of five novices who admittedly knew little more than the average member ?


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2214 on: May 31, 2011, 04:43:39 PM »
Bryan,

I say, definitively, that CBM did not route Merion because of the Francis contribution. What's ironic, is that his contribution is greatly reduced, IMO, by Mike and Tom's interpretation of the Swap. 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. More likely, in my opinion, is that the committee did alot of trying and reconfiguring and would occassionally bounce ideas or problems off CBM/HJW.


Pat,

Regarding the budget, let's agree that seeing it will help the conversation of its importance tremendously. I believe it was a reference from CBM, was it in the June 29, 1910 letter? I don't have that copy handy but will look.

On a different track, have you closely read the letter CBM wrote HG Lloyd on June 29, 1910 after visiting the site that MCC would purchase? Someone here has it, and I would be curious to hear your thoughts about it...specifically if you think the tone is one of a team member or of a friendly advisor.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2215 on: May 31, 2011, 05:04:20 PM »
Niall,

Patrick's contention that the routing of Merion has changed "very little" since inception simply shows you exactly how LARGE the gap is between how his actual knowledge of golf course history versus the way he presents himself here.

Mike, in your fervor to diminish CBM's contribution you've completely misread the exchange between Niall and myself.
You've ignored Niall's question about permanency and taken my response out of context.
Why don't you go back and reread Niall's question and my response.

Niall wasn't referencing changes from inception to current date, he was referencing changes shorly after the course was constructed and opened for play.

When he asked if the plan/routing was permanent, I responded by stating that the Board approved it, and that's an indication that it was intended at the permanent routing.

I'll chalk your error on this one up to your seriously flawed reading skills, absent any motive.


Seven of the holes have been significantly re-routed, most in whole.
Several other holes had their greens completely rebuilt and reconfigured.

So that Niall can understand how off base you are, why don't you cite the dates of those changes for him.
They didn't happen shortly after the course opened.


The bunkering patterns of Merion, the "White Faces" of Merion, are generally acknowledged to largely create the strategy and challenge, and were virtually all added AFTER the course first opened.   


The "White Faces" refers to the style of bunker, not their strategic relevance.
The "pattern" has nothing to do with the "style"


In fact, most didn't come until over three years later, in 1915/16 for the first US Amateur and were added and refined for at least the next 15-20 years by Wilson and Flynn.

Mike still doesn't get it.
Niall asked how permanent the plan was, the routing and individual holes, he didn't ask about the style of bunker or their locations.
His concern was permanency in the "PLAN"
If it was a temporary plan, the Board would have approved it as such, but, they didn't.
Tell me that you and the other Merionettes understand the difference


To say otherwise betrays both an agenda as well as a complete misunderstanding of the course evolution in totality.

The only misunderstanding is yours.

Please go back and reread Niall's question and my response and try to get some grasp of the context before answering.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2216 on: May 31, 2011, 05:23:22 PM »
Bryan,

I say, definitively, that CBM did not route Merion because of the Francis contribution. What's ironic, is that his contribution is greatly reduced, IMO, by Mike and Tom's interpretation of the Swap.

Jim, I agree.
I've maintained from the begining that Francis may be the key to the puzzle.
I'm keenly aware of his self depricating report/letterl
Yet, he was a surveyor/engineer, a critical player.
I can't imagine that he and Raynor didn't communicate on a frequent basis.


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. More likely, in my opinion, is that the committee did alot of trying and reconfiguring and would occassionally bounce ideas or problems off CBM/HJW.

While others disparaged my use of words, I theorized that this was a collaborative effort, a joint venture of sorts.


Pat

Regarding the budget, let's agree that seeing it will help the conversation of its importance tremendously. I believe it was a reference from CBM, was it in the June 29, 1910 letter? I don't have that copy handy but will look.

OK,

Again, what bothers me is that neither Wayne, TEPaul or Mike presented this information when they had the opportunity.
This isn't/wasn't classified information and they weren't under a gag order from MCC not to mention that HJW had assisted with a budget, but yet, they never revealed the information.

In fact, I can't recall them revealing any information that would enhance CBM's role in the creation of Merion.

David has always hinted that perhaps information is being revealed selectively.

When you find a copy, I'd be interested in seeing how detailed it is and if it was addressed to a specific party and if it is dated.


On a different track, have you closely read the letter CBM wrote HG Lloyd on June 29, 1910 after visiting the site that MCC would purchase? Someone here has it, and I would be curious to hear your thoughts about it...specifically if you think the tone is one of a team member or of a friendly advisor.

I believe I did some time ago.
But, if I did, I've forgotten the specific content and couldn't quote it for you.
If you could reproduce it that would help.

After NGLA, with CBM's playing record (National Amateur Champion amongst others), his involvement with the formation and ongoing interests with the USGA, his reputation as a student if not a professor of architecture with 38 years of study under his belt and his being in demand to design other courses, I think you can appreciate the reverance in which he as held.

As to his tone, he was a deity of sorts, and he was comfortable and accepted in the highest circles.

I don't know if the tone of the letter would be that revealing.

Have you ever attended a meeting with your golf course's superintendent and the USGA's consulting agronomist  ?
Have you read the subsequent reports summarizing that meeting ?
The tone of those letters is sometimes a product of the chemistry of the meeting.
If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, IM or email me and I'll explain.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2217 on: May 31, 2011, 06:06:42 PM »
Pat,

As you recall, in the weeks and months following David's initial release of his essay there was a ton of activity and easity a couple dozen thread related to it. In that timeframe Wayne escalated his research efforts both at Merion Golf Club AND Merion Cricket Club. He initially posted what he found on here. This includes the April Board minutes which also credit CBM/HJW with assistance (the degree of which is obviously still in debate...) and I beieve a couple other pieces of information. It was the debate about the meaning of these assets that prompted Wayne to stop posting anything proprietary, in part because they were assets of a club he does not belong to (MCC).

I had heard of this budget mention before today and this is the only lunatic asylum I participate in so it was on here at some point.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2218 on: May 31, 2011, 06:07:49 PM »
Mike,

Can you post the June 29 CBM to Lloyd letter? I would appreciate it.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2219 on: May 31, 2011, 06:19:40 PM »
Pat,

As you recall, in the weeks and months following David's initial release of his essay there was a ton of activity and easity a couple dozen thread related to it.

Jim, I have a number of things going on in my life, a family, business, hobbies, golf, etc.,etc..   If you think I recall any of the information posted early on, or even a few days ago, you're laboring under a false impression.  Like many, I have to go back and review the replies in order to get current.


In that timeframe Wayne escalated his research efforts both at Merion Golf Club AND Merion Cricket Club.

I do recall that as a result of David's opinion piece Wayne escalated his research efforts.


He initially posted what he found on here. This includes the April Board minutes which also credit CBM/HJW with assistance (the degree of which is obviously still in debate...) and I beieve a couple other pieces of information.

Was HJW's contribution with the budget included ?
David's post indicated that he learned of that through reading Wayne and TEPaul's Flynn book/DVD, which led me to believe that Wayne didn't post that in one of the exchanges.  So, did David learn of it in the DVD or did he overlook Wayne posting it in a reply ?


It was the debate about the meaning of these assets that prompted Wayne to stop posting anything proprietary, in part because they were assets of a club he does not belong to (MCC).

I understand that, but that wouldn't preclude Wayne from mentioning that HJW had assisted with budgeting for the golf course.


I had heard of this budget mention before today and this is the only lunatic asylum I participate in so it was on here at some point.
I don't recall it, but perhaps you're correct.
Let's try to see if it was disclosed.
Certainly, ANY assistance that CBM or HJW would provide, should be listed.
You may recall that there were many attempts to limit their involvement to two trips to Ardmore and one committee trip to Southampton.
The revelation of the production of a budget would seem to increase their level of involvement beyond two or three commutes.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2220 on: May 31, 2011, 10:49:34 PM »
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. 

Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2221 on: June 01, 2011, 06:08:55 AM »
David,

The longer your answer to any direct question the more we know you're bullshitting everyone!

Where's the Whigham budget??

Why wouldn't you transpose what Lesley's wrote here and answer Patrick's frothing questions??   Why don't you trust everyone here to read it with their own eyes??   Is it because only YOU, in the past 100 years, has been able to interpret all of this correctly as you've now repeatedly claimed??


As regards the Road Hole, the 1915 William Evans article I posted said the green was extended and the bunker enlarged in 1915.   It was the third green at the time, not the sixth.   We really don't know when it became a road hole, do we?   Here's the article again;






And in that same vein, you mentioned the Brooklyn Eagle 1915 article that mentioned a green at Merion being like "Sleepy Hollow".     Why did you neglect to mention that other holes in the article were compared to holes at Baltusrol, Wykagyl, Garden City, and Fox Hills, courses around the NY metropolitan area the writer was obviously trying to give his readers a flavor for, all of which had absolutely NO INPUT from CBM?    Why wouldn't you mention that??  

Patrick,

You have been ranting like this for weeks and you don't even know what CBM wrote to the Committee after his June 1910 visit to Ardrmore??!?!?!?!?!?   ::)

Recall that he wasn't back there for 10 months, when his second and FINAL visit took place on April 7th, 1911?

And you don't know what he wrote, even though it's been posted here at least TWENTY times?!?!?   :o

You guy are hysterical...I mean that VERY literally.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 10:02:49 AM by MCirba »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2222 on: June 01, 2011, 07:04:26 AM »
Mike,

Between the replies on this thread and the 50 lengthy emails I've received from TEPaul and Wayne in the last few days it's hard to keep track of everything.

Since when does not committing various documents to memory indicate that one's position is flawed ?

You're getting more desperate with each non-relevant post, and you've once again put forth the absurd notion that Merion and CBM didn't have any contact, phone or otherwise,  in those intervening 10 months.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2223 on: June 01, 2011, 08:12:52 AM »
Mike,

Since I posted reply # 2232 at 7:04 am today, I've already received an email from Wayne by 7:46 am.

You can confirm that since you were copied on that email, as was TEPaul

For a guy who claims that he's abandoned GCA.com he sure stays tuned in and ready to dispense emails at the slightest comment he disagrees with.

He even missed a critical word in my post to DM, namely the word "IF"

Speaking of "IF", if  Wayne and/or TEPaul want to discuss golf course architecture, I'd be happy to do so ON GCA.com.

I told them that I would no longer engage in  emails, and to stop sending me emails, time and time again, but evidently they don't understand plain English.  Now if they don't understand plain English, are we to trust them with reading and interpreting the Merion and MCC documents ? ;D

I'd like nothing more than to see TEPaul and return to this site, but if they won't do that, would they please stop sending me emails about:
Merion
Moriarty
MacWood
Escaping from HappyDale Farms

Thanks for your consideration and please don't forget to tip your waitress

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2224 on: June 01, 2011, 08:49:45 AM »
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?


Mike
On April 14, 1912 the Philadelphia Inquirer reported: "Many of the holes at Merion are patterned after the famous holes abroad and the rolling country has contributed largely towards making the course excellent." That was a month before Wilson returned from his trip to Europe.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back