[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Near the end, you make my point.  There is a lack of record from Wilson, for reasons unknown.  However, there is a lack of records whether he was in charge of only construction, or was also heavily involved in the design, no?  

The record states that he was in charge of construction
It seems strange that you'd appoint someone to be in charge of construction if his duties extended to site location, routing and design.
If however, the site was selected, and the routing and design delegated to others, then appointing HW in charge of construction makes all the sense in the world  

And, after all, there is a report saying the committee did many plans, and rearranged them to five plans.  The lack of documentation seems to
start later, and the only things we have are Oakley's copies of Hugh's letters.

The vague nature of the references to the committee and the  lack of detail regarding the crafting of any of the plans is troublesome.  
One would think that each step would have been carefully documented at the committee and Board level.

Is it reasonable to conclude that the absence of documentation is an indication that aspects of the project were sub-contracted out to outside
sources ?

Yet, Findlay's contemporaneous account seems to be ignored or deeply discounted by some    

Even if the only record points, in your mind, to some other committee being involved in the design and routing of the golf course while at NGLA
(which I doubt, but whatever) I ask how that would affect the conclusion that Hugh Wilson was "in the main" responsible for both golf courses?  


It's akin to the difference between a contractor and a construction manager.
Put another way, let's look at a modern day example.

Arthur Goldberg, Chairman of Bally's/Hilton wanted to create a golf course to attract gamblers.
The project got underway and a glitch occurred resulting in the discharge of the architect, putting the project in jeopardy.
Arthur Goldberg then put The Head Professional in charge, told him to complete the project with one warning, that he better not screw things up.
  So, Billy Ziobro was the project chair.  So what did he do ?  He went out and hired a professional architect, one of the recognized experts at
that. Point in time.   The professional architect rerouted and redesigned the golf course.  Contractors were retained for the earth work, grassing,
irrigation, etc., etc.. Billy was in charge, in a role comparable to a chairman, but the actual work was delegated to experts in their respective
fields.  Billy was responsible for the project, and offered ideas, but it was the outside professionals who routed and designed the holes and
features.  Why wouldn't Wilson's role be similar ?  And, upon completion, wouldn't you give him all the credit as project chairman ?

Whatever committee it was, the minutes that are there say they drew many plans, and they revised the plans.  And we know Wilson was at that
NGLA meeting, no matter what committee he was participating on, because he told Oakely so in a letter four days later.
 .

Jeff, again you have to ask:  in what capacity ?  As the committee chair ?
Or as the person actually creating and crafting the routing and individual hole designs ?  

I doubt, give the time frames that Wilson was skilled and knowledgeable enough to start designing individual holes and figuring out how to fit
them into a routing plan, especially when some of those holes were templates.

I think a more reasoned account is that Wilson was the equivalent of the construction manager and not the party routing the course and
designing the individual holes and features

I think he orchestrated the creation of Merion, much like Billy Ziobro did, as project managers, NOT practicing architects

The only reasonable area of debate is what really happened at NGLA and what "approved" means.  Some on the "Merion side" parse the words
to say they ONLY looked at NGLA's holes.  Others say they have to  have talked about Merion's routing, and/or CBM had to prepare it.  I am sort
 of in the middle.

I'm of the opinion that Wilson was acting as the Chairman of the committee and "MANAGING the project,  and that CBM was doing the routing
and hole designs

I don't think your characteriszation of me having an agenda is fair, but if you want to see an agenda driven person, hold up a mirror!  Again, while
MCC should ideally have records of each comittee in detail, I would suspect that they would also have records of EVERY contact with CBM (and
 actually, I think they do).

Jeff, I say that because I sensed an unwillingness to take a step back and view the issues from a practical and real world perspective.

As to the contacts with CBM, I disagree.  Why would they have direct contact with CBM if that was the Chairman's job ?

Let's go back to Billy Ziobro and Arthur Goldberg.
Vendors, contractors, sub-contractors, consultants, etc, etc., didn't report to Arthur Golberg, much the same as CBM wouldn't report to the President and/or Board.   When I was in charge of a similar project, NO ONE reported to the President and/or Board, they all reported to me.  I in
turn reported to the Board

Not sure we can draw a conclusion based on what records seem to have survived, just because we don't know why we don't have them.  


So, do you rely solely on Findlay's contemporaneous account until those records show up ?

You  can't rule out the practical application of how projects are structured, implemented, conducted, financed and reported.
You have to look at practical application in the real world, and as such it's my belief that Wilson was the project chairman whose recorded responsibility was to construct the golf course.
I also think, as chairman, that he oversaw the routing and design phase at the hands of CBM

The journey to find the facts doesn't take one path and when documents don't exist that conclusively prove a premise to the exclusion of all
others, you have to consider other, very real possibilities      

(You may be right that some say the record is in tact, but I don't recall it that way - I thought I had read somewhere there was some damage
while in an old attic, but I just don't recall clearly)

I don't recall either

But, give some thought to how you see projects managed in the real world and then consider my thoughts on how a project of this magnitude would be planned and managed when the responsibility at the club level was delegated to rank amateurs with little or no prior experience

Then think......... What did Billy Ziobro do ?  What would any prudent novice do ?
They'd go out and hire on of the best in the field and that's what I think Merion did

Sleep well.


You too
Tomorrow I have a major fund raising event for cancer research.
Our funding has allowed Dr Larry Norton and his team of researchers to craft the "Self-Seeding" theory, which may be a major break through in how cancer spreads, and as such, how it may be countered

[DMoriarty]

The hypocrisy here is palpable.  

    Merion's own internal records put CBM and HJW squarely in the thick of the planning, from helping choose the land, to advising Merion how they should lay out their course, to choosing and approving the final layout plan.   Yet we are told this is not enough to establish them as having planned the course with representatives of Merion.
   Merion's own internal records never even mention the so-called Construction Committee, and never mention Hugh Wilson's role during the initial planning process.   Yet we are told this is more than enough to establish that the Construction Committee and Hugh Wilson not only planned the course, they were "100%" responsible for planning the course.
  
In CBM's and HJW's case, we are told that had he planned the course there would surely be even more details of it in the Minutes. In Wilson's and the Committee's case we are told that it is unreasonable to expect such things to even have made it to the Minutes.  

You guys cannot play by different rules than you impose on others.   You don't begin to make a case for the Committee, and you barely begin to make a case that Wilson was even involved in the planning.

Just look at the level of proof you require of CBM's and HJW's involvement in comparison to the level of proof you accept for Wilson and the Committee.   It is a joke.

[Tom MacWood]

This argument only keeps going because David and TMac simply say there is no mention of Merion routing and designing its own course, with CBM as an advisor.  Hard to argue when you point something out, and they ignore it completely to further their agenda.

The argument continues because the story that the committee, led by Wilson, were chosen to design what was to be a course second to none makes no sense. And the evidence you present you claim proves it is extremely weak, and the best evidence, in particular Wilson's letters and his own account, tell a much different story. At some point you must interject logic into this exercise.

IMO Alan Wilson got the chronology of events exactly right, Hugh Wilson began to exert his design influence after he returned from Europe.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Good to see you are spending the day doing something more important.  Godspeed, and you have inspired me to do the same.

David,

I have admitted that the record is inconsistent.  I presume it usually is.  So, you can have your interpretations. 

TMac,

I really disagree with your repeated hypotheisis that we need to inject logic rather than just interpret what they said happened.  As I mentioned earlier, I get the impression that someone edited Alan Wilson's letter, inserting the fact that it "made more sense" that Hugh went to GBI first, and thus, some historical non facts got perpetuated. I feel like your contentions risk doing the same.  As Pat said recently, you just really don't know and can't try to figure out what a board was doing. 

At least, I know that no one has died and made either one of us King, so that the minions have to act the way we think they ought to act!  They did what they did, not what you think they ought to have done.

[Mike Cirba]

3Ms

The fact is, it is very well recorded precisely what CBM and Whigham did for Merion, and in truth, it wasn't much.

You can continue to try to turn a molehill into a mountain, but the vast majority of onlookers here see you agendas clearly and aren't buying it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Repeating hollow words doesn't work with anyone, and certainly not this forum

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Good morning.

Hey, isn't it time all of us involved in this silly, unprovable, unwinnable argument admit we are full of crap? 

Just saying.

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

If you ever find any evidence that CBM did something worthy of our further consideration, we're all ears.

Til then...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

You are a bit too black and white, IMHO, at least as it regards ending this before 100 pages!

It is a possibly worthy discussion as to whether CBM's  contribution to Merion was greater by impact than by time spent.  It may not have been initiated and continued by reasonable people.......

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I agree, I think we need at least another 100 pages to hash thru Barker doing a prelim rough sketch routing for Connell, CBM sending a form letter, Wilson's committee spending overnite at NGLA and CBM's one-day April visit helping the Committee select the best of their five plans, never to be heard from or seen at Merion again.

With all of that evidence, I simply can't decide whether Barker or CBM should get the design attribution.

[Jeff_Brauer]

What was CBM’s contribution to Merion?  Here is my take, including admitted speculation to what I believe is reasonable degree.

June 1910 Meeting

Most Certain
•   Moved them from 100 Acres to 120 acres required.
•   Showed them controlling land around proposed clubhouse was necessary (RR land)
•   Discussed Importance of Grass and Agronomy, started them towards getting info from other committees (like Baltusrol) and soil tests

Less certain, but probable to possible
•   Showed them Dallas Estate was required
•   Wrote letter to “cover” their desire to buy Dallas Estate by recommending shorter course
•   Set overall length of course at 6250 or so (despite letter recommending 6000)

March 1911 NGLA TripMost Certain
•   Showed them his plans from GBI
•   Showed them NGLA on the ground
•   Discussed Grass and Agronomy and recommended Piper and Oakley (again)
•   Suggested his favorite template holes for use in a general way

Less certain, but probable
•   Reviewed “many routings” previously prepared, probably instructing them to start over

Less certain, but possible
•   Put pencil to paper to get them started on their next five routings done after the trip.
•   If routed to any degree at this time, then on at least a few holes, suggested his favorite template holes for use in a specific way

April Merion Trip

Most Certain
•   Looked Over ground, suggested/selected/agreed/approved final routing developed by Merion Committee (or committees, if you prefer)

Less certain, but probable to possible
•   On final routing, on at least a few holes, suggested his favorite template holes for use in a specific way on specific holes. (3, 10, etc.)

Less certain, but possible
•   Looked Over ground, selected his own final routing developed without record by Merion

Based on what is written in the Merion records, I think the above is accurate, but as noted, perhaps CBM’s impact is greater by results than time spent.

No doubt that having 120 acres vs. 100 they had originally contemplated (and apparently agreed to by Barker assuming his routing was on 100 acres) was a huge step in the right direction, as was all his advice in the June 2010 meeting, since they really knew little about course design and at that time – site selection.

I believe that he had to have been presented and looked at their initial routing efforts when they went to NGLA and showed them they were inadequate, and gave general advice that they used in their next 5 routings.  Whether he put any pencil to paper to show them in even a more direct way, we may never know.


While there for the day, they probably discussed where the various hole concepts, Alps, Redan, etc. should go.  That only four got put in initially, and that some of those got remodeled very soon, says that CBM suggested, maybe all 18, but after he left, they felt free to follow their own path, make their own decisions.  This alone explains why they don’t really look like CBM/Raynor greens from the same era., even if a few were calledcx by the same name for a design concept.

I will say I believe Hugh was interested in design before taking the committee position, and had natural talent.  Just as some shoot 70 first time out because of inherent talent, there is no reason to doubt he had both talent and interest in design, given he got better the next time out, but was pretty darn good overall.  It didn’t magically appear on the West course – his talent just got more refined, as would happen with any designer.

When he came back, I don’t think we know how settled Merion was on their final routing.  Francis obviously recalled the swap as being definitive (both for the first 13 holes and the last five) so CBM could have been anything from a rubber stamp, to a tweak, to a wholesale combination of several plans they had already prepared.

I do not think anything in the record shows there was EVER a formal routing plan by CBM, nor do I think he actually ever prepared one.  I especially do not thing he did anything prior to Nov 1910, beause there is no record of it, and it would have bee very rude of Merion to ask an important and busy guy to route a course when they din't have the land tied up, and hadn't figured out a funding mechanism. It would have been a collossal wate of CBM's time.  Not to mention there wasn't much time between tying up the Dalllas estate and presenting to the membership.

So, what does all that mean?  I think David was basically wrong, wrong, wrong, but others are free to hold on to their opinions.  He showed his bias by naming his essay "Missing faces of Merion" and wrote it despite NOT knowing that they had properly credited him at the time.  The rest is all face saving rubbish, but again, he is entitled to his opinion.

Okay, thats a lunch hour I won't get back!

[DMoriarty]

David,

I have admitted that the record is inconsistent.  I presume it usually is.  So, you can have your interpretations. 

The record is inconsistent?   What does that mean?  And whatever it means, why don't you apply it equally both ways?

Merion's record is NOT inconsistent in a few important areas.  The record consistently discussed CBM and HJW as having played key roles in planning the course, from choosing the land, from suggesting the hole distances, from telling Merion how to lay out the course on Merion's land, from again going over the land and deciding upon and approving the final routing. 

Merion's record is also is consistent in that it consistently neglects to include the "construction committee" in any of the planning process, and it consistently neglects to mention Hugh Wilson's involvement in the early planning.

The only thing INCONSISTENT is the way you, the Fakers, and their Merionette apply the facts.  You require absolute proof beyond any doubt (even if unreasonable) from me, yet you take your own affirmative theory mostly on faith.   And you continue to hold up mere possibilities and wishful thinking, as if mere possibilities and wishful thinking trumps what is most likely to have happened.   
____________________________________________

As for your breakdown of CBM/HJW's role, above, I disagree with many things on your breakdown, and think you leave a lot off, but I nonetheless appreciate the honest effort you made to break down their role at the various stages of the process.  But we've beat this to death already and it is time to move on.

To be consistent, why don't you do the same thing with the Construction Committee and With Hugh Wilson?  Only list the specific facts on which you base your conclusions.

We've beat my claims to death.  I am interested in your affirmative claims, and application of the same degree of rigor and skepticism to your claims as you applied to mine.

Thanks.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

I really disagree with your repeated hypotheisis that we need to inject logic rather than just interpret what they said happened.  As I mentioned earlier, I get the impression that someone edited Alan Wilson's letter, inserting the fact that it "made more sense" that Hugh went to GBI first, and thus, some historical non facts got perpetuated. I feel like your contentions risk doing the same.  As Pat said recently, you just really don't know and can't try to figure out what a board was doing.  

At least, I know that no one has died and made either one of us King, so that the minions have to act the way we think they ought to act!  They did what they did, not what you think they ought to have done.

Jeff
They edited his letter? Who edits another man's letter? That sounds a little far fetched to me. To my knowledge that letter never made the light of day so there would be no reason to edit it....as unlikely as that scenario sounds.

Interpretations are not really worth considering if they are not grounded in basic logic and sound judgment. As an example at one point Mike was convinced Wilson traveled to Europe in 1910 via Argentina. There is tendency when one gets emotionally invested in these legends to suspend normal logical thought.

Speaking of which, when Wilson traveled to the UK in 1912 did he do it on his own or did the club send him? What was the purpose of that trip?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Good morning.

Hey, isn't it time all of us involved in this silly, unprovable, unwinnable argument admit we are full of crap? 

Just saying.

I understand.

You called Mike too "black and white".
Mike's in lockstep with the Merionettes and won't consider other reasoned possibilities,

What's really amazing and funny is that Mike started this thread and now wants to cut it off.

If he no longer wants to participate, that's his perogative, but, he should stop trying to stifle others.

We each have our beliefs, Mike's at one extreme with the Merionettes, David and Tom MacWood at the other.
You're probably in the middle and I'm probably between you and David, but, probably closer to David.

Over and over I've asked myself, why would Findlay write what he did if it wasn't true ?
And, if it wasn't true, where was the immediate refutation from reliable sources ?
To date, none has been presented.
Since Findlay's written statement was contemporaneous, and not years after the fact, it would seem to be the most reliable.

P.S.

We raised over $ 600,000 today for Dr Larry Norton's "self-seeding" project at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, so, it was a great day for everyone.  Hopefully, through research, cancer will be curable, not after the diagnosis, but, prior to diagnosis through preventive measures.  Great strides have already been made, and are continuing to be made, in this area.  Several physician's spoke and provided an update on the status of several of the projects currently under funding.  What's great about this endeavor is that the money raised goes directly to research without being filtered or diluted vis a vis administrative costs.

[Tom MacWood]

Wilson's trip took place in April 1912. The golf course was constructed in the Spring and Summer of 1911, and seeded in the Fall of '11. This is information I've gathered about that trip:

"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out holes, through the kindness of Messrs. CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham. We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through Sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with out natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings."  ~~Hugh Wilson's account in 1916

"The land for the East course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and whole largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this this and the West course."   ~~Alan Wilson's account in 1926

"Dear Sir: Your letter of the 10th instant addressed to Mr. Hugh I Wilson is received. Mr. Wilson is making a hurried trip to Europe and in his absence I am acknowledging your containing the reports."  ~~ A letter from Richard Francis to Oakley from 4/11/1912 (mistakenly dated 1911)

"Mr. Hugh G Wilson is on a visit to this country obtaining an idea of the chief features of some of our great holes. Mr. Charles B Macdonald was on the same mission some years ago and the result of his work is embodied in the National golf Links, at New York."
  ~~Golf Monthly, British golf magazine, from May 1912

"The golfers of the Merion Cricket Club now claim to have the best course in Philadelphia. They formally opened it yesterday...Mr. Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the new course, and helped largely in the planning of the holes."  ~~ Philadelphia Inquirer 9/15/1912

If anyone has anything else to add regarding this trip feel free to add it. Based on what you've read, what was the purpose of Wilson's trip?

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom and David - do you have any examples where a "consultant" like CBM would have helped a club lately - say, in the last 25 years?  I'm trying to relate your thesis to more contemporary times?  Only reason I'm asking is that it may help understanding on both sides of the discussion.

[Tom MacWood]

It was a completely different era...perhaps Desmond Muirhead at Muirfield Village. That may be a good example for a couple of reasons, many believe Muirhead originally routed and designed MV, and over the years Nicklaus has completely overhauled the course and Muirhead's name is rarely brought up in connection with it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

My understanding was that Desmond did the routing and grading and JN consulted at that point of his career. DM was a full fledge gca.  Not too many real comparisons, given there are so few owner designed golf courses.  What was the one in Myrtle Beach where Rees claims to have routed it, but the Owner maintains it was a self design? (Tidewater?)  That might be the best example.

As to our other debate, it can sure go both ways - logic or bias?  You see the bias in the Philly claims, and I see the bias you bring to Merion because of your long held belief in promoting lesser known architects like Barker.  Both are true to a degree, and I am sure that keeping bias out of the thought process is a problem for any sort of history interpretation, and unavoidable givne we are human.

As to a possible edit of Wilson's letter, I was only throwing out a few scenarios as to how the obvious error in the Wilson timeline came about.  Either Wilson wrote it without help and made an obvious mistake, or perhaps something happened after he submitted it.  Logically, those are the only two things that could account for a mistake like that, unless after 14 years, Alan simply compressed the time frame a bit.

Or, as TePaul emailed this morning, we compress the timeframe a bit.  When phrases like "prior to our work" were used, perhaps the fact that they delayed the full opening to 1913 to account for the feature changes Hugh Wilson made in the spring of 1912 after his trip, they simply saw the rough drafts of the holes as just that - rough drafts that were intended to be changed after the Wilson trip, with Pickering instituting the changes later, just as Findlay reported.  It appears to me that this was just THEIR perspective and that the "real" feature design occurred more in 1912 than during initial construction in 1911.

Pat, congratulations for finding a better use for your time than these threads.

David, I agree its time to put this to bed (and not trying to stifle anyone, if they so choose.)  Also, in looking back over my list, I did leave a few things out - the HJW ballpark cost estimate being one.

I won't go over any detailed summation of Wilson's role, believing that the one document we DO have that was written specifically to document the planning process (Lesley report) says the committee drew many plans.  That is backed up by Wilson's Oakley contribution and later remincisenses by Alan Wilson and the Committee and even later by Francis.  That is a string of participants involved in the process that say nearly the same thing, and according to the few sources on historic process I have consulted, contemporaneous beats later, participants trump outsiders (i.e. Findlay, etc.) and we can believe multiple recordings of that type show the truth.

If I seem to require more proof otherwise, its because I think that is our best source, and for every outside report that might be interpreted as something else, there is at least one that can be interpreted to support the insiders version.  Given the primary sources seem consistent enough, is a one to one ratio of distant and/or outsider possible contradictions enought to sway our judgement?  I think it would have to be nearly overwhelming, and not just occaisional and interpretation dependent.

That said, the meeting by meeting list sure shows the postive impact CBM had, starting with the site review in June 1910.  For instance, had they stuck with Barker, who was apparently happy to route something in a day on the original 100 acres, the course would have been even more cramped, and not able to stretch to 6800 yards for the 2013 Open.  So, that meeting alone allows CBM to affect history for just over 100 years, no small feat!

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
The golf course was seeded in the Fall of 1911. Obviously the structure of the holes (greens, tees, and fairways) was in place in 1911 and we know those holes, at least a large percentage of them, were based on famous golf holes prototypical to CBM. Features could be added later no doubt, like hazards and so forth, but the basic structure was in place. Wilson traveled to the UK the following Spring.

What do you believe was the purpose of that trip?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

What is the purpose of your question?  If you don't know the reason, I will repeat TePaul's email to your here, since its as good a summary as I could come up with, and has also been well known for 100 years:

It was to play golf and study golf course architecture for incoporation of features into the Merion golf course(s).

And, if you read my response, you would know that I surmise the intent was always to get something on the ground to satisfy the contract with HDC to produce a golf course ASAP, and for the features to be upgraded while time permits, which I think we all agree to.  However, it simply appears to me that they figured they would seed what they had, and redo it in Spring of 1912 to meet a fall opening schedule.  If they had planned on opening with whatever was grassed in 1911, they would more likely have announced a spring 1912 opening.

BTW, I don't think we know a "large percentage" of holes were based on CBM templates.  We know four for sure, and can surmise a few others.

In other words, whatever the holes looked like for initial grassing in 1911, the plan was always for Hugh Wilson to flesh out the features after his trip to GBI and make that the true initial design for Merion and "finish them" in the spring of 1912, before opening. 

While I have no doubt that they tried to get it right as they could in 1911, it is clear they anticipated redoing many, and had no problem with redoing features right from the get go.  The 1911 versions were considered placeholders until Wilson got back.  IMHO, any feature rebuilt in spring 1912, after rough in, but before scheduled opening in fall 1912 can be considered part of the original feature design.  And, those were Wilson features based on his trip to GBI.

From Merion's perspective, I can see why they credited Hugh with the feature designs, given they always meant to change them based on his experience.

[Tom MacWood]

Wasn't the architecture of the golf course largely in place when he made that trip?

[Jeff_Brauer]

The routing was finalized and in place, of course.  There were obviously greens, tees, and fw, maybe some bunkers.  But, as I noted, it appears to be the plan that they would grass whatever they had in 1911 and make changes in early 1912 after Wilson returned.  So my question is, was there anything they considered permanent in place in 1911?

Its an interesting interpretive scenario.  There are a few Norman courses out there, built, but never opened until someone redid them from scratch.  Does Norman get credit for features never played?  In the case of Merion, we don't know for sure if any of the supposed CBM features ever got played, although I suspect some survived the first redo by Hugh in spring 1912. 

In any event, its clear that Merion felt Wilson was responsible for the features based on the timeline, and rightfully so.  For example, we know that the Redan "benefitted" from his trip, suggesting he made at least tweaks to even that CBM template hole.

And, its easy to see why Merion thought that they had routed their own course from the Lesley report - they prepared many plans, and showed them to CBM for confirmation they were on the right track, as they had done back in June with the site selection.

Your opinion may vary, of course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I mentioned a while ago that some brainpower to assess the CBM perspective might help this discussion.  After my last post, I specifically wonder if he would have given Merion his plans from GBI?  Did he ever give them to any other club to copy?  Would he, given he was simultaneously considering opening his own design practice with Raynor?  There is no known record that I am aware of that he shared his plans and diagrams directly.

Did both CBM and Merion believe they would be better off copying originals from GBI rather than copying copies?  BTW< Tom Doak has stated that this is the way to go, so they may have all been smart enough to realize this, especially since by this time, CBM had figured out you don't just copy, you adapt the principles, as he did at NGLA.

Interesting questions, but nothing in there suggests that CBM went to Merion to actually show them how to put whatever concepts he had on the ground, is there?  And even Findlay's report right after Wilson returned says that they were going to put the finishing touches on the course later that fall, suggesting that if they considered the 1911 version to be final, they sure changed their minds when Wilson got back from his trip.

[Tom MacWood]

Your idea that they threw together a makeshift golf course to satisfy HDC makes no sense. The powers to be at Merion and HDC were one and the same. Besides they began selling lots before the course was ready for play. The plan at Merion was always to create a golf course second to none in America, and money was no issue. There is no evidence to support your theory of the design of the course being more or less half assed in 1911 and that they planned to do it the right way in 1912. Your theory defies logic.

There is no evidence to support your theory that they were approaching the grassing in a half assed manor too. Either the golf course was ready to be grassed or it wasn't, and so they seeded the course in the Fall of 1911 when it was ready. Based on the extensive Piper & Oakley letters there is no evidence anything significant was changed in 1912 - no new greens, fairways or tees. The basic structure of the course was in place in 1911 and permanent.

Wilson and the committee were in charge of constructing the golf course, and of course a trip overseas studying the best classic and modern architecture would benefit the construction of hazards. Not only would it benefit the construction of already planned hazards, it could also inspire putting in new hazards. For example the incorporation of the Mid Surrey mounds on several holes. To my knowledge CBM did not utilize this feature (probably for good reason) so I think it is likely Wilson introduced that feature.

IMO this is all consistent with Hugh Wilson's and Allan Wilson's account, that Wilson began to exert his design influence after the trip, and after the golf course had been routed, planned and the basic structure constructed.

[Bryan Izatt]

David, and Patrick,

Regarding the "many of the others" quote from Findlay, and further thought, I still think that it is unclearly written.  In regard to how many other CBM Alps holes there were at that time, I don't know.  Patrick has claimed that CBM had 38 years of experience at that time, so how many courses, how many holes, had he laid out by then?  How many had a crossing bunker in front of the green and a hill behind?  How many would Findlay think were Alps?  

What was Findlay's background and relationship with CBM and Wilson that he could make the comment.

I agree that your interpretation of the quote is one possible interpretation.  I don't see the efficacy of David's methodology of describing  the interpretation as some variation of "likely".  The interpretation is possible; whether it it is more likely or the most likely doesn't advance our knowledge of the exact genesis of the original routing and design.


David,

The quote does attribute CBM with laying out "many of the others", whichever others they are.  Is it not your contention that laying out means on the ground.  I'm still not sure I understand what distinction you are drawing.  Was it a three stage process: plan on paper, put stakes in the ground, and construction?  What's your interpretation of laying out in this article?


Patrick,

There's a lot of green words from you above about committees and minutes.  Are you suggesting that if the design work was contracted out to CBM that there would be no reporting in the minutes of that, or of progress on the project, because it was contracted out?  I know you keep saying you are troubled by the lack of minutes?  Are you politely suggesting that the minutes exist and that the Merion people are suppressing them?  If not, then, would the most logical explanation for the lack of minutes detailing progress on the project, no matter who was doing it, is that they are simply lost.  I agree that it seems likely (ooops, how did that Davidism creep in there) that Merion would have had progress reports from whomever did the design, laying out and construction and that they would have been minuted in some way.  It seems to me if the progress was reported to the membership that it might have led to some newspaper articles, so maybe it wasn't reported to the membership.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()