[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Please see my new tagline.   Your instincts are sound, and Findlay certainly could be talking about any number of other Alps holes he believes CBM was responsible for as you point out, but I think he's talking about other courses/holes abroad that CBM told him to visit.

Since it seems all the rage these days to use out of context snippets as tag lines, I thought I'd also give it a try.   You know, perhaps there's some truth that all fads start on the west coast.    

All,

Thank God that A.W. Tillinghast was writing so much contemporaneous material during the creation of Merion and Pine Valley or who knows how purposefully mangled some of these guys would have the history of those clubs by now.

Once again, as regards permanence and intent, ALL of the writers ("Far and Sure", "Findlay", "Tilly") documenting Merion's opening said essentially the same thing, yet Tillinghast probably says it best, so let's let him once again correct the glaring misinterpretations and misrepresentations going on here;




Ah, heck...let's hear from "Far and Sure" as well;

[Mike Cirba]

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.

Tom MacWood,

Let's move beyond these blanket, baseless statements of yours and discuss specifics.

Please tell us precisely how the original holes were routed on the ground based on "famous golf holes prototypical to CBM".   What type of natural features were used?   What were their defining characteristics?

This should be easy for you guys as you've been telling us that CBM designed them for years now.

Please explain to us how they did this on original holes;

#1

#2

#4

#5

#7

#8

#9

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

I'd also argue that the third, sixth, and 10th were all "made" later with the addition of bunkering angles and prototypical rote bunker schemes that defined those "template" holes, but let's focus on those holes I've named for now.

You've certainly got plenty to choose from.

Thanks.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I have a number of thoughts on your CBM contributions post, including which are speculative, but one thing I'm not sure about is the question of which "a little more land where you propose making your clubhouse" CBM was referring to.

I think it's probably just as likely that he was talking about the Haverford College land west of the railroad tracks as it is about the railroad land, or perhaps he was talking about both.   Certainly the creek running along there was an attractive feature that CBM referenced and it would have given them more room up along the quarry, which he also referenced.

If the Dallas Estate wasn't in the mix yet, and we know it wasn't, we really don't know exactly which 120 acres he was talking about...actually, now that I think about it, CBM never mentioned 120 acres at all; Lesley did, but I do think that given CBM's expressed concerns about whether they had enough land for an ideal course Merion would have looked at any way to squeeze a bit more out of what might be available.   We don't know, so I don't think we can assume that CBM cited either the 3 acres of Railroad land or the Dallas Estate..

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

When Merion Cricket Club gave Hugh Wilson credit for laying out the course AND for supervising the building and construction, they certainly knew what the hell a "layout" was, and what it required, and it was on PAPER, as is clear in the MCC Minutes;


Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land (prior to construction - comments mine), they went down to the National Course
with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.

On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. (prior to construction - comments mine)
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.

Or the Thompson Resolution from the same meeting;

Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion.



This nonsense that there is no contemporaneous record of the Committee at Merion laying out the golf course prior to construction is the GCA version of the BIG LIE, which if told repeatedly may have some of the gullible believing, not mentioning any names.

[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

Mike
I probably shouldn't have said the majority of the holes were based on CBM prototypes, that was an overstatement, I don't even think the majority of holes at the NGLA were based on prototypes. Lets get back to what we were discussing before you changed the subject.

The 1910 trip to Europe was a major part of the whole Hugh Wilson legend, which is why I suspect you spent so much time and effort trying disprove the 1912 trip and trying to prove an earlier trip. You've probably spent as much time as anyone analyzing that trip, and now that you have accepted the trip took place after a lot of work was done, what do you think the purpose was of that 1912 trip?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Please note I did not say they Half Assed it!

But, in my last few posts I have been trying to get my head around the timing (and legend) of the Hugh Wilson trip.

Francis said he went while the committee was at work, which now seems true.  Alan Wilson still seems to have mixed it up somehow (I was posing an array of scenarios as to how that might have happened, including someone else editing the letter to make sense, because of his poor writing) by saying that it was "a first step."  Well, it couldn't have been that, even if they completely dismissed the routing as part of design.

That said, that same Findlay article where we obsess over CBM's laying out other holes at either Merion or Alps types holes, also says the bulk of the hazards were not placed at the time Hugh Wilson returned.

We also know that about four holes were called templates, but in reality, that may have been more marketing than design - the Alps, the Redan, etc. were not really characteristic of those same templates at NGLA.

So, what does all the timing mean to the claim that CBM designed a lot of the features at Merion?

It seems to me that they did grass the course in 1911, and scheduled to open in Sept 1912, and yet we know Pickering was going to be constructing Wilsons "mental hazards" at about the same time that fall.

Since he says only the mental hazards, we can probably assume that the tees and fw were in place, and not likely to change.  Greens, maybe a few (remember, no USGA construction in those days, just shape the topsoil a bit and seed) but mostly, it would appear that the bunker scheme was purposely left until Wilson returned, and these could be built in most cases without disturbing much of the turf.

So, yes, Wilson exerted his influence after his return, but again, it seems those design changes were made after initial grassing and before opening.  So, if CBM had some holes in there, they seem to have been changed.  Also, the fact that most holes had yet to be fleshed out until after Wilson's return in 1912, means that there is some real doubt that CBM had a huge impact on feature designs. 

[Tom MacWood]

T
Since he says only the mental hazards, we can probably assume that the tees and fw were in place, and not likely to change.  Greens, maybe a few (remember, no USGA construction in those days, just shape the topsoil a bit and seed) but mostly, it would appear that the bunker scheme was purposely left until Wilson returned, and these could be built in most cases without disturbing much of the turf.

So, yes, Wilson exerted his influence after his return, but again, it seems those design changes were made after initial grassing and before opening.  So, if CBM had some holes in there, they seem to have been changed.  Also, the fact that most holes had yet to be fleshed out until after Wilson's return in 1912, means that there is some real doubt that CBM had a huge impact on feature designs.  

Jeff
That may be true, but Wilson didn't go to the bathroom without writing a letter to Oakley and telling him what he was doing. Those letters go on for years (through the designing and building the West course, and later rebuilding some greens, on the East if I'm not mistaken) and there is no indication of any change to the basic infrastructure in 1912.

I think the holes were fleshed out in that they were routed, the greens designed and built, and the only remaining task would be to add some hazards. The basic structure of the golf course was decided in 1911, if not before. I think CBM was a huge influence in 1911, which was critical year, but after 1911 I don't believe he had much influence, if any, and that is when Wilson began exerting himself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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,

Bryan, I believe I stated that he had studied architecture for 38 years, not constructed courses for 38 years.

so how many courses, how many holes, had he laid out by then?  

Chicago and NGLA, 36 and I don't believe that there was an "Alps" hole at Chicago.

How many had a crossing bunker in front of the green and a hill behind?  How many would Findlay think were Alps?

ONE, the 3rd at NGLA.
 

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

Why would an assessment of who designed the golf course be dependent upon Findlay's relationship with Wilson or CBM ?

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.

With only one other "Alps" there can be no other interpretation.
The word "many" wasn't referencing "Alps" holes.

Patrick, 

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?

Bryan, do you now, or have you ever served on the Board of a golf/country club ?
Have you ever been involved with a significant green project ?

Vendors don't report to the Board and they don't keep club minutes.

Committees and Boards produce and retain minutes. 

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?  

NO, what would lead you to that wild conclusion ?
Didn't you read the green ink your refered to ?

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.

No, that's just one possibility. 

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.

In most club governance, the committees and Boards keep the minutes.
It's very rare to impossible that an outsider, a vendor, consultant or contractor would keep committee or board minutes
That would be the responsibility of the Committee Chair and recording secretary.

When a club holds a board meeting, each committee makes their report, which is recorded.
This was a huge undertaking, yet, for four (4) years there's no committee or Board report on the specific details of this huge undertaking.
That leads me to believe that there's a strong possibility that the heavy lifting was done by an outsider, who wouldn't, in the normal course of conducting business, prepare committee or board minutes.

What would help would be the production of the board minutes from 1912 to 1914, as the club had to continue with activities and board meetings during that period.  If the minutes reflect the other activities, but remain silent on the design of the golf course, it would lead me to lean more toward the outsider, CBM doing the design work.

Getting the minutes from every board meeting, 1910 to 1914 would be a big help.
Perhaps David Moriarty can gain access as the Merionettes have suggested.
It would seem that their production might clear up a number of issues..

[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,

Bryan, I believe I stated that he had studied architecture for 38 years, not constructed courses for 38 years.

Yes, that's what I recall that you said.  So, am i to understand that he studied architecture for 38 years before NGLA and only actually built one course - Chicago?  That's a lot of "book learning" and "studying" without much practical experience.


So how many courses, how many holes, had he laid out by then?  

Chicago and NGLA, 36 and I don't believe that there was an "Alps" hole at Chicago.

Were there no others that he consulted on?  Advised on?  Where he has been credited with design?  If he only had 36 holes of practical in-the-field experience, why was he be considered such an expert in 1910? Is it similar to the old saying that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man ...............

How many had a crossing bunker in front of the green and a hill behind?  How many would Findlay think were Alps?

ONE, the 3rd at NGLA.
 

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

Why would an assessment of who designed the golf course be dependent upon Findlay's relationship with Wilson or CBM ?

I meant relationship in the sense of awareness of, or knowledge of.  Would Findlay know CBM well and everything he had done architecturally up to that point?  Was he an informed, knowledgeable commentator?

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.

With only one other "Alps" there can be no other interpretation.
The word "many" wasn't referencing "Alps" holes.

Patrick, 

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?

Bryan, do you now, or have you ever served on the Board of a golf/country club ?  No.  But I've been involved in organizations that do minutes, and contract out work.  Do Country Clubs work in some unique way different from other organizations doing project work?

Have you ever been involved with a significant green project ?  No.  Is that relevant here?

Vendors don't report to the Board and they don't keep club minutes.

Committees and Boards produce and retain minutes.

Where did I say that vendors report to the Board?  Or, that vendors keep club minutes.  Now you're just being absurd.   

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?  

NO, what would lead you to that wild conclusion ?
Didn't you read the green ink your refered to ?

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.

No, that's just one possibility. 

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.

In most club governance, the committees and Boards keep the minutes.
It's very rare to impossible that an outsider, a vendor, consultant or contractor would keep committee or board minutes
That would be the responsibility of the Committee Chair and recording secretary.

I didn't say that vendors, consultants, etc kept committee or board minutes.  You made that up.  Vendors or consultants, in my experience, always report to the person or committee in the organization that holds and manages the contract.  It would be lousy contract management if the consultant wasn't required to report on project progress to the contract holder.  The contract holder or committee then reports on project progress through their chain of command to the Board.  If CBM was contracted (in a sense, given his amateur status) it would be passingly strange if he wasn't required to report and if that report wasn't submitted through the chain of command to the Board.

As a side thought, do we KNOW that the project to identify and acquire the land and design and build the golf course would all be managed through the committee structure of the Merion Cricket Club and hence be in their minutes.  After all, somewher ein that timeline the MCCGA was formed to purchase the land and presumably to build the course.

When a club holds a board meeting, each committee makes their report, which is recorded.
This was a huge undertaking, yet, for four (4) years there's no committee or Board report on the specific details of this huge undertaking.
That leads me to believe that there's a strong possibility that the heavy lifting was done by an outsider, who wouldn't, in the normal course of conducting business, prepare committee or board minutes.

But, surely you aren't suggesting that the outsider wouldn't report to somebody in the club, who would then report the the progress up the chain of command.  Surely they wouldn't leave the outsider to his own devices until it was all done.

What would help would be the production of the board minutes from 1912 to 1914, as the club had to continue with activities and board meetings during that period.  If the minutes reflect the other activities, but remain silent on the design of the golf course, it would lead me to lean more toward the outsider, CBM doing the design work.

Getting the minutes from every board meeting, 1910 to 1914 would be a big help.

Sure.  See, there's at least one thing we can agree on.     But, which minutes do you want to see - those from MCC or those from MCCGA or both?

Perhaps David Moriarty can gain access as the Merionettes have suggested.
It would seem that their production might clear up a number of issues..

They might, but then again they might just lead to more parsing and conspiracy theories on both sides.  At least they'd be different theories and parsing, which would be a breath of fresh air.   

[Bryan Izatt]

As a tangential thought, who was the "Father of American Golf"

See here, http://alexanderfindlay.com/ for one answer.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Over the past few weeks, you keep parroting "Hear No Wilson" and "See No Wilson" by telling us that there is no contemporaneous evidence indicating that Hugh Wilson's Merion Committee were responsible for the planning of the routing of the golf course.

In that light, it's no wonder you avoided responding to my post yesterday addressed to you, which I'll reiterate again in case you missed it.   

Also, in 1905 it was written that CBM was called in as a "friendly adviser" any time a course of consequence was being built in the east.   You have no idea how many Alps holes Findlay may have thought CBM was responsible for in 1912, because you don't know either, nor does anyone else here, especially as the prescribed definition of the time included merely a front crossing bunkers beyond a rise and a mound in back.

 

When Merion Cricket Club gave Hugh Wilson credit for laying out the course AND for supervising the building and construction, they certainly knew what the hell a "layout" was, and what it required, and it was on PAPER, as is clear in the MCC Minutes of April 19th, 1911;


Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land (prior to construction - comments mine), they went down to the National Course
with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.

On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. (prior to construction - comments mine)
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.

Or the Thompson Resolution from the same meeting;

Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion.



This nonsense that there is no contemporaneous record of the Committee at Merion laying out the golf course prior to construction is the GCA version of the BIG LIE, which if told repeatedly may have some of the gullible believing, not mentioning any names. 

[Mike Cirba]

Mike
I probably shouldn't have said the majority of the holes were based on CBM prototypes, that was an overstatement, I don't even think the majority of holes at the NGLA were based on prototypes. Lets get back to what we were discussing before you changed the subject.

The 1910 trip to Europe was a major part of the whole Hugh Wilson legend, which is why I suspect you spent so much time and effort trying disprove the 1912 trip and trying to prove an earlier trip. You've probably spent as much time as anyone analyzing that trip, and now that you have accepted the trip took place after a lot of work was done, what do you think the purpose was of that 1912 trip?


Tom,

Now you're really confusing me.   First you tell us that HH Barker was 85% responsible for the routing of the golf course, THEN you tell us that CBM placed them based on his prototypes.

Then when I challenge you to show me exactly how he did that you beg off, which I can understand completely given the lack of any evidence.

Perhaps David can show us how all of those holes were placed in just the perfect position, using natural features only to match up against CBM's predetermined Ideal Holes?

In any case, regarding Wilson's trip abroad, contemporaneous reports (including Tillinghast's) tell us that before Wilson did anything strategically to the golf course he not only visited the great courses abroad but also all of the best courses in this country.

When do you think that trip across the US happened and what courses do you think might have been in his itinerary?

As far as the purpose, I think it was to see the features of great holes and courses in person, as two-dimensional sketches often lose something in translation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Don't go beating up on TMac when he is (among others, but unlike some) actually trying to have a reasonable discussion about the features of the golf course.

TMac,

I agree that the tees, fw and greens were in place and seeded by fall 1911.  I do not think adding bunkers (mental hazards) is an inconsequential task! 

I agree it seems unusual to grass and then rebuild, but that seems to be what happened to at least some degree.  When I put greens in the rebuild category, I merely meant its possible that some got rebuilt.  We don't know how much they were off from the GBI concepts, and for that matter, a few may not have grown in well over the winter, making it easier to consider reshaping, presuming they needed to be reseeded anyway. 

Again, speculation on that, I know.   But, I have seen it happen!  Once the turf is dead, its like an open invitation to redesign before you re-turf, and I suspect that in the topsoil green days, it would have been even more tempting if they weren't happy with it.

I think we would both (all) just love to have heard the actual discussions that went on all through that process to see in more detail just how that course evolved.  However it happened in detail, it would be fascinating to know.

[Tom MacWood]

In any case, regarding Wilson's trip abroad, contemporaneous reports (including Tillinghast's) tell us that before Wilson did anything strategically to the golf course he not only visited the great courses abroad but also all of the best courses in this country.

When do you think that trip across the US happened and what courses do you think might have been in his itinerary?

As far as the purpose, I think it was to see the features of great holes and courses in person, as two-dimensional sketches often lose something in translation.

Mike
So 18 holes were routed, tees and fairways built, greens located and contoured without any strategy in mind? Did you tell us what was the purpose of the trip...I think I missed your answer?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

That by the way is an interesting question applying to all architecture.  In my experience, some holes are configured with strategy in mind while routing, many others (maybe most) are configured to generally fit the land, to connect within the routing, etc.

Of course, in some cases that can all be a semantic debate.  For instance, at NGLA when the 14th got routed along the cove, it was surely concieved as a Cape Hole.  However, most of Pete Dye's Cape Holes started life as a line on piece of paper over totally dry land.  Them becoming Cape Holes during routing was probably figured, and enough land left for the lake to be dug.

So I would surmise that the creek holes at Merion and the Quarry holes could legitimatey be said to have had their strategy established largely by the routing, and perhaps refined by the bunkering.  But holes like 1-3, 6-10, 14, 15 and 18 didn't have much strategy until the bunkers were added.  Even the 16th, with the idea of the safe ground had at least some of its strategy determined by how they fleshed out the features.

And, many noted that the "original" holes were better than the 4-5 templates, although the original holes come from both holes with great features and holes with gently rolling topo.  So, declaring the holes done/not done after routing is not really a black and white discussion, here or anywhere.

Is there any other possible answer of why Wilson went to GBI than to study holes and use those ideas in the features?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

What Jeff said.

Some holes in the routing were able to take advantage of natural features to create strategic interest.   But where artificial features were needed in the absence of problem-causing natural ones, Merion wanted to emulate features from abroad found on ideal holes.

Case in points included original holes 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15.

However, as Richard Francis pointed out, other holes which had great natural features (ie. the 3rd with an elevated green atop a barn) "benefitted" from Wilson's trip, presumably with the addition of hazards that sometimes defined them as attempts at great holes abroad (ie. "making" of the Alps hole, presumably with the addition of bunkering and mounds).

[Tom MacWood]

Mike,

Don't go beating up on TMac when he is (among others, but unlike some) actually trying to have a reasonable discussion about the features of the golf course.

TMac,

I agree that the tees, fw and greens were in place and seeded by fall 1911.  I do not think adding bunkers (mental hazards) is an inconsequential task! 

I agree it seems unusual to grass and then rebuild, but that seems to be what happened to at least some degree.  When I put greens in the rebuild category, I merely meant its possible that some got rebuilt.  We don't know how much they were off from the GBI concepts, and for that matter, a few may not have grown in well over the winter, making it easier to consider reshaping, presuming they needed to be reseeded anyway. 

Again, speculation on that, I know.   But, I have seen it happen!  Once the turf is dead, its like an open invitation to redesign before you re-turf, and I suspect that in the topsoil green days, it would have been even more tempting if they weren't happy with it.

I think we would both (all) just love to have heard the actual discussions that went on all through that process to see in more detail just how that course evolved.  However it happened in detail, it would be fascinating to know.

Jeff
There is a detailed written record between Wilson & Oakley throughout 1912, and none of the greens were rebuilt that year. In the Spring of 1913 he writes Oakley regarding some grass that has invaded most of the greens and tells him as you know the greens were seeded in Sept 1911, again in the Fall of 1913 he writes Oakley to tell him three greens had failed (the grass had all died) reiterating that the greens were seeded in Sept 1911. Again Wilson did not do anything without writing Oakley; you can throw that theory out.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I am trying to understand your perspective on this Findlay quote, but am still struggling.  What I don't understand is your willingness to assume into existence the many of the other Alps holes laid out by CBM.  You say you don't know how many Alps holes he had laid out?  Well, I have read quite a lot about CBM and have searched for other various holes referred to Alps holes, and so far as I can tell, there was only ONE CBM Alps hole in existence other than Merion's. That was NGLA's alps hole.   If you have to assume or invent or imply other Alps holes into existence, that doesn't bode well for your interpretation, does it?

What if you took my word for it?   Let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that there was only one other CBM Alps hole at this time.  Would you then agree that "many of the others" referred to holes at Merion, and not CBM Alps holes?

Also, let's assume, again for the sake of argument only, that CBM had designed and built 10 Alps holes by then. Even then, for the section to make sense, we'd have to read this as confirming that Merion's 10th was CBM hole, wouldn't we?
____________________________________

You asked about Findlay and CBM.  I am not aware that they had any relationship, and I sincerely doubt they had one.  Findlay was not included in the NGLA project, was not present at the first tournament, nor have I found any record of him ever even playing NGLA during this time period (I haven't looked otherwise.)  And the goings on and tournaments at NGLA were very big deals and Findlay was very well known, so I would expect to find something if they were connected.

Plus, Findlay was not only a professional and part of the old guard of professional course planners from which CBM was moving away, Findlay also worked for an equipment manufacturer. CBM held the equipment manufacturers in extremely low regard and felt that they represented the greatest threat to the game.  So I have a hard time picturing them as being very close.

[Mike Cirba]

Related to the discussion of rebuilding greens, I'm not sure there would be anything germane for Wilson to discuss with P&O if indeed he decided to reshape a green?   I'm not saying he did rebuild any in 1911/1912, but I don't think we know.

But it does bring up an interesting issue.

Of those original 18 greens, the following were all either replaced or rebuilt by the time the 1934 US Open was held there.

1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17.

[Tom MacWood]

"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."  


Jeff
One assumes the plan that they were following when they built the course in 1911 featured hazards. We know some of those hazards were built in 1911, and presumably others were not. It was not uncommon in those days to delay the adding of hazards until you got a better feel for the course. That was something advocated and practiced by Colt, CBM, and others.

I think there were two reasons for the trip - constructing hazards and placing hazards. He went to see the original hazards on some of the classic courses they were emulating - a la CBM. They also went to get ideas regarding modern practices. We know he met with Colt and Colt practiced a very haphazard bunkering style, that style seemed to be adopted to some extent. We assume he visited Mid Surrey, because those features were used in several places. I'm sure he met with Reginald Beale as well. IMO Wilson was bitten by the architecture bug during this trip, but not before. Before his main responsibility and focus was construction.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Other than your last two sentences, which I think are without foundation, I agree with you.

For instance, we don't know when Wilson visited all of the best courses in the US, but Tillinghast (and others) told us that it happened before the course opened for play.   

I suspect that this wasn't one long dedicated trip, but a decade or more of playing competitively and a keen interest in the subject, as evidenced by his joining the Green Committee at Princeton in his Junior year while the new Willie Dunn course was being built and opened.

[Tom MacWood]

Related to the discussion of rebuilding greens, I'm not sure there would be anything germane for Wilson to discuss with P&O if indeed he decided to reshape a green?   I'm not saying he did rebuild any in 1911/1912, but I don't think we know.

But it does bring up an interesting issue.

Of those original 18 greens, the following were all either replaced or rebuilt by the time the 1934 US Open was held there.

1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17.

Mike
If he was planning to rebuild a green I guarantee you Wilson would have written Oakley. If only to ask advice about timing, what time of year to do such a thing, and if he should re-seed or sod. He rebuilt three greens late in 1913 and the reason we know are those letters. Drop the idea greens were resurfaced in 1912.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Other than your last two sentences, which I think are without foundation, I agree with you.

For instance, we don't know when Wilson visited all of the best courses in the US, but Tillinghast (and others) told us that it happened before the course opened for play.   

I suspect that this wasn't one long dedicated trip, but a decade or more of playing competitively and a keen interest in the subject, as evidenced by his joining the Green Committee at Princeton in his Junior year while the new Willie Dunn course was being built and opened.

Mike
Hugh Wilson tells us that when they began their experience in construction and greenkeeping was that of an average club member. Architecture was evidently not a concern because he doesn't even mention the subject. Alan Wilson tells us the plan evolved when he returned from the UK. I read that as his architectural influence began when he returned, and IMO that is the manifestation of his increased interest in the subject.

Regarding the courses he visited in America, and when, we know he visited the NGLA in March 1911.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tmac,

Thanks for that factual info.  I was going from memory, as I often do, but its good to know no greens were rebuilt in 1912.  And yes, it appears they built some hazards in 1911 (or concepts, like a stab at the Alps or Redan) and left others for later.

So, I am just trying to figure out - why the split?  Did they run out of time in 1911?  Did they feel pressure to get the course all grassed either to control erosion or meet their obligation to HDC (which by the way, I don't think is all that unreasonable a proposition, that it was their obligation to get it green at least as in the Dec Culyers letter) although I agree the consequences probably wouldn't be as severe as if dealing with strangers)  Or, was it their plan all along to not build stuff in detail until HW returned?

I also believe HW had to have had some interest in gca or he probably wouldn't have signed up for the committee.  Also, hard to think he would go to GBI without being interested, and then become interested during the trip, if that is what you are saying.  But, I have long had the impression that he didn't care for CBM's renditions, and the meeting with Colt makes perfect sense in explaining it and his bunker style.

I will also reserve judgement on whether he consulted Oakley on his bathroom visits, but I get your humor.....

So, in reality, we aren't too far off our interpretations, but it still leaves the question of how much of CBM's initial offerings survived until even Sept 1912 since we don't know just what got rebuilt.  We all agree that HW had more and more influence as time went on, and we are just speculating as to how fast that time line of influence was.  

Again, its hard to believe he was a milktoast (exagerating a bit) in April 1911, and a Tiger a year later.  Certain personality traits had to be in place.  And admitting they didn't know a lot to start is consistent with him seeking advice from nearly everywhere, as CBM suggested.  We could certainly give many examples from all walks of life of people who know just enough to be dangerouse and jump in with two feet, when logic and prudencee, seen from a distance, would clearly dictate they should not!

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Again, you have no idea whether any of the greens or other hazards and/or features were changed or added during the period of 1911/12.   None, and to represent otherwise is a misrepresentation of the content and context of the letters between Wilson and P&O.

Wilson never speaks to P&O about ANY design features at all, but strictly about agronomic issues.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()