Jeff,
I've grown weary of the pattern in these discussions over the years. Again and again you guys come up with these fantasy theories and treat them as if they were fact and as if it were my obligation to disprove them. I have tired of being the only one carrying any burden of proof here. If you think that Wilson redesigned the course after his trip but before the opening, prove it. What specifically did he change, and what is your proof of him having done so? Which bunkers were added? Which features were already there? There is one report of what Wilson changed after his trip, I haven't gone back and checked, but if I recall correctly it mostly amounted to finishing touches, like adding bent grasses as seen at a course in France, and adding some mounding like at Surrey. If there is more than this, then by all means bring forth your evidence.
For example you speculate about greens being redesigned immediately, but I've seen no evidence of this. Hugh Wilson addresses rebuilding a few greens for agronomic reasons, but that wasn't quite immediate and sounds to have been more agronomic than design related. But by all means bring forth your proof.
For another example you speculate that the Alps hole was a failure and was redesigned immediately, perhaps even before the course opened. Prove it. We know that Findlay didn't think it matched up to Prestwick, and we know that Findlay projects those same thoughts onto Wilson, but prove they changed the hole. For that matter, prove that their concern was with the green, and not the rest of the hole. I haven't played the original, but the accounts I have read indicate there was a lot going on at Prestick's alps off the tee, whereas there was nothing ongoing at Merion off the tee. Remember this section was just grassland, and they were trying (unsuccessfully) to use the native grass as the fairway for these holes. According to one later report, the flanking bunkers had not even yet been built.
So why do you assume that Findlay's problem with the hole was at the green end? The green at Prestwick still still still resembles that of the early photos of Merion's Alps Green, but the drive is nothing like it. And if Findlay was unhappy with the green end of the hole, then why, a few months later, did Findlay write that the second shot "requires a shot precisely like that to the Alps, or seventeenth, at Prestwick?" Surely you don't think they completely rebuilt the green complex, and re-grassed the green in these intervening few months, do you? According to Wilson's letters and other reports, this was before they started using sod, so that would have been impossible. And there is a photo showing the mound behind the hole from BEFORE Wilson's trip abroad.
So I'd like to see your proof that this hole was drastically changed early on, especially between Findlay's first article and mentioning it and his second, written just a few months later.
While you are at it, you keep saying that this hole was a failure and that it didn't work. Again, where is your proof? Because many of the accounts I have read, including that by Findlay shortly before the opening, praise the hole. Lesley highlighted the hole in is 1914 introduction of the golf course, and noted it resembled the Alps at Prestwick in principle. Articles previewing the 1916 highlighted it as well, one even the thrill of scaling the hole after the blind second to find the result. And this green was repeatedly photographed and highlighted in the various accounts of the course through the early years, not because it was a bad hole, but the opposite. Yes it was eventually changed a dozen years after it was built, but all accounts indicate that this was because of increasing traffic on Ardmore Avenue, and not because it was a poor hole!
But, please, if you can, prove me wrong. Show me something that indicates that the 10th green complex was a failure of such monumental proportions that it needed to be immediately rebuilt. I think your assumption that it was a poor hole complex is mistaken and unsupported. Please though, prove me wrong if you can, but use facts and opinion.
Also, you speculate that the 15th green was a failure and was actually rebuilt early on. It is possible, but don't think it was rebuilt. So prove it was. Show me something that indicates that the 15th green was actually rebuilt. I think your assumption that it was a poor green and drastically altered early is mistaken and unsupported. Please though, prove me wrong if you can, but use facts and not fantasy.
As for the two reports in the Philadelphia Inquirer, you can read them yourself, but they were obviously written by someone who knew what was ongoing in golf in and around Philadelphia. Note the discussion of the need to make courses more challenging and to give Philadelphia a first class course. Note the reference to Pinehurst and comparison of the courses here. Note the knowledge about Crump and Perrin and their role in Philadelphia golf. Note the detailed discussion of the Philadelphia Cricket Club course. This reporter wasn't muddling through. He knew what was happening.
As for your question of which reports to believe, it is a false choice. ABOUT ALL OF THE EARLY REPORTS NOTED THAT SOME TO MOST OF MERION WAS BASED ON THE GREAT HOLES ABROAD. Yet you guys try to basically disbelieve them all, and claim that the hole concepts came later! Preposterous. Sure they left bunkers to be built later, until they could choose the exact location. This is most likely what CBM and HJW told them to do. But to take this to mean that the hole concepts had not yet been determined? Not supported by the record.
As for remainder of your post, give me a break. You are just throwing out "skinker" theories left and right. Maybe your claim that it was all for publicity would have flown years ago, before we knew more about the extent of their attempt to build CBM holes and features all over the property, but not now.
_________________________________________________________
Jim Sullivan,
Mike posted the two articles, written five months apart, above. As I said to Jeff, you can read them yourself, but it seems readily apparent to me that this author (these authors) was/were plugged into the golf scene in Philadelphia at this time. There are way to many references that laymen wouldn't understand, the references to Crump and Perrin, the references to Pinehurst, the detailed description of courses, the reference to the lack of quality of golf in Phila. and the need for improvement. This person knew too much about what was happening to simply dismiss him, especially when what he is saying is consistent to what else we know.
As for your promise, I thought you had given up on that once you realized that there was very little or nothing linking Wilson to the initial planning of the course. If you are still working on it, I await it anxiously.
Thanks.