From Mike Cirba:
David,
I’m not sure why such vehement, vitriolic responses are needed? Generally, a person comfortable that the facts support their assertions wouldn’t require such inflamed emotional responses to make their point, I think you’d agree.
Especially since you and I seem to agree on all the main points here I would think you could tone down the anti-Philadelphia zealotry for a post or two and perhaps lower the temperature a bit around here. Frankly, I’d like to take you at your word that you’re just trying to figure out what happened, and I think you’d agree that the pointless flame-throwing doesn’t do anything to advance that goal. To wit, I believe based on all the evidence found to date (much of which you did not have at your disposal when you wrote your original essay), and your recent writings here outlining your evolved thinking that we agree in broad principle that;
1) Merion East was primarily routed during the period of January through April, 1911. There was no complete routing of the golf course, far from it, by November 1910 when they first secured the property.
2) Merion East was routed by a Committee at Merion who had as advisors CBM and Whigham. The primary documents show that they required multiple attempts (“many”) to get it right, visited CBM at NGLA in early March 1911, after which they came back and created “five different plans”. We likely still disagree on how much actual “routing” work in terms of placing specific holes in specific locations on the property was done by CBM and Whigham vs the Committee but I’m comfortable with that and believe the record supports my interpretation. I think we can agree to differ there.
3) Hugh Wilson stated that his Committee was created in “early 1911” and then went on to describe their subsequent visit to NGLA, stating that they spent the first night going over “sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time”, and “learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions”, and the next day, “going over the course and studying the various holes”. In this light, even though he himself hadn’t yet been to see the courses overseas, he did see CBM’s scale drawings as well as CBM’s application of those principles and template holes on the ground at NGLA both prior to the finalization of the routing for Merion as well as prior to the start of Merion’s construction.
4) CBM and Whigham visited Merion in April of 1911 to help them pick the best of their plans after which that recommendation went forward to the Merion Board of Governors for approval and implementation. I think we would agree that said “five different plans” were done on paper based on study in the field, as it’s clear from the MCC Meeting minutes that the preferred plan was submitted for review and approval at the meeting on April 19th, 1911.
5) I think we agree that construction of the golf course began shortly after that board meeting, and that no such golf course existed on the ground prior to that time as has been contended by some, despite Wilson’s somewhat arcane reference to “the golf course” in his earlier letters to Piper and Oakley. Instead it’s clear he was referring to the land that was going to be constructed into a golf course, and his early plowing work in March was of the entire property, after which proper amounts of fertilizer and seeds were described for greens, fairways, and roughs in May letters, after the routing was determined and approved.
6) Similarly, I think we agree that whatever routing that HH Barker did for Joseph Connell on some unknown 100 acres of land held by HDC in June 1910 (the only land they owned outright at the time was the Johnson Farm), it seems unlikely that it was ever used in whole or in part. Other than one November 1910 news report that I found at the Free Library of Philadelphia, which seems to have misinterpreted the November 1910 communications to Merion members that included Barker’s letter to Connell from six months prior, no one else in the history of Merion referred to this routing again,and it’s clear that multiple routing attempts took place after this, one of which was approved and used. You may have to break this to Tom MacWood gently.
7) Alan Wilson’s account also referred to CBM and Whigham’s contacts with the club, stating that they
“twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.”.
Hugh Wilson went abroad in early 1912 after the basic course was routed, and tees, fairways, greens built and seeded. The roughs were also seeded.
9) Wilson returned with “a lot of drawings which we studied carefully, hoping to incorporate their good features on our course” in the words of Richard Francis. Other news accounts mention him taking photographs.
10) All of the opening day accounts in September 1912 talked about how the course was very much a work in progress with very little bunkering. It was mentioned that the artificial hazards in place at that time were largely viewed to be “experimental”.
11) Even by 1915 Merion was described as having less in the way of artificial bunkering than most nine hole courses, and it was only the awarding of the 1916 US Amateur to Merion that created the impetus to toughen it for top tournament play. This resulted in a broad bunkering and course revision plan (that included rebuilding a number of greens) that was implemented in time for the event.
I think we’d also agree on a number of recent speculations that have arisen on this and other threads. For instance, I think Patrick Mucci’s attempts to create many more contacts between CBM and Merion have no basis in evidence. For instance, although Herbert Warren Wind’s 1971 account talks about multiple visits to NGLA, Hugh Wilson only indicates one visit for an overnight stay. Alan Wilson’s account seems to concur.
Also, I still find it very odd that if this was all being directed by CBM and Whigham from afar, with ongoing communications on a regular basis that Committeeman Richard Francis wouldn’t see fit to even mention the involvement of Macdonald and Whigham in his first-person account of the creation of the golf course! Not a single word of mention from one of the men who created the final routing that was eventually built? I find that to be rather telling, don’t you? Especially if there was supposed constant communications (and implied direction) coming from CBM and Whigham to these men?
Similarly, as you mentioned to me the other day, it was CBM who told Tillinghast about what was going on at Merion as well as his involvement with the Committee. Yet, in his extensive review of the course for American Cricketer there was not a single mention of CBM and/or Whigham, much less crediting them with the design, but instead only a mention that Hugh Wilson and his committee “deserve the congratulations of all golfers”. Similarly, Alex Findlay, who we know interviewed Hugh Wilson, credited what Wilson and his committee had done as on par to what HC Leeds had done at Myopia. Again, not a mention of any design role for CBM and or Whigham. Again, I find that telling, as those are certainly expert witnesses.
As far as this latest brouhaha about the 1912 Francis letter, I seem to remember my interpretation at the time upon first seeing it transcribed here, which was prior to Joe Bausch finding the Alex Findlay article that made clear that the 1912 trip was Wilson’s first, and I think we all felt the same way…he HAD to have gone overseas prior to then, but our assumption was wrong. No big deal, really, and hardly worth the fuss. I appreciate you correcting our understanding about the trip and the timing.
To the point of your response about the challenges that the early Philadelphia golfers faced in inter-city matches, I do go into extensive reporting about that in the Cobb’s Creek book, mentioning that the prevailing feeling among the top players here at the time is that one of the reasons for their poor efforts was the lack of a true championship course (the work Ab Smith had done at HVGC cited by Tillinghast as perhaps coming closest, but still with limitations) in the area where great players could be developed. This thinking was largely the impetus for the creation of Merion East, Pine Valley, and yes, Cobb’s Creek and their significant respective degree of high challenge.
As to the original question of this thread, as to what was meant by the term “laid out”, etc., I again think we can come to agreement here as the record as to how that term was used and understood around Philadelphia is undeniable. Even as far back as 1898 and the report of Philadelphia golf clubs by Prosper Sennat was see the term used in each course profile was “Links Laid Out by”, and then indicating the architect, or designer. Again in 1903, the “Golfer’s Record”, a 208 page publication “sanctioned and endorsed” by GAP, uses the term “Laid out by” on each course profile to list the architect or architects, such as “John Reid”, or “Willie Campbell”, or “Green Committee”, etc.. There was absolutely no provincial confusion around how the term was used, and when news accounts credited Hugh Wilson and committee with having laid out Merion East a decade later there was certainly no provincial confusion then either in terms of what that terminology meant to indicate. No one here was assigning credit for someone putting stakes in the ground to a plan determined by someone else.
Finally, while I’m a student of golf course and architectural history, you’re correct that I’ve only held myself out as an expert in a “provincial” way. Frankly, I think there’s plenty of information to try and dig up here at home, such as, “What actual evidence exists to claim Hugh Wilson designed Phoenixville Country Club?” That doesn’t mean that I’m not interested in it, and I’ve helped folks from California to New Jersey in trying to locate information about their course origins, because it interests me and its fun.
But I also think this whole idea that one can present themselves as expert in everything, especially on a topic so geographically broad and with complex and sometimes confusing historical documentation comes with a risk. For instance, I have no doubt that you would rewrite large portions of your essay if you had all the evidence at your disposal at that time. I doubt you’ll admit that, but your essay made some rather broad conclusions based on limited information, such as writing Hugh Wilson out of the whole initial routing process, or claiming that the course was fully routed by November 1910, both assertions you seem to now concede were in error, however argumentatively. I do hope you take the time to revise it someday, as it will certainly be improved by the addition of all the subsequent materials that came to light since you wrote it.
In any case, I do appreciate the levels of research and effort you’ve put into this matter, and others, and I will continue to read your posts on historical matters with earnest interest.
Thanks,
Mike