What did "to lay out" or "laid out" mean at the beginning of the 20th century?

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba:


Tom MacWood wrote;

Here is an example of the latter dealing with the Cobbs Creek project. It's an article from January 1915. In combination with some other evidence, Lesley's commendation and later Phila Inquirer article, I read this blurb as design, or perhaps design and construct. Mike Cirba believes this quote clearly means they were in charge of construction. He may be right because at that point overseeing construction was the area Wilson had the most experience.




Tom,

Perhaps I’m not explaining myself clearly, but the reason I disagreed with your interpretation of this article is strictly based on the timing of it.   If I understand you correctly, you read this article as the author claiming that only Hugh Wilson, Ab Smith, and George Klauder were going to be designing, or had designed Cobb’s Creek, correct?

It was written by William Evans in January 1915.   At the time it was written, the golf course was already “laid out”, as in “routed”.   We know this from the end of the first paragraph, where Evans writes that the “creek is used on six holes as a hazard guarding the greens.”   

However, in the second paragraph we know that Evans is talking about construction or course building when he states that the three men “will aid (future tense) the park engineers in laying out the course” .We know this because 1) the course was already routed, and 2) construction did not start until April 1915, 3 months later.
 
Interestingly, a few weeks after this article was written a special GAP meeting was held and additional men were "appointed on the Park Golf Committee...to work in conjunction with the Park Commissioners", including George Crump, who had been appointed GAP public golf related committees back to February 1913. 

But about Hugh Wilson, I’m not sure what you mean when you say, “at that point overseeing construction was the area Wilson had the most experience”?   

By January 1915, Hugh Wilson had already been involved in design at Merion East, Merion West, Seaview, North Hills, Cobb’s Creek and likely Philmont.  Those who sought him out included such highly-successful, financially powerful men as Robert Lesley, Clarence Geist, Ellis Gimbel, and John Franklin Meehan.   

As you know, Fred Pickering was the man in charge of course construction at Merion East and Seaview.   If Wilson didn’t “lay out” those courses from a design standpoint, then can you tell me what you think he actually did when he was credited by multiple sources for the remainder of his life for having “laid out” both courses at Merion?   If he didn’t design and he didn’t construct, it certainly doesn’t seem realistic to me why any of the men listed above would have immediately used him for their projects, does it?   What do you think he did at Merion East, specifically?

Similarly, the Merion Cricket Club minutes state that after returning from their visit to NGLA in March of 1911, “we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans”.    Do you think those five plans were on paper?   If so, who do you believe was responsible for authoring them?

Thanks,
Mike

[TEPaul]

I had some wonderful advice in the last few days from some of my friends on here and elsewhere. They advised me that pursuing this Merion thing over that IMO piece "The Missing Faces of Merion" just isn't worth it. They said that no matter what you say those two will come up with some way to contour it, and consequently it isn't worth it. I did have a lot invested in the the subject of Merion East's and West's history due to a dozen years of studying it with Merion GC more than anyone except Wayne. Therefore, if anyone cares anymore what I think the differences in intepretations are and why, I believe you know where to find me.

I know where all those that know the score and have considered this issue stand, including all my friends at Merion.The story of the architectural history of Merion East involving Wilson and his committee and the good and valuable advice and help they got from those two kind gentlemen, Macdonald and Whigam, is safe as always told. The only mistake or myth in that history was that 1910 trip abroad story but we now know who those were who came up with it. The fact is that one did not even happen until over 75 years after the fact of what Wilson and Committee and Macdonald and Whigam did at Ardmore between 1910 and 1911. And if one cannot even figure out what that means historically regarding the facts of what happened back in 1910 and 1911 then all I can say is I'm sorry for you.

Good night, Mrs Callabash, wherever you are.

[TEPaul]

I had a post prepared in response to #85 when I finally noticed it but after the wonderful advice today from my good friends (reflected on Post #101) I decided to bag it as they convinced me nobody really cared about the stuff the author of "The Missing Faces of Merion" said on a post like that one or most of his posts on the architectural history of Merion vis-a-vis that unfortunate 2008 IMO piece of his.

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba:


 
All,
 
I think some more examples of actual usage at that time might be instructive here.  
 
The next article uses the terms in a few interesting ways.   First, it states that when it came time to lay out the course (referring to design/routing), the GAP of Philadelphia offered help and such experts as Wilson, Crump, and Smith were the ones who laid out (or designed/routed) the course.   Interestingly, it goes on to state that the men involved “would have preferred some other layout”, again referring to course routing, but were limited by their inability to remove any trees by the Park Commission.  
 

 
I believe the best examples come from the men who were there themselves, in their own words and folks can determine for themselves what the terms meant and how they were used.  
 
First, we have Richard Francis who was on Hugh Wilson’s Committee at Merion.   Here, on the first page, he names the members of the Committee and tells us they were charged with two separate, distinct things; “laying out” and “building’ the new course at Merion.   He tells us that he was added because of his ability to read a (presumed topographical) map and his surveying skills, again reinforcing the fact that the planning work was certainly done on paper.
 

 
On page 2, we see that indeed the course planning was done on paper as Francis tells us he was looking at a map of the property one night when he had his brainstorm.   He also tells us that the land in question west of the clubhouse “did not fit in at all with any golf layout”.    This tells us clearly that there were still multiple golf “layouts” under consideration by the committee at that time, which is consistent with the MCC Minutes that spoke of many revisions, and ultimately five different “plans”.
 

 
The remainder of the article goes into routing and hole decisions made by the committee, for better or worse, and he points out their errors in judgment, as well.   Interestingly, he credits the creation of the redan hole to work done subsequent to Wilson’s trip overseas.
 


 
Next we have Hugh Wilson’s account.   Although Richard Francis did not mention any involvement of Macdonald or Whigham, Hugh Wilson does go into the visit to NGLA and tells us what transpired there.  
 


 
Wilson tells us that they spent the first night looking at sketches of famous holes abroad, learning their underlying principles, and trying to understand how they might apply them given their own natural conditions (inland clay vs the sandy loam of seaside courses like NGLA).   Indeed in a letter to Piper and Oakley in March of 1911 Wilson wrote that Macdonald had shared various pamphlets indicating various grasses that might do well, which was a big concern to everyone involved.
 
Wilson also tells us, like Francis, that his Committee was charged with two distinct tasks; “lay out the course” and then “build” it.   There seems to be remarkable consistency between the accounts in terms of the tasks involved.
 
Finally, the account of Alan Wilson seems to confirm again what everyone else at the time said about two distinct areas of responsibility, and what was meant by the term “lay out” in this case. (CAPS for emphasis mine);
 
There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—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.
 
Thanks,
Mike

[DMoriarty]

Not sure why Mike Cirba keeps popping back in to debate Merion or anything else from the grave, but he seems confused about the usage of the words "lay out" in the examples he offers, and he seems confused about the extent of Francis' knowledge about some of the design aspects of Merion East.   I sure hope he doesn't again develop the habit of incessantly reposting (or having reposted) the same things we have all seen before again and again. 

But while he is chiming in, perhaps he can have someone point to to the portion of the Meeting Minutes where it indicates that the "Construction Committee" was even in existence at the time of the NGLA meetings or when CBM determined and approved the final routing plan?  From the Minutes, it looks like the Golf Committee attended the NGLA meetings and Francis was not on that committee.  

Also Mike knows as well as I do that Merion's Redan hole had been built and grassed before Wilson's trip abroad, and that even the bunker was there.  Either that or Merion expected the golfers to play over a barn which had been built into the side of the bank!   He also knows that it was reported that many of the holes were based on holes abroad before Wilson had returned from his trip abroad.

It appears to a rhetorical game for Mike, where he throws out a source without getting into the foundation or context, and hopes others will follow the same leaps of logic he makes.  If he ever tried to write up an actual IMO on the issue, one thoroughly supported by record, he would better be able to see that his scattered attempts to discount CBM's contributions fall well short when we consider records such as Merion's Minutes.   Even if he wouldn't realize it, we might.  

That is why these guys never come up with an actual comprehensive IMO on these issues.   They can't.    Their position, when laid out fully and comprehensively, is untenable.  All they can do is take isolated pot shots and make unsupportable assertions.  Like TEPaul's assertion above that there was a "Wilson Committee Report" or a chronicle of actives of this Committees over a 2-3 month period.  When one actually looks at the Minutes, it is obvious that the records do not support their claims!  

[DMoriarty]

I wish TomPaul the best with his latest attempt to break himself away from his irrational obsession with my efforts to understand what happened at Merion.   At the same time, I can't help but laugh that he did not even make it 24 hours before taking another gratuitous shot a me and my IMO.  Perhaps he should change his tagline to "Until tomorrow, Mrs. Callabash, wherever you are."

I'd like to address a couple of things from his closing salvo.

1. Even in his parting shots, TEPaul is intent on perpetuating the myth that the only thing new we have learned about Merion is that, contrary to popular belief, Hugh Wilson did not travel to study the courses abroad before the creation of Merion East.    It is true that we have learned this, and that this is very important -- the study abroad legend had become the core explanation for Merion's greatness.  His seven month "Golf Pilgrimage" was supposedly where Wilson got his ideas, where he learned the principles underlying the great holes which he would subtly incorporate into his design at Merion.  "Wilson had absorbed the principles underlying the great holes, then applied them to the terrain at his command."   Or so the story goes. 

While the facts refuting the legend are overwhelming, the story had become so imbedded in the fibre of the legend of Merion East that refuting it was no easy feat.  Judging from his work on Cobb's Creek, Mike Cirba is still desperately clinging to the old disproven legend about the trip abroad! (The legend is dead. Long live the legend?)  But for rational minds, this aspect of the legend is long gone.   

But as this legend falls, it takes with with much of the rest.  That is because killing this part of the legend leaves the great course untouched.  There is still the masterful layout, the obvious influence of the great holes abroad in the design, the contemporaneous descriptions of many of the holes being based on the great holes abroad, the reported attempts at an Alps hole, a Redan, an Eden, and a Road hole, and the sophisticated use of other strategic principles and features from the great holes across the sea.  Without the legend of Hugh Wilson spending seven months abroad studying these holes and others, the unavoidable question is, if not from Hugh Wilson and his travel abroad then from where and from whom did these ideas come?  Whatever Wilson "absorbed" it was from CBM, HJW, and NGLA.  Wilson said as much in 1916, in his discussion of his trip to NGLA.   

2.  And that brought me to what I consider to be the most important correction in the way we must now understand Merion, a correction even more important that the refutation of the above. The Merion legend is not only mistaken about the timing (and duration) of Wilson's trip abroad, the legend is also mistaken about the nature, timing, and importance CBM's involvement in the actual design of Merion East, and about the nature and timing of Wilson's trip to NGLA in particular.   

According to Merion lore, before Wilson set out to design Merion and even before he made is supposed seven month "Golf Pilgrimage," Hugh Wilson traveled to NGLA where "he discussed an itinerary with Charles Blair Macdonald."   Charles Blair Macdonald reduced to the role of  travel agent?  That is the version of the NGLA meeting in Merion's history book, and essentially the myth that had been perpetuated around here for years by the supposed Merion experts.  Sometimes they and others would go a bit further and acknowledge that Wilson and Macdonald also discussed the principles of the great holes that Hugh Wilson would see on his trip, but the focus of the meetings was always portrayed as preparing Wilson for his trip abroad.  According to popular legend the NGLA meeting had nothing directly to do with the design of Merion East!  It was at best colorful background information used to vaguely acknowledge CBM, but also to mischaracterize his work and dismiss his contribution . . .

We now know better.  We now know that the NGLA meetings had nothing to do a trip which wouldn't even occur until after the course was designed and built.  The NGLA meetings were about the design of Merion East and occurred while Merion was trying to figure out how to lay out its golf course.  Merion went to CBM for help planning the layout, just has it had gone to CBM to help them choose the land for the course, and for advice on other matters relating to the creation of the course.   And CBM not only further helped them with their plans at NGLA, Merion followed up with CBM and HJW by bringing the two of them back down  Merion to go over the land once again and consider the various design options and to determine and approve the final routing plan!   

In short, CBM wasn't giving travel advice or offering general advice on the proper principles of design.  He was teaching them, with specifics and in detail, how they should lay out their golf course.   CBM and HJW were integral from the time they set out to purchase there land, through the meetings about the layout plan at NGLA, through the final determination of the layout plan from  amongst the various design options, and through the submission of plan CBM and HJW had approved to Merion's board.  So it isn't just a different understanding of the timing of the trip.  We now know that CBM and HJW were much more involved with the actual design of Merion East that Merion's prevailing legend acknowledges.  They weren't travel agents or gentlemen offering platitudes and general advice from afar.  They were directly involved throughout the design process and were even ultimately responsible for determining and approving the final routing plan! 

And there are many other aspects of Merion's history that had long been forgotten and/or left out of the Merion Legend.  To name just one there is HH Barker's early routing plan.  I won't bother with that here, but  I did want to remind people that is about much more than timing of Wilson's trip.  It is about the nature, timing, and extent of CBM's and HJW's involvement in the actual design of Merion East.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I hate to get into this, and I won't delve to far, but if you can refresh my memory:


Given the quote above, were Wilson says the committee was formed in early 1911, and that "we" went to NGLA, dexribing details of the meeting, what is your basis for saying that it may not have even been in existence?

Related, but did the MCC meeting minutes actually say CBM "determined and approved" or did it just say he "approved" the routing?  I thought they said they drew the plans, and while no direct quotes may exist, all hint at their contributions to routing.

Lastly, I thought we had debated perhaps without conclusion, that Francis did say the hole "benefitted" from the trip to GBI by Wilson, suggesting that it had been started, but then changed somehow after Wilson's visit, even if they were certainly aware of the Redan from the NGLA meeting?

Short version, I recall much "interpreting" on both sides.

If you don't care to spend time refreshing my memory, I understand.  If you do, then thanks in advance.

OOPs, just saw your second post, not read fully.  I do agree its all about the exact nature of CBM and his involvement, and that it can always be an open topic for discussion.  On the other hand, there is nothing in the MCC record that ever denies CBM's involvement, so to me, while probably unprovable details we would all like to know are interesting, in essence, this is still an issue of Merion crediting CBM at the time, and modern interptratations perhaps modifying attribution by today's standards, no?  As you know, I am not against more accurate attribution, but feel it will be Merion's call.  If they have their version of history, and you have another, well, it wouldn't be the first time that happened.

[Bradley Anderson]

Not sure what "lay out" or "laid out" meant at the turn of the century, but as late as 1923 the term was used interchangeably with architecture by Max Behr.


Principles in Golf Architecture
MAX H. BEHR
USGA Green Section May 1923

And I conceive that the golf architect must approach his work in the same spirit. He, however, is limited in his juggling of the parts of nature. His art is one of interpretation. But his power to interpret correctly must be limited if he approaches his work with preconceived ideas that this or that must be. He immediately becomes argumentative, and a battle ensues, and to battle nature is costly.

Undoubtedly there should be present in his mind certain desirable and commendable features that he should endeavor to interpret from the ground; but these should not be in the shape of rigid formulas, but be present in the consciousness as a restraining influence. They should never obtrude to the extent of stifling the emotion which any bit of ground is capable of exciting by itself. That is, he should not endeavor to perceive his ideas in it, but should allow it to generate ideas for him. And it is this very lack of feeling that so much golf architecture gives evidence of and that explains why many of our courses are laid out in a mechanical and cut-and-dried fashion. It seems dangerous, then, to put that which is desirable and commendable in the form of categorical principles. The moment this is done these things are elevated to the regions of the mind-are put on ice, as it were. What we want is to keep our ideas shot through with feeling, and not to take them from cold storage and plant them where we will, without any regard to their appropriateness. We must first feel a situation. We shall never have to worry ourselves about our ideas; the right one will pop up and marry itself to the situation. And yet a tendency to standardize is inevitable. At one time courses ranged all the way from five to twenty-two holes. Eighteen holes is now the accepted number, and considering the cost of land, and often an inadequate acreage, it is, in most cases, very difficult to design eighteen good holes. And eyen here standardization has crept in and it is now incumbent upon the architect to give a certain variety in the length of holes.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

1. I agree that Wilson's chapter creates the impression that it was the Construction Committee that went to NGLA, and I always assumed that this was probably the case, but Wilson doesn't specifically ever identify who it was who went to NGLA.   While assuming it was the Construction Committee, I have long had some doubts given what else I know about a few of the men on that committee.

Now that I have seen the excerpts from the actual Minutes I have more serious doubts that this it was the Construction Committee, or at least the entire Construction Committee.  The Minutes indicate that it was the Golf Committee, including Lesley (not on the Construction Committee) who went to NGLA, not Wilson's Construction Committee. There is no mention of Wilson's Construction Committee anywhere.  So knowing this and looking back at Wilson's Chapter, I am not sure who "we" is, whether it refers to the Golf Committee, the Construction Committee, or to Merion generally.  

It may not have been a key issue to Wilson in his Chapter because there was substantial overlap between the two committees.  In an undated Minute page apparently from sometime in 1911, the "Golf Committee" was listed as Lesley (chair), Lloyd, Felton, Griscom, and Wilson.  Three of the members of the Construction Committee.  The other two, Toulmin and Francis, are listed as two of the six members Greens Committee, chaired by Sargent.  Interpreting from what I have been given (and what I haven't been given) it seems likely that Wilson and Griscom were appointed to the Golf Committee in late 1910 or early 1911, and the same goes for Toulmin and Francis and their committee.   (This also consistent with certain Representations TEPaul made long ago about Wilson having been appointed to the Green Committee in late 1910 or early 1911.)  

I suspect that some or all of the following went to NGLA:  Lesley, Wilson, Lloyd, Griscom, and Felton.  

What really jumps out at me are the Minutes.  The report was by Lesley and he was reporting on behalf of the Golf Committee.   I don't buy this bit about how a special committee wouldn't have been able to report because there are other such reports in the minutes.  

2. As for determined and approved, that is they way I understand what happened based on my reading of the minutes, and I cannot imagine a serious objection to that interpretation.   CBM and HJW were reportedly brought back, shortly after they had been working on the layout plan at NGLA, to again go over the land and over the five different plans or alternatives and in the end they approved one single plan.   It is not clear whether CBM/HJW went with one of the five options or a combination or something completely different, but it seems beyond dispute that to go from five options to one option requires a them to makes some determinations as to what that final plan should be.

3. As for Francis and the Redan hole, Mike goes much further than you, and I don't think his position is tenable.  Mike credits "the creation of the redan hole to work done subsequent to Wilson’s trip overseas."   In other words, he pretends that there was no effort at a Redan hole prior to Wilson's trip abroad.  This is not consistent with what we know about the creation of the course.  (Yet I understand why he Mike makes this leap.  While somewhat vague one can infer this from Francis, and this causes me to doubt that Francis even knew or understood the origins of that particular hole.  In other words, it makes me doubt Francis was even there at NGLA when they were working on the plan.  Also, of the parties involved who wrote about the creation, they all credit CBM/HJW except for Francis.  Lesley does, Hugh Wilson does, HJW does, even Alan Wilson does, so it is strange that Francis doesn't.)

4.  As for whether Merion has always credited CBM/HJW for the true nature and extent and timing their involvement, I believe as I explained above that you are mistaken.  You and TEPaul seem to be relying on a truism when you say Merion always acknowledged their contribution because those involved did so.  Of course those involved then did, or at least those actually there and knowing the details (like Lesley, Lloyd, Wilson(s) and Whigham) did.   But they didn't articulate the involvement in a way that has translated well over time, and over time the real story has gotten confused with the legend.

The NGLA trip is the best example of this.  CBM was no travel agent.  They were working on the specifics of the layout plan for Merion East.  That is the only reason Wilson and friends traveled up there, and why CBM and HJW returned to Merion to go over everything again, and to choose the final plan.  This was lost over time.

Also, while some of CBM and HJW's contributions have been diminished, misrepresented, or outright ignored, much of their contribution has  been credited to Hugh Wilson and what he supposedly had learned on his trip abroad-- his knowledge and understanding and ability and accomplishment at Merion were all explained by his seven month "Golf Pilgramage."  Yet the trip hadn't even taken place at the time Merion was designed and built!   As importantly, these were CBM's ideas, not anything he figured out for himself while abroad. The classroom was NGLA, and the teachers CBM and HJW.  And it was not an abstract course, it was a clinic on the details of creating the course.   Merion set out to build a CBM course based on his ideas and his instructions!  

Yet ironically, the legend became so powerful that it was used to subtly undermine CBM's accomplishments under the guise of praising Wilson for his!  See for example excerpts such as these from Merion's history book:
". . . It has been been said that Hugh Wilson grasped these principles of Scottish and English course design and conveyed them in his work better than Charles Blair Macdonald. . . "
". . . It is debated whether [CBM] understood some of the fundamental principles as well as Wilson . . ."
". . . "Wilson's touch in adapting the features of the famous British holes appears to be surer than Macdonald's."  

This is hardly an accurate assessment of CBM's contribution, given he appears to have been the guiding force throughout the initial design.  

- How can you or anyone say that CBM has been given the full credit he deserves when with regard to the NGLA meetings he is relegated to the role of a glorified travel agent in Merion's own history book?

- He was integral in determining the land to be purchased, he helped shape the layout plan and he determined the final plan from among various options, and the plan was submitted to the board as the plan he approved, and the course was built with many attempts at his key features and even holes!   And more.  Do you really think that mentioning that he freely gave advice adequately explains his contribution?  

- Merion set out to build a CBM course, and CBM aided them in doing so throughout the design process.  Don't you think the historical record ought to reflect at least that?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

First, thanks for the reply.  I know its a bit rude to make you rehash stuff that I don't recall. 

And, yeah, I think the historical record might reflect that better, but mosly as a result of changing standards in interest about gca, and esp. Merion as a US Open course.  Whether that is a full co-credit or a continuing asterisk along Wilson's name, I figure smarter guys than me will figure out.  But, attribution is an issue all courses and all architects face, and would like to get right.

I still wonder about some of everyone's interpretations, a case in point being your umbrage as calling CBM a travel agent.  I read that as him consulting on what holes and courses not to be missed, not ship tickets, and well within what we understand CBM was doing to help Merion.

As to the "Wilson touch", yes I understand they would overly praise their own, but I also read that as a satisfaction that their course did look different from the then omni present CBM influence.  The fact that their Redan was different than the typical CBM rendition seemed to be a point of pride, and in fact Wilson's/Merion's softer lines took off later as a prevalent design style, while the CBM straight lines tailed off, with the exception of his protoges, Langford, and eventually Pete Dye to some extent (although he claims he was independently influenced by hiw own Scotland trip, not CBM)

When I start thinking about all the uses of layout, etc. I am intrigued by their use, as well as the percieved relevancy of routing to the process, how different the perception of routing and feature design and even construction we considered intertwined or separated as compared to our current perceptions, etc.  I do like the subject matter.


Anyway, thanks for taking time to refresh my memory. 

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

1. I'm less concerned with attribution in the sense of whose name is on the scorecard and more concerned with an accurate and complete historical record.  It seems pretty significant to me that perhaps the first truly great American inland course of the supposed Golden Age was designed in the CBM mould with significant (at least) input from CBM himself.  At least as far as strategic underpinnings go, CBM's extensive involvement would seem to work directly against any notion that Merion was meant to break away from NGLA, at least initially.  While over time the aesthetic may have signicantly diverged, when it comes to the bones of the course Merion is a sibling or perhaps offspring of NGLA.

2. As for my travel agent comment it may sound extreme, but the only mention of the NGLA trip in history book is that  Wilson traveled to NGLA to discuss "his itinerary". Nonetheless in my post 105 I acknowledged that some are in line with your interpretation that they were discussing the holes he'd see abroad.  Trouble is, that isn't what they were doing at NGLA. It had nothing to do with a trip.  The only reason to discuss holes from abroad (and holes at NGLA) was because the principles and features of these holes were to be laid out at Merion.   They were planning Merion!

3. As for what you call the "Wilson touch" I think you are misreading Merion's original aesthetic as well as NGLA's.  That said, I think it reasonable that Merion would want to celebrate that ultimately Wilson developed his own aesthetic and that many considered it more natural looking and more attractive than the Raynor look.  As Piper expressed, his architectural mastery was fully on display after the changes he began implementing shortly before his untimely death.  But even underneath this beautiful and more mature natural aesthetic were the fundamental strategic concepts as understood by CBM. Even when Merion needed to replace the old Alps hole they replaced it with with a CBM concept hole.  And when we consider the history of design in America this similar underpinning is important.  While Raynor's courses may look to some to be manufactured and Merion may look more natural they share the same DNA.

[Jim_Kennedy]

...while the CBM straight lines tailed off, with the exception of his protoges, Langford, and eventually Pete Dye to some extent (although he claims he was independently influenced by hiw own Scotland trip, not CBM)

Great minds (PD and CBM) think alike.

[TEPaul]

"1. I agree that Wilson's chapter creates the impression that it was the Construction Committee that went to NGLA, and I always assumed that this was probably the case, but Wilson doesn't specifically ever identify who it was who went to NGLA.   While assuming it was the Construction Committee, I have long had some doubts given what else I know about a few of the men on that committee."



Although it appears in numerous accounts that there were a number of participants who took the trip to NGLA in the beginning of March 1911 because those accounts use the term "we," I have never seen it written anywhere how many participants there were or who those participants were, other than Hugh Wilson.

It is provable that Wilson was there at NGLA during that trip from a particular correspondence that Wayne Morrison and I found in the archives of the USGA's Green Section perhaps a decade ago. We came to refer to the entire extent of those particular correspondences as the "agronomy letters."

In one correspondence dated March 13, 1911 from those "agronomy letters" Hugh Wilson told Russell Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture that he had just returned from a trip to NGLA with Macdonald and that they had a number of discussions about topics relating to golf course agronomy. It is worth noting that Wilson mentioned nothing to Oakley about architecture in that correspondence which makes sense since most all of the over decade long correspondence between Hugh Wilson and Piper and Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture mostly only had to do with topics relating to golf agronomy and not golf architecture (at least not until years later when Alan and Hugh Wilson got involved in the setting up of the USGA Green Section and its periodical known at The Bulletin, which began to address topics on golf architecture despite some objections from particularly Alan Wilson and to some extent his brother Hugh).*


*At the rate the logic and reasoning is going with a couple of participants on this website, it would not surprise me to see them next isolate those agronomy letters in which Wilson basically only talks about agronomy and not golf architecture, and conclude that since Wilson did not discuss golf architecture with Piper of Oakley, that this therefore proves the only responsibility Wilson and his committee had in 1911 and 1912 was the agronomy of Merion East since golf course architecture was not discussed in that "agronomy letter" correspondence!  

[TEPaul]

The question has been raised on this thread and on others before it about why Hugh Wilson and his committee was not mentioned by name in the board meeting minutes of MCC. It is an interesting question and one that goes directly to the way that club's by-laws, its administrative structure and operationing process is organized.*

If anyone is interested don't hesitate to ask.  


*Some years ago a few of us involved with Merion on its history had some investigative dialogues with some of those from the club in a position to know (both past and present Board members and presidents). NB: Merion East and West was operated for their first thirty years or so under a quite unusual structure of an independent golf association corporation that was technically separate from MCC, the club. The only other club I'm aware of that operated that way was The Creek Club in New York. Ironically, the first president of that corporation (The Kellenworth Corp) was C.B. Macdonald!

[DMoriarty]

He's back already?  Same old story. Sad. Oh well. Good job! Good effort!

1.  No one has ever denied that Hugh Wilson went to NGLA to meet with CBM. Hugh Wilson himself discusses the meeting in his Chapter from the Piper and Oakley book.   This notion that the Ag letters "proved" this is just another laughable, insecure attempt to feign expertise where little existed.  And like everyone else, our self-proclaimed Merion experts thought that the NGLA was nothing but preparation for Wilson's trip abroad, and they believed that trip occurred well before the planning of the course. Had they carefully read and analyzed those Ag letters that they had "discovered," they should have known that this was not the case!  

Further proof that while access to documents is important, the real trick is in being able to figure them out.  While these guys may have had access to the right documents, they proved woefully inept at understanding them and piecing together the various events.  There past writings "prove" this.

As for the Ag letters, of course the focus is on Agriculture, but they do give us some insight into other matters.

2.  The Ag letters repeatedly mention CBM's involvement. It is surprising how often Charles Blair Macdonald comes up.  In the very first letter, February 1, 1911, Wilson indicated that they were already communicating with CBM ("Mr. Charles Macdonald spoke of you . . . ") and that Wilson and Merion respected his opinion on these matters ("we realize the value of his advice.")   Were it not for CBM's guidance, the Ag letters themselves may not even exist.   The letters not only touch on this early advice and the NGLA trip, they also indicate that Macdonald had spoken directly to Oakley about Merion and his plans to revisit the course, and that Wilson and Macdonald continued to communicate about the creation of the course even after Macdonald determined and approved the final plan.  There are other mentions as well.    That is quite a lot about Macdonald given that he wasn't directly involved in this communication.

3. The Ag letters provide insight into how Hugh Wilson worked.  Hugh Wilson sent a lot of letters, and remained in constant communication with his advisors.   We only have the Ag letter because the Dept. of Ag saved them.  They weren't in Merion's records.  Still, from the Ag letters we can surmise that he was in contact with CBM from when Wilson first became involved in the project (see Feb. 1, 1911 letter) until after CBM determined and approved the final layout plan (Wilson attaches a letter from CBM in his correspondence to Oakley.)  We don't have the correspondence between Wilson and CBM, but if the Ag letters accurately depict Wilson's practice, there was likely regular correspondence.

4. The Ag letters suggest that Wilson was heavily reliant on outside experts. Hugh Wilson was not a brash cowboy out there doing his own thing.  He was seeking out and acting in reliance on these experts! Reading these letters, it is difficult to imagine that he would ignore CBM's advice, or not have sought it out regarding the particulars of the design.   For goodness sake, even though he had Oakley and the USGA advising him, he still went to CBM to try and figure out the number of pounds in a proper application of some certain treatment.  If Wilsow was going to CBM for help on such specifics, is it really reasonable to conclude that he would not have sought out and followed CBM's advise regarding how t lay out of the golf holes.

5. The Ag letters provide a snapshot into this early timeframe.  Contrary to the opinions of some, Merion really wasn't doing too much in the field during this period.  Wilson apparently became involved sometime shortly before February first,  And some of the letters suggest that they may have already had a preliminary plan, but Merion doesn't appear to have been out in the field very often, if at all.  Most of the correspondence involves preparatory work for the construction of the course.  They were waiting for better weather before even taking soil samples.  For example Wilson indicates that they would not even go out for a certain sample until after the

6. The Ag letters confirm the they had a contour map.  When CBM first visited the course the previous summer, he told them he could not tell them for certain whether the course he envisioned would fit without first having a contour map, so it is no surprise that Merion had one created.  This would have made working on the layout plan at NGLA more productive and may help explain what Lesley was referring to when he mentioned that at NGLA they studied CBM's "plans."   Surely they didn't take CBM's advice and get a contour map but then keep it from him.  

7.  This notion that Robert Lesley was somehow prohibited from mentioning Hugh Wilson or the supposed Construction Committee in the minutes is downright silly.  Lesley's report indicated that it was the Golf Committee that laid out the "many different courses on the new land" and the Golf Committee that went to NGLA.  Wilson appears to have been on the Golf Committee along with the parties I listed above. And there are plenty of other mentions of special committees in the Minutes.

[TEPaul]

"7.  This notion that Robert Lesley was somehow prohibited from mentioning Hugh Wilson or the supposed Construction Committee in the minutes is downright silly.  Lesley's report indicated that it was the Golf Committee that laid out the "many different courses on the new land" and the Golf Committee that went to NGLA.  Wilson appears to have been on the Golf Committee along with the parties I listed above. And there are plenty of other mentions of special committees in the Minutes."



Who has ever said or implied anything about Lesley being PROHIBITED from mentioning Hugh Wilson and his committee except for you just now?

My point was simply that if anyone is actually interested in why Lesley gave the report for the activities of the Wilson Committee before and up to around the date of the April 19, 1911 MCC Board meeting, the very best way to understand it is to understand how the administrative structure and operating processes of the club was organized and worked. And the best way to learn that and understand it is to speak to those from that club who have been in that position. There is certainly nothing silly about that unless one is under some odd notion that all golf clubs are structured and operate in the very same ways.

It is also helpful in understanding these kinds of things and why certain things are not mentioned or recorded in Board meeting minutes if one has actually served on boards and on committees of golf clubs that are structured and organized the way MCC's was. If one does not understand that or have that experience they might start to assume that Board minutes like that are designed and intended to be not much more than some on-going historical recording of the activities of the club. Even though some minutes can be instructive that way, that is not exactly the point of what meeting minutes are taken for and designed to accomplish.*

*My own golf club is organized and structured to operate the very same way MCC used to and Merion does today. When I got off the board of GMGC, due to various circumstances I was asked to attend board meetings for some years as the club historian since a particular and specific project was still on-going.

[DMoriarty]

The Minutes establish that the Golf Committee, not the Construction Committee, went to NGLA to for help planning Merion's layout. Robert Lesley reported on behalf of the Golf Committee. Anecdotes and yarns won't change Lesley's report into the supposed "Wilson Committee Report" no matter how hard some might try.

TEPaul and others have made up the existence of a "Wilson Committee Report" to create the false impression that the Construction Committee was running the show during this planning stage. They have created fictions such as this one because Merion's Minutes give no credence to the their theories about how the course was created.  The Minutes make no mention of the Construction Committee at all, at least not during this stage.  In contrast, CBM's involvement is repeatedly discussed.

[JESII]

David,

I've read the minutes. You are working as hard to find justification that CBM did more than is mentioned as Tom has always worked to say Wilson and Committee did everything. The minutes just don't support your statements about his efforts.

The truth is certainly somewhere in between and lost forever...

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba:


All,
 
I would agree with David and Jeff that the question at hand is how to accurately measure the signifigance and extent of CBM's contributions to Merion's routing.   I also think that the debate really boils down to how best to apportion that involvement in terms of historical accuracy.   
 
In thinking about it, I don't think I ever objected to learning more about CBM's involvement at Merion, but more to my perception that Hugh Wilson's role was being minimized.   
 
In terms of my own interpretation of what I believe is a proper apportionment of responsibility for the original routing and design of Merion, I think we have to look at the evidence in totality, and not just dissect individual fragments.   In that regard, I just don't believe there is much real evidence that makes clear a greater role for CBM and Whigham other than the facts that have been known and acknowledged for some time now, with the exception of the recent find in the MCC Minutes that the Committee had CBM come down in April to help them select the best of "five different plans".   Let me explain my thinking;
 
First, CBM himself never made any claim to having anything to do with the design of Merion.   Now, I know some will argue that he was involved with other designs that he didn't write about in his book, but none of them had anything near the historical signifigance and almost immediate tournament notoriety as Merion did, hosting the 1916 and 1924 amateurs.   In fact, I'm not sure any of CBM's courses achieved that level of notoriety as major tournament venues.   One would think he might have spoken up at some point over the next 3+ decades of his life had he felt a sense of authorship.
 
Second, and related to the theme of this thread, no one anywhere ever said that CBM "laid out", "designed", "routed" Merion, or used any other term except "advise".   The word advise does not connote authorship, or decision-making authority, by definition.
 
Now, there is no question in my mind that the men of Merion sought to build a golf course based on CBM's ideal course principles, copying tried-and-true concepts and outright feature and hole conceptions, and needed his guidance.   And, we know they sought it.
 
But, we also know that the facts at hand simply indicate relatively few contacts over an extended period of time.   First, in June 1910 Rodman Griscom had CBM come over to look at the property of the Johnson Farm which Merion was considering purchasing.   At the time, the seller was willing to give the club 100 acres or whatever they would need for their course.   We don't really know which 100 acres of the property were considered by CBM and Whigham other than the section north of Ardmore Avenue, but we do know what they wrote in response, and it hardly equates to design.   They hedged their recommendations, expressing concern whether there was enough land to host a recommended 6,000 yard course, and suggested that if Merion was able to aquire a little more land near where they proposed making their clubhouse that they felt it was possible.   In addition, CBM suggested the club contact Baltusrol for more info on how to grow grass on inland clay soils.   
 
The next contact that we know about took place ten months later, after Merion (actually HG Lloyd) had purchased the land.   At that time, Hugh Wilson and others from Merion (Alan Wilson tells us it was the committee) went to visit CBM for two days at NGLA.   From Hugh Wilson's account, and from the MCC Minutes, we learn that the first evening was spent going over CBM's drawings of holes from abroad and their principles, and next day toured that NGLA course.   Some have highlighted that the minutes say they "spent the evening going over his plans [emphasis added) and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying the various holes that were copied after the famous ones abroad.”, suggesting perhaps that these were CBM's plans for Merion.   I don't see it that way at all, because in Hugh Wilson's account he simply says they spent the night as follows;
 
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 (emphasis added) should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.   The next day we spent going over the course and studying the holes.....May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible at courses such as The National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes, and while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.(emphasis added)
 
Never does Wilson say that CBM worked on a plan for the course at Merion.   Nor did anyone else at the time.
 
The third, and final face to face took place the next month, when the committee had CBM down to look at the five different plans the committee tells us that they laid out on their return from NGLA.   I would still be curious to hear someone argue that these "different plans" were anywhere but on paper, as from the Minutes, we also know that a copy of the one selected as best by Macdonald was attached for the Board's review and approval.
 
But what I find most strange if indeed CBM had more of a lead design role than has been historically recorded is why those who were there, on the inside, and who spoke to the men involved in the project, didn't chronicle that fact.   Much to the contrary, AW Tillinghast, who we know stated that he saw the plans prior to construction, and who spoke with CBM about his involvement ,completely omitted any mention of Macdonald in his lengthy review for American Cricketer magazine.   Here is page two of that review, where he simply notes that Hugh WIlson and Committee "deserve the congratulations of all golfers" for their efforts, although I'm not sure why if Wilson didnt' design it and we know Fred Pickering was responsible for the course construction.
 

 
 
Similarly, Alex Findlay's review not only failed to mention CBM, but claimed the work that Wilson and Committee had done was comparable to the work done by Herbert Leeds and his Committee at Myopia, a course Findlay was very familiar with and very fond of.    Findlay does also point out the excellent work done to lead the course construction by Fred Pickering.   We also know that Findlay interviewed Wilson after Wilson's return from abroad, studying courses.
 

 
 
Finally, it just seems impossible to me that for the rest of Wilson's life, sadly lasting only another dozen years or so, he was credited over and over and over in the local press as the man who "laid out" both courses at Merion by every writer in town, from William Evans to Joe and Billy Bunker to Peter Putter, to JR Ford, to A. Jin Riki, and so on, and never once set the record straight if he wasn't the true architect.   He knew that Pickering was the head of construction and hired him for that purpose.   If he had known CBM designed the course, he would have simply allowed a fraud to be perpetuated in his name, and after studying a great deal about the man he certainly doesn't seem the type who would do such a thing, quite the opposite in fact.
 
In that regard, I find the following 1922 article fascinating in several regards to the overall Merion history, including the land acquistion effort.   According to Joe Bausch, the author in question, Donnie MacTee, was actually one J.E. Ford, long-time writer on golf in the Philly area.   The article, one of many written in Philadelphia during Wilson's lifetime, indicates not only that Wilson was one of the original architects of the golf course, but also indicates that he was one of those involved in the selection of the land to be used for the golf course.
 

 
 
Thanks!
Mike
 

[Dan Herrmann]

OT - based on the last article posted, Does Merion still offer "Class B" memberships?  Can I sign up? 

[DMoriarty]

Hugh Wilson and his construction committee laid the course out upon the ground according to the plan that CBM and HJW determined and approved.   Just like the Minutes indicate.  

Mike can selectively post (or have posted) untimely articles all he likes, and he can twist them all he likes, and he can leave out important ones indicating that CBM was AWT's source on the plans for the course, he can insult H.J. Whigham and ignore his words, he can twist Findlay's acknowledgement of CBM's involvement, but he cannot refute the MINUTES themselves which put CBM and HJW at the center of the creation of the course, and he cannot erase the NGLA meeting or reasonably deny it was about anything other than planning the course.

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike,

David,
 
When you state that CBM "determined" the plan, are you saying that CBM is the one who created the routing that was used for Merion East?   If yes, on what basis of evidence do you make that statement?   If so, where are you seeing that in the MCC Minutes?
 
When you say that Hugh Wilson and his Committee "laid the course out upon the ground", could you specifiy exactly what that means in terms of specific, identifiable tasks, especially since we know that responsibility for all construction and grassing operations was in the capable hands of Fred Pickering?
 
Thanks,
Mike
 

All,
 
It's interesting in that regard that David speculated today that as of the April 1911 Board Meeting, the Construction Committee did not exist yet and that the report was delivered by the Golf Committee.   I say that because if he is right, then it appears that Hugh Wilson was a member of the Golf Committee.   Here is how he signs his very first letter to Piper & Oakley, dated, February 1, 1911.
 

 
Next, here is Wilson's letter to P&O after his return from NGLA on March 13, 1911 where he talks a bit about the nature of the visit.   Speculating atop David's speculation that the Construction Committee was not yet formed yet, Hugh Wilson being part of the Golf Committee would certainly be an interesting turn of events.   I don't think he's correct, because Wilson wrote that the Construction Committee was formed in "early 1911", but who knows?   It would certainly explain why he was there when land for the course was being considered, which guys like me and Jim Sullivan have felt all along.
 

 
Thanks!
Mike

 

[TEPaul]

"David,

I've read the minutes. You are working as hard to find justification that CBM did more than is mentioned as Tom has always worked to say Wilson and Committee did everything. The minutes just don't support your statements about his efforts."



Jim Sullivan:


Why would you say that? I have never said, at any time and in any place that Hugh Wilson and his committee did everything. If you think I have then I challenge you to either find where I said that and present it on here and try to prove it or retract it.

What I have always said is that Hugh Wilson and his Committee designed and created Merion East with the help and assistance of Macdonald and Whigam. I said that for years and I still say that because the contemporaneous records from Merion itself say that, and they say it in many places and from a number of people who were connected to Merion at the time and to that project.

All I disagree with and have always maintained is that it is just not true what David Moriarty and apparently Tom MacWood have tried to contend on here for some years now that Wilson and his committee did not route and design Merion East but merely constructed it to someone else's plan! Moriarty has also tried to contend for years that the records of Merion actually say that constructing the course to someone else's plan is all Wilson and his committee was charged by the club with doing or asked by the club to do.

THAT is simply not the case in fact or reality and at no time and in no place do the Merion records of the time say that or even come close to implying it. I have also said that at the time (1910-1912) MCC obviously had great respect for Macdonald and Whigam which they recorded in their committee and board minutes. Had Macdonald and Whigam even been asked by Merion to route and design their golf course and had actually done so, I have absolutely no doubt at all that MCC (Merion) would have recorded that as well and actually attributed the design of Merion to them with perhaps a note that the Wilson Committee was only asked or charged with constructing it!

That is essentially all I have ever said, all Wayne has ever said, and all Merion Golf Club has ever said!

This Merion story about a Wilson trip abroad in 1910 and for seven months to study architecture before beginning the golf course is simply a story that came up in the mid-1980s. That story was a mistake. We even know where the story came from and since determining this about  four years ago that mistake in Merion's architectural history which was included by Merion ONLY in their Tolhurst's 1988 (and the 2005 edition) history book has been taken out of Merion's historical record and the story of its history.

Moriarty had no idea when that story first entered Merion's record and history when he wrote his IMO piece (The Missing Faces of Merion). There is no conceivable way he could have known this at the time he presented that IMO piece on this website because both Merion and particularly we who were involved with Merion in the organization of the archiving and continuing presentation of their history did not know it until approximately May or June of 2008. Not knowing when or from whom that story first came apparently he (and MacWood) just assumed that story had been part and parcel of Merion's record and history from the beginning. It wasn't; That 1910 story of Wilson abroad before the project began did not exist until SEVENTY FIVE YEARS AFTER THE FACT!!!!

And if that is the case, which it is, how in the world could THAT STORY have had any affect or influence on anything that was said and/or recorded by Merion or anyone else about Wilson and his committee or even Macdonald and whigam BEFORE IT??

[DMoriarty]

David,

I've read the minutes. You are working as hard to find justification that CBM did more than is mentioned as Tom has always worked to say Wilson and Committee did everything. The minutes just don't support your statements about his efforts.

The truth is certainly somewhere in between and lost forever...

Jim,  

Can you tell me exactly what is "not supported" by the minutes.  As I see it everything I've said about the Minutes is directly supported by the Minutes, so I am wondering what you mean.    You may have a different interpretation of certain aspects or may not like the ramifications of certain aspects, but I think my claims are well supported and by far the most plausible interpretations of any presented.  

That said, I am curious as to what you mean.  

Thanks.  

___________________________________________________



Mike, I have explained my answers to both of your questions repeatedly, and am not interested in doing it again, especially since by your own choice you aren't even a member of this discussion group, and especially given your supposed reasons for leaving.  I answered the first question immediately above in response a similar question asked by Jeff Brauer, and the other one has been discussed to death. I don't find your long repetitious posts setting out the same articles and rehashing long disproven theories all that interesting,helpful, or on-point, and I don't think it will be productive for you and I to discuss this matter.

That said, I am still waiting for you or anyone else to show me where in the minutes it says that Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee had anything to do with planning the course prior to mid-April of 1911.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I see you are significantly and substantively altering "Dan Herrmann's" posts after the fact.  

I wish you would bother to read my posts before "Dan Herrmann" comments on them.  

I explained that according to my reading of the portions of the Minutes I have been allowed to view, it seems that Hugh Wilson must have been added to the Golf Committee either at the very end of 1910 or the beginning of 1911.  Various club records indicate that he was not on the Committee during the period of time they were choosing the land.