Merion clarification

[Mike Sweeney]

You wrote, "what I think does not matter," yet you also think you know what CBM should have written?  

That is not what I wrote. I simply said he wrote so extensively about Yale in comparison to Merion, which is a fact. Then I stated an opinion that this seems strange to me based on Merion's notoriety with 4 USGA championships during CBM's remaining years. Yale had none.  

Doesn't it matter more what we know about his involvement rather than our speculation about what we think he should or should not have written in 1927?  

I am in the Tom Doak camp that we do know he was involved but we don't know how much. Whigham was involved too and we don't know how much.

While we are speculating about unknowable things, I think it is very unlikely he would ever have taken credit for a course if he wasn't in the person in charge of the project through its creation. So far as I know he never did take credit in such a situation, but if you don't think CBM was ultimately in charge of what Raynor was doing at Yale, then we'll have to agree disagree on that as well.

Ok, but how would CBM really know in 1925 what was going on in New Haven from Southampton on a very very rocky and difficult site? Yale had every reason in the world to list CBM as Architect, yet the latest Yale historical record/book "The History of Yale Golf" states, "For the Ray Tompkins Memorial site, Seth Raynor of Southampton, Long Island was chosen as architect, with his mentor C. B. Macdonald as consultant. In his 1928 autobiography Macdonald claimed that “Today Yale has a classical course which is unexcelled in comparison with any inland course in this country or in Europe.” - https://webspace.yale.edu/Yale-golf-history/Eras/Index.htm

Shouldn't the Yale example cut the other direction?  CBM may have spent more time on the ground at Merion figuring out the design than he did at Yale  or some of his other course he did with Raynor.

Then why did he go out of his way to state in 1928 after Merion had held 3 USGA championships on his design, “Today Yale has a classical course which is unexcelled in comparison with any inland course in this country or in Europe.”  The 5 plans mentioned above by Dan suggest that CBM and Whigham were only a piece of the puzzle, and CBM not writing about Merion would confirm this:

____________________

"That report said that Special Committee laid out  many different courses, then went to NGLA, came home and re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April 6th Macdonald and Whigam came over for the day and said if we would lay out the course according to the plan (apparently one of the five different plans the Wilson Committee had just done) it would result in a first class course and that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world."

____________________

It is my understanding that CBM never saw the finished course at Merion or Yale. Why is he pushing Yale so hard as the best inland course in the country in 1928 over Merion?

Ok here is my speculation: CBM did not get a sudden case of humbleness after Merion. CBM hosted the Merion committee in Southampton and the committee gets excited by what they see at NGLA and they invite CBM to Ardmore. CBM and Whigham went to Philly with the concept that they were going to build the new course at Merion. Suddenly they see that "the committee" does not want anything more than some advice and friendly suggestions. CBM and Whigham gives them a full day of advice and what appears to be one of five plans. CBM's ego is bruised, he says screw those Philly guys and I will never visit nor write about Merion again. Later when Raynor and others tell CBM about the uniqueness, scale and boldness of the final results at Yale, he elevates Yale to status of "my famous inland course in my portfolio".

It is not that much of s stretch, think about how pissed off the Philly guys have made you. 

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
Referring to my post #112:

Two questions you might have missed. 
1. What I can't really see is where any of this material from that time (1910-1911) says that the plan they approved and built was largely developed by Macdonald/Whigam and not the Wilson committee.

2. I also can't see where there is any evidence from that time that the final plan was largely developed by Macdonald and Whigam with some help from Frances and Lloyd before Nov. 15, 1910.  

Thanks

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Hard to disagree with any of your posts 111, 116, and 123.  I agree and don't think CBM considred Merion to be his creation specifically because having "his guy" Raynor in charge of carrying out his plans vs. others created the difference between designing and advising in his mind.  It would for me and most gca's, even if, as was pointed out way back in the old threads, there may not have been that many more days spent on site by CBM at many of his own designs as the 3-4 days he spent at Merion.

I will also add that at nearly the exact same time he was coming over to Merion for the first time, he was accepting commissions (unpaid, except presumably for whatever Raynor needed to be paid) to design courses at Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow.   Whether he retained title as advisor to Merion out of respect for his early clients, or he merely felt differently about those arrangements will never be known, but it seems he considered Merion to be one of many clubs he merely "advised".  They also also considered him a trusted advisor.

So, we have to ask, who are we to tell them what to write, think, express, etc. much as you tell others here the same thing?  They were there.  They knew what they did, what they felt, and all concerned parties considered him an advisor, not a co-designer, which has always been good enough for Merion.

I know you were on a quest to simply find out what happened, and we all now know more exactly what CBM did at Merion.  All valuble stuff.  Those posts (and in re-reading it again, your essay) were very respectful in tone towards Merion.  Hard to believe it got so uncivil, if we had all stuck to that high standard.  It might have been partially due to the attitude expressed by Tom MacWood, and in your current signature trubute to him, that somehow Merion wasn't completely truthful for some, as you said above "sinister" reason.  Not to mention, some close to Merion were offended and sometimes not very civil themselves.

Dan,

I agree with both your points, especially No. 2.  We went over that numerous times, and while David is right that Barker did a rough routing, and they surely looked at it, when CBM went back and wrote his initial letter to the club, he advised generally as to land purchase and general course design principles (length, acreage, etc.) , and noted he did not have a topo in front of him, so he couldn't have planned in any detail.  There is no evidence that the topo was surveyed prior to approval of the land in 12-10, as it is first mentioned in Feb 12 by Wilson in some letters to Piper/Oakley.

Add in that there was no routing on the property map Merion presented to its members, and the proviso that they could take more or less land, which negates much need for pre-routing, and the wording in that Dec 1910 letter  that they would start right to work, and the fact that they took routings to NGLA, and did more before CBM's April visit, and it seems clear that Jan-April 1911 was when all the heavy lifting was done.  It is clear they routed many possible plans, and CBM reviewed them and suggested one as the best, which is exactly what they wanted from him.  Then (technically) the board approved the plans brought to them by the golf committee. 

I just don't see any evidence that there were routings in place prior to that.  In other words, the theory of the 1910 routing rests largely on the kind of speculation we are cautioned against doing.  Of course, that is just my opinion, and based largely on the research and documents presented over all those threads.  As always, I can respect others having different opinions, and as always, I could be wrong. 

We all seem to judge these things from a different perspective.  One example is me knowing that most routings don't start prior to securing the land, (although some do, and it sure makes sense in some cases)  I also doubt the club would pay for a topo survey without a deal in place for the land, to save expense.  David would argue vehemently that "things were different then" but I am not so sure, and if we do stick to the known facts, as well as the opinions expressed contemporarily by the participants, then we know what CBM did, and what he and others called that participation.

[Bryan Izatt]

Going back first to the picture of the 1st that David posted, I'll accept that it is in fact a picture of the first hole but those trees in the background just don't look right for being 400 to 600 yards away.  Also the ground between the 10th green mound and the green appears to have smaller sandy mounds that don't appear in other pictures.



And, here is the colourized version that appears to show a much cleaner look to the right of the 10th mound.




Re the routing, I still think the 10th green intruded a lot into the playing corridor for the first and represents an inexperienced routing.  Here is another Dallin aerial that shows the hole fairly clearly and how close it was to the edge of the 1st fairway.




And, here is a description of the 1st from circa 1916 which mentions, in the first paragraph, the 10th green backing mound as part of the description of the 1st hole.  It must have been obvious and in play.




From the Dallin aerial the original 10th green, 11th tee, 12th green and the 13th hole are evident.  I've marked the routing on the picture below.  It seems to me that an experienced designer such as CBM would not have routed a course where three consecutive holes needed to cross a road.  Not surprisingly, a decade later additional land to the south of 11 and 12 was purchased and the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th were rerouted - an indication that the original routing was flawed.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I think some of our differences come down to different understandings of who CBM was as a person. It seems to me that perhaps you have bought into this caricature of CBM-as-Megalomaniacal-Asshole-Villain that some around here had worked so hard to create. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on CBM and on Merion, but in both instances I don't think the facts as we know them support your conclusions.

CBM/Raynor at Yale vs. CBM/Wilson at Merion

1. Why would CBM have cared whether Merion had hosted USGA Championships? Didn't NGLA and Lido host a grand total of ZERO between them?

2. So far as I know, CBM's 1927 book was essentially his last word on golf course architecture (just after Yale opened.)  So why keep bringing up the 1930s?

3. You ask, "But how would CBM really know in 1925 what was going on in New Haven . . .?"  Maybe because he was communicating with Raynor throughout the project?  See Scotland's Gift.

3.  You wrote: "It is my understanding that CBM never saw the finished course at Merion or Yale."  Based on what?  

(Some people seem to think that if there is not definite documentation of every single step CBM ever took, then we must conclude that he was always standing still, but this seems silly to me.  If it is true that CBM never say the finished Yale or Merion when he wrote about them, then he must have been pretty damn involved in the creation of each in order to be confident enough to comment on them like he did without seeing the finished project.)

4. You wrote:  "Why is he pushing Yale so hard as the best inland course in the country in 1928 over Merion?"   Perhaps he thought that Yale "unexcelled" among inland courses in 1928?

5.  You wrote that Yale's most recent history currently notes that Seth Raynor "was chosen as architect" with CBM as consultant. That is certainly their prerogative and I can understand the logic.  If modern Merion extended the same courtesy to CBM, I doubt we'd have as many of these discussions.

CBM's involvement at Merion

1.  You wrote,"we do know [CBM] was involved but we don't know how much. Whigham was involved too and we don't know how much." We don't know everything but we certainly know enough to draw reasonable inferences.  Here for example are some of what we know . . .
- We know that H. J. Whigham was right there with CBM at Merion, and that H. J. Whigham considered Merion to be an example of a CBM golf course.
- We know that Hugh Wilson effusively thanked and praised CBM for his help with planning the layout and for teaching Merion what to do with their natural conditions.
- We know that in 1914, the club, through Robert Lesley, saw fit to credit CBM and HJW in much the same way as Yale chose to acknowledge CBM in their latest history. (Only they used the word Advisors instead of Consultants.)
- We know that Merion determined to build the course based on the layout plan CBM and HJW had chosen and approved.  
- We know that Alan Wilson wrote that CBM/HJW had been advising about he plans and that their "advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."
- We know that, way back in June of 1910, CBM and HJW had advised Merion as to "what could be done with the property" and that Merion determined to secure the property based "largely upon their opinion."
- We know that there were press accounts and Golf Magazine mentions of CBM's involvement in late 1910, again in the spring of 1911, again in the spring of 1912, and again in 1914.
- We know that the early course was said to based on the the great holes abroad (even though Wilson had never seen them) and that the course reportedly featured a Redan, an Alps, a Road Hole, an Eden Green, and a double plateau green.
- We know that CBM was communicating with Wilson both before and after the other NGLA visit and the Merion visit in the spring of 1911.

Feel free to draw your own inferences.

2.  Now how about let's compare the list above to what we definitely know about Wilson's involvement prior to the time Merion determined to build the course according to the plan CBM/HJW had approved . . .  Anyone?

Merion "laid out five different plans."

1. You argue that, "The 5 plans mentioned above by Dan suggest that CBM and Whigham were only a piece of the puzzle."   I agree that CBM and Whigham were only a piece of the puzzle.

2. You and others seem to be assuming that these five different "plans" were must have been created completely independently of CBM and without his input.  To the contrary, this is what they had just been working on at NGLA, where CBM's "advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."

Your Speculation vs. Reality

You wrote:  

Ok here is my speculation: CBM did not get a sudden case of humbleness after Merion. CBM hosted the Merion committee in Southampton and the committee gets excited by what they see at NGLA and they invite CBM to Ardmore. CBM and Whigham went to Philly with the concept that they were going to build the new course at Merion. Suddenly they see that "the committee" does not want anything more than some advice and friendly suggestions. CBM and Whigham gives them a full day of advice and what appears to be one of five plans. CBM's ego is bruised, he says screw those Philly guys and I will never visit nor write about Merion again. Later when Raynor and others tell CBM about the uniqueness, scale and boldness of the final results at Yale, he elevates Yale to status of "my famous inland course in my portfolio".

Interesting speculation, but it veers well away from reality.

1.  In reality, there is no indication anywhere that CBM ever had any desire to build Merion East.  

2.  In reality, there is no indication that CBM/HJW gave Merion "one of [the] five plans."  It could just as easily have been a combination of the plans or one with different elements than any of the five.  All we know is that CBM and HJW made the final determination.  We don't know what of the plans went into that determination.  

3. In reality we know that CBM had already been working on the plans even before this, and his advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value.

4. In reality, CBM did not decide to "screw those Philly guys."  To the contrary, while he did not direct the construction at Merion,CBM nonetheless continued to advise Wilson/Merion even after he approved the final layout plan.  

5. In reality, CBM did not vow to "never visit nor write about Merion again."  To the contrary, he wrote about Merion's Redan hole in 1914, and listed it right along with his Redans at Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock.

6. In reality, I have no idea why you keep trying to read Yale into all of this.  Might it have something to do with issues you have with CBM that have nothing to do with is involvement at Merion?

Thanks for your comments.  Always interesting.

[DMoriarty]

Dan Herrmann

I don't think I missed your questions.  Rather, you keep misrepresenting my positions in your questions, and i keep correcting you and answering with what I really think, yet you don't accept that.  Instead you again misrepresent my positions in your questions.   For instance, I have repeatedly acknowledged that Wilson and others at Merion were involved in planning the course.  Yet you continue to portray it as otherwise.   And I have written repeatedly written that while I believe a "rough routing" may have existed in 1910, the plan nonetheless continued to evolve and develop up through when CBM/HJW chose and approved the final routing plan.  Yet you continue to claim I think otherwise.

I've tried to answer your questions, so how about you answer a few of mine.

1. What evidence is there from 1910-1911 that Hugh Wilson was even involved in the initial design process at Merion East?  

I don't doubt that he must have been involved, but I'd like to see the evidence.  Are there any newspaper accounts from 1910-1911 documenting Wilson's involvement?  Golf Magazine Articles?  Board Minutes?  Club correspondence to the Members?  Ag. letters to/from Wilson specifically referencing the design process?  

2. Do the Board Minutes from 1910-1911 ever specifically mention Hugh Wilson's involvement in the design process?  If so what specifically do they say?

Thanks.

[mike_malone]

 Is it possible #10 green was laid out with the expectation that land would be acquired at the back of #11 green?

[Dan Herrmann]

.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Saw Tommy Paul today, he's ends his regards.   

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike,

I think some of our differences come down to different understandings of who CBM was as a person. It seems to me that perhaps you have bought into this caricature of CBM-as-Megalomaniacal-Asshole-Villain that some around here had worked so hard to create.

1. Your assumption is incorrect.

2, I played golf a bunch of times with his Great-Grandson Chris (different last name) at a bunch of regular guy public courses on Long Island, and you are simply way way off base.

I think he had an ego, which is what drives people often to great things. I did not read the rest of your post because your starting point of my beliefs were just too far off. I think you present a similar pattern of trying to read things into the entire Merion episode that just are not there, and this post by you re-confirmed my belief of the initial flaws in your essay, and now the follow on post. You are driven by a need to prove Merion and Tom Paul wrong rather than the truth.

I give Tom MacWood and/or you credit for discovering many interesting new facts about Merion, but somewhere you lost the ability to separate facts from opinions.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Malone,

It seems like that green complex would have been a pretty major project for a temporary, and I've never seen anything suggesting that it was meant as a temporary.  If I recall correctly, the accounts I have read all indicated that Merion decided to acquire the additional land and rerouted when traffic became a problem on Ardmore Avenue.
___________________________________________________________

Dan Herrmann,

Sorry if my efforts didn't meet your expectations, but I have been busting my butt trying to honestly and accurately address the various questions and comments.  Posts like your last one do nothing to keep the tone civil.

____________________________________

Mike Sweeney,

Fair enough on my initial assumption being incorrect.  The assumption was off base and I apologize. 

I too think CBM had an ego, I just don't think he'd demand credit if he didn't feel he was the person in charge through the end of the project.  The rest of my post did not follow from my initial comment.  

[Bill Brightly]

Sounds like we all agree: Wilson gets the architectural credit and C.B. Macdonald was a consultant.

Merion thread resolved!

[Dan Herrmann]

Bill
I think that's a wrap!   

[Jeff_Brauer]

David, In your post 129, I agree with much, but disagree that we have any real evidence of the first part of this -

"3. In reality we know that CBM had already been working on the plans even before this, and his advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value."

Now, I am not sure exactly what time frame you are talking about, but if you are talking 1910, its a pretty big assumption to literally know that he was working on the plans, although we do know his advice and suggestions were of great value.

In June 1910, he wrote a follow up letter to his one day site visit, and specifically mentioned he didn't have the topo maps in front of him, but he THOUGHT they could do what they proposed based on his one day site visit.  He didn't design or even recommend at that point, just offered a valuble opinion.  At that juncture, they even ignored some of his advice, opting for 120 acres over his suggested 100, for reasons we can only guess.

Since he said he needed topos, we must presume he wouldn't/couldn't have done any routing before they existed, and as we know, the first mention we know of the topo maps is Wilson to Piper/Oakley in Feb 1912.   That was not long before Merion took their many plans to NGLA for advice, and came back, apparently starting all over until he arrived to review them and help them select one in April.

As you often say, that is all we can know for certain.  All other is just speculation. 

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I was specifically referring to before CBM/HJW returned to Merion in April 1911 to again go over the land etc.  This was shortly after NGLA and at NGLA they were planning the layout.  That is all I meant.   I hope this clarifies.  

Now that you mention it, though, I am a bit surprised that you don't consider their first inspection of the land part of the planning process as well.  They may not have put a pen to paper and drawn a plan because of a lack of a contour map, but when they were done they had a pretty good idea that they could fit a first class golf course provided that the land by the clubhouse was added.  Given the odd nature of the land surely they must have had some had some ideas in mind.   The notion that that were wandering around out there without looking at the property in terms of golf holes or at least features on golf holes defies credulity to me.  This wasn't NGLA where going was rough, it was part was old corn field and the rest was fair grasses.  That they had some ideas (hole lengths, the use of certain features like the quarry and streams, the addition of the land near the clubhouse, etc.) is corroborated by their letter, even if the existence of a written plan isn't.   Now we can argue about when those ideas made it to pen and paper in more detail, or when they made it back Merion.  I could even argue (and believe) these were the CBM "plans" they were going over at NGLA.  But to say that this wasn't part of the planning?  I don't get it?

Anyway, I hadn't noticed your previous post No. 127.  I am not going to revisit the discussion of the land swap, but there were a few other points I want to address:

Hard to disagree with any of your posts 111, 116, and 123.  I agree and don't think CBM considred Merion to be his creation specifically because having "his guy" Raynor in charge of carrying out his plans vs. others created the difference between designing and advising in his mind.  It would for me and most gca's, even if, as was pointed out way back in the old threads, there may not have been that many more days spent on site by CBM at many of his own designs as the 3-4 days he spent at Merion.

First - so no one has a heart attack - so far as I know CBM and HJW only spent two days at Merion going over the land. One day in June 1910 at the beginning of the planning process, and then again in April 1911 at the end of the planning. Wilson and others spent two days with CBM  at NGLA, and we know there were at least some letters/communications but we don't know how many.  

Second, I generally agree with you that there is a major difference between having "his guy" Raynor carry out the plans at his direction vs. having Hugh Wilson/Merion carry out the plans on their own.   (That to me is the irony of the conversation with Mike Sweeney.  I am essentially arguing that CBM did not view Merion in the same light as he did his other courses, and I don't think he did, and for good reason.

This is one of the reasons why I've why never claimed CBM deserved sole credit for the creation of he course. CBM didn't create Merion in the same sense he created his other courses, because he wasn't in charge of the final product. Wilson/Merion were in charge of the final product.  My focus has never been on attribution, and has always been on what CBM/HJW contributed to the planning process, and how that might have made its way into the initial creation.

I will also add that at nearly the exact same time he was coming over to Merion for the first time, he was accepting commissions (unpaid, except presumably for whatever Raynor needed to be paid) to design courses at Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow.   Whether he retained title as advisor to Merion out of respect for his early clients, or he merely felt differently about those arrangements will never be known, but it seems he considered Merion to be one of many clubs he merely "advised".  They also also considered him a trusted advisor.

This is where you lose me, and where I think that applying modern notions might hurt our understand more than it helps.  CBM didn't "accept commissions" (unpaid or otherwise) to design Piping Rock or Sleepy Hollow, no more than he accepted a commission to design NGLA.  I am not sure I have his exact "title" correct off-hand, but he was something like Chair of the Green Committee at Piping Rock, and I'd be surprised if he didn't hold a similar position at Sleepy Hollow. He was closely associated with these clubs and with the men who created them.   It was a labor of love for him, not a commission or unpaid job or a title or a resume builder.  

Likewise, when you write of CBM possibly "retaining the title as advisor [at Merion]out of respect for his other clients" well that doesn't make too much sense either.  He didn't have "clients" in any sense of the word, nor did he have a "title as advisor."  Nor would he have given a damn about "title as advisor."  Nor would he have chosen that title over another.  Hierarchy of titles had nothing to do with it.  A few of his  social and professional peers in Philadelphia (namely RE Griscom and HG Lloyd) had requested that CBM help them plan a first class golf course, and he was kind enough to oblige.

That was all there was to it, and also why it is so difficult to account for now.  It doesn't fit with the way we think if it. He was advising his friends on how to create a first class course.  Doesn't sound like much by today's standards, but the importance of this is found in the quality and content of the advice, not the title of advisor, co-architect, consultant, or whatever else we might come up with.

So I guess if you want, you can say that he "merely advised," but this was C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham we are talking about here, and in Merion's eyes at the time there was nothing "mere" about the value of their advice.  

So, we have to ask, who are we to tell them what to write, think, express, etc. much as you tell others here the same thing?  They were there.  They knew what they did, what they felt, and all concerned parties considered him an advisor, not a co-designer, which has always been good enough for Merion.

I've never had any sort of problem with how Merion handled it initially, and have often held up Robert Lesley's 1914 acknowledgement as accurate and proper, given the times.  But unfortunately the way it was handled initially has NOT "always been good enough for Merion."  

In Lesley's day, CBM/HJW were acknowledged right along with Wilson and Committee, but that is certainly not how the club handles it today or has handled for about a half century.  While the club histories mention in passing that CBM freely gave them advice, Merion seems to have more or less forgotten the extent of the advice or its value to Merion. CBM's valuable assistance at NGLA wrongly portrayed and CBM's role reduced to that of a travel agent. Wilson's fictional trip before the design is given center stage, and Wilson alone is the one they portray as flawlessly and effortless applying what he learned on his fictional trip to the terrain at Merion, at his command.  Surely the inaccuracies weren't purposeful or sinister, but they happened nonetheless.

Worse than this, while still likely unintentional on both parts, Merion and HW Wind have very gently and politely turned CBM into a whipping boy or straw man serving mostly to bolster Wilson's reputation as designer of the course.  To paraphrase, CBM didn't grasp the underlying principles of the foreign courses as well as Wilson . . . Wilson had done a better job incorporating the ideas he picked up abroad into his design at Merion than did CBM at NGLA . . . CBM's holes were out and out copies, whereas Wilson so thoroughly grasped what he had seen overseas that the holes at Merion that he could incorporate the principles without any such copies . . . Wilson's design may have been superior even to CBM's design at NGLA . . . CBM had copied 13 holes, Wilson none . . .  etc.  

So please lets not pretend that Merion has always properly acknowledged CBM/HJW's role at Merion!  Prior to Tom and I bringing this all to light, CBM's involvement had been turned on its head, at best.

I know you were on a quest to simply find out what happened, and we all now know more exactly what CBM did at Merion.  All valuble stuff.  Those posts (and in re-reading it again, your essay) were very respectful in tone towards Merion.  Hard to believe it got so uncivil, if we had all stuck to that high standard.  It might have been partially due to the attitude expressed by Tom MacWood, and in your current signature trubute to him, that somehow Merion wasn't completely truthful for some, as you said above "sinister" reason.  Not to mention, some close to Merion were offended and sometimes not very civil themselves.

We all know how those threads became uncivil.  Same reason MacWood was repeatedly attacked before he even got the chance to post his Crump piece, and the same reason my intentions, character, and IMO were attacked with both barrels even before I even got a chance to post my IMO!   I don't want to get into all that again, but I also don't want to pretend it was something that it was not.

[Jim Nugent]

It seems to me that perhaps you have bought into this caricature of CBM-as-Megalomaniacal-Asshole-Villain that some around here had worked so hard to create. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on CBM and on Merion, but in both instances I don't think the facts as we know them support your conclusions.

As I understand it, CBM played in what was supposed to be the 1st U.S. Am in 1894.  He came in second, and then denounced the tournament as not a legitimate national championship.  He actually did this twice.  i.e. he played in two different tournaments that were supposed to be the U.S. Amateur, came in second both times, and then denounced them afterwards.   

Then in 1895 he and a group of golfers formed the USGA.  They held their version of the U.S. Am, CBM won and has forever since been accepted as the 1st U.S. Amateur champion. 

If that is true, it seems to me a bit megalomaniacal.

 

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  I happen to have done a bit of research on that early anecdote, and as it looks to me like it is not quite accurate.

I don't have the details in front of me but off the top of my head . . . there were two clubs hosting tournaments vying to be the National Championship, and there were was a big stink about which format to follow, the participants, etc.  Most of the controversy occurred before the matchplay tournament where CBM ended up the runner-up.  If I recall correctly, the solution to the controversy -- the planned formation of a national body to sanction such things (eventually the USGA) -- also came before the tournament was over and CBM lost.

That said, CBM did make a stink about the slow play of his opponent in the final in 1895.   He certainly was no angel and he certainly had an ego, but he wasn't quite as he was sometimes portrayed either.  And he did generously and freely devote himself to spreading finer points of golf and golf architecture in America for many decades.
________________________________________________________________________


Not sure if Mike Sweeney is still reading but his thoughts on CBM's comments about Yale brought something else to mind.  

In the April 1911 minutes, Lesley noted that CBM had said that if the plan he submitted was followed "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."

AW Tillinghast reported something simlar it in the May 1911 American Golfer:
The new course of the Merion Cricket Club is nearing completion in the planning. During the month Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald and Mr. H. J. Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the prospects. Mr. Macdonald said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country, and as our first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction.

Given CBM's ego, and his well-known appreciation for the quality of his own work, would CBM have said this about Merion if he hadn't been instrumental to the formation of the design?

Did CBM ever similarly rave about any other American course other than own?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good morning, and thanks for the last post to me.  I only mentioned pen and paper routings, because if MCC members did most or all of those, and CBM simply reviewed, I can see where that lead to their initial impressions that it was a homemade design, rather than getting a plan from a gca or CBM.

As to the design process, I know the formal sequential process for design had been well established by then, if not for golf, but certainly for engineering, and Francis for one would be familiar with it.  That said, while it is easy to compartmenalize the process for clarity of description, (i.e. 1st visit, pick the land, 2nd visit instruct and review prelim plans, 3rd visit, review final plans) I also know that it is a continum.  So, I can agree those early visits were part of the process, even if the Barker plan was largely discarded as the parcel changed, even if they were wise enough to leave some flexibility (could be for tweaks, or for fitting future unstarted routings, who knows, but it was a smart move, and one probably recommended by CBM) it obviously all had an influence on the final product.

Lastly, I think everyone agrees that later, the Wilson legend grew.  If it hadn't it wouldn't be a legend.......Like the recent GD article, who HWWind interviewed went a long way to forming his perpective, and we have to assume that was Merion members, with CBM long gone.  That said, praising Wilson is not necessarily burying CBM in most minds, but it did have certain effects on history of Merion.

[ChipOat]

The last paragraph of Mike Sweeney's post #125 caught my eye.

Mike, while you are indulging in pure speculation, and we will never know the answer, who knows what CBM and HJW expected when they made the trip to Ardmore?  Who knows whether Wilson et al made any inferences when they were at NGLA?  Whether they did or didn't, who knows what conclusions CBM and HJW mad based on that meeting and Merion's subsequent invitation.

While I, at least, would never include it in a history of Merion or a biography of CBM, your hypothesis - which must forever remain untested - is intriguing.  I have absolutely no idea what % of probability to assign to it other than > 0%.

[ChipOat]

Bryan:

Regarding your post # 128 re: the original 10th green as a novice routing, please refer back to my posts #58 and #78.

At the risk of sounding combative, Dale Carnegie always taught that, if you have a complaint, be prepared to offer at least one potential solution - even if it isn't 100% practical.

Given that philosophy (which may not be yours), what other choice did "whomever" have in the original placement of the tenth green considering the land that was, and was not (until later), available to them in 1910-1912?

I cannot envision where else that green could have been located.

Per Dale Carnegie, do you have any suggestions? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chipoat,

Somewhere later, after they had moved holes 10-13, someone mentioned that this was the plan MCC had favored originally, but the land was not aquired, probably for cost reasons, I assume.

Who knows if it was always in the back of their mind to change it when money was available.  Francis for one lamented playing across the road, at least in his 1950 remembrance.

My take is that safety corridors weren't as highly valued then as now, or developed.  Many courses of that era sit on even less land, and are less packed.  Plus, maybe they knew that it was the goal to change it someday, and somehow, considering it temporay made it seem more palatable.  Or, maybe some head knocking experience taught them the hard way that things were too close together.....we just cannot know.

[Bryan Izatt]

Chip,

Around here that is not combative in the least. 

Within the context that I'm not an architect, take the following musings for whatever they are worth.  They could have placed the 10th green where it is now and still gotten a short (perhaps 290 yard) par 4 out of it.  They could have placed the tee further to the west and teed off over the 9th green (not unlike some holes in Scotland) to gain some yardage if that was necessary.  In those days it would have played similarly to how the 10th plays today, given the difference in distances between the two eras.  That is assuming that you want to keep the rest of the routing the same as it was.

Another possibility is that they could have taken a different chunk, and perhaps larger chunk of the 161 acres that Lloyd had and come up with a totally different routing.  It is unarguably a tight squeeze to get a "championship" course on the acreage they started with.  It took some additions to make up enough space to get what we have today, so arguably there wasn't enough space for the first iteration of the course.

Don't take my comments about a novice routing as an insult to Wilson or Merion.  After all, CBM, as close to an experienced professional as you could get in those days approved the plan. And, I'm not an architect so these are just my musings.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

If crossing the road was the routing mistake, then shouldn't you change 10-12? That would have created 3 holes in a row all under 300 yards and all about the same distance.  CBM's approach to creating first class golf courses probably wouldn't have allowed for this.  His approach was to make each hole distinct from the others on the course and in part this meant the holes would be of different lengths to the extent possible.  Take a look at the length of holes he suggested to Merion for their course and you can see this.

On the other hand, if you are going to throw the larger 160 acre portion up for grabs, why limit yourself to the 160? HDC controlled something like 330 acres.  So if you are speculating about what they could have done differently, why not include it all?

[ChipOat]

Bryan,

First, let me acknowledge that you do, in fact, have several alternative suggestions.  Dale Carnegie would give you an "A".

It sounds as though you are assuming that MCC could have had their pick of which acreage they wanted right from the beginning.  I don't know if that's true regarding the property that was owned by the land company that sold them the original parcel - maybe yes, maybe no.  However, I do know that the property on the south side of Cobbs Creek where the current 11th green and 12th tee have stood since 1923 was NOT owned by the land company.  Therefore, I give it a 50/50 probability that those critical pieces of ground may not have been for sale until later.

Also, research indicates that Ardmore Avenue was little more than a wagon trail in 1910.  The old maps show that it didn't go much of anywhere worthwhile.  However, AFTER the homes/estates that the land company envisioned began to sprout, THEN there was a reason for Ardmore Avenue to become more busy.  It sounds crass, but the truth is that, to the owner of the ground that sold the acreage to MCC, what became the historic, revered East Course was a for-profit real estate play.  Not sure that anyone envisioned what Ardmore Avenue would become.

Also, since it has been established that CBM had something to do with the original routing, consider that, since Day One, NGLA has two holes (8 and 11) that cross what has become a very busy road.  So busy that the club built a  4' berm on each hole within the last 20 years to minimize the likelihood of a low-flying golf ball colliding with a moving vehicle or cyclist.  Therefore, we may assume that CBM and HJW were comfortable with the concept and that they did not foresee what Ardmore Avenue would become, either.

You have presented alternatives of an architectural nature which qualifies you as the kind of participant that Ran has always wanted.  Whether they were do-able at the time is questionable.  Either way, they also required a certain amount of optimistic foresight that is never easy to come by.  Maybe Donald Trump naturally thinks big enough to have anticipated the success of the real estate development, but he wasn't alive back then.   

[Bill Brightly]

Chip, that is a GREAT point that NGLA crosses a road!