Merion clarification

[DMoriarty]

As far as your questions go, I think you know better than anybody that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative.

You lost me.

I am not asking you to prove a negative, nor am I trying to prove a negative myself.  Rather I am asking you for documentation from that time period indicating what, if anything, Wilson actually contributed?  And for any documentation from that time indicating that Wilson was even involved?

You asked me basically the same thing about CBM, so surely these must be a fair questions.

Plenty of such documentation exists from that time period which specifically refers to CBM . . . Can you not come up any documentation from this time period indicating Wilson was involved in the design process?  
___________________________________________

There would be no Merion East without William Flynn?  Fascinating hyperbole and quite ironic considering all that Wilson had done for Merion before his premature death, but perhaps that is for another thread.

[ChipOat]

Patrick:

Re: your post #162.

You have supported my point precisely - once again, we agree,  However, you do appear to infer that the back road in Southampton that intersects the 8th and 11th holes at NGLA is less busy than before Rte 27 was widened.  While I have no FACTS to disprove that, my anecdotal observations every spring,summer and autumn from 1974-2008 tell me that the explosion of new-build homes in the area since 1982-ish, plus the addition of Atlantic and The Bridge, has made that road busier every year regardless of the width of Montauk Highway.  Hence, the club's decision to build those unsightly, but necessary, berms about 20? years ago.

Ardmore Avenue's vehicle traffic growth may have preceded that of the road crossing NGLA by 60+ years, but my original analogy is unchanged.

Finally, I will not be updating my data points on Southampton traffic any time soon.  I'm afraid those days are over for me.   

[JESII]

David,

Did the minutes say CBM determined and approved the routing that was chosen? My recollection is that the minutes said CBM approved of this particular routing.

Also, regarding the additional land near the clubhouse statement...do you read that as CBM suggesting it or simply agreeing that it would be helpful?

[Dan Herrmann]

For your reading enjoyment:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/cirba-mike-who-was-hugh-wilson/

[DMoriarty]

Did the minutes say CBM determined and approved the routing that was chosen? My recollection is that the minutes said CBM approved of this particular routing.

Also, regarding the additional land near the clubhouse statement...do you read that as CBM suggesting it or simply agreeing that it would be helpful?

Good questions Jim.  

1.  The minutes say that CBM/HJW decided that if Merion would build a course according to the plan they approved, which was submitted to the board therewith, that this would result not only in a first class course, but also that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world.   (exact quote is somewhere above.)

But we know that CBM/HJW did not merely "approve" the final plan, because when they returned to Merion to again go over the land and consider the various options, there was not yet a "final plan" for them to approve.   CBM/HJW first had to determine a single plan from the various options (the "five different plans".)   We don't know if they chose one, combined a few, and/or added the new elements, but we do know they came up with a single plan which was provided to Merion's board as the one they "approved."  This is what I meant when I wrote they had determined and approved the final plan.  

(Don't forget that they also had been working on the plans at NGLA, so in essence they were choosing between options which they had a hand in creating.)

2.  CBM seems to have suggested the use of the RR land behind the clubhouse in June of 1910.  I cannot say for certain that he was the first to make this suggestion, but it seems likely.  Do you think it might have been Barker?  Someone from Merion?  Why?

For my purposes in the current exchange, what I think is important is that (whether it was his idea or not) CBM viewed this small (<3 acre) isolated parcel as a crucial component in his solution to the routing problem.  CBM thought that Merion could fit 18 first class golf holes, "provided" that they added this small parcel.  This to me strongly suggests that CBM already had a good idea of how the holes should be fit onto the land.  Why else would he deem this parcel be such a necessity?    

______________________________________________

Dan Herrmann,

Thanks for the link.  Unfortunately, I don't think anything in there answers the questions I posed to you. But if I missed something, surely it would be easy enough for you share the specific information here. After all I have been patiently answering your questions. Thanks.

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
As an aside, have you read Merion's latest version of the history of their East Course, entitled A Centennial Celebration of The East Course, by Jeff Silverman?  It'd be interesting to see what you think about it and what you think about the latest on the way Merion presents the details history of the East Course, including the timeframe of 1909-1912).
Back to your point..   In answer to your questions, here is what Mike Cirba just said on the other thread on the importance of understanding the structure of MCC and why various names may not have been mentioned in Board Meeting minutes in 1910 and 1911. I think it's a very good point and hope it answers your questions. It answers them for me.

"I think our understanding of Merion at the time is best served through looking at the Committee and Governance structure. Merion was not a Golf club, per se, but instead an athletic club which was run by the Board of Governors.

Reporting to the Board were various permanent committees from the various sports; the Tennis Committee, the Squash Committee, Cricket, Bowling, Skating, and Golf, of course, as well as various social, entertainment, and administrative committees.

Robert Lesley at the time was Chair of the Golf Committee. The Green Committee reported up to him and Lesley later wrote that Hugh Wilson was Chairman of the Green Committee, beginning in 1909, and we know he resigned due to pressures of business in November 1914. (he later served again after WWI)

To my knowledge, what have been found to date are Merion Cricket Club minutes from the meetings of the Board of Governors."

[JESII]

Is it undeniably true that Hugh Wilson was chairman of the Green Committee from 1909 to 1914?

[DMoriarty]

Is it undeniably true that Hugh Wilson was chairman of the Green Committee from 1909 to 1914?

No. It is false.  

Wilson replaced Sargent as Chair of the Green Committee sometime after 1911.  When Wilson stepped down in 1914, Sargent became Chair again.  

How do I know this?  Because a Board minute entry in 1911 lists out the Green Committee and it lists Sargent as Chair.  Wilson was not listed on the Green Committee.

While Lesley's 1934 article did list the past Chairs of the Green Committee, it would be a mistake assume that they were in the correct order and that none had served more than once. Sargent served at least twice, which I don't think is all that uncommon.

I'd just as soon avoid posting on the thread about Mike's IMO for the time being, so people can have a chance to read it without being influenced by a lot of critique. (In short, I'd like to provide him with the courtesy he and his friends never provided me.)  That said, I do hope he, Dan, or someone corrects this latest theory of his over there, because it seems to be demonstrably false.  No use starting another Wilson legend.
______________________________________________



Dan Hermann,

I am not sure how you think that answers my questions, unless your answer to my questions is that there is no source from that time period which connects Wilson with the design process.

As for Mike's explanation you posted above, it makes no sense for a few reasons, just one of which is that Wilson was not on the Green Committee.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Good discussion. David - your post 172 to Jeff was a good one, and the questions you asked him at the end brought to mind one that I've had ever since you brought to light here Wilson's 1912 trip abroad (i.e. a trip that took place after a routing had been chosen and, if I remember correctly, after the course had been laid out/seeded). That question is: does anyone know and are there any records/reports of what Wilson did to the course after returning home? I'm wondering what he -- and others, including CBM -- hoped to accomplish by such a study tour so relatively late in (what i think of as) the design process. Given the length and nature of Wilson's study tour, it would seem that he/they  thought he'd be bringing back ideas and features and styles/looks that would be meaningful/impactful to the final design/course. But if that is true (and the alternative would be that he was essentially taking a sight seeing tour, which doesn't seem plausible), I can't envision what a detailed and specific routing would/could look like. I don't doubt that there was such a routing; the reports/minutes mention choosing one of the five plans. But if features/elements such as bunker placements and green contours and angles etc were amongst the things that Wilson studied and brought back to Merion, the pre-1912-trip routing -- or, perhaps better to say, the pre-1912-trip design -- would have had to "leave plenty of room" for those features to be applied, i.e. it would have had to "factor in" the design elements to come. Since I'm not familiar with another example of this kind of process, I'm just wondering what folks might know/suggest  about how WIlson, CBM et al, saw the approved routing, i.e. whether they saw it as basically a completed blueprint for an ideal course or whether it was more of a 'framework' for things to come.

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - I think the difference between C&C's constellation map and the services provided by CBM were that C&C went on to design and build Sand Hills, which CBM didn't do at Merion.

Dan,

One has nothing to do with the other.

The Constellation map isn't related to services, it's a rendering and has nothing to do with work performed subsequent to the production of the rendering.

We know that Ross provided routings and hole designs without setting foot on the property subsequent to the production of his routings/designs.

Ditto CBM.

You inquired if CBM had provided a routing and hole design far more detailed than anyone other than perhaps Ross.  WHY ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Agreed to a point,

but the MCC minutes surely would have documented any work product CBM gave them, like a routing. 

I don't think CBM would have provided a "routing" over the phone.

Rather, I see him either answering questions or fine tuning his general thoughts via telephonic communication.

If there was a question regarding the routing, features and/or problems, rather than wait in anticipation of his next visit, why wouldn't you pick up the phone and call him ?

Conversely, if he wanted to refine his previous comments, concepts or solutions, why would he wait until his next visit, why wouldn't he just pick up the phone and call the interested party/ies at Merion ?

I can't imagine CBM or Merion remaining in the dark and ignoring and abandoning communication vis a vis telephone.

[DMoriarty]

Good questions Peter.

The course was sparsely bunkered originally, before Wilson traveled abroad, but the bones of the course - the tees, greens, fairways -  had already been placed, built and seeded. So the green angles and green contours were already in place.  And at least some of the artificial features (such as the giant "Alps" hill and some of the bunkering) were already in place as well. 

Because there weren't many bunkers, some of the the comments about the original course indicate that it was still a very much a "work in progress" or even a "rough draft."  Comments also noted that some of the bunkering had been purposefully left to be added later.  This should surprise no one who understands CBM's preferred approach to design. CBM considered it a good practice to wait to add the finishing touches to a new course until later, after the course had grown in and had been played. From Scotland's Gift:  “The undulations and run of the ball tell the story of how the hazards should be placed. Don’t place them without experience.”  So I think it was very much by design that Merion waited to add many of the bunkers.  It is hard to tell, but it seems to be that at least some of the green side bunkers would have been in place, but the fairway bunker probably had been left to later.

So did the sparse bunkering indicate that the course hadn't really yet been planned?  Not at all. Much of the original character of Merion came from the roll of the land, the natural features, and the green contours. (While there are now bunkers everywhere one could argue that this is still somewhat true today.)
 - The short 13th, surrounded on three sides by water, was a perfect example.
 - The natural "bottleneck" of the land before 7th before the green is another good example.
 - Even the out of bounds corner on the 6th (reportedly modeled after the Road Hole) helped define the strategy. 
 - Same for the 3rd (or "Redan") green, perched above the gaping hole created by the foundation of an old bard.   
 - Same for the 5th with its natural slope left.   
 - And of course there was the quarry on the 16th, which certainly needed no bunkers to be great.
 - Same for the 17th with the quarry and the long tee shot large swale crossing just short of the green. 
 - And this isn't even getting into the green contours with their skewed angles and contours. Such as such as double plateau 14th, the sloping and hog-back 15th green, and the small biarritz-esque swale in the original 2nd, the side-sloping 5th, the difficult to hold 3rd, etc.

Even without many of the bunkers, this was the bones of a sophisticated strategic golf course.  And the general location of the bunkers would have been somewhat dictated by the greens, contours and the intended strategy of the hole, even if they had not yet been exactly placed.  Merion was a very strategic course by design, even before the bunkers were added.

So if the course was already built, why would have Wilson gone abroad to study?  Wilson never directly addressed it so it is speculation, but my guess is he went over there because he wanted to make the course great, and he knew he had a hell of a lot still to learn.  And he was an avid student.   My guess is that he had caught the bug from CBM, and wanted to learn more.  As he wrote in 1916, in the key passage which helped me figure out the correct timing of the trip abroad:  "Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald’s teachings."   There is also a possibility that even then Merion knew that with Merion's huge membership and second golf course, they knew they would probably need a second golf course.

As for the types of things he did when he got back, Far and Sure mentioned a few things he might have done -- including possibly adding some mid-Surrey hollows, building some hazards, and  planting "bents of Le Touquet" in some of the sandy mounds.   He wasn't redesigning the course, he was finishing it.    In short, while he had a lot to learn, I think he was focusing more on how to construct and create the vision already in place. 

[DMoriarty]

One more early course comment which might suggest just how much work he had to do to get the concepts worked out.

In an article Joe Bausch found, Alex Findlay had some interesting comments.  Findlay had spent some time with Wilson on the property in June of 1912, shortly after Wilson returned from the trip abroad. And according to Findlay, Wilson indicating that after seeing the Alps at Prestwick, Wilson knew that his Alps hole needed work.

Wilson has just returned from a trip abroad.  He visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent the making of good golf holes.  I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course.  He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot.  But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.

So he probably set about improving the Alps hole, and many of the others, to better capture his vision of the holes.  (The article is odd in that Findlay was quite complimentary of the second shot requirement on the Alps hole just a few months later, so maybe the problem he and Wilson had was more to do with the with the tee shot than the approach.)

And after having discussed the course with Wilson in 1912, Alex Findlay wrote that C.B. Macdonald laid out many of the other holes.

[Adam_Messix]

David--
 
The following was posted elsewhere a few days ago and the gentleman who posted it gave me permission to post it here.  Any thoughts....

Then there are the minutes of the December 1914 Merion Cricket Club Board of Governor's Meeting.  The minutes read, "The resignation of Mr. Hugh I. Wilson, as Chairman of the Green Committee, was presented, whereupon, on the motion of Mr. Lillie, duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:  RESOVLED, that in accepting Mr. Wilson's resignation as Chairman of the Green Committee, the Board desires to record its appreciation of the invaluable service rendered by him to the Club in laying out and supervision of the construction of the East and West Golf Courses.  The fact that these courses are freely admitted by expert players to be second to none in the country, demonstrates more fully than anything else that can be said, the ability and good judgement displayed by Mr. Wilson in his work.  The Board desires to express on behalf of the club its sincere thanks to Mr. Wilson and regrets that pressure of business makes it necessary for him to relinquish the duties of Chairman of this important committee."  I think this speaks for itself, but why go to such pains to thank Wilson when there is no official thank you to MacDonald from the Board?   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

Who gave you permission to post that excerpt ?

Whenever a member resigns his chairmanship, boards typically offer high praise for his time and efforts.

CBM was neither a member nor a Chairman of any club committee.
Why would Merion offer a similar thank you ?

Having been on the Boards of a few clubs, I've never seen any one of them, in the minutes, thank an outside vendor for their services.

I have seen Boards thank resigning Chairman, automatically and on every occassion
I have seen Boards award outgoing Chairman with plaques and other items of gratitude for their service.
The USGA even does so for their departing committee members

But your final question is not a question, but rather a denial in disguise.

Anyone familiar with clubs, Boards and outgoing Chairman knows the answer.
Many, if not most to nearly every club requires that a committee Chair be a board member.
This is for reporting and accountability.
Being a committee member and especially a Chairman requires the committment of your time and service to your club.
To not thank a committee Chair upon their departure would be an insult.
Boards appreciate the volunteer service rendered by their Chairs.
Thanking them, officially, is standard protocol.
And a matter of common courtesy.

To try to posture that because and outgoing Chairman and member was recognized for his service, but an outsider, a non-member and vendor was not, means that the outsider/vendor did nothing is beyond absurd, it's moronic.

[Lou_Duran]

“There was peculiar pleasure in revisiting Merion after an interval of years for I have known the course since its birth.  Yet, with it all, there was keen regret that my old friend Hugh Wilson had not lived to see such scenes as the National Open unfolded over the fine course that he loved so much.   It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf architecture.  Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”  – A.W. Tillinghast – “Golf Illustrated” – July 20, 1934

Copied from Mr. Cirba's essay.

Is Tillie just another romantic propagandist seeking to prop up and gain favor with the Philly school?  Was he still grieving Hugh Wilson's death some nine years after the fact and tossing some undeserved love his way?  Or was he an intimate and knowledgeable contemporary giving the man his due with an informed account?

BTW, other than in the obituary penned by Whigham for his father-in-law, are there other design attributions to Macdonald for Merion?  Yes, it is true that in polite society a departing member receives lavish, sometimes undue praise.  So, if we are to discount board minutes in this regard, shouldn't this be double for the lamentations upon the death of a loved one?  Given Macdonalds' XXX-L stature in the relatively small golf community of that time, rather than his role in the creation of Merion being slighted, might it have been gussied up?

Having played several Macdonald and Raynor courses but only viewed television coverage and pictures of Merion, I don't sense much resemblance in style.  Were the pre-1911 courses in the U.S. not already including many of the features we now so loosely call Redan, Cape, Alps, Eden, etc.?  With consideration to the "myth" of the pre-routing trip to the UK, what conclusions follow reasonably from all the fine research and writing done here over the past several years?  Is there a superior denouement than the "official" record in part summarized above by Tillie?  If so, in three or fewer sentences, what might it be?  
  

[SL_Solow]

I have been reading these threads for years.  I have learned a lot, both about the subject and about the individual posters.  For me, the biggest disconnect between the schools of thought is where one or the other attempts to essentially eliminate the contributions of the less favored architect.  So in an effort to clarify the discussion, let me ask David Moriarty directly, do you believe that CBM provided a detailed routing that Wilson adopted?  Do you believe that CBM was consulted and in making recommendations about a land purchase had a preliminary routing in mind which he communicated to the committee?  Do you believe that CBM designed any of the holes at Merion?  Do you believe he recommended implementation of certain holes, and perhaps locations, which were implemented by the Wilson led committee?  How important were Wilson's contributions in actually laying out and supervising construction of the course?  How important were his contributions in adding hazards over time?  What did I miss?  Finally in connecting the dots, it is fair to comment on how much is based on logical extension of known facts and how much is clear from the record.  I think I can anticipate your answers and I think those who disagree should think about how they would answer the same questions.  Note  that I have left out any lingering questions about the time line; I think that issue has been settled.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lou Duran,

Would you consider AWT and CBM to have been competitors ?

Were they friends or rivals ?

In 1911 AWT had designed but one course and wouldn't design his second for four (4) more years.

Exactly how familiar was he with Merion's development in 1910-1912 ?

[DMoriarty]

 

David--    The following was posted elsewhere a few days ago and the gentleman who posted it gave me permission to post it here.  Any thoughts....

Adam, 

My thoughts are that the Board's appreciation was well founded.   Wilson certainly did provide "invaluable service rendered by him to the Club in laying out and supervision of the construction of the East and West Golf Courses."     In April 1911, Merion's Board had resolved to lay out the course according to the final plan which had been ultimately determined CBM/HJW and submitted to the Board as the plan "approved" by CBM/HJW, and Hugh Wilson was the person charged with laying out the course according to that plan.

From Merion's April 1911 Board minutes:
"Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham . . . decided that if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world."

Note how Merion viewed this as a two step process:  1.  Planning the golf course.  2.  Laying the golf course out on the ground according to that plan.  Wilson would "lay it out according to the plan [CBM/HJW] approved."

Of course it is not as if CBM/HJW "somehow fell out of the sky" and showed up uninvited at Merion in April 1911, and snuck onto the property and surreptitiously "approved" the plan.  Merion had been turning to CBM/HJW to help in the planning since the previous June, when Merion had convinced them to travel to Philadelphia and go over the property and offer their opinion "as to what can be done with the property."

Adam wrote:

I think this speaks for itself, but why go to such pains to thank Wilson when there is no official thank you to MacDonald from the Board?

   

You lose me here. Wilson was stepping down. They were thanking him for his accomplishments. You cannot honestly expect that this entry ought to have given equal time to CBM, can you?

Also you are wrong about the Merion not providing any acknowledgement of CBM/HJW's contributions. 
- They first formally thanked CBM and HJW in July of 1910, in a resolution and letter.
- They also acknowledged their contributions in November of that year in a mailing to the membership which noted that Merion had decided to purchase 117 acres of land and build a golf course "based largely" on CBM/HJW's opinion of "as to what could be done with the land." 
- In 1914, in Robert Lesley's 1914 article on the two courses also acknowledged and thanked CBM/HJW right along with Wilson's Committee.   
- And in 1916 Hugh Wilson lavished praise on the help CBM had provided: 
      -- CBM/HJW had given Wilson "a good start in the did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the golf holes." 
      -- CBM/HJW had taught Wilson more about "golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played."
      -- CBM/HJW had taught Wilson "what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."
      (For years this had all been dismissed as merely some sort of general tutorial on golf course architecture, but we now know that what they were doing at NGLA was working out the details of the layout plan for Merion East.)
- Even Wilson's brother Alan praised CBM/HJW for their help in planning the course, noting among other things that CBM/HJW's "advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."
_____________________________________

Lou Duran,

An important difference between that AWT snippet and the H. J. Whigham remembrance is that, unlike AW Tillinghast, H. J. Whigham was there with CBM throughout the planning. He knew first-hand who had primarily responsible for the plan.   

About as close as AWT seems to have come to the planning was when he reported in May 1911 that CBM/HJW were aiding the committee in the planning of the golf course and that they were very pleased with the prospects, and that the last seven holes would equal any in the country.

And I think you may have it backwards when you suggest I am the one ignoring Merion's board minutes.  For example, you don't seem to realize that Merion's Board minutes indicate that CBM/HJW had final say over the layout plan!

_________________________

Shel,

Great questions.  I'll get to them later.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou Duran,

Would you consider AWT and CBM to have been competitors ?

Were they friends or rivals ?

In 1911 AWT had designed but one course and wouldn't design his second for four (4) more years.

Exactly how familiar was he with Merion's development in 1910-1912 ?

They were competitors for a very short time given that CBM, an "amateur", was retired from the active design of golf courses for some 20 years prior to the date of the article from which the quote was extracted.

Based largely on reading George Bahto's and Gib Papazian's fine book on CBM, I suspect that the "Evangelist" had far more rivals than friends.  I don't know whether CBM and Tillie were friendly, but even if they were primarily rivals, this doesn't mean that Tillie would withhold credit when it was due or otherwise treat CBM unfairly.  I've heard Tom Doak speak highly of Bill Coore even though they lock horns on many potential projects and C&C seems to be getting the better end of the stick lately.  Something to do with professional courtesy.

Regarding how familiar Tillie was with Merion in the 1910-12 period, I can only guess that being in the golf industry which was relatively small at that time, he probably knew very well what was going on.  Aren't you the one who keeps reminding us of the existence of the telephone and its wide use during this time?

David M-

My reference to the board minutes had nothing to do with you, but with the comment made by Pat that former board members are routinely lavished with high praise for their service upon resignation.  If these pronouncements are to be taken lightly, my suggestion is that Whigham's praise of his father-in-law after his death might be doubly so.

I am unaware that anyone questions CBM's contributions to the creation of Merion.  Everything I have seen suggests the opposite.  And the fact that CBM himself didn't seem to have issues with the attribution makes me think that he was afforded the appropriate credit.

I will enjoy the US Open next week.  Hopefully the rain won't soften the course too much.  And I do appreciate your and TMac's large roles in stimulating some excellent discussion on the history of the course.  A lot of great stuff has been brought to light.    

[Bryan Izatt]

Out of curiosity, is there anything new in this thread that wasn't hashed through in thousands of posts over the past few years?

David,

Also you are wrong about the Merion not providing any acknowledgement of CBM/HJW's contributions.
- They first formally thanked CBM and HJW in July of 1910, in a resolution and letter.
- They also acknowledged their contributions in November of that year in a mailing to the membership which noted that Merion had decided to purchase 117 acres of land and build a golf course "based largely" on CBM/HJW's opinion of "as to what could be done with the land."
- In 1914, in Robert Lesley's 1914 article on the two courses also acknowledged and thanked CBM/HJW right along with Wilson's Committee.   
- And in 1916 Hugh Wilson lavished praise on the help CBM had provided:
      -- CBM/HJW had given Wilson "a good start in the did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the golf holes."
      -- CBM/HJW had taught Wilson more about "golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played."
      -- CBM/HJW had taught Wilson "what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."
      (For years this had all been dismissed as merely some sort of general tutorial on golf course architecture, but we now know that what they were doing at NGLA was working out the details of the layout plan for Merion East.)
- Even Wilson's brother Alan praised CBM/HJW for their help in planning the course, noting among other things that CBM/HJW's "advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."

It sure seems from your summary list above that Merion, over the years, acknowledged and thanked CBM and HJW for what they contributed to the creation of Merion East.  What more do you want in the way of acknowledgement and thanks?

Re the part of your quote that I bolded above, could you explain how we "know" the what they were working on at NGLA was "working out the details of the layout plan for Merion East.  Is there anything beyond the well known references?  I don't read them the same way you do, I think.

But we know that CBM/HJW did not merely "approve" the final plan, because when they returned to Merion to again go over the land and consider the various options, there was not yet a "final plan" for them to approve.   CBM/HJW first had to determine a single plan from the various options (the "five different plans".)   We don't know if they chose one, combined a few, and/or added the new elements, but we do know they came up with a single plan which was provided to Merion's board as the one they "approved."  This is what I meant when I wrote they had determined and approved the final plan.

It seems to me that the most probable thing they did was to approve (of) one of the five plans.  Is there any doubt that Merion came up with the 5 plans (at least partly based on what they learned at NGLA)?  Why do you want to incorporate the word "determine" and postulate that they might have combined a few plans or added elements when at the same time you acknowledge that you don't know.  Are you not trying to aggrandize CBM's role.  Your list in the first quote above is significant acknowledgement and thanks already.  Why do you want to add more to it based on supposition?  Is it really important to acknowledge that CBM routed or partly routed the initial course or designed specific holes in certain locations on the property when we have no idea if he did or not.  We can't even determine who did what on many modern courses where the architects are still livings. 

[DMoriarty]

Lou Duran,

I agree with you that Tillinghast probably didn't consider CBM a rival in 1934. CBM wasn't designing courses any more and Raynor was dead.  [As an aside, William Flynn was most definitely a rival, and Flynn had become closely associated with Merion by then and that might have rubbed AWT the wrong way.]  But as for your "guess" that AWT "probably knew very well what was going on" at Merion, I think it would be more productive to look at what AWT wrote at the time.  At the time AWT wrote that CBM/HJW were helping with the planning, and that they were very pleased with the prospects for the course.  No mention of Wilson.

Unlike with your treatment of AWT, we don't have to "guess" about what Alex Findlay knew, because he told us that he went over the course with Wilson shortly after Wilson returned from overseas.  Findlay thought CBM was behind the design of many of the holes at Merion.  He wrote that Merion's Alps hole "will take a lot of making to equal" the original, "but many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great."
______________________________________________________________

Bran Izatt,

Out of curiosity, is there anything new in this thread that wasn't hashed through in thousands of posts over the past few years?

I am not sure if there is anything new or not. Mostly I have just been trying to answer questions and address issues that come up.  Most don't know the material as well as you and me and I don't blame anyone for not wanting to return to those threads.   And some new faces have mentioned to me in IM's and elsewhere that they have learned quite a lot in this thread, so it seems worthwhile to me, even if you personally have read it all before.  

It sure seems from your summary list above that Merion, over the years, acknowledged and thanked CBM and HJW for what they contributed to the creation of Merion East.  What more do you want in the way of acknowledgement and thanks?

Those acknowledgements are generally from the dawn of the of the course.  "Over the years" CBM/HJW's involvement has been turned on its head.  

Could you explain how we "know" the what they were working on at NGLA was "working out the details of the layout plan for Merion East.  Is there anything beyond the well known references?  I don't read them the same way you do, I think.

Given the various descriptions of what happened at NGLA, and given the timing of the NGLA trip followed a few weeks later by CBM/HJW's trip to Merion to finalize the plans, and given that by then Merion most definitely had a contour map, I am comfortable with the language. Would you be more comfortable if I had said that we we know they were working on the layout plan?

Is there any doubt that Merion came up with the 5 plans (at least partly based on what they learned at NGLA)?

There is plenty of doubt on my part, at least to the extent that you are suggesting that these five "plans" were somehow created without significant input for CBM/HJW.  They had just been at NGLA working on the proposed layout, and CBM/HJW would soon be returning to Merion to finalize things, so to the extent you are minimizing CBM/HJW's involvement in the creation of the so-called "five plans" they laid out at Merion for CBM's review, I disagree.  

Seems much more likely that they left NGLA with a plan, but that there were a handful of options still to be determined, and they staked these out ("laid out five different plans") so that CBM/HJW could make the final determination after seeing how the various options laid out on the land.  

Why do you want to incorporate the word "determine" and postulate that they might have combined a few plans or added elements when at the same time you acknowledge that you don't know.  Are you not trying to aggrandize CBM's role.

Whether or not they added additional elements, they still determined the final plan. I don't get your problem with this.  At the very least, they not only contributed the creation of the five plans, the determined which of the five was the best!  Would you feel more comfortable if I said they had final say over the plan?    My point is that they didn't merely review and "approve" a single plan.  They first had to make a determination that it was the best plan.  

Your list in the first quote above is significant acknowledgement and thanks already.  Why do you want to add more to it based on supposition?  Is it really important to acknowledge that CBM routed or partly routed the initial course or designed specific holes in certain locations on the property when we have no idea if he did or not.  We can't even determine who did what on many modern courses where the architects are still livings.

The acknowledgement/thanks that CBM/HJW got then is not the acknowledgement/thanks they get now.   And more importantly, the specific description/understanding of what was done then is based more on legend and supposition than anything remotely factual.  I'd just like to bring a bit more reality to how we look at the creation of one of our great courses.  If you aren't interested in figuring all this out, no one is forcing you to participate.  
______________________________________


Still considering Shel's great questions.  They are more difficult than I thought.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Not sure if the question of the Redan 3rd remains unresolved but I happened across this passage by HW Wind in the July 17 1971 New Yorker:

"Moreover, he [Wilson] was able to devise on his rather ordinary acreage certain adaptations of well-known British holes that had impressed him deeply. (The third hole at Merion, for example, is a variation on the fifteenth at North Berwick -- the renowned Redan -- and the huge depression at the front of the seventeenth green at Merion is Wilson's version of the Valley of Sin on the eighteenth green at St. Andrews.)"

[DMoriarty]

Shel,

Your questions ask more than time allows me to answer, but I wanted to get back to you with at least a few of the basics of what I "believe."

Do you believe that CBM provided a detailed routing that Wilson adopted?

I believe that CBM/HJW were instrumental in creating a detailed routing plan, and that Merion/Wilson set out to build the course according to that plan. Some at Merion such as Francis contributed to the routing as well, as may have HH Barker.  I believe Wilson contributed as well, even though the factual record contains very little about his potential contribution to the routing plan.

Do you believe that CBM was consulted and in making recommendations about a land purchase had a preliminary routing in mind which he communicated to the committee?

CBM wrote, "The most difficult problem you have to contend with is how to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying."  What is routing, if not trying to figure out "how to fit eighteen [first class] golf holes" on a property?  

So I think they were out there looking for first class golf holes and trying to fit them into the property.  I also think that they would have communicated their ideas to Merion's Committee.  I don't know whether they drew on Barker's map, sketched it out on a cocktail napkin, scratched it in the dirt, or just talked it out verbally, but given that CBM knew that the "most difficult problem they faced was fitting the holes," I believe they would have communicated the information to the Committee.

Why then didn't CBM include a routing plan with his letter?  Because Merion had not yet provided him with a contour map. Merion acquired a contour map sometime between June 1910 and February 1911. I find it hard to believe that they would have failed to send CBM the contour map so he could finish what he started.

(Many try to look at CBM’s June 29, 1910 letter is an exhaustive and detailed description of everything CBM/HJW communicated to Merion about the prospects for the course during this early period.  I view this as unrealistic.   According to the Minutes, CBM and HJW discussed the prospects for the course during their visit, and we know that their discussions were more detailed and covered topics not mentioned in the letter.   For example, July 1, 1910 Lesley report, Lesley mentions that Whigham had provided a cost estimate for construction of the course and one for irrigation.   Neither are mentioned in letter.   I view the letter as a general confirmation of what they had been discussing (and would likely continue to discuss) in much more detail.  As the Lesley report put it, the letter “confirms what he and Mr. Whigham said to the Committee on the ground.”)

Do you believe that CBM designed any of the holes at Merion?

It depends on what you mean by “designed.”  I think CBM/HJW played a large role in planning the golf holes, including their placement the property.  But Wilson/Merion not only helped in they planning, they built the holes.  Judging from what I have seen of other CBM plans, there was still quite a lot detail to be worked out after Merion decided to build the course according to the plan.  And so far as I can tell, Wilson was the primary person responsible for carrying this out, and so in a very tangible sense he too contributed to the “design” of the holes.

Do you believe he recommended implementation of certain holes, and perhaps locations, which were implemented by the Wilson led committee?

I think I answered this above, but will add that many of the holes, features, and concepts favored by CBM were incorporated into the course at Merion, and believe the most likely explanation is that these features exist at Merion is because of the role CBM played in the planning. Others argue that Merion could have come up with these CBM ‘tells’ on their own, based on what they had learned generally from CBM or elsewhere, but this seems highly unlikely given that CBM/HJW had been aiding in the planning since the previous June.

How important were Wilson's contributions in actually laying out and supervising construction of the course?

Very important.  As I explained above, even after the plan was complete, there was a lot left still to be done in terms of creating the golf course.  I think the record squarely points to Wilson as the person who carried out the plans at Merion and added his own touches both initially and for many years to come. This I think is where Wilson really shined.
 
We are all familiar with Raynor’s working relationship CBM where CBM would focus on the planning (probably with input from Raynor) while Raynor was the person on the ground who actually built the courses (probably with input from CBM.)  I think of the original course at Merion somewhat similarly.  It seems to have been Hugh Wilson’s take on CBM’s ideas.  CBM lead the way in the planning and with the concepts, and then Hugh Wilson took over and tried to implement that plan and those concepts as best he could, given his own aesthetic and design sensibilities.  

How important were his contributions in adding hazards over time?

Very Important, for the same reasons as above.  As I explained above in my post to Peter, many of the bunkers were not yet added. Their exact placement and their construction was intentionally left to later and thus fell to Wilson.

I’d add also that it wasn’t just hazards.  Three of the greens had to be rebuilt shortly after the opening for agronomic reasons, but in the process of rebuilding the greens Wilson very likely deviated from the original plan on two of the three.  With regard to the 9th green, Wilson seems to have built something which was very different than what was there originally, and perhaps something different than what was originally planned.  Some basic elements of the original plan obviously remained (the location, length, and angle of the hole and the fact that it played over a creek) but Wilson seems to have otherwise “redesigned” that hole. And when Wilson rebuilt the 8th green, he shifted it to the right and softened the front to back and left to right slope. (The original 8th hole was very ‘CBMesque’ in that the successful golfer needed to tack away from the direct line and well to the right on the drive in order to have the best angle to clear the trouble and hold the sloping green on the approach.  It seems it was less ‘CBMesque’ after Wilson moved the green and propped up the back.)  

What did I miss?

I don’t know.  HH Barker maybe.  He did provide Merion with the first planned layout.  We don’t know what if any of his suggestions survived, but he was a very competent designer so it wouldn’t surprise me if there is some HH Barker somewhere at Merion.   At least we know that HH Barker produced a routing plan, which is more than we can say with absolute certainty about Wilson or CBM.

Finally in connecting the dots, it is fair to comment on how much is based on logical extension of known facts and how much is clear from the record.

That is an interesting question especially if asked both sides of the argument.

I try to stick as closely as I can to “the record,” but obviously part of what I believe is based on “logical extension of known facts.”  That is the nature of historical research and analysis. We have to draw reasonable inferences from what few facts we have.  And so far as I am concerned the facts we do have regarding CBM/HJW’s involvement in the planning process are pretty darn compelling.  I don't see my beliefs about CBM's involvement as being much of a logical leap at all.   As for Wilson, there is little evidence that Wilson was even involved in figuring out routing prior to the NGLA trip, but I am willing to infer that he was based on what else I know, and apparently everyone else is too.  

Unfortunately, I don't see that both sides as equally generous or consistent in their inferences.





___________________________________________________________

Mark,

That quote is pretty funny considering what we now know.

[SL_Solow]

David;  Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.  At least for me, your responses help to clarify your views on some of the key issues in dispute.  Now, for those who have taken issue with David's analysis, I invite you to answer the same questions.  This is not an exercise in "he said, she said".  Rather it will give those of us who have been following the debate an opportunity to compare responses to the same, hopefully relevant and enlightening, questions.  We can then better decide how much of the "dispute" is a matter of fundamental disagreement as opposed to degree.  We might also be able to better judge the cogency of your respective reasoning based on the underlying source material.  Thanks in advance.