News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #200 on: June 18, 2013, 02:00:54 AM »
Shel,

From time to time I have taken issue with David's analyses as well as those of Tom, Mike and others on these subjects.  It's interesting that you used the word "believe".  I had to look it up to remind myself about what it means.  It could  mean "to accept something as true, genuine, or real".  Or, it could mean to "have a firm religious faith ".  Or, it could mean to "hold an opinion".  I'd couch my responses in terms of the last definition - I have opinions, but they are that, just opinions, not fact.  And, I don't think I am dogmatically on either side of these debates.


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.

No one has ever surfaced a plan of any kind, not Barkers or any of the ones mentioned in the minutes.  So, we have no idea of what any of them look like nor what level of detail, if any, they went into.  Based on that lack of documentation my opinion is that we can't say who created a detailed routing plan or even that there was one for sure.  In my opinion, David reaches too far in his logical inference that "CBM/HJW were instrumental in creating a detailed routing plan".  "Instrumental" is too much of an inference to me.

Quote
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.

I'm of the opinion that CBM's quote above could just as easily be read as a general comment that it would be a tight squeeze to fit first class holes into an acreage as small as Merion proposed to buy.  I'm not of the opinion that it meant that CBM, at that early stage was trying to see how he could fit specific first class holes onto the specified property.  We don't even know what property they showed him or what the boundaries were.

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.

Re CBM's lack of a contour map at that juncture, it could suggest that CBM was just telling them that he could not get more detailed without one.  It doesn't logically infer that Merion necessarily wanted him to do a more thorough examination of how to fit 18 first class holes in.  It might, but it might not.  David finishes by taking an assumption - that CBM started fitting holes onto the property - and states it as a given fact - "so he could finish what he started".  I'm of the opinion that we don't know if he started laying holes out on the property.

(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.”)

I am of the opinion that we have no direct supportive evidence to view anything as "unrealistic" nor to infer that there was "much more detail" discussed.  There might have been, but then there might not have been.  Absent some new information we just don't know.

Quote
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.

David's supposition that "CBM/HJW played a large role in planning the golf holes, including their placement the property" is just that - supposition.  There is no tangible evidence that they did, so, they may have or they may not have.

Quote
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.

I guess I'm one of the others on this point.  Merion certainly must have learned something about ideal holes, features and principles from CBM at NGLA.  They said they did.  There is no evidence I'm aware of that says CBM placed any of the concept holes on the property. To the extent that holes on the course were named Alps and Redan, for instance, suggests that they at least learned the names at NGLA.  To the extent that the principle features of those hole - a large fronting dune and a tilted green respectively - were missing at Merion suggests to me that the Merion folks came up a little short in the design and build of these concept holes.  Would CBM have designed them the way they were initially built, given his recent experience at building the same template holes at NGLA.

Quote
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.

No disagreement here.
 
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.

It is supposition that "CBM lead the way in the planning and with the concepts".  He might have, but then again, he might not have.  We just don't know.  

Quote
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.)

No issue with the first paragraph.  The second paragraph is supposition and inference.  I respect David's right to speculate and infer.  But, it doesn't make it fact. 

Quote
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.

I concur.  It's kind of sad that the various routings and plans have been lost over time.  If they still survived, I'd bet we'd debate about who drew what parts of the plans and routings.

Quote
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.

I would debate that "That is the nature of historical research and analysis." and "We have to draw reasonable inferences from what few facts we have."  We don't "have" to.  We could accept that there are areas where we just don't know.  David has occasionally accused me and others of not wanting to try to figure it out.  This is not a mathematical problem that can be figured out.  The routings and plans and hole designs, at whatever level of detail they were, can't be figured out by logical inference.  The authorship of them might become clearer if the plans are found and are signed or if additional documentation is found that states who did what.  Even then there would be debate, as there is now, about the words and sentences and what they mean.  History appears always to be a little bit fuzzy. Where we are at now is speculation and inference on both sides vis-a-vis the routings and designs.





___________________________________________________________

Mark,

That quote is pretty funny considering what we now know.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #201 on: June 18, 2013, 08:02:57 AM »
Bryan,

I hope we are all winding this down for lack of any new information that you mention, but I do agree with all that you say above.

I will also add that the debate always stirs up over those "logical extensions" (when David does it) or "wild speculation" when someone else does it.  No surprise there.

Specifically, I have never bought into his Francis land swap in 1910 precisely because DM has to make so many of these logical extensions, but more than that, nearly every one of his suppositions needs to be true in order for his time line to fit together.  I view that as improbable, when a simpler explanation of a spring 1911 routing more comfortably fits the written record.

Ditto his interpretation of the phrase "his plans" (for Merion) interpretation to suggest CBM had been working on the routings before they got to NGLA.  In another thread, he does admit (and I agree) that its possible that his interpretation is correct.  However, statistically, he has a 50% chance over the more traditional interpretation consistent with principles of English, etc.  Probably less.  That is just one case where we have to accept his theory based on a 50% chance of it being true.  That just doesn't seem strong enough to me.

As always, thanks for weighing in, and in a less controversial way than I might have done it.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #202 on: June 19, 2013, 11:45:35 PM »
Mark B.

Herb Wind was a good friend of mine and a wonderful writer, so I surely am not being critical of what he wrote in 1971.

However, in 1971 (and later), the accepted story was that Wilson went abroad to study the great courses and came back with all kinds of drawings BEFORE the green complexes were built.  Presumably, the legend included, by default, that Wilson's trip took place before the routing, as well.  Either way, we now know that Wilson went abroad AFTER the course was in place - albeit with few, or no, bunkers.  This paragraph, of course, is totally unnecessary given the last 3+ years of threads on the subject, but I thought I'd say it again just to set up the next paragraph.

Therefore, while Wilson and his associates surely got a good look, and probably played, the wonderful Redan at NGLA, there is no Valley of Sin at NGLA.  I think I understand that we don't know if Wilson went to St. Andrews, or any other specific course, in 1912 (I don't follow the "discussions" that closely so I may be wrong about that).  Wilson may NEVER have seen the Valley of Sin although I've got to believe that CBM described it to him/them at some point in either Southampton or Ardmore given his near-fanatical devotion to TOC.

So, Herb Wind was only writing what everyone thought they knew at that time.  The Redan part is quite believable given paragraph #3 above.  As to the Valley of Sin, if I had to bet, I'd wager that CBM/HJW had more to do with Merion's Valley of Sin than anyone else.  However, we will never know for sure.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #203 on: June 20, 2013, 12:04:58 PM »
ChipOat,

That is a good point about the supposed "Valley of Sin" feature at Merion.  I think the same point applies to other aspects of the course as well. Even before the course opened, reports had indicated that many/most of the golf holes were based on the famous holes abroad.   Wilson hadn't even returned from his trip at the time of the first of these reports.

Here is a page from HW Wind's 1971 New Yorker article on Merion, to which ChipOat refers. 

Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #204 on: June 20, 2013, 12:38:40 PM »
Hi Chip,

Yes, you are reading my intention exactly as I, uh, intended. The purpose of my adding the quote was not to put forth Wind as someone who had done the research but rather as another data point showing that at least some considered the 3rd a Redan (or "redanish" enough to call it a Redan). That's all. I'm not grinding an ax for anything or anyone and I don't think the question of whether it was considered a Redan really sheds any meaningful light on the provenance discussions.

Heck, if it was only "redanish" and not A Redan, I could see one arguing that's what one would expect from someone who had never visited the original! To share one example of this sort of "unus mundus" of golf design, I recall a thread where Lester George says, yes, the 2nd hole at Kinloch is a Bottle -- but he didn't realize that until much later. When he designed the hole, he was just designing...a hole.

By the way, very cool you knew Wind. I think we both can agree he spent last week spinning in his grave over the Missing Stop Sign.  ;D
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #205 on: June 20, 2013, 02:28:10 PM »
Bryan;  Thanks for your thoughtful response.  It helped me to better understand your position.  As I see it, your principle dispute with David's analysis relates to my last question concerning how much of his thesis is based on a logical extension of known facts versus the hard record.  I conclude that the vast majority of your disagreements with his prior answers can be largely attributed to this methodological difference.  Also, since you do not espouse a belief that Wilson can be credited with all of the work, I presume that your position is the same; absent hard evidence we do not know the answer and therefore we should not take a position.  I appreciate the explanation.  If I am correct, I suspect that there is less disagreement between you and David than one might suspect as I am sure he is not suggesting that his hypothesis reaches the level of certainty but rather is a plausible extension of known facts and is therefore a better explanation than the one which was previously accepted; e.g. that Wilson was the designer of Merion based on his visit to the British Isles to observe the classic courses.  That hypothesis has been modified to reflect the new evidence which revealed the actual dates of Wilson's visit.  The argument now appears to be over the relative contributions of CBM/Whigam and Wilson.  Again, I presume that you do not take sides in that argument because the record is muddled.

Of course that is the essence of much of historical research and debate.  Insufficient facts require hypotheses about what happened and why it happened.  When the record concerning the "what" is clear, historians argue over the "why".  But anyone is entitled to suggest that neither side has made its case and to hope that further research might clarify the issue.  After all, the discovery of the ships' manifests were instrumental in creating this debate and it took sometime and argument to recognize their true importance.

But if there are others who wish to take a more aggressive position in favor of Wilson's importance, an answer to my questions would be enlightening.  I do not pretend to be important enough to be able to insist, but it might help focus the discussion.  Thanks in advance. 

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #206 on: June 20, 2013, 07:07:32 PM »
David,

I have since been advised that Alex Findlay wrote something that included some/all of Wilson's itinerary when he made the trip in 1912.  Apparently, he did visit St. Andrews.

Also, I have been advised that the 17th green was re-done prior to the 1916 U.S. Amateur.  I was not aware of that, either.

Assuming either of the above is true, and especially if both are accurate, I must dampen, but not eliminate entirely, my hypothesis that CBM/HJW had much to do with Merion's Valley of Sin.  It now appears that the circumstantial evidence makes it equally likely that Wilson was responsible.

Of course, without knowing just how the 17th green was altered between 1912 and 1916, there is no way of knowing for sure.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #207 on: June 20, 2013, 11:32:24 PM »
ChipOat,

The June 1912, Findlay article did list courses that Wilson had seen, including the St. Andrews. According to Findlay, Wilson wasn't fond of the Old Course, and neither was Findlay. "[Wilson] was sadly disappointed in St. Andrew, which, in reality is a myth. Golfers simply for sake of "O' Auld Lang Syne" play over it once a while.  It is worn out, void of grass, and the only think that will stop golf balls for running all over the place are deep pot bunkers, cruelly placed, and when at the bottom of one of these, woe betide you.  Many of them are on the putting greens . . . "

Did your advisor mention that the same article indicated that Macdonald was responsible for the laying out Merion?

"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."

The article is largely ignored by the Anyone-But-Macdonald crew, but it seems to me to be on point, and it was certainly timely. The only question my mind is whether Findlay meant that CBM was responsible for the layout of all of the holes and "many" were "really great," or whether CBM was only responsible for "many" of the holes, and these were "really great." Either way, the article ought to make it pretty difficult for anyone to reasonably deny that Macdonald was instrumental in the design process.
_____________________________________________

As for the 17th green, I can't say for certain what may have been done before 1916 (and neither can your advisor,) but I have never read anything indicating that the "valley of sin" feature was added after the course had been initially built. There are a couple of very early photos where I think the so-called "Valley" is visible, but someone else squinting might come to a different conclusion.

While I do suspect that CBM had something to do with the 17th, I've never made much of a case about Wind's comments regarding the "Valley of Sin." I don't think it was mentioned by name early on, and there were more obvious and better documented CBM 'tells'.  Such as the reports that many/most of the holes were modeled after the great holes abroad.  And the reports indicating that there were holes based on "the Alps," the "Redan," the "Road Hole," and an attempt at an "Eden" green. And a double plateau green.  And another double plateau green on the 2nd which was compared to a par five green at Sleepy Hollow, with a distinctive swale running horizontally.  And the par threes as a set.  And more.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 11:37:30 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #208 on: June 21, 2013, 12:28:13 AM »
David,

I'm truly curious what you think Findlay intended when he used the words..."which he really imagined existed on his new course"...in that passage.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #209 on: June 21, 2013, 12:42:31 AM »
Wilson thought he had built an Alps Hole at Merion in 1911.

Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #210 on: June 21, 2013, 12:53:46 AM »
Wilson thought he had built an Alps Hole at Merion in 1911.



Well then what's the issue here?

Is it whether or not CBM showed Wilson drawings of an Alps hole?

Is it whether or not CBM showed Wison exactly where to build an Alps?

What am I missing?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #211 on: June 21, 2013, 12:58:37 AM »
Well then what's the issue here?

I have no issue.  It seems pretty clear to me.

Quote
Is it whether or not CBM showed Wilson drawings of an Alps hole?

Is it whether or not CBM showed Wison exactly where to build an Alps?

Findlay didn't address this.

Quote
What am I missing?

You tell me?  Wilson seems to have told Findlay that CB Macdonald was responsible for the lay out of many or all of the holes at Merion, including the Alps hole.

If you understood this, then I don't think you are missing anything.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 01:05:50 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #212 on: June 21, 2013, 10:44:28 AM »
David,

As I said, I have not "turned a 180" on my Valley of Sin hypothesis - just revised it more towards equal probabilities.

Also, the fact that Wilson was underwhelmed by TOC in the aggregate does not necessitate that he did not care for the Valley of Sin.  Of course, it does not increase the odds that he did like it, either.

So long as we know Wilson was there and saw TVOS means that there is a possibility that he (Wilson) was responsible for it being a feature on the 17th green.

Unfortunately, the only way to be fairly certain that it was CBM/HJW would be to know what the original 17th green looked like prior to its pre-1916 revision(s).  Without that, I make the odds 50/50 as to who actually was responsible.

Based on what I now believe are the facts as they are known (and not known), I think we are back at the level of conjecture.

And there I shall leave it. 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #213 on: June 21, 2013, 01:15:12 PM »
I agree that we cannot tell what Wilson thought of the Valley of Sin just because Findlay portrays him as generally disappointed with St. Andrews, but it is interesting nonetheless.  

Here is a description of the alteration to 17th, from William Evans' April 1916 account of the changes to the course:  "The 17th green, one of the three quarry holes, has never been satisfactory owing to the difficulty of getting the grass to grow satisfactorily.  The new green is slightly larger, and there are two new pits at the right and a mound at the rear."

No mention of them digging a large swale or Valley just short of the green.

Here is a photo circa 1912, looking back out over the quarry.  The "Valley of Sin" looks about like it is now, does it not?

 

Did Wilson add the "Valley of Sin" after the trip? I guess it is possible, but I've seen no evidence that he did, and that picture makes me think that the feature was already present. I think we'd need some actual affirmative evidence that he added the feature, rather than just raising the mere possibility. That said, my concern isn't so much with this single feature but rather with the course as a whole.

And there is ample evidence that many to most of the holes at Merion had already been based on the great holes abroad even before Wilson returned from is trip.  Below are three reports indicating that much of the original course at Merion was based on the great holes abroad.   The first was written in the spring of 1912, before Wilson returned from this trip.  The second, by Findlay was written in June 1912, shortly after Wilson returned.  The third was written at the time the course opened.   While only one specifically indicates that CBM was responsible for the layout, the timing of all three suggests that CBM "had more to do" with the incorporation of the overseas features at Merion "than anyone else."

1. "Many of the holes at Merion are patterned after the famous holes abroad and the rolling character of the country has contributed largely toward making the course excellent."

2.  "I advised [Wilson], 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."

3. “Merion has a course in which nearly every hole is patterned after some famous hole abroad.”
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 01:38:07 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #214 on: June 21, 2013, 01:54:44 PM »
In the main, the "discussion" has been super-interesting to those who 1) have done a great deal of research and 2) are really interested in the exact details of "who did what and when".  I scan the threads and have short conversations with friends that fit #'s 1 and 2 above as I am not a member of either category.

What I do like to see are the old pictures (such as the one you just put up) that often accompany the posts.  However, I am not willing to take the time to examine them closely and draw any hypotheses, theorems or conclusions therefrom.  The subject is of only modest interest to me.  The fact that the picture(s) exist and are available is of much greater interest and I am pleased to see them.

However, I DO think that much extra research has been undertaken, however unfriendly the reason might have been or continues to be, that adds to Merion's knowledge and that of other serious golf architecture historians.  As to the conclusions or probable facts of the matter?  Not really my ax to grind.


Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #215 on: June 21, 2013, 04:01:08 PM »
Delete
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 04:28:17 PM by Mark McKeever »
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #216 on: June 21, 2013, 04:02:44 PM »
delete
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 04:28:27 PM by Mark McKeever »
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #217 on: June 24, 2013, 04:32:38 PM »
Mike Cirba and Tom Paul were kind enough to forward answers to my questions and asked me to post them.  With my limited computer skills, I will do my best.  They are quite long so there will be mutliple posts.  Please remember, these posts contain Mike's and Tom's thoughts, not mine.  I may comment at a later date.

Mike  response #1;

[co Do you believe that CBM provided a detailed routing that Wilson adopted?[/color] No, and no one including Macdonald ever said that he did.  CBM graciously provided Wilson and his Committee with exactly what they asked him for.  Wilson later wrote that they received, ”…a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes…Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad…we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.  The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes.”
 
Wilson went on: ”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 on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type 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.  Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways..
 
Two examples have been used to suggest that CBM actually laid out Merion, but neither actually say that.   The first was HJ Whigham, during his eulogy for Macdonald in 1939, long after most of the protagonists associated with the creation of Merion had passed on.  Whigham wrote; “Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect.   He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read the contour maps he had brought from abroad.   Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country.   Having helped lay out the eighteen great holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography.   The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America .   Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia …”
 
Whigham goes on, and it’s interesting how broadly he defines a “Macdonald course”.
 
“From coast to coast and from Canadian border to Florida you will find Macdonald courses.  And in hundreds of places he never heard of you will discover reproductions of the Redan and the Eden and the Alps .”
 
“Not only did the great links spring into existence by the magic of the Macdonald touch, but others were started independently with the idea of emulating the National.  Pine Valley is almost a contemporary….”
 
“For the National has been much more than a good golf course: it has been the inspiration of every great course in this country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style.   Take Mackenzie’s Cypress Point for example…Cypress Point would never have been conceived at all if the National had not shown the way.”

 
Was Merion directly inspired by what Macdonald had achieved at the National?  Absolutely.   Did they want to emulate his example of building eighteen top-notch holes on a single course?  No question.   Did they want to follow his example of borrowing from the strategies and features of the best holes abroad?   Of course they did.
 
The other mention of CBM in conjunction with Merion was more contemporaneous, when Alex Findlay in June 1912 cryptically wrote, ”But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.”
 
I say cryptically because it’s difficult to tell exactly what “others” Findlay was referring to.   Consider the previous paragraph;
 
"The writer spent a pleasant hour last Wednesday afternoon with Hugh I. Wilson, wandering over the new Merion golf course, which he has spent so much of his time on. His main object is to make this the king-pin course of Pennsylvania .  I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of this new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it the finishing touches in the late fall.
 
Findlay first tells us that he’s not ready to even talk about the “possibilities” of the new place, so I find it difficult to believe that he’s next telling us that the “others” refers to other holes at Merion being “really great”. 
 
It will then be time to reveal to the world its features, etc. 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.
 
One might realistically expect that if Findlay was actually talking about other holes at Merion being “really great” he might care to mention one or two.   Instead, he goes on as follows;
 
Wilson became quite fond of Prestwick, Troon, Formby, Hoylake, Sandwich, Deal and Princes, but was sadly disappointed in St. Andrews , which, in reality is a myth. Golfers simply for sake of "O' Auld Lang Syne" play over it once in a while. It is worn out, void of grass, and the only thing that will stop golf balls from running all over the place are deep pot bunkers, cruelly placed, and when at the bottom of one of these, woe betide you!
 
Peculiar.
 
When Merion opened a few months later, Findlay wrote a review of the new course that does not mention CBM at all, but instead states; “The construction committee, consisting of Hugh I. Wilson, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Griscom, R.S. Francis, and H. Toulmin, have done for Pennsylvania what Herbert C. Leeds and committee did for Massachusetts – built the two nicest courses in their respective states.
 
In case there is any confusion about the word “construction” and its usage, Findlay then goes on to praise the person who actually was responsible for construction, or “laying the course on the ground”, Fred Pickering, the man charged with overseeing the work crews.
 
”Fred Pickering made Wollaston, Woodland and Belmont Mass. Lake Placid , NY and Atlanta , GA and other courses too numerous to mention, but this, his latest creation, far surpasses any of his previous achievements.   He has had much of his own way in the planting of the right seed and in the general make-up of the course, and to him we owe thanks for one of the prettiest golf courses in America .”
 
If Macdonald provided a detailed routing that Merion adopted, it’s actually funny to consider what exactly Hugh Wilson and his Committee must have been doing all of those months, what with Fred Pickering in charge of construction and shaping.
 
We’ve been told that the many contemporaneous accounts effusively praising Wilson and his Committee with “laying out” Merion, or having “laid out” Merion meant simply that they constructed it to someone else’s plan, or perhaps meant that they simply placed stakes in appropriate spots on the property, again to someone else’s plan.   
 
Of course, this twisted terminology only seems to apply to Hugh Wilson, because when Findlay mentions “others, as laid out by” CBM we are all supposed to assume it’s architecturally related.  ;)    .
 
With my sometimes twisted sense of humor, I laugh out loud envisioning these learned, staid captains of industry wandering around aimlessly with stakes in a field, perhaps with CBM shouting at them, “Mr. Wilson, ten paces to the left!!   No...no...NO…MY LEFT!!!” 
 
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? No, that didn’t happen or it certainly would have been recorded and reported.   Instead, CBM sent the club a very lukewarm recommendation about the property, recommending a fairly generic 6,000 yard course and suggesting they contact agronomists in Washington (Piper and Oakley) and Baltusrol concerning agronomic and drainage issues.   The mailing that went out six months later in mid-November to members referenced Macdonald’s July letter (and nothing else from Macdonald), showed a scale map of the land the club had “secured”, but indicated no routing, nor showed any holes on the scale map.   
 
If indeed Macdonald had routed a golf course by that time for the club, this absence would frankly be inexplicable.   CBM was the most famous person in golf in the country at that time and Merion would have trumpeted it to their membership.   This would have been Macdonald's first course since NGLA and it would have been therefore significant for him, as well.   Instead, later in his book he writes sections about the actual next two courses he designed, Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow, but not a word about Merion.
 
During that same November timeframe, six months after Macdonald’s visit, Merion’s attorney advised that HG Lloyd purchase the entire property (140 acres) under his own name, simply because the bounds of the golf course had not yet been determined.   Macdonald’s next and final visit would come five months later, after the record shows Merion committee created five new plans “upon returning” from a visit to NGLA in March of 1911.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #218 on: June 24, 2013, 04:38:04 PM »

Cirba Part 2


Part Two
 
[color=blue] Do you believe that CBM designed any of the holes at Merion? [/color] Again, there is no specific record of that, but I do think since he provided “advice and suggestions as to the layout” in the words of Alan Wilson it is probable that he suggested that certain holes (based on their location, topography, and natural features) on the property might be optimized by being adapted after famous holes abroad during his visit in April 1911.   It seems far less likely that he was involved in the locating or actual routing of the holes on the golf course as the record shows that “upon our return” from NGLA, Wilson’s Committee stated we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans.”.
 
Do you believe he recommended implementation of certain holes, and perhaps locations, which were implemented by the Wilson led committee?[/color] Yes, but most likely during his April 1911 visit as just described.
 
 How important were Wilson's contributions in actually laying out and supervising construction of the course? If by “laying out” you’re referring to routing the golf course and other architecturally related activities as is/was commonly understood, then his contributions were absolutely vital, and everyone who was there at the time said so.   Tillinghast, who told he he had “seen the plans” pre-construction, and who spoke with Macdonald about the project, credited Wilson on multiple occasions across three decades, with little or no mention of Macdonald except as advisor.   There are many, many direct quotes in my IMO piece indicating that during the time these guys were alive, everyone credited Wilson and no one ever disputed that fact.
 
I think we make a mistake when in debunking one relatively recent myth (i.e. the idea that Wilson travelled abroad for “seven months” before Merion was routed, the first instance I’ve found that stated is 1950), we put another fallacious myth in it’s place; the idea that Wilson and his Committee needed to travel abroad first before routing the course.  Related is the fallacious argument that no one on Wilson’s Committee or any of their friends in the Philadelphia area (such as Findlay and Tillinghast) had any familiarity with the great holes abroad.   Indeed, Rodman Griscom of Wilson’s Committee spent a summer with his US Amateur champion sister under the tutelage of Benny Sayers at North Berwick around the turn of the century.   Plus, we know that Wilson’s Committee had already seen Macdonald’s drawings, as well as his versions of the great holes at NGLA prior to routing the golf course.
 
I cover in detail how the early course evolved and the real purpose of Wilson’s trip in my recent IMO piece, and the truth is, none of those contemporaneous writers who wrote glowingly of Wilson’s accomplishments were under the mistaken notion that Wilson had gone abroad before routing the golf course, much less for seven months. 
 
How important were his contributions in adding hazards over time? Fundamentally critical to the greatness of the Merion course we know today and my IMO piece details all of his work in this regard from 1911-24 from contemporaneous sources.
 
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention two things in closing.    I do not mean to suggest that Macdonald did not have a major positive influence on the creation of Merion East; he clearly did and Merion was clearly appreciative of his advice and suggestions at critical times.   
 
It could be argued, and I do believe, that the time the Committee spent at NGLA was likely the key turning point in the entire project.   From my IMO article;
 
Evidently, the time spent with Macdonald at NGLA had immediate impact to the group’s ongoing efforts.   As recorded in the Merion Cricket Club’s Board minutes from April, 1911, “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes, which were copied after the famous ones abroad. On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans.”

As instructors, Macdonald and Whigham seemed equally pleased by the Committee’s final efforts.  In early April, Macdonald and Whigham came back to Ardmore for the second and final time to review and advise on the newly developed plans.  From the April, 1911 MCC Minutes; “On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, 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.”

That plan was subsequently accepted by the Board and construction commenced in the spring of 1911.   Others, such as AW Tillinghast shared Macdonald’s optimism when he wrote that spring; “I have seen enough of the plans for the new course as to warrant my entire confidence in the future realization of the hopes of the committee.”


I would argue, simply, that NGLA blew them away.   I believe they suddenly saw the audacious potential of what was possible, and that potential was far greater than any of them had previously imagined, which clearly influenced their future thinking and subsequent plans.

Finally, a bit about the timing of events; I believe the evidence, all of it, clearly shows that the bulk of the golf course routing activity, and most importantly, the timing of what we call the “Francis Swap” took place in the time between January and April 1911.
 
There are multiple indicators, and Richard Francis himself tells us so.   We know that Hugh Wilson’s committee was formed in January 1911.   Richard Francis later wrote; ”The Committee in charge of laying out and building a new course was composed of Mess’rs Horatio G. Lloyd, Rodman E. Griscom, Hugh I. Wilson, and Dr. Harry Toulmin.   I was added to it, probably because I could read drawings, make them, run a transit, level and tape.”  If Francis was added to the Committee, it simply could not have been before 1911.

Later, Francis tells us that after he got HG Lloyd to agree (Lloyd technically owned the land, having purchased it in December of 1910) to the land swap, ”Within a day or two the quarryman had his drills up where the 16th green now is, and blasted off the top of the hill so that the green could be built as it is today.”   If workmen were out there on the property, it simply had to be sometime after the property was purchased in December 1910.

Beyond simple good manners, common sense, and obvious issues of illegality, there are other reasons Merion wished to keep this on the down low and wouldn’t have done this prior to December.   After the success of the East course, the burgeoning membership roles necessitated a second golf course be rapidly built.  The MCC Minutes read; “We have gone very fully into the question of…acquiring land available for the purpose in the vicinity of the present golf links, and find there is plenty of land to be had.  It will, of course, be appreciated that it was inadvisable to conduct our inquiries in such a way as to show that the club was seeking additional property, which would cause a raising of prices.”

It is a bit silly to imagine that this discreet group trying to keep their business dealings confidential would be out there prancing around the property and blowing things up on land they didn’t own before December 1910.
 
Further, the curving road drawn on the November land plan is exceptionally misleading, as on first glance it appears to look something like today’s Golf House Road.   It is only when one considers that the overall map is drawn to scale, and that the now infamous triangle of land at the top measures less than 100 yards wide and extends much further north than the 190 yards it does today that it becomes clear this is only a conception drawing of what was intended.   

A nearly identical similar curving road on the map extending to the west through the proposed housing development accentuates the point that this map simply indicated the desire for something more aesthetically pleasing than a straight line road extending for over 1000 yards along the boundary between golf course and housing.

Hugh Wilson in February 1911 wrote Piper & Oakley that the club had acquired 117 acres, consistent with what the club mailing indicated in November 1910.   Yet by April the recommended routing plan required the purchase of 3 more acres than was previously approved (as well as the rental of 3 more along the tracks from the railroad) for a new total of 123 acres. 
 
I think the Committee’s desire to fully utilize the quarry as a great, dramatic hazard on their final holes, and especially the additional width needed to create an alternate route around the quarry on 16 led to them needing more land than they originally believed.

 
Further, I think the idea that anyone prior had artificially truncated the original borders of the Johnson Farm on the northern end to just 90 yards past the quarry would have been inconceivable, given CBM's June 1910 commendation of this feature, as well as Wilson’s prior experience on golf courses utilizing quarries as hazards.
 
But wait, I hear you say…didn’t Macdonald “approve” the final routing plan, as if he had the final say?   Don’t the Merion minutes tell us that?   
 
I believe this is an inaccurate interpretation, simply because CBM had absolutely no position of responsibility or authority acting for or within the club, or over Wilson’s Committee.  Instead, I think the first definition below is clearly the accurate one;
 
ap•prove] ( -pr v )
v. ap•proved, ap•prov•ing, ap•proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction:
 
 
In fact, the only reason the golf course was discussed at all at the April 1911 Board of Governors meeting was that the recommended plan required the purchase of 3 more acres than the 117 the club had originally acquired in November of 1910, and again referenced by Hugh Wilson in his first letter to Piper & Oakley in February 1911.   They didn't go there asking the Board of Governors to approve the routing plan they wanted; they could do that at the Golf Committee level.  Instead, they were there asking them to approve the additional purchase of three acres!   

It is very possible that a major reason for bringing CBM back to Merion in April 1911 was simply to get the blessing of his learned opinion that they could then use to help convince the MCC Board of the necessity and wisdom of spending the additional funds.
 
Finally, and trying not to be too picky, I’m not sure how anyone could tell if a Valley of Sin feature existed on the recently posted 1912 photo of the 17th, as the beginning of the green and thus the start of the Valley of Sin is at least 20 yards past that steep little ridge and outside the range of the photo.
 
Thanks for the opportunity to respond, Shel.   Much appreciated!   Mike

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #219 on: June 24, 2013, 04:42:37 PM »

Tom Paul part 1

Do you believe that CBM provided a detailed routing that Wilson adopted? 
      I do not. I base that belief on the following.
         a/  There neither is nor has there ever been any evidence  Macdonald (Whigam) did such a thing for Merion I’m aware of, or that anyone I know of has been aware of. Of course, anyone could try to take some piece of factual evidence from the record of Merion at that time and attempt to totally extrapolate such an occurrence through extreme inferences and convoluted logic, but I just don’t endorse that approach; never have and never will. That’s what I believe David Moriarty did with his 2008 IMO essay (“The Missing Faces of Merion a Reexamination of the Origins of Merion East (1909-1912), and has been trying to do ever since. I’ve been involved with Merion on their architectural history with Wayne Morrison for the last dozen years or so, and before Wayne joined Merion I have spoken about it with most of Merion’s administrations and all the historians who have dealt with Merion’s history for over the last thirty years or so except for Desmond Tolhurst. I did not know him when his Merion history book was published in 1988, and when the same book was somewhat amended and republished in 2005, he had died. I mention the foregoing because the story of Macdonald’s (Whigam) consultation and help to Merion has basically always been part of Merion’s (and MCC’s) record and Merion East’s creation story, including in Tolhurst’s book. The only real historical error his book seems to have made is the timing of Wilson’s trip abroad. I just don’t believe that error bears on the facts that took place in 1909-1912 and who all was involved in them, very much including Hugh Wilson, because that 1910 trip abroad story did not even occur until decades after the events of 1909-1912. In my opinion, for a story that occurred about a half century later to have any influence or any factual bearing on the events of 1909-1912, and those involved at that time, essentially time would have to run in reverse!
         b/  I believe when it comes to the contribution of Macdonald (Whigam), one must appreciate what MCC thought of Macdonald (Whigam) at the time. One need not speculate or infer what MCC thought of them because MCC voted a formal resolution into the Board Meeting of July 1, 1910 describing them and expressing their appreciation. Their words in that resolution say all that needs to be known about their opinion of Macdonald and Whigam---fine gentlemen, amateurs, amateur golf champions and experts in the art of architecture design and construction. I think there are a number of other reasons to believe they did not route and design the East course in 1910, but I believe this reason alone is sufficient to indicate they not only did not route and design the course, particularly in 1910, but were never asked by MCC to do that. I have very little doubt if MCC had asked them to do that and they did it, MCC would not only have fully recorded that fact but essentially would have fully promoted it and publicized it both then and for the rest of time! In my personal opinion, albeit with no evidence to support it, I don’t believe MCC ever asked them to do something like that, and certainly not in 1910. I believe if they had been asked and they agreed MCC would have welcomed it completely. My gut feeling from the factual evidence is they never broached that roll or assignment to Maconald and Whigam, perhaps thinking it a massive imposition on their time and inclination. After all both Macdonald and Whigam were amateurs and never charged for their time with architecture. I believe their roll was only as valued consultants, and frankly that is the way it was recorded then and presented later.
         c/ My belief is MCC had a whole different kettle of fish to fry from June 1910 when they began to concentrate on the purchase of the Ardmore property until an agreement was reached between MCC and HDC in Nov, 1910. One certainly wonders why Macdonald wrote his June 1910 site review letter to Horatio Gates Lloyd rather than to Robert Lesley, the chairman of the site committee charged with finding a new site for a golf course. If the chairman of the site committee’s authority to condone a design by Macdonald was too narrow, why did CBM’s letter not go to the president of the club and/or the board of the club? And why did the site committee’s report to the board specifically mention the contents of CBM’s letter should not be for publication? To my mind, that indicates a large degree of secrecy was at work at that time for obvious reasons and would be in effect until a presentable deal had been reached in Nov. 1910 by Lloyd negotiating alone as the representative for MCC and Connell as the representative for HDC (the Nov. 1910 board meeting minutes specifically mentions this), and then an agreement had been reached between the board of MCC and HDC. So what of Macdonald sending his site review letter to Horatio Gates Lloyd c/o Drexel Co, Philadelphia? Why did Macdonald write to Lloyd who was only one of a number of members of the MCC Site Committee? I think this fact indicates a whole lot about what was going on at that time. MCC and the site committee were looking at not just a golf course site but one completely dependent upon a residential real estate development. After-all the sellers were residential developers. With this fact one must remember that Macdonald’s highly publicized and revolutionary new golf course project on Long Island, NGLA, was still entertaining the idea of raising money for the course and the club via the financial vehicle of selling residential lots surrounding the course to prospective members of NGLA. This was precisely what Horatio Gates Lloyd was about to do in Ardmore via his recapitalization of HDC and his essentially bringing a ready-made buyers market of MCC members to the HDC residential development immediately to the west of the course and within view of his own new property on Cooperstown Rd. (still today there is a large percentage of residents in that community that have been generational members of MCC and later Merion GC from the teens and 1920s on). Due to the foregoing, it is my distinct impression that very little was done on that land in the way of planning a golf course until the various component pieces of property were put together by HDC, and that was towards the end of 1910. The last piece would be the 21 acre Dallas estate that went under contract in Aug. 1912 by what was clearly a “straw man” buyer for HDC (MCC?), and would not be settled and transferred to HDC’s control until late Oct of 1910. When that last piece was finally in the bag, within a few weeks HDC made the offer to MCC, and MCC accepted it after a board vote which specified that Lloyd had been the sole representative and negotiator for MCC with HDC. I think for the foregoing reasons MCC and HDC were being very quiet and confidential with that land until the agreement was made in mid Nov. 1910. About the acquisition of the East Course land MCC never specifically recorded that they felt they needed to be careful not to kite selling prices of various parcels by visible activity, but they certainly did record that specific concern via a Special Committee and Board meeting minutes when they went about buying the land for the West Course in 1913. Considering some of the same men from MCC went about analyzing the purchase of both the East and West course tracts, I have very little doubt they had the very same concerns of not kiting selling prices on both sites.
      d/ The final aspect  of the oddity of CBM writing his June site review letter to Lloyd instead of Lesley or the president of the club, Allen Evans, or to the Board, is business of another kind. I believe CBM was what was known as a Specialist on Wall St. (look it up but a specialist is essentially a broker who controls particular companies and their stock purchase and sale on the floor of the NYSE using his own money or his firm’s to make a market in particular stocks). At the time Lloyd was a partner in a powerful financial company known as Drexel & Co that specialized in stock underwriting, particularly in the railroad industry with the likes of PRR and other major railroads. In 1912 Lloyd would move over to J.P. Morgan as a partner, a virtual sister company to Drexel & Co. One need only look at the other people CBM got involved with and networked with over the years in his Wall St profession and his architectural projects to tell Lloyd fit right into that type for CBM.

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 was definitely consulted beginning in June 1910 but there is just no actual evidence at all from back then that he did a preliminary routing at that time. Matter of fact, Macdonald’s actual letter that David Moriarty did not have when he wrote his 2008 IMO essay, seems to say quite the opposite. He specifically wrote in that letter that finding eighteen first class holes was MCC’s problem. While I do think a preliminary routing might be a bit more likely than question #1, again, if he did do that, I just can’t imagine why MCC would not have mentioned it in their records. Of course anyone could always say that it is possible he did a preliminary routing, or it is not impossible he did one, but that kind of rampant speculation isn’t of much interest to Merion or its historians. No one from MCC or elsewhere has ever said any kind of routing was done in 1910; at least not until David Moriarty first said it in 2008 in his IMO essay that essentially concluded Wilson and his committee were not even responsible for doing a routing and design of the golf course.

Do you believe that CBM designed any of the holes at Merion?
      Yes, frankly I do believe that even though there is absolutely no evidence of it and no mention of it from that time which I think is surprising if he really did do that. I also think that the vast majority of participants on Golfclubatlas.com don’t really understand how it goes in the field when people are out there together working up a routing or a course design or a hole design. Generally, it’s just a lot of back and forth and through that process things begin to evolve. But with that process which is largely collaborative, which it seems Wilson and committee definitely were and were even known for, and frankly the so-called Philadelphia School of architecture was as well, even at the end of a day few can even recall who said what, much less whose idea a hole was. I know what I am speaking of in that vein because I have been involved in it with a number of architects on various projects and it’s always the same. And the more important fact is that kind of thing is rarely if ever recorded. We tried to tell MacWood and Moriarty that when this Merion, Wilson, Macdonald thing began about ten years ago but apparently they didn’t listen or just didn’t want to listen. The voluminous threads and posts on the subject involving them over the next ten years would certainly indicate they did not listen to that answer and explanation from any of us from Philadelphia! Why? I don’t see any point in getting into that here or now.


Do you believe CBM designed any of the holes at Merion?
      Yes, perhaps in a certain way I do believe that, but once again it’s just a gut feeling because I know of no factual evidence at all from that time to back it up. Instead of saying CBM designed some of the holes of Merion East, I would be more inclined to say that he may’ve suggested some types of holes to the Wilson Committee. And once again, had CBM done something like that comprehensively and on his own without collaboration and input from the Wilson Committee, I can see no reason at all why the club or the committee wouldn’t have prominently recorded and reported it, even publicized it. I’m pretty confident CBM and HJW would not have tried to route and design the course in a single day in June 1910. I firmly believe that type of single day routing and design modus operandi was one of the aspects the likes of Macdonald/Whigam and many of their fellow prominent amateur/sportsmen architects of that era found so obnoxious about many of the professional architects of the time. Also, MCC certainly prominently thanked them via a board resolution for that one day initial visit without ever mentioning such a thing. Had he done a lot more like route and design the course later I just can’t imagine the club would not have prominently recorded it and publicized it at that time as well, but they never did. A few seem to have implied MCC was trying to minimize CBM and Whigam. I just don’t see that at all, and certainly not at that time or era. Therefore no legend making around Wilson was a part of that time or era. Wilson just did what he did, and during that time and for the remainder of his life all those who were part of it both said and confirmed that Hugh Wilson was in the main responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses of Merion. Should we just assume that they ALL were engaging in untruths and hyperbole or had been mistaken due to forgetfulness or some strange attempt to create a legend out of Wilson? I don’t think so and at this point I know of no one who believes that, except one or two this website is familiar with.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #220 on: June 24, 2013, 04:43:36 PM »
Tom Paul part 2

Do you believe he recommended implementation of certain holes, and perhaps locations, which were implemented by the Wilson led committee?
      To segue from the question above to this question, yes, that is something I really do believe even if there has never been any direct mention of it by MCC or the Wilson Committee. But perhaps they did mention it by indirect implication with the fact that Wilson said CBM showed them and taught them some architectural principles derived from holes abroad while showing them NGLA and his plans from abroad for NGLA. There is no doubt that Wilson and committee used some of the template holes that CBM had used at NGLA, as they named at least three of them at Merion---eg Redan, Alps, Eden. And I have always believed CBM probably saw the hole and a half that were originally within the three acres the club leased from the P&W railroad. It seems he insisted on that land twice, and that land was in fact the only land of the original course that was not offered to MCC by HDC. The board meeting minutes of April 19, 1911 seem to imply that area was a last minute inclusion during either the development of five different plans in March 1910 or the selection of one of the five plans  during April 6, 1911 when CBM and Whigam came back to consult at the course. It has also fascinated me that CBM said the last seven holes were as good as any last seven on an inland course in the world. That description from Merion and others over the years has never included the last seven holes but only included the last five holes (the section called “Tragedy”), and I note those holes on the P&W land were given up by Merion within ten years when they redid all the road crossing holes. If the last seven were generally considered so great why were the second half of original #12 and #13 given up, rerouted and redesigned so quickly? I also believe that road crossing holes was likely a suggestion or recommendation of CBM. Few seem aware of it but in those days roads were actually including in the Rules definition of “Hazard” and CBM wrote about that later in his book. But Francis was a prominent Rules expert as were Hugh and Alan Wilson, so clearly they all would’ve understood that roads were used as hazards in those days. Of course the real kicker to this scenario is what MCC and the Wilson Committee knew in 1911 about the availability of that additional seven acres they purchased in the early 1920s to extend the 11th hole to the island green and the 12th tee to make that hole long enough to play to a green south of Ardmore Ave, and thereby basically rid the course of its original road crossing holes, and the original 13th. One of the real ironies to me personally of that additional seven acres is it was co-owned at the time by a man from New York who would one day become my step-grandfather.


How important were Wilson’s contributions in actually laying out and supervising construction of the course?
         Judging from what others said about him at the time and certainly later, Wilson’s contributions in laying out the course and supervising its construction were of primary importance. I have never believed David Moriarty’s opinion and premise in his essay that the term “laying out” in those days only meant construction and did not include routing and designing either on the ground or on a paper design plan. I believe that term was used generally and somewhat interchangeably, and could include both routing, designing and constructing, although the term “routing” had apparently not been coined in that early time (at least there is no written evidence of it from that time I have ever seen). Francis’s 1950 article for the US Open program, really does describe what both he and the Wilson Committee did in 1911. Unfortunately, in his 2008 IMO essay, David Moriarty only quoted a small part of that article from Desmond Tolhurst’s 1988 Merion history book. I suppose he did not have the rest of Francis’s article when he wrote his 2008 IMO essay. It is very important to have his entire 1950 article because in it he describes various things that would strongly indicate he not only had nothing to do with some creation of a plan for the course before he was appointed to the Wilson Committee in Jan, 1911 (something no one other than Moriarty has ever suggested) but he also describes much conversation amongst the committee, a good deal of measuring on his part and many hours over a drawing board. What was Francis talking to his committee about; what was he measuring and drawing? Obviously routings and designs for the course on a paper plan which was very likely the topo survey map Wilson mentioned in his letter to Oakley on Feb. 3, 1911, and which he sent to Oakley. This would square with the Wilson report that was read by Lesley to the board on April 19, 1911 which described laying out many courses on the ground. To my mind, this would have to be a number of different routings and designs on paper, because, frankly, I have never heard of many different courses staked out on the ground around the same time. That would be incredibly confusing to anyone and completely counter productive, unless of course they were individually submitted to a paper plans. I believe those numerous courses described before the committee went to NGLA in March were paper plans done by the committee and drawn by Francis, who explained in his 1950 article that measuring and drawing was one of his specific assignments on the committee as he was essentially an engineer by profession. Regarding Wilson and his committee only being responsible for constructing the course to a 1910 Macdonald/Whigam plan, as the 2008 IMO essay concluded, frankly that wasn’t even necessary as in July 1911 MCC hired Fred Pickering as their construction supervisor. Architect Alex Findlay wrote in his June 1912 article about Wilson and Merion that Pickering had been one of the best in the business as a construction supervisor.




How important were his contributions in adding hazards over time?
      Sheldon, in my opinion, this particular question and aspect is what truly was basically lost to history over time and in the evolutionary design process that would be Merion East. I think this aspect is both largely unique and hugely misunderstood or under appreciated. And I believe it bears directly on Wilson’s roll and also on the fact that he has long been considered the primary architect of Merion East. I have often referred to this aspect in architecture as the “designing up” process, and as separate and distinct from the routing process. And I believe those two processes were remarkably distinct and separate in the design and creation of Merion East. Why did they do it that way since so few projects seemed to follow that modus operandi? We may never know, but I really do see the hand and mind of CBM in that process. He may’ve recommended this to them because that is precisely the way he was going about designing and creating NGLA. It was the same MO utilized earlier by other fairly famous amateur/sportsmen architects such as Leeds of Myopia, Emmet of GCGC, the Fownses of Oakmont, and would later be utilized by Crump at Pine Valley. It was certainly utilized by Wilson and his committee with Merion East, and no matter where the idea came from the fact is there is not a single vestige of evidence that CBM and Whigam were involved with Merion at that point in 1912 and on. The last piece of evidence I know of connecting CBM to consulting with Merion is a June 1911 letter that is all about how much manure to put on greens. The amount of manure CBM recommended in that letter was considered unusually excessive and was not accepted by either Wilson or Piper and Oakley who were Wilson’s constant agronomic advisors and would be for the rest of his life.



What did I miss?
      Quite a lot actually, but I suppose we could defer it for another time. If you are looking for additional comparisons between my own opinions of the story of the origins of Merion East (1909-1912) and David Moriarty’s opinions of the story from his 2008 IMO essay, I believe the following numbered points are of maximum importance to continue to explore and analyze. He has said and may continue to say they have been explored and discussed to death and he is no longer interested but I do not believe they have ever been intelligently and productively analyzed and discussed with him in the context of his 2008 IMO essay. By the way, it is only his actual 2008 IMO essay I would like to concentrate on. On the DG for about five years since his essay, it just seems far too difficult for anyone to have a productive discussion with him. In my opinion, following his 2008 IMO essay in which he said he wanted to learn and encourage critique, the fact is he merely deflected and/or ignored some very important points involving this over all subject for the ensuing five years. Those important points are not limited to but include the following.
      1/ The timing of the Francis land swap idea which I do not believe took place in 1910, and which I do not believe involved the creation of that triangle at the top of the L but merely its reconfiguration which involved the realignment from Ardmore Ave to College Ave of a road that had not yet been built before the middle of 1911---the road that would become known as Golf House Rd which still today is the western boundary of holes #1, #14 and #15.
      2/ The events of this early time regarding those two stories of Wilson’s trip abroad, when he went, and what it means, or even does not mean, concerning his roll in the creation of Merion East in 1911 and 1912 and on.
      3/ The MCC administrative structure and process and why committee reports were given to the board as they were.
      4/ A review and listing of what materials were not available before that 2008 IMO essay was written and what the lack of them may’ve meant to the interpretations and the conclusions the 2008 IMO essay reached.
      5/ The premise the 2008 IMO essay promoted that given it is now provable that Wilson did not travel abroad in 1910 for seven months preparatory to creating Merion East, it is virtually an architectural “given” that Wilson did not route and design the East course, but that he was in fact incapable of doing it because he was too much the novice, and therefore had to have someone else do it for him. I’m afraid that premise is not only a ridiculous injustice to Wilson and his architecture career, but it is also a complete misunderstanding of a particular and remarkable era in architecture and some of the fascinating men who were part of it----that group often known as the “amateur/sportsmen architects.” With Wilson that American group would include Leeds, Emmet, the Fownses, Crump and even George Thomas. The fact is the majority of them created not only their own masterpieces as novices their first time out but also a group of golf courses that still today are considered to be some of the greatest architecture in the world.


Thank you, Sheldon, you are a good man and a good moderator to have come up with these questions; and to have asked participants in that years long sago over Merion to supply their answers.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #221 on: June 24, 2013, 04:46:21 PM »
The last 4 posts contain the information provided by Mike Cirba and Tom Paul.  I apologize if my transfers were less than artful.  I thank Mike and Tom for sharing.  Lots to consider and I hope my foray into this issue has helped to sharpen the focus on where the parties disagree and the extent of their disagreements.  Afte I have a chance to consider all of the posts, I may have more.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 06:27:17 PM by SL_Solow »

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #222 on: June 24, 2013, 06:12:42 PM »
Am I the only one who reads these posts and think Tom and David agree on almost everything (Wilson deserves design credit and CBM consulted) and are only arguing over semantics such as defining a term (routing) that was not even used at the time Merion was built?

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #223 on: June 24, 2013, 06:30:17 PM »

Am I the only one who reads these posts and think Tom and David agree on almost everything (Wilson deserves design credit and CBM consulted) and are only arguing over semantics such as defining a term (routing) that was not even used at the time Merion was built?


I've decided the easiest way to figure this thread out is to wait until Bryan Izatt has a chance to clarify everything.I think he's committed the entire thing to memory.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #224 on: June 24, 2013, 07:41:32 PM »
As a fan of CB Macdonald (who did not read the first Merion thread) what is so cool to learn is that CBM played such an important role in my three favorite US courses: NGLA, Merion and Shinnecock. On that TEP and David seem to agree wholeheartedly. The only dispute can be what label one puts on that role. As Tom Doak said, no one can know for sure exactly who is responsible for each piece of work on a golf course. Perhaps the lead dog (in this case Wilson) gets more credit than he deserves, but that goes with the territory when you are selected to lead a project. And I think wisely choosing consultants, shapers, engineers, etc. and listening to their advice is a huge compliment to Wilson and his committee. He was a great lead dog.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back