Mike Cirba's 'Who was Hugh Wilson?' is posted under In My Opinion

[Ran Morrissett]

When you push back from your computer screen after reading Mike Cirba’s 12,000 word treatise on Hugh Wilson, you might well think, “Wow, that solves that. Wonder why this was never done before?!”

Mike sets the record straight on Hugh Wilson and what he meant to golf. Somewhere along the line, Wilson’s contributions were simplified and distilled to a version where a nice guy HAPPENED to build a design that is viewed to this day as a relentlessly perfect use of the land. An amateur architect who got lucky once, if you will. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Peppered with quotes from the day, of which it is impossible to misconstrue, Mike methodically builds the case of how Merion came to pass. His 50 plus quotes show how Wilson’s reputation as a course designer and turf expert grew from 1909 until his death in 1925. By the time he passed at the tragic young age of 45, he was a living legend. The USGA Green Committee’s eulogy makes that clear. From his early playing days to watching Jones dismantle von Elm in the 1924 US Amateur, Wilson’s life and contributions have never been as carefully analyzed as Mike’s internet tome.

In an email exchange, Mike notes, “The intent of the piece is to have something good, productive, and meaningful come out of all the Merion debates here over the years. Truth be told, David Moriarty’s previous In My Opinion, controversial as it may have been, led to an enormous amount of additional research and findings that have benefited all of our collective understandings of the origins of Merion east and early golf in Philadelphia. I hope the piece reflects that learning.”   Hear, hear!

Mike goes on to write:

One misunderstanding I try to dispel in the article is the idea that Hugh Wilson simply somehow fell out of the sky in January 1911 to become not only the Chairman of the “Construction Committee”, but also Chairman of the Green Committee of Merion, from which he resigned in November of 1914 due to pressures of business. Wilson himself clouded the issue for historians by writing, “…early in 1911 the Club appointed a committee consisting of Messrs.  Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin, and Wilson to construct a new course on the 125 acre of land…”

Recently I saw where Dan Hermann posted the portion of the MCC Minutes where Hugh Wilson tendered his resignation as Chairman of the Green Committee, to be replaced by Winthrop Sargent, and that Sargent was also made a member of the “Golf Committee” chaired by Robert Lesley that the “Green Committee” reported to.   Lesley reported up to the Merion Board of Governors, who had responsibility for all sports, not just golf, including Cricket, Lawn Tennis, etc., and in that role was the one who delivered the now GCA infamous report, “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many…” to the Merion Cricket Club Board of Governors. So where was Wilson during the events of 1910?   Well, strong evidence would indicate that Wilson was right where one might expect someone charged with building the new golf course would be…serving as the Chairman of the Merion Green Committee!

In 1934 Robert Lesley wrote, “In connection with these two courses, both of which are of championship character and have received the most favorable comments in golf circles all over the world, it may be stated that the reason for this successful development is due to the fact that during the period from 1909 to the present day Merion’s Green Committee has been kept almost intact from its origin up to today and only five Chairmen of the Green Committee have had charge of the work and development of the courses, thus insuring a consistent, systematic and wise development.” Lesley then names the five in chronological order; “These Chairmen were: Hugh I. Wilson, Winthrop Sargent, and John R. Maxwell, who are now deceased, and Arnold Gerstell and Phillip C. Staples.” One might logically conclude that Wilson’s involvement with the Green Committee almost assuredly preceded 1909, as it’s unlikely he would have been named Chair in his inaugural year, but that is just a likely assumption.

Writing in 1930, Superintendent Joe Valentine, who had been at Merion since 1907 wrote something very similar; although changed up the order, perhaps to reflect the fact that Wilson again served as Chairman in the early 20s,  “Perhaps it would be interesting to know how the quality and condition of these courses  have been established and maintained; and it is only fair to say that it is due largely to the fact that in the twenty years since the development of the east course at Merion only four chairmen of the Green Committee have had charge of the  work. These are: Winthrop Sargent, Hugh I. Wilson, John R. Maxwell, and Arnold Gerstell, the present chairman.”

One other brief point that still causes confusion is the term “construction” as in “Construction Committee”, as Wilson’s committee was known.   Given our modern day understanding of divisions of labor we tend to view that word as including only the building process and not the design.   But that is not accurate from either a historical or an etymological standpoint, and with a few examples, it becomes clear that the men involved were using this term in a holistic fashion, to mean, “something fashioned or devised systematically.” For instance, in March of 1913, with a number of golf holes already designed and being cleared, and months before Harry Colt came on site to help, we know from Tillinghast’s writings that George Crump’s Committee was also known as the “Construction Committee”.  

Chris Buie’s recent wonderful find of Donald Ross’s essay from 1910 shows the how terms were used synonymously with design and architectural aspects at that time: “Perhaps of more striking and general importance to the players of golf here than anything discovered, certainly the one fact that proved the most stimulating and the most satisfactory to myself, was that anything that has been done by course architects and constructors in this country…does not hold a candle to the work of the people on the other side of the water…Much of this construction work, or rather on many links much of this laying out of courses has been done during the past few years and whether in some cases the architects have gone too far is a question that time will answer…”

“The British architect of golf courses pays little heed to criticism, but is always open to valuable suggestions…while the one who has any advice worth taking gives it in the gentlest way knowing that no two experts ever agree exactly on the points of golf course construction and that the best courses usually are the outcome of a compromise of ideas gathered from many intelligent sources.   For instance, they do not lay out a course by rule of thumb…The course constructor casts his eye over the country and gets the idea of what he considers a good golf hole in his brain, lays it out that way, and then says to the player: “There’s the golf hole, play it anyway you please.”

We should probably let the wise Mr. Ross have the last word.   Thanks for reading and for your interest and I would like to dedicate this piece to Mr. Pete Trenham, PGA, for his wonderful research into Philadelphia golf history and his gentlemanly example.  Cheers! – Mike


Some well heeled men like to play golf with the same three guys week in, week out. That’s fine and that’s their prerogative. Wilson could have been one of those as he was both a scratch player and well off. Rather than just take from golf, he gave back to the sport by becoming involved with his club, the USGA, golf architecture, agronomy and public golf. He graciously gave of his time and never charged for his services. When the opportunity came to help further golf in Philadelphia, he grabbed his friend George Crump and a couple of others and they sank their teeth into designing Cobb’s Creek. When the USGA asked him to serve on the Executive Committee, he answered the call. All this despite mounting health issues. Just as CB Macdonald was generous in sharing time and information with Wilson, Wilson too was quick to help other clubs, especially in the greater Philadelphia/New Jersey area.

This sharing of information was for the good of the game and no wonder golf flourished during this collaborative period. What I enjoy reading from this time too is how courses were routed, grassed, and then bunkers were eventually added over a several year period. Talk about insuring that bunkers are well placed! Pity the rush to recoup cash outlay is so great today that a similar studied approach never takes place.

History shines brighter on some men than others. Sometimes it is because of their accomplishments. Other times it is because of the high values that they held as a person that made them so well loved and respected. In Hugh Wilson's case, it is for both reasons as Mike so timely reminds us in this superb read.

Best,

[Phil McDade]

Ran:

Thanks for bringing Mike back to GCA -- is there still room for him in the treehouse?

[Bill Brightly]

Nice job, Mike!

Geeze, if all you read were the IMO pieces written by David and Mike you'd think there was nothing to argue over...

[Tom Walsh]

Cool article---I love history.

Does the article need a minor edit?
 "Born into upper-crust society in 1892 at Trenton, NJ, not much is known of Wilson’s childhood except that he attended the best private prep schools in Philadelphia and surrounds before enrolling in Princeton University in 1898. "

According to the end of the article Wilson was born in 1879.

Anyway--fascinating stuff. I wish I could be in Ardmore in a week and a half. 

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike,

That is a nice article. It is funny that GCA.com often bemoans modern architects for "hand waving", "not spending time on-site" and a variety of other actions that speaks to the modern day BUSINESS of golf course architecture, maintenance, and management.

Hugh Wilson obviously put the time into all of his courses and he drew valuable input from a variety of sources and people. Over the last few years, the Wilson legacy has been picked apart here on GCA as new information has come out. This is a good thing.

As one man with a fondness for Merion Golf Club and a fondness to pick on my hometown friends and institutions, I am guilty of painting graffiti on the Wilson legacy. I think you did a great job of establishing his unique position in golf, and what appears from words to be his unique generosity to golf.

Nicely done.

[Joe Bausch]

From Tom Paul:

I would like to add to this thread my congratulations and appreciation to Mike Cirba for his informed (so many contemporaneous quotations) essay, "Who Was Hugh Wilson." I think it adds a good deal to the breadth, depth and balance of information in the "In My Opinion" section of Golfclubatlas.com on the creation of two fascinating golf courses at Merion GC (originally MCC) in Ardmore, Pa between 1911 and 1914, which combined established the first thirty six hole private golf club in America (although technically the old Haverford course and the East course did this in 1912-13). Wayne Morrison will be back from China tomorrow and I'm confident he and Merion GC will concur.
 
TEPaul, June 5, 2013

[Mark McKeever]

Thanks for posting Mike!  This is fantastic information and will be a very useful reference in the future.



MM

[Dan Herrmann]

Love it!

[BCrosby]

Well done Mike.

Bob

[Garland Bayley]

Very informative, perhaps better titled something like "Hugh Wilson and his Golf Architecture Work".
The Who was part of the essay is very small.

Are you sure Cirba wrote it? Mike's a funny guy, not a dry academic like Bausch.

[Terry Lavin]

I greatly enjoyed the Cirbalogue!  Informative, readable and, oddly enough, not argumentative. The GCA equivalent of being able to go out to dinner in Beirut in between conflicts!

[Dan Herrmann]

Posted for Mike Cirba:


All,

Thank you very much for the nice comments and I’m very pleased and gratified that you found the piece enjoyable, if a bit dry and non-combative.    See Garland…sense of humor intact!  

Seriously, I’m glad you all felt it was respectful of both the topic and the GCA participants, past and present.  

Bill Brightly wrote: “Geeze, if all you read were the IMO pieces written by David and Mike you'd think there was nothing to argue over...”

Bill, it seems from reading other discussions here that most of any remaining disagreement  has to do with the timing of the routing, whether it was in the summer/fall of 1910 or the first quarter of 1911.  

However, now that it appears from Lesley and Valentine that Hugh Wilson was Chairman of the Green Committee starting in 1909 it seems to be a completely moot point!  

It is hard to imagine that the Chairman would not have been deeply involved in every golf-related decision at that point, and even harder to imagine that Wilson wasn’t already on the Green Committee for some period prior to being named its Chairman.

One factor that may have kept him off the specific Site Committee, either by choice or simple consideration by the club was that his wife Mary was pregnant with his first daughter Louise at the time, who was born in September of 1910.  

As you might imagine, this whole topic is very fascinating to me, almost like a murder mystery with the search through history for clues.   For my part, although the timing of the routing really is irrelevant to the question of Wilson’s participation, I do have an opinion, which I’ll share.

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.   No minutes have been found from Green Committee meetings, yet I have no doubt that they would have recorded those at the time.   Matters reaching the Board were matters of the highest importance, usually financially related requiring decision-making in the interest of the club overall.

In that regard, we know that sometime in late 1910 the Board was asked to consider the land acquisition, and subsequently sent out a recommendation to membership notifying them that attractive property had been found, that 117 acres had been “secured” for the golf course and detailing specifics of what would be needed.   They also mentioned what has been done for them by Macdonald and Whigham at that point;

The Committee, through Mr. R.E. Griscom, were fortunate enough to get Messrs. C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Wigham(sic) to come over from New York and give us the benefit of their experience.

These gentlemen, besides being famous golfers, have given the matter of Golf Course construction much study, and are perfectly familiar with the qualities of grasses, soils, etc.  It was Mr. Macdonald, assisted by Mr. Wigham, (sic) who conceived and constructed the National Course at Southampton, Long Island.

After the visit of these gentlemen Mr. Macdonald wrote to a member of the Committee, expressing the views of himself and Mr. Wigham, (sic) as to what could be done with the property.   The report, as made to the Board, embodied Mr. Macdonald’s letter but it was not written for publication.   We do not, therefore, feel justified in printing it.   We can properly say, however, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the Committee based its recommendations upon their opinion.

I always found it odd that the Committee did not see fit to share the exact contents of Macdonald’s letter with the Board, and those who have read it here would probably all agree that it’s hardly a ringing endorsement.   Someone clearly wanted this deal to go through, and it was likely Horatio Lloyd.   So, in a sense, I think the Committee used Macdonald and Whigham as expert witnesses to drive the bargain without sharing their specific concerns in that letter.

After that mailing went out to membership, other matters discussed in the minutes was the recommendation of Merion’s counsel, Mr. Cuyler, that Lloyd should take title under his own name, owing to the fact that as of the time of writing, December 21;

In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon.

In February of 1911, Hugh Wilson wrote Piper & Oakley for the first time, telling them that 117 acres had been purchased by the club, and that a golf course was going to be built on it.

As we know, in March Wilson’s Committee ventured to NGLA.

The next matter to arrive at the Board of Governors for determination was in April 1911.   During that meeting, Robert Lesley read the Golf Committee’s report, which included the language about CBM and Whigham coming back in April to help them select the best of their five plans, how they felt it would be the finest 7 finishing holes of any inland course, etc..   However, Lesley doesn’t ask the Board of Governors to approve that plan, but instead tells them;

In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional.

Mr. Thompson then motioned;   Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about $7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion.  Resolved, that this Board approve of the purchase and exchange, and agree to pay as part of the rental the interest on the additional purchase.

The club subsequently purchased slightly over 120 acres, not the original 117, and leased 3 acres of Railroad land near the clubhouse for a total golf course size of 123 acres.

I saw today where Jeff Brauer in the “Merion Clarification” thread in his post #165 made a lot of good points about the timing that I was going to mention, so I won’t repeat or belabor that except to say that I think the timing of what happened, particularly the Francis Swap of land, seems to have been in the spring, in my opinion, as reflected in these minutes.

I also believe that the Merion Green Committee and the Merion Construction Committee were likely synonymous, with the possible exception of Richard Francis who told us he was “added”.   Both Griscom and Lloyd had been members of the committee almost since inception of golf at the club, it seems Wilson was a member for a while prior to 1910, and I believe Toulmin was as well.  

As further evidence, in his 1934 article, Lesley wrote; Hugh I. Wilson and his Green Committee laid out Merion’s first 18 hole course on the new land and it is what is now known as the “East Course”….a second eighteen hole course, now known as the “West Course”,…was created by Hugh I. Wilson and his associates on the Green Committee.

Hope you find this additional information useful.   Cheers, and enjoy the US Open!!

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Mike,

I'm on the road this week and speed read your excellent essay Tuesday night. The Wilson story is one of the most engaging narratives for architecture geeks like most of us on this board.

I find myself yearning to know much more about Wilson, the person, beyond the great trail of his fantastic groundwork at the Merion Golf Club and its many spawns around Philadelphia and beyond. What is the Wilson Legacy or is there one at all?

Please consider an expansion on this essay.

Who was Hugh Wilson? Well he was certainly Mr. Greens Committee but also what else?

Malcolm

[John Burnes]

Dan-

Can you ask Mike the following:

What date was Hugh Wilson actually born on?

Any idea what specific address(s) he lived at in Trenton?

What were the names of his parents and siblings, if any?

Any chance he had an association with Trenton Country Club as a member, caddie, player, guest or otherwise?

[Dan Herrmann]

John,
Mike is like Santa Claus.  He hears and sees everything

His reply:
Hugh Wilson was born at home in Trenton on November 18th, 1879.   I obtained a copy of his birth certificate a few years back.
 
Birth name was Hugh Irvine Wilson.   Mother was the former Eileen Dickson, and his Father was Mr. William Potter Wilson.   They lived in Trenton on 121 N. State St. 
 
His father was 42 when Wilson was born and his mother was 31.   He was the 3rd child, brothers Alan and Wayne preceding him.
 
Sadly, his father who evidently worked with John A. Roebling after the Civil War, died young after heart disease forced him into early retirement. (that piece from Jeff Silverman).  I have his dad's obit...he died in Warm Springs, VA on the 6th of August, 1886 and was buried at Laurel Hill Cemetery in Philadelphia.   He had multiple awards for gallantry in the Civil war and fought at Gettysburg, becoming a Lt. Colonel.
 
After his death, mom moved the kids to Philadelphia...not sure which year, but unlikely he was a member of the Trenton CC...almost assuredly played there during his time at Princeton.
 
As regards Wilson's Chairmanship of the Green Committee, I wish to thank David for sharing the MCC Minutes where he says Hugh Wilson was not a member of the Green Committee in 1911 and that the Chairman was Mr. Winston Sargent at that time.   The more pieces of information that are put forth the clearer the story becomes.
 
I find this quite at odds with Robert Lesley's reflection, as well as Joe Valentine's that the reason for the success of the Merion East and West courses has been continuity of leadership and membership of the Green Committee since inception, Lesley specifically mentioning the year 1909, and then naming the Committee Chairmen chronologically.   I also believe that one doesn't suddenly walk one day onto any significant Committee to become Chairmen without first serving as an associate.
 
I wonder if perhaps Wilson indeed became Chair in 1909 (he had been a member since 1903) but stepped down briefly after the birth of his first daughter in Sept 1910?   More logically, I think Wilson may have been re-assigned from the day-to-day administrative duties of that position at Merion's old Haverford course when he was asked to design and build the new course, in and around 1911 when the new "Construction Committee" was formed.
 
Or, perhaps Wilson was actually already on Lesley's permanent "Golf Committeee" at that time?   A Philadelphia newspaper report from late 1911 read; The year 1912 will mark a new era in the history of golf at the Merion Cricket Club, for during the coming season the Golf Committee has planned to complete the imporovements on a new course...The Merion Club has acquired 123 acres of land for a new eighteen-hole golf course...For some time the Golf Committee in charge of this work has been active in this matter.   Golf will be played on the club's eighteen hole course until this new course is completed.
 
"We have been working on this new course all Winter," said Mr. Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the committee in charge of the work, "and it will take most of our time next year.   The course itself will not be opened to the members until 1913, and we will have quite a little work to finish before that time."  Mr. Wilson has with him as associate members of this committee R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, and H.G. Lloyd.  These men, together with Robert Lesley, chairman of the Golf Committee have charge of all matters pertaining to golf at the club."
 
As we know, Wilson's group was able to open the East course by the fall of 1912, finishing ahead of schedule.
 
Please let me know any other questions and I'll do my best to answer them.   Also, pray for the rain to stop around here!
 
Thanks, Mike

[Chris Buie]

Well, for me this is the most compelling piece I've read on GCA this year. I don't know the micro details of Merion well enough to weigh in on those matters. However, the deft handling of the rather complex story is very impressive.

[John Burnes]

Thank you.

I feel compelled to write that is piece is one of the best I have read (any media) in golf and sports in general.  As a guy who has worked in history and media, though far from an expert, I can identify talent quiet easily, and it goes without saying that Mike Cirba has really pushed the proverbial sound barrier with this one.

With that, and the Open looming, is it fair to say that Golf in America's cradle of significance was right here in the Delaware Valley?  Hugh Wilson's efforts in just a short time, really changed the game going forward.  In the sports landscape, prior to Wilson, golf wasn't even front page news, (boxing was) and like McDermott, also a Delaware Valley native, really brought new and pioneering efforts to the world.

I am curious as to Wilson's playing record and specifically, if he had any mentors or influencers on his game and design?  During your research, was there any names mentioned either by his notes or publications?  For example, Walter Reynolds appears quiet a bit with regards to McDermott.

Does Princeton have any original artifacts of his time there, playing, academic or otherwise? 

In addition to Wilson and Crump, are there other notable architects that also had a short life?  Specifically, in the Delaware Valley and then ROW?

Thanks again Mike, you are a credit to GCA.

John

[Dan Herrmann]

John - I couldn't agree more.

Personally, I think Philly is lucky to have people like Mike, Joe Bausch, Wayne Morrison, and Tom Paul - people that have a real dedication to the study of GCA and live that love every day.   I'm fortunate enough to be able to call them friends, and I learn from them every time I get a chance.

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike:

All,
 
Thank you for your kind words, insightful suggestions, and thoughtful questions which I'll do my best to research and answer as time permits.
 
One more bit about the timing and duration of Wilson's Green Committee chairmanship, if I may, because I think this is fundamentally important to an accurate understanding of what transpired...
 
In 1922, Philadelphia golfwriter J.E. Ford (pen name Donnie McTee) wrote; "Responsible for these improvements ...is Hugh Wilson, a pioneer golfer here and chairman of the Merion green committee for seven years - or until his voluntary retirement.  Mr. Wilson was one of the original designers of the Merion course and the holes just constructed are ones he wished for, but was prevented from building when the course was designed.  He is still an active member of the greens committee, to whom all questions of architecture and grasses are referred as a matter of course."
 
We know that Wilson voluntarily resigned from the chairmanship of the Green Committee in November of 1914, citing pressures of business (his mother had also passed away that year).   Taking his place was Winthrop Sargent, who held that post through WWI and beyond until at least 1922.
 
Ten years later, in 1924 Philadelphia golfwriter Frank McCracken wrote; "Hugh I. Wilson,...an authority on golf architecture in proportion, is the man mainly responsible.   He is chairman of the Greens Committee at Merion".
 
So, we know that Sargent and Wilson shared this post back and forth a bit for over a decade, with David Moriarty recently pointing out that Sargent was also Committee Chairman in the year 1911, with Hugh Wilson not on the Committee at all that year, but suddenly again Chairman in 1912. 
 
Hugh Wilson joined Merion in 1903.   We know that Sargent served again as Committee Chair from November 1914 into 1922.   It would therefore seem to me most likely Wilson's seven year tenure as Chairman of the Green Committee at Merion were in the years prior to November 1914, with a possible interruption of service likely beginning in January 1911 when Wilson was named to head the newly formed "Construction Committee" charged with laying out and overseeing development of Merion's new course in Ardmore.
 
I find it extremely unlikely that Wilson would be named to serve as either the Chairman of the Green Committee in 1912 or the Chairman of the Cosntruction Committee in 1911 suddenly, out of the blue, without some prior dedicated service and proven experience as an associate member of the Green Committee in his first years as a member of Merion, as well as a prior leadership role. 
 
I think it's most likely that Wilson's "seven years" as Green Chairman were from approximately 1907-1914, again with the probable interruption of service in 1911 to guide the creation of Merion's new course.
 
I believe this is the most likely scenario based on the evidence we know. 
 
Thanks!  Mike

[Ed Brzezowski]

I am fascinated this piece has not generated more traction and  discussion. I posted once I liked the work done to 12 green. This generated  pages of content from Merion lovers and haters.

How does this piece go unnoticed??

Give him some feedback or he will start posting Obama nonsense.  Mike please don't tap my phone..

[Tim_Cronin]

Bravo, Mike! I now look forward to the Open even more, and with Crump's quote about excessive length – in 1917 – echoing in my head.

[RJ_Daley]

My intention was to wait until the eve of the US Open to read what Mike had compiled.  I already knew from ALL of Mike's contributions that it would be an excellent effort.  Of course, it did not disappoint.  Mike is such a sincere and dedicated gent, with a passion about all things golf related, and fierce pride in the history of the village from which he hails.   

Now, reinforced with a compilation of the many years of threads debating this and that about the subject of Hugh I. Wilson, and Merion's origins, I will enjoy the golf, and hope the weather allows us to see what has evolved as a national championship venue.   I hope the skill and procedings of the tournament go as skillful as the writing and recounting of seminal events in the art of golf course architecture, construction and turf management that has been given to us by an old friend, Mike Cirba.

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba:

RJ Daley…thanks!  I really appreciate the kind words and hope all is well with you and yours.   Your mention of the Merion “debates” is something I should probably address, as well.  
 
One thing that I think we sometimes forget in these discussions is the fact that golf was a relatively new activity at Merion in 1910.   Various sports such as cricket and lawn tennis had been played at the venerable club for nearly fifty years by that time, but golf, which some of the more traditional members still saw as a newfangled fad that would never last had been played on leased land for under fifteen.
 
So, what was being proposed…purchasing over 100 acres of new land well away from the Cricket clubhouse, all just dedicated to this one new sport certainly entailed some risk and almost certainly generated some resistance.   As mentioned, the Merion Board of Governors had responsibility for all sports and entertainment and matters rising to their attention almost always had some financial impact.  
 
I have always found it odd that Lloyd did not see fit to share the contents of Macdonald’s letter with the club’s members, stating that it was not written for publication.   Yet, in the same breath he stated that the recommendation to buy the property was largely based on the content of CBM’s letter!   Now, I think that anyone who has read it would hardly see as a ringing endorsement of either the size of the propert or the problematic clay soil.  
 
We also do not know exactly what land CBM viewed in June of 1910.   At the time, there was discussion from the development company that they were willing to sell “100 acres, or whatever would be needed” for the golf course.   It is probable that Barker’s routing sketch was based on some truncation of the Johnson Farm’s 140 acres as that was the only land HDC owned outright at the time.   It was still a few months before the 20 or so acres of the Dallas Estate would be purchased, so we don’t know if that was under consideration during CBM’s June visit.   Jeff Silverman’s new book that is a Centennial Tribute to the creation of the East Course goes so far as to state that CBM’s hypothetical 6,000 yard course was based on only the 100 acres that the development company originally offered.    
 
Having CBM and Whigham’s names and reputations behind the project lent real weight to what was being proposed by Merion’s Golf Committee to their Board, both in terms of the original November 1910 land acquisition and again in April 1911 when the Golf Committee needed to purchase an additional three acres beyond the 117 they originally thought they needed, and went back to the Board for approval.  They cited CBM’s contention that the recommended routing would include the finest seven finishing holes of any inland course he’d seen.   While arguably true in retrospect, this again was a bit of salesmanship to the membership on Lesley’s part, I believe.  I am also confident that this motion to the Board was necessitated by the “Francis Swap”, as Wilson makes clear in a February 1910 letter to Oakley that the club has acquired ‘117 acres”, but by April they need to buy 120 to make the routing work.   For those still interested in the timing of that event, this to me is fairly conclusive, as Merion did indeed purchase just over 120 acres in July of 1911.
 
Macdonald visited Merion in June of 1910, and we know precisely what he did for the club over the next six months because the mid-November Board mailings are clear in that regard.  For those who might be new to all of this discussion, here again is the sum total of the work that Charles Macdonald put into Merion between June 1910 and February 1911.  
 
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia , Pa

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features.  The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.  What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.

We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly.  The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "

As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.

We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.

With kindest regards to you all, believe me,

Yours very truly,

(signed)  Charles B. Macdonald

In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.
 
 
In early March of 1911, Hugh Wilson's Committee visited Macdonald at NGLA and we have three accounts of that…Hugh Wilson writing an article on agronomy that Piper and Oakley requested, the recordings of the April 1911 MCC Minutes requesting the purchase of 3 additional acres,  and Alan Wilson’s remembrances, all of which have been copied here ad infinitum.  
 
Ten months after Macdonald first saw the property he came back for a day in early April of 1911, walked the land and viewed the proposed routings and recommended one of them.  There is no record of further communications directly between the men involved and no record that Macdonald ever returned to Merion for any of the multiple major tournaments that took place there during the next 25-plus years of his life, much less saw the golf course after it was built.
 
The entire question of what CBM did or didn’t do in terms of Merion’s original routing is a mildly interesting academic exercise, but I really believe that all of these men told us  who did what pretty clearly in very simple direct terms, including Macdonald himself.   Anything else is purely speculative based on what some think should have happened, or could have happened given their understandable respect for Macdonald’s historical achievements, but truth be told, there is no real evidence whatsoever…not a single shred…to support those contentions and plenty of evidence unearthed since that squarely and indisputably negates them.
 
One of the reasons I wrote the piece on Hugh Wilson is because it really isn’t a mystery, or a puzzle, or as one writer who did very little research wrote recently, “clouded”, …the reams of contemporaneous newspaper documentation telling us what he was credited for during his own time are largely self-explanatory, and our understanding of history does not benefit from the parsing and torturing of words and phrases that has been part of the decade-long debate.
 
I think in the end, if we really listen to what was said and written back then, and over the course of the lives of these men, the language the men directly involved all used is very revealing in establishing responsibility for the project;
 
“The biggest problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage youpropose buying.. – Charles Macdonald
 
“Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, welearned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions”. – Hugh Wilson
 
“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.” – Hugh Wilson
 
Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.” – Hugh Wilson
 
The Committee in charge of laying out and building a new golf course was comprised 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.
 
“On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans.” – Robert Lesley’s Golf Committee Report from Hugh Wilson
 
“Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigham, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton…twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans.” – Alan Wilson
 
There is little question in my mind that CBM did have a big impact on Wilson and the Committee in their planning of the East course and they tell us so.   Their visit to NGLA seemed a seminal moment that caused them to revisit their previous plans, apparently scrapping them, and then coming up with new ones.   He gave them the benefit of a proper “start” to their project, as Wilson described later;
 
“Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham.   We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we learned in all the years we had played.” – Hugh Wilson
 
However, I do find also find it revealing to the question of authorship that in the intervening all of the later accounts fail to mention CBM’s at all.   Robert Lesley and A.W. Tillinghast in 1934 during the US Open both credit Wilson (Lesley also mentions Wilson ’s “Green Committee”) with no mention of Macdonald.   Committee member Richard Francis, who served as a respected rules official for the USGA didn’t mention Macdonald at all in his 1950 remembrance.  
 
During each of these accounts, (excepting Francis in 1950) including all of the newspaper accounts credited in my IMO piece, both CBM and Whigham were alive and well, and presumably free to dispute the printed record.    I sometimes wonder if it wasn’t some perceived slight, particularly with Lesley and Tillinghast’s articles in national publications that was the impetus for Whigham’s later undocumented, one-off remark that Merion was among the list of “Macdonald/Raynor courses” during his eulogy for his father-in-law.
 
With the evidence at hand, I feel confident that this is all pretty clear at this point to most observers.   I’m still hopeful that someone will someday locate either the minutes of the Merion Cricket Club Green Committee during those years, and/or the plan that was attached to the Board Request in April 1911.   .
 
Also, after the first day’s play, it’s great to see that the Old Lady is holding her own against these young men and their modern implements despite getting drenched these past few days!
 
Thanks, Mike
 
 

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

I've tried my best to give you wide berth so people could enjoy your IMO for what it is.  But unfortunately you keep posting here in direct response to what I have posted elsewhere, and even more unfortunately you keep posting information that is demonstrably false and/or extremely misleading.  It'd take too long to mention it all, but here are a few errors from this your last post alone:

1.  Incredibly, you assert that we don't even know what land CBM examined in June 1910.  This is the sort of intentional obfuscation of the record that has long plagued these conversations.  CBM's letter is dated June 29, 1910.  Two days later, June 1, 1910, Lesley's Committee recommended purchase of the approx. 120 acre property based largely on CBM's opinion of what could be done with the land.  Lesley's report even described the location of the property.  Then in November the Committee and the board relayed the same information to the membership and even supplied a developers map showing the location of the golf course.    There is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT THIS WAS THE SAME APPROX. 120 ACRES OF LAND.  

Your suggestion otherwise is really a perfect example of why these conversations are always so unproductive.  

2. You wrote that Jeff Silverman's book claims that CBM only inspected 100 acres and proposed a course for only 100 acres.  If so, then like you, Jeff Silverman is flat out wrong about the land CBM/HJW examined.  A careful reading of the minutes leaves no doubt that CBM was viewing the just under 120 acre parcel, and that Merion decided to purchase the land based on CBM/HJW's opinions as to what could be done with this property.  Merion set out to purchase this <120 acre parcel the day after receiving CBM's letter!    

When I first heard of the pending Jeff Silverman book last year, I had high hopes that Mr. Silverman would actually vet the material instead of relying on the self-appointed Merion historians for his information, but if what you are saying above is true, then obviously this is not the case.  I've only been told about two snippets from the book and in both instances the information was quite obviously wrong and contrary to Merion's Minutes themselves!   I hope the rest of the book is better, and I hope he has time to fix these embarrassingly inaccurate suppositions which contradict the minutes themselves.

On the other hand, I guess I should wait to see the book myself before I draw and conclusions.  If there is one thing I have learned over the years it is that I shouldn't take your various representations as accurate without considering the material myself.

3. Contrary to your claims, CBM's and HJW's communications with Merion about what could be done with Merion's property were NOT limited to the June 29, 1910 letter. They also met with Merion's Committee and discussed the prospects of the course while "on the ground" at Merion, and the topics and level of detail in their discussions (there and/or elsewhere) went beyond the contents of the letter.  Lesley referred to the letter as confirming what had been discussed, he didn't say it covered everything in the same degree of detail.

4.  Likewise, you claim we "know precisely what CBM did" for Merion from June 1910-November 1911.  This is a preposterous.  All you know is what was in the November 1910 letter, but we know for a fact that they were advising about more than what was in that letter.  For example, Whigham provided Merion with cost estimates for construction and for irrigation, and this was not even mentioned in the letter.  You have no idea what other communications took place directly with Lloyd.  (One of your buddies once claimed to have seen a log indicating that HG Lloyd had received repeated letters from Macdonald previous to November 1910, but he later came up with some story about how this must have been a different Macdonald who was repeatedly writing Lloyd during these months! And of course he has never came forward with the log so it could be vetted.)
 
Your mistake is a common one.  When it comes to understanding what CBM did, you are taking an extremely limited record and wrongfully assuming that this record must necessarily encompass every single communication ever.   Historical research doesn't work that way.  We are very lucky to have what little information we do have, and it is unreasonable to assume that we have all the information.  For example, we don't know if there were addition letters or not, ecpecially since there is no reason to expect any of CBM's letters to Lloyd to show up in Merion's minutes.  We just got lucky that one did  You cannot use this lucky event to claim there must necessarily have been NO additional communication. If anything the opposite conclusion is more viable.

In June 1910, CBM and HJW were a "a contour map" away from providing Merion with a plan of how to fit 18 first class holes on the property.   You can pretend that Merion cut off all communication for the next 9 months then suddenly showed up at Macdonald's doorstep at NGLA, but the real the world doesn't work that way.

5.  Your speculation on the francis land swap has been covered so many times it is not worth addressing in detail. The land acquired in the supposed francis land swap was already designated course property in November 1910.  The added property measures significantly more than 3 acres.  The Francis land swap was a "swap" thus no purchase was necessary.  Etc.

6.  You claim that there is no record of any communication between CBM and Merion other than CBM's HJW's June visit to Merion, the subsequent letter, the March 1911 NGLA visit, and the April 1911 visit to Merion.  
- First, that itself is a hell of a lot of communication.   Compare it to Wilson's known involvement during the same time period.  
- Second and more importantly, you are wrong.  Again.  Two examples which each disprove your claim:  Wilson's February 1, 1911 letter indicates that he had been communicating with Macdonald and that Macdonald had told him to contact Piper, and that Wilson recognized the value of his good advice.  At least one later Ag letter also indicate that Wilson was still going to CBM for advice even after Macdonald had determined the final plan.    
____________________________________

I don't have time to correct all the mistakes and errors in your previous posts four posts, but here are just a few things I'd like to set straight.

7.  Contrary to your claims, Wilson was NOT the Chair of the Green Committee in 1911, nor was he even on the committee.   If he was Chair at some point before this, I've never seen any evidence of it.  It is irrelevant, but if you think he was Chair in 1907 or 1909, then prove it.

8.  Contrary to your claims, the Green Committee was not in charge of designing the course, and there is no contemporaneous evidence that the Green Committee was involved at all.  There were two committees involved.  The Golf Committee and the Construction Committee.

Here again your treatment of the source material is telling.   You rely on a 1934 general description by Lesley which contains obvious inaccuracies, even though you KNOW that in 1914 Lesley had written a more detailed description of the creation of the course, and that in the earlier one he singled out the Construction Committee as advised by Macdonald and Whigham as having been responsible.  He doesn't even mention the Green Committee!  Yet, because you would like for it to have been the Green Committee,  you rely on his later general statement and ignore his earlier more detailed and contemporaneous statements.  Typical or your approach, but extremely unsound analysis, to put it mildly.  

9.  Contrary to your claims, the Green Committee and the Construction Committee were NOT synonumous.  In 1911 Wilson was on the latter but not the former.

10.  Contrary to your claim, Lesley never wrote that Wilson was on the Green Committee in 1909, nor did he provide the list of chairs in chronological order.  


This is another good example of your lax, wishful-thinking, approach to analysis.  Both Lesley and Valentine provided a list of chairs.  Lesley listed Wilson first, but Valentine listed Sargent first.  Your analysis?   You state as FACT that the Lesley list was in chronological order, even though Lesley never said this, then you dismiss the Valentine order by suggesting he changed the order to reflect something that happened later.   In short you just pretended you had a factual basis for the distinction when you did not.  Then you had the nerve to claim that Lesley had stated that Wilson was Chair in 1909!  Truly outrageous from a methodological perspective.

11.  Contrary to your suggestion otherwise and regardless of how Donald Ross might have worked, at Merion the planning and the constructing were two separate processes. According to the Minutes, Merion would construct the course based on the plan approved by CBM/HJW.  First it was plan. Then it was constructed.  So in Merion's case, constructing was definitely NOT synonymous with planning.

12.  Your description of how Merion's committee structure worked is in direct contradiction the Minutes themselves.  

13.  The Golf Committee Report was a report by the Golf Committee.  It was not a super-secret Construction Committee report.  (I suspect that Mr. Silverman got this wrong too, no doubt because of more bad advice from "Merion historians.")

That is off the top of my head. I am sure I missed a lot. It is easy to find inaccuracies, but listing them all out would take more time than I am willing to commit.  

And that is saying nothing about the IMO itself.  
_____________________________________________


I'd rather not have this discussion here.  If people want to buy into your tangents and theories that is their prerogative, and I don't want want to rain on your parade or try to dissuade them.  So in the future if you want to respond to me, please do it in a thread at which I am posting.  

Thanks.  

[Mike Sweeney]

5.  Your speculation on the francis land swap has been covered so many times it is not worth addressing in detail. The land acquired in the supposed francis land swap was already designated course property in November 1910.  The added property measures significantly more than 3 acres.  The Francis land swap was a "swap" thus no purchase was necessary.  Etc.

David,

Tom Paul sent this to me earlier in the week. He did not ask me to post, but it seems appropriate. I was busy this week so I did not get to even read it till now:

_________________________________

It may seems like a small point to some who may not be all that familiar with the details of Merion East in 1910-1912, and particularly concerning that fascinating Francis land swap idea of fixing #15 and #16 in the routing and thereby the routing of the last five holes.
 
It was assumed in the essay of 2008 on Golfclubatlas.com that Francis's idea must have occurred before Nov. 15, 1910. Merion's and the USGA's historians do not see it that way and one of a number of reasons they don't is a particular item in Hugh Wilson's first letter to Russell Oakley in Feb. 1911.
 
It is recognized by all that Francis's idea for fixing #15 and #16 generated a land swap of land already purchased for land not being used and an additional purchase of three acres. That idea created a 120 acre size on the deed for the original purchase of Merion East by MCCGA Corp from Horatio Gates Lloyd on July 19, 1911.
 
But in that first letter of Wilson's to Oakley, Wilson describes the amount of land on their survey map for the course to be only 117 acres.
 
Therefore, the Francis land swap idea to fix #15 and #16 could not have occurred before Wilson's Feb. 1911 letter to Oakley. And additional to that, one cannot swap land already purchased for land no being used unless and until a purchase has first been made. The fact is in Nov. 1910 no purchase had been made by Lloyd or Merion or anyone connected to Merion. That would not happen until Dec. 19, 1910 when Horatio Gates Lloyd took 160 acres that would include the 117 acres for the course into his own name.