[Ronald Montesano]

Here's the press release:

USGA TO HOST ARCHITECTURE FORUM AT MERION ON MONDAY, JUNE 10
 

Ardmore, Pa. (June 10, 2013)  – The United States Golf Association (USGA) will host a golf architecture forum at 4 p.m. EDT on Monday, June 10 at Merion Golf Club, home of the 113th U.S. Open Championship. The forum, entitled “125 Acres, 18 USGA Championships, One Club: Unmistakably Merion,” will take place at the USGA Member Clubhouse located on Spectator Square.

The event will be hosted by NBC’s Jimmy Roberts and will feature a panel discussion and Q&A session focused on the history and architecture of Merion Golf Club’s famed East Course.

 

WHAT:

USGA Architecture Forum:

“125 Acres, 18 USGA Championships, One Club: Unmistakably Merion”

WHO:

Mike Davis, Executive Director, USGA

Tom Fazio, Golf Course Architect

Rick Ill, General Chairman of the U.S. Open Committee

John Capers, USGA Archive Committee Chairman

Curtis Strange, Two-Time U.S. Open Champion

Jimmy Roberts, NBC Broadcaster

WHEN:

Monday, June 10, 4 p.m. EDT

WHERE:

USGA Member Clubhouse located on Spectator Square

WHY:

A panel discussion on the architecture of Merion Golf Club’s East course and the U.S. Open course setup philosophy

[Dunlop_White]

If this indeed becomes an annual event, as was originally planned, hopefully it will be streamed live next year from Pinehurst on USOpen.com.

[Dunlop_White]

There's a 3 minute video of this on US Open.com.

http://memberclubhouse.usga.org/gallery/single/id/33#prettyPhoto

[Bill Brightly]

Did anyone learn anything from that?

[Mike Sweeney]

Did anyone learn anything from that?

Yes, Hugh Wilson routed the golf course in the eyes of the USGA.

[Bill Brightly]

And width is important...

[DMoriarty]

I learned from this and other commentary that most agree that the brilliance of the architecture is the routing.   I agree.

[Mike Sweeney]

I learned from this and other commentary that most agree that the brilliance of the architecture is the routing.   I agree.

Serious question - Were there two/three cross overs in the original routing?

[DMoriarty]

I learned from this and other commentary that most agree that the brilliance of the architecture is the routing.   I agree.

Serious question - Were there two/three cross overs in the original routing?

Assuming you mean road crossings, then at least three.  Many decades later Francis said that there were four, with the second hole supposedly starting from behind the first, but I've never seen any contemporaneous verification of this.  Doesn't seem that would have been too realistic a tee for most of the membership at that time.  But then again, Ardmore wasn't much of a road then, so maybe it made some sense.

If you want to knock the routing, take it up with all those who thought/think it brilliant.  

Did anyone learn anything from that?

Yes, Hugh Wilson routed the golf course in the eyes of the USGA.

Serious question.  Did you really expect them or anyone there to say otherwise?  Old legends die hard.

[Mike Sweeney]

Assuming you mean road crossings, then at least three.  Many decades later Francis said that there were four, with the second hole supposedly starting from behind the first, but I've never seen any contemporaneous verification of this.  Doesn't seem that would have been too realistic a tee for most of the membership at that time.  But then again, Ardmore wasn't much of a road then, so maybe it made some sense.

If you want to knock the routing, take it up with all those who thought/think it brilliant.  

Sorry, I was talking about the green to tee walk crossovers such as the existing crossovers at 13-14 (crossing #1), 2-3 (crossing #6), 5-6 (crossing #3).

Do any MadRaynorBanks courses have these types of crossovers, and were there hole crossovers in the original Wilson Committee routing?

Can you specify who "thought/think it (Merion's routing) brilliant."

[JESII]

David,

While you've opened my eyes a great deal to what CBM contributed to the initial creation of Merion East, you have no idea what he or Hugh Wilson contributed to the initial routing.

YOU clearly read some of the pieces of material as him running the show...I read them as him lending an eye as an outside friend with experience who can confirm their suspicions.

Two examples:

Land selection. You credit CBM with identifying the most suitable land for theur course. This was the only parcel they showed him.
Routing. While we don't know much at all about this overall, we do know that Richard Francis found the way to fit the last five holes.

[Mike Sweeney]

Land selection. You credit CBM with identifying the most suitable land for theur course. This was the only parcel they showed him.
Routing. While we don't know much at all about this overall, we do know that Richard Francis found the way to fit the last five holes.

Sully,

I recently met with Biz Stone one of the founders of Twitter and he talked about

"Creativity is further expressed within the constrain of technology and time. For example, the constrains of the 140 characters of a tweet."

I think an argument can be made that the brilliance of the Merion routing can at least be partially explained by the lack of options. Other than reversing those 5 holes, assuming the range stays in place, how else could they fit in?

[Tom_Doak]

I think an argument can be made that the brilliance of the Merion routing can at least be partially explained by the lack of options. Other than reversing those 5 holes, assuming the range stays in place, how else could they fit in?

Sometimes, necessity IS the mother of invention.

However, a great routing always looks easy in hindsight ... once someone else has found it for you.  It's not always as easy as it looks!  Sometimes it's taken me a long time to get to the simplest and most elegant solution.  Any really good software engineer would tell you the same thing.

[Adam Lawrence]

I think it was Pascal who apologised to his friend for sending him a long letter, because he didn't have time to write a short one.

[DMoriarty]

Can you specify who "thought/think it (Merion's routing) brilliant."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll mention just one person who thought the original plan was pretty darn good. C. B. Macdonald.  

After helping develop the plan, and after he and HJ Whigham had determined the final layout plan from a number of options, CB Macdonald reportedly told Merion's Golf Committee that if Merion "would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which [was] submitted [to Merion's Board], 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."

Remind you of anything?  Reminds me of the CBM passage you kept bringing up earlier . . . the one where in 1927 CBM was bragging about how Yale was "unexcelled in comparison with any inland course” in the world.  Wasn't your argument that if CBM had planned Merion, then he'd have spoken similarly about about Merion?  Well he did.

As for the crossovers, the original 13th green to the 14th tee didn't really "crossover" the original 1st tee.  The joke at that time was that the route from the 13th green (which was well behind the clubhouse) to the 14th was through the clubhouse bar.  Since CB Macdonald is rumored to have been fond of a drink now and then, perhaps this is yet another CBM tell?
_________________________________________________________________________

. . . you have no idea what he or Hugh Wilson contributed to the initial routing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim,  I agree that I have little definite knowledge of who did what, exactly, but NO ONE ELSE DOES EITHER.  That is part of my point!  

None of these modern commentators have any idea what of anything Wilson contributed to the original layout plan as approved by CBM and Whigham. They are just parroting the Legend.

As far as general involvement with the routing process, with regard to Wilson, we know very little.  In contrast, with CB Macdonald we know quite a lot.  

For example, by April 1911 CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham had been helping Merion figure out how to fit the holes for over 9 months.
The previous June CBM/HJW had inspected the property and discussed with Merion what could be done with their land, and they were already considering "the most difficult problem" of "how to get in eighteen holes that will be first class" on the property. CBM thought the holes could fit, but couldn't provide a plan at this point because Merion did not yet have a contour map.  Additionally, CBM spent two days at NGLA going over CBM's plans and further advising Merion on the layout plan, and that those suggestions were of the greatest help and value to Merion. CBM and HJW then returned to Merion a few weeks later to go over the various options (the "five plans") and to determine and approve a final plan.  

So while we can only guess at specifics, we know quite a lot about CBM's involvement in the planning process.  Judging from Merion's Minutes, CBM and HJW not only helped developed the layout plan, but Merion gave CBM and HJW final approval of the layout plan!

Am I wrong about this?  According to the Minutes, who had final say over the plan?  Wilson or CBM?

Land selection. You credit CBM with identifying the most suitable land for theur course. This was the only parcel they showed him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, it isn't me who credited CBM/HJW. It was Lesley's Committee and Merion's Board.  They reported that their decision to purchase the parcel was "based largely" on CBM/HJW's opinion "as to what could be done with the land."  Second, the value of their advice was not in picking the land from among other parcels, it was in determining that eighteen first class holes could fit on the parcel in question. (Plus the additional land they recommended.)   This would have necessarily required some idea of the routing.  

Routing. While we don't know much at all about this overall, we do know that Richard Francis found the way to fit the last five holes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 I've always acknowledged the Francis contribution.

[JESII]

David,

In JUly 1910, CBM said the problem "YOU" have is fitting 18 holes...

You may think of that as a writing formality, but it clearly does not convey any participation in the project.


In April 1911 Lesley didn't say CBM put together all these potential ideas and decided which one was the best, he said 'this is the plan your committee wants to build and CBM thinks it could result in the best seven...'

These are not insignificant logical extensions that you've taken that I disagree with. Forget Wilson for the time being. What do we actually know that CBM did for the initial design of Merion? We know that he acted as an experienced advisor. He was very likely well acquainted with a few of them so we could call it friendly help. When I've said that in the past you got pissed, so uinderstand that I'm not trying to minimize CBM's contribution...I'm really interested in keeping this case open in the hopes more factual information eventually appears.

[DMoriarty]

I think you should take another look at both statements, particularly Lesley's.  

Will you answer my question above?  According to the Minutes, of those involved in the planning who had final say over the layout plan?

And who narrowed the options from 5 to 1?

And who had "approved" the plan which was submitted with Lesley's report to the Board?

[Mike Sweeney]

I'll mention just one person who thought the original plan was pretty darn good. C. B. Macdonald.  

After helping develop the plan, and after he and HJ Whigham had determined the final layout plan from a number of options, CB Macdonald reportedly told Merion's Golf Committee that if Merion "would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which [was] submitted [to Merion's Board], 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."

Remind you of anything?  Reminds me of the CBM passage you kept bringing up earlier . . . the one where in 1927 CBM was bragging about how Yale was "unexcelled in comparison with any inland course” in the world.  Wasn't your argument that if CBM had planned Merion, then he'd have spoken similarly about about Merion?  Well he did.

As for the crossovers, the original 13th green to the 14th tee didn't really "crossover" the original 1st tee.  The joke at that time was that the route from the 13th green (which was well behind the clubhouse) to the 14th was through the clubhouse bar.  Since CB Macdonald is rumored to have been fond of a drink now and then, perhaps this is yet another CBM tell?

David,

Any chance you can answer the original question?

This was a nice deflection, but I would like to know the other MacRaynorBanks courses with "cross-overs" as defined above by me.

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Sweeney,

Deflection?  You asked me to "specify who thought/think it (Merion's routing) brilliant."  For one, Macdonald did.  But given that he had been helping them with the planning for nine months, and given that he had just determined the final routing from among various options, some might want to take his assessment with a grain of salt.

You asked me whether there the "crossovers" existed on the "Wilson Committee routing."  Not sure what that is, but I assume you mean the final routing plan as approved by Macdonald and Whigham on April 6, 1911?  Merion set out to lay the course out according to this plan, so I assume the original course reflected this plan.  The 3rd and 6th tees were generally in their same positions as now.  So if they planned to play the holes in the same order then as now, then the "crossover" existed.  (They opened with the current hole order, but for the 1916 Amateur they played 1,2,6,7,8,5,3,4,9.  I could be mistaken  but I vaguely recall seeing one very early description using the 1916 routing, but I am not going to try and dig it up now. )  I addressed the other supposed crossover above.  

Regardless, I don't view the "crossover" at the 6th and 3rd tee to be a serious flaw in the routing.
 
As for your other "crossovers" question, I don't know. I don't have the original routings of the CBM/Raynor courses committed to memory. Perhaps try George Bahto.
__________________________________________________________________


Jim Sullivan,

With all the questions I have answered, I hope you will do me the courtesy of answering mine.

1. According to the Minutes, who of those involved in the planning had final say over the layout plan?

2. And who narrowed the options from "five different plans" to one final layout plan?

3. And who had "approved" the plan which was submitted with Lesley's report to the Board?

Thanks.

[Garland Bayley]

I think an argument can be made that the brilliance of the Merion routing can at least be partially explained by the lack of options. Other than reversing those 5 holes, assuming the range stays in place, how else could they fit in?

Sometimes, necessity IS the mother of invention.

However, a great routing always looks easy in hindsight ... once someone else has found it for you.  It's not always as easy as it looks!  Sometimes it's taken me a long time to get to the simplest and most elegant solution.  Any really good software engineer would tell you the same thing.

the same thing

[Dan Moore]

I attended the USGA seminar  and while the routing was indeed commended as brilliant  an equal emphasis was placed on the brilliance of the shaping involved in the greensites and the variety of challenges they present as an essential part of the whole that makes Merion great. 

I haven't followed the routing debate in great detail so please help me understand the facts. Am I correct that the Merion Committee developed five different routing plans for consideration?  Is there any first hand factual evidence that Macdonald personally created the routing plan he recommending they use. 

[DMoriarty]

I haven't followed the routing debate in great detail so please help me understand the facts. Am I correct that the Merion Committee developed five different routing plans for consideration?  Is there any first hand factual evidence that Macdonald personally created the routing plan he recommending they use.  

Dan Moore,

The "five different plans" phrase comes from a report by "the Golf Committee" in the Merion Board Minutes from April 1911. Truth is, no one knows for certain "who developed" the five different plans.   I think the likely players were Macdonald, Whigham, Wilson, and a few other members of Merion.

I suspect that these weren't five totally unique plans but five variations on one general layout plan, but I have no definitive proof.  

Regarding these "plans" the Golf Committee Report said, "On our return [from meeting for two days with Macdonald NGLA] we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."   Some argue that this means that Merion created the plans without input from Macdonald.   I think this interpretation ignores the fact that they had just been with Macdonald and/or Whigham for two days at NGLA where Macdonald had been advising them about the layout.  (According to Alan Wilson, "their advice and suggestions [at NGLA] as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.")  

What makes the most sense to me is that they were working on the "plans" at NGLA, but when the Merion men left NGLA there were a handful of options still to be determined, and Merion staked out the course with these various options ("we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans") so that CBM/HJW could make the final determination after seeing how the various options laid out on the land.

(The part I haven't gotten into is by the time those from Merion traveled to NGLA,  CBM and Whigham had already been over the land, and had already been involved in the planning process since June 1910, nine months before.)

The Minutes seem to indicate that, whatever the source of the so- called "five different plans," it was Macdonald and Whigham who determined the final plan from among these. I also think (from other sources and information) that CBM/HJW had been involved in planning the course even before they made this determination.

From the Minutes regarding CBM/HJW choosing and approving the final plan:

On our return [from NGLA,] we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. 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.

Confusing I know, but I hope this helps a bit.

[Mike Sweeney]

If you want to knock the routing, take it up with all those who thought/think it brilliant.  

David,

You made a statement of "all those" and you have only offered CBM as a response. Who are the others?

As for your other "crossovers" question, I don't know. I don't have the original routings of the CBM/Raynor courses committed to memory. Perhaps try George Bahto.

I am sure that George wants to continue to keep his distance from this topic.

I can only think of one "cross over" of holes on a MacRaynorBanks course and it is 7 and 8 at Mid Ocean:



It is really more of a "fly over" as the 8th tee sits up on a hill and you hit down to the 8th fairway.

Why would Macdonald put 2 cross over holes at Merion, in addition to a clubhouse crossing, and almost no other hole cross overs at any of his other courses?

[JESII]

David,

I think the committee did all that stuff with some help from Macdonald and Wigham. I think the references to CBM and HJW COULD BE little more than salesmanship to the members. Emphasis on could!

We have nothing concrete from CBM except for several awkward attempts at templates he liked to use.

Last week I asked if it was undeniable that Hugh Wilson was the green chairman at Merion in 1909. While you were responding on-line that this was false, Tom Paul responded off-line that it was true. I haven't asked either of you any follow up questions, but if he was in fact green chairman of the Merion Cricket Club, or MCCGA then this whole conversation changes regarding his potential input.

[DMoriarty]

You made a statement of "all those" and you have only offered CBM as a response. Who are the others?

Mike, I am glad to answer your questions as I can, but I am hesitant to take on the task of becoming your research assistant.  There are plenty of such examples, and I am sure if you look at all that has been written about the course over the years and listened to some of what has been said this week, you will be able to find plenty of examples yourself.  Perhaps start with Merion's various histories, Herbert Warren Wind's 1971 article on the course, Doak's Confidential Guide, the programs from the early majors at Merion, etc.   Or if you don't believe me, I can live with that, too.

Given we are talking about CB Macdonald's involvement,  I am not sure who's opinion would matter more.

Why would Macdonald put 2 cross over holes at Merion, in addition to a clubhouse crossing, and almost no other hole cross overs at any of his other courses?

First, to be clear, this wasn't a crossover in the sense of playing across another hole. It was simply walking around a tee to get to an adjacent tee.  Second, I don't know if there were "almost no other hole cross overs at any" of their other original routings.  In the renditions of the original routings in Bahto's book, there are a number of transitions where one had to walk around part of one hole to get to the next tee.  Third, you'd have to ask CB Macdonald/Wilson why the routing at Merion was as it was.

My guess is that the arrangement at the 3rd and 6th tees flowed from CBM/Wilson's placement of the "Redan Hole" and the "Road Hole" on Merion's property.

Last week you argued that it wasn't a CBM course because CBM didn't brag about it. Turns out he did brag about it, as you can see from Merion's Minutes.  This week you suggest that it couldn't be a CBM course because one had to walk past the 3rd tee to get to the 6th, and visa versa.  Seems pretty weak to me, but you are entitled to your opinion.  Rather than setting up these false hoops for CBM to jump through, why don't we concentrate on what we can and do know?   Could you answer the same questions I asked Jim?

1.  According to the Minutes, of those involved in the planning who had final say over the layout plan?

2.  And who narrowed the options from 5 to 1?

3.  And who had "approved" the plan which was submitted with Lesley's report to the Board?

Thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()