[TEPaul]

George:

Good post there---very realistic, in my opinion, the way you look at the way it probably was in that era particularly in Philly and it's "Philly School" theme that basically was one of mostly amateur architects collaborating bigtime as just friends and fellow devotees. The fascinating thing is just look at what they all created! To me, it was because they did have latent talent, they also had guts, adventurism and a real belief in what they personally felt about the subject of architecture and they basically all poured their hearts and souls, pocketbooks too, and particularly so much of their time into those projects!! I wish a guy like Tom MacWood could somehow get to that point where he could understand what it really meant for a Crump to spend six years of his life every day on a project--for Fownes to spend maybe forty years on his, Wilson about 12 years on his and the same with others like them. God knows why he thinks a professional comes in for a week on a six year project and should automatically be given so much credit, that even Dev Emmet shows up from time to time on Macd's basically twenty year project and it's some big deal in architectural attribution and on and on with courses that were projects like that. To me a guy like Tom is someone who's lucky to run into and find research material like he does apparently but who needs to understand how to analyze it better. Sorry about all that but after all these threads that's the way it's getting to be pretty obvious to me!

No hard feelings intended--this is just an architectural discusion group!

Tom MacW;

For your info, I just found an article that basically completely suggests Hugh WIlson never took a nickel for anything he ever did in golf! That's something you were recently asking about.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Who are the "we" Wilson refers to doing the golf course from the spring of 1911 until mid-September when the course was grassed? The Committee? The Committee + Macdonald and Whigham?

Macdonald and Whigham were on site in late 1910 inspecting the property and again in the Spring of 1911. I don't know exactly what they were doing there, but I trust reports from American Golfer and Golf Illustrated following the course's opening -- both magazines made note that M & W were advisors. Add to those reports Whigham's reference to Merion in Macdonald's eulogy and you've got a strong case that Macdonald & Whigham advised, assisted, or whatever the term at Merion.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

How could I really know what Wilson meant by "we' but the tenor and context in that report sounds to me like he meant his committee! If he meant otherwise, like Macdonald later, why do you suppose he would've thanked Macdonald so profusely about those two day at NGLA in the first paragraph of that report about Merion East in 1916 to Piper and then never mentioned him again in that report? Do you really believe that even Wilson would try to cut someone out in a single report he was writing himself? You've never seen that report, have you? You never even knew it existed, did you?

You know Tom, this entire line of reasoning and questioning on your part on this thing with Merion and Pine Valley too is really starting to get to me and I think for what almost anyone on here can see are obvious reasons which is basically you're just not using common sense and logic with this stuff. All your trying to do here is make it look like you found some revelation about Merion! I promise you, you haven't!

There's something else you should probably consider here at least in the context of logic and common sense. If Merion, Wilson and the committee were really depending on Macdonald and Whigham anywhere near as much as you seem to think they might have been, why in hell do you think they wouldn't have just asked him to come down and design the whole golf course? Afterall, Piping Rock did, Mid Ocean did, St Louis, Yale, Lido, and a few others did.

And guess what? Macdonald never even charged a fee for what he ever did. Why do you suppose if Merion got that kind of advice from him you're suggesting they did they wouldn't have just asked him to do the whole thing. You've probably never seen either that in that report of Wilson's he did say if any of them knew in the beginning what they had got themsleves into they may never have done it!

[T_MacWood]

"If Merion, Wilson and the committee were really depending on Macdonald and Whigham anywhere near as much as you seem to think they might have been...."

This is part of your problem, I've never said what I believe those two may have done other than advise, but for whatever reason you prefer to paint my view with words like 'immensely' or the 'entire design.' I have no idea precisely what Macdonald and Whigham did...I'm simply saying they advised.

What precisely did Wilson do? Are we able to determine what is his contribution and what is the contribution of the other board members? Do we know the details?

"And guess what? Macdonald never even charged a fee for what he ever did. Why do you suppose if Merion got that kind of advice from him you're suggesting they did they wouldn't have just asked him to do the whole thing. You've probably never seen either that in that report of Wilson's he did say if any of them knew in the beginning what they had got themsleves into they may never have done it!"

Possibly for the same reason why you would ask Geoff Shackelford for advise while writing your Flynn book. You respect his expert opinion and he would be a great help, but you prefer to write it yourself. Do we know for certain that Merion didn't ask Macdonald and he declined? I'm confident he recieved many requests.

Macdonald & Whigham should be credited for their good will, IMO what they did for Merion reflects their kindness and generosity -- setting aside two days to guide Wilson at NGLA, and then to travel down to Merion on at least two other occasions to lend their expert advice. Why you don't want to give them credit for advising is beyond me...the evidence is overwelming. I can only attribute it to the Philadelphia Syndrom.

I believe your frustration is due to the fact that I'm approaching this with logic and common sense, and simply looking at the evidence....I don't have the emotional investment in the story that you and Wayne appear to have.

[wsmorrison]

"I believe your frustration is due to the fact that I'm approaching this with logic and common sense, and simply looking at the evidence....I don't have the emotional investment in the story that you and Wayne appear to have."

Tom MacWood,

Now you are starting to get me mad.  A statement like yours above would imply that you believe we are not conducting our research properly.  You are resorting to base acusations simply because we do not come to the same conclusion as do you.  This has absolutely nothing to do with a Philadelphia-centric bias or campaign to glorify individuals at the expense of the truth.  We clearly are looking at the same information as you in addition to a roomfull more and drawing a different conclusion.  That is nothing to get upset about.  The information you have presented is incomplete and does not merit much attribution to Macdonald and Whigham at Merion.  You've stated in the past that they were brought in to assist at Merion.  That means nothing at all without additional supporting evidence and none has yet been presented.  We may never have the materials to clarify their roles.  Let's just say, once and for all, that they were of some kind service as yet to be determined.  Given that nothing at Merion (construction era and beyond) remotely resembles any template holes that Macdonald consistantly employed is better evidence than that which you've presented.  At least it is concrete.  Did they help Wilson with general theories?  That would seem to be the case during his visit prior to going overseas.  Did they come to Philadelphia ?  Yes.  Does that mean they made a dedicated trip at the behest of the club?  We have no idea.  So stop saying that because they were on site they must have been contributing anything concrete.  Nobody knows but you speculate and build theories on this unsteady underpinning.  You seem to find it difficult to give overwhelming credit to Wilson and the team at Merion.  Wilson was a smart guy, went to the UK for several months to study architecture and spent much of his life working on agronomic issues that propelled him well past Macdonald's abilities and his collaboration with Flynn helped create monumental achievements every bit as good as Macdonald and Raynor's best.  Do you find it difficult that an intelligent man who puts the time and effort into studying the field of golf architecture cannot come to a level of expertise to match or supercede Macdonald?  Do you really expect us to think that Macdonald's efforts were required at Merion?   In my view, the course evolved in ways that Macdonald never dreamed of and is a far cry from its original 1912 design.  Was he of some assistance?  Most likely.  But given that that assistance cannot at this point be clarified, why don't you let the issue be.  The only agenda Tom and I have is the truth and digging up as much fact as we can and making sure we present educated suppostions as that with whatever evidence we can amass.  For you to imply that we are blinded by some Philadelphia Phever and don't want to conclude that others may have helped is plain wrong and rather an immature response.  Can't you get it that you make too great a leap when you believe that you have presented evidence that Macdonald and Whigham were instrumental in assisting the Merion golf course?  I am open to any facts that are pertinent.  I want the truth.  You say that we want to perpetuate myths.  That is a personal affront and completely in error.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
You have overreacted once again. Did I say that Macdonald designed Merion? I simply said he and Whigham advised. Your emotional response again reflects the strong reaction that often results when an accepted legend is questioned--and were talking in the slightest way.

I believe your research would have turned up the aesthetic of the golf course of 1912 bears little resemblance to the course of today. Much more geometric in appearance. And if I'm not mistaken that original golf course had an Eden and an Alps, not mention "Merion's Redan". If nothing else one could attribute that to the influence of Macdonald & Co.

I'm not speculating....American Golfer and Golf Illustrated both reported that Macdonald & Whigham advised.

I have no idea if Macdonald's efforts were required at Merion....I'm simply pointing out his efforts at Merion were noted in the two major golf publications of the day.

"In my view, the course evolved in ways that Macdonald never dreamed of and is a far cry from its original 1912 design."

I agree.

What precisely did Wilson do? Are we able to determine what is his contribution and what is the contribution of the other board members? Do we know any of the details?

[TEPaul]

"I believe your frustration is due to the fact that I'm approaching this with logic and common sense, and simply looking at the evidence....I don't have the emotional investment in the story that you and Wayne appear to have."

Tom MacW:

I've no frustration with you at all. And I surely don’t think you’re approaching this with logic and common sense. Matter of fact I think you’re basically wasting everyone’s time here with an issue of little real significance..

We aren’t denying Macdonald and Whigham very likely came down here to Merion, perhaps a couple of times, and advised the Merion committee who was creating and building the East golf course every single day from start in the Spring of 1912 until seeding in September of 1912. It sure seems logical and commonsensical that they may have said the things they were reported in an article to have been said--eg that the ground was excellent, that some of the holes looked like some of the best etc. Maybe they said far more than that and maybe they even brought Raynor with them for his engineering advice but we just don't know any of that and either apparently do you. Maybe they even spent a couple of days there going over the course. But so what? What’s the real significance of that unless we know that they really did do something of architectural significance to Merion East? It just doesn’t appear from the articles you’ve produced which again have been available and known about for years that what they did here was that much. But if it was everyone would be more than happy to know about it!

So your point is they “advised” the Merion committee in this way, right? Well big damn deal, really. Why would we get frustrated over something like that when none of us would get frustrated if it turned out Macdonald may have designed the whole golf course? What’s logical and commonsensical to us is that IF the Merion committee was so thankful to Macdonald for those two days in LI then why wouldn’t they have been just as thankful to him if he came down to Philadelphia during construction and really did offer some significant architectural advice that might have some meaning and significance to us today? You just keep avoiding and skirting that obvious issue as you did regarding Crump and what he obviously did at PVGC for five solid years. You basically did the same thing with this Emmet issue of yours at NGLA.

The thing that does frustrate me, though, and probably Wayne and Merion too, is this ridiculous notion of yours that there was or is some kind of 'Philadelphia syndrome' (your term) here to discount some architects you think you’ve found something on. The point here, Tom, as it’s always been, is if that information really does have some significance to the creation and architecture of Merion East or West then let’s see what that significance IS because we feel you haven’t produced anything like that with these contemporaneous articles you’ve produced which again most concerned with the creation of Merion have seen for decades. Nobody here is discounting any architect as you think they are if there’s some solid information that's significance. Just coming down for a day or so and commenting on the architecture being done by the Merion Committee (that's what I've read in those articles), whether it was called “advising” or not just has never seemed particularly important to the creation of Merion East.

What did the Merion Committee do in detail? As I’ve said to you a number of times now we just don’t know in detail what they all did individually and specifically because apparently that record----if there ever was one that was something akin to those voluminous agronomy records, has apparently been lost! What we do know, though, is that committee, including Hugh Wilson, Flynn, Pickering and Joe Valentine primarily, and perhaps even Toomey, and with a rather large crew of Italians spent 6-7 months EVERY DAY working on the construction and creation of Merion East! Did you read that? I said working everyday, not one or two days “advising” or whatever!

[T_MacWood]

TE
It appears there are more questions than answers at Merion:

What precisely Wilson did?

What was his contribution and what was the contribution of the other board members?

What exactly Macdonald & Whigham contributed?

Perhaps the answers are out there somewhere; maybe we will never know.

[TEPaul]

"What precisely did Wilson do? Are we able to determine what is his contribution and what is the contribution of the other board members? Do we know any of the details?"

Again, we don't know those things in detail because the record is lost if there was one akin to those agronomy records which are voluminous. All we know is Wilson and that committee spent those seven of so months creating the course until seeding. And following that Merion was worked on architecturally for about the next 20 years.

That's what "we" know. Are you including yourself in that "we"? If you are, then as far as I'm concerned you can see if they'll let you come here and conduct your own research into this matter because the things you're coming up with and proposing are basically a waste to time to us and determining who really did what at Merion East during the initial seven months of architectural construction and creation.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Are our posts crossing or how many times are you going to ask the same questions and have me answer them?

Here's what we do know. We know the Merion Committee which included Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, Francis and Wilson spent seven months creating the golf course of Merion East! That fact is so undeniable if someone even remotely thought it was not true would be somewhat akin to saying there is no golf course there when we know there is and has been for 90 plus years. What we do not know is who among that committee did what specifically with the exception of some minor details such as Francis's late night idea to swap land which brought the second half of #15 into being and consequently the famous quarry hole #16!. We also don't know exactly what those working for the committee, Flynn, perhaps Toomey, Pickering, Valentine and a large crew of Italian laborers did individually and specifically although we have very strong indications of what they did at various times during intial construction. We do know Wilson returned from Europe with a very large stock of drawings and plans the specific purpose of which was to design holes on the Merion East course. We do not know if all the holes of Merion were derived from those plans--probably not as on most courses. We do know about the sodding and seeding of fairways and greens and other details such as the initial creation of the bunkering etc. This of course only concerns those initial 6-7 months of construction between Spring 1912 and September 1912 when the course was first grassed and left to grow in for a year until opening in Sept 1913. The architectural construction and alterations and improvements to the course that followed for the next app 20 years, particularly in the 1920s we know almost everything about and so does the golf club!

That's what we now know--that's all that anyone now knows! But what everyone there, including us, knows is that sans any other evidence that someone did something that's never been known before (which is highly unlikely) that committee led by Hugh Wilson and in conjunction with Flynn, Pickering and Valentine and a large Italian crew both designed and built Merion East!

So yes, Tom, there are still questions about what exactly went on partiuclarly during those initial 6-7 months. Maybe we will find the record of it and maybe we won't but it's certainly logical to assume it did exist and that now it just happens to be lost. But please do us all a favor and try not to get involved in this from your little article perch in Ohio and your novel architectural logic and assumptions. That, I'm afraid will just be a waste of everyone's time!

[T_MacWood]

Does this mean they won't be rolling the red carpet out for me in Philly?

[TEPaul]

Red Carpet?? According to you, we here in Philadelphia practically lock up people who question our golf architecture legends!

[Mike_Cirba]

Interesting where all this started...

Did we ever find the Spring 1911 writing by "Hazard" that Tom MacWood alluded to that claims that Macdonald/Whigham were onsite at that juncture, and does it mention the nature of their involvement?

For those who think I'm losing it, this is also the first mention of the now infamous "Bents of Le Touquet". 

Tom Paul,

In the 1000 or so agronomic letters from WIlson to Piper/Oakley, any mention of those darn Bents?

[TEPaul]

Did we ever find the Spring 1911 writing by "Hazard" that Tom MacWood alluded to that claims that Macdonald/Whigham were onsite at that juncture, and does it mention the nature of their involvement?

MikeC:

There have been a ton of articles produced from that time and I suspect that one probably was too. I'm not sure why Tom MacWood thinks he is the only one capable of producing applicable articles on this subject. It seems to me Joe Bausch has now outstripped him and everyone else in that vein of producing old articles by a factor of about fifty.

You should also know that Alan Wilson in his 1926 report on the creation of Merion mentioned quite specifically that Macdonald and Whigam came to Merion exactly twice---first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about 'our plans'. Something tells me Alan's involvement and ability to know those things was more direct and accurate than any newspaper reporter!

"Tom Paul,
In the 1000 or so agronomic letters from WIlson to Piper/Oakley, any mention of those darn Bents?"

Mike:

There are hundreds and hundreds of letters about all kinds of grasses and anything that pertained to them. And yes, it was Wilson and Merion and the effort they were involved in with Piper and Oakley that basically identified and proposed the use of bent grass for American golf courses. There was even an attempt on the part of Merion's Howard Toomey to essentially corner the market in bent and/or the application of it through the use of an application process he invented. This was something Wilson et al essentially told him he and they would not do.

The longer these threads go on the more I can see how much so many on here are not aware of other than perhaps Wayne and I. I suppose we would have put more of it on here over the years if we EVER saw any good reason to do that such as the need for some reinterpretation to do with Merion's history. We never have and to date we still don't. In our opinion, the accuracy of what happened at Merion at any of its phases is as accurate as it needs to be and can be. There were some areas that did need to be filled in and the most significant of all was Flynn et al's specific participation through those phases that Merion had never known or appreciated.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You asked, "Did we ever find the Spring 1911 writing by "Hazard" that Tom MacWood alluded to that claims that Macdonald/Whigham were onsite at that juncture, and does it mention the nature of their involvement?"

In the May 1911 issue, Tilly, writing as "Hazard" stated, "The new course of the Merion Cricket Club is nearing completion in the planning. During the month [either February or March due to lead time till printing] Mr. C.B. Macdonald Mr. H.J. Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the pospects. Mr. Macdonald said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country, and as our first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction..."

   

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

Yes, I dug that up earlier this evening and put it on the other thread.   Thanks for your help, though.

The funny thing is that we NOW know that at the time "Far and Sure" wrote that (and Macdonald proclaimed it), not a single spade of dirt had been overturned at Merion!   

It was what Macdonald deduced from reviewing the layout and plans of Hugh Wilson's Committee while visiting onsite at Merion in April 1911, prior to the start of construction. 

[TEPaul]

"The funny thing is that at the time "Far and Sure" wrote that (and Macdonald proclaimed it), not a single spade of dirt had been overturned at Merion!   


Mike:

Did "Far and Sure" really say that Macdonald said that?

[Mike_Cirba]

"The funny thing is that at the time "Far and Sure" wrote that (and Macdonald proclaimed it), not a single spade of dirt had been overturned at Merion!   


Mike:

Did "Far and Sure" really say that Macdonald said that?

Tom,

Yes, he did.

Phil's quote above is verbatim.

CB Macdonald, before a single spade of dirt was overturned at Merion in April 1911, after reviewing the plans that the Committee had put together, stated that "Seven of the holes equaled any in this country".

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

In fact, the following is what I wrote tonight on the other thread;


It is now April, 1911, and it has been a long, very harsh winter since the purchase of the new Merion property.

Tillinghast, reporting in the May issue of American Golfer, states;

"The lingering of winter in the lap of spring has seriously interfered with the opening of courses, none of which have been really fit during the month of March, and indeed the middle of April finds them all very backward. 

So, we now can very reasonably assume that nothing much in the way of construction at Merion was able to take place between November 1910 and what is now the middle of April, as Tillinghast writes.

Yet, in the same issue, Tillinghast reports;

"The new course at Merion is nearing completion in the planning."

So, we can now surmise with conviction that what was meant by the contention that work would begin immediately (as reported locally in the Philly Inquirer, mid November of 1910) is that the initial work involved the planning, or the laying out of the golf course!", as is the logical first step on virtually every golf course project before and since.   

Who would have done this important work at that time?  Were Macdonald and Whigham or Barker onsite through this long winter working through how to route the golf course?
Were they the ones working with maps, and surveyors sketches, or doing surveys or topographical mapping?

Again, in the same article, Tillinghast really provides us with the answer;

"During the month (April, 1912), Mr. Charles B. Macdonald and Mr. H.J. Whigham, who have been aiding the Committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as greatly pleased over the prospects.   Mr. Macdonald said in his opinion seven of the holes equalled any in this country, and as our first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction."

It is fundamentally critical to read this account in the proper context, and I believe that to do otherwise is responsible for much of the confusion that has occurred on these threads.

First of all, as of this juncture, there was simply NO GOLF COURSE for them to look at, as construction had yet to begin!!     The fact that Tillinghast says Macdonald is pleased at the prospects tells us clearly that there was nothing yet there to see on the ground...only future plans.

What Macdonald and Whigham DID view during that time, and for what seems to be the very FIRST time, were THE PLANS that had been created over the long winter by the Committee, and they viewed those plans in the context of being there on the ground and seeing what the Committee has envisioned and drawn up. 

After doing so, they once again Pronounced, that "seven of the holes will be the equal of any in this country..."...blah, blah, blah.   

Of course, this was pure hyperbole, and based strictly on looking at plans and comparing them visually to the ground on which they YET were to be built, starting that spring, and continuing until the opening of the course a full 17 months later.

[TEPaul]

I just read through this entire thread. Very interesting indeed!

It's amazing to me this discussion about Merion and what Macdonald/Whigam's "advising" Merion really means has been going on for over six years!!  (RJ Daley, I expect another comment from you on that, and, as in the past, I will be right with you and in agreement!).

It's also nice to see how civil and cooperative we all were with one another in 2003 when a very fine discussion was being carried on in this thread in 2003.

What I'd forgotten is that this thread was brought back up over a year after it began, apparently by Tom MacWood. That was in May, 2004. At that time it appears he brought it back up to be something of a supplement to some thread he started on how "legends" are treated and analyzed via research and perhaps historically glorified leading to inaccuracies. That's an interesting subject, I guess, and one that any "legend" should probably undergo some kind of "catechism" from time to time. 

It seems it was at that point MacWood started implying, stating actually, that he felt that people like Wayne Morrison and I were not being objective enough, which I suppose seemingly means we were not and are not looking at our subject of Merion and its history from a proper research perspective.

MacWood mentions on May 8, 2004 that he looks at it from the perspective of logic and common-sense!! Do you suppose his implication is that Wayne and I don't look at it from the perspective of logic and common-sense? It would certainly seem so.

And then Tom MacWood suggests something I still find very odd---and that is that people become too subjective if they get too close to a subject which I suppose also means knowing far more about it than anyone else. While there may be some truth to that in some cases, I can tell you all that Wayne and I feel we can never get TOO CLOSE to the history of Merion and any and all details about it!

In any case, that seems to be where the real rancor over Merion (and PV) started on these threads. That was when MacWood floated this idea of some on-going "Philadelphia Sydrome" (some Philadelphia conspiracy), I suppose, to protect a "legend"--Hugh Wilson! 

I wonder where David Moriarty was at this time. Was he even on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com at that time?

But I notice in the thread on Merion that David Moriarty started in 2006, that is now about 29 pages long, that he also says, at one point, that he thinks it's perhaps not objective, or that it can be even detrimental to research honesty, if one gets TOO CLOSE to a subject because then one has too much emotional investment in it.

But in all these threads about Merion going back over six years Wayne and I and others from Philadelphia have always said, and we continue to say today, if there is ANY real information anywhere that specifically proves Macdonald/Whigam had more influence and input into the creation of Merion than Merion gave them back in the beginning (seemingly in spades back then) and that we give them credit for today, then just show us what it is and we'd be happy to most objectively consider it.

The truth is, completely contradictory to MacWood's and then David Moriarty's insinuations about Merion and about us, if, in fact, something is found that proves that Macdonald really did have a good deal more direct input into what even the first phase of Merion was, either architecturally or even agronomically, the club, and us as well, would be more than happy to add that to the attribution and history of who created Merion East or West.

After-all, who would deny that C.B. Macdonald, in many ways, really was and should be considered  "The Father" of American golf course architecture? Or, as Whigam said about him and as George Bahto borrowed for the title of his book on Macdonald, "The Evangelist of Golf", Macdonald really was in almost all ways America's first Evangelist of Golf?

Merion in no way denies that and certainly never has. Either do we. If it turns out that Macdonald actually did contribute even somewhere near as much to the creation of Merion as Wilson and his committee obviously did in working on it every day for years, I have no doubt Merion as well as us would be more than happy to give Macdonald co-equal billing and architectural attribution for Merion.

It's total speculation on my part but I have a very strong hunch that this upcoming IMO piece ("White Paper") David Moriarty is about to produce has a whole lot of Tom MacWood's active input behind it. 

If that's the case and the IMO piece is going to make the point again that in their research they use logic and common-sense and we don't or that we aren't objective because we're too close to our subject and have too much of an emotional investment in it, then I suspect the discussions on here on this subject will turn towards rancor once again.

We believe in our research methods and we stand behind them unless and until someone really proves them wrong or faulty.

And I, for one, stand behind the accuracy of the reports on the creation of Merion by Hugh and Alan Wilson unless and until someone produces something that truly calls them into question---and I really do mean "truly" and not just a bunch of minicing and parsing of words and sentence structures and ship manifests and such! 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Amen!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Cirba,

You'll come to see that the reports, even contemporaneous reports from well respected figures are not always accurate.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

You'll come to see that the reports, even contemporaneous reports from well respected figures are not always accurate.

Patrick,

I wouldn't say that we're off to a grand start in that regard.

So far, we've been asked to believe that a September 1913 report from a man, William Evans who knew Wilson personally and wrote, "Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain...", was really talking about the West course at Merion which wouldn't open for another nine months, and that "some years ago" meant one year ago!    .

We've also been asked to discount any erroneous manifest before 1912 to accept an erroneous one from 1912.   

Nobody's even touched this one from "Joe Bunker" in 1914 who we know was a complete "insider" to Philly golf goings-on;

"He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “

I'm open minded, Patrick, and waiting to hear the "new evidence", but the past three weeks have most definitely not been encouraging, much less convincing in that regard.
 

[TEPaul]

"You'll come to see that the reports, even contemporaneous reports from well respected figures are not always accurate."

Patrick:

Do you suppose you can say that Alan Wilson's report on how the Merions were created and by whom is not always accurate.

I have never had the interest that others on here do about all these newspaper reports. What I do have real interest in though is the accuracy of those two Wilson reports. Believe me, both those guys were there day in and day out from the very beginning of everything, and certainly no newspaper reporter I'm aware of ever was! 

"You'll come to see that the reports, even contemporaneous reports from well respected figures are not always accurate."

Patrick:

Do you suppose you can say that Alan Wilson's report on how the Merions were created and by whom is not always accurate.

I have never had the interest that others on here do about all these newspaper reports. What I do have real interest in though is the accuracy of those two Wilson reports. Believe me, both those guys were there day in and day out from the very beginning of everything, and certainly no newspaper reporter I'm aware of ever was! 

In my opinion, the only way anyone will be able to prove there are significant inaccuracies in the architectural history and attribution of the Merions, including Macdonald's part in it, is to prove the Wilsons were significantly wrong in those two reports.

As for EVER finding out who exactly did what and when on any hole or whatever or who was responsibile for individual hole ideas or concepts throughout the course at the beginning of the creation of Merion, I can almost guarantee that will never happen for the simple reason that kind of thing was never recorded on the Merion project, as it has never been recorded on any course of that age or frankly any course EVER!

The fact that Tom MacWood actually suggested that such a thing could be found out or that it could be found out through more and greater in-depth research in things like newspaper articles and such is what is truly naive on all these Merion threads.

The fact that he doesn't or can't understand that that kind of thing is almost never determinable without plans that are as exact as Shinnecock's, for instance, compared to what we can determine via aerials and such that  went on the ground at Shinnecock, is complete indicative to me of why a guy like that really does need to complete his education on architecture by spending a good deal more time on sites and projects that are under construction.

As I have always said, unless or until he, or anyone else (I'm not just singling him out on this), does that he will never understand these things well enough and he will continue to make totally naive suggestions and recommendations in this way like he did on this very thread and others to do with Merion and PV.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike,

I think there are a number of substantive questions that have never been answered.

Why didn't Joe Bunker state that Wilson designed the golf course ?

Certainly, if he was so connected to golf and Philadelphia golf, he must have known the difference between "designing" and "building" a golf course.

Why is there NEVER any mention of which courses Wilson visited ?
Doesn't that strike you as puzzling ?
Especially from scribes so connected to golf, so in tune with the courses of the UK and MacDonald's visit to the UK prior to designing and building NGLA, certainly a regional rival.

I don't think it's inappropriate to pose these questions.

Especially with the knowledge that Tom MacWood uncovered a fact that had been misrepresented by the newspapers, the club and others connected with golf.

Rather than attempting to refute that which you're unaware of, David's IMO piece, prior to its publication, why not ask yourself, "are there elements of the accepted historical accounts, that don't quite add up ?   That cause you to seek additional information ?

At first, I accepted the "party line", but, as more and more information is brought forth, and, as more and more questions are posed, I have to say that I have too many doubts and that there are too many open items for me to continue to accept the "party line".

As to agendas, You and TEPaul  want David Moriarty to be wrong.
And, as such, you'll view anything and everything he presents, looking for faults and flaws. 

Something you never did when you accepted the "party line"

I only ask that you view his presentation with an open mind, looking at both the positives and the negatives.[/b][/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()