[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Why do you say we want David Moriarty to be wrong, particularly when we have no idea what he plans to say, at this point?

And what, pray tell, is this "party line?"   

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

The "party line" is when three or more people are on the same phone line, at the same time.

You and I are old enough to remember those early days of the telephone, and how embarrassing they could be.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
The "party line" is when three or more people are on the same phone line, at the same time."


Patrick:

That might be the only accurate and truly relevant thing you have said on this thread. 

As for Wilson's reputed sketches he made abroad or any other pertinent facts that would prove a trip abroad for Merion earlier than 1912, as far as we can tell all of that has been lost (we suspect in a flood at Merion's clubhouse). We've been looking for those kinds of things for about ten years now. One thing we do know existed is a Merion Pre-construction topo map. If we could find that it would be immeasurably valuable to at least figuring out in detail what is natural out there and what was built. But I'm sure that even you must know when some things like those things become lost it does not conclusively indicate they never existed in the first place or their events never happened.

If you actually believe that's what it indicates that could only mean you've never really tried to do any in-depth research on these kinds of things.

I've never thought these trips are particularly important in coming to the conclusion about who did Merion but there is one way I believe I could conclusively prove in a manner that would stand up in court that Wilson was over there before 1912 and definitely studying architecture. We know there was no way he could've been there in 1911 and we are pretty sure from the extent of the agronomy letters that he never went again after 1912. So the only year that would leave would logically be 1910, as has so long been reported.

It would be a long shot because he would've had to have been outside of England between about March 6, at least, and about April 30, 1912, but if you or anyone else on here could conclusively prove that Harry Colt was not in England between those dates I can pretty much prove he met with Hugh Wilson around Sunningdale in 1910.

Do you want to do something useful and get involved in this subject in a more productive way than just your hair-brained word games? If you do, why don't you try to find out that for me about Harry Colt in 1912?   

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

Patrick,

I think you (and possibly others) might be making a fatal error here if that's the distinction you're drawing.

Joe Bausch will certainly vouch for the fact that the terms used back then were very, very different than what we're used to.   For instance, I cant' think of a single news account of any golf course we've read about from that period that used the term "Designed". 

Instead, you had "constructed", "laid out", "built", "planned", "conceived", "responsible for".   

Interestingly, and somewhat counter-intuitively given our modern terminologies, it's the term "laid out" that I've seen used sometimes to discuss strict construction and feature building, as opposed to planning and design.

Being known as a golf course architect meant possibly being viewed as a "professional", which was tantamount to being lumped with the hired help, and risked losing one's cherished amateur status.

These guys just wanted to build great courses...they weren't looking to build monuments to themselves, nor seeking that type of publicity.

But, since you're into parsing terminologies, let's see actually what William Evans said in 10/12/13  about Wilson;

"Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect."


I'm sure that statement is one that some would like to chop down because I'm betting it strikes right at the very heart of the "new interpretation" of events.

Why?

Because it tells us many things at once, from someone who was there from the beginning, a prominent member of GAP, and someone who knew all these guys like Wilson and Lesley and Tillinghast personally.   What does it tell us?

It tells us that Wilson made his trip "some years ago".   Not one year...not even two years, but implies more than two actually.

It tells us that he visited the most prominent courses not only overseas, but in the US as well, deflating the argument that he needed Macdonald's vast knowledge and expertise to get started.

It tells us that even though you and David and Tom MacWood want to differentiate 'Designed" from "Constructed", that the way they were being used at the time, and I'm sure MacWood knows better even if you and David haven't done that level of research prior...this clearly tell us that William Evans considered them synonymous. 

I ask you, what else might he have architected at this point, Patrick, to be someone without a superior in that regard?

The funny thing is...

David and MacWood had already sent their treatise out to a number of folks for review before learning of this account.   I'm sure they don't care much for this new revelation and will do whatever they can to dispute its clear meanings.

Their interpretation already flew in the face of what Tilliinghast wrote in 1934, where he makes clear that Wilson was doing much more than directing laborers at Merion who were following Macdonald's plans.  Now, suddenly, there is another much more contemporaneous hurdle to clear if you try to follow their logic;

"It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf architecture.  Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”


I'm also hoping the treatise is giving due credit to Fred Pickering, who had vast experience in building courses prior to Merion, and thereafter.



 

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I'm also pretty sure that Tom and David weren't privy to this September 15, 1912 account in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the day after Merion East opened.

“Mr. Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the new course and helped largely in the planning of the holes.”

He is the only one mentioned as being involved with the "planning of the holes". 

Isn't that what architects do??   


Patrick,

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but unless Tom or David have either 1) Contemporaneous news accounts that fully flush out a significant Macdonald role in the design, or 2) A routing map of Merion signed by CB Macdonald, then I'm not sure what else they might present that would be convincing?

Even the latter would be a small piece of the puzzle, frankly, as the interior designs of the holes, the placement of bunkering, the contouring of greens, etc.,  took years to develop, as evidenced by the reports of the course at its opening.   

On a plot of land not wide enough in most places for a medium length par four, there are only so many routing options. 

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

You know there is question and thought here that has finally been generated for me by all these Merion threads and particularly this one entitled "Macdonald and Merion". I doubt anyone has ever even thought of it before and what-all it might mean in the grand scheme of things---eg Macdonald's career in architecture as well as what really happened with Merion and why.

That question and thought I've never had before now, even if it can only be one we can only speculate on, is----was Merion the very first club who asked C.B. Macdonald to help them?

Think what it might mean?

Macdonald was about two years from even opening NGLA when Merion apparently FIRST asked him for his help and advice and assistance (possibly as early as mid to late 1909). Had any other club or anyone else actually asked him to do anything at all for THEM, as Piping Rock did about three years later (his second course) and others did in the years to come?

I would seriously doubt it. Merion seems to be the first who even broached the subject to him.

Macdonald did get into doing courses for others and of course at no pay, and he definitely accepted the label as the architect of those other courses. It seems like he FIRST got into that kind of thing maybe a couple of years AFTER he opened NGLA, and a couple or more years after Merion first came to him. To me that seems a completely logical progression of events in his career in architecture since he had the interest of spreading the Word and the Way to quality in architecture in America.

Isn't it interesting that the same requests were made of Hugh Wilson by others maybe a year or so after he opened Merion?

Since Merion may've been the very first club to approach Macdonald for advice of any kind and considering he was still completely involved in his own NGLA does it seem reasonable to assume they may've actually asked him to get so involved in their project that he would design it for them and oversee the construction too as he started to do with his engineer Raynor next with Piping maybe around 1912-1913 and well AFTER NGLA was open and in play?

It sure doesn't seem reasonable to me at that early time, and the reasons seem pretty obvious---he was completely taken up with his own first real architectural project of excellence at that time and he probably never would have considered another one simultaneously as Merion basically would have been. Did Merion understand that? How could they not have understood that? It was completely obvious.

I'll be damned! If looked at this way in retrospect one may be able to see very clearly WHY C.B. Macdonald was still about 2-3 years away from getting even remotely involved in another project in any significant way at all other than his own NGLA.

At that very early time and if this was the first request made of him as he was still completely taken up with his NGLA, he probably simply said: "Boys, come on up to NGLA for a day or two and I'll show you around and tell you how I'm doing it and how you can do it too in Philadelphia the same way I'm doing it here!"

That's probaby what they did and probably about all he did and that's what they gave him so much credit for. If they didn't try to get him down to at least see what they were doing once they got into considering their course it would be really odd, it seems. Would they have wanted him to come down to Philly a bunch of times to help them? I, for one, can't possibly imagine why not! So why didn't he?

Macdonald showed up only twice (according to Alan Wilson and some other sources) and considering the circumstances that was probably a lot for him at that time even though in the broad scheme of these things with architects even remotely involved in any project in any significant way that is almost nothing!

Isn't it amazing the things that seem to get intuited logically if you just keep working various timelines and what they may mean? 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'm afraid I'm going to have to discount your last post.  It makes far too much sense and is far too obvious to be actually correct here in Speculationland. 

Seriously, if you look at the other side of that equation it's interesting as well.

For instance, Hugh Wilson completed the East course in Sept. 1912 and in doing so, especially as it was instantly popular and successful, he quite quickly became the de facto "go to guy" in Philadelphia architecture.

Robert Lesley had him design the Merion West Course with work starting in early 1913.

Clarence H. Geist had him design Seaview in 1913

Ellis Gimbel had him do major revamping of Philmont in 1914.

Robert Lesley had him on a Committee to locate a site for a public golf course in 1913

Robert Lesley had him do Cobb's Creek along with the others in 1915.

Also, let's not forget that the accounts of Merion opening in 1912 indicated that the course was still very much a work in progress.

Now, these three men were renowned businessmen on a national scale.   

They could have gone anywhere or to anyone to build a course for them.

Why did they go to Hugh Wilson?

After all, wasn't he just the guy who led the immigrant workers and mule teams in constructing Merion to Macdonald's vision??   


Is it any wonder that at the end of 1914, amateur architect Hugh Wilson resigned as chairman of the Green Committee at Merion, citing the need to focus on his day job?


 

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

Patrick,

Tom MacWood has written me telling me that he has had next to nothing to do with David's writeup and wants to make that clear.   He also had positive things to say about it.

Which fact did Tom MacWood uncover that had been "erroneously represented by the newspapers, the club and others connected with golf"?

[Mike_Cirba]

It's the bents of Le Tocquet.

I have DNA evidence from an old whiskey glass of CBM's that is an exact match for DNA found in the grass stuck in the spike-wrench holes of one of David Graham's spikes from his US Open win at Merion, which I bought for $11.42 on ebay about a year ago.   

At last we see eye-to-eye! 

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

By the way, that girl in the photo on all your posts looks like she is in the first millisecond  or so of realizing she's getting seriously goosed.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.

Patrick,

Tom MacWood has written me telling me that he has had next to nothing to do with David's writeup and wants to make that clear.   He also had positive things to say about it.

I never stated that Tom MacWood was involved with David Moriarty's write up.  Where did you get that notion from ?[/color]

Which fact did Tom MacWood uncover that had been "erroneously represented by the newspapers, the club and others connected with golf"?

Crump's suicide.
[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Well, in following your post, I'm not sure how I could have surmised that you were talking about MacWood's Crump story.   

I thought you were talking about the "new evidence" that David is going to present at some point.   

I'm sorry..I misunderstood your point.

I think part of the problem is that only a select few have been privy to whatever new information is available on a subject of great interest to all of us.   Therefore, every word is getting parsed, dissected, and often misinterpreted.

I'm hopeful that David will come forward with his findings soon...for better or worse, they can't be any worse than what this whole episode has devolved into.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike,

Here we are, in an age of instant communication, and yet, you misinterpreted my words.

Is it possible that Joe Bunker suffered the same fate ?

Is it possible that a timeline was missed ?

Is it possible that subsequent articles were based on erroneous information ?

I don't know the answers, but, I think David is attempting to come forth with an honest presentation, based on his research.

Let's let him finish his research and publish his premise under IMO.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

If you had told me that David Moriarty spent the past 6-7 months in Europe playing all of the great courses there and studying them for the purpose of going back to Los Angeles and building the next great American golf course, I think I would have;

1) Been extremely jealous
2) Been extremely pissed at David for not inviting me
3) Not missed or misinterpreted a word of what you said in subsequent accountings. 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike,

If David went to the UK today to research architecture noone would care.

But, circa 1910, when golf was coming to America, it was big news, especially when you factor in the regional rivalries, personalities and egos.

And, newspapers were THE primary media outlet for chronicling these events.

Hence, silence as to details is puzzling.

Maybe HIW sailed to the UK five times prior to 1912.

All I'm asking for is unimpeachable documentation to prove it.

That's reasonable, isn't it ?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Not sure why you are "pretty sure" that I didn't have the Sept Inquirer article.  I did.   In fact if I recall correctly, when Joe posted it I told him I had it, and think I explained my opinion on it pretty thoroughly, so I wont again.

As for the evans article, I've said my piece on that as well.

As for the newspaper accounts generally, I don't put a lot of faith in them unless:
1.  I can independently verify the accuracy of the sources.
2.  The reporters have first hand information and are expert enough to accurately convey that information. 

This is especially true for social or gossip columns like the golf ones, which are usually just full of the views of whoever has the columnists ear.  What is usually happening is someone gave the columnist some information, and the columnist spruces it up and runs it, but sometimes even then the columnist gets it wrong.

Also the articles are incredibly parasitic.  The other papers borrow the information and use it as their own.

An example from memory, so don't quote me: 

One reviewer referred one or two of Merion's holes as something like  "plain two shot holes."   Later, when the course opened, another paper ostensibly reviewed the course and commented that the golfer had to play over a plain.  Like a "Plain Hole" was a type of hole requiring play over a plain.  Had the course opened in a different time, I wouldn't have been surprised to see   the next paper write that the hole was only reachable only by plane. 

The point is you have to put the article in context and understand the nature of the source material.
________________________

 

Mike,

If David went to the UK today to research architecture noone would care.

But, circa 1910, when golf was coming to America, it was big news, especially when you factor in the regional rivalries, personalities and egos.

I'd care! 

Otherwise this is a good point.  In fact one of the magazines has an article written in 1910 I think that notes that many have gone overseas, some for golf some for work.  I think it is the article that mentions the Crump trip.  The article also mentions Hugh Wilson but does not mention that he had gone or was going overseas.     This kind of omission is not conclusive, but I'd think it might be pertinent for one who was concerned with whether or not he went over in 1910.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Let's leave the news accounts out for now...it's late here and we can redress that at another time.

But the article you mention that states that Crump travelled to Europe was in in 1910, and it was by Tillinghast, and the same article mentions Hugh Wilson indeed.

It mentions that he hasn't been to any of the tournaments in recent days.

It's not insignificant that later, writing as "Far and Sure", someone...and Phil and I do disagree here, but I believe it's Tillinghast, mentions that he's finally made it to Merion around Sept 1912 for the first time.   

In the same article, "Far and Sure" states that the holes are "but rough drafts of the problems conceived by Hugh I. Wilson and the Construction Commitee.

Now, I know that Patrick and I had some discussion earlier today about some of the terminology used at the times, but I think you'd have to agree David that using any understanding, past or present, the whole idea of "conceiving the problems of a hole" falls into the realm of creation...into artistry...into golf course architecture.

Of course, Far and Sure also states in that same article that Wilson went overseas to study the great courses "last summer", but being that he was just making his first visit to the course on opening, I'm much more inclined to believe him on the former point, given that the course sounds rather primitive upon opening, and much less accurate on the latter, when he easily could have misunderstood that it might have been two summers prior.

[Mike_Cirba]

It occurs to me that anyone having the American Cricketer review of Merion by Tillinghast who could post it here would certainly have some very, very relevant evidence to present.

I've only seen Jim Finegan's summation of that article, but I'm betting it might be very revealing.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I dont follow what the use of "conceived by" has to do with when he went abroad, or why you think one has to choose to believe either "last summer" or "conceived by."   I dont see the contradiction.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I dont follow what the use of "conceived by" has to do with when he went abroad, or why you think one has to choose to believe either "last summer" or "conceived by."   I dont see the contradiction.

David,

Please go and work on your White Paper.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()