News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


T_MacWood

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #425 on: December 24, 2005, 03:37:03 PM »
"Pat
You say TE is wrong, OK then who said that Hugh Wilson grasped these principles of Scotish and English course design and conveyed them in his his work better than Charles Blair Macdoanld?"

Tom MacWood:

I don't know who Desmond Tolhurst was referring to when he said Wilson understood the principles of those holes from Great Britain better than MacDonald did. The way Tolhurst phrased it was; "It has been said......

Apparently that's what some said in that day and age. Perhaps you're not aware of it but it was not universally popular or admired to actually copy holes (from Europe). Macdonald himself in his book obviously found it necessary to mention both why he did it and how he did it, apparently to defend the modus operandi from criticism.

The point is Merion's East's holes if they are some form of "in principle" copies of holes from Great Britain they are a whole lot less obvious than Macdonald's template holes at NGLA and later. Tolhurst describes Merion East's holes not "out and out copies". He calls them far more "original", and that's what some back then admired more about Wilson's Merion East compared to the more exact hole copies Macdonald did.

My sense is that Macdonald and Whigam probably came down to Merion before the course was built and deemed the land to be suitable for a course and seemingly came again when the course was just under construction and deemed what they saw as good holes. Perhaps they came again when it was done and approved of what they saw. That's what those "advised" reports sound like to me.

What you've never understood, Tom MacW, is what it means in golf architectural design when a person or people who are the designers spend practically every day on a course while it's being designed and built. You've just never fathomed what 'many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field, constantly talking' etc means in golf course architecture. All you seem to fixate on is what you perceive to be someone's name or reputation and you seem to assume that those building the course are just waiting around to be told what to do by him even if he's in New York while the golf course is being designed and built.

Pickering? We did give him credit, but he was a construction foreman and although Wilson thought he was a good one he also explained he was a pretty regularly drunk one and no one knows if he actually designed anything at Merion as Flynn definitely did after 1915 or so and perhaps from the beginning.

Tom MacW, have you ever read Geoff Shackelford's Riviera history book?


That is whole lot of conjecture. I have read Shackelford's history of Riviera. Why?

What you've never understood, Tom MacW, is what it means in golf architectural design when a person or people who are the designers spend practically every day on a course while it's being designed and built.

That is your typical response when someone gives the slightest credit to anyone outside the commonly accepted local legend.

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #426 on: December 24, 2005, 05:25:07 PM »
"That is whole lot of conjecture"

Tom MacWood:

What exactly is a whole lot of conjecture?

"That is your typical response when someone gives the slightest credit to anyone outside the commonly accepted local legend."

Tom MacWood:

That has been my response to you regarding both Wilson and Crump, and isn't it interesting that one spent just about every day of the last five years of his life on site and the other one worked on the course constantly from the beginning until he died almost fifteen years later! ;) Perhaps it is you who should begin to understand that a bit more clearly in its significance to the design as most everyone else seems to. That has nothing to do with local legends---and everything to do with two remarkably unique designer and design efforts at any golf course anywhere. One could probably could on one hand famous golf courses on which that unique circumstance occured and they include Myopia, NGLA, Merion East, PVGC, and Pinehurst #2.   ;)

This has nothing to do with me not giving others the slightest credit. I have not said that about Merion at all. I agree that advice was given, and I've said so all along, I'm only questioning the logical extent of it on Macdonald's part. Wilson and his committee gave Macdonald a good deal of credit for the contribution he did make before Wilson traveled to Europe. According to Wilson that was two days at NGLA and he explained it in detail. If Macdonald had offered even close to the same advice or help when Wilson returned from his seven months trip to Europe one surely does wonder why neither Wilson nor seemingly anyone else involved wiht Merion mentioned it or the particulars of it.

And at PVGC I think I've pretty much figured out who did precisely what of significance on that course both when and what. I would say there were a number of contributors to varying degrees that can now be fairly well documented and to a fair degree regarding who was responsible for various holes on the course as well as the details of the holes.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2005, 05:35:23 PM by TEPaul »

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #427 on: December 24, 2005, 06:37:49 PM »
Is this the longest and most erudite thread in GCA history?

 Stuff has been referred to here that William Morris, MacKintosh, Vosey et. al., could only have scratched.

Bob

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #428 on: December 24, 2005, 08:31:42 PM »
Bob...it's epic and one wants not to disturb.
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #429 on: December 24, 2005, 09:50:38 PM »
"Is this the longest and most erudite thread in GCA history?"

Maybe it is, and to think the title of it is "Re: Arts and Crafts sidetrack".    

 ???

More likely what this 18 page thread represents is that classic line of "Shades" in the movie "Cool Hand Luke"----

"What weee hav he-ah is a faalyah to communicate."

;)

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #430 on: December 24, 2005, 11:30:00 PM »

Pat
You say TE is wrong,

That's correct.
[/color]

OK then who said that Hugh Wilson grasped these principles of Scotish and English course design and conveyed them in his his work better than Charles Blair Macdoanld?
Tollhurst only referenced them in the quote in question, he didn't identify them, and as such, we don't know who said it, or if it was actually said
[/color]

What part don't you understand about "The evidence is vague regarding who did what with the design and construction of Merion. That is the reason Wayne has avoided specific attributions" ?

YES, AND SO HAVE YOU.
You never once identified or described the advise that CBM or HW are alleged to have offered.
[/color]

Your head appears to be particularly thick today. Again, no one knows precisely who did what at Merion....
I'm not the one insisting that CBM and HW advised the committee absent any specific information.

Did they advise on turf issues, membership issues, finances, vendors and other non-architectural issues ?   You don't know if they had one solitary word of input on architectural issues.
[/color]

the reports credit the committee for the design, Macdonald & Whigham advising. That is all we know...unless you've discovered something new in your research. We are also very interested in your theory about the club involving Macdonald as a publicity stunt to help attract new members. :)

If it was "design by committee", who broke the tie votes ?
In whose domain did the final decision making power reside ?

I never said it was a publicity stunt, that's your intellectually dishonest attempt to discredit a legitimate possibility.

If Crump's welcoming of noted architects at Pine Valley can be viewed as good public relations, why can't Merion's ?

The fact remains that you don't know what they were advising them on, or if they really offered substantive advise.
It could have been non-architectural issues like some of the ones listed above.

Your position is strictly conjecture.
[/color]

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #431 on: December 25, 2005, 08:12:49 AM »
Tom MacWood said a day ago:

"The evidence is vague regarding who did what with the design and construction of Merion. That is the reason Wayne has avoided specific attributions. It was reported by numerous sources that the committee (led by Wilson) designed the course, with Macdonald and Whigham advising. That's my view."

Basically, that's our view too. The reason Wayne avoided specific architectural attribution is because he can't document specific architectural attribution well at all in the first phase of the design and construction of Merion East. For whatever reasons almost the entire record of that early time from around the early spring of 1911 until around the fall of 1911 just doesn't exist any longer and if it does no one we know is aware of where it might be. That's assuming there ever was much of an architectural design and construction record of the first phase of Merion East.

What we tend to go with and present is the common sense and logic of that time and the design and construction of a course like Merion East.

The common sense of it is that from every single mention of Merion East's design and construction from within Merion was that a committee was formed by Merion Cricket Club to build a new course in Ardmore. Wilson was made the head of that course committee. He went to see Macdonald at NGLA before departing for Europe for seven month of architectural study in 1910. Wilson gives Macdonald a good deal of credit for helping him during those two days at NGLA.  

Wilson returns from Europe with many architectural drawings and sketches of his impressions of holes and architectural concepts and principles from Europe. Wilson and his committee following the winter of 1911 sets about designing and building Merion East between the early spring of 1911 and the Fall of 1911 when the course is seeded and allowed to grow in for a year and then opens in September of 1912.

Wilson and his course construction committee included Rodman Griscom, Dr Henry Toulmin, Richard Francis and Horatio Gates Lloyd. Wilson and his committee had a crew led by William Flynn, nominally the greenkepper and his asst Joe Valentine, engineer Howard Toomey, construction foreman Fred Pickering that were on site every day through the spring, summer and Fall of 1911 building the golf course presumably to the routing and design of Wilson and his committee.

Merion history book writer Desmond Tolhurst says of Wilson and his construction committee:

"This was a fine committee for the job. Griscom's accomplishments have been outlined in the first chapter (Rodman Griscom was Merion's first president and his father owned the land next to the original Merion Haverford course and offered the club his own land for an additional nine holes). Francis was an officer of a construction company, an engineer and a surveyor, and his skills were invaluable. However, the chief burden fell on (Hugh) Wilson, who was the priniciple architect of the course."

Approcimately 3-4 people reported in local newspapers or golf magazines that perhaps 2-3 times Macdonald and Whigam came to Philadelphia (from NY where they lived) and advised Wilson and his committee. From what I've seen of those visits it appear Macdonald mentioned something like the land was very promising for a golf course before the course was built and perhaps once or twice Macdonald mentioned that he approved of the results he saw and felt the course would be one of the best in America. (It probably isn't too far-fetched to assume that approval was good news to Wilson, his design and construction committee and to Merion Cricket Club.  ;)

Logic and common sense and the 94 year Merion history sort of tells us that Wilson and his committee designed the golf course and oversaw its construction which was the purpose of Wilson going to Europe in the first place for seven months the year before. Logic and common sense also sort of tells us that since Wilson had no compunction about crediting Macdonald with assisting him before he went to Europe that Wilson would probably have no compunction with crediting Macdonald and Whigam with any significant design and construction ideas when he returned or during the construction of the golf course. For some reason neither Wilson nor anyone else from Merion ever mentioned anything like that specifically about Macdonald and Whigam. Logic and common sense would seem to be telling us why that was.

Later world renowned architect George Thomas, originally of Philadelphia mentioned in his book how much Wilson taught him about golf architecture during the design and construction of Merion and a course Thomas called Philadelphia Municipal and Thomas went on to mention that in his opinion Hugh Wilson was one of America's best golf architects either amateur or professional.

So just as the Merion record has always mentioned it was Wilson and his committee ably assisted by crew inluding Flynn, Toomey, Pickering and Valentine that designed and built Merion East rather quickly---eg a period of app seven months. Following that initial design and construction those involved from Merion basically spent the next twenty years redesigning and improving the course.

A few reporters mentioned early on that Macdonald and Whigam visited a few times and advised. Again, Macdonald seemed to say he approved of the site for a golf course and he approved of the results he saw of what was done there.

This is the record of the design and construction of Merion East as far as it's known. There aren't numerous or specific records of who precisely did what or thought of what on the course or on various holes. Logic and common sense would seem to say the reason for that is that Wilson and his committee and their excellent crew were just doing what they were formed to do, and were doing it every single day. To me, anyway, logic and common sense says that means a lot as to who was responsible for the design and construction of Merion East. But perhaps Tom MacWood thinks logic and common sense more likely implies that Wilson and his design and construction committee and excellent crew were waiting on or depending on New Yorkers Macdonald and Whigam to show up for a visit about 2-3 times over a few years to explain to them what they should be doing regarding the design and construction of Merion East.  ;)

Merion's record always mentioned that Macdonald and Whigam showed up a few times and assisted and advised. What they specifically assisted and advised on no one knows at this point. If someone assumes today that Macdonald and Whigam advised or assisted on the design or construction of template holes from GB that'd been used at NGLA that would be somewhat of a stretch in our opinion. That might've happened but if Macdonald and Whigam were that central to the design and construction of Merion East one wonders why that was never recorded and never mentioned by anyone.

Logic and common sense tells us the record of the design and construction of Merion East, as general and non-specific as it is, probably is correct.

The real irony with Wilson, and his brother Alan and particularly William Flynn and Howard Toomey is how totally consumed they became with the agronomy of Merion East from 1912 on and for many years.

This record we call the "Agronomy Letters" between Hugh and Alan Wilson and Piper and Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture number over 2000 which would mean the Wilsons and Flynn and Toomey were communicating on this subject with Piper and Oakley by letter sometimes a couple of times a week for over 13 years!

Common sense and logic tell us that if they were that dedicated to the agronomy of Merion East and that hands on they were probably just as dedicated and hands on with the design and construction of the golf course. Unfortunately that architectural record, unlike the "agronomy" record (which actually resurfaced no more than about four years ago) has apparently been lost.

This is the record of Merion East and I don't see that there's any significant disputing of what went on there, or any reason for anyone to dispute at this point what went on there or who was responsible for it.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2005, 08:36:08 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #432 on: December 25, 2005, 11:10:26 AM »
Merry Christmas

Tom MacWood:

What exactly is a whole lot of conjecture?


I don't know who Desmond Tolhurst was referring to when he said Wilson understood the principles of those holes from Great Britain better than MacDonald did. The way Tolhurst phrased it was; "It has been said......

Apparently that's what some said in that day and age. Perhaps you're not aware of it but it was not universally popular or admired to actually copy holes (from Europe). Macdonald himself in his book obviously found it necessary to mention both why he did it and how he did it, apparently to defend the modus operandi from criticism.

The point is Merion's East's holes if they are some form of "in principle" copies of holes from Great Britain they are a whole lot less obvious than Macdonald's template holes at NGLA and later.{personal opinion} Tolhurst describes Merion East's holes not "out and out copies". He calls them far more "original", and that's what some back then admired more about Wilson's Merion East {Is it your conjecture that Merion-East is Wilson’s}compared to the more exact hole copies Macdonald did.{Could you speculate who admired his copies better?}

My sense is that Macdonald and Whigam probably came down to Merion before the course was built and deemed the land to be suitable for a course and seemingly came again when the course was just under construction and deemed what they saw as good holes. Perhaps they came again when it was done and approved of what they saw. That's what those "advised" reports sound like to me.

What you've never understood, Tom MacW,{Personal opinion} is what it means in golf architectural design when a person or people who are the designers spend practically every day on a course while it's being designed and built. You've just never fathomed{personal opinion} what 'many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field, constantly talking' etc means in golf course architecture. All you seem to fixate on is what you perceive to be someone's name or reputation and you seem to assume that those building the course are just waiting around to be told what to do by him even if he's in New York while the golf course is being designed and built.{inaccurate assumption}

Pickering? We did give him credit, but he was a construction foreman and although Wilson thought he was a good one he also explained he was a pretty regularly drunk one and no one knows if he actually designed anything at Merion as Flynn definitely did after 1915 or so and perhaps from the beginning.I understand that, my point was Tollhurst never mentioned this key figure. And Pickering does not figure in the story of the bunkers…which brings into question (if the story is true) when it occurred.


Heavy on conjecture; light on facts.

More later...

T_MacWood

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #433 on: December 25, 2005, 11:38:41 AM »
Merry Christmas


Pat
You say TE is wrong,

That's correct.
[/color]

TE is often wrong, but in this case I tend to agree with him. In my research I have not found anyone claiming Wilson (or anyone else) understood the principles better than Macdonald.

OK then who said that Hugh Wilson grasped these principles of Scotish and English course design and conveyed them in his his work better than Charles Blair Macdoanld?
Tollhurst only referenced them in the quote in question, he didn't identify them, and as such, we don't know who said it, or if it was actually said
[/color]

There is a reason he did not identify them.

What part don't you understand about "The evidence is vague regarding who did what with the design and construction of Merion. That is the reason Wayne has avoided specific attributions" ?

YES, AND SO HAVE YOU.
You never once identified or described the advise that CBM or HW are alleged to have offered.
[/color]

YES, AND SO HAVE YOU. Please explain what that means...yes, and so have you? Yes what? Who designed Merion in your opinion?

Your head appears to be particularly thick today. Again, no one knows precisely who did what at Merion....
I'm not the one insisting that CBM and HW advised the committee absent any specific information.

Did they advise on turf issues, membership issues, finances, vendors and other non-architectural issues ?   You don't know if they had one solitary word of input on architectural issues.
[/color]

the reports credit the committee for the design, Macdonald & Whigham advising. That is all we know...unless you've discovered something new in your research. We are also very interested in your theory about the club involving Macdonald as a publicity stunt to help attract new members. :)

If it was "design by committee", who broke the tie votes ?
In whose domain did the final decision making power reside ?

I never said it was a publicity stunt, that's your intellectually dishonest attempt to discredit a legitimate possibility.

If Crump's welcoming of noted architects at Pine Valley can be viewed as good public relations, why can't Merion's ?

The fact remains that you don't know what they were advising them on, or if they really offered substantive advise.
It could have been non-architectural issues like some of the ones listed above.

Your position is strictly conjecture.
[/color]

I suggest you read some of the accounts from the time prior to and after the course opened. The fact is numerous sources state the committee designed the course, with Macdonald and Whigham advising. Did you catch that? The fact is....

If you need more information, I suggest you get off your large derriere and go look for it.

No one that I know actually believes Colt was hired as a public relations stunt....the fact do not support this conjecture (nor do they in Merion's case).

As you well know you fall on the PR story (in your case it was membership drive) when you have nothing left to fall on.


T_MacWood

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #434 on: December 25, 2005, 11:48:14 AM »
Tom MacWood said a day ago:

"The evidence is vague regarding who did what with the design and construction of Merion. That is the reason Wayne has avoided specific attributions. It was reported by numerous sources that the committee (led by Wilson) designed the course, with Macdonald and Whigham advising. That's my view."

Basically, that's our view too. The reason Wayne avoided specific architectural attribution is because he can't document specific architectural attribution well at all in the first phase of the design and construction of Merion East. For whatever reasons almost the entire record of that early time from around the early spring of 1911 until around the fall of 1911 just doesn't exist any longer and if it does no one we know is aware of where it might be. That's assuming there ever was much of an architectural design and construction record of the first phase of Merion East.

What we tend to go with and present is the common sense and logic of that time and the design and construction of a course like Merion East.

The common sense of it is that from every single mention of Merion East's design and construction from within Merion was that a committee was formed by Merion Cricket Club to build a new course in Ardmore. Wilson was made the head of that course committee. He went to see Macdonald at NGLA before departing for Europe for seven month of architectural study in 1910. Wilson gives Macdonald a good deal of credit for helping him during those two days at NGLA.  

Wilson returns from Europe with many architectural drawings and sketches of his impressions of holes and architectural concepts and principles from Europe. Wilson and his committee following the winter of 1911 sets about designing and building Merion East between the early spring of 1911 and the Fall of 1911 when the course is seeded and allowed to grow in for a year and then opens in September of 1912.

Wilson and his course construction committee included Rodman Griscom, Dr Henry Toulmin, Richard Francis and Horatio Gates Lloyd. Wilson and his committee had a crew led by William Flynn, nominally the greenkepper and his asst Joe Valentine, engineer Howard Toomey, construction foreman Fred Pickering that were on site every day through the spring, summer and Fall of 1911 building the golf course presumably to the routing and design of Wilson and his committee.

Merion history book writer Desmond Tolhurst says of Wilson and his construction committee:

"This was a fine committee for the job. Griscom's accomplishments have been outlined in the first chapter (Rodman Griscom was Merion's first president and his father owned the land next to the original Merion Haverford course and offered the club his own land for an additional nine holes). Francis was an officer of a construction company, an engineer and a surveyor, and his skills were invaluable. However, the chief burden fell on (Hugh) Wilson, who was the priniciple architect of the course."

Approcimately 3-4 people reported in local newspapers or golf magazines that perhaps 2-3 times Macdonald and Whigam came to Philadelphia (from NY where they lived) and advised Wilson and his committee. From what I've seen of those visits it appear Macdonald mentioned something like the land was very promising for a golf course before the course was built and perhaps once or twice Macdonald mentioned that he approved of the results he saw and felt the course would be one of the best in America. (It probably isn't too far-fetched to assume that approval was good news to Wilson, his design and construction committee and to Merion Cricket Club.  ;)

Logic and common sense and the 94 year Merion history sort of tells us that Wilson and his committee designed the golf course and oversaw its construction which was the purpose of Wilson going to Europe in the first place for seven months the year before. Logic and common sense also sort of tells us that since Wilson had no compunction about crediting Macdonald with assisting him before he went to Europe that Wilson would probably have no compunction with crediting Macdonald and Whigam with any significant design and construction ideas when he returned or during the construction of the golf course. For some reason neither Wilson nor anyone else from Merion ever mentioned anything like that specifically about Macdonald and Whigam. Logic and common sense would seem to be telling us why that was.

Later world renowned architect George Thomas, originally of Philadelphia mentioned in his book how much Wilson taught him about golf architecture during the design and construction of Merion and a course Thomas called Philadelphia Municipal and Thomas went on to mention that in his opinion Hugh Wilson was one of America's best golf architects either amateur or professional.

So just as the Merion record has always mentioned it was Wilson and his committee ably assisted by crew inluding Flynn, Toomey, Pickering and Valentine that designed and built Merion East rather quickly---eg a period of app seven months. Following that initial design and construction those involved from Merion basically spent the next twenty years redesigning and improving the course.

A few reporters mentioned early on that Macdonald and Whigam visited a few times and advised. Again, Macdonald seemed to say he approved of the site for a golf course and he approved of the results he saw of what was done there.

This is the record of the design and construction of Merion East as far as it's known. There aren't numerous or specific records of who precisely did what or thought of what on the course or on various holes. Logic and common sense would seem to say the reason for that is that Wilson and his committee and their excellent crew were just doing what they were formed to do, and were doing it every single day. To me, anyway, logic and common sense says that means a lot as to who was responsible for the design and construction of Merion East. But perhaps Tom MacWood thinks logic and common sense more likely implies that Wilson and his design and construction committee and excellent crew were waiting on or depending on New Yorkers Macdonald and Whigam to show up for a visit about 2-3 times over a few years to explain to them what they should be doing regarding the design and construction of Merion East.  ;)

Merion's record always mentioned that Macdonald and Whigam showed up a few times and assisted and advised. What they specifically assisted and advised on no one knows at this point. If someone assumes today that Macdonald and Whigam advised or assisted on the design or construction of template holes from GB that'd been used at NGLA that would be somewhat of a stretch in our opinion. That might've happened but if Macdonald and Whigam were that central to the design and construction of Merion East one wonders why that was never recorded and never mentioned by anyone.

Logic and common sense tells us the record of the design and construction of Merion East, as general and non-specific as it is, probably is correct.

The real irony with Wilson, and his brother Alan and particularly William Flynn and Howard Toomey is how totally consumed they became with the agronomy of Merion East from 1912 on and for many years.

This record we call the "Agronomy Letters" between Hugh and Alan Wilson and Piper and Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture number over 2000 which would mean the Wilsons and Flynn and Toomey were communicating on this subject with Piper and Oakley by letter sometimes a couple of times a week for over 13 years!

Common sense and logic tell us that if they were that dedicated to the agronomy of Merion East and that hands on they were probably just as dedicated and hands on with the design and construction of the golf course. Unfortunately that architectural record, unlike the "agronomy" record (which actually resurfaced no more than about four years ago) has apparently been lost.

This is the record of Merion East and I don't see that there's any significant disputing of what went on there, or any reason for anyone to dispute at this point what went on there or who was responsible for it.

TE
Instead of saying 'the common sense of it is'....you might want to say 'my opinion is' or 'my conjecture is' or 'my educated guess is'.

Are you certain the Merion histories mention Macdonald and Whigham were on site? I do not believe I read that in Wayne's version either...although it sounds like he did mention in a later version.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2005, 11:50:25 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #435 on: December 25, 2005, 11:53:35 AM »
"Heavy on conjecture; light on facts."

Tom MacWood:

You can't be serious. Not every conceivable detail is perfectly recorded for our convenience, you know? Or perhaps you don't know that. Perhaps you actually think you're going to find every conceivable detail recorded somewhere and if not perhaps you think you can intuit them from some little known periodical. Furthermore, don't give me any "Heavy on conjecture; light on facts" crap as that's just about all every single one of your assumptions and conclusions are on which you base your entire five part "Arts and Crafts Golf" essay.   ;)

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #436 on: December 25, 2005, 12:00:25 PM »
Tom MacWood:

Perhaps you didn't exactly realize it but Wayne's Merion history primarily concentrates on Merion's architectural history as it relates to William Flynn, after-all that's who the book is about. Maybe Wayne will write another history book of Merion but this one is not that. If Wayne wanted to rewrite Tolhurst's Merion history book then I'm sure he would have done that. You can think whatever you want to about Macdonald and Whigam's architectural contributions to the design and construction of Merion East but we tend to support Merion's years old version of it and we think we know that course and club a whole lot better than you do. Matter of fact, we know we do. But as you say, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.  ;)

"TE
Instead of saying 'the common sense of it is'....you might want to say 'my opinion is' or 'my conjecture is' or 'my educated guess is'.

No thanks, I'd prefer to say "the common sense of it is" because that's the way I feel about it. If you want to describe it feel free to do so however you'd like.

"Are you certain the Merion histories mention Macdonald and Whigham were on site?"

Not really, and I doubt I'd even check something that trivial. What's the chances of Macdonald and Whigam coming to Philadelphia to check out what the land of Merion was like for a golf course or to review what was done and not actually go on site?  ;) What's the alternative Tom? Do you think they just rode by it on the train or maybe went up in a balloon over it?  
« Last Edit: December 25, 2005, 12:05:50 PM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #437 on: December 25, 2005, 12:01:26 PM »
You asked...what is a whole lot of conjecture...and I answered.

The are more facts in that A&C essay...than in your entire history of posts on GCA....and that is a lot of posts. :)

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #438 on: December 25, 2005, 12:12:10 PM »
"The are more facts in that A&C essay...than in your entire history of posts on GCA....and that is a lot of posts. :)

You got that right. There sure are a ton of facts in that A/C Movement article. Unfortunately, hardly a single one of them connects the A/C Movement to any influence on the Golden Age of golf archiecture or even to golf course architecture at all, for that matter. It's all just a stretch and conjecture on your part. There are plenty of facts about a lot of things that have gone on concurrently in this world but that doesn't mean they influence each other or are connected as you'd like us to believe in the case of the A/C Movement and golf course architecture.  ;)


"You asked...what is a whole lot of conjecture...and I answered."

Yes, you did answer. Not well, as usual, but you did answer.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 25, 2005, 12:13:38 PM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #439 on: December 25, 2005, 12:16:15 PM »
TE
That is your opinion (as of a few months ago), fortunately not everyone shares that opinion (including yourself prior to the Crump essay).

It was an original work of research, I expected my thesis would not be understood or accepted by everyone. Nothing ventured nothing gained.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2005, 12:19:28 PM by Tom MacWood »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #440 on: December 25, 2005, 12:33:19 PM »

TE is often wrong, but in this case I tend to agree with him. In my research I have not found anyone claiming Wilson (or anyone else) understood the principles better than Macdonald.

So what.
Tollhurst indicates that others said it.
Just because YOUR research hasn't uncovered it doesn't meant that Tollhurst was fabricating the story, it just means you haven't been successful in uncovering the sources.



Tollhurst only referenced them in the quote in question, he didn't identify them, and as such, we don't know who said it, or if it was actually said
[/color]

There is a reason he did not identify them.
OK, what's the reason, and what's your proof behind YOUR reason ?

 

YES, AND SO HAVE YOU.
You never once identified or described the advise that CBM or HW are alleged to have offered.
[/color]

YES, AND SO HAVE YOU. Please explain what that means...yes, and so have you? Yes what? Who designed Merion in your opinion?

That's not the issue I'm discussing with you.

I"ve asked you time and time again, what was the specific advise that CBM and HW gave to the committee, and time after time you duck the question.

The answer is, YOU DON"T KNOW.

It might have been anything from nodding approval to  general comments, including but not limited to turf, finances,
vendors, materials, etc., etc..

You don't have one iota of evidence to support the notion that CBM and HW adivsed on specific architectural features in the design and construction of the golf course.

Like Seminole, perhaps sooner or later you'll admit to that which everyone else knows, which is, you're wrong.
NOONE knows what CBM's and HW's specific involement was.  And, there's no evidence that they had any direct involvement with the design and construction of specific features at Merion



Your position is strictly conjecture.



I suggest you read some of the accounts from the time prior to and after the course opened.

The fact is numerous sources state the committee designed the course, with Macdonald and Whigham advising.[/color]
[/color]

SPECIFICALLY, WHAT DID THEY ADVISE ON ?

WHAT FEATURES AND DESIGN ELEMENTS ?

WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS ?

[/color]

Did you catch that? The fact is....

If you need more information, I suggest you get off your large derriere and go look for it.



I don't need more information, YOU DO, you're the one who's promoted CBM's and HW's active involvement in the design and construction of Merion, just like you alleged with Travis's active involvement at NGLA, or had you forgotten about that.

YOU need to stop jumping to conclusions absent a sufficient fact or data base.

It's not up to ME to disprove your wild theories, it's up to YOU to substantiate them, with DETAILED FACTS, not guesses.

[/color]

No one that I know actually believes Colt was hired as a public relations stunt....the fact do not support this conjecture (nor do they in Merion's case).



Who said anything about "hired"
Who said anything about a public relations stunt.

Try using "common sense" when you analyze situations, you'll find it to be a great help.
[/color]


As you well know you fall on the PR story (in your case it was membership drive) when you have nothing left to fall on.



Your vision is so narrow, so limited by the self indulgence needed to support your wild theories.

Common Sense isn't so common in your case.

« Last Edit: December 25, 2005, 12:51:49 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #441 on: December 25, 2005, 12:57:08 PM »
"TE
That is your opinion (as of a few months ago), fortunately not everyone shares that opinion (including yourself prior to the Crump essay)."

Tom MacWood:

Yes, it is my opinion. I'm quite sure not everyone shares anyone's opinion on anything. The point is that more seem to not share your opinion on the A/C movement's influence on architecture following the questions and answers regarding it in the last half year or so and that's my purpose. I'm not quite sure what you think your Crump essay has to do with my opinion of your A/C Golf essay since there's virtually no connection other than your constant inclination to take everything that questions or criticizes anything you  say personally. The reason I changed my mind on your A/C essay is a number of people told me that your essay was all fire and smoke or that the premises you used throughout it which you obviously tried to pass of as fact were just theory, conjecture or your opinion probably based on your admiration for the philosophy of the A/C Movement which was not what it actually accomplished---eg positivism. That's when I went back and read your essay a few more times with a far more discerning eye.

"It was an original work of research, I expected my thesis would not be understood or accepted by everyone. Nothing ventured nothing gained."

That's true, it was an original work of research but one that was best described as "positivism"---eg an attempt or desire to present a conclusion first followed by researching all kinds of extraneous facts that seem to connect your premises to the conclusion but really don't on closer analysis.

This thread that has lately been making the point that there is no real proof that Wilson or his committee desgined and built Merion East has pretty much devolved into the ridiculous in my opinion. Even if no one today has any specific or direct written evidence  or contemporaneous record from the time of its construction who designed and built the course, as I said earlier both logic and common sense would pretty clearly indicate that those who were there at Merion East every day during it's design and construction are the ones who probably did it. Its funny in golf course design and construction how that has a funny way of happening over and over again. I wonder why.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 25, 2005, 01:07:34 PM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #442 on: December 25, 2005, 01:07:36 PM »

TE is often wrong, but in this case I tend to agree with him. In my research I have not found anyone claiming Wilson (or anyone else) understood the principles better than Macdonald.

So what.
Tollhurst indicates that others said it.
Just because YOUR research hasn't uncovered it doesn't meant that Tollhurst was fabricating the story, it just means you haven't been successful in uncovering the sources.



Tollhurst only referenced them in the quote in question, he didn't identify them, and as such, we don't know who said it, or if it was actually said
[/color]

There is a reason he did not identify them.
OK, what's the reason, and what's your proof behind YOUR reason ?

 

YES, AND SO HAVE YOU.
You never once identified or described the advise that CBM or HW are alleged to have offered.
[/color]

YES, AND SO HAVE YOU. Please explain what that means...yes, and so have you? Yes what? Who designed Merion in your opinion?

That's not the issue I'm discussing with you.

I"ve asked you time and time again, what was the specific advise that CBM and HW gave to the committee, and time after time you duck the question.

The answer is, YOU DON"T KNOW.

It might have been anything from nodding approval to  general comments, including but not limited to turf, finances,
vendors, materials, etc., etc..

You don't have one iota of evidence to support the notion that CBM and HW adivsed on specific architectural features in the design and construction of the golf course.

Like Seminole, perhaps sooner or later you'll admit to that which everyone else knows, which is, you're wrong.
NOONE knows what CBM's and HW's specific involement was.  And, there's no evidence that they had any direct involvement with the design and construction of specific features at Merion



Your position is strictly conjecture.



I suggest you read some of the accounts from the time prior to and after the course opened.

The fact is numerous sources state the committee designed the course, with Macdonald and Whigham advising.[/color]
[/color]

SPECIFICALLY, WHAT DID THEY ADVISE ON ?

WHAT FEATURES AND DESIGN ELEMENTS ?

WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS ?

[/color]

Did you catch that? The fact is....

If you need more information, I suggest you get off your large derriere and go look for it.



I don't need more information, YOU DO, you're the one who's promoted CBM's and HW's active involvement in the design and construction of Merion, just like you alleged with Travis's active involvement at NGLA, or had you forgotten about that.

YOU need to stop jumping to conclusions absent a sufficient fact or data base.

It's not up to ME to disprove your wild theories, it's up to YOU to substantiate them, with DETAILED FACTS, not guesses.

[/color]

No one that I know actually believes Colt was hired as a public relations stunt....the fact do not support this conjecture (nor do they in Merion's case).



Who said anything about "hired"
Who said anything about a public relations stunt.

Try using "common sense" when you analyze situations, you'll find it to be a great help.
[/color]


As you well know you fall on the PR story (in your case it was membership drive) when you have nothing left to fall on.



Your vision is so narrow, so limited by the self indulgence needed to support your wild theories.

Common Sense isn't so common in your case.



One more time....you appear to be a little slow on this subject.

No one knows who did what at Merion....that is the reason Wayne does not specifically give attribution. This is what we know: the committee (led by Wilson) designed the course, with Macdonald & Whigham advising.

Why can't you comprehend this...is it that difficult to understand that the information is vague regrading the involvement of Francis, Wilson, Macdonald and all the other parties. If you require more specific information I suggest you get off your large rear end and look for it. Its about time you bring some facts to the table...better late than never.

T_MacWood

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #443 on: December 25, 2005, 01:14:05 PM »
"TE
That is your opinion (as of a few months ago), fortunately not everyone shares that opinion (including yourself prior to the Crump essay)."

Tom MacWood:

Yes, it is my opinion. I'm quite sure not everyone shares anyone's opinion on anything. The point is that more seem to not share your opinion on the A/C movement's influence on architecture following the questions and answers regarding it in the last half year or so and that's my purpose. I'm not quite sure what you think your Crump essay has to do with my opinion of your A/C Golf essay since there's virtually no connection other than your constant inclination to take everything that questions or criticizes anything you  say personally. The reason I changed my mind on your A/C essay is a number of people told me that your essay was all fire and smoke or that the premises you used throughout it which you obviously tried to pass of as fact were just theory, conjecture or your opinion probably based on your admiration for the philosophy of the A/C Movement which was not what it actually accomplished---eg positivism. That's when I went back and read your essay a few more times with a far more discerning eye.

"It was an original work of research, I expected my thesis would not be understood or accepted by everyone. Nothing ventured nothing gained."

That's true, it was an original work of research but one that was best described as "positivism"---eg an attempt or desire to present a conclusion first followed by researching all kinds of extraneous facts that seem to connect your premises to the conclusion but really don't on closer analysis.

This thread that has lately been making the point that there is no real proof that Wilson or his committee desgined and built Merion East has pretty much devolved into the ridiculous in my opinion. Even if no one today has any specific or direct written evidence  or contemporaneous record from the time of its construction who designed and built the course, as I said earlier both logic and common sense would pretty clearly indicate that those who were there at Merion East every day during it's design and construction are the ones who probably did it. Its funny in golf course design and construction how that has a funny way of happening over and over again. I wonder why.  ;)

TE
That's great, keep up the good work.

I suspect every time you bring up my A&C essay, there are as many converts to the idea, as there are converts again'it....thats my impression based on some of the feedback I get.

The way I look at it the more it is discussed, analysed and studied...the better.

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #444 on: December 25, 2005, 01:27:23 PM »
Tom MacWood to Pat Mucci:

"Why can't you comprehend this...is it that difficult to understand that the information is vague regrading the involvement of Francis,...."

Tom MacWood:

Actually Francis's information is as specific as it gets and it can't get much more direct than it does. But perhaps you missed it or you just don't believe him.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 25, 2005, 01:30:04 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #445 on: December 25, 2005, 01:37:05 PM »
"The way I look at it the more it is discussed, analysed and studied...the better."

Tom MacWood:

For a change, I could not agree with you more, and that's why I'll probably continue to bring it up.

By the way, I haven't forgotten, I do owe you a detailed description about why many of us do not think some of your premises are supportable and consequently why your conclusion as to the A/C Movement's influence and certainly the degree you maintain it had on the Golden Age of golf architecture is far less than convincing.  
« Last Edit: December 25, 2005, 03:15:49 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #446 on: December 25, 2005, 03:02:19 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Early on you indicated that CBM and HW had active roles at Merion, then you fell back to your current position, that they advised the committee, never defining the scope or substance of their alleged advise.

My position, from the begining is that you can't take vague, nebulous references and expand them, selectively, to fit your theories.

You can't give 100 % credibility to alleged quotes,
ie, Ross-Seminole-flat, without corroborating evidence.

Even in the present time, architects and architectural experts contradict themselves.

Without knowing the exact time and place of the alleged quotes, to whom they were made, and in what context, you can't draw definitive conclusions and attribute those nebulous statements as irrefutable proof of your theorum.

As I said before, it's not our role to disprove a theory, or a wild theory, it's your obligation to substantiate it with specific facts, not fiction, broad generalizations or generous interpolations.



To you, your family and everyone at GCA.com, have a wonderful holiday and the happiest and healthiest of New Year's.
[/color]

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #447 on: December 25, 2005, 03:23:04 PM »
"As I said before, it's not our role to disprove a theory, or a wild theory, it's your obligation to substantiate it with specific facts, not fiction, broad generalizations or generous interpolations."

Pat:

Not that this Macdonald/Whigam thing at Merion is a good example but I do think it's our role to disprove what someone tries to pass off not necessarily as a theory but most definitely what one tries to pass off as fact (assuming it does not appear to be true), if that's what one tries to do on here.


And from me as well a very Merry Christmas to you and Tom MacWood and everyone else on GOLFCLUBTLAS.com

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #448 on: December 25, 2005, 05:00:01 PM »
This may well be the longest thread, but erudite?  It would be excellent if the principle characters in this drama could list what they have learned after all this is done.  

Merry Christmas

Ciao

Sean
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #449 on: December 25, 2005, 05:07:50 PM »
This may well be the longest thread, but erudite?  It would be excellent if the principle characters in this drama could list what they have learned after all this is done.  



Sean,

Erudition does not mean that one has to have learned something from the discussion, only that those participating have presented their views in a learned fashion. I have learned that Tom Paul must be the worlds fastest typist and that Tom McWood can count the number of angels on the head of a needle. Apart from that, my views on the Arts and Crafts Movement have not been altered by one whit.

Bob