Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

I had understood that Whigham was NOT an active design associate, rarely if ever getting involved in the creative process.  Is my understanding incorrect ?

In addition to Merion Whigham collaborated at NGLA, Chicago, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow and Lido.

Collaborated is such a general, non-descript term.
Exactly what did he do at those courses ?
It's been reported that he did NOT get engaged in any design work.  Would you agree with that ?  Or, do you have evidence to the contrary ?[/color]

I"m also curious about your remark concerning the demise of Lido by 1939.  In what way was it a "shadow of its former self" ?  From a maintainance standpoint or an architectural standpoint

Both.

How did the architecture deteriorate ?[/color]

With respect to Whigham's attribution of the design credit for Merion, you posted that.  To state that the comment was taken out of context because preceeding info was omitted, begs the question, are you selecting quotes or portions of quotes and leaving out vital qualifying information ?

I wasn't trying to trick you. If you have the Evangelist of Golf you'll find it in there.

Where I'll find the rest of the passage isn't the issue.
The issue is that you posted an incomplete or out of context quote to bolster your position, and that's disengenuous.

It creates doubt as to the veracity of other quotes you've posted and whether or not they're incomplete, misleading or out of context.[/color]

The quote you posted is quite clear.
Whigham states that CBM & SR designed Merion.
If information was omitted that would have qualified that statement, then, you were obligated to post the caveat or qualifier.  To omit it is intellectually dishonest.

I'm surprised you haven't read Bahto's Macdonald biography.

I have, but, don't try to deflect the issue.

You posted that, not for my benefit, but for those tuned in to GCA.com in an attempt to reinforce your position, and in doing so, you were being intellectually dishonest with those meant to read your post.[/color]

Don't you find it odd that Whigham makes this statement 25 years removed from Merion's creation ?  That a quarter of a century passed before anyone associated with CBM attempts to claim CBM's involvement with Merion, let alone that Merion is a CBM-SR design ?

Are you thinking conspiracy theory or revisionism? I don't find odd that he would list Macdonald's accomplishments following his death, afterall Macdonald & Whigham's involvement at Merion was widely reported.

If it was so widely reported why can't anyone find one report that specifically identifies, qualifies and quantifies their involvement ?

To first mention and attribute the design credit of Merion to CBM&SR 25 years after the course was built seems more than odd.  Just answer one more question in this post.
[size=4x]
If they designed the course, as Whigham alleges, why did they all keep it a secret for 25 years ?[/size]

Why do you find Whigham's mention odd? [/b]

Because he waited 25 years after the golf course was built to claim that CBM & SR designed it.  Are you going to tell me that Whigham, who you claim was CBM's design PARTNER, knew all along that CBM & SR designed Merion, but, kept it a secret from the golfing world until shortly after CBM's death ?
[/color]

Whigham assisted in "laying out" those courses. If engaged means accepting a fee I would agree with that. In his book Macdonald wrote how sad he was that Lido had been run down and the Biarritz near the coast had been destroyed.

Do you think Whigham was keeping a secret? As far as I know Wilson, Flynn or Macdonald did not discuss who did what at Merion either...were they keeping a secret? I wouldn't call M&W's involvement a secret, although I do agree the credit Whigham appears to give is a little surprising.

I have no idea why he did not write about Macdonald & Merion before 1939. It may be Whigham had no opportunity or reason to write about Merion. He wrote some articles on the NGLA and templates in the early teens and he wrote this article on Macdonald in 1939. Are you aware of any other golf articles Whigham wrote in between?

[Mike_Cirba]

Do you think Whigham was keeping a secret?  

Why is it that everytime I think of Whigham's undying devotion to Macdonald, this is the image that pops into my head?  

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

Just goes to show how wrong you can be... I always pictured him quite fat and as a police chief!

[Mike_Cirba]

...as in, "WHIGHAM!!!! Get my my pipe and slippers, pronto!"

[Mike_Cirba]

"C'mon Whigham, quit your dawdling man...I haven't got all day.  I've got to get over to Merion and help that blockhead Wilson figure out how to build a golf course!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Whigham assisted in "laying out" those courses.

Tom, again, that's such a nebulous, non-description.

Do you really feel that MacDonald & Raynor needed assistance in "laying out" their golf courses ?

What expertise or skills did Whigham possess ?

Don't ever forget that he was a "son-in-law", and that might have something to do with his role or lack of a role with CBM.[/color]

If engaged means accepting a fee I would agree with that.

In his book Macdonald wrote how sad he was that Lido had been run down and the Biarritz near the coast had been destroyed.

The run down aspect is understandable, but, to say that the architecture was a "shadow of its former self" might be an exaggeration on your part.[/color]

Do you think Whigham was keeping a secret?

NO, I think the statement is false, with no merit.
However, you contend that it's true even if it was belatedly revealed 25 years after Merion was open[/color]

As far as I know Wilson, Flynn or Macdonald did not discuss who did what at Merion either...

Would you say that your knowledge of what was discussed with, respect to who did what at Merion, represents the total sum of human knowledge on the subject ?[/color]

were they keeping a secret?

No, MacDonald & Raynor had nothing to discuss because there's no evidence of their engaging in any specific work at Merion[/color]

I wouldn't call M&W's involvement a secret, although I do agree the credit Whigham appears to give is a little surprising.


I think you mean CBM & SR, not Whigham.

Why do you think Whigham announced this revelation ?

And, why did he wait until Wilson, CBM and Raynor were dead
before making his pronouncement ?

Could it be he chose that time because none of those men were alive to refute his statement ?[/color]

I have no idea why he did not write about Macdonald & Merion before 1939.

It may be Whigham had no opportunity or reason to write about Merion.

In [size=8x] 25[/size] years he DIDN"T have the opportunity ?

As to the reason, he had every reason.  He was CBM's son-in-law, and, as you indicated, his partner.  
I'd say that those are two compelling reasons for him to write about CBM's involement with Merion IF CBM was involved with Merion.

He wrote some articles on the NGLA and templates in the early teens and he wrote this article on Macdonald in 1939.

And nothing in between ?
No mention, for 25 years, of CBM's and SR's designing of Merion ?   No mention, for 25 years, of the advise or consulting they did on the routing, design and construction of Merion ?

Do you think that he, CBM and SR took a vow of silence on the Merion project ?[/color]

Are you aware of any other golf articles Whigham wrote in between?

At the present, I'm only interested in ANY articles Whigham might have written about CBM and Merion, between 1914 and 1939.  And, so far, noone has come forth with articles Whigham wrote on that topic.[/color]

[T_MacWood]

Patrick

Didn't Tom Doak visit with you at GCGC prior to his work at Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle Dunes, and others?   Can you now confirm for us that you taught him everything you know?  

Tom MacWood,

I thought you clarified that the "well publicized reconstruction work" happened later than the 1912-1914 period?  Behr wrote this article in 1914.

Mike
You're right most of the reconstruction work occured after 1914, however Wilson oversaw the green difficulties on the East in 1913. He also headed the construction committee for the West that year. Both relating to the subject of Behr's editorial.

Pat
I'll answer your twenty questions this time but you've got do a little homework on your own after this. You are apparently very inquisitive but yet you don't read. What gives? The least you could do is read George Bahto's book.

Macdonald & Whigham go back much futher than M&Raynor. Whigham was his right hand man in Chicago and he was his right hand man on LI. In the early years they were two of the best amateurs in the country. One important attribute Whigham had was a complete familarity with the great courses overseas, and the great golfers overseas as well...he hailed from a prominant Prestwick golf family.

I think you are selling Whigham short. When did Whigham marry and what effect did it have upon his collaboration with Macdonald IYO?

Lido was shut down forever three years after Whigham's article. Whigham was a respected golf figure and a respected journalist. I know you like to dismiss out-of-hand anyone who conflicts with your understanding of events, but your comments regarding Whigham (like your earlier comments about Robert Lesley) reflect your complete ignorance.

American Golfer May 1911:
"The new course of the Merion Cricket club is nearing completion in the planning. During the month Mr. Chas B Macdonald and Mr. HJ Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the prospects. Mr. Macdonald said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country, and as out first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction."

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

That certainly sounds to me as though they came, they saw (probably a nearly completed course if a total of 7 of the holes were cited as equal any in the country), they gave their blessing (Macdonald was not called the "Evangelist" for nothing...heck, he was more like the Pope of golf at the time), and said the prospects for the course were very good indeed!

I'm reminded of Mackenzie's visit to Riviera, to be honest.   Not a single mention of, say, "came to oversee construction of their design", or "laid out as he envisioned it", or anything similar that would give anyone a clue that M&W were part of the design process.  

They were expert advisors, clearly, and there to help Wilson in whatever way they could, even if that just mean a public pronouncement on the merits of the new course, which I believe to be quite sincere.

Now, on a more serious note, is there any evidence that Smithers was modelled after Whigham?   I've gone through the archives and can't find a thing, but I find the link between the two men strangely compelling.    

Sorry Tom...just trying to add some humor on a thread in serious need of some.  

[David Stamm]

I'm reminded of Mackenzie's visit to Riviera, to be honest.   Not a single mention of, say, "came to oversee construction of their design", or "laid out as he envisioned it", or anything similar that would give anyone a clue that M&W were part of the design process.  

 

Mike, FWIW, see post #549. I also was reminded of the same thing.

[DMoriarty]

I’ve been away from the computer. I am sure I was missed.

Mike and Patrick,

I wasn’t aware that Michael Pascucci authored an article in a reputable golf magazine outlining the history and creation of Sebonack, and describing either of you as an advisor, influence, or whatever.   Nor was I aware that Mike Keiser similarly described either one of you regarding your role(s) at Pacific Dunes.  But it is no wonder I missed the articles, I wasn’t even aware there was a reputable golf magazine out there!

By the way, could you guys send me a copy of the article where Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus praised you for teaching them more about golf design in one night than they’d learned previously in their entire lives?  The one that described your course as one which deserved lengthy and careful study?   You know . . .  the one where Doak and Nicklaus stated not only that your course deserved lengthy and careful study, but also that after studing the course all designers ought to incorporate the principles of your fine holes into their own designs.   High praise indeed!

But too bad that these are the only records of your involvement which survived; all of the specific information regarding all of the details of the design and construction were recently lost in a big fire. (I told them not to store their documents at Rustic Canyon.)    You don’t expect anyone to just accept the words of Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, Michael Pascucci, and Jack Nicklaus, do you?   Statements by those involved and in charge don't count for much 'round.  You gotta have proof.  

Oh well, easy come easy go.  

[DMoriarty]

David M,

Could you clearly answer JES's question?  Or, let me rephrase it.  You said, some pages ago:

"Properly acknowledging CBM in no way diminishes a single thing you said about Wilson".

Could you clearly lay out for us what, in your mind, constitutes "properly acknowledging".  Clearly you want more acknowledgement than has been given so far.  Could you propose a statement of proper acknowledgement?  It'd help to clarify how far apart the two camps are.  

Bryan and JES,

Unless there is substantial evidence of its inaccuracy, I want to take the information regarding MacDonald's involvement at face value, no more and no less.  

In other words, completely present the unrebutted information about MacDonald's involvement without trying to discredit, discount, dismiss, or diminish it at all.  And do not try to bolster, exaggerate, or embolden the information, either.

I would also explain that, beyond the articles, specific information about the design and construction cannot be found; therefore it is impossible to determine the specific details regarding anyone’s role in the design and construction of the course.

The specific details of MacDonald's contributions will remain a mystery until more information is located.  

Hope this helps.

[T_MacWood]

Tom,

That certainly sounds to me as though they came, they saw (probably a nearly completed course if a total of 7 of the holes were cited as equal any in the country), they gave their blessing (Macdonald was not called the "Evangelist" for nothing...heck, he was more like the Pope of golf at the time), and said the prospects for the course were very good indeed!

I'm reminded of Mackenzie's visit to Riviera, to be honest.   Not a single mention of, say, "came to oversee construction of their design", or "laid out as he envisioned it", or anything similar that would give anyone a clue that M&W were part of the design process.  

They were expert advisors, clearly, and there to help Wilson in whatever way they could, even if that just mean a public pronouncement on the merits of the new course, which I believe to be quite sincere.

Now, on a more serious note, is there any evidence that Smithers was modelled after Whigham?   I've gone through the archives and can't find a thing, but I find the link between the two men strangely compelling.    

Sorry Tom...just trying to add some humor on a thread in serious need of some.  

Mike
Maybe its me, but I don't think trying to portrait Whigham as a bookish weakling closeted gay cartoon character is all that funny, especially when he appears to make the strongest statement contradicting your view of who did what. Its obvious you don't know too much about Whigham; Wilson wasn't exactly the picture of health, but I wouldn't get on here and try to mock him.

Which goes back to what I've saying all along, it appears those most vehement in opposing the idea of M&W advising look at this as Wilson vs Macdonald, any credit for M&W is a strike against Wilson...the legend of Wilson must be protected. I don't see it that way. Next we'll have Pat Mucci in the street burning Macdonald & Whigham in effigy.

Mike & David S
MacKenzie & Riviera is a poor comaparison IMO. For one MacKenzie arrived during the final stages of construction.

Like Merion Riviera was a well-publicized project and no one ever reported MacKenzie was an advisor. Thomas was an experienced golf architect, Wilson was not. We know Wilson met with Macdonald before traveling overseas to study, no such event at Riviera. Wilson wrote about the problems of laying out a golf course and stressed the advice recieved by M&W, no such event at Riviera. We know who designed and built Riviera: Thomas & Bell. All we know about Merion is that it was designed by a committe, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W. And as far as I know Robert Hunter never listed Riviera as one of the courses Dr. M built.

You are off a little on your Merion chronology as well. That visit reported in May (which makes the visit most likely March or April) appears to be the final stages of planning the golf course. The course was not opened until September 1912.

American Golfer, December 1910
"Recently Mr. RE Grisom had as guests Mr. CB Macdonald and Mr. HJ Whigham, who been so prominent in the building of the NGL, at Shinnecock. Both gentleman pronounced the new land to be admirably suited to the requirements of the game today."

Does anyone know when approx. Wilson visited the NGLA? ...what months he was overseas?

[Mike_Cirba]

David & Tom,

Not only are you guys on quicksand in trying to support your positions, but now you're both becoming rather humorless, as well.    

If ever a thread needed a dose of levity, this travesty certainly qualifies.  

I'm sorry neither of you found Patrick and my retorts about his involvement and "advising" with Sebonack as wryly humorous, and it seems my silly, satirical caricature portrayal of Macdonald's "right hand man" Whigham has raised your hackles Tom.  Sheesh...

Let's get serious then.   Whigham was a former US Amateur champion, a well respected golfer and sometimes writer, and he likely wasn't the bespacled "yes man" toady that I portrayed in jest.   He married Macdonald's daughter at some point, and was generally a man around town in golfing circles in those days.   Is that better, Tom?  

And David...we all have acknowledged the historical record that Macdonald and Whigham provided some advisory role to the Merion Committee.   But, for the 2000th time, you've provided nothing NEW here for us to elevate our understanding or appreciation of exactly what that entailed.

Instead, the only things new here presented were the following;

1) A 1918 newspaper report about Wilson's design at Seaview which called him the architect of BOTH courses at Merion.

2) A 1914 Max Behr article which made VERY CLEAR that Wilson's style of leadership was almost dictatorial, and while he'd consider advice, HE WAS THE ONE WHO CALLED THE SHOTS.   He compares Wilson's work at Merion to what Macdonald did at NGLA and what Leeds did at Myopia in terms of course "construction", which is once again very clear in meaning soup to nuts design, features, construction, irrigation, and agronomy.   To deny Behr's words suggests to me that both of you have a FAR different agenda than getting to the truth.

3)  We have Tillinghast's 1934 article in which he makes very clear, once again, that Wilson was the unsung designer of Merion from the outset.   Tillinghast was very familiar with who did what in his hometown and wrote extensively about the early course at the time of it's inception.

Since it appears that neither of you will let this go, I will.  

I walk away content in the knowledge that not once during this whole debate did anyone else on this discussion group besides the two of you step forward to defend your position, or claim that either of you have increased their understanding of the origins of Merion, or agreed with you that Macdonald and Whigham have suffered some type of historical slight that now needs rectifying 95 years later.

Instead, I think a lot of folks here rose up to challenge your flimsy assertions, and rightly so.   I'm not sure how much of the purely speculative and weightless evidence you've brought forward here is to advance some personal quibbling between the two of you against Wayne and Tom Paul, but it's clear to me that this thread has been so much pointless speculation, personal acrimony, and wasted time.

I'm sorry if that's harsh, but I seriously doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way.  
 

[JESII]

David M and/or Tom M,

Care to put a definition on the term "advise" in this context?

Nobody has denied their advisory role yet that continues to be your claim. Maybe we are looking at "advise differently.

I would define "advise" as: offering guidance and assistance based on more extensive prior experience.

Websters defines "advise" as: to give information or notice to.

Synonyms: counsel, recommend, suggest

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
I'll answer your twenty questions this time but you've got do a little homework on your own after this. You are apparently very inquisitive but yet you don't read. What gives? The least you could do is read George Bahto's book.

I read George Bahto's book long before you did.[/color]

Macdonald & Whigham go back much futher than M&Raynor. Whigham was his right hand man in Chicago and he was his right hand man on LI. In the early years they were two of the best amateurs in the country. One important attribute Whigham had was a complete familarity with the great courses overseas, and the great golfers overseas as well...he hailed from a prominant Prestwick golf family.

What design contributions did he make at Chicago ?[/color]

I think you are selling Whigham short. When did Whigham marry and what effect did it have upon his collaboration with Macdonald IYO ?  

In 1909, three years AFTER CBM obtained the option on the land at NGLA.  CBM obtained title to the property early in 1907 and immediately began developing it, two years before Whigham became his son-in-law.  The golf course was played in 1909, probably before the wedding.

There was NO collaboration as you conclude.
Whigham became CBM's son-in-law.
It's not unusual for sons-in-law to begin working for their fathers-in-law after the marriage.  It's often an unenviable situation.[/color]

Lido was shut down forever three years after Whigham's article.

That was only because the Navy took over the facility at the outbreak of WWII.  You claimed that the golf course had become "a shadow of its former self" and there's no evidence of that save for the deterioration of the Biarritz hole.

Again, you chose to take a very small piece of the pie and expand it into a vast inaccurate generality.[/color]

Whigham was a respected golf figure and a respected journalist.

But, he WASN'T RESPECTED AS AN ARCHITECT.
Something you conveniently and continually overlook.[/color]

I know you like to dismiss out-of-hand anyone who conflicts with your understanding of events, but your comments regarding Whigham (like your earlier comments about Robert Lesley) reflect your complete ignorance.

My comments relating to Lesley's describing the 10th at Merion as an "Alps" hole are on the mark.  Only an idiot could claim that # 10 was an Alps hole, especially someone who was familiar with # 17 at Prestwick and # 3 at NGLA.

Even David Moriarty has abandoned the misguided theory that # 10 was an "ALPS" hole.[/color]

American Golfer May 1911:
"The new course of the Merion Cricket club is nearing completion in the planning.
During the month Mr. Chas B Macdonald and Mr. HJ Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the prospects. Mr. Macdonald said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country, and as out first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction."

Did you bother to READ the above.
CBM visited and was pleased ..... BIG DEAL
How is this in any manner, shape or form, confirmation that he was involved with the routing, design and construction of Merion ?

The American Golfer indicates that he advised the committee.
A rather vague, non-descript statement.
How, exactly did he advise the committee ?

You keep grasping at straws, desperately hoping that some vague reference, written in the "American Golfer" somehow validates your insistance that he was involved with the project at Merion in a substantive way, when absolutely NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY.[/COLOR]

[David Stamm]

 
  Like Merion Riviera was a well-publicized project and no one ever reported MacKenzie was an advisor.  

Tom, Geoff Shackelford reported exactly that in his Golden Age book. Mackenizie thought he was coming to possibly do a project and he was asked to come in an advisory role, which he did not know until he arrived.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike and Patrick,

I wasn’t aware that Michael Pascucci authored an article in a reputable golf magazine outlining the history and creation of Sebonack, and describing either of you as an advisor, influence, or whatever.  

Dave, give me a break, Sebonack's only been open for a year.

Whigham waited 25 years to give credit to CBM and SR.
I've got another 24 to go.[/color]

Nor was I aware that Mike Keiser similarly described either one of you regarding your role(s) at Pacific Dunes.  But it is no wonder I missed the articles, I wasn’t even aware there was a reputable golf magazine out there!

I NEVER claimed that I was involved at Bandon/Pacific Dunes.
[/color]

By the way, could you guys send me a copy of the article where Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus praised you for teaching them more about golf design in one night than they’d learned previously in their entire lives?  

I NEVER indicated that I taught either of them anything, only that I was "involved" at Sebonack.[/color]

The one that described your course as one which deserved lengthy and careful study?   You know . . .  the one where Doak and Nicklaus stated not only that your course deserved lengthy and careful study, but also that after studing the course all designers ought to incorporate the principles of your fine holes into their own designs.   High praise indeed!


Again, you mistakenly attribute my involvement to the work I did at Boca Rio, when the golf course at Boca Rio had nothing to do with any "involvement" on my part.[/color]

But too bad that these are the only records of your involvement which survived; all of the specific information regarding all of the details of the design and construction were recently lost in a big fire.

That's not true, the records of my involvement were not destroyed in a fire.[/color]

(I told them not to store their documents at Rustic Canyon.)    You don’t expect anyone to just accept the words of Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, Michael Pascucci, and Jack Nicklaus, do you?  

I would accept the words of those  gentlemen, although I don't know what Mike Keiser has to do with Sebonack.[/color]

Statements by those involved and in charge don't count for much 'round.  You gotta have proof.  

I have more proof than you do.
You don't have one iota of evidence with respect to the specifics of how CBM was allegedly involved at Merion.[/color]

Oh well, easy come easy go.  

Not so fast my friend.

You tell me, specifically, how CBM was involved at Merion and I'll tell you how I was involved at Sebonack.

I want to know if CBM was substantively involved in the routing, design and construction of Merion, as you and Tom MacWood allege.

Please, don't spare any details, I'm all ears .... and eyes.[/color]

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Speaking of lack of humor, did you really think my post asking you for copies of articles was serious?  Resort to parody and sarcasm all you all you want, but then don't act surprised when you get it back.  Or do you only like parody and sarcasm that has no apparent relevant point?  

Funny how we only see the humor in our remarks and not the remarks of others.  

But if you want to be serious, I can do that too . . .

Once again Mike you have to pretend like I am talking about design credit to make your now overly righteous and condescending point.   If you are going to lecture me from above about my sins, at least get my sins right.  

The articles you list are entirely beside the point of what I was saying, and I think you know that.  If not, show me where anything I have said contradicts them.  

As for your lecture, I don't mind standing alone as long as I am correct.  Since noone bothers with what I am actually saying, I have no reason to doubt that I am correct.  But as to your assertion that noone has come to defend us, I dont think that has ever been much of a determinate around here of the correctness or appropriateness of anyone's post.  In fact it reminds me of a recent situation where Tom MacWood stood alone on the Crump issue and almost everyone else stood by while TEPaul ruthlessly and endlessly and personally attacked him.  My point isnt to compare you guys to TEPaul-- you guys arent even close.  Rather just pointing out that sometimes the truth of a situation isnt determined by how many chime in or come to someone's defense.

You and a few others have started to try and make this about my undeniable acrimony toward Mssrs Morrison and Paul.  I think you have the cart pulling the horse.  I started this thread because I am interested in the topic and I found an article that was on-topic and new, at least to me.  I tried to keep it civil but was not treated the same.  In fact the posts were so rude that most of them have now been removed, either out of Mr. Morrison's embarrassment at his own behavior, or by the GCA police.

Despite their boorish behavior (which everyone else seem willing to turn a blind eye towards) I am still willing to keep it completely civil, so long as they do the same.  But unfortunately, Mr. Morrison has been periodically a liar and/or an idiot for correctly correcting his misperceptions about something as objective and downright silly as a straight line measure of a good drive on Merion No. 10.  

Perhaps instead of spending your time lecturing me you could take a look at the summaries of my position that you and others have requested?  It at least ought to explain our differences as I see them.   Point out where I am mistaken and if I am, I'll gladly concede.  

And take a look at my sidebar before you try to make this about design credit with me again.  

And just so you know I still have a sense of humor, does this help . . .
 

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

Like Mike you seemed to have missed my sarcasm and parody.  

See my sidebar regarding the Whigham issue.  That is not my battle, so don't try to make it mine.

I would accept the words of those  gentlemen, although I don't know what Mike Keiser has to do with Sebonack.

If you will accept the words of these gentlemen, then why not the words of Wilson or Lesley?  

As I have said repeatedly, I dont know the specific details of CBM's involvement at Merion.  But I do accept the words of the well-respected men who were there and who say he was involved.  

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Don't they say, that when two parties are in dispute, the party that is incorrect is the one doing most of the talking?  

[DMoriarty]

David M and/or Tom M,

Care to put a definition on the term "advise" in this context?

Nobody has denied their advisory role yet that continues to be your claim. Maybe we are looking at "advise differently.

I would define "advise" as: offering guidance and assistance based on more extensive prior experience.

JES actually many have denied or at least diminished and discredited his role as an advisor.  

Your definition suits me fine. I think that given the context of the Lesley article, they probably meant it about like you define it.  But I could be wrong.  

[DMoriarty]

Don't they say, that when two parties are in dispute, the party that is incorrect is the one doing most of the talking?  

That may usually be the case, Doug, after all these are my first posts in quite a while.

I think in this circumstance though the one who is incorrect is the one who refused to keep talking as soon as his position started to deteriorate.  Much of what I am arguing against could be clarified if he would admit and try to defend what he is arguing for.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Like Mike you seemed to have missed my sarcasm and parody.  

Dave, that's one of the problems with the internet

See my sidebar regarding the Whigham issue.  That is not my battle, so don't try to make it mine.

I would accept the words of those  gentlemen, although I don't know what Mike Keiser has to do with Sebonack.

If you will accept the words of these gentlemen, then why not the words of Wilson or Lesley?  

Because I can question them and engage them in dialogue.

As to Lesley, he was clearly mistaken on the "Alps" issue.

As to Wilson, his alleged remarks are so vague that they amount to nothing more than being polite.

Dont you find it more than coincidental that they all used the term "involved" or "advised" without getting into specific detail ?

Could it be that one was just parroting the other ?

As I have said repeatedly, I dont know the specific details of CBM's involvement at Merion.  But I do accept the words of the well-respected men who were there and who say he was involved.  

Involved to what degree ?
Why is there no specific reference to any imput they provided ?  Probably because those individuals were being generous and polite when they used the word "involved".
Or perhaps, they were thanking them for coming to visit and/or hosting them.

The absence, or rather, the huge void with respect to specific input by CBM on the routing, design and construction
would seem to indicate that he had none.  Surely, he would have mentioned what he did, and surely others would have mentioned what he did.   Yet, no such recognition appears anywhere.

I know that you want to be "right", but there comes a time when the preponderance of evidence, or lack of, leads prudent men to conclude that CBM didn't take an active role in the routing, design or construction of Merion.  

I think we reached that point some time ago.
 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm out of this thread, except to say that I do appreciate your corresponding attempt to introduce humor here as I think we both agree it's much needed at this point.  

I should have noted it in my remarks.

Now, if Tom MacWood would at least concede that Whigham probably bore at least some simiiarity to Smithers, I think we could wrap this whole thing up!  

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

Questioning them and engaging them in dialogue is fine, but unfortunately they are not available to answer you, in more ways than the obvious.  As TEPaul and Mr. Morrison admit, most of the information he and Mr. Morrison expected to find regarding the layout and construction cannot be found, and may be "lost forever," as TEPaul said.  And this is not just information about CBM involvement, but about the entire design and construction process.  

So then my question to you is: What, really, are you learning by asking some of these questions?

For example, the main question coming at me seems to be:  If CBM was much involved, then where is the evidence of his specific involvement?

But the basic assumption behind this question is illogical.  The question assumes that:  If CBM was much involved, there would be specific information documenting his involvement.

But TEPaul and Wayne Morrison admit that this is just not the case. The specific information about the design and construction is missing. Maybe lost forever.  (Wayne's recent post saying as much is also gone, lost forever, which makes me wonder if it is a good idea for them to handle original documentation.)  

It sounds bizzare and counterintuitive, but it is unreasonable to conclude that MacDonald was not specifically involved based on the absense of information desribing his specific involvement.  No such information is available one way or another.  

Even if MacDonald lhelped lay out the entire course, there would be no information regarding his specific involvement.  No such information is available, one way or another.  

To be clear, I am not saying MacDonald did this, but rather just offering an extreme for explanatory purposes.
_________________________________

Mike, I certainly wouldnt want to keep you here against your will, but I am somewhat disappointed that you have never addressed my summary you asked of me or the other summaries I have done since.  

Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of answering the single question I asked Patrick:

What, if anything, does the lack of specific details tell you about MacDonald's level of involvement?

If you dont want to answer, at least please think about it.