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.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #650 on: December 14, 2006, 02:55:49 PM »

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


David,

To me that means he (CBM) did not include it in his resume.

Why would he not include it (even while paying respect to Wilson) if he had anything of note to contribute?

Quote
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.

David,

What exactly is the topic you are interested in?

Quote
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.  

Can you show me where someone denied CBM providng counsel (per our agreed upon definition of "advise") to Wilson? To be sure, you will need to provide some evidence about his counsel if you are going to referrence TEP and WM discounting any post-UK trip information. I would think CBM could lay enough information on a guy like Wilson over 2 days to last well longer than one year.

Personally, I think you are trying to bolster his involvement because you cannot grasp a committee paying acknowledgement to a guy that existed (to them) solely as an outside advisor. I think the committee was quite happy to have CBM as a backup if a problem exceeded their grasp.

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #651 on: December 14, 2006, 04:10:39 PM »
Moriarty,

Why do you persist in this manner?  You do not provide any new information related to the subject but instead keep firing off invectives while stomping your feet and whining.  Now I will gladly go back to ignoring you, please do the same or else one can only conclude that you are trying to provoke something for personal and not intellectual reasons.  I think the viewers have enough information at hand to decide for themselves; please stop trying to force feed us your opinions.  Repeating yourself does not make what you say true.

Great to see you back, Mr. Morrison.  

This isnt personal, Mr. Morrison.  I have never even met you, that I know of.  We do have some mutual friends, and I've heard you are a great guy in person and that may well be.  I just haven't thought much your boorish behavior on this thread, but we all get overly emotional about things we care deeply about.  I am sure that, while you will not likely admit  it here, even you know that you were way out of line.  At least someone thought so, since most of those posts are gone.  

But lets not dwell on the past . . .

Perhaps you too can answer my question?  

Given that you and TEPaul acknowledge that you have found little or no surviving documentation regarding the design and construction of Merion East . . . What, if anything, does the lack of specific details tell you about MacDonald's level of involvement?

Quote
Now back to the bliss of ignoring you completely.

Oh, I guess I should have read the entire post before I started replying. :'( :'(

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #652 on: December 14, 2006, 05:11:04 PM »
David Moriarty,

Some deranged individual has broken into your computer and is posting to me under your name  ;D

Did you read what you wrote to me ?
[size=4x]
It's unreasonable to conclude that CBM wasn't involved based on the absence of information citing his involvement.
[/size]

Are you kidding ?
Have you lost your marbles ?
Has TEPaul warped your ability to reason ?

David, please, run up the white flag before you damage your scholarly and legal reputation in one fell swoop.

And, if this isn't David making these posts, please break into someone else's computer and post under a pseudoname, like Huge "Puffy" Wilson.

T_MacWood

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #653 on: December 14, 2006, 06:28:55 PM »
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 all for levity, but your attempt missed the mark for me. They'll all can't be gems.

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... ??? :o

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.

I agree. For the umpteenth time...no body knows who did what on the original design...its mystery.

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. It defintely should be considered with the all the other reports: Lesley, Evans, Travis, Tilly, Whigham, etc

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. Big reach here...the article was on green committees and skills required for effective green committees/green chairmen.

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. see #1

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 would agree to certain extent, that is why I've been saying all we know at this point is the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W designed the course. Until more information is uncovered to give us more specific details that is all we know.
I'm sorry if that's harsh, but I seriously doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way.  
 

T_MacWood

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #654 on: December 14, 2006, 06:33:23 PM »

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

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.

I do not believe that is what Geoff reported. MacKenzie was critical of the par-3 course at Riviera in the Spirit of StA. Geoff said some old timers at Riviera speculated the criticism was sour grapes because he was to involved.

wsmorrison

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #655 on: December 14, 2006, 06:39:18 PM »
"I would agree to certain extent, that is why I've been saying all we know at this point is the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W designed the course. Until more information is uncovered to give us more specific details that is all we know."

We know a lot more than that, Tom especially changes made for the 1916 Amateur and afterwards.  As for the original design, we know a bit of Fred Pickering's role in that effort.  I don't know why you fail to mention that.  Probably because it would subordinate some of the M&W advise you think they so needed after Wilson returned from the UK.  With what we know now, I'd say Pickering's role was many magnitudes more meaningful to the specific design as compared to the advice M&W supplied subsequent to Wilson's return from the UK.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2006, 06:39:53 PM by Wayne Morrison »

T_MacWood

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #656 on: December 14, 2006, 06:50:30 PM »

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]

Read it again.

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]

See Bahto's book.

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]

Once again you are wrong. Read Macdonald's NGLA prospectus. Read Bahto's book. Read the series of articles in GI that the two men collaborated on.

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]

Oh, I see. The deteriation of the course had no bearing on the Navy taking over. How many other great courses did the Navy take over.

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]

Is that right? For a guy who wasn't respected as an architect, Macdonald, Bahto and Cornish & Whitten had some very nice things to say about his design contriburions.

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]

Your comments on Lesely were ignorant. Your comments on Whigham were ignorant.
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]

What theory?

You can do what you wish the information I share. Consider it. Ignore it . Dismiss it if it doesn't match your understanding. I'm simply adding more info for those who have an interest in the subject. Were still waiting for you to add something of substance.  



T_MacWood

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #657 on: December 14, 2006, 06:57:46 PM »
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!  ;) ;D

I'm sorry I don't see it. Being a Scot, athletic and healthy -- Willie would seem to be the better model for Whigham. Wilson on the other hand was somewhat sickly, a manager on the hockey team, member of the Princeton glea club and frequently wore bow ties.

T_MacWood

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #658 on: December 14, 2006, 07:08:33 PM »
"I would agree to certain extent, that is why I've been saying all we know at this point is the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W designed the course. Until more information is uncovered to give us more specific details that is all we know."

We know a lot more than that, Tom especially changes made for the 1916 Amateur and afterwards.  As for the original design, we know a bit of Fred Pickering's role in that effort.  I don't know why you fail to mention that.  Probably because it would subordinate some of the M&W advise you think they so needed after Wilson returned from the UK.  With what we know now, I'd say Pickering's role was many magnitudes more meaningful to the specific design as compared to the advice M&W supplied subsequent to Wilson's return from the UK.

You are probably right about Pickering being the unsung person in the whole debate. Why has history given him the short end in your opinion.

I don't know if some of this info has been discovered yet but some of the information I'd like know:

* when exactly did Wilson visit the NGLA

* more information on Wilson's trip, what months he was abroad, where he went, who he met, did he travel along

* why was Pickering hired

* did he work from plans, if so who drew them up

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #659 on: December 14, 2006, 07:45:47 PM »
I have read very little (really none) of this thread but if Tom and Wayne's long awaited book doesn't come out next year I would point to this thread as the reason - 850+ posts and counting  ;D

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #660 on: December 14, 2006, 07:51:52 PM »

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]

Read it again.

I've read it a number of times
[/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]

See Bahto's book.

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]

Once again you are wrong. Read Macdonald's NGLA prospectus. Read Bahto's book. Read the series of articles in GI that the two men collaborated on.

I don't have to, I read the book that MacDonald authored, "Scotland's Gift" which would seem to be a credible
resource, don't you think.
[/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]

Oh, I see. The deteriation of the course had no bearing on the Navy taking over.

None what so ever.
[/color]

How many other great courses did the Navy take over.


I can assure you that the Department of the Navy didn't consult with GCA.com or anyone else to assess the quality of the architecture before taking over the site.

Many clubs had maintainance and financial problems during the war, which caused them to shut down, and it had nothing to do with the quality of the architecture.

Perhaps you might have heard of a golf course/club in Augusta, Georgia that suffered due to the war.
[/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]

Is that right? For a guy who wasn't respected as an architect, Macdonald, Bahto and Cornish & Whitten had some very nice things to say about his design contriburions.

You can't be that dumb.

He was MacDonald's son-in-law, what would you expect him to write ?.

As to Bahto, Cornish and Whitten, what do they know about Whigham's design contributions, they weren't born when he became associated with CBM.

It's almost impossible to find out what Dye's, Doak's and C&C's assistants contributed in the way of design work and those guys are all alive and well.  So tell me how it is that Bahto, Cornish and Whitten know exactly what Whigham did.

In the Chapter about NGLA in "Scotland's Gift", MacDonald barely mentions Whigham other than their riding the property on horseback, yet, he talks in glowing terms about Seth Raynor and his work at NGLA.

MacDonald speaks of Whigham, more as a sidekick, rather than as a design associate.  Raynor on the other hand was highly talented and invalueable to MacDonald.
[/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]

Your comments on Lesely were ignorant. Your comments on Whigham were ignorant.

No, they're right on the mark, even if they disagree with your phantom theories and false conclusions.
[/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]

What theory?

You're right, "what theory' ?, your theory has been dismantled by various contributors and is now in shambles, nearly defunct except for your desperate attempts to resuscitate it.
[/color]


You can do what you wish the information I share. Consider it. Ignore it . Dismiss it if it doesn't match your understanding. I'm simply adding more info for those who have an interest in the subject. Were still waiting for you to add something of substance.  


Consider my debunking of your fatally flawed conclusions as my contributions of substance, like proving you wrong on your claim that Seminole was FLAT.   One of the most preposterous conclusions I've ever heard.

It's your conclusions that are flawed, as is your tendency to provide only that research information which suits your purpose, rather than providing all of the information, like your initial claim that MacDonald and Raynor designed Merion, which is equally absurd.
[/color]

« Last Edit: December 14, 2006, 07:55:57 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #661 on: December 14, 2006, 08:01:25 PM »
TEPaul,

Tom MacWood seeks recognition by employing revisionist history.

If there are documents detailing CBM's and SR's involvement with Merion, they should be produced.  

Absent that production, the creation of rumors and/or baseless theories serves no purpose.

T_MacWood

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #662 on: December 14, 2006, 08:15:04 PM »

Consider my debunking of your fatally flawed conclusions as my contributions of substance, like proving you wrong on your claim that Seminole was FLAT.   One of the most preposterous conclusions I've ever heard.

It's your conclusions that are flawed, as is your tendency to provide only that research information which suits your purpose, rather than providing all of the information, like your initial claim that MacDonald and Raynor designed Merion, which is equally absurd.

It is very sad that a man of above average intelligence is so often frustrated by his lack of knowledge and his inability to find the answers on his own (questions upon questions upon questions).

Its obvious when the frustration level has reached its peak....sadly he resorts to fabrication. See the Ross quote above which he now attributes to me. And my stance that Merion was designed by the committee, headed by Wilson, adivsed by M&W has now been distorted into Macdonald & Raynor designing the course. Oh well, I think we are all used to it by now and take his comments with a large grain of salt.

Pat
You need to read more or get more roughage in your diet or maybe both.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2006, 08:17:55 PM by Tom MacWood »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #663 on: December 14, 2006, 08:33:21 PM »
Tom MacWood,

You INSISTED that Ross was right when it's alleged that he said that Seminole was FLAT.

You went on and on about Ross's alleged statement

You went on and on about how could I possibly question Ross
On and on about who knew the property better.

You tried to convince everyone that Seminole was FLAT.

Yet, as those who have actually seen the site know, Seminole is hilly, with steep, high inclines.

You insisted that if the statement attributed to Ross appeared in print, that it must be true.

You went on and on for pages, arrogantly insisting that Ross was correct, DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU'VE NEVER LAYED EYES ON SEMINOLE, and couldn't see the absurdity of that statement.  On and on, insisting that Ross knew more than me and the others who told you that Seminole was anything but FLAT.

So please, my memory is crystal clear on your false claims as well as your reliance on information that's either not verifiable through alternate sources, or questionable by prudent man standards.

Do you recall trying to bolster you position by submitting documentation on this thread whereby you produced a quote that stated that MacDonald and Raynor designed Merion ?

Or, am I fabricating that as well ?

What I don't understand about you is your propensity to throw 100 % of your support behind a theory that may have a probability quotient of less than 1 %.

A prudent individual would say, "I doubt the theory, but, there's a small chance that it might have some merit.
But, not you, you argue that it's 100 % correct, despite not having one scintilla of concrete evidence to support your claim.  Instead you seek to cite some vague, undocumented, third party references as The Gospel.

But, whenever anyone else uses the same citations, you dismiss them as inaccurate or inapplicable.

Surely, you have to see how intellectually dishonest that is.  

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #664 on: December 15, 2006, 08:51:00 AM »
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!  ;) ;D

I'm sorry I don't see it. Being a Scot, athletic and healthy -- Willie would seem to be the better model for Whigham. Wilson on the other hand was somewhat sickly, a manager on the hockey team, member of the Princeton glea club and frequently wore bow ties.

Tom,

That's hysterical!  ;D

See...I knew you had it in you!  ;)

Personally, I'm really interested to hear more about Pickled...er..ah...Pickering's role and I'm going to kidnap Wayne and Tom and lock them in a room until the book is complete.  

Wasn't Pickering eventually let go because of his tippling?   Now, finally, it's all starting to make more sense!  ;)  ;D

Could it be that at least some of the genius of Merion came from the "architecture by flask" school of design?  

Stay tuned...  ;D

TEPaul

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #665 on: December 15, 2006, 09:48:37 AM »
"Tom Paul may update his chapter on the maintenance meld."

I will indeed. The "Maintenance Meld" concept always needs updating and analyzing. The thing about it that's becoming more apparent as time goes on is just how "course specific" it really does need to be.  ;)

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #666 on: December 15, 2006, 09:55:37 AM »
Mike,

Here's a tidbit on Pickering.  When he was 52 he married Flynn's sister who was a mere 18!  Kudos to Tom MacWood for digging that fact up.


Great.   First Whigham goes and marries Macdonald's daughter, and now Pickering marries Flynn's little sister.     ::) ;)

Is it any wonder we don't really know who did what to whom when, where, why, and how back then?   I had always known that architecture was a real inbred fraternity but I had never realized the extent!   :o ;D

With all of these intimate disclosures this place is getting like the Gossip Page of the Village Voice.  ;)

« Last Edit: December 15, 2006, 09:57:08 AM by Mike Cirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #667 on: December 15, 2006, 10:56:34 AM »
Tom,

I think she was French, and if memory serves, wasn't her name Mrs. Duette Toomey?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2006, 10:58:09 AM by Mike Cirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #668 on: December 15, 2006, 11:02:26 AM »
To which he replied..."I am in like Flynn my dear..."

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #669 on: December 15, 2006, 11:04:16 AM »
Jim,

Touche'

That should definitely be the last word on a thread that came in with a whimper and out with a bang!  ;D

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #670 on: December 15, 2006, 02:56:25 PM »
TEPaul, Tom MacWood, Wayne Morrison, Mike Cirba, JES II, et al.,

I think there's value to challenging things that have been accepted or taken for granted over time.

I think we learn a great deal through the process of challenge.

In some cases what was accepted proves to be inaccurate.
In other cases, it's reconfirmed.
In other cases we're left in the dark

However, in searching for information, the reliability of the source becomes a critical factor.  
I don't know that you can ever be 100 % confortable with the written word.   We know that some of these fellows contradicted themselves.  We know that some authors never were on site, but accepted what they were told by third parties.  We know that an individuals opinions can change over time, be it 5, 10 or 25 years.

What appears certain is that we'll probably never acquire the facts detailing ALL of the issues.  But, we can't draw finite conclusions absent ANY of the facts.

If I asked everyone who DIDN"T attend my get together at Hidden Creek, who designed the 8th hole, and who was responsible for the spectacular centerline bunker that functions as a critical element in the look and play of the hole, most would argue, either, Coore, Crenshaw or both.

Yet, the truth is, it's neither.
It was one of their associates.

Those who were in attendance heard Bill Coore detail exactly how this feature and hole came into being, as well as hearing form Roger Hansen how the golf course came into being.

But, you won't find the attribution for that feature or hole anywhere.

I know of situations were members made design suggestions that were implemented, yet nowhere will you find them acknowledged for the design credit.

In other cases the developer and/or superintendent makes suggestions that are implemented, yet, you won't find them getting credit either.

Absent all of the substantive facts, one can speculate and theorize.  But, until the facts are known, speculation and theory have to remain just that.

Speculation and theorizing can be fun, spur debate and lead to other discoveries.  And they should be welcome as long as they're recognized for what they are.  Should a theory be borne out, then, recognition should go to the appropriate parties.

Let's use common sense and/or the prudent man rule as the basis of our discussions.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #671 on: December 15, 2006, 03:10:53 PM »
I agree Pat, very sensible.

Throughout this thread I thought the Sebonack example would equate to the Merion question because Nicklaus and Doak are very much individual entities (like Wilson and CBM) whereas C&C could be considered one.

Other than a couple of small tidbits, how is someone to know exactly who gets credit for what? And that course just opened. That's kind of the point though isn't it. Why should each little detail matter so much if the end result is widely praised?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #672 on: December 15, 2006, 03:56:00 PM »
JES II,

You make a good point citing Sebonack.

Here we have a contemporary course with both architects and their teams alive and well, and as of today, very little is known about the details.  

And, we reside in THE communication age.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #673 on: December 15, 2006, 04:07:19 PM »
Can you imagine the reaction one or the other of Doak and Nicklaus (and their teams obviously) if one side was claiming full credit? What the hell would Tom do if Nicklaus were accepting praise for his individual efforts? He would justifiably sh*t a firestorm.

What would CBM have done if he felt he deserved credit as a contributor and was relegated to "advisor" to a rookie? Hell, he was a rookie. Maybe he showed a real flair for the practice as AWT (I believe) is quoted.

Do we have an example from early in TD's career? I am not nearly as familiar with his early going as many of those on here. Didn't he start out with Pete Dye? What specific credit does Pete Dye receive for his influence on Tom Doak's first course?

p.s. If it was not Dye please tell me and I will make the correction.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2006, 04:07:54 PM by JES II »

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #674 on: December 15, 2006, 09:08:34 PM »
I apologize for in advance for any questions I havent answered or insults I have missed.   I thought I would stick with the current flow for al least a moment, and return to the rest later.

JES and Patrick,

I agree with your Sebonack example.   My understanding is that designing a course is often a collaborative process, even if it is between an owner and a designer, or a designer and his associates, or as appears to be the case with Sebonack, an owner and two design teams.  We are rarely if ever going to know the ‘hows’ and ‘whys’ of it, unless we were there, or someone reliable tells us, or unless there is extraordinary written record.

Mostly what we have to go on is what the parties involved tell us, and that can often be well short of the entire story.   With contemporary courses, we can dig and maybe find out that an associate did more, or that X  really deserves responsibility for much of what is good or bad, but with long past courses we sometimes have little or no chance to build it back into something.

Patrick this is why I suggested to you a hypothetical circumstance where Mr. Pascucci (or a Mr. Keiser) singles someone out for a particular credit on a course, but there is no way to confirm or deny it, and really no reason to distrust him.   Even if for whatever reasons (say I  Sebonack example I am a certifiable Doak “Butt Boy” and I don’t want any credit to go to Nicklaus or his people,)  I might wish that Pascucci handn’t said it, or that he was just paying lip service, I would have no basis for not taking him at his word.  

In our current example we have Lesley singling the committee and MacDonald (and Whigham) out when summarizing how the course was laid out.  Yet many on this board want to discredit, diminish, discount, and/or entirely ignore Lesley’s statement by second-guessing him. They resist taking Lesley’s words at face-value unless and until information surfaces describing MacDonald’s specific involvement.  That information might not be readily available for a modern project, much less one which took place 95 years ago.  

But the real kicker is that these guys know and admit that the relevant body of information no longer exists.   They say they are demanding specifics to get at the truth, but they know damn well that determining the specifics about the original laying out of Merion East is currently impossible, and the details of the original laying out of the course may be lost forever, if they ever existed.  

So Patrick, when I say that  . . .
[size=4x]
It's unreasonable to conclude that CBM wasn't involved based on the absence of information citing his involvement.
[/size] . . .

. . . I meant it, or at least meant it in the context of when I said it.  If you want to drop the context then I’d modify it slightly, as you will see below.

The problem with their argument is that it is entirely based on an invalid inference.  They infer a specific conclusion based on a premise which is generally true, but not specifically true.  There is a name for this type of logical fallacy, but I can’t remember it and don’t feel like looking it up.  

Their syllogism concluding that MacDonald was not specifically involved in the original laying out of Merion East goes something like this:

1.   Premise 1:  Available historical records generally indicate the specific involvement of all those who are significantly involved in laying out a golf course.  

2.   Premise 2: The historical record does not evidence any involvement by CBM in laying out the early Merion East.

3.   Conclusion: Therefore CBM was not significantly involved in laying out of the early Merion East.  

The problem is, while the First Premise is generally true, it is not always true, so the proof fails.  

Moreover, there proof cannot be fixed by making the first premise more specific.  As THEY KNOW, their First Premise is FALSE in this particular situation.  

So, whatever the truth of the generalization . . .[size=4x]
It's unreasonable to conclude that CBM wasn't specifically involved based on the absence of information citing his specific involvement.
[/size][/color]

They know that the early records just do not specifically identify who did what during the laying out the early Merion East.  So we are left with the following:

1.  The historical record does not identify CBM's specific involvement in the laying out of Merion East.

2. BUT THE AVAILABLE HISTORICAL RECORD IS INCOMPLETE IN THAT IT DOES NOT EVIDENCE THE SPECIFIC INVOLVEMENT OF ANYONE ELSE, EITHER.

3.  Therefore, ONE CANNOT DETERMINE CBM'S LEVEL OF SPECIFIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE INITIAL DESIGN BY LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL RECORD  We just do not know and probably never will.  

This is why I have been saying that the demand for specific evidence was a wild goose chase from the beginning.   They knew there was nothing out there one way or another, and they ought to have known that that there approach employs faulty logic and proves nothing what so ever.  

In the end we are left with the published statements of men like Lesley, and no logical or factually supportable reasons to discount them.  At least based on the record I have seen.  
« Last Edit: December 15, 2006, 09:10:03 PM by DMoriarty »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back