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

[JESII]

That is the biggest load of crap you have tried to sell on here yet...

[DMoriarty]

That is the biggest load of crap you have tried to sell on here yet...

Really?  Interesting.  Care to elaborate?  

Where exactly do I start loading crap?   What is the crap?  Where is it loaded?  With what?    Or am I to take your word for it.  
 ________

If anyone out there would like to address my analysis, I am all ears.

[DMoriarty]

JES,

Despite that your post above indicates that you may done with the rational conversation phase of all of this, I do want to thank you for answering my question a few posts above.  

I do appreciate it.  I wonder why the rest will not answer?  Not Mr. Morrison, not Patrick, not even Mike Cirba, who pops in occassional with a joke or two.  Not even Bryan Izzat, who asked for me to lay out my position a while ago.  In fairness, I didnt ask Bryan or Mike, but still I am curious as to their answers

Anyway, I had hoped I addressed most of your concerns in your post above , but here is a more direct answer if you are still interested.    

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?

Interesting speculation, and very similar to one Patrick came up with a few pages back.   However, I don’t think the facts support it.  But I am no expert on CBM, so maybe I am wrong.  

Did CBM keep copius records of every project on which he advised?   I believe that others have identified courses at which he advised, but I don’t recall ever reading a mention of them by CBM.  But if he really did keep copious records of everything he did,and if there was no mention of advising at Merion in these records, I’d agree with you that this would be pretty compelling evidence that he was not involved at Merion.  But without this, I do not think your conclusion holds up.  

Interestingly, the logic underlying your conclusion is very similar to that of TEPaul and Mr. Morrison, although yours in not irreparable.    Your argument also uses general proposition to disprove a specific instance.  In your case the general proposition is that one’s resume, diaries, work journal or similar documents will generally indicate one’s level of involvement in all of the projects in which one was specifically involved. While this may generally be true, it is not always true.  Therefore it cannot be used to disprove CBM’s involvement.  

But as I said, unlike theirs, your analysis may be salvageable. For example if you recast it as:

1.   MacDonald kept copious records of every project in which he was involved, and those records are still available.  

3.   MacDonald’s records contain no reference to his alleged involvement at Merion.
   
5.   Therefore, MacDonald was not involved in Merion.

If you can prove your premeses, then your conclusion  logically follows.  

What exactly is the topic you are interested in?

The story of golf course design in America, including the rejection of Dark Age design and adoption of a design style which returned to the strategies and aesthetics of the links.  Merion and NGLA are very important in this regard, but I think for slightly different reasons.  I am also interested in the procedural and logical pitfalls one faces when conducting historical research and analysis.  It is easy to get tripped up when dealing with information that is by its very nature quite speculative, and it is easy to be duped.  These guys are trying to rewrite history of something important to me using wholly fallacious reasoning, and so I feel compelled to call them on it.

Can you show me where someone denied CBM providng counsel (per our agreed upon definition of "advise") to Wilson?

I'm not at all hell bent in trying to wipe Macdonald from the Merion archives.  What gives you that idea.  I admit over and over that he was a key figure in the early stages of Wilson's preparation for his trip to the UK and his understanding of golf course building and design principals.  We just don't have any information beyond that.  I await facts and not extrapolations of vague phrases that we cannot know the true implications of.   You go on your flights of fancy, I'll stay here and conduct further research based on long-proven principals of scientific method.

my bolds.

I’d say that denying any information exists is Mr. Morrison’s way of denying that CBM provided counsel.  And whatever TEPaul surely isn’t willing to give any credit for for CBM’s role as advisor:

. . . [/b]I just think it's patently perposterous to assign much credit to a couple of guys from New York who may've showed up down here for a few hours a couple of times compared to men who slaved away on that course for 10-15 and 20 years to make it what it is.[/b]

If you could see those 2,000 letters between Wilson and Piper and Oakley a couple of times a week and for thirteen straight years and then a couple of guys who hardly know Merion make a big deal out of a couple of mentions of a guy "advising". I think that's what is preposterous.

Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia and worked on that course every day for a couple decades until they finally got it the way they wanted it and then they stopped.

(my bolds.)

JES said:

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.

Strong evidence does exist that he advised in laying out the course. I am not sure why that is not enough, especially since it is about the only evidence still surviving.  

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.

You and others keep saying I am bolstering, and it has been said so much that even I am starting to think it may be true, but the only “evidence” offered to back up the bolstering claim is unsupported speculation.  

Let me put it this way, if you asked me to give you and example of bolstering your argument beyond the existing factual record, I’d say just above where you claim that the committee acknowledged CBM  despite that he was just an outside advisor and a backup.  You have no facts to support this, so IMO this is bolstering.    

So I ask again.  Where am I bolstering?  What am I claiming that does not have a factual basis?

Thanks again for answering my question.  I hope this explanation clears some things up for you about where I am coming from.  
______________________________

Mr. Morrison,

I am sorry for not remembering you from the outing.  I mean no offense; I just have an embarrassingly bad memory for such things.  Nonetheless, I apologize.

I am glad we agree that you guys have found very little specific information about the relevant time period.   Or as you would say: ”It is true that not a lot is known about who did what in the initial design at Merion . . . .“  What do you think . . . will this agreement be the beginning of a beautiful friendship?

We have been focusing on the initial design and construction of Merion East.  I am not aware of any evidence that CBM was involved after that.  Are you?  If not, then the tremendous amount of evidence you have found about 1916 is I am sure interesting, but entirely beside the point at issue here.  

Here is what I don’t get about your post:  
Since you again broke your silence to respond, then why not answer my question?  The question seems pretty straightforward to me.  And pertinent.  So why not answer?  You’ve mentioned your “scientific” approach and your sound methodology on a number of occasions, so why not explain it to us all?
. . .

You deleted some of your extremely offensive and obnoxious posts to me because you did not want to engage me?  Interesting.  Surely you realize that you had already engaged me before you deleted them, and that your deleting them would not cause me to disengage. Never mind. Whatever your explanations, your offensive and defamatory posts are long gone now, just like information regarding the details of the original design at Merion East.   So tell me, now that you have destroyed your half of the relevant record of our conversation, do you think it reasonable to conclude that you never made the comments? After all, posts generally don’t just disappear, do they?  

If you or anyone else cares to think about why this business about the disappearing posts is fallacious logic, you will have your explanation of why TEPaul's and Mr. Morrison's logic is equally fallacious.  
_________________________________

TEPaul, you can think what you want about the Crump episode, but many of us witnessed the entire embarrassing episode.  Yet, like with the main issue in this thread, you again try to rewrite history.  And like with the main issue, the facts do not support your conclusions.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

I think you miss several points.

First, Lesley was incorrect in classifying the 10th hole at Merion as an Alps hole.  Plain and simple.  The facts relating to what constitutes an "Alps" hole are in conflict with his categorization.  

Just because someone is quoted doesn't mean that the quote is accurate or even factual.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat the erroneous "Seminole is Flat" quote before that concept begins to sink in, but, it's obvious that you shouldn't believe everything you read, and you shouldn't read in something when little exists in the way of substantiated facts.

We've also learned that the words of some of these fellows are to be discounted and not accepted as The Gospel, including CBM's.  Some of them should be rejected outright.

On one hand CBM describes the essential elements needed for a hole to be a Redan and on the other hand he claims a hole lacking those essential elements is a Redan.  Good olde CBM can't have it both ways, and neither can you.

With respect to your the last of your three points, # 3 isn't a derivitive of # 2 by ANY stretch of the imagination.  That's a leap beyond a leap of faith.  Stating that just because you can't identify what Wilson did, automatically means that MacDonald could have done something is convoluted logic at it's best.  But, then again, you're an attorney.

Your statement reminds me of the old Peter Sellers movie, "I"m allright Jack", where the Union Steward declares to the Employer's representative, when arguing over the firing of a Union employee,
"Since when is incompetence grounds for dismissal ?"

One could argue that Donald Ross and others should fall under your umbrella of architects who were involved at Merion,  since there's no record stating what anybody might have done.

Absent detailed information as to the particulars, and clarification on the exact meaning of the word "involved"  I don't think you can say that others were "involved"

You may want to pursue this, but, from a prudent man perspective, you and Tom MacWood's insistance on CBM's substantive involvement at Merion is nothing more than wishful thinking.  And, if his involvement wasn't substantive, it wouldn't be worth mentioning.

[DMoriarty]

First, Lesley was incorrect in classifying the 10th hole at Merion as an Alps hole.  Plain and simple.  The facts relating to what constitutes an "Alps" hole are in conflict with his categorization.

First, he didn't say it was an alps hole.  He said it resembled the Alps at Prestwick in principle.  That was his opinion and one shared by others in a better position than us to know.  That doesnt mean Lesley thought it was it was a copy; it probably means that these guys were apparently more flexible than we are in their use of these terms.  But we've covered this before.

Second, and more importantly,  I am not referring to the Lesley description of the 10th hole, or even his description of the third as a "Redan."  I am referring to the fact that during his history of the initial creation of both the West and the East, the only names he even mentions are the committee members, CBM, and Whigman.  He notes that the committee laid out the course with CBM and Whigham advising them.  Surely he was in a position to know if this was true.  Surely we are in no position to second guess him.  

Just because someone is quoted doesn't mean that the quote is accurate or even factual.

I agree.  But unlike some here I like to have a factual basis for rejecting a first-hand account of a respected man who was in an excellent position to know what happened.  

I don't know how many times I have to repeat the erroneous "Seminole is Flat" quote before that concept begins to sink in, but, it's obvious that you shouldn't believe everything you read, and you shouldn't read in something when little exists in the way of substantiated facts.

Patrick, I dont know how many times you will repeat it either but I hopefully not many more.  Seriously,  the only reason that the "Seminole is flat" example has rhetorical value is that you think that the place is obviously not flat, and anyone who sees it would agree.  So you think you have facts which rebut the alleged quote.   (I have no idea one way or another.)

Our circumstance is different.  There are no facts which rebut the Lesley's statement that CBM was an advisor.  

Since we were talking about logical fallacies, yours here is sort of the contrast of the one discussed above:  You use a specific instance (the Ross quote is wrong) to prove a generalization (We should not believe what we read.)

We've also learned that the words of some of these fellows are to be discounted and not accepted as The Gospel, including CBM's.  Some of them should be rejected outright.

On one hand CBM describes the essential elements needed for a hole to be a Redan and on the other hand he claims a hole lacking those essential elements is a Redan.  Good olde CBM can't have it both ways, and neither can you.

Didnt we cover this?  Didnt you ultimately agree that these guys may have had a much lower standard when referring to a hole?  

Regardless, you are doing it again.  Trying to throw out all written statements because a few are unreliable.  What is your proof that the Lesley quote about CMB being an advisor on the layout is unreliable?  You noting that some statements are unreliable certianly doesnt mean that this one is unreliable.

With respect to your the last of your three points, # 3 isn't a derivitive of # 2 by ANY stretch of the imagination.  

IT IS DERIVATIVE.  The historical record doesnt tell us anything about who was specifically involved, so it a completely worthless barometer of whether CBM was specifically involved, or not.  

A simple hypothetical:  You want to know whether your team plays tomorrow, so you pick up a newspaper knowing that newspapers list the sports schedules.  Unfortunately the sports section is missing.  Would you argue that your team does not play tomorrow because they werent listed in the newspaper? Of course not!  

Like the newspaper above, the historical record is missing the section which addresses who was involved.  Yet you still argue that the historical record is determinate of who was involved in this specific circumstance.  I don't get it?

That's a leap beyond a leap of faith.  Stating that just because you can't identify what Wilson did, automatically means that MacDonald could have done something is convoluted logic at it's best.  But, then again, you're an attorney.

The logic you describe may be convoluted, but it is not my logic.  

I never said that an incomplete record regarding Wilson's specific role in the initial design "automatically means that MacDonald could have done something."  

What I said is that there is no historical record of what anyone specifically did when laying out the early Merion East.   So it provides no grounds for knowing what CMB did or did not specifically do, what Wilson did or did not specifically do, or what anyone else did or did not specifically do.  Not enough specific information is available to make these determinations.  

One could argue that Donald Ross and others should fall under your umbrella of architects who were involved at Merion,  since there's no record stating what anybody might have done.

But we do not have other information indicating Ross was involved, do we?   Did Leslie write a historical description of how the courses came about and state that Ross was involved?   If he did then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we ought to take his word for it.  

Absent detailed information as to the particulars, and clarification on the exact meaning of the word "involved"  I don't think you can say that others were "involved"

I didnt say it.  Leslie, the chair of the green committee said it.  Rather he said that CBM advised on laying out the course.   Surely you have no grounds for second guessing him.  

And, if his involvement wasn't substantive, it wouldn't be worth mentioning.

But is was mentioned, by Lesley for one.  Have you read the Lesley article?  

[DMoriarty]

Moriarty:

Wayne Morrison doubtless deleted his posts from this thread not because of a thing to do with engaging you or not engaging you.

. . . I deleted my own posts because I fail to see anything worthwhile in engaging him in conversation . . .

[T_MacWood]

I think JES and Pat will be surprised to learn when they read the Flynn book how little is known about who is respnsible for the design of the East (and the West for that matter). For some reason they believe its a fact Wilson originally designed both courses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wayne (I'm not sure about TE) has never claimed Wilson orginally designed those courses. I mistakenly thought there was proof Wilson designed the West, but I was corrected. To determine precisely who did what will require more information. I recently discovered an article in The Golfer (1916) that mentions Wilson, all the committee members, Macdonald & Whigham, and a gentleman named Flinn. I'm confident there is more infromation to be had.

[JESII]

Tim,

Prior to this thread I thought Merion was a Wilson design with significant Flynn influence. As this thread had evolved I am now confident that Merion East was designed by a committee that was very clearly headed by Hugh Wilson. I believe CBM and company were available as advisors if needed. I believe CBM was contacted by the committee prior to sending Wilson overseas for his study period because he was the leader of American golf and golf architecture at the time. I believe he was very forward in his recommendations to Wilson about which courses to visit, which holes to study, and most importantly, why those holes and/or strategies should be implemented on a golf course.

This all pertains to my understanding of the very original layout of the East course. It seems William Flynn became quote influential to the coming evolution of Merion East.

The only thing I have ever heard about Merion West is that it was designed by Hugh Wilson. I have no reason to doubt that, but I am also not married to that position.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

David,
Speaking in defense of Wayne and the complete disgust of this entire thread, Wayne explained to me over a week ago that he removed his posts because he does not wish it on this website considering his relationship with the club. To call the removal of anything other then that is preposterous and absurd, if that indeed is what your implying.

[T_MacWood]

Tim,

Prior to this thread I thought Merion was a Wilson design with significant Flynn influence. As this thread had evolved I am now confident that Merion East was designed by a committee that was very clearly headed by Hugh Wilson. I believe CBM and company were available as advisors if needed. I believe CBM was contacted by the committee prior to sending Wilson overseas for his study period because he was the leader of American golf and golf architecture at the time. I believe he was very forward in his recommendations to Wilson about which courses to visit, which holes to study, and most importantly, why those holes and/or strategies should be implemented on a golf course.

This all pertains to my understanding of the very original layout of the East course. It seems William Flynn became quote influential to the coming evolution of Merion East.

The only thing I have ever heard about Merion West is that it was designed by Hugh Wilson. I have no reason to doubt that, but I am also not married to that position.

Sully
IMO the main reason for threads like this is to correct false impressions....and also to show how little is known in some cases, what infromation we need to find. For example I thought Wilson had designed the West, Wayne corrected me, and I went back and checked out the information I had on the West and sure enough there is no evidence (that I have) he designed the course. There are the same refrences to the design committee designing the West course (without mention of M&W).

Its interesting to see how some of these legends get started and what is actually documented and what is actually conjecture. Often there is a romantic aspect that surrounds them, which is very appealing and unconsciously (or consiously) there is a desire to preserve them for that reason IMO. For example Wilson's trip abroad to study and draw the famous holes given as proof he designed the course. Devereux Emmet made a similar trip (actually trips) to study and draw famous holes for Macdonald & the NGLA project.

[JESII]

Sully
IMO the main reason for threads like this is to correct false impressions....

And which false impression(s) have been corrected on this one?

[T_MacWood]

Prior to this thread I thought Merion was a Wilson design with significant Flynn influence.

The only thing I have ever heard about Merion West is that it was designed by Hugh Wilson. I have no reason to doubt that, but I am also not married to that position.

[JESII]

I assume you can now prove either of those impressions to be false...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lesley was incorrect in classifying the 10th hole at Merion as an Alps hole.  Plain and simple.  The facts relating to what constitutes an "Alps" hole are in conflict with his categorization.

First, he didn't say it was an alps hole.  He said it resembled the Alps at Prestwick in principle.  That was his opinion and one shared by others in a better position than us to know.  That doesnt mean Lesley thought it was it was a copy; it probably means that these guys were apparently more flexible than we are in their use of these terms.  But we've covered this before.

David, have you ever seen or played the 17th at Prestwick ?

There is nothing about the topography of the 10th at Merion that resembles the 17th at Prestwick.

The aerial of the 10th at Merion in 1924, which clearly depicts the green and fronting bunker complex, should be ample evidence that any reference to the 10th at Merion resemblng the 17th at Prestwick is perposterous, even in principle.

The scale and the relationship of the features and the topography is so dramatically different that you could no more call # 10 and "Alps"  hole in principle than you could the 17th at NGLA.

Lesley was clearly wrong by any reasonable standard.[/color]

Second, and more importantly,  I am not referring to the Lesley description of the 10th hole, or even his description of the third as a "Redan."  I am referring to the fact that during his history of the initial creation of both the West and the East, the only names he even mentions are the committee members, CBM, and Whigman.  He notes that the committee laid out the course with CBM and Whigham advising them.  Surely he was in a position to know if this was true.  Surely we are in no position to second guess him.

The comment may have been gratuitous, or, to add prestige to Merion.  Absent details of his alleged advisory capacity, I don't think you can state that he was actively involved.
Especially when CBM himself NEVER references his involvement at Merion for 25 years from its inception until his death.[/color]

Just because someone is quoted doesn't mean that the quote is accurate or even factual.

I agree.  But unlike some here I like to have a factual basis for rejecting a first-hand account of a respected man who was in an excellent position to know what happened.  

I agree, but, you also have a factual basis for accepting the account[/color]

Our circumstance is different.  There are no facts which rebut the Lesley's statement that CBM was an advisor.

And, there are NO facts which support it.[/color]  

Since we were talking about logical fallacies, yours here is sort of the contrast of the one discussed above:  You use a specific instance (the Ross quote is wrong) to prove a generalization (We should not believe what we read.)

We've also learned that the words of some of these fellows are to be discounted and not accepted as The Gospel, including CBM's.  Some of them should be rejected outright.

On one hand CBM describes the essential elements needed for a hole to be a Redan and on the other hand he claims a hole lacking those essential elements is a Redan.  Good olde CBM can't have it both ways, and neither can you.

Didnt we cover this?  Didnt you ultimately agree that these guys may have had a much lower standard when referring to a hole?  

No, CBM told us what the essential ingredient was in a redan, and yet, absent that essential ingredient, he allegedly labels a hole as a redan[/color]

Regardless, you are doing it again.  Trying to throw out all written statements because a few are unreliable.  What is your proof that the Lesley quote about CMB being an advisor on the layout is unreliable?  You noting that some statements are unreliable certianly doesnt mean that this one is unreliable.

The unreliability is based on the absence of ANY specific information, over a period of 25 years or more, and, CBM himself NEVER mentions that he was involved in the routing, design and construction of Merion.

There's not one scintilla of concrete data evidencing his involvement.[/color]

With respect to your the last of your three points, # 3 isn't a derivitive of # 2 by ANY stretch of the imagination.  

IT IS DERIVATIVE.  The historical record doesnt tell us anything about who was specifically involved, so it a completely worthless barometer of whether CBM was specifically involved, or not.  

But, you can't say, as you've been doing, that he was involved because there's no specific evidence of anyone's involvement.  Your logic is flawed.[/color]

A simple hypothetical:  You want to know whether your team plays tomorrow, so you pick up a newspaper knowing that newspapers list the sports schedules.  Unfortunately the sports section is missing.  Would you argue that your team does not play tomorrow because they werent listed in the newspaper? Of course not!  

But, it doesn't mean that they are playing either, which is what you keep insisting.[/color]

Like the newspaper above, the historical record is missing the section which addresses who was involved.  Yet you still argue that the historical record is determinate of who was involved in this specific circumstance.  I don't get it?

It's simple.  You can't proclaim that CBM was substantively involved at Merion if the historical record is missing.
Just because details aren't available DOESN"T mean that CBM was invovled, which was your argument.[/color]

That's a leap beyond a leap of faith.  Stating that just because you can't identify what Wilson did, automatically means that MacDonald could have done something is convoluted logic at it's best.  But, then again, you're an attorney.

The logic you describe may be convoluted, but it is not my logic.  

I never said that an incomplete record regarding Wilson's specific role in the initial design "automatically means that MacDonald could have done something."  

What I said is that there is no historical record of what anyone specifically did when laying out the early Merion East.   So it provides no grounds for knowing what CMB did or did not specifically do,[/color] what Wilson did or did not specifically do, or what anyone else did or did not specifically do.  Not enough specific information is available to make these determinations.[/color]  [size=4x]

Then, by your own logic, you can't go pleading for CBM to get his rightful credit for the work you allege he did at Merion, since you don't know what he did.[/color][/size]

One could argue that Donald Ross and others should fall under your umbrella of architects who were involved at Merion,  since there's no record stating what anybody might have done.

But we do not have other information indicating Ross was involved, do we?  

But, according to you, that doesn't mean that he wasn't involved.[/color]

Did Leslie write a historical description of how the courses came about and state that Ross was involved?   If he did then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we ought to take his word for it.

Just because he didn't write of others work at Merion doesn't mean that they weren't "involved".  His mention of CBM does not exclude all other individuals[/color]  

Absent detailed information as to the particulars, and clarification on the exact meaning of the word "involved"  I don't think you can say that others were "involved"

I didnt say it.  Leslie, the chair of the green committee said it.  Rather he said that CBM advised on laying out the course.   Surely you have no grounds for second guessing him.  

Until I know the nature and extent of the advice and what is meant by "laying out the course", I'll have to reserve judgement.[/color]

And, if his involvement wasn't substantive, it wouldn't be worth mentioning.

But is was mentioned, by Lesley for one.  Have you read the Lesley article?  

Lesley also mentions that the 10th was an Alps or an Alps in principle, so, I'm not to sure that I accept his every word.

Might it also be that mentioning CBM's involvement, even if it was miniscule, non-specific or non-existant, would give Merion instant credibility in the golf world ?

Might it be that mentioning CBM's involvement was more fluff and P.R than substance ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think JES and Pat will be surprised to learn when they read the Flynn book how little is known about who is respnsible for the design of the East (and the West for that matter).

That may be true.

However, just because little is known, doesn't mean that you can conclude that CBM was substantively involved, asbsent detailed, factual information.[/color]

For some reason they believe its a fact Wilson originally designed both courses.

That's an example of another one of your erroneous conclusions.  You have to learn to differentiate between what is true and what you want to be true.[/color]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wayne (I'm not sure about TE) has never claimed Wilson orginally designed those courses. I mistakenly thought there was proof Wilson designed the West, but I was corrected. To determine precisely who did what will require more information.

I recently discovered an article in The Golfer (1916) that mentions Wilson, all the committee members, Macdonald & Whigham, and a gentleman named Flinn. I'm confident there is more infromation to be had.

I've sat on Boards and Green committees for over 40 years and have observed the following, which may come as a shock to you:

Some members of a committee NEVER show up for one meeting, yet, they like having their name listed on the committee roster, and they like being given credit for the projects.  The same is true of Boards.

Just because someone sits on a committee doesn't mean they lift a finger, or help in any way.

In addition, many charities and organizations place high profile individuals on their Boards and Committees to gain recognition, prestige and stability, even though those individuals are NOT active at the committee and/or board level.

Absent factual data as to anyone's involvement, you can't claim they took a substantive role in the routing, design or construction of the golf course[/color]
 

[T_MacWood]

I assume you can now prove either of those impressions to be false...

Its not for me to prove them false, it is for you prove them true, which you can not do. Todate no one has been able to prove what anyone did regarding the original design of the East or West...in contrast to conventional wisdom. This is the lesson of this thread IMO...at least one of them.

[T_MacWood]

I think JES and Pat will be surprised to learn when they read the Flynn book how little is known about who is respnsible for the design of the East (and the West for that matter).

That may be true.

However, just because little is known, doesn't mean that you can conclude that CBM was substantively involved, asbsent detailed, factual information.[/color]

For some reason they believe its a fact Wilson originally designed both courses.

That's an example of another one of your erroneous conclusions.  You have to learn to differentiate between what is true and what you want to be true.[/color]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wayne (I'm not sure about TE) has never claimed Wilson orginally designed those courses. I mistakenly thought there was proof Wilson designed the West, but I was corrected. To determine precisely who did what will require more information.

I recently discovered an article in The Golfer (1916) that mentions Wilson, all the committee members, Macdonald & Whigham, and a gentleman named Flinn. I'm confident there is more infromation to be had.

I've sat on Boards and Green committees for over 40 years and have observed the following, which may come as a shock to you:

Some members of a committee NEVER show up for one meeting, yet, they like having their name listed on the committee roster, and they like being given credit for the projects.  The same is true of Boards.

Just because someone sits on a committee doesn't mean they lift a finger, or help in any way.

In addition, many charities and organizations place high profile individuals on their Boards and Committees to gain recognition, prestige and stability, even though those individuals are NOT active at the committee and/or board level.

Absent factual data as to anyone's involvement, you can't claim they took a substantive role in the routing, design or construction of the golf course[/color]
 

Did I conclude CBM was substantively involved? Its clear he was involved...its hard to say at this point how involved.  

[JESII]

I assume you can now prove either of those impressions to be false...

Its not for me to prove them false, it is for you prove them true, which you can not do. Todate no one has been able to prove what anyone did regarding the original design of the East or West...in contrast to conventional wisdom. This is the lesson of this thread IMO...at least one of them.

No Tom,

It is you who said this thread was going to correct false impressions. How do you know what I believe is not accurate? Can you offer evidence that my belief is false?

All your doing on this thread is cooking spaghetti.

[T_MacWood]

Blind faith is a beautiful thing.

[DMoriarty]

David,
Speaking in defense of Wayne and the complete disgust of this entire thread, Wayne explained to me over a week ago that he removed his posts because he does not wish it on this website considering his relationship with the club. To call the removal of anything other then that is preposterous and absurd, if that indeed is what your implying.

First Tommy, I think that parts of this thread have been very interesting and informative.   And many of the parts that weren't have been deleted.  

Second, Tommy, of course you are correct as to why Mr. Morrison deleted his posts.  For Mr. Morrison to behave so boorishly in a public forum about his club shows incredibly poor judgment on his part.  I am just disappointed that he is more concerned about concealing his ill-mannered behavior from his golf club than he is about making amends with those to whom he directed his unprevoked derogatory remarks.  

Third, Tommy, you are directing your admonishment at the wrong guy.  I believe you are looking for Mr. Morrison, himself.  After all, I have consistently said that if he removed the posts it was out of embarrassment.  He would certainly have reason to be embarrassed if his behavior was well known at his club.

Fourth, you may want to check out Mr. Morrison's posts before you jump to his defense.  Oh, I almost forgot . . . he deleted them.  

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  I appreciate your vigilance in addressing virtually ever sentence of every post, but I wonder if sometimes you don’t miss the branches, trees, and forest while you are plucking every leaf.  

I am not going to re-debate the Alps, Redan issues with you.    I think even you agree that a number of knowledgeable men referred to these holes by these names, and that these men used the terms differently that we do today.  That is really about all I am saying.  If you don’t agree, I am still not going to re-debate it.  That issue just isn’t that important at this juncture.

You say that . . . "[Lesley’s] comment may have been gratuitous, or, to add prestige to Merion.  Absent details of his alleged advisory capacity, I don't think you can state that he was actively involved.”   Then also say that we need a “factual basis for accepting his account.”    And you say  there are no facts to support [Lesley’s description.]

This may be Mr. Morrison’s and TEPaul’s most impressive accomplishment, but also their most damaging.  Somehow they have convinced just about everyone that a first hand contemporaneous account by the Chair of  Merion’s Green Committee describing exactly how these courses came into existenceis neither reliable nor valid evidence.  So now everyone believes that without factual proof of the statement’s accuracy, we cannot accept it at face value.  

But Lesley was not putting forth a theory.   He was not speculating or guessing.  He was describing events which he witnessed!   From the sounds of it, Lesley’s statement may well be the best evidence we have.   Discounting, discrediting, doubting, or disregarding his words without a compelling factual reason for so doing is not only beyond hubris, it is also  piss-poor research methodology.

Especially when CBM himself NEVER references his involvement at Merion for 25 years from its inception until his death.

Again Patrick, unless you want to flesh with out with specific facts, you are drawing an unsupported conclusion from  a faulty assumption.  You assume that CBM would have recorded his involvement if he truly had been  significantly involved, but this may not have been the case. [ Judging what I have read from MacDonald (which pretty much focuses on his favorites,) I doubt it is the case.]  

But this is your speculation so the burden is yours.   If you want to first prove that this is the type of thing he would have recorded, and prove that the records of this type are still available, then your point will be valid.  Until then it is unsupported speculation and we cant start messing with contemporaneous account from the Chair of Merion’s green committee based on unsupported speculation.  If you are correct and he documented everything, it shouldn’t be too hard to prove.  

”There's not one scintilla of concrete data evidencing his involvement.”

It astounds me that you say this!  What would you call Lesley’s description?  Fiction?  

But, you can't say, as you've been doing, that he was involved because there's no specific evidence of anyone's involvement.  Your logic is flawed.
. . .
It's simple.  You can't proclaim that CBM was substantively involved at Merion if the historical record is missing.   . . .
. . .
Just because details aren't available DOESN"T mean that CBM was invovled, which was your argument.
. . .
Then, by your own logic, you can't go pleading for CBM to get his rightful credit for the work you allege he did at Merion, since you don't know what he did.
 . . .
But, according to you, that doesn't mean that he wasn't involved.

I get the feeling you don’t think I know that the logic sword has two edges.  I do.  I’ve said this early and often.   I’ve seen no information about what, specifically, CBM did.   Or what Whigham did.  Or what any member of the committee did.   How could I have seen such information, since almost  all such information is unavailable?

So, Yes, you are correct.  I cannot use the lack of about  CBM’s specific contributions to the initial layout of Merion to support a conclusion that he was specifically involved or that he was involved at all.   But, unlike you guys, I AM NOT USING THE LACK OF THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION TO PROVE ANYTHING.  Far from it.   The lack of information makes it worthless evidence across the board.  

That is why your Ross example is not compelling.  I agree that we cannot use the lack of information to eliminate Ross, or  for that matter to eliminate Bendelow, or MacKenzie, or a time traveling Cupp.   And we cannot use it to evidence their involvement either.  So in the end it is worthless either way.   Therefore, someone who wants to argue that Ross was involved still has to find evidence to support this conclusion  somewhere.  

Therein lays the difference.  Unlike with Ross, we have compelling information which indicates that MacDonald (and Whigham) were involved in laying out the course, at least as advisors.   For one thing, Lesley says so.  We have no sound, factual reason to doubt him, and unless and until we come up with a sound factual reason, we have no choice but to take his word for it.  That is all there is to it.  

So when you say, “Just because [Lesley] didn't write of others work at Merion doesn't mean that they weren't "involved".  His mention of CBM does not exclude all other individuals,”  you are technically correct, but completely miss the point.   Lesley’s description of the creation of the course is compelling evidence of what actually happened.  Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, it alone establishes CBM’s (and Whigham’s) involvement as advisors  in the initial laying out of Merion East.

Moreover, there is NO FACTUAL JUSTIFICATION (so far at least) for casting doubt, diminishing, discounting,  discrediting, or disregarding Lesley’s description.  Yet this is exactly what TEPaul and Mr. Morrison are trying to do.    

Might it also be that mentioning CBM's involvement, even if it was miniscule, non-specific or non-existant, would give Merion instant credibility in the golf world ?

Might it be that mentioning CBM's involvement was more fluff and P.R than substance ?

It might be, but again there is no proof yet which supports either one of these theories.  If you want to draw this conclusion you are going to need more than just blind speculation.

And these theories raise many questions.  For one, I think that Merion East had already had plenty of credibility when the article was published (1914.)  If this was an attempt to gain credibility or as a puff piece it would make more sense that it would be to try and represent the second course as being equal to that of the first.  So why credit CBM on regarding the first and not the second?    And if your goal is puffery and you are using CBM, why not go all the way?  Why not call him the designer?  Or at least play up his involvement even more?  

We could speculate all day in every direction, but in the end we are left with the historical record, as spotty as it may be.  And the historical record indicates that CBM and Whigham were advisors regarding the laying out of the course.  

[DMoriarty]

For two dozen pages of conversation, we have heard that CBM deserves little or no credit or acknowledgement for his alleged involvement in laying out the early Merion East absent information evidencing the specifics of his contribution.

Yet now, even TEPaul may have started to realize that if the illogical sword used to try and slay MacDonald cuts at all, it must cut Wilson just as deeply as MacDonald.  He is shuffling accordingly.

Of course someone's resume, diaries, work journals and similar documents will generally indicate one's specific involvement in something, even though that has been proven, in some cases, to not be true. But of course if one never used any of those things in the first place it certainly doesn't mean it's proof that he didn't do something specific on some project.In that case one tends to go to supporting documents and information from others of someone's specific involvement.

But then, of course, you're right, there is no specific information at all that's apparently left of who it was who designed and built Merion East in that first stage.

If that is the case, and it is, one tends to simply try to apply simple logic to the situation.

(my bolds)

So after all the demands for evidence of CMB’s specific involvement, all the insults, all the boorish behavior, all the refusals to give CMB credit without more specifics, what changes when they start to think about Wilson, Flynn, and Pickering?  Suddenly, the lack of evidence regarding CMB’s specific involvement is not so important after all.  ”It certainly doesn’t mean that its proof that he didn’t do something specific on the project.”[/i]

Funny, that is what he thought it meant for the past 25  pages!  And that is what it meant a few posts above when he said that this same conclusion was “is not just the biggest load of crap you've ever put on here, it's totally laughable.  The last thing we need on here are the illogical ramblings of some self-important pre-law mind like you.”  

What is more interesting to me is that when the issue is proving the extent to which Wilson, Flynn, and Pickering were involved, suddenly TEPaul wants to look toward “supporting documents and information” as well as “simple logic” to determine who was specifically involved.  

I have no quarrel with that.  Just do the same for MacDonald.   If you do you, then you cannot deny MacDonald’s involvement in the laying out of the course.   Unless, of course, other evidence surfaces.  

We have our own opinions and we believe them and state them. If someone wants to challenge them, that's fine, we will field that challenge and what it comes with and respond as we have on here.

Honestly Tom, do you really believe that you and Mr. Morrison welcomed these challenges?  And do you really think that the way you and Mr. Morrison have responded on here was at all appropriate?  

If you, or anyone else accuses us of trying to rewrite history we will challenge your accusations on the merits of what that challenge contains, and that's what has happened on this thread.

You guys were applying fallacious logic by requiring specific evidence of CBM’s involvement, and have been downplaying, diminishing, discrediting, discounting, degrading and outright disregarding CBM’s  level of involvement based solely on the absence of specific evidence.    Moreover, you guys knew all along that all the evidence of who specifically did what in the initial laying out of the course  is nowhere to be found and probably “lost forever.”   If this isn’t rewriting history, I don’t know what could be.  

The only remaining question is whether you guys did not understand the logical flaws in your argument, or whether you were manipulating the unavailability of the information to get to the result you wanted.   If Mr. Morrison were in my situation, he might wonder if you guys were idiots or liars, but I hope the answer is neither; that it was an honorable and honest mistake, and one that could be easily made by any of us.  

If you guys need any more help, let me know.

[DMoriarty]

Mr. Morrison,

First, let's not pretend that you ever actually disengaged from our conversation.  You deleted some of your early and most offensive posts along the way, yes. But your re-entered the conversation repeatedly and throughout to continue to take pot-shots at me and even address me directly while at the same claiming you were no longer discussing this with me.  Thus while you may have sat on the sidelines when it came to much of the substantive discussion, you managed to get your rudeness in nonetheless.  

Second, you deleted no "refutations," but rather only vitriol and rude, derogatory comments.  My comments which provoked your boorish accusations of fabrication and idiocy turned out to be entirely and verifiably 100% correct. Your response wasnt to set the record straight but was to delete the posts which most evidenced your foolishness and rudeness, all the while keeping the same pattern.  Incredibly, still to this moment you will not admit the inappropriateness or inaccuracy of your initial outburst, even though it was about an objective measure and even though you were entirely out of line and wrong.  
 
Third, I didn't inject your son into this except to suggest to you that you consider just how rude your behavior might appear to those around you.  Turns out that I might have produced the desired impact much sooner, had I instead commented "I am sure your club would be very proud."

Fourth, you continue to pretend to ignore the substance of my comments while again accusing me of being a liar.   Let me ask you again, Mr. Morrison:  Care to back up this defamation?   Care to back up any of your insults with reference to the substance of the conversation?   All my posts are still there, so feel free to substantively address them and to back up what you say.  

I didn't think so.  You cannot.  

I know it might bother you that an interloper like me could correct your understanding of anything at all at to do with Merion, even something as trite as a straight line measure.  And obviously you'd rather it not be me of all people would point out the logical fallacies of your position.  But it is a discussion, so these things happen.  Grow Up.  
______________________

All this aside, I agree that one's family and personal life ought to be off limits on this board.  So with regard to my off-hand comment referencing your son, I am sorry.  As I explain above my point had nothing to do with him but rather you.  But in retrospect I can certainly see how you would take it that way.  So for this I again apologize.  It will not happen again.  

[T_MacWood]

There has been some excellent research done on this topic todate, but IMO a lot more information needs to be uncovered before any definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding who did what.

Some of the things we don't know:

* When exactly did Wilson go to Southampton to visit Macdonald

* What were the months Wilson was overseas (was it seven or eight or some other number of months)

* Where did he go and who did he visit with...did he travel alone

* What was the state of the project when he returned

* Was Wilson around in late 1910 when M&W were checking out the site

* Why was Pickering - who live in Massachusetts - hired. Who recommended him

* When did Pickering begin working at Merion

* How much time did any of the committee men spend on site during the construction phase

These are important questions we can't answer at this point and until we can answer some of them we are left with a hell of a lot of speculation and conjecture.

[TEPaul]

"He is free to be an idiot,"

Wayno:

Of course he is free to be an idiot. Not to diverge or digress but you----and me, and all of us, must realize first and foremost that that right and perogative and yes, FREEDOM, is the GOD given beauty of what America and the American ethos is all about----eg the total right and freedom of ALL AMERICANS to make total asses and idiots of themselves in completely public forums without any fear whatsoever of being gaoled and racked, as can and does happen in most all other cultures. However, that right and freedom does not preclude that the rest of us cannot mock and mirth gleefully over his idiocy.  

However, having said that I think all of us must look towards our inner compassion and estimate when someone may be reaching the limitations of personal and mental health and reach out a helping hand to bring the poor soul back up to the sunlit uplands of sanity and stability.