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

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul.
The simple and obvious solution is for posters to think about the civility of their posts before posting."

Yes, David, I think  most all of us know that on here.  Do you know that? If you do then why have you ever posted an uncivil post? I surely hope you're not going to tell me you've never done THAT!    

"People who repeatedly behave uncivilly ought to be removed from the site.  Leave the offending posts.  Remove the posters.   This would resolve the issue rather quickly."

I hope you don't think it uncivil of me for asking but are you aware, as I think most everyone else on this website is, that the subject of incivility on this website is raised MORE by you when you are on these threads than the grand total of every single other of the approximately 1500 contributors raising the subject of incivility on here? Have you ever stopped to consider that? Have you ever even wondered why that might be?

As for your ideas of how uncivil behavior ought to be treated on here and whether or not uncivil posts should be removed by their posters or not, understand you do not run this website----Ran Morrissett and his co-administration Ben Dewar do. Talk to them about it as we do when we have a major problem. 

Or better yet, perhaps you should start your own website about civility as God knows you talk about it so much on here.

I'm not trying to be uncivil on this post but you keep bringing the subject up particularly regarding me and I'm simply answering you.

[TEPaul]

Joe:

Here are the appropriate acronyms for deleted posts. The acronyms sound like a cross between Latin, Arabic and Congolese;

IADATAURASIDI  (Eye-a-DAT-aura-ish-EYE-D-ee)

BADALMISAUDA (b-DAL-mis-aoww-duh)

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul

Removing posts is unfair to the people who ought to have a chance to respond.  It is also makes it too easy to be a jerk then hide one's tracks.   Leaving them up might embarrass the poster but this ought to be the case, as the poster has engaged in quite embarrassing behavior.   

 Before leaving I did remove a bunch of my posts, and I shouldnt have.  I just didn't want them to be mistook or misrepresented after I left, like you did to MacWood's post immediately above.

The only reason posts ought to be removed is to protect the innocent, but that is rarely the reason for their removal. 

As for this thread, my posts are all still on here, and while I am not proud of every single one of them all I stand by them all.  And frankly, upon rereading and given the circumstances within which they were written, I was quite surprised that I did not respond much more harshly than I did.

I hope you don't think it uncivil of me for asking but are you aware, as I think most everyone else on this website is, that the subject of incivility on this website is raised MORE by you when you are on these threads than the grand total of every single other of the approximately 1500 contributors raising the subject of incivility on here? Have you ever stopped to consider that? Have you ever even wondered why that might be?

I am well aware of this.  As I said before, it is because I bring out the best in people.   To be more specific, I bring out the best in you and a few others.   Through my good luck, I am interested in a number of the same topics as you, but disagree with many of your opinions.  Whether it be Merion or the USGA's unwillingness to control the equipment, you dont like much of what I have to say.  Thus I am often the target of your incivility, as is Tom MacWood for similar reasons. 

When you call Tom MacWood a "stupid shit" like you did the other night, or when you call others dumbasses or idiots like did the other night.  Or when Cirba calls me an "asshole and a charlatan" like he did the other day,  or when he spreads false rumors about my motivations and sources like he has repeatedly, you guys ought to be gone from the site, at least until you can prove you can carry on a civil conversation.   

Your behavior in particular has often overstepped all bounds of decency,  and something should be done about you if you cannot manage to hold it together in the future. 

I will continue complaining about your behavior as long as it is inappropriate.   I just wish more others had the guts to do the same, so we could put some pressure on you to straighten up., and this would really go a ways toward improving the image and quality of the site.

Don't get me wrong Tom, you have a lot to offer, but too often you way overstep the bounds of common decency, especially late at night.   When you do, as you did last week, then your being booted from the site for a month or so would be the best thing that could happen to the site.   

Ran knows that I feel this way, but for whatever reason you are apparently untouchable no matter how horrible your behavior might become.   

I don't mean any of this as a personal attack.  You asked and I am honestly answering. 

[DMoriarty]

TE Paul,  one more thing.  Your suggestion that I bring this stuff to Ran's and Ben's attention is a good one, so I will forward my above message to them when I get a chance. 

Thanks. 

[TEPaul]

 I just saw this long post from David Moriarty from Nov. 30, 2006: (it will be on my next post);

To be honest, after reading it I really cannot figure out what the issue is between us either back then or now. Can anyone figure it out?

Rereading this post it seems like David was beginning to wonder if Merion was some sort of departure from the architecture of Philadelphia that had preceded it and perhaps for years. He asked if it was some seminal indication of a rejection of the Philadelphia architecture that came before it.

Well, of course it was that in some ways and for a number of quite interesting reasons that I guarantee all of you we here in Philadelphia have known about and completely believed in for years, and certainly the ten years this website has been in existence.

Did C.B. Macdonald and the fact his NGLA happened when it did have any influence on Merion and the way it was designed by an amateur member architect and a member committee?

I dare say if it had not been for C.B. Macdonald and the process he followed to create his NGLA, Merion golf courses would never have been done using that same process of an amateur architect and a team of amateur members---a supporting architectural cast of amateur sportsmen as it were--eg the exact same process Macdonald used at NGLA (except he didn't really have members to tap when he began because there was no NGLA golf course that preceded the one he did).

But that---eg using that same amateur architect process is not the same thing as actually following the architecture or even the style of architecture of Macdonald and NGLA---eg the so-called "National School" style of architecture.

The entire point of Merion East is it was essentially Wilson and Committee's interpretation of the European model of architectual excellence. It would not surprise me at all if most of what Wilson came to do at the Merions, particularly after 1916 and on was more an American adaptation of the recent INLAND excellence he and some of the others like him at that time were aware of that had been coming out of the English Heathlands!

In the first phase it seems like Wilson and committee may've followed to some extent the basic idea of Macdonald's at NGLA of famous "template" holes and Merion probably did make an initial attempt on a few or their holes at that kind of thing----eg I think we all know the holes there that were sort of Wilson's attempt to adapt parts or vestiges of those template hole architectural principles.

But it is pretty clear that probably Wilson and Merion were not all that comfortable for whatever reasons with blatantly and blindly following NGLA's advertised "template" hole architectural model and style. They may've been a bit in the very beginning (the so-called first phase (1911-1915) but that they endeavored to get away from that to a large extent and develop their own look and style. What in the world could be a better example of that evolution than Wilson's famous "White Faces of Merion" bunker style?? Ron Prichard things that might have developed the seminal "American" bunker style! I think to some extent Ron is right. Where else over here was it done like that dedicatedly BEFORE Merion?

David, I think I see what happened here and what went awry. It seems like you came on here and attempted to test whether some idea you had about Merion was accurate. Instead of just trying to do all that on your own you should have just come directly to us and we would've helped bring you along with all we know and have which is years of research and tons of historical architectural material on those very things you may've thought you were the first to think of and want to test.

You definitely weren't. We had been basically studying the very ideas you seem to have come up with in 2006 for many many years before you. We've gone into some real depth on this subject and related ones for years.

You should've just come to us rather than attempt to just challenge our credibility first, even in small ways like the beginning of this very thread seems to suggest.

I see what happened here and it's really a shame--eg so much wasted time and effort over nothing much at all-----it appears to me we have been on the same page you were trying to test a few years ago. It's just that we've been on that page for years.

I, for one, am sorry it went this way. It appears to me we may always have been in virtual agreement about most all the questions and ideas you had in 2006.

I'll put the post from you I'm referring to on the next one.

[TEPaul]

David:

Here it is from Nov. 30, 2006----amazing!   


"SPBD,

Don't be sorry.  Posts about golf design are certainly welcome by me.   

I agree with you that bad Victorian architecture was the norm all over America.   I concentrate on Philadelphia, because the men in question were most familiar with Philadelphia design, yet they chose another direction.   But I could and should have added that this was the prevailing design approach across America (I think I have said as much more than a few times above, but at this point that is probably all lost in the clutter.)

IMO most people underestimate just how widespread and common the dark ages stuff was because almost all of it has been wiped completely off the map, literally.

One thing I don’t understand, what do you mean when you say you don’t view Merion and NGLA as reactionary? At least in MacDonald’s case, his writings indicate a level of disgust with American design and an explicit attempt to replace it with something else.  To my mind, that is not only reactionary, it is somewhat revolutionary.   But perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by reactionary?
___________________________


Quote from: Mike Cirba on November 29, 2006, 09:45:25 pm
I think I keep a very open mind when it comes to architectural research and attributions, and it's always interesting to hear new material as it comes to light here.

I think you do, too.   And since we are in agreement about the importance of openly sharing and discussing our research, perhaps you will do me a favor:  Go to google earth, pull up the 10th at Merion, and measure from the front of the middle tee to a point just left of the green, even with the greenside edge of the front greenside bunker.  After all, part of quality research is peer review.


Quote
However, I'm not understanding the point of your exercise.   Merion has always been known as one of the first of the really great American courses, and one of the first real attempts to create something superb; following in the model of NGLA and what Macdonald did there..what Travis was doing at Garden City...what Fownes was doing at Oakmont.   This is indisputable, and hardly news.  That these excellent courses were a clear attempt to model after the best in Britain is also well known and documented, . . .

Which exercise is that?  Mike Sweeney asked me to clarify my thoughts on these issues and I did.  I told him up front that my thoughts weren’t profound or groundbreaking or even all that original.  But he asked so I told him.  TEPaul’s repeated ridicule notwithstanding, I am making no grandiose claims. 

That being said, I want to get something straight.  However mundane and trivial the points on my list may seem now, they certainly weren’t  viewed as such by the Wayne Morrison or Tom Paul when I suggested them, nor are the accepted by Wayne Morrison even now.   For example, almost all of my “conversations” with Wayne Morrison have revolved precisely around the hypothesis that Merion represented a substantial departure from the Victorian style design which dominated Philadelphia and America, and an attempt to return to the style of the great links courses and the recent (such as NGLA and the Heathland courses) which had done the same thing.

Now this may sound trivial and mundane to you, but to Wayne Morrison it is some sort of blasphemy.  Same goes for TomPaul, at least some of the time.  He has switched directions so many times on these threads that I get dizzy just trying to read his posts. 

 So instead of asking me why I am bothering with such mundane and trivial and obvious points, perhaps you should ask Wayne Morrison the basis on which he rejects them.


Quote
. . . and I'd argue that it was less a reaction to the state of architecture in the country at that time than simply an earnest attempt to build an excellent course, giving the growing interest in the game, a burgeoning membership at Merion, and the luxury of building a brand new course while still playing daily at the old.   It gave them the time to do things well and studiously;  thus, Wilson's trip to visit Macdonald and his subsequent lengthy stay studying courses in the British Isles.   Again, nothing new here.

You are correct, there is nothing new in what you are saying, here, as this is the conventional wisdom.  But in my opinion, the facts don’t support the conventional wisdom.   If they wanted to build something better, why not just improve upon the style which was all around them?  Why not do what everyone else was doing, only better?  And if they weren’t rejecting what was around them, then why go all the way to Europe to study?  By this point there were hundreds of courses in America, so certainly they had a lot to learn if they were at all satisfied with what was going on around them.   And why spend the money to train someone new?  If they were at all satisfied with what was around them, then they simply could have hired one of the experienced Scottish professionals and simply pay them extra to do a really good job?   

And why on earth go to MacDonald to plan the Euro Study Abroad trip and to learn about golf design?    MacDonald wasn’t plodding along trying to gradually improve on what he saw around him.  He was trying to replace it all, at one fell swoop.   His writings indicate a level of contempt for most American design.  He was actively encouraging other designers and clubs to trash what they had and to replace it features and ideas based on the great links courses.

Also, read what the writers said about Merion.  They didn’t talk about gradual evolution in quality, they are talking about a leap in an entirely different direction. 


Quote
But, I think where I really am missing your point is concerning the role of Macdonald and Whigham.  When I asked you straight out a few days ago whether you believed that these two had much more to do with the design of the original course at Merion, you stated that you didn't.   Yet, you seem to keep coming back to trying to prove some point that they did have heavy direct involvement.   Which is it?

I think you might want to reread my answer.  I just did and the answer is entirely consistent with what I am saying now.   I acknowledged the contemporary evidence which suggests that MacDonald had an influence, then I said:  “as for MacDonald having a direct role in the specific design of holes at Merion, I have not seen evidence of this thus far, nor do I believe it to be the case.”

Lots of evidence of MacDonald’s influence, but little or no evidence of MacDonald playing a direct role in the specific design.  In other words, whatever influence MacDonald may have had,  I don’t think he designed the course.

As for the rest, it seems a bit of a stretch.  First, there was plenty written about the connection between Merion and MacDonald and/or his design ideas.  Why should MacDonald toot his own horn if everyone else was doing it for him?  Second, if the description of the course and MacDonald’s influence on it were untrue and inaccurate, then wouldn’t Wilson or someone else have set the record straight?   

But really, before we can answer your questions about specific holes and features, we have to understand what was there when the course opened.   I think we are far from this understanding, but any efforts aimed at figuring this stuff out are, shall we say, less than well received.


Quote
Why wouldn't Macdonald take credit if he believed that he actually made a major, or even significant contribution to the ultimate design there?


Again, he got plenty of credit.  And I seen little or no evidence that any of it was undeserved. 
 
 
« Last Edit: November 30, 2006, 04:53:37 am by DMoriarty »  Report to moderator    Logged 
 

[TEPaul]

"TE Paul,  one more thing.  Your suggestion that I bring this stuff to Ran's and Ben's attention is a good one, so I will forward my above message to them when I get a chance. 
Thanks. 

David:

Here's what I'd like to do if it's OK with you at this point (you just said you're basically ready to go with your In My Opinion piece).

You write it and put it on here and then at that point we will produce Alan Wilson's report in it's entirety and probably as a way to vet and critique your own report.

I do not mean this to be any challenge or criticism to you at this time or any time but if we do it all this way what it REALLY may help this entire website and all the viewers who look in on here with IS what may happen if someone does historical research on a golf course like Merion and neglects to analyze carefully all the relevant material in its TOTALITY that might be out there!

And of course if we do this all this way it certainly does or can cut both ways----eg us not considering something you have and we never did and you considering the subject without really analzying something we have always thought was really relevant to the architectural history of Merion and who did it, and how and why, and very much including C.B. Macdonald's input and influence.

Is that fair enough?

[TEPaul]

David:

Look, this constant harping on incivility really isn't doing anything for anybody and it won't help this thread or any other which actually seems to be going in a postive direction right now.

Your long post #967 that you just put up on this thread---I suggest you take it down to help things out here. I understand where you're coming from on deletions and I understand you don't like or agree with me taking them down in the past, now or in the future, but you sure do have my encouragement to take that one down and I give you my absolute word that I will never mention it again and never hold it against you as you do with me.

Is that fair enough? I'm quite sure Ran and Ben and this entire website would appreciate it if you did that which I think would help us get along the postive direction we seem to be about to go in.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Let's stop second guessing what David's white paper has to say.

I also don't think it's fair to dictate terms to David, when it comes to HIS presentation.

He'll post his white paper when he's comfortable with the project.
After he's posted it, everyone is free to do with it as they please.

As to Alan Wilson's report, while I'm certainly anxious to see it, I don't know that I'm ready to annoint it as the Gospel.

One of the things we've learned over our years on GCA.com is that a lot of these fellows presented views, which were not only contradictory to others, but, contradictory to themselves as well.

So, let David make his presentation, then let's see if it has merit, gaps or errors.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Let's stop second guessing what David's white paper has to say."


Patrick:

I'm not second guessing David Moriarty's "white paper".

So, now you're calling it a "white paper" are you? Do you even know what that means, Patrick?

I really couldn't care less what his subject is. It would not surprise me at all if it's on some other angle than he's ever plied before. Frankly, it would very much surprise me if he keeps after what this one seems to be or seemed to have been. I doubt even he can see much mileage in it anymore.

What I'm responding to are the numerous pages and many hours of arguing over a subject that it appears from the past post I just reposted to have been misguided, as according to his post our positions may've been very similar. Of course that is certainly not to say that he may've completely misunderstood what my position on his issues on Merion were. He may've misunderstood what most all of us here feel about those issues and have felt since way before we ever heard of him. I guess it might have been a better idea to have just asked us in detail first what our postions were on those issues of his rather than to just assume what they might be.

I think we on here are aware that there have been a couple of guys on this website who have felt there's been some kind of conspiracy here in Philadelphia to protect our own architects or even build them up inaccurately simply to minimize the significance of other architects from elsewhere.

It is definitely not for me to identify who they are as they have done an over-adequate job of doing that for themselves on here. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
Let's stop second guessing what David's white paper has to say."


Patrick:

I'm not second guessing David Moriarty's "white paper".

So, now you're calling it a "white paper" are you? Do you even know what that means, Patrick?

Yes, it's a report written on white paper, usually 8.5 X 11, and is not to be confused with anything on toilet paper.[/color]

I really couldn't care less what his subject is. It would not surprise me at all if it's on some other angle than he's ever plied before. Frankly, it would very much surprise me if he keeps after what this one seems to be or seemed to have been. I doubt even he can see much mileage in it anymore.

For someone who could care less, you've certainly devoted an abundance of ink to the subject.[/color]

What I'm responding to are the numerous pages and many hours of arguing over a subject that it appears from the past post I just reposted to have been misguided, as according to his post our positions may've been very similar.

Of course that is certainly not to say that he may've completely misunderstood what my position on his issues on Merion were. He may've misunderstood what most all of us here feel about those issues and have felt since way before we ever heard of him.

I guess it might have been a better idea to have just asked us in detail first what our postions were on those issues of his rather than to just assume what they might be.

I think he approaches his subject from a unique, heretofore unresearched perspective.[/color]

I think we on here are aware that there have been a couple of guys on this website who have felt there's been some kind of conspiracy here in Philadelphia to protect our own architects or even build them up inaccurately simply to minimize the significance of other architects from elsewhere.

Perhaps it's coincidental that the Philly Triumvirate seems to be the only contingent striking out at him prior to his presentation.

You know that I've contested some of David's previous works, but, that doesn't mean that they didn't have merit or weren't worthy of discussion and further exploration.[/color]

It is definitely not for me to identify who they are as they have done an over-adequate job of doing that for themselves on here. 

I could be wrong, but, I think David's work will raise legitimate questions, produce intelligent discussion and instigate further research.[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Am I really part of the "Philadelphia Triumvirate"?   

Holy cow...I'm giving my mother a call. 

[TEPaul]

"Yes, it's a report written on white paper, usually 8.5 X 11, and is not to be confused with anything on toilet paper."

Patrick:

Even I'm sorry I asked you that question. I never like to open someone's mouth for them knowing it's quite likely they'll put their foot in it.  

[TEPaul]

"I could be wrong, but, I think David's work will raise legitimate questions, produce intelligent discussion and instigate further research."


Pat:

I certainly get the sense from the way you've been carefully couching this gol-danged "white paper" of Moriarty's that this time he will strike out in an entirely different direction on Merion. As I said, it would seem that even he can probably see there's not much mileage left in this issue he's tried to ply so long whatever it really was (very few on here seem sure anymore, if, in fact they ever were).

But I've got to hand it to you guys, you are almost as good at pumping something up for release as Selznick was at pumping up Gone With The Wind for its release.

I did get perhaps a glimpse of David's precursor thinking to his "WHITE PAPER" and that is that he said recently he thinks we here in Philadelphia----the "Triumverate" or whatever you call us, are 'too close' to Merion or the issue of Merion's architectural history.

"Too close" to it, huh? I always thought the idea with architectural research and analysis was to get as close to the subject and familiar with it as possible and I wouldn't even suspect David Moriarty would disagree with that. And so, that could probably mean only one thing----eg he will suggest that we are "too close" to it to be objective about it and therefore that requires the reinterpretation of it by someone from California who hardly knows it and has been there, what, once, if that?!

That would be an interesting slant indeed. But I sure hope he doesn't try to accuse us of slanting Merion's architectural history unless he really does have something pretty interesting here we've heretofore never seen or considered. I, for one, would be very interested to see some material on that stage of Merion's creation we've never before seen! All HAIL the "WHITE PAPER"!   

[Mike_Cirba]

Pat,

As a member of the Philadelphia Triumvirate, and one who is actually excited to see what David has uncovered, I need to ask the following question:

Which is slower?

A) Trevor Immelman's pre-shot routine

B) The time it took Merion to "finish" the course they built on land bought in mid 1909?

C) The release of David Moriarty's White Paper? 


I"M KIDDING!!!! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I could be wrong, but, I think David's work will raise legitimate questions, produce intelligent discussion and instigate further research."

Pat:

I certainly get the sense from the way you've been carefully couching this gol-danged "white paper" of Moriarty's that this time he will strike out in an entirely different direction on Merion.

TE,

I found his work an enjoyable read, starting a little slow, but, gradually building some nice momentum.

I would think that you, and others with a keen interest in GCA and its historical roots will enjoy his presentation, irrespective of the implications, inferences and conclusions.  It's fascinating stuff.[/color]

As I said, it would seem that even he can probably see there's not much mileage left in this issue he's tried to ply so long whatever it really was (very few on here seem sure anymore, if, in fact they ever were).

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Err ... Ah ... let me rephrase that.
I think you'll be surprised. [/color]

But I've got to hand it to you guys, you are almost as good at pumping something up for release as Selznick was at pumping up Gone With The Wind for its release.

That's an interesting comment.
My dad always told me that people want what they can't have, and if you want to sell something, try the "negative" sell.

I've tried NOT to hype David's paper.
But, apparently, there's a clamoring to see his work.

I wouldn't like to see David rush his project to production, but, I'll be interested in the comments and discussion that follow its introduction.[/color]

I did get perhaps a glimpse of David's precursor thinking to his "WHITE PAPER" and that is that he said recently he thinks we here in Philadelphia----the "Triumverate" or whatever you call us, are 'too close' to Merion or the issue of Merion's architectural history.

That may be true.
I recall the ardent discussion related to Merion's bunkers, Fazio and MacDonald & Sons.  

Perhaps we're more animated in our discussions when it involves an Icon in American golf[/color]

"Too close" to it, huh? I always thought the idea with architectural research and analysis was to get as close to the subject and familiar with it as possible and I wouldn't even suspect David Moriarty would disagree with that. And so, that could probably mean only one thing----eg he will suggest that we are "too close" to it to be objective about it and therefore that requires the reinterpretation of it by someone from California who hardly knows it and has been there, what, once, if that?!

I would seek others opinions, but, to me, it seems as if there's an aggressive defensive posture in the air, regarding David's work.

I can only tell you that I previously disagreed with David on a number of issues, some of them Merion related, but, after reading his presentation, I've changed my mind on a position I long held.
If David's premise holds steady in the face of refutation, well, then he's done his homework.  And, if his premise fails in the face of refutation, his his efforts will have been worthwhile, as he pursued an interesting subject and presented a credible position.[/color]

That would be an interesting slant indeed. But I sure hope he doesn't try to accuse us of slanting Merion's architectural history unless he really does have something pretty interesting here we've heretofore never seen or considered. I, for one, would be very interested to see some material on that stage of Merion's creation we've never before seen! All HAIL the "WHITE PAPER"!   

I can't speak to whether or not you or others have seen what he's presenting.  I know I hadn't, but, I'm not nearly as well versed in certain areas as you, Wayno and others.

I tried to read David's work with an open mind.
Based upon my limited knowledge of his subject, his paper seemed well researched and well reasoned.  Are there holes, gaps and unknowns ?
Probably, but, to my mind, he presents sufficient evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion.

You'll have to make up your own mind on the scope and validity of his presentation.

I'm anxious to see the collective of information that may, or probably will be brought forth by others, when his paper is presented.[/color]
 

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I'm honestly excited to see what David has uncovered, but I do have to say that you sound to be hedging your bets quite a bit more than you did just a few days back. 

Still...an open mind awaits here.   I'm really hoping to learn something about a period where there are indeed gaps in our understanding.

[DMoriarty]

The 1915 Wilson quote that TEPaul includes above is not the only reference Wilson makes to MacDonald's influence.  In Bahto's book there is a similar quote, which Bahto dates at December 1916 which is very similar.  One of the differences is that the Bahto quote also includes the sentence:

Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we could use."

Doesn't this raise the the possibility that these were actually MacDonald's the missing sketches from MacDonald's trip?  Is it possible that these are the missing sketches that Wilson brought back from his trip?   If so, then that would explain what happened to MacDonald's sketches, at least. 

DavidM posited an interesting question with this thread back in 2006, didn't he?

Too bad the responses have been deleted. 

Reminds me of something I used to joke about with a few friends in academia.  We called it it Nietzsche's Three Stages of Academic Nihilism:

Stage One:  Attack.   (Bolster your own thesis by attacking and ridiculing others.)
Stage Two:  Dismiss.  (If attacking doesn't work, diminish the importance of the other thesis by denying its importance and relevance.)
Stage Three:  Embrace.  (If dismissing also fails, then simply claim that their theory has been yours all along.)

__________________________________

TEPaul.   

Another reason that posts ought not to be deleted is that it makes it too easy for posters to try to rewrite the history of their past positions. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

How could anybody embrace a theory you haven't presented yet?  Or attack or dismiss it for that matter?? 

I agree with you that there isn't much point of going back through this thread trying to keep track of what was being said with all of the deletions, but I don't recall any of us embracing anything that was brought up at that time. 

As for your new material, I'm hoping to be able to do so.   

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I'm looking forward to his report with a very open mind particularly since I have no idea what it's about.

But I certainly will say that Merion's position in the evolution of American golf architecture is a great big story, in my opinion, that very much needs to be told on a rather comprehensive scale (even though it has been told in a smaller more localized context although Wayne's 160 page chapter on the architectural history of Merion is a grander context). Obviously so is Pine Valley as to its position in perhaps not just the evolution of American golf architecture but world-wide (compare Alison's Hirono in Japan).

And I'm not even talking necessarily about their actual architecture or the status they've always held---I'm talking about the significance of them in the evolution of golf course architecture as to HOW they were created and BY WHOM. That's a "process" that needs a lot more attention in the study of golf architecture's evolution, in my opinion.

The reasons they happened when they did and by whom and how is probably some of the most significant events in golf architecture's history for a number of reasons and one of them most certainly is the event that happened in Southamption with NGLA and the theretofore unusual way an amateur sportsman like Macdonald went about it. It's not that he was exactly the first here or over there to do it that way but he made such a splash which NGLA I think his "process" (an amateur architect or a group of them) got real attention and others decided to go that route. I think that is as important in the history of architecture as their actual courses or their styles but of course one must also consider how such masterpieces could occur with such a "process".

In that vein, the words in Alan Wilson's report about the creation of the two Merion courses; "First of all, they were  both "homemade"", and, "a "Special Construction Committee" designed and built the two courses without the help of an architect" should probably ring through the ages as a significant connection particularly since Alan Wilson immediately follows that by "Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of designing the National Links at Southampton,..."

We can see quite clearly that Wilson did not even think of Macdonald as an "architect" and for the likes of us today we absolutely MUST understand precisely what he meant by that to understand clearly Merion or any of these people responsible for that kind of course via an unusual "process."

In other words, as I said on a post yesterday, if Macdonald hadn't tried to do NGLA THE WAY he did I seriously doubt Merion and Wilson and his Committee would have either. The same may be said of Crump.

That, though, is a very diffrent thing from Macdonald deserving more architectural credit for those courses than he was given credit for by architects and clubs like Pine Valley and Merion.

I'm looking forward to Moriarty's report. I think we all know in this business we're in on this website that information is currency. To me it's what we do with that currency and in analyzing it.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul.   
Another reason that posts ought not to be deleted is that it makes it too easy for posters to try to rewrite the history of their past positions."


David:

Of course I have no idea at all what you might write about Merion in your upcoming article but if it turns out to either conform or contrast with my own feelings and opinions of Merion, Wilson et al, Macdonald etc, I wouldn't worry too much, if I were you, about me changing my opinions on here from what I once put on this thread to embrace something you've said on here or may say in your paper.

The reason I say that is unlike you, this website is not the only place I've offered my opinions on this very subject. I'm very much on record that way with a large article I did for the Phladelphia Golfer magazine as well as the USGA US Amateur program. And both those articles precede you coming to this subject on here by quite some time.

I have not changed my opinions on Merion or the Philadelphia School of Architecture from about 2004 until now so there is no chance if we happen to agree on what you're about to write that I got it from you.

Timelines really do have an interesting way of establishing various "facts". 

Matter of fact, I hope you found access to those two articles on Merion and Wilson and the Philadelphia School of Architecture on the Internet in your research and in writing your arcticle. I've never looked for them there but knowing the way the Internet can be they're probably there somewhere. I would welcome your article if it counterpoints something I once said on the subject.

That's a lot of what we should do on this website. Certainly some of us did it with Tom MacWood's seemingly respected article on here entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf."

[Peter Pallotta]

In that vein, the words in Alan Wilson's report about the creation of the two Merion courses; "First of all, they were  both "homemade"", and, "a "Special Construction Committee" designed and built the two courses without the help of an architect" should probably ring through the ages as a significant connection particularly since Alan Wilson immediately follows that by "Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of designing the National Links at Southampton,..."

We can see quite clearly that Wilson did not even think of Macdonald as an "architect" and for the likes of us today we absolutely MUST understand precisely what he meant by that to understand clearly Merion or any of these people responsible for that kind of course via an unusual "process."

TE - this kind of 'historical perspective' stuff is particularly interesting to me, and all new to me. Not only does Alan Wilson not call Macdonald an architect, but look at the words he uses in relation to NGLA, i.e. instead of simply saying "the men who designed NGLA" he says "the men who conceived the idea of designing NGLA"...as if 'conceptualizing' the idea of a sea-side course emulating the great holes from the UK was just as important as the 'designing/building' of the golf course itself, from the ground up. (It's almost like we'd say that Mike Keiser 'conceived the idea' of creating a first class, golf-first golf resort on the Oregon coast, i.e. a description that we use today for developers and not architects). 

Maybe a nothing point, but it seems clear that we today would never use that kind of language to describe the main process involved in the actual design and construction of a golf course -- and language does seem to follow thinking/ideas...which means their ideas back then were different than ours...actually, I'm not sure what any of this 'means' exactly, but I'd imagine that it would have to be a pretty important aspect of any modern-day analysis of who did what when and how back in those days


Peter

[TEPaul]

Peter Pallotta said:                 



                 “TE - this kind of 'historical perspective' stuff is particularly interesting to me, and all new to me. Not only does Alan Wilson not call Macdonald an architect, but look at the words he uses in relation to NGLA, i.e. instead of simply saying "the men who designed NGLA" he says "the men who conceived the idea of designing NGLA"...as if 'conceptualizing' the idea of a sea-side course emulating the great holes from the UK was just as important as the 'designing/building' of the golf course itself, from the ground up.
                  Maybe a nothing point, but it seems clear that we today would never use that kind of language to describe the main process involved in the actual design and construction of a golf course -- and language does seem to follow thinking/ideas...which means their ideas back then were different than ours...actually, I'm not sure what any of this 'means' exactly, but I'd imagine that it would have to be a pretty important aspect of any modern-day analysis of who did what when and how back in those days.”



Peter:

   Obviously, you have questions to about Merion, its time (1911), its design, its rather unusual “process” for that time, and the men who did it because of that rather unusual process in American architecture.

   Apparently David Moriarty had those kinds of questions about a year and a half ago when this particular thread began. Look at the title of it and look what he said in the initial post:



On November 21 at 2:03pm he said in his initial post:

“While I am fuzzy on the details, I do recall a discussion about the characteristics and origins of this hole, and thought this article might supply a bit more information from a contemporary source.  For example, the unattributed article describes the green as follows:

The green is . . . completely surrounded by by breastwords and trenches, so that the result of the shot is always in doubt until the golfer scales the last rampart and glares or smiles at what his hands have done.

I found this particularly interesting for at least two reasons . . . first, the unattributed author seems to be of the opinion that the approach shot was blind.   Second, his description (result in doubt . . . scaling the rampart) reminds me of MacDonald's description(s) of the virtues of the approach on an Alps hole.” 

This article certainly isn't dispositive, but it is another piece in the puzzle . . .”


Obviously at that time he must’ve had questions about Merion or at least one of its holes. And he says it’s just another piece of the puzzle. What puzzle? What was he puzzling over at that time? Well, here’s what was next:

Bob Crosby asked at 2:18pm:

“What is the puzzle?”

And at 5:52pm David Moriarty responded with this:

“B Crosby asked:
What is the puzzle?

Well it probably depends upon who you ask.   My puzzle was whether Merion (not the Haverford Merion) can be viewed as a rejection of what had been going on in Philadelphia, and a turn back to links inspired and heathland inspired courses. 

Another puzzle was whether CB MacDonald and his work significantly influenced the design of Merion, and/or whether MacDonald actually advised on the project. 

Another puzzle is whether the 10th could properly be called an Alps hole. 

Another puzzle was whether the green complex was modeled after that of Alps Holes.”




I wonder if his “puzzles” over Merion have changed in the last year and a half. Is his upcoming article “white paper” going to ask and try to answer those “puzzles” of his, those questions back then or have some of them been answered over the last year and a half by others. Or perhaps he has become even more confused and has other questions now he might try to answer.

But the thing that fascinates me most about all this from David Moriarty is that very first thing he said in response to Bob Crosby a year and a half ago;

“ Well it probably depends upon who you ask. “

[DMoriarty]

David,

How could anybody embrace a theory you haven't presented yet?

I dont know, but it is interesting to watch them try.

I don't recall any of us embracing anything that was brought up at that time. 

I dont recall anyone embracing anything I brought up at the time either.  In fact I think we both remember that the reception was far from an embrace.   Yet if we read TEPaul now, it seems there was never really much disagreement at all.  Moreover, TEPaul and unnamed "Philadelphia Boys" seem to have new theories which strike me as quite familiar.

Judging his ironical and ignored post above, I'd say they struck Shivas the same way.
_____________________________

I have not changed my opinions on Merion or the Philadelphia School of Architecture from about 2004 until now so there is no chance if we happen to agree on what you're about to write that I got it from you.

Really?  Did you write in those past articles about your new theory?   That perhaps the reams of sketches came not from Wilson's trip to  Europe but from Macdonald and NGLA?  That Wison didnt go to NGLA to prepare for his trip abroad, but to talk about Merion?   That even if they didnt design Merion East, Macdonald and Whigham generally deserve a heck of a lot of credit for its creation?

Funny because I recall your your previous posts on these matters, and I detect that your position has, shall we say, evolved.   In fact, I even have copies of some of your past posts on these issues, even some you deleted.

Don't get me wrong Tom, I have no desire to play "I told you so" or to start pulling up your past posts to try and embarrass you.  But please don't insult my intelligence and the intelligence of others by frantically trying to reinvent where you stood in the past.   

It'd be much more productive to move forward.   That is what I am trying to do.
_____________________________

i.e. instead of simply saying "the men who designed NGLA" he says "the men who conceived the idea of designing NGLA"...as if 'conceptualizing' the idea of a sea-side course emulating the great holes from the UK was just as important as the 'designing/building' of the golf course itself, from the ground up. (It's almost like we'd say that Mike Keiser 'conceived the idea' of creating a first class, golf-first golf resort on the Oregon coast, i.e. a description that we use today for developers and not architects). 

Maybe a nothing point, but it seems clear that we today would never use that kind of language to describe the main process involved in the actual design and construction of a golf course -- and language does seem to follow thinking/ideas...which means their ideas back then were different than ours...actually, I'm not sure what any of this 'means' exactly, but I'd imagine that it would have to be a pretty important aspect of any modern-day analysis of who did what when and how back in those days

Peter,

It is not a nothing idea at all.   I don't think many today understand how important NGLA was to American golf.  Not the course itself, but the concept of building a course based on links principles.   While we can find a few examples of others doing similar things to a lesser degree at around the same time (Myopia, Garden City, maybe Maidstone, maybe Tillie's course from around then-- I cant think if the name but the one with the Alpinization,)  NGLA was a huge deal for years before and after the course opened.   In fact I'd say it was revolutionary for american golf.   

Don't have time to go into detail now but it is hard to understate its importance. 

[DMoriarty]

Dave, just to be clear...I'm not saying that you were the first one to ever wonder if the missing sketches were actually CBM's sketches, not Wilson's.   All I'm saying is that you appear to be the first one to ask this question on this board...for all I know, that question had been asked many times in the past.  Then again, maybe it hadn't.  I just don't know.

MikeC:  how's that for fair & impartial?? 

I'm not saying I was the first to ask either.   But these are not new ideas and they were not well taken when I suggested them.   Judging by the reaction I received then, I find some of the recent posts to be ironic.