[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You opined "That this fellow Phil Young could fixate on trying to make you prove beyond any question at all that the Hugh I. Wilson on that manifest is the same one from Merion is perhaps a greater waste of time then some of you hypotheses on here."

All I did was ask a question that he never answered and one that I believe is most important to prove. That you don't is fine. A waste of time... maybe for some but not for others.

 

[TEPaul]

Philip:

Let's just say, I'm not sure whether it's that I don't understand where you're coming from on some of the things you say and ask about this subject, or whether I just don't see the point of some of the things you say and ask about this subject but whichever it is I see no reason not to mention what i think about where you're coming from.

Happy New Year

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

We do not know exactly what Macdonald meant by his comments about the site, but I find it odd that you are questioning him now, especially given that the course, with all the shortcomings you listed, is still considered one of the finest in the world.   Perhaps Macdonald was able to see attributes in a property where laymen like you and I would only find faults.  

Same goes for his comment about the seven holes.  No matter the state of the holes at the time, here too Macdonald's prediction turned out to be prophetic.   Seems hard to knock him for that, yet you manage to knock him.   You seem to trust Tillinghast, so why not trust Tillinghast when he says that "this statement from him should cause much satisfaction?"

You are correct that we do not know how long Macdonald spent at Merion during either documented trip.  You take this to mean that the time must have been minimal.  There is no more evidence for this conlusion than there would be had you concluded that Macdonald and/or Whigham had actually spent many weeks at Merion.  We really don't know one way or another; your conclusion that the time was short is unsupported.
____________________________

David,

I reached no conclusions.   I questioned Macdonald's comments because I found the one on the site being splendid to be really odd.   One of the reasons Merion is such a great course is because it so splendidly utilizes the awkward piece of ground it's placed on.   How could a letter L shaped, clay-based, narrow property with an intersecting road be ideal?   It just seemed passing strange.

I also questioned his comments about 7 holes being as good as anything else in the country given the evidence you cited that at the time, the holes were a "rough draft", and probably unbunkered and ungrassed.

Either Macdonald had powers of prophesy rivaling King David, or the work was further along at that time than what we imagine.   I don't know.   I was simply noting that Macdonald's comments seemed odd given what we know, especially given that Macdonald was hardly one to give praise to others, despite his own rather self-promoting tendencies.

I think what I'm really wondering here as I think about it is whether Macdonald thought early on that he'd have a much larger role with the creation of the course than turned out to be the case, for whatever reason.   It seems he came onto the scene early with a flourish and then was suddenly gone.  

I'm just wondering if perhaps his comments in the beginning might have been a bit self-promoting, especially if he believed he had something to do with the design of the holes in question.

That might be a different take than you expected from me, David, but like I mentioned a long time ago, I'm not looking to prop up any myths but only trying to understand why a person who's involvement was deemed "of greatest value" was suddenly gone from a project that seems to have been a work in progress for many years, including the building of a second course immediately after the first.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You stated, "Let's just say, I'm not sure whether it's that I don't understand where you're coming from on some of the things you say and ask about this subject, or whether I just don't see the point of some of the things you say and ask about this subject but whichever it is I see no reason not to mention what i think about where you're coming from."

I can totally appreciate and understand that, so in the spirit of the discussion, I'd like to take a moment to explain it succinctly in hopes that I might end your confusion.

Before this thread began, on the several other Merion threads the trip that Hugh Wilson took to GB & I to study the courses in preparation for the work at Merion has been definitively stated as having occurred in 1910. In fact, in an earlier comment of mine where I made a typo and stated the date as 1911, you properly took me to task for the misinformation and I acknowledged the mistake.

So then, on post #9, Dave wrote, "TEPaul, Thank you for reminding me... I agree that this answers one of my questions:  Hugh Wilson went overseas after he and the committee visited CBM at NGLA... That being said, we still have the question of just when this trip took place.  I have been trying to put together a timeline, and it is raising some questions.  Is there any solid proof that Wilson went overseas in 1910?"

You immediately responded, "Is there any solid proof Wilson went to GB in 1910? What kind of proof are you looking for? What we have is Hugh Wilson's own report..." Obviously you consider this a set-in-stone date.

Dave then comments in post #13 how, "My hypotheses and speculation are not based on some preconceived target, but are guided by what I hope is a rigorous analysis of the facts..."

Dave then stated in post #18, "What am I talking about?  I am pretty certain that Wilson traveled overseas not in 1910, but in late 1911 or early 1912, at departed Europe for New York in May, 1912….  If I am correct about Wilson traveling overseas after Merion was initially laid out and seeded, then much of the conventional wisdom about the origins of the original Merion tumbles like a house of cards.  If this is the same 32 year old Hugh I. Wilson, then . . .

- Wilson must have taken his overseas trip [/b]sometime after the committee finished seeding the course in September 1912.[/b]  [Or there were multiple trips, but I have seen nothing factual indicating two trips, or that he traveled overseas before he went to NGLA.  As TEPaul points out, Wilson says he "later" saw the great holes in England and Ireland.]

- Wilson had not yet travelled overseas when he and the committee layed out the course (with the advice and suggestions of M&W) in the spring of 1911."

Now, since David had stated that, "My hypotheses and speculation are not based on some preconceived target, but are guided by what I hope is a rigorous analysis of the facts..." and then stated that, "if I am correct about Wilson traveling overseas after Merion was initially laid out and seeded, then much of the conventional wisdom about the origins of the original Merion tumbles like a house of cards...", I chose to take him to task for furnishing NO PROOF WHATSOEVER in making this statement.

Dave responded in post #21, "Oh yeah, I almost forgot.  The proof . . ." It was only then that he posted the copies of the manifests.

In post #25 he stated, "I think I mentioned this possibility in my post above.  The most compelling evidence that he went to look at courses in 1912 (and not 1910) is Wilson's own report.  As TEPaul points out, he said that the British and Irish courses he saw later,  after the NGLA trip..."

Tom, that was just on the FIRST page of this thread. From there he has continuously maintained that he believes there was a SINGULAR trip and you have maintained that Wilson took a trip in 1910.

Dave bases his argument on the 1912 trip manifest and his conclusions of what was written by others, many of which others have used (including me) in their opinions.

Because Dave himself states that he wants his hypotheses debated and considered through, "a rigorous analysis of the facts..." I challenged him to prove that the Hugh I. Wilson mentioned in the manifest was in fact THE Hugh I. Wilson of Merion fame. I further stated that until he could or would do this, that he was incorrect to state it as fact as he had constantly done.

For whatever reasons, Dave had not answered this question or supplied proof for quite a while until he finally apologized for not addressing it and did so. He admitted that he couldn't prove it as fact but that he believed it to be one.

That is why in his timeline, he CORRECTLY stated that "A Hugh I. Wilson traveled..."

So Tom, all I did was hold Dave to the standards that he claimed to be setting for himself. The reason for this, and Dave is free to share my IM's with all if he sees fit, was because I recognized that he wants to publish this hypothesis as fact (he mentioned publishing earlier as well), and so I stated to him that I wasn't "breaking his balls" but that if he did publish he could expect a lot of flack from many quarters, all demanding absolute proof for his "facts" to back up the complete revision of how the Merion Golf Club came into existence. I believe that it is better for him and the subject that his "facts" be completely scrutinized here. It is VERY hard to call back published words if his hypothesis turns out to lack merit. On the other hand, if he turns out to be correct and has discovered what all others have missed, what better "Peer Review" could he go through than from this distinguished body?

Does it make more sense now?
 
 

[TEPaul]

"That being said, there are also multiple reports that M&W were important advisors.  If H.Wilson really was a novice who had not yet studied gca, then it is much easier to understand why HWilson was so grateful to Macdonald for his help, and why even Alan Wilson recognized that M&W's advice and suggestions were "of the greatest help and value."

David:

I understand all that. As I've said many times we have always been aware of all those newspaper reports and such mentioning that M&W advised Merion.

But we are the ones who supplied these threads with the reports from the Wilsons, particularly Hugh and in our opinion and as I've also said many times one needs to look very carefully at what Hugh Wilson said in that report ABOUT what it was that constituted that "advice" from M&W. He mentions very specifically what it was he helped him with in Southampton but he mentions nothing else about what he did for him or them at Merion itself. I find that pretty indicative. I see no reason at all that Wilson would not have also mentioned in that report what it was that M&W did while at Merion had it been of significance to them or the course in either or both of those two visited that were made to Merion by M&W.

I very much doubt anyone was trying to minimize credit to Macdonald. Personally, I very much doubt that Macdonald would've even gotten particularly involved. Why would he, particularly if he could see that the responsibility to layout, design and built the golf course rested with Wilson and his committee.

When it comes to the subject of being a novice, I feel all of us on here need to understand a whole lot better that regardless of what we think today a number of those men back then really did start out some of those remarkable projects with no prior experience but they just did them anyway.

THAT is precisely what we need to look at and not just assume they couldn't have done them or that they must've had significant help from others.

THIS is the fascination of that time to me. They just did those projects in a very different way then we are used to today.

To me, this is what understanding the evolution of golf architecture in America is all about David.

[Mike_Cirba]

"That being said, there are also multiple reports that M&W were important advisors.  If H.Wilson really was a novice who had not yet studied gca, then it is much easier to understand why HWilson was so grateful to Macdonald for his help, and why even Alan Wilson recognized that M&W's advice and suggestions were "of the greatest help and value."

David:

I understand all that. As I've said many times we have always been aware of all those newspaper reports and such mentioning that M&W advised Merion.

But we are the ones who supplied these threads with the reports from the Wilsons, particularly Hugh and in our opinion and as I've also said many times one needs to look very carefully at what Hugh Wilson said in that report ABOUT what it was that constituted that "advice" from M&W. He mentions very specifically what it was he helped him with in Southampton but he mentions nothing else about what he did for him or them at Merion itself. I find that pretty indicative. I see no reason at all that Wilson would not have also mentioned in that report what it was that M&W did while at Merion had it been of significance to them or the course in either or both of those two visited that were made to Merion by M&W.

I very much doubt anyone was trying to minimize credit to Macdonald. Personally, I very much doubt that Macdonald would've even gotten particularly involved. Why would he, particularly if he could see that the responsibility to layout, design and built the golf course rested with Wilson and his committee.

When it comes to the subject of being a novice, I feel all of us on here need to understand a whole lot better that regardless of what we think today a number of those men back then really did start out some of those remarkable projects with no prior experience but they just did them anyway.

THAT is precisely what we need to look at and not just assume they couldn't have done them or that they must've had significant help from others.

THIS is the fascination of that time to me. They just did those projects in a very different way then we are used to today.

To me, this is what understanding the evolution of golf architecture in America is all about David.

Tom,

Isn't that really what's at issue here all along?  

I'm not sure what additional credit David thinks M&W aren't getting, but I think you summarized the distinction we're making very nicely.   We know that Wilson talked about all of the strategic, philosophical hole concepts that Macdonald taught him and noted that carefully and credited Macdonald fully.   Beyond that, we don't know what Macdonald did there, if much of anything.  

In any case, his involvement was quite short-lived, as I noted above.  

Again, it's not that any of us are disputing that Macdonald & Whigham provided WIlson and the Committee with advice that was valuable, but we also don't know much beyond sharing hole concepts that he was responsible for.

Given that he did two site visits in two years, given that Macdonald himself never stated much about his involvement, given that Merion didn't ask for his continued assistance (or perhaps they asked and didn't receive it?), given that the course had none of the hallmarks (hole templates) that were the trademark of Macdonald's design career (as well as his disciples), given that much more work took place at Merion during the next 10 years and beyond, including a second course immediately following the first without any involvement by M&W, it's hard to imagine that there is some giant contribution that M&W made to the creation of the Merion East course that is going unnoticed, either by history, or by us.

Thanks for summarizing it so nicely.   Perhaps we can put this matter to bed, because I think your post said it all.

[TEPaul]

"Does it make more sense now?"

Phil:

Yes it does but I was aware of all that. I doubt David Moriarty is maintaining that the person on the 1912 manifest is incontrovertibly the very same Hugh I. Wilson of Merion.

All I said is that for the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to agree to stipulate that it probably is.

What I doubt I'm willing to agree to stipulate, at this point, is something David Moriarty asked me last night and that was what it would take for me to become completely convinced that Wilson COULD NOT have gone to GB earlier than 1912?

Obviously what he is asking me and probably trying to imply is that those manifest databases are so complete that there is no way Wilson could've gone to GB earlier if he is not on one of those manifests earlier.

Is it possible those manifest databases are not complete? I really don't know but I certainly could imagine they may not be.

Furthermore, even if they are thoroughly complete is it possible that Wilson may've gone to GB or come home from GB WITHOUT being on one of those manifests?

Well, that's an entirely different question and potential set of circumstances, isn't it?

Let me give you an example:

In Macdonald's book he mentions:

"By the way, when Horace Hutchinson visited America on Lord Brassey's yacht in 1910 he spent a week with me at Rosyln and three or four days at Southampton. Together we made a study of the National, and I received more valuable advice."

Obviously Lord Brassey being a lord probably means he is British. Did Hutchinson travel across the Atlantic on his yacht? I don't know but obviously the yacht got over here so it's certainly possible.

Frankly, I do seem to know enough really rich people to know that often they don't cross the Atlantic on their huge yachts when those yachts cross the Atlantic (I know this because I asked if I could go across the Atlantic on one that was sailing across with the crew and they told me I could not because it was a bit rougher than I might suspect. ) but they most certainly could. If Hutchinson did in 1910 could Wilson have? Of course.

Would that have shown up on a ship's manifest and be in some database somewhere today? Probably not.

Could Wilson have crossed in something like that or perhaps even on Lord Brassey's yacht? Of course.

As an example this relative of my own family by the name of Cadwalader, I believe, had a yacht in those days by the name of the "Flying Cloud" (actually it's still around) that was at that time one of the biggest in the world. I think it was well over 300 feet. The Cadwaladers were Philadelphians. Did they know Hugh Wilson? It most certainly wouldn't surprise me since almost all those people belonged to Merion anyway.

See what I mean if someone asks me if I'd be willing to be completely convinced that if Wilson did not show up on a ship's manifest in 1910 there would be no way he could've gone to GB and returned?  

And lest someone on here accuse me of bragging or something like that because I simply mentioned the reality of a transatlantic yacht like Lord Brassey's or the Cadwalader's "Flying Cloud", I'm not----I'm merely pointing out a potential reality in 1910.

I am willing, however, to stipulate the fact that I don't think Hugh I. Wilson flew over to GB in 1910 and back on an SST.  
 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Thanks for the response... I know that Wilson's crossing the Atlantic on a private yacht is not something that I would ever have given thought to. It is a VERY valid point, especially after the statement that you made in the beginning of the post:

"Yes it does but I was aware of all that. I doubt David Moriarty is maintaining that the person on the 1912 manifest is incontroveribly the very same Hugh I. Wilson of Merion."

The point is that David IS MAINTAINING THAT VERY POINT and more!

Note his response to me when he was finally able to respond to my persistently asking:

"I cannot say with absolute certainty that it was our Hugh I. Wilson, and probably never will be able to.  Nonetheless, it is an excellent match: Same exact age, same exact name, same exact citizenship, traveling at about the same time as Travis described.  And so far no record of Wilson anywhere else during this time period.  Plus, this is the only one during the relevant time period who who even closely fits the match.  If it is not him, then I'd be compelled to argue that maybe Hugh I Wilson did not go overseas at all."

He'd be compelled to argue that if there were no 1912 trip then Wilson "did not go overseas at all!?!"

It is for that type of statement that I demand complete accuracy. I am glad that he admits he can't prove that it is THE Wilson... I would also love to see his argument that Wilson NEVER went overseas despite the numerous witnesses to that fact.

[TEPaul]

"The point is that David IS MAINTAINING THAT VERY POINT and more!"

Phil:

Well, then, to me that's a matter of degree or a matter of context. As I may or may not have said yesterday, if I sat on a jury I would probably not confict someone in a court of law on the strength of those manifest databases, but I would be willing to stipulate on this discussion group on golf course architecture that it PROBABLY was the very same Hugh I. Wilson from Merion on that 1912 manifest FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION!  

But if David Moriarty thinks he's offered complete proof that that was Hugh I. Wilson of Merion on that 1912 ship's manifest, I would disagree.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Are you suggesting that if Wilson was going overseas for 7 months to look at golf courses he might indulge in the luxury of a long, slow yacht ride, but if he were looking for a quickie in Paris while waiting for grass to grow back home he'd probably ride commercial?  

[TEPaul]

""I cannot say with absolute certainty that it was our Hugh I. Wilson, and probably never will be able to.  Nonetheless, it is an excellent match: Same exact age, same exact name, same exact citizenship, traveling at about the same time as Travis described.  And so far no record of Wilson anywhere else during this time period.  Plus, this is the only one during the relevant time period who who even closely fits the match.  If it is not him, then I'd be compelled to argue that maybe Hugh I Wilson did not go overseas at all."

He'd be compelled to argue that if there were no 1912 trip then Wilson "did not go overseas at all!?!"

It is for that type of statement that I demand complete accuracy. I am glad that he admits he can't prove that it is THE Wilson... I would also love to see his argument that Wilson NEVER went overseas despite the numerous witnesses to that fact."

Phil:

I know what you mean there. Honestly, I missed seeing that remark from David Moriarty.

However, if he really is going to be compelled to argue that Wilson never went to GB at all, I sure won't be on this thread discussing that. To me that is just downright silly.

That kind of argument would pretty much require the assumption that Hugh Wilson and Alan Wilson and numerous others from that time are all collectively lying and I see no reason to have anything to do with a discussion like that.

Frankly, Phil, I suspect those agronomy letters can shed some light on this entire subject---eg if Wilson went to GB earlier or even on the hugely unlikely fact he never went at all. The reason I say that is the post marks and the dates of all those letters most likely put Wilson in various places at various times, mostly in Philadelphia.

That's one back check. The other is we defiinitely did not copy all of them and there may be something in some of the ones we did not copy that indicates from Wilson were he had been and when such as GB.

You see David Moriarty and others may assume that Wayne and I copied everything because we're writing another history of Merion.

We aren't. We're writing about William Flynn and when we went through all those letters we only copied what we thought was relevent to William Flynn, and certainly not when Wilson went to GB. That is something that at the time we copied those letters we were not looking for or even thinking about and as you know that is just the nature of researching----ge when you're doing it you're generally doing it for a specific purpose and specific points and not hundreds of them simultaneously.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
Are you suggesting that if Wilson was going overseas for 7 months to look at golf courses he might indulge in the luxury of a long, slow yacht ride, but if he were looking for a quickie in Paris while waiting for grass to grow back home he'd probably ride commercial?"

MikeC:

Don't talk to me about quickies in Paris---it's sort of poignant to me. I hesitate to say this, but what the heck, it was so long ago and all the players are long gone now so--so what?

Back in the 1920s my grandfather, that questionable character by the name of Anthony John Drexel Paul decided with a bunch of his cronies (from Merion of all things) that they would take a trip to France, to Paris to see the sights or whatever.

Old AJDP was apparently a remarkably disingenuous old coot but his wife, my grandmother, was as sharp as a box of razor sharp tacks. Nobody ever outfoxed her from the sound of it, not even close--not dubious financial advisors or philandering husbands or anyone.

So, she suspected what old AJDP and his philandering cronies were up to on this trip to Paris so at the last minute she arranged for my sixteen year old father to go with them (obviously as her spy).

Well, my poor Dad, what a position he was in---he was her spy and the old coots figured that out in a Philadelphia second. They were miserable to him the whole time as they had to constantly avoid him over there as they "quickied" all over Paris.

Only problem was, since poor Dad as a young sixteen year old on his own in Paris he fell pray to some quickies himself and what happened to him?

You guessed it--he contracted the CLAP.

The poor guy, all he could do is turn to his father for help and his father told him he shouldn't have come over there anyway and he could figure his problem out for himself.

Unfortunately that unfortunate series of circumstances resulting in my Dad basically hating his father for the remainder of his life.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Did they go by yacht or commercial?  

Thanks for sharing.  You should write a book.  

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

I wouldn't say we just skimmed them looking for a capital "F" but we didn't exactly read carefully all of them that we could see had nothing to do with Flynn or Wilson or even Flynn's part in Merion. Don't forget we labeled them the "agronomy" letters because that's what they are. They are about 14 years of correspondence and around 2,000 letters on worms and diseases and amonium sulfate and drainage and Brown Spot and really sexy stuff like that. If you're an insomniac we'll send you some.

But through all those years and all kinds of events over that time there are plenty of descriptions and references of all kinds of interesting things, including how they formed the USGA Green Section.

To me one of the most interesting things about those letters is the occasional mention of the apparent mood of Macdonald as time went on and that's why I started that other thread. Macdonald was definitely not an easy guy to deal with, that's for sure, particularly as the years went by.

And that's why I don't exactly see him rushing down to Philadelphia to gratuitously help out Merion. He really wasn't like that. It's not hard to see that if you read about him in depth. Don't forget, Macdonald was not a professional architect, he was a Wall Street stockbroker, and he never got paid for anything he did in the realm of golf or architecture. He was a real stickler about "amateurism" in architecture, at least as far as he was concerned. In the projects he really was involved with it seems like it was done his way or he wouldn't be part of it.

Even if Merion asked him to do their whole project for them I seriously doubt he would've considered that. Don't forget too in 1911 he had a ton of his own problems to deal with at NGLA. It wouldn't be until two years later that he got involved in another project--Piping Rock---the golf club I grew up at.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

In light of all the circumstantial evidence, I'd stand by my speculations about the extent of Macdonald's precise involvement in the layout and details of the course at Merion that you cited abpve, because they are just that given the lack of further hard evidence to either support or refute them.

It simply doesn't make sense to me that a leading player disappears from the project in mid-stream, if that's what he ever was.  

We know he provided great conceptual help, strategic help, and continued advice for a year or so.   We know he made two site visits in two years.   I acknowledge all of that.

I still think that all of the circumstantial evidence I cited above indicates that if it's a piece of the puzzle, it's a relatively small one given all of the other work going on at Merion in that timeframe.

[TEPaul]

"With all due respect, Tom, we disagree on whether anyone has tried to minimize Macdonald’s involvement.  Macdonald’s level of involvement has been at issue over all these threads.  Even in this thread, Mike Cirba has claimed that, “If anything I'd strongly suggest that CBM's contribution has been overrated, due largely to Wilson's very humble and gratuitous nature in publicly and hyperbolically (is that a word? ) telling everyone what a big help Charley and Whigham were!”  In the last thread he described M&W’s role “as quite negligible and consultative only in a very broad, limited sense.”  

At the very least, we disagree on how the acknowledgements of M&W should be understood.  For example, I disagree with your point above when “I very much doubt that Macdonald would have even gotten involved particularly involved.”  I am saying this not to reopen or rehash the debate, or to offer a specific challenge; we have covered this issues ad nauseam before.  Rather, just pointing out that this issue of Macdonald’s involvement is definitely not clear cut, and that we have differed and do differ."

David:

We certainly do disagree on all of that and I see nothing presented that will change that. If anyone on here seems to feel there may be something to your "hypotheses" it seems to be those on here who admit they know very little about the history of Merion anyway.

Logically, Mike Cirba's feeling makes a lot of sense given all the evidence available. There are numerous reasons why Merion would overplay Macdonald's involvement in the project rather than underplay it.

Furthermore, it basically makes no sense that Hugh Wilson would've mentioned basically nothing about Macdonald's involvement with the project once it got underway seeing as what he said about Macdonald's help before they got underway.

You just seem to want to overlook the logic of what that means and obviously I can understand why you would---eg it weakens this "hypothesis" of yours that Macdonald's part in Merion has been minimized.

You appear to be the only one who thinks that and since you apparently want to continue to think that I don't see what more there is to discuss.

But if there turns out to be some relevent information in those remaining agronomy letters, information on either argument, we will post it.  

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You need to read what I wrote with more care since all I've done is quote you.

I wrote, "Because Dave himself states that he wants his hypotheses debated and considered through, "a rigorous analysis of the facts..." I challenged him to prove that the Hugh I. Wilson mentioned in the manifest was in fact THE Hugh I. Wilson... That is why in his timeline, he CORRECTLY stated that "A Hugh I. Wilson traveled..."

I stated that you had acknowledged that this was an unproven fact.

Again, your rsponse was, "I cannot say with absolute certainty that it was our Hugh I. Wilson, and probably never will be able to..."

Yet you continued by stating, "Nonetheless, it is an excellent match: Same exact age, same exact name, same exact citizenship, traveling at about the same time as Travis described.  And so far no record of Wilson anywhere else during this time period.  Plus, this is the only one during the relevant time period who who even closely fits the match.  If it is not him, then I'd be compelled to argue that maybe Hugh I Wilson did not go overseas at all."

Come on david, I have no problem with you believing that  Wilson went overseas in 1912, and in fact the Travis writing in 1913 gives every indication that it happened. For you to now state that I am, "mistaken. That is neither what I have said, nor what I am maintaining. You are cherry picking and distorting what I have said on this issue, but TEPaul’s understanding of my position on this is much more accurate than yours." is disngenuous at the very least.

For what other POSSIBLE inference or conclusion than can be drawn from your statement that, "If it is not him, then I'd be compelled to argue that maybe Hugh I Wilson did not go overseas at all."

You cannot argue the validity of your hypothesis giving the Travis writings as part of the proof and then back off them and your own words simply because I accept what you state within them at face value.

You have repeatedly stated the 1912 trip as fact throughout until I pressed the issue and then you back off only to the extent that you recognize the validity of my point.

You have also imtimated that the 1910 trip did not occur quite often on this thread... are you going to back off that now despite your statement that if the Wilson from the 1912 manifest wasn't Merion's, "then I'd be compelled to argue that maybe Hugh I Wilson did not go overseas at all."

David, take your stand on your hypothesis. I am NOT cherry-picking your statements, but rather quoting what you have stated.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

In light of all the circumstantial evidence, I'd stand by my speculations about the extent of Macdonald's precise involvement in the layout and details of the course at Merion that you cited abpve, because they are just that given the lack of further hard evidence to either support or refute them.

It simply doesn't make sense to me that a leading player disappears from the project in mid-stream, if that's what he ever was.  

We know he provided great conceptual help, strategic help, and continued advice for a year or so.   We know he made two site visits in two years.   I acknowledge all of that.

I still think that all of the circumstantial evidence I cited above indicates that if it's a piece of the puzzle, it's a relatively small one given all of the other work going on at Merion in that timeframe.

That's fine, Mike.   Think what you want.  Just so you understand that you and I do actually disagree about Macdonald's level of involvement.  

Perhaps now you can finally quit trying to say and imply that there is no real disagreement as to this issue.

David,

Is it any wonder that you piss people off?   Does every one of your posts need to include a smartass comment?   Oh, that's right, I forgot about the ones where you play the poor, defenseless victim who is only out for the facts without any agenda.  

I swear that if I stated I agreed with everything you've said about Merion for the past nearly two months now, you'd still find something to argue about!

I stated at least a month ago now that I think we are differing by degrees, and that still holds.   You think Macdonald deserves some additional credit that history neglected to provide him and I think the historical record as to his input feels about right.   I've seen nothing to change my opinion, and you evidently haven't either.

So, let's both get over ourselves and quit wasting Ran's space in a war of attrition.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You also wrote, "So, Phil, while I don’t mind being challenged on my facts or proof, and encourage you to continue to do so, I  do take exception to your claim that I have been maintaining that the person in the manifest is incontrovertibly Merion’s Hugh I. Wilson.  I haven’t so maintained nor am I so maintaining this now."

From the very beginning of this thread, you have made statements such as in opost #21, "Oh yeah, I almost forgot.  The proof . . . Hugh I. Wilson is listed as traveling on S.S. Philadelphia, departing Cherbourne on May 9, 1912, destination New York.  He is listed as 32 years old and a U.S. Citizen.  Source:  Ancestry.com. New York Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA, transcribed the passenger lists and listed the details... I don't have is departure and return tickets, but I have a manifest, which ought to be as good or better... The Manifest, from the same source:"

Post #24 "As for your multiple Hugh Wilson listings.  I have searched and havent found any who match the description 32 yrs old, possible dates (1909-1913), likely departure points (England, Scotland, Northwest France,) likely arrival ports (New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore.  My research on this continues... Also, keep in mind that Travis suggested that Wilson as overseas in the ummer of 1912.  While well into May is not technically summer, it is pretty close..."

Post #36, "What follows is my rough working timeline of the creation of the first new course at Merion.  It is a draft and will be changed as my understanding of the facts change.  The question marks indicate material which I still want to check into, although I really am still checking into everything at this point.  I am posting it to indicate that pretty much the entire theory has some factual basis, and to specify at least part of that factual basis.
Winter of 1911-12(?).  Hugh Wilson departs for Europe to view the great holes and search for ideas to use at Merion.  [According to Travis, “Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer . . . .”] -Travis,  January 1913, American Golfer.
-May 9, 1912.  Hugh Wilson departs Chambourg, France on the S.S. Philadelphia for his return trip to the United
States.

Post #27, "What is with you Mike?  Something has you very bothered about this whole issue, and I do not think it much to do with the merits of my position or the validity of the supporting facts.  Oh well . . .
Quote from: Mike Cirba on December 27, 2006, 12:25:58 am

Philip, how can we be SURE that the "Hugh Wilson" attending the USGA meeting in Philadelphia on January 13th, 1912 was THE Hugh Wilson from Merion?  Isn't it obvious from David's accounts that he was in GB, or France (studying the great French courses) at this time before leaving on the Titanic...or, wait, no, the Philadelphia, just a few months later?


Wilson likely left for Europe sometime in the Winter of 1911-1912.  Apparently, it was after January 13th.  Do you have evidence that he was there for longer than three or four months?  As for the Titanic speculation it was TEPaul's, not mine.  I asked him where he heard it, but he has not answered.  

As for your many reference to the trip to France. The S.S. Philadelphia left from Southampton, then stopped in France.  Plus, there were British resorts in this part of France by architects such as Colt and Willie Park, Jr. at this time, including Le Touquet, which Travis suggests Wilson visited.  So it is not unreasonable for Wilson to have departed from there, even if he had not been on the boat since Southampton.

As for the NGLA visit, do you have reason to believe that the entire Merion Committee wasn't at NGLA.  Because Hugh Wilson makes it sound like they all may have been there.

But I guess your point is that you do not believe that it was Merion's Hugh I. Wilson, 32 years old, US citizen, who returned to the United states in May of 1912.  

How do you explain Travis' comment?  When do you think the committee went to NGLA?  1909?  

I can tell you are very upset about all this, but I am only following a reasonable analysis of the facts.  Not sure why you would have a problem with that?

David, you keep on making similar statements throughout the entire thread. How can you possibly "take exception to your claim that I have been maintaining that the person in the manifest is incontrovertibly Merion’s Hugh I. Wilson," when it is quite clear that you stated such as fact, put it in your first rough timeline as fact, criticized others such as Mike Cirba for taking exception to it when it is fact, all the way up till your final statement that in reference to the Hugh Wilson in the manifest that, "If it is not him, then I'd be compelled to argue that maybe Hugh I Wilson did not go overseas at all."

I repeat what I said earlier; take your stand and make it crystal clear because if you DID NOT mean to state that it was Wilson of Merion in the 1912 manifest then "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do."

[TEPaul]

"I agree.  But others have repeatedly pointed to the overseas trip as the single most important factor which preparing Wilson for his task.  I am not one of those people."

Good. Neither am I.

Whatever prepared him for his task or even if, as he clearly said, he and his committee started out unprepared for the task and even unaware of that they may've been unprepared, the point is that he and they did it anyway.

What does all this really mean, David?

What do the histories of the likes of Leeds's Myopia, Emmet's GCGC, Fownes's Oakmont, Macdonald's NGLA, Wilson's Merion, Crump's Pine Valley really mean?

Isn't it obvious?

It means that a far more controversial assumption than yours here that amateur architects who may even start out novices but are willing to put the time and energies into projects like those mentioned cannot and are not capable of doing things like that is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

They both could do it and did do it and in most cases with a lot less help than we today seem always constrained to feel the need to have to assign to them.

This is not a popular belief and it is getting less so as time goes by. And why wouldn't it be so? This is something professional golf archtiects must bank on for obvious reasons----eg that they are the only ones who can layout, design and build great golf courses.

But they can never avoid the historical fact of Leeds, Emmet, Fownes, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump et al, who created those life-project courses that are some of the greatest in the world, and that all of them started out novices but pervailed anyway. And no one can prove that they had all this help that people like you feel constrained to assign to them for the simple reason the historical records of their projects speak for themselves.  

The fact is even novices who dedicate themselves to projects like these ones both can and did create courses and architecture that may be just as good or perhaps even better than those of professional architects.

They obviously had talents that in the beginnings they may not have been aware of but the thing that is the common thread is they all had the dedication and the time with those projects that is so rare at any time in golf architecture's history and evolution.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I am sorry that you think I have misrepresented what you wrote and stated. I don't believe I have and therefor I am withdrawing as this fray as I now believe it pointless to continue.

I wish you well, as you know I always did, with your research and work on your hypotheses.

[TEPaul]

David:

I think we have all come to the point where we understand that we very much disagree on almost all of this and there really isn't much else to say about it. Not until something new perhaps comes up.

I don't think any of us need to carry this on debating about whether or not you have been misrepresented. If after all this time and material you feel your representation of whatever it is you're trying to say has been globally misrepresented then that doesn't say much for the way you represent yourself or your ideas and beliefs.

That plaintive response that noone understands me or what I'm trying to say is generally the best indication of a failed and unsupportable "hypothesis".

Let's get onto some other subject than Merion. You should close down this thread yourself.

[Andy Hughes]

"I agree.  But others have repeatedly pointed to the overseas trip as the single most important factor which preparing Wilson for his task.  I am not one of those people."

Good. Neither am I.

Lordie, why is nobody a little more amazed by this?  A small group of guys with no experience created a course that almost immediately was awarded a US Open! Did Hugh think he was the Donald or something?
Apparently nobody knows the answer to this, but there seem at least 3 possibilities:
1. The course was basic/dull/without merit when it was first initially built, and then was improved very quickly with help from others (i.e. Flynn, Pickering CBM whomever) as Hugh came up to speed
2. The course was basic/dull/without merit when it was first initially built, but Hugh went to GB as DaveM may have found and when he returned with his sketches and new-found principles the course was quickly improved.
3. The course was pretty decent right off the bat.
I find it incredible the course could have been good right away, and before the trip to GB, especially if we are to believe the help and guidance of those more experienced was either minimal or non-existent early on.

PS DaveM--there has been much talk of your "hypothesis"--to help clear the air some, could state what it actually is?

[TEPaul]

"As for the Titanic speculation it was TEPaul's, not mine.  I asked him where he heard it, but he has not answered."

Philip;

I did answer that on here a number of times. It is not my speculation that Wilson almost went down on the Titanic or even that he was on the Titanic. That rumor has been around the history of Merion since well before I was born.

It is basically no fun, basically no good, to try to explain every single detail of the history of a golf course to people who start out discussing and arguing about the details of the history of a golf course without first being really familiar with the course and its history. I'm not saying those course histories are always complete accurate but at least we are familiar with all the details of what those histories ARE!

This is no different than that incredible Aronomink restoration project discussion with Tom MacWood. I had to explain every detail of everything to do with it to him first just so he could disagree with practically every thing I was saying.

It's just incredible. It's ridiculous.

If anyone is going to get into arguing in this kind of detail then the very first thing they should consider doing is the research on these club histories that some of us have done. This is the only way one can ever be on an equal footing in these kinds of discussions. If they fail to do that first these threads inevitably devolve into all these ridiculous questions and claims of misrepresentation and such.  

[TEPaul]

"Phillip, I didnt say you misrepresented what I wrote or stated, I said you misrepresented my position.  There is a difference."

David Moriarty:

There is a difference???  

I guess that's why these Merion threads have gone on for well over forty pages then. In that case, in the future you should attempt to both write and state better what your position is, otherwise most everyone will be confused by most all your posts and points and "hypotheses" all the time which does seem to be most of the reason these threads have gone on about ten times longer and farther than they should have.

All I can say at this point, David, is that if my life is on the line in a court of law I sure ain't hiring you unless I want my epitaph to read;

"Here lies a man whose lawyer wrote and stated in court something different from what his positon was."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()