News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #75 on: April 08, 2008, 06:32:04 PM »

Furthermore, Patrick, one ship left Southampton with 242 "souls" on board, headed for South America with stops in Rio, Lisbon, and other familiar ports of call.

The manifest is divided into "British passengers" and "Aliens".

That's because the ship departed from Southampton.
Does the manifest indicate which passengers disembarked in Lisbon and Rio ?  And, which passengers boarded in Lisbon for the trip to Rio ?
[/color]

The Aliens section, about half the total, lists everyone's nationality, yet not a single one of them is "American".    There are plenty of "German, French, Italian, Brazilian, and so on, but not a single American.

Mike, please look at the ship's destination.
They weren't going to America, they were going to Lisbon and Rio.
Why do you feel that the absence of Americans on the voyage offers some form of refutation as to the accuracy of manifests ?
[/color]

Does that seem odd to you in the pre-war years?

Not at all.

The ship sailed for Lisbon and Rio, not Boston or New York.
[/color]


wsmorrison

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #76 on: April 08, 2008, 08:21:18 PM »
"Wayne,

Terrific. I will be looking forward to playing with you and Joe at Merion.  I will even bring clubs with metal shafts and try my best not to clog up the course with my glacial play.   

What do you say we let Joe be the arbiter?  He is definitely leaning your way, and I am sure he won't be influenced by the fact that, if I win, he gets a round at Merion, whereas if you win, he only gets a round at lowly Rustic Canyon. "


You haven't proved anything regarding Wilson and prior trips to the UK before Merion was designed and built, despite what you think.  Your evidence is a refutation of contemporary accounts and an otherwise lack of evidence.  And you think that is proof?

If you turn out to be correct, the prize is a round of golf at Merion.  Believe me when I say I have no interest in playing with you.  I would simply arrange for your play with someone else and cover your green fee.  I do not wish to spend any portion of a day with you regardless of how slow or fast you play. 

Prior to your return, you questioned my ability (and that of Tom Paul) to play by the rules of courtesy and not get personal.  Yet you demean a number of us when you remarked about how glad you were that finally someone besides yourself, that is Joe Bausch, was doing research on the subject.  What's that all about?  We've spent years studying this and sharing information as it is brought to light.  Do you call your disparaging remarks playing by the rules?  And then you come up with absolutely nothing new except more misinformation and misinterpretations.  What a huge waste of time this is has proved to be. 

Mike_Cirba

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #77 on: April 08, 2008, 08:23:29 PM »
"Wayne,

Terrific. I will be looking forward to playing with you and Joe at Merion.  I will even bring clubs with metal shafts and try my best not to clog up the course with my glacial play.   

What do you say we let Joe be the arbiter?  He is definitely leaning your way, and I am sure he won't be influenced by the fact that, if I win, he gets a round at Merion, whereas if you win, he only gets a round at lowly Rustic Canyon. "


You haven't proved anything regarding Wilson and prior trips to the UK before Merion was designed and built, despite what you think.  Your evidence is a refutation of contemporary accounts and an otherwise lack of evidence.  And you think that is proof?

If you turn out to be correct, the prize is a round of golf at Merion.  Believe me when I say I have no interest in playing with you.  I would simply arrange for your play with someone else and cover your green fee.  I do not wish to spend any portion of a day with you regardless of how slow or fast you play. 

Prior to your return, you questioned my ability (and that of Tom Paul) to play by the rules of courtesy and not get personal.  Yet you demean a number of us when you remarked about how glad you were that finally someone besides yourself, that is Joe Bausch, was doing research on the subject.  What's that all about?  We've spent years studying this and sharing information as it is brought to light.  Do you call your disparaging remarks playing by the rules?  And then you come up with absolutely nothing new except more misinformation and misinterpretations.  What a huge waste of time this is has proved to be. 

Wayne,

I'd also add that my efforts to show some of the inconsistencies, vagaries, omissions, and errors of those manifests with specific examples were greeted by David with personal insults.  "Buehler!? 
 
So much for civil discussion.   ::)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #78 on: April 08, 2008, 11:11:50 PM »
Wayne,

I didn't say I had proven anything yet.   If you read it again, you'll see I even address the possibility of losing.   I was merely accepting your wager, and looking forward to when I do prove it.   I thought it was pretty funny, given everything, but I guess you may have missed the missed the humor.   

As for you taking offense to my kind words to Joe about his research, I believe I explained that on another thread.   

As for your accusation that I have posted misinformation and misinterpretation, I'd like to hear about that beause dont recall any such thing. 

Perhaps we all need to take a breath . . . there, I feel better.  Don't you?




"Wayne,

Terrific. I will be looking forward to playing with you and Joe at Merion.  I will even bring clubs with metal shafts and try my best not to clog up the course with my glacial play.   

What do you say we let Joe be the arbiter?  He is definitely leaning your way, and I am sure he won't be influenced by the fact that, if I win, he gets a round at Merion, whereas if you win, he only gets a round at lowly Rustic Canyon. "


You haven't proved anything regarding Wilson and prior trips to the UK before Merion was designed and built, despite what you think.  Your evidence is a refutation of contemporary accounts and an otherwise lack of evidence.  And you think that is proof?

If you turn out to be correct, the prize is a round of golf at Merion.  Believe me when I say I have no interest in playing with you.  I would simply arrange for your play with someone else and cover your green fee.  I do not wish to spend any portion of a day with you regardless of how slow or fast you play. 

Prior to your return, you questioned my ability (and that of Tom Paul) to play by the rules of courtesy and not get personal.  Yet you demean a number of us when you remarked about how glad you were that finally someone besides yourself, that is Joe Bausch, was doing research on the subject.  What's that all about?  We've spent years studying this and sharing information as it is brought to light.  Do you call your disparaging remarks playing by the rules?  And then you come up with absolutely nothing new except more misinformation and misinterpretations.  What a huge waste of time this is has proved to be. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #79 on: April 14, 2008, 11:09:49 AM »
In an IM communication one of the site's frequent contributors offered this evaluation of the Merion threads;

"So far as I can tell, these threads seem to focus on creating doubt as a defense attorney would.  So far as I am concerned, some doubt already exists.   The focus should be on mitigating that doubt so far as Wilson is concerned.  It is clear that Wilson is the best bet so why not first look for info which further credits him as the architect before exploring other avenues?  If giant holes exist or if some compelling evidence was found which should change the thought process, then I could understand what altering the thought process (sic; should be for)."

 

I think that's an excellent thought and so I would like to offer something of an "in-round swing change", as it were, on these Merion threads.  ;)

Can we get back to what the real question under discussion on these Merion threads is or should be? Here is at least one:

1/   Is the history of Merion's architecture, particularly the architecture of the so-called first phase--eg 1910-1915---- as far as Wilson and the Merion Construction Committee's part in it and Macdonald/Whigam's part in it is concerned as accurate as it's been portrayed by Merion from the beginning to date or is it not? And if it's not what specifically is inaccurate about it?


It seems to me this contributor is exactly right above when he said: ".... these threads seem to focus on creating doubt as a defense attorney would."

It seems to me David Moriarty who is a lawyer is attempting to do exactly that---eg as a defense attorney would, create doubt about the accuracy of Merion's recorded architectural history and to create doubt about the credibility of the ones responsible for it. It seems pretty clear from these Merion threads that he tried first to create doubt any way he could, for instance the mis-measurement of the 10th hole, doubt about the local roots of Philly architecture preceding Merion and Merion’s place in that, doubt about the credence given by some of us here today to the remarks made by the likes of Robert Lesley over what he meant by an "Alps" hole etc.

Frankly, I'm certain there is a ton of historical material surrounding the history of the architectural creation of Merion that David Moriaty isn't very familiar with such as the Wilson reports. We, here, think he should be intimately familiar with those Wilson reports, particularly Alan Wilson's, if he wants to open up the foregoing historical interpretations by Merion and us here. Otherwise this will continue to be an exercise in attempting to caste doubt on Merion and those of us here with petty and trivial methods and for petty and trivial reasons. At least that certainly is the way we see it.

We would be delighted to find out anything new about the history of Merion or to undercover any interesting old material or new material. That has been what Wayne and I, particularly Wayne, has been doing for about seven years now and literally over thousands of hours.

Does David Moriarty want to take advantage of all that research as it pertains perhaps to the point of this question before us about Wilson and his Committee and Macdonald/Whigam and their part in Merion East or does he want to continue to try to just create doubt on Merion and us first before he makes some point that even he doesn't even seem sure of at this point?

If any of you want to look at the history of the creation of Merion between, particularly 1910-1915, the very best thing we can put before us, in my opinion, is Alan Wilson’s report in 1926 on the creation of Merion. Nothing from that time tracks the history of events from beginning to that time as comprehensively as that report does.

To continue to neglect or to dismiss that report is both a poor research method and pretty poor scholarship on the subject at hand. The fact that Moriarty has NOT even asked for it to be produced in a year and a half on here but has also dismissed it when it was mentioned and neglected the mention of it when it was mentioned is very telling, I think.




« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 11:17:36 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #80 on: April 14, 2008, 11:17:32 AM »
Tom,

Without asking you to type the darn things, is there a way perhaps they can be scanned into a .PDF and put here for everyone's perusal?

I know our friend JB has the technology.   What do you think?

TEPaul

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #81 on: April 14, 2008, 11:39:34 AM »
Mike:

I know I can't scan it in here but I have it and would be glad to give anyone a copy of it who can scan it in. I'm pretty sure Wayne has it and can scan it in.

However, for my part, I would like to have some of the contributors on here, and most particularly David Moriarty, FIRST ACKNOWLEDGE that they feel it has, at least potentially, some real relevance to these Merion threads and their basic question.

If I don't even hear that first, I'm not inclined to make it available because I really do not want to see this document dismissed as it has been before on here before anyone, and certainly including Moriarty, has ever even seen it in its entirety. And I definitely do not want to see a man of the significance of Alan Wilson have insinuations made about his integrity for writing this report as some on here have done before when they don't even know his report or much of anything about the man himself.

This kind of thing in the past on here is the very type of thing that leads some of us around here to take the likes of Moriarty to task which I do admit can lead to incivility.

I don't want to be uncivil in the future over these subjects, but  we need to stop playing games here and get down to seriously considering the best available material any of us have.

Well, let me rephrase this---I want to hear from David Moriarty on this first, particularly how he will treat this report and Wilson, first, or I'm not going to produce it, and you can all just wait until our book on Flynn and all the material in it, including these reports, is published.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 11:43:22 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #82 on: April 14, 2008, 11:41:28 AM »
Tom,

Completely understood.   I do hope David is sincerely interested to see it in its entirety.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #83 on: April 14, 2008, 11:54:11 AM »
In an IM communication one of the site's frequent contributors offered this evaluation of the Merion threads;

"So far as I can tell, these threads seem to focus on creating doubt as a defense attorney would.  So far as I am concerned, some doubt already exists.   The focus should be on mitigating that doubt so far as Wilson is concerned.  It is clear that Wilson is the best bet so why not first look for info which further credits him as the architect before exploring other avenues?  If giant holes exist or if some compelling evidence was found which should change the thought process, then I could understand what altering the thought process (sic; should be for)."

 

I think that's an excellent thought and so I would like to offer something of an "in-round swing change", as it were, on these Merion threads.  ;)

Can we get back to what the real question under discussion on these Merion threads is or should be? Here is at least one:

1/   Is the history of Merion's architecture, particularly the architecture of the so-called first phase--eg 1910-1915---- as far as Wilson and the Merion Construction Committee's part in it and Macdonald/Whigam's part in it is concerned as accurate as it's been portrayed by Merion from the beginning to date or is it not? And if it's not what specifically is inaccurate about it?


It seems to me this contributor is exactly right above when he said: ".... these threads seem to focus on creating doubt as a defense attorney would."

It seems to me David Moriarty who is a lawyer is attempting to do exactly that---eg as a defense attorney would, create doubt about the accuracy of Merion's recorded architectural history and to create doubt about the credibility of the ones responsible for it. It seems pretty clear from these Merion threads that he tried first to create doubt any way he could, for instance the mis-measurement of the 10th hole, doubt about the local roots of Philly architecture preceding Merion and Merion’s place in that, doubt about the credence given by some of us here today to the remarks made by the likes of Robert Lesley over what he meant by an "Alps" hole etc.

Frankly, I'm certain there is a ton of historical material surrounding the history of the architectural creation of Merion that David Moriaty isn't very familiar with such as the Wilson reports. We, here, think he should be intimately familiar with those Wilson reports, particularly Alan Wilson's, if he wants to open up the foregoing historical interpretations by Merion and us here. Otherwise this will continue to be an exercise in attempting to caste doubt on Merion and those of us here with petty and trivial methods and for petty and trivial reasons. At least that certainly is the way we see it.

We would be delighted to find out anything new about the history of Merion or to undercover any interesting old material or new material. That has been what Wayne and I, particularly Wayne, has been doing for about seven years now and literally over thousands of hours.

Does David Moriarty want to take advantage of all that research as it pertains perhaps to the point of this question before us about Wilson and his Committee and Macdonald/Whigam and their part in Merion East or does he want to continue to try to just create doubt on Merion and us first before he makes some point that even he doesn't even seem sure of at this point?

If any of you want to look at the history of the creation of Merion between, particularly 1910-1915, the very best thing we can put before us, in my opinion, is Alan Wilson’s report in 1926 on the creation of Merion. Nothing from that time tracks the history of events from beginning to that time as comprehensively as that report does.

To continue to neglect or to dismiss that report is both a poor research method and pretty poor scholarship on the subject at hand. The fact that Moriarty has NOT even asked for it to be produced in a year and a half on here but has also dismissed it when it was mentioned and neglected the mention of it when it was mentioned is very telling, I think.

Tom

Often times when the lawyer creates doubt it is to make an alternate theory more plausible.  I don't know if an alternate has been put forward.  So far as I can tell there has been talk of CB Mac getting more credit, but this doesn't seem worth the effort to me.  Wilson was appointed (presumably) by the membership, the organizer, the researcher and the man responsible for getting the work done.  If Wilson used CB Mac or anyone else as a resource then more power to him.  Being used a resource doesn't necessarily mean CB Mac should be promoted to co-design unless the man in charge (or perhaps someone else very close to the project and with some input himself) felt it a reasonable step to take. 

I would like to know where all this ship manifest talk is going.  Things just keep going in circles without any indication of the importance (to an alternate theory?) of the information which is interesting, but not yet proven as a fact either way so far as I can tell.  In fact, one an't even tell if the info is compelling because there is nothing to link any of this info to - in other words, so far as I know, there hasn't been an alternate theory presented. 

So far, here was what I gather.

- Wilson was put in charge of building a new course at Merion 
- Wilson visited CB Mac and picked his brain for a few days 
- Wilson went to the UK
- Wilson tool advice from from various other people concerning design and agronomy
- CB Mac may have helped Wilson more than previously thought - I don't see why this should make any difference
- There are ship manifests which are being studied - I am not sure what they are meant to prove either way
- Wilson may or may not have been present for seeding in the fall of 1911

Is there anything else?

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #84 on: April 14, 2008, 12:10:37 PM »
Welcome back my favorite lefty well other than me. I thought this was going to be a record thread calling someone out who did not answer. lol I hope all is well for you and the family in LA.

Phil_the_Author

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #85 on: April 14, 2008, 12:15:32 PM »
Tom,

You wrote, "However, for my part, I would like to have some of the contributors on here, and most particularly David Moriarty, FIRST ACKNOWLEDGE that they feel it has, at least potentially, some real relevance to these Merion threads and their basic question. If I don't even hear that first..."

For someone who has been so involved in the USGA museum's initiatives to make it's collection more available to researchers and the casual golf student, that is most disappointing to read.

When you write, "I want to hear from David Moriarty on this first, particularly how he will treat this report and Wilson, first, or I'm not going to produce it, and you can all just wait until our book on Flynn and all the material in it, including these reports, is published." you sound like the spoiled kid who claims ownership to the ball and who is going to bat until he's tired or he'll go home and take it with him.

A favorite quote of mine is, "The truth can survive the attackes of crackpots, lunatics and the well-intentioned..." Don't worry about defending Wilson, he's a big boy, breathing or not, and his record will do it for him.

By being little in this issue, which is what I believe you are by denying to all this information because of your fear of what Moriarity will say, both enables his arguments and diminshes your veracity.

Every serious researcher owes... they owe it to those they can teach, they owe it to those who are as fascinated as they and, most important of all, they owe it to those who have helped them. And what they owe is a TIMELY revelation of what they have found and/or discovered.

That others might be critical either of the discovery or discoverer will neither diminish the cricisms or rebukes; rather the hiding of it brings about more. The only thing it diminishes are the numbers of supporters for them.

Please reconsider...


TEPaul

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #86 on: April 14, 2008, 12:35:51 PM »
"For someone who has been so involved in the USGA museum's initiatives to make it's collection more available to researchers and the casual golf student, that is most disappointing to read."


I'm sorry you feel that way, Phil. I doubt the USGA Architecture Archive would even think of accepting and including the quantity and volume of historical material I've suggested and still hope they will do. It will take them time to get it all on the Internet though, and I hope people understand that and the reasons why.

I don't know whether you noticed my other thread recently on whether the USGA Architecture Archive should have a discussion group.

I'm beginning to think after seeing some of the things that go on on this DG maybe they shouldn't and for that reason I would not hesitate to suggest that the USGA put Alan Wilson's report on the Internet.

But this website does have a discussion group and for that reason after having seen how the mere suggestion of Alan Wilson's report and Alan Wilson himself has been treated by some on here, I think you can probably understand why I said what I did.

It would be ingenuous of me if I did not say that some of the things that have been said on this DG about Merion, its history, its architect and his committee and family and friends, some of its members back then and now and others in this town who love that course, are really disappointing to me and they do upset me sometimes. And if some of the people whose trivialities and pettinesses and insinuations we around here have to suffer, expect me to do their research for them, even after they accuse us of not digging enough-----well, Phil, they would be wrong.  ;)

I admit, some of us can and do get sort of sensitive sometimes about some of the things people on here say about the things we really care about. So do you about the things you really care about, like Tillie. If you actually think most of us on here have never noticed you can get pretty sensitive over some of the things said on here about Tillie, well, Phil, I think it's about time you got your eyes checked!  ;)


TEPaul

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #87 on: April 14, 2008, 01:05:39 PM »
Phil:

Frankly, I didn't read past the first two sentences of your last post when I responded.

Why don't we just agree that we use our own modus with our research and material and with the things we concentrate on like Merion and Flynn and you use whatever modus you want with your research and material on Tillie and we both refrain from calling one another little and such, as you just did with me, for the way we go each go about it. OK, Phil?

I think we've had about enough pettiness and incivility on these threads and I know we don't want you to get into that too.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 01:07:37 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #88 on: April 14, 2008, 01:26:41 PM »
Phil,

I don't know if you saw my posts yesterday but I was wondering if you could tell me the date of the "American Cricketer" review that Tillinghast did on Merion?   And, if so, does it mention when he played there or saw it for the first time?

Thanks!!

Phil_the_Author

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #89 on: April 14, 2008, 01:29:53 PM »
Tom,

As the foremost Tilly defender, and I fully accept that being so has me at times react to things that I should ignore, I can speak from experience that the holding back of information from those who are interested in learning more can only hurt all.

For the past three years I have answered questions that have been emailed to the Tillinghast Association on subjects ranging fromspecifics on course design to whether he designed the houses built across the street from from his Harrington Park home.

In order to answer a number of these I have had to reveal information, documents, anecdotes and more that I have discovered that no one else had. Not a single time did I ever not send what was needed or suggest that they wait until I had published something. The two exceptions to that both occurred recently, ironically enough, because of information that I had been asked about on here. Only because of a contractual obligation to a journal to whon I have agreed to write a series of articles leading up to the 2009 Open at Bethpage, did I not answer. I still emailed the individual and explained why and provided some "private thoughts on the subject."

My point was not to insult but to appeal to what I know is your sense of wanting to discover and protect the truth of a course you love and for those who are responsible for bringing it to life.

Please accept my apology for any insult as I only meant to encourage you to post what so many on here want so much to see.

Phil_the_Author

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #90 on: April 14, 2008, 01:35:32 PM »
Mike,

I apologize for not responding to that. I have my home office completely in shambles. For a long time I have had a need to both reorganize my files and am at that terrible point where one curses the bright idea that got them started while waiting for the moment when it is clear it was a brilliant idea.

The short answer is yes I both know it and have a copy of it. Unfortunately I have it in a file that I have to "rediscover" within too many piles standing precariously everywhere I turn.

I'll let you know when I find it. You could email Rick as I believe he would know as well.

 

Mike_Cirba

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #91 on: April 14, 2008, 01:41:53 PM »
Thanks, Phil...understood.

TEPaul

Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #92 on: April 14, 2008, 02:48:28 PM »
"Please accept my apology for any insult as I only meant to encourage you to post what so many on here want so much to see."


Absolutely, Phil, I KNOW you did but a whole lot of others on here seem to get confused about some of our language and tenor apparently. I know exactly what you meant to say, and I appreciate it.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #93 on: April 14, 2008, 03:08:00 PM »
Tom,

I just skimmed the above so I may have missed some things.

I'd love to see whatever you have, and frankly would have like to have seen it years ago.   

At this point though any long awaited big production of Merion material will likely just further delay my In My Opinion piece, so I dont plan on looking at anything knew until AFTER IT IS DONE OR AT LEAST OFF TO RAN FOR HIS OPINION/APPROVAL. 

Thanks for the offer though, I look forward to seeing this material soon as I am sure it will be enlightening. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Dave_Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #94 on: April 15, 2008, 11:45:39 AM »
Here is a snippet of the October 12, 1913 Philadelphia Public Ledger article by William H. Evans that talked about all kinds of stuff that day, including Sea View:



Note:  we've since learned that Evans was a member at Lansdowne Country Club during those years he wrote for the Ledger.

Hi Joe.  Thanks for all the legwork and old articles, especially the ones from the Ledger, most of which I have never seen.   

One thing though, I think perhaps you may have unintentionally misread the piece you copied above.  In a previous thread you quoted it as referring to the "new Merion courses."  In fact, it refers to the "new Merion course."    In Oct. 1913, the new Merion course was the West, which had been constructed and seeded earlier that year. 

I believe the correct reading complete negates the conclusion many have drawn. 

The author does not write that Wilson went overseas before he built the East Course.   Why wouldn't he have so written, if that was in fact the case?   

David:
In the words of that famous Brooklyn philospher "Welcome Back".  Looking forward to following all the discussions.
Best
Dave

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: David Moriarty
« Reply #95 on: April 16, 2008, 12:11:51 AM »
Here is a snippet of the October 12, 1913 Philadelphia Public Ledger article by William H. Evans that talked about all kinds of stuff that day, including Sea View:



Note:  we've since learned that Evans was a member at Lansdowne Country Club during those years he wrote for the Ledger.

Hi Joe.  Thanks for all the legwork and old articles, especially the ones from the Ledger, most of which I have never seen.   

One thing though, I think perhaps you may have unintentionally misread the piece you copied above.  In a previous thread you quoted it as referring to the "new Merion courses."  In fact, it refers to the "new Merion course."    In Oct. 1913, the new Merion course was the West, which had been constructed and seeded earlier that year. 

I believe the correct reading complete negates the conclusion many have drawn. 

The author does not write that Wilson went overseas before he built the East Course.   Why wouldn't he have so written, if that was in fact the case?   

David:
In the words of that famous Brooklyn philospher "Welcome Back".  Looking forward to following all the discussions.
Best
Dave

Dave,

Not sure what I am doing back, but I nonetheless appreciate the welcome. 

Thanks.

DM
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back