[TEPaul]

Joe:

That article is pretty significant as Tillie mentions in April of 1911 that he had seen enough of the "plans" of Merion.....

What plans? At that point Hugh Wilson tells us in his report they were just beginning to construct Merion East. So, I wonder who drew plans or was he using sketches and drawings of holes he got from abroad or perhaps Macdonald's that were used at NGLA? Or had the Merion Committee begun to come up with their own East course plans and drawings?

We do know from the recollections of Richard Francis, the member of the Merion Construction Committee who was a construction engineer and surveyor that in the routing and design of the course he was constantly going over 'plans and drawings';

Listen to Francis's recollections of this time;

"Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made one important contribution to the layout of the course."

What does that sound like to you as far as what the Merion Committee,Francis and Wilson were doing at that time? I sure know what it sounds like to me!

I wonder if David Moriarty thinks those kinds of remarks are just making crap up or lying to promote themselves and exaggerate what they did regarding the original architectural creation of Merion East.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

It's also interesting that he mentions that Committee and plans in conjunction with each other, as if almost synonymous.   

Perhaps Shivas is right...personally, I don't know or care with DM thinks.   He's welcome to contribute to what I think has been an interesting, productive discussion with both many facts and various hypothesis presented, but otherwise, let's just let him decide for himself if he wants to produce his "new information" and move on.   

He's had enough time to produce a number of lengthy, lengthy posts on several threads so he's certainly had time to write what he's uncovered about Merion, if anything.   

The longer this goes, the more transparent are his motives.

[DMoriarty]

"TEPaul:
Again, if there is anything new factually, I'd love to hear about it.  But otherwise I'll continue to focus on other matters."

David:

Something new factually? I thought that's what you said you had. But if you're talking about us just supplying you with more factual information I'm not sure what you mean by that. Would you call this statement from Hugh Wilson's 1916 report on the creation of Merion something factual you haven't been aware of? Do you even have that report of Wilson's?

"Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens, and fifteen fairways. Three fairways were in old pasture turf. These will be mentioned later. We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenskeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had largely been farm land."

Since the "our" or "we" he constantly refers to in his report and numerous letters was what he described in the beginning of his report as the Merion Construction Committee it would seem this is fairly factual. Were you aware of those remarks and if so do you find something incorrect of inconsistent about them?   

"As for what you interpret as a "promise" from me, it wasn't.  Rather it was an honest expression of my concern that you and other Philadelphians were too close to the Merion subject to have frank yet civilized discussion about it.  Given what has happened since my return, my concerns were merited."

I don't believe I said anything about you promising something new but I did produce on this thread in post #89 rather extensive remarks to that effect from you. What happened to that?

You think we are 'too close' to the Merion subject to have a frank discussion? That, for sure, is some pretty interesting logic.  Well, perhaps you should spend about seven years and a couple of thousand hours on the research of Merion as Wayne has before you begin to try to have a civilized and intelligent discussion about it. Weren't you the one talking about researching and digging for historical information? What do you think we've been doing with Merion for about the last seven years?

Again, if you have anything that casts doubt on the reports of the Wilsons of how Merion was routed, designed and constructed you should produce it or I can't see what it is you'd like to discuss or can discuss.   

TEPaul,  I said new information.  Surely the 1916 Wilson essay has been discussed to death on these threads over the years. 

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for posting the article Joe.   I don't have digital access to the Ledger articles so I only have a select few of them. 

If my memory serves me correctly, Hazard (Tillinghast) published a May 1911 article where he discusses Macdonald and Whigham's recent site visit to Merion and their comments on the course. 

[Kyle Harris]

Remember, gentleman, close friends and colleagues, that you are all parsing and dissecting the words of what essentially amounts to a 19xx Golf Gossip column.

We can practice such parsing by going into a hair salon at 10AM this upcoming Tuesday and attempting to dissect the meaning of the ladies' conversation under the perm driers...

 

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,  I said new information.  Surely the 1916 Wilson essay has been discussed to death on these threads over the years."

David:

You have got to understand at some point that there just may not be any new information available on something like Merion's history, at least to the extent of some relevance to the who, when and why of its architectural history---and I guess depending somewhat on what your definition of "NEW" information is.

You've also got to understand at some point that a guy like Wayne Morrison really has spent about seven years and thousands of hours trying to run down any information at all, new, old or current to reinterpret, about the history of the architecture of Merion.  I doubt anyone else has ever even tried to do that with Merion. I think what you need to start to at least sense here is the kinds of things you seem to be both saying and implying are pretty insulting to him and what he's done. If you can't even sense that then a fair number of us think you are pretty blind.

We have looked for years for any information we can find anywhere that may have some bearing on the clearest understanding possible of what happened back then and why and by whom.

We think we have found that but apparently you don't. So if you want "new" information at this point why don't you try to find something yourself that really does have some relevance to what happened back then in those ways? For about a week now we thought you said you had.

If you just want to have a full-blown discussion of a reinterpretation of the things we believe about the history of Merion's architecture then give us something, or anything at all, any reason at all why you think that is important to do because we just can't see the point of it. We believe we know the when, why and by whom of Merion's architectural history.

[Mike_Cirba]

The funny thing is that if David does have "new information", which I already KNOW that he does, he acts like we should be giving him credit, yet I also know that someone fed it to him.   

Kyle,

You've alluded to this throughout the Cobb's Creek thread and now here.  On the former, we've gone to the Park archives, all the Philadelphia museums,  to the GAP Headquarters and archives, gone through newspaper accounts from 1895 through the 50s, spoken to others, SHARED our information right up front so that it could undergo peer review....and we also have day jobs.

Is there a research method you think is right under our noses that we're missing out on?   We're certainly all ears. 

[Kyle Harris]

The funny thing is that if David does have "new information", which I already KNOW that he does, he acts like we should be giving him credit, yet I also know that someone fed it to him.   

Kyle,

You've alluded to this throughout the Cobb's Creek thread and now here.  On the former, we've gone to the Park archives, all the Philadelphia museums,  to the GAP Headquarters and archives, gone through newspaper accounts from 1895 through the 50s, spoken to others, SHARED our information right up front so that it could undergo peer review....and we also have day jobs.

Is there a research method you think is right under our noses that we're missing out on?   We're certainly all ears. 

Peer review without rehashing old arguments.

Research without a slant one way or the other. It is possible for both sides of the Moriarty v. Philadelphia argument to be right in some ways.

How many iterations of conclusions have been debased on the Cobb's thread with further research? The language in this thread and others tends to the definitive and not the speculative.

Are you not a bit out of your league by doing things like speculating what ship captains did in the 1910s? Is it really no different than flying from Philadelphia to Cleveland by way of Chicago?

[Mike_Cirba]

Kyle,

Perhaps I should get into your league and listen as you tell us all what ship captains did in 1910? 

Perhaps I should try not to be offended by your remarkably condescending tone, especially for someone who has not contributed any research on either thread.

[RJ_Daley]

I mean no great offense by saying this, but I wonder if the actual publication or revelation that David claims to have could possibly top the drama and anxiety of the run up to the grand unveiling?  

It seems to me that any 'significant' info or material would almost have to be first hand, authentic writings or drawings by Hugh or one of the lead players in the founding of Merion, to equate with the drama that is associated with this 'controversy'.  Joe's posted Tillie article stating "I have seen enough of the plans..." is interesting and insightful.  But, at this point, as a follower of this epic saga of GCA.com, I think I'd almost have to see a photo of Hugh hisownself, holding a routing plan with a copy of a newspaper dated pre 1911 or so, or sitting on a jackass with a pan scraper and a dated newspaper to become giddy at a "new revelation".  Or, the same circumstances with CB holding the plans or sitting on a mule...  

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

My research contributions have no bearing on the validity of anything I say.

That being said...
Occam's Razor should be the rule, not the exception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

The problem is that each and every revelation brings about new conclusions, which goes against everything I've ever learned about research. Get the big picture and all the facts straight, and then draw inference and conclusion. To use a project management term, a good portion of the research-conclusion circles shown on this thread show some scope creep.

I have no idea what ship captains did back in the day, nor do I care to know. It seems perfectly reasonable that one would layover in Newfoundland on the way from Australia. Let parsimony rule the day and the answer will come. It is my opinion that the very fact that some statement like that would come under such scrutiny is symptomatic that you all may be reading into this a bit much. I mean no offense by it.

I could just pull a Tommy and say, "GIVE IT A FUCKING REST." 

[RJ_Daley]

On the former, we've gone to the Park archives, all the Philadelphia museums,  to the GAP Headquarters and archives, gone through newspaper accounts from 1895 through the 50s, spoken to others, SHARED our information right up front so that it could undergo peer review....and we also have day jobs.

Is there a research method you think is right under our noses that we're missing out on?   We're certainly all ears.  

Mike, I may also come off as a bit condescending, but I'm only trying to have a bit of fun, inject some levity to the tension of the Moriarty VS Phillie guys case.   So please excuse if you think that.  But, to be honest, I have suggested (I think on the original threads of a year ago, and the PV threads) that 'other' public records, might be helpful.  And, did anyone ever try to find if any private records of Wilson or Crump's personal financial expenditures are available and accessible, such as bank drafts to indicate a destination like England, etc.  to try to place him in a location at a certain date?  

What, if any, permitting and zoning authority did Merion require in those days.  Didn't they have committees of local government issuing permits or licenses or other documentation that would or could reveal meeting minutes and dates if they issued such permits?  I believe you fellows and others have already looked at the R.E. deeds and conveyences for the land, but were there other authorizations to construct things, related requirements?  Did anyone actually sit down with a county clerk, or whoever archives for lical government, and would know if any other documents are stored somewhere?  Same with successor banks who Wilson may have used, and if so, what would their policy be if records exist, regarding privacy VS historical inquiry this long after the events...?

[TEPaul]

To me one of the most interesting things, as well as perhaps annoying things, about these Merion threads with a guy like David Moriarty taking part on them is that with probably any other golf course in the world if it's club's archives contained a document like Alan Wilson's (Hugh's brother), written in 1926 at the request of Mr William Philler who intended to record the history of the course and club to date it would probably be taken as gospel and a most fortunate thing for a club to have in its possession explaining in quite a bit of detail the way the course was created and by whom.

I have Alan Wilson's report on this entire subject right here including his letter to Mr Philler discussing his Philler's history book project and his request of Alan Wilson. Why did Philler ask Alan Wilson to write this report? It's obvious---who else was closer to the action all along the way, every step of it, than Alan Wilson?

Most on here may not know much about Alan Wilson but he was surely no slouch, he was a founding member of Pine Valley (serving as part of one of its construction committees), a prominent member of Merion, GAP, a member of the Green Section of the USGA as well as a board member of the USGA. He was Hugh's partner in business and he was considered to be one of the best experts in America, along with Hugh, on American agronomics of that time.

But yet, for some reason, when some of it was put on here a year ago to explain the facts of the history of Merion's early architecture what he wrote was either ignored by the likes of Moriarty or just dismissed as something that probably inaccurately promoted his brother or of inaccurately promoting or glorfying the work of the Merion Committee which was charged with creating both Merion East and West or else had almost every word picked apart and analyzed on here to the extent it was considered meaningless.

Why did that happen? How can that kind of thing happen on these Merion threads? Why did the participants on this website allow that to happen or accept so easily that it did? Is it because someone like David Moriarty decides to classify it as not "fact" and therefore automatically call it and its accuracy totally into question? If that's what's happened here that too is outrageous, in my opinion. Again, it isn't that often a club even has something like this Alan Wilson document, or one from a man that close to the entire evolution and history of a course.

In my opinion, that is really pretty outrageous and it's also very insulting to a club who accepted his report and with numerous members who had been there through the whole thing and to a man with an impecciblle reputation and unquestionable character.

For the reasons given above I don't know that Alan Wilson's entire report ever has been put on here. I would be willing to put the seven page report on here but not if it's going to get the kind of blaise or insulting treatment again Moriarty and perhaps some others gave it a year ago.

It's an important and fairly comprehensive document on this very subject that is these Merion threads. Is it really any wonder that these threads go nowhere productive when something this significant to the history of a course is given this kind of outrageous treatment?

Wilson's document was essentially dismissed and perhaps almost forgotten in the course of these threads. It's almost as if most everyone just assumed he had to have been lying or jading the truth somehow to promote his brother or the club at the expense of someone like Macdonald who didn't live in Philadelphia.

This was an honorable man and the treatment of his document recording the history of Merion on here is just outrageous. In my opinion, those on here who treat Alan Wilson, or Hugh Wilson and their documents on the creation of Merion as Moriarty has do not deserve it----they tear it apart and make insinuations about his purpose in writing it simply to defend their highly suspect agendas which seem to have little to do with seeking the truth about the architectural creation and evolution of Merion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Not to mention that Hugh Wilson would have to have been a pretty pathetic liar if all that was published in his lifetime about him being the architect of both courses at Merion was untrue and he didn't publicly refute it.  From everything I've learned about him, he most assuredly did not seem that type at all.   


Phil,

From what I've learned today, it does appear that either Walter Travis or AW Tillinghast could have been on that ship off the coast of Newfoundland so I've proven nothing new about the identity of "Far and Sure" through that means. 

Kyle,

I left you a voice message.   There is more to the story.

RJ,

Your humor is always appreciated! 

[Mike_Cirba]

It isn't David's information or even his conclusions that I find unpalatable at this juncture, but his motivation and methods.   I could care less if he proves Hubert Humphrey designed Merion if that's what the facts actually show.   

But, about what he's trying to do here...let's just say I've been tipped off to the "game" by someone who had a conscious and moral objection to what was transpiring.

There are a number of GCA people who "know what he's got", and it's become sort of a big game of cat and mouse and he's purposefully drawing it out to try and bait certain people to publicly embarrass them.   It's pathetic really.

I just have a huge sentimental, emotional, and intellectual interest in the history of golf in Philadelphia and if someone has light to shed, even if it means sacred cows get skewered, that's all better for our mutual understanding.

What I object to, and why I'm personally calling David on the carpet here is someone TRIFLING with that subject, and using it for their own personally vindictive, revengeful agenda.

[Mike_Cirba]

For what it's worth, when I was tipped off the other day, I sent a note to the moderators asking them to delete the related thread I had started on Ship Manifests.

I did not want to be associated with this.

I tried to delete it myself but the new software doesn't seem to permit it.  When days went by and the thread remained and festered, I tried a new tack.

In an effort to turn this whole fiasco into something productive, I started this new thread just with facts...written accounts of the time...thought it might be productive to see what the timelines and journals evidenced and where they led, hoping that perhaps David would join in and contribute any new information he may have come across, or that someone sent to him.

It's what we did pretty effectively and very collaboratively in the Cobb's Creek thread the just unleashed a wealth of neat, fun historical information that none of us had any idea existed.

That could have been the case here, as well, unfortunately.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, 

Someone tipped you off to my "game?"   This person is either mistaken or he is playing you.   

 The "game" I see being played is the effort by you and others to attack my character and credibility, both on and off the site.

For those of you receiving messages  about my supposedly evil intentions, all I ask is that you read what I write, regardless of what these guys are saying I am up to.

[wsmorrison]

David Schmidt,

Are you sure it was the horse's mouth and not some other orifice?

[DMoriarty]

Wayne,  That would depend on whether he was talking to me or you.

[wsmorrison]

David Moriarty,

You are absolutely right!

[Phil_the_Author]

Hey Guys, enough pissing back and forth at each other. If you don't want to speak to someone just don't respond. If you think they are full of crap just disprove them

This thread has had a number of interesting questions and answers leading off to surprising directions, but it is really degenerating now.

Bring it to an end...

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

You can believe what you like.  I know better and any doubt I had was reconfirmed today.   I'm sorry you think it's personal or because someone is actually upset that David (or someone providing David with research material) has come up with something about Merion that wasn't found prior.  If he has, more power to him.   There is certainly enough unknown about that timeframe that I find personally fascinating and I've encouraged his research at every turn, as well as MacWood's.   I just didn't jump to the same conclusions always, but respected their interest and energies.   This, however, is different and I know it, and David knows it, no matter what he tells you.

I used to like David personally, and played golf with him on a number of occasions.   I just don't appreciate his methods.

'Nuff said on that topic.


Phil,

You're right...I think there are a number of really interesting questions on the table here and I'm hoping that something productive can still come from this thread.

I've said my piece and unless someone wants a fuller explanation of why I said what I did, or has other issue with me, I'm back to finding out more about Merion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Kyle,

I think Occam's Razor theory is for tired minds searching for simplistic, one-dimensional answers.

Give me Chaos Theory any day. 

I don't think on this thread, and certainly not the Cobb's Creek thread does every new revelation lead to new conclusions as you believe.   Instead, I think every new revelation leads to one or more new hypotheses, which are then boiled down and dissected in the way only we GCA nerds are capable of. 

Occam's Razor theory seeks to find a single answer.

Chaos Theory, much like the origins of Cobb's Creek, and likely Merion East as well, recognizes that there are multiple truths, most often intersecting and overlapping, but also sometimes diametrically oppositional yet both true nonetheless.

It's like your mother used to tell you....too many cooks spoil the broth, and oh, by the way...many hands make light work.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

I agree.   Let's all move on.

If someone pulls a later, "I gotcha" move, let's agree to blast the shit out of them though.

[Phil_the_Author]

Occam's Razor is dull and Chaos Theory has too many notches on it's blade, that is why I prefer to shave with the truth, whatever it may be. Simple or complex, brilliantly obvious or nearly impossible to explain, the truth is... the truth.

Shivas, "I just want the vitriol flushed, period..." I thought that's what I said... I guess I should have used Occam's on it...    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()