[TEPaul]

Mike:

I thought you knew that Wilson was booked on the Titanic or nearly. That's obviously why that story has been around Merion so long.

I ran into a guy the other day who was booked on that plane out of Boston that was the first to hit the Trade Towers. The reason he switched was some real dumb luck to say the least. He seemed sort of matter of fact about the thing when he was telling it.

[DMoriarty]

. . .
The bottom line, David, is that you accept a George Crump manifest from 1910 as accurate yet dismiss a Hugh Wilson manifest from 1910 when they each have the exact same error...a misformed or mispelled middle initial.

You cannot have it both ways and you cannot viably use the 1912 trip as the foundation of your theory whether that was actually THE Hugh Wilson or not because you cannot show that he didn't travel before then.. . .

Again Mike, you make my point for me.  I can have it both ways, because I do not insist on ignoring the context.  In proper context, one is a great match and one is a poor match.  Because of what else WE BOTH know. 
___________________

Phillip,   Perhaps I wasnt clear enough and I apologize if not, but when I wrote "because of what else I know" I guess I should have said"because I AM WILLING TO CONSIDER what else WE know."  I thought I had made that clear, but apparently not.

  It is about knowing the context and considering it in relation to the source material.   You do the same thing with your Tillie research, by considering your knowledge about other relatives, the tire company business, etc. 

To clarify:   I KNOW NO MORE THAN MIKE DOES ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF CRUMP AND BARKER's TRIP, and probably less.  I AM NOT HIDING OR WITHHOLDING INFORMATION. 

The difference is, I use what WE know (the other reports of the trip, the timing, the traveling companion, Barker's age, etc.) to put the manifests in context.  Mike doesnt.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm not trying to PROVE anything.  I'm not the one who is coming up with a new theory and trying to support it.

I'm just saying that you can't PROVE that Hugh Wilson did not travel to Europe prior to 1912.   

You are discounting a manifest from 1910 with his name on it because the middle initial is vague, yet cite George Crump's 1910 manifest as gospel where evidently they not only spelled his middle initial incorrectly, but also his travelling companions first name.

And yes, you evidently have dug deeper into the manifests than I have.   I confess that I've probably spent a total now of about 5 hours digging into the sites that were provided a few days ago by Tom MacWood and Rich Goodale.   I've seen enough to tell me what I need to know, which is that they are inconsistent, error-prone (or error laden, not sure which describes it better), subject to the vagaries of handwriting interpretation, marked up by cross-outs and insertions, and generally are pretty horrific as a record on which to build a foundationally sustainable case.

There is also the possibility of Hugh Wilson sailing via private vessel, given his connections.   One of Tom Paul's relatives had a boat at the time that was over 300 feet long, and which could travel the world.   If you'd like, I could probably get a picture of it here.

So, before you build your whole case again on an assumption that Wilson never went to Europe prior to this visit in 1912 (which we know was no more than 2 months or so), I'm just saying that you haven't PROVEN a thing...yet.

You see, I still have an open mind and am quite willing to to be PROVEN wrong.   

[RJ_Daley]

Again as merely an observer to this saga... I really was hoping that David was going to 'eventually' write up something substantive and well beyond this match game of manifests.  As these threads are distilling down, and in my mind the rhetoric is becoming more backpeddling than illuminating, such as:

To clarify:   I KNOW NO MORE THAN MIKE DOES ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF CRUMP AND BARKER's TRIP, and probably less.  I AM NOT HIDING OR WITHHOLDING INFORMATION. 

The difference is, I use what WE know (the other reports of the trip, the timing, the traveling companion, Barker's age, etc.) to put the manifests in context.  Mike doesnt.

Where is the beef?  I must say, trips to G.B to study, no matter when they occurred doesn't cut it for me.  Trips and the design process could be going on at the same time.  Routings done earlier with anyone, including MacDonald's, preliminary grubbing, shaping etc. could have been started, and altered during and after any possible trips.  More than one thing could be happening at the same time.  Wire cablegrams could have been sent during trips informing of progress.  Decisions on-the-fly could have been made often. 

At this point, the only real descriptions of substance about who has the lion's share of the credit for Merion anyone I can imagine would put real credence in, are the writings of the era that have been shared, over and over and parsed and nit-picked. 

More than one thing can happen in GCA and the process at the same time, including the designer's travels and other activities while staying in touch.  They may have not had the Internet, but they did have cable's for communication. 

David, you've built up so much drama in all this, and wound Mike up so tight, I think as an observer, I'd need to see a photo of CB standing next to Ardmore ave, waving his walking stick at laborers driving mule driven scraping pans, to believe anything...is different than our historical understandings heretofore 

[Mike_Cirba]

Dick,

Where's Michael Moore with Photoshop when we need him most? 

I'm picturing CB Maconald, with his adoring sidekick Smithers....er...um...I mean Whigham staring lovingly at his great, imposing physical form, with Charlie looking snootily askance at the Italian laborers eating cheesesteaks while they build a monumentally elevated platform green for the Alps 10th hole. 

Tom Paul,

I knew that there was a rumor that Wilson narrowly missed a fateful Titanic voyage, but I did not know that he actually had a ticket and was inadvertedly detained.   

I don't recall that ever being brought to light before.

[DMoriarty]

Dick,

Please let me clarify a few things.

1.  This thread is Mike Cirba's baby, not mine.  My role has been to try and correct his false and misleading statements and suppositions.

2.  Likewise, while he may not think so, it is Mike's theory we are discussing, not mine.  Mike really wants Hugh I Wilson to have traveled abroad before 1912, but there is little evidence -- and no hard facts -- that support his wish.

3.   Mike thinks I need to prove that Wilson did not travel abroad before 1912, but Mike is again mistaken.   While there is no solid factual basis that such a trip took place, it really isn't important to me or my research one way or another. 

David, you've built up so much drama in all this, and wound Mike up so tight, I think as an observer, I'd need to see a photo of CB standing next to Ardmore ave, waving his walking stick at laborers driving mule driven scraping pans, to believe anything...is different than our historical understandings heretofore

I've built up drama on the site?   I dont think so.  Mike is wound up, but that is his doing, not mine.    In a conversation off the site with a number of past and current posters, I listed out five topics I was considering discussing on the site.  This wasn't a promise or hype, but a discussion about whether the site was ready to maturely and civilly discuss the topics.   Nonetheless,  I initiated a discussion of one of the five, and will address the rest when they are ready.   

NONE OF THOSE TOPICS INVOLVED HUGH WILSON'S EUROPEAN VACATION.    That wild goose chase is all Mike's, and none mine.   

Look Dick,  I am frustrated too.  There is hype, but not by me.   Mostly there has been lots of preemptive posts trying to guess at or get at my IMO.    I am just trying to be a regular old participant on the site until my other stuff is ready to go.   Is that really so unreasonable?     

Ultimately, after all this, my essay is bound to be disappointing.   Look at your post above -- you've set out an unreasonable standard on which I'll be judged based on what you perceive as hype, but the hype you perceive is nothing but Mike Cirba's misguided attempt to prove me wrong before he even knows what I am going to say.     

Personally, I wish everyone would just leave it be until I get a finished and formatted version to ran, then they can have at it. 

________________________

 

David,

I'm not trying to PROVE anything.  I'm not the one who is coming up with a new theory and trying to support it.

What exactly am I trying to prove?    What new theory am I trying to support?    Do tell.

I'm just saying that you can't PROVE that Hugh Wilson did not travel to Europe prior to 1912. 

Where did I say I wanted to or needed to prove this?

You are discounting a manifest from 1910 with his name on it because the middle initial is vague, yet cite George Crump's 1910 manifest as gospel where evidently they not only spelled his middle initial incorrectly, but also his travelling companions first name.

No, I discount the 1910 manifest because the middle initial is not "vague," it is just like every other "D" in that manifest.    More importantly, I would dismiss it if it was ambiguous,because in early September 1911 Wilson was seeding Merion East, not floating the seven seas. 

I accept the Crump because of everything else we know. 

So, before you build your whole case again on an assumption that Wilson never went to Europe prior to this visit in 1912 (which we know was no more than 2 months or so), I'm just saying that you haven't PROVEN a thing...yet.

You see, I still have an open mind and am quite willing to to be PROVEN wrong.   

Again Mike,  don't you think you ought to wait for the IMO before you bother trying to refute it with a bunch of irrelevancies from the shipping manifests?    You'll have ample opportunity then I assure you.

[TEPaul]

It looks like some of the Wilson trip speculation can wind down. Wilson couldn't have gone abroad in 1911 because there are dated letters from him from Philadelphia every month of that year. The odd thing is his trip in 1912. It sounds to me like he went abroad very quickly, perhaps on business. There is a letter from Wilson to Russell Oakley (agrostologist US Dept of Agriculture) dated March 1,1912 from Philadelphia. The next letter in the file from Merion is from Richard Francis for the M.C.C. Golf Association responding to an Oakley letter of April 10 that contained some agronomy reports. Francis' letter to Oakley is dated April 11 and explains he is answering for Wilson who 'is making a hurried trip to Europe....' It appears that Russel Oakley who at that point had over a hundred letter correspondence with Hugh Wilson was not aware of this trip abroad. When H. Wilson writes Oakley again on May 21, 1912 he mentions he was abroad but he says nothing about studying architecture, he only mentions he just returned from abroad.

If Wilson was booked home on the Titanic it looks like his stay abroad was originally scheduled to be a matter of weeks at most. More that two months would've been impossible so the six or seven months reported trip is either a fabrication or it would've had to have been before 1911.

If Wilson really did spend many months abroad for Merion (various statements have suggested six or seven months) it appears he must have gone in 1910 as at least one history book states.

I only looked through the files from 1911 to 1914 today but from what we copied from the agronomy files a few years ago I don't think there was ever a letter writing gap from outside Philadelphia that long.

There is also the story in at least one history book that Wilson brought back sketches and drawings and surveyor's map from abroad so he must have brought them back in 1910 or else borrowed Macdonald's sketches and drawings and surveyor's maps done for NGLA and brought them back from New York, not abroad.

The only other possible explanation I can think of is when Wilson said in his 1916 report on the creation of Merion ".....so early in 1911, the club appointed a committee....", he may've mistakenly said 1911 when he meant 1910. Later in that report he said: "Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland..."

If this pretty quick trip in 1912 was not the time he studied courses in England and Scotland there must've been another time because he said himself he studied courses in England and Scotland.

His brother Alan's report on the creation of Merion says; "The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links of Scotland and England."

The Tolhurst history book of 1989 alludes to the Merion 1910 Annual Report that informed the membership of the appointment of the committee and seemingly a trip abroad if Alan's 'as a first step' is accurate to 1910. If that 1910 annual report was on a calender year basis it would almost have to only encompass 1910.

So, as of now the facts are either:

1. Wilson studied architecture in England and Scotland in what was referred to as "a hurried trip abroad" between maybe the middle of March at most and the end of April 1912.

2. He went abroad to study architecture in England and Scotland in 1910.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

That about sums it up correctly.

David,

I'm not ignoring you by not responding.   I'm just trying to give you the breathing room you seem to be asking for.   

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Regarding your assumptions in post #220, they pretty much show me you're apparently only capable of looking at Wilson and his time through the lens of your own time and eyes, and not through the lens and time of the era we're considering here. What Wilson may've done by spending 6-7 months abroad may seem like an odd and long thing to do for you or for any of us today but it actually wasn't unusual in those days and I would have no problem at all sighting all kinds of examples of people like Wilson doing exactly that, spending very long periods of time abroad, particularly through the middle of any year. The other thing you seem to automatically assume for some odd reason was that studying golf architecture must have been the ONLY thing he did over there. Is there any particular reason you just make some automatic assumption like that?

I think both Wayne and I can also most certainly prove one thing to you about Hugh Wilson and that is the man was most definitely no slow learner or dawdler! It is definitely clear from his hundreds and hundreds of "agronomy" letters over fourteen years that what Wilson was trying to do and wanted to do he pretty much wanted to get it done yesterday rather than tomorrow! 

The other thing that is virtually impossible to miss from his correspondences is he definitely was one of those types of people who was intensely curious about all kinds of things.

[TEPaul]

"Thus, thanks to Mike Cirba's research, he has convinced me that the only logical conclusion is that Hugh Wilson was a complete and total idiot.   


Shivas:

Perhaps before you run that kind of conclusion out here, even in jest , what you might try to do first is give it a shot to see if you could ever remotely produce, as Hugh Wilson produced, a golf course anywhere near as good as Merion was and is. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

You'd better eat your Crunch Berries and watch the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers now, because after the baseless deductions you just blessed us with this morning you're definitely being sent to bed without any supper...much less TV. 

You seem to be thinking that Wilson just hopped in a car and drove to Sunningdale, and then the next day popped up to Carnoustie, and then over to Prestwick, and then back down to Walton Heath.   Perhaps he took his private plane? 

Aren't the keywords here "Studied", and "sketched"?

There is no question he could have spent at least a month or so just going around the Heathlands.   David even seems to think he went to France to "study the bents of Le Touquet", which because I don't know what that means may have taken a year's study in and of itself. 

Then up to Scotland...or the courses around Liverpool...down to Sandwich.

Accounts stated that he visited "every big course overseas and in the US", so if it took Tom Doak 10 years to do that in the latter half of the 20th century, it doesn't seem a stretch at all to think it took WIlson at least 6-7 months to do that in those days, especially given transportation issues.

[RJ_Daley]

Does anyone think that Wilson not only studied some of the great courses, but played in some of the local matches and tournaments.  In going over "The Scrapbook of Old Tom Morris" one sees many tournament and competition results posted in the new articles of the time.  Has anyone explored that avenue?  Wouldn't it be keen if one could find an article covering the results of competitors in a tournament, and Hugh Wilson came in win place or show!!! 

Truly, that wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe he wasn't just sketching all the time.  How could a real golfer not play all those great courses.  Also, many clubs had a guest book; did they not? 

I think we on GCA.com should take up a collection and in the same manner Merion reportedly sent Hugh, we should send Cirba, Paul, and Moriarty on a tour to scour the old papers and guest books, and to be economical, make them share the same rooming accomodations.  6 months ought to do it! 

[TEPaul]

I know, Shivas, so was mine.   

[Kyle Harris]

Yeah, that post #223 was ROTFLOL ...a real gut-buster!

Roflcopters

Lawlerskates

n00bs... 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

.
There is also the possibility of Hugh Wilson sailing via private vessel, given his connections.   One of Tom Paul's relatives had a boat at the time that was over 300 feet long, and which could travel the world.   If you'd like, I could probably get a picture of it here.

Mike,

Presenting the remote possibility that HIW sailed on a private vessel doesn't offer a scintilla of evidence that he did.  It's certainly unlikely that he crossed the North Atlantic on a private vessel in the winter months.

I don't think David's under the obligation to prove that HIW didn't go to the UK prior to 1912.  I believe that the golf world is obligated to prove that he did.

Why, for all that's been written, wasn't the voyage documented in terms of time, place and the name of the vessel ?  Why wasn't there a diary or log of which courses he visited in the UK ?  Why wasn't there an expression of gratitude toward the owners/friends if he sailed on a private yacht ?

Tying events to time lines may be the key, and I would think that David would pursue that method.[/color]

So, before you build your whole case again on an assumption that Wilson never went to Europe prior to this visit in 1912 (which we know was no more than 2 months or so), I'm just saying that you haven't PROVEN a thing...yet.

Again, I don't think David has to prove that he didn't.
I think the golfing world has to prove that he did.

Surely, IF he went to the UK prior to 1912, he must have visited select individuals, specific courses, towns, hotels, etc., etc..  Yet, not one iota of evidence has been presented that would substantiate the alleged trip.

It's like the police asking a suspect where he was during a specific time frame, and neither the suspect nor any of his supporters can place him where it's alleged he was.

You tell me, would the authorities buy that flimsy of an alibi ?[/color]

You see, I still have an open mind and am quite willing to to be PROVEN wrong.   

Proven wrong ?

What evidence have you produced that supports and substantiates HIW visiting the UK prior to 1912 ?

To date, there's NOTHING, no log, no diary, no receipts, no letters, no mention of friends or acquaintances abroad, NOTHING.

An open mind, in the face of ZERO evidence that HIW was abroad prior to 1912 would question the veracity of that claim, rather than questioning someone who feels that there's NO evidence to support the claim that HIW was in the UK prior to 1912.

The burden of proof ISN'T on David to prove he wasn't in the UK prior to 1912.
The burden of proof IS on those who claim he was.

Bring forth the evidence that supports the claim.

To date, no evidence, verifiable by third parties, has been presented.

There's another factor that you're ignoring, and that's the culture of a club that seeks to deify individuals associated with the club.

A while ago, I was with a widely respected figure in golf.
We were at a club that engaged in what I've refered to in the above sentence.  On the ride home, I turned to him and stated that the object of the club's adulation would be embarrassed by the pomp and circumstance, if he was present.  The individual to whom I was speaking concurred and went on to give his thoughts on the subject, and the perpetuation of the "icon".

Like kids nearing the age of doubt around Christmas time, we want to believe certain things, but, as adults, we're obligated to question vague references, research the issues and present the cold hard facts as best we can.

To date, no cold hard, documented facts have been presented that offer evidence that HIW visited the UK prior to 1912.

Rather than question David's motives and leanings, you should be looking for cold hard facts that support your view.  The finding of which, would of course, undermine his view.  [/color]

[TEPaul]

"Yeah, that post #223 was ROTFLOL ...a real gut-buster!  "


Shivas:

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that you take some of your opinions too seriously that you cloak in humor!

[TEPaul]

PatM said:

"I don't think David's under the obligation to prove that HIW didn't go to the UK prior to 1912.  I believe that the golf world is obligated to prove that he did."


Pat:

On the contrary, I think David Moriarty does have an obligation to prove that HIW didn't go to the UK prior to 1912 if, on the one hand, he is implying that, and on the other hand, he's suggesting or even implying that if he did not go to the UK it has any meaning at all as to Merion's historical accounts as to who created Merion and how. But for all I know, at this point, he may not be suggesting or implying any such thing. I did appear to some of us, however, that he was suggesting or implying something like that in the past. At least, he seemed to be suggesting a year or so ago that Macdonald's part in the creation of Merion was somehow minimized. But perhaps he's no longer suggesting or implying that.

"Why, for all that's been written, wasn't the voyage documented in terms of time, place and the name of the vessel ?  Why wasn't there a diary or log of which courses he visited in the UK ?  Why wasn't there an expression of gratitude toward the owners/friends if he sailed on a private yacht?"

Perhaps it was documented in terms of time, place and the name of the vessel once. But that was many decades ago, Patrick, and I  think you probably know as well as we do that with most of these clubs we discuss on here, including Merion, that for all kinds of unfortunate reasons much of that raw documentary evidence has been lost or destroyed in various ways and for various reasons. Look at what's been apparently lost in that vein with NGLA or almost any other club or architect we're aware of that long ago.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Regarding the rest of your post #231 what is it exactly that David Moriarty is questioning? I guess we will have to wait and see on that if he in fact is now questioning anything about Merion's history.

In the meantime I guess some of us are speculating on what he may question or claim. Maybe we shouldn't do that but we do, we have and we are.

If he's questioning if a trip to the UK by HIW prior to 1912 can be proven, then that's fine. It may never be provable the way he thinks "provable" should occur with these kinds of course histories. But if it isn't provable what are we to infer that means and what else is he suggesting? Is he suggesting that Wilson and his committee could not or did not do what Merion and its history books and available material at Merion has claimed they did? Is it that Moriarty is still suggesting or implying Macdonald should get more credit for the architecture of Merion than he's ever been given by Merion?

If all Moriarty is doing is pointing out that the club cannot document and prove ALL of what took place there and with the participants given credit for creating the course, well that is definitely true of any club of that age. That's completely obvious to anyone who has ever tried to do architectural research on any club of that age. I really don't think any of us need a David Moriarty or anyone else to point that out to us. We who do this kind of indepth research have been aware of that kind of unfortunate fact of life and research as long as we've been doing it.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

What we do have regarding the early architectural history of Merion is a report on what was done and how it was done and by whom. Like anything else with a club of that age it does not go into who did every single detail some on here may be demanding to know about, but what other club of that age has anything tht HAS EVER gone into that kind of documentary detail?

What we do have from Merion in that vein is particularly the report done on the creation of Merion by Hugh Wilson's brother, Alan in 1926 (according to him he wrote it for the first Merion history writer, William Philler).

You and David Moriarty may not be as aware of it as we are but Alan Wilson was there every step of the way as he was with the creation of Pine Valley. He wasn't on the Merion Construction Committee but he was the brother of the man who ran it and he was in business with him and obviously saw him and everything he was doing through this entire time perhaps more than anyone else would or could.

Now, if David Moriarty or anyone else simply wants to base his analysis and reinvestigation on the details of the creation of Merion and who was involved in it, including Macdonald and Whigam, by FIRST SUGGESTING OR IMPLYING that Alan Wilson and his report on the creation of Merion must have been biased or wrong in some way that effects or influences who is given credit and how in that report, then I can certainly tell you none of us here buy that line of reasoning and basis for analysis at all.

If he or anyone else is going to try to just slough off that report or dismiss the value of it or simply ignore it by suggesting that Alan was Hugh's brother or a member of Merion and for that reason or those reasons his report is necessarily suspect, then, again, we simply don't buy that at all and that will probably be our final word on this discussion. If he can give us some good and concrete reasons WHY anyone should consider what Alan said to be suspect for some reason then we would be willing to consider it. To date he has given no good reason other than to make unsupportable inferences that he was Hugh's brother or whatever. Until he can give some supportable reason to suspect the accuracy of Alan Wilson's report we see no reason not to accept the accuracy of it and we think Merion should too.

We stand by that report and also Hugh Wilson's to the extent it deals with architecture (the vast majority of Hugh's report was written only to chronicle the history of the AGRONOMY of Merion).

Nobody has given us any good reason not to stand by that report. To attempt to cast it and Merion's history into the context of some court of law "proof" test is really not appropriate or necessary in our opinion. No club and course of that age can stand up to that kind of scrutiny nor should one have to for obvious reasons---eg it was a long time ago and not everything has ever been retained with any club of that age.

With the "proof" modus operandi David Moriarty who I guess is a lawyer, is trying to overlay on this discussion was applied to any course or club it could call into question the accuracy of almost anything to do with architecture and who did it.

For our part, we do not see the necessity of this with Merion, particularly given the luck of having Alan Wilson's report, or any other club or course. What is the point really?

Again, for my part, for someone to make the case David Moriarty may be trying to make with Merion he must first cogently discredit the accuracy of AW's report and I don't think he will or can do that.

For Christ Sake, he hasn't even seen Alan Wilson's report in it entirety and it doesn't take a research rocket scientist to figure out what that means! 

[Mike_Cirba]

Before we get off into another lengthy exercise of parsing words, trying to determine the meaning of "laid out" "constructed" "responsible for", "built" and host of other meaningless semantic dances, I thought it best to put together some of the words of the historic timeframe, as they were written. 

It should be noted that speculation about the identify of "Joe Bunker" took place here recently, with everyone from Tillinghast to Wiliam Poultney Smith listed as possibilities, but it's clear from his volumnious writings for that paper that he had incredible insight into the dealings of the men of the Philadelphia School of Architecture and was clearly writing from the "inside".

It should also be noted that the writer William Evans was the head of the Green Committee at Country Club of Lansdowne, on the GAP Committee, a friend of Robert Lesley, Clarence Geist, Ellis Gimbel, Hugh Wilson, Tillinghast, and all the other major players of the time.   He was another insider's insider.

I'm also thinking that we're being asked to believe that because a ship's manifest for Hugh Wilson's legendary pre-1912 trip cannot be found online 100 years later, that it didn't happen.

Interestingly, neither does George Crump's trip in 1910, although we're told that was due to a mispelling.

We're still waiting to hear why none of the 800+ "H. Wilson"'s who travelled from Britain between 1908 and 1912 are the correct one.

In that light of speculation, let me present the rest in their own words, as they were written back then;


Philly Inquirer – 9/15/12 – “Clubs & Clubmen” column

“Mr. Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the new course and helped largely in the planning of the holes.”

Philadelphia Public Ledger – 10/12/13 – William Evans

“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course.  Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect.   Those who have visited the new course have commented warmly on its construction.”

Philadelphia Public Ledger – 11/1/14 - William Evans

“Then comes Hugh I. Wilson of Merion, whose word ought to count for a great deal, for he laid out both the Merion courses and the Seaview links.   He has this to say.. "
 
Philly Inquirer 12/06/14 – Joe Bunker

“Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned.  He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “

Philly Inquirer 1/24/15 – Joe Bunker

“Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses…have laid out the golf course in Cobb’s Creek Park.”

Philadelphia Public Ledger – 1/31/15 – William Evans

“A Committee made up of Hugh Wilson, the man responsible for the two Merion and new Seaview courses…will aid the park engineers in laying out the course (at Cobb’s Creek)”.

Philly Inquirer 4/23/16 – Joe Bunker

“Nearly every hole on the course (Merion East) has been stiffened (for the US Am) so that in another month or two it will resemble a really excellent championship course.  Hugh Wilson is the course architect and Winthrop Sargent is chairman of the Green Committee.  These two men have given a lot of time and attention to the changes and improvements.  Before anything was done to the course originally, Mr. Wilson visited every golf course of any note not only in Great Britain, but in this country as well, with the result that Merion’s East Course is the last word in golf course architecture.  It has been improved each year until not it is almost perfect from a golf standpoint.

Philly Inquirer 1/14/17 – Billy Bunker

“Hugh Wilson built both the Merion courses and the course at Seaview.”

Philly Inquirer 1/28/17 – Billy Bunker

“Both the Merion Cricket Club courses were built under the direction of Hugh Wilson who also laid out the Seaview course.”

Philly Inquirer 4/22/17 – Billy Bunker

“An expert like Hugh Wilson, who built the two fine courses at Merion believes every club would have better putting greens if not for the craze for lightning-fast greens.

USGA Greens Section report – February 1925 (after Wilson’s death)

“The mature results of his studies in golf architecture are embodied in the East Course at Merion, which was remodeled under his direction in 1923-24.  It is safe to say this his course displays in a superb way all the best ideas in recent golf course architecture along the lines of its American development.  For a long time to come the East course will be a mecca to all serious students of golf architecture.” 

George Thomas – Year unknown (quoted by Geoff Shackelford)

“I always considered Hugh Wilson of Merion, Pennsylvania as one of the best of our golf architects, professional or amateur (note the early need for distinction).  He taught me many things at Merion and the Philadelphia Municipal (Cobb’s Creek) and when I was building my first California courses, he kindly advised me by letter when I wrote him concerning them.” 

Geoff Shackelford – “The Captain”

“Thomas spent considerable time studying Hugh Wilson’s work during the construction of Merion Cricket Club’s East Course in 1912, its West Course in 1914, and at a municipal course in Philadelphia, now Cobb’s Creek.”

Golf Illustrated  – July 20, 1934 – A.W. Tillinghast (a man who had been there since the beginning and witnessed the creation of Merion first-hand)

“There was peculiar pleasure in revisiting Merion after an interval of years for I have known the course since its birth.  Yet, with it all, there was keen regret that my old friend Hugh Wilson had not lived to see such scenes as the National Open unfolded over the fine course that he loved so much.   It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf architecture.  Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”


I would assure everyone that the context of each of the quoted articles is wholly consistent with the theme and message being presented here.

If anyone wants to see any of the articles in their entirety, I'm sure Joe Bausch can make that happen.

We're once again being asked to believe that men like Evans and Tillinghast and Smith who knew Wilson personally and were there at the inception had no idea what was going on, or that Hugh Wilson personally did nothing to disavow these rumors of both his golf architectural studies, his voyages, his knowledge, or his architectural achievements so as to be an implicit liar by omission.

That's serious stuff, so if that's the charges, and if that's what you claim to have evidence of counselor, then please put them out there.

Patrick/Dave,

All of these contemporaneous accounts are MORE than enough PROOF, up to and until indisputable evidence to the contrary is presented and proven to be true and conclusive.

How do you know the 1910 Manifest isn't him?   You accept that George R. Crump is correct.

A piece of paper detailing a private vessel voyage from 1910, if such a thing even existed,  isn't available to us online and yet you're ready to call all of these men liars posthumously?

That's a bit odd, don't you think?

[TEPaul]

"I think it's important to distinguish articles of faith from fact."

Shivas:

The fact remains using this modus operandi of "proof" David Moriarty, Pat and apparently you are, any of us could do the very same thing and probably to a much greater degree with any course or any architect in American history even remotely of the age of Merion.

I don't think this website and this thread's discussion participants should forget that or lose sight of that undeniable fact and if you don't know what I mean or we mean by that we would be glad to give you a laundry list of examples that would be miles long!   

For instance, how do you know, and how can you prove (the way some of you seem to be requiring "proof" with Merion ) that anything C.B. Macdonald wrote about NGLA or any course he was involved with or Flynn wrote or Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Hunter or Ross wrote about any course or project with which they ever had to do is in way any more accurate or "Provable" than what Hugh Wilson and his brother Alan wrote about Merion? 

[Mike_Cirba]

Here we go again.

What does built mean?  Construct?  Laid Out?

What does BEFORE mean?

I'm sure these men, ALL of whom KNEW Wilson personally, and were THERE, are better witnesses than this agenda driven timeline.

[wsmorrison]

If Hugh Wilson did not go to the UK to study golf courses prior to the start of design and construction of Merion's 1912 course now known as the East, what exactly should we infer from that?  Some of us are cautious about reading too much into such a revelation if it should prove true, although I do not think it can be as will be discussed below. 

One idea, seemingly supported by David Moriarty and Pat Mucci, is that it would indicate Hugh Wilson must have had less to do with the initial design of Merion's 1912 course.  Not only that, but a further conclusion put forth is that CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham must have had a greater role since they had recent experience with NGLA.  There was a third man who visited with Macdonald and Whigham, was it Baker?  I haven't seen his name mentioned in proposed attribution, I'm not sure why--probably because it isn't as good a story. 

But what of the committee and Pickering that were there everyday working on the project.  Why don't they consider a greater role for Pickering?  For that matter, they don't consider Francis's reported role and the reminiscences of Hugh and Alan Wilson along with a wealth of contemporary newspaper accounts crediting Wilson and remarking about his trip to the UK before construction. 

The written word is found independently in numerous sources that he did go before the start of construction.  If someone counters that documentation, the burden of proof is theirs.  It is nearly impossible to do so.  If those that claim there is no solid evidence to prove Wilson traveling to study golf courses took place before 1912 wish to stake such a claim, they can only look for evidence that he did go prior to 1912.  The one thing that can be proved is the null hypothesis that Wilson did not go to the UK prior to 1912.  Only by proving the null hypothesis is wrong, that is finding information that he did go earlier, can you conclude anything.  You cannot prove a negative.

Many of us believe that so far, the balance of evidence is towards Wilson going to the UK before construction.  Is it conclusive?  No, not yet.  But frankly, there hasn't been a concerted effort to prove the notion either.  That is the duty of those wishing to disprove the correct null hypothesis in this case.

Again, even if an exhaustive search proves fruitless, that doesn't mean he did not go earlier.  If the doubt of his travels prior to construction become greater, that still doesn't result in a significant conclusion about design attribution without additional evidence.  I suppose that is what David thinks he's found and what will be disseminated to us in time.

[TEPaul]

"The Bottom-Bottom Line:  Thus, your question was just a big, fat redder-than-red red herring.    "


It is nothing of the kind Shivas. It is about as appropriate an analogy as is possible to produce regarding these Merion threads and any other golf course of that age in American history.

I think the time has come and is well gone when people like you can come up with the kind of tortured logic you often do and have anyone on here accept it with any kind of seriousness.

An example of that was your truly hilarious parsing of sentences and the words used in them by Hugh and Alan Wilson to try to "prove" what was meant by such as "we" and then "our".

Do you really expect anyone to take that seriously when you've never even seen the reports those men wrote in their entirety? 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Cirba,

Some of your quotes contradict one another, and ONE is especially telling in that it differentiates between constructing a golf course and "laying it out" (read designing), and, it's your source.

In an earlier post it appeared that quote after quote was piggybacked on an earlier, quote, which, if it's proven to be incorrect, would make all subsequent quotes tumble like a house of cards in a tornado.

TEPaul,

I don't want to get ahead of David, and therefore, won't address your post,
But, you continue to speculate as to the subject of his premise.

Stop conjecturing.

In addition, to present Alan Wilson's report, as if it's infallible, or to assume that no liberties or embellishment exists within it, is naive.

Let David present his premise, then let's examine it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()