[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Don't worry about elephants and tusks and such and all the speculation. I have the distinct feeling when this "white paper" finally does come out the Philly contingent won't need to say much more than "The Defense Rests!" 

[Peter Pallotta]

I have to put my faith in the articles/report written at the time. I figure anything else is self-defeating. If I'm not to accept at face value what the newpaper boys were writing in the early 1910s and what Alan Wilson wrote in 1916, what AM I to accept? If any ONE contemporaneous document is deemed suspect, aren't ALL documents similarly suspect (ship manifests included)? And if not, aren't we're just playing a speculative game of character analysis - this man's word is IN and that man's word is OUT because we say so, or because we think to know better. I'd even buy into that (a little) if I thought we were wise enough to judge. But I just don't think we're any smarter or more sophisticated or more honest than those who came before us.

Peter   

[Mike_Cirba]

I have to put my faith in the articles/report written at the time. I figure anything else is self-defeating. If I'm not to accept at face value what the newpaper boys were writing in the early 1910s and what Alan Wilson wrote in 1916, what AM I to accept? If any ONE contemporaneous document is deemed suspect, aren't ALL documents similarly suspect (ship manifests included)? If not, aren't we're playing a speculative game of character analysis - this man's word is IN and that man's word is OUT because we say so, or because we know better. I'd even buy into that (a little) if I thought we were wise enough to judge. But I just don't think we're any smarter or more sophisticated or more honest than those who came before us.

Peter   

Peter,

You are most perceptive.

Fellows like Shivas and David who create doubt and confusion for a living (sorry fellas, but that's part of your jobs) would have us believe that all of the locals who knew Hugh Wilson and the committee, all the other golfers in the region, all the other golfers in the country, friends, and families, were somehow in some giant conspiracy to debunk the public and minimize the role that Charles Macdonald had in the creation of Merion.   They are telling us that accounts of men like Tillinghast, and William Evans...guys who were there and knew all these players personally, were somehow confused, or worse yet, slanted.   They are telling us that Hugh Wilson himself was not a man of honor and achievement, as has been the record for the past 100 years, but was instead a liar and a scoundrel, who saw glowing reports of the glories of his work in his own lifetime which he knew to be untrue, yet took no steps to counter them or correct the record.

When you think about it, the allusion of what's been presented so far is beyond  reasonable or even silly-putty-stretched credulity.   It's as if the Warren Commission asked us to believe that the Mafia, CIA, Soviet Union, Marilyn Monroe, and the Louisiana underworld all conspired together to off JFK.   Worse yet, unlike the JFK conspiratorialists, they are asking us to believe all this happened with Oswald, Ruby, and JFK still all alive for the next 15 years!

Even Oliver Stone wouldn't try to sell us that one. 

[TEPaul]

God-damnit to HELL!!

I just got an advance copy of David Moriarty's "White Paper", and we all really have been speculating up the wrong flagpole here.

Moriarty's God-damned "White Paper" takes the side of Joshua Crane in a massive REINTERPRETATION of the great "Behr/Mackenzie/B Jones vs Crane debate---AKA the Great "Penal vs Strategic" debate! His "White Paper" doesn't have a damn thing to do with Merion or Macdonald or Whigam or trips or ship manifests or any of that.

CROSBY, did YOU and SHACKELFORD have something to do with this?? I think the fact you've had absolutely nothing at all to say on these threads in the last year or so CONCLUSIVELY PROVES you have had EVERYTHING to say about this Moriarty "White Paper."


It's either that or David Moriarty is going to try to prove that Arts and Crafts furniture-maker GUSTAV STICKLEY really should be considered the "Step-Father" of the Golden Age of Golf Course Architecture! On the other hand, he may argue that ALBERT STICKLEY is the evil STEP-CHILD of the Golden Age of GCA.

[TEPaul]

"They are telling us that Hugh Wilson himself was not a man of honor and achievement, as has been the record for the past 100 years, but was instead a liar and a scoundrel, who saw glowing reports of the glories of his work in his own lifetime which he knew to be untrue, yet took no steps to counter them or correct the record."


Now wait a minute Mike, don't go too damn far here in defending Hugh Wilson. I mean seriously, we do know something negative about him that they don't really know or can prove like we can and that is, of course, Hugh's illegitimate black grandchild, Huge "Puffy" Wilson, that loveable drug-dealing pimp from the North Philly 'hood!   

[RJ_Daley]

David, maybe you ought to consider allowing a jury to form, or at least have a panel and you and Cirba and Paul can strike, to get to 12 angry men' who will then read your IMO, when it finally is presented.  I'm not the decider, just the guy trying to get you all to reach for something else as your evidence, rather than the same line of questioning. 

Did anyone check with Stuart Bendelow for any mentions by Tom Bendelow in his quarterly magazine, "Spaulding's Golf Guide" which he editted and wrote about on-going golf affairs from ~1907-1917?  Maybe he has something to say on the subject. 

Maybe HIW got a parking ticket on his Stanley Steamer in New York in sumer of 1910, and like the the 44 cal killer Birkowitz, you can fix him at a specific time and place to prove or disprove one side or the other?

BTW TEPaul

Let me ask you something Shiv. Is it something one learns in law school that if and when you say something in court and it's clear that noone, including the judge and jury believes a word of it that one should just stick to one's guns anyway? Perhaps they teach you that so it can go into the court record and at some point down the line you can just take it out of context and pertend that you actually made some relevant point.

It has been a while since I read it, and I don't have the book anymore to look it up, but I'm pretty sure Lawyer/Author Gerry Spence recommended just exactly that tactic in his book on how to argue and win, everytime! 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I have to put my faith in the articles/report written at the time. I figure anything else is self-defeating. If I'm not to accept at face value what the newpaper boys were writing in the early 1910s and what Alan Wilson wrote in 1916, what AM I to accept?

Peter, that's part of the problem.

If one reporter got the facts wrong in his article, but subsequent reporters use that article as the gospel,  aren't ALL articles perpetuating the mistake
erroneous.

So, whom do you trust for reliably reporting the facts ?

I believe that David will address that when he posts his premise.[/color]

If any ONE contemporaneous document is deemed suspect, aren't ALL documents similarly suspect (ship manifests included)?

NO, a manifest, an official document is NOT to be confused with a reporter writing an article or opinion piec e.  Surely you understand the difference.
[/color]

And if not, aren't we're just playing a speculative game of character analysis - this man's word is IN and that man's word is OUT because we say so, or because we think to know better.

NO.
There are ways to verify the veracity of some statements.
I believe David's premise will address those issues.[/color]

I'd even buy into that (a little) if I thought we were wise enough to judge. But I just don't think we're any smarter or more sophisticated or more honest than those who came before us.

That's not the issue.
The issue lies in documentation, not opinions or newspaper reporting
[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Cirba & TEPaul,

It's fairly clear to me that you can't wait to pounce on David's IMO piece, for the express purpose of demolishing it.

Ask yourself, is that an honest academic approach ?

Why not wait until he publishes his IMO, then examine it with an UNBIASED eye, acknowledging those things that are factual, prudent or reasonable, and questioning those things that you feel are ...... .?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Have you looked at those manifests?  

To say they are incomplete, error-prone, subject to handwriting vagaries and interpretation, inconsistent, and crossed out, written over, and omitting private travel just begins to hint at their problems as documentation on which to build an argument.

If David's new theory is based on real evidence, then it should hold water, and stay afloat despite our counters, so to speak. 

These manifests are dead weight.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike,

They're more accurate than newspaper accounts.

But, that doesn't address the massive amount of missing information about Wilson's alleged trip abroad.

Where did he sail from, when, on what vessel ?
Where did he sail to ?
Where did stay, and most importantly, which courses did he visit ?

One would think, with the significance of Merion in American Golf, that those missing bits of information would have been revealed over the last 100 years.

As to the sketches, one has to wonder if they were CBM's sketches.
If they were HIW's, shouldn't there be a connection between their origins and their "as builts" ?

It's important to seperate fact from fiction.

I think some of David's efforts might shed some light on some new facts.

As for me, I believe that Wilson built/constructed Merion

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You wrote, "Mike, They're more accurate than newspaper accounts..."

And there is my problem. How can you make a general statement such as that, especially after you have taken to task others for general statements.

They are NOT more accurate than newspaper accounts. Neither can it be said that newspaper accounts are more accurate than ship manifests. If you had stated that SOME are more accurate than newspaper accounts and that I believe this is one of the cases, then I would not only not object but support your privilege to believe it.

I, too, am waiting patiently on the IMO piece that David is working on. If nothing else, these discussions and controversies have made it certain to be the most widely read of any of them in the history of GCA.com...

[wsmorrison]

"As for me, I believe that Wilson built/constructed Merion"

To be more specific, I think Pickering oversaw the building/construction of Merion under the Merion committee chaired by Hugh Wilson.   The real question is, built/constructed according to whose plans?  I suppose, if these endless threads have any purpose, some new evidence is going to be presented that allegedly will alter our notions of that.  Bring it on.  If there is truth to it, it is worth knowing no matter what traditions are upset by it. 

Honestly, if hole drawings in Macdonald's hand shows that all the original holes were designed by CBM, that would be fascinating and welcome knowledge.  We're not trying to protect myths and legends.  Though I doubt that is going to happen.  But if it did, so what?  Philadelphians aren't going to be crying in the streets about it.  Most of our differences have been rooted in different analytical results and not, as some would believe, due to a Philadelphia Syndrome to protect our heroes.  If new information is found and passes scrutiny, it will be seen for what it is, important information on the founding of one of the most significant golf courses in the world.  But it is also a course that was dramatically altered from the start.  The original golf course was at best a transition course that still clung to many older design styles  than natural ones.  Is this due to the preference of the Merion committee, Macdonald's influence, Pickering's experience or other factors?  That will be difficult to answer.  But perhaps David has found something that will help bridge the knowledge gap.  We'll see one of these days.

Again, whatever accounted for the initial design iteration, it was soon abandoned for a new and improved look and design including the iconic bunkering we are familiar with.  I for one imagine that the rejection was mostly due to the collaborations between Wilson and Flynn and later the work of Flynn upon Wilson's early passing.  The rejection of past efforts is an important story in the design evolution of Merion, which took its course over a period of some 22 years and then some.

Pat,

You say there is a massive amount of missing material relating to the earliest activities associated with the development of Merion.  What makes you think clubs of that era routinely retained such information?  What sort of information exists documenting the travels and studies of Crump and Macdonald or anyone else of that era?  It has nothing to do with the current significance of Merion, Pine Valley or NGLA.  Or even the earliest views of these and other courses.  The architecture was never seriously documented anywhere nor were the architects, either professional or amateur. 

If you are wondering about the sketches being Wilson or Macdonald, it stands to reason you are also questioning every detail ever presented regarding the development of Merion and everywhere else.

What do we know about who did what and when about Myopia Hunt?  About NGLA?  About Chicago GC?  About Shinnecock?  About St. Andrews GC?  Will you next question everything about everything?  If so, you and your cohorts have an awful lot of work to do.  You'd better get a move on 

"NO, a manifest, an official document is NOT to be confused with a reporter writing an article or opinion piec e.  Surely you understand the difference."

We know they are different, Pat.  However, they can both be right at times and they can both be wrong at times.  Are you saying just because one is an "official document" that it has to be entirely accurate?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

You wrote, "Mike, They're more accurate than newspaper accounts..."

And there is my problem. How can you make a general statement such as that, especially after you have taken to task others for general statements.


How can I make that statement ?
Easily.
Ship manifests were legal documents, maintained by an independent, source, the ship/shipping company, and presented to the immigration officer at the point of entry into the United States.

They represent a systemic written record of passenger traffic across the oceans.

Newspaper articles bear no similar responsibilty in terms of reporting accurate facts.[/color]

They are NOT more accurate than newspaper accounts. Neither can it be said that newspaper accounts are more accurate than ship manifests. If you had stated that SOME are more accurate than newspaper accounts and that I believe this is one of the cases, then I would not only not object but support your privilege to believe it.

Of course they're more accurate, they're official documents, not someone's opinion.

I believe that ship manifests were far more accurate than newspaper accounts, especially post 1900.

Ship manifests were official documents, maintained by the ship/shipping company and presented to the immigration officer at the port of entry to the United States.  The served an official purpose and a good degree of accountability.

Newspaper articles bear no equivilant degree of accountability.[/color]

I, too, am waiting patiently on the IMO piece that David is working on. If nothing else, these discussions and controversies have made it certain to be the most widely read of any of them in the history of GCA.com...

[Mike_Cirba]

But Patrick...official documents or not...the sad truth is that they weren't any more accurate.

If you call what's happening today on the Mexican border as a completely accurate accounting of immigration flow, or believe Hillary Clinton when she claims that she's surprised and astounded that the campaign has become so negative, then you would call the shipping manifest of the early 1900's as complete and valid and worthy of our consideration for presenting a thesis of purported historical fact.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

But Patrick...official documents or not...the sad truth is that they weren't any more accurate.

Sure they were, unless you never heard of "yellow" journalism.[/color]

If you call what's happening today on the Mexican border as a completely accurate accounting of immigration flow, or believe Hillary Clinton when she claims that she's surprised and astounded that the campaign has become so negative, then you would call the shipping manifest of the early 1900's as complete and valid and worthy of our consideration for presenting a thesis of purported historical fact.

Mike, those are bad examples, and you can't compare them to ship manifests.

Ship manifests were maintained by a party with no agenda.
And, it's not like individuals could swim the Atlantic.
They had to sail on ships, and the structure of that transportation system was one of accomodations linked to accountability.

With voyages taking several days, if not more than a week, passengers had to PAY for their space, be housed, fed, etc., etc..  Thus, the list of passengers, their passenger status, (first class versus other classes) had to be accounted for, and, those accounting ledgers had to be turned over to the immigration official at the point of entry. 

So, let's not view ship manifests from a predisposed perspective that furthers your position on Wilson.  Look at them as a structured procedure, one that was systemically applied to account for all passengers on all ships coming to the U.S. [/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

But Patrick...that's the problem.   When I try to view them in the way that you present they don't come close to passing the "sniff" test of accuracy.

Let me give you an example.

Let's say you came back from a trip to Italy in October 1910.   

What am I to make of a manifest reading that might say;

Name: P L Mucci
Occupation: Unknown
Citizen: United States
Birthdate: Approximately 1880 (oopss..crossed out...indecipherable)
Destination: New York
Ship: Leap of Faith II
Marital Status: Single


?

Because, that's what we see over and over again.

The records are incomplete and faulty and if you spent a few hours examining them in any detail I'm confident that you would be the first person on this website to call their credibility into question.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike,

If you look at the manifests for the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth in 1952, you'll see that they're pretty accurate when it comes to guys named Mucci.

I never stated that Manifests were infallible, but, to dismiss them in their entirety is unreasonable.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

Green ink or not, you are still incorrect. Simply because something is an official document doesn't make the information contained within it correct. Being correct does.

Consider, Mike has already cited several of these "official documents" that were incorrect on their face. Being "official didn't make them correct.

It is the same for newspaper accounts. I can show you an account in an Atlanta paper in 1928 that states that Tilly designed and built Olympia Fields. What makes that statement incorrect isn't that it is found in a newspaper column but rather that it is incorrect on its face.

That was the point I was trying to make and I think it is a simple one.

You stated, "Of course they're more accurate, they're official documents, not someone's opinion." Incorrect information on an "official document" doesn't make it correct.

"I believe that ship manifests were far more accurate than newspaper accounts, especially post 1900." I completely agree with this statement. That is definitely something that YOU believe. Unfortunately your belief in the premise neither makes it more or less correct.

"Ship manifests were official documents, maintained by the ship/shipping company and presented to the immigration officer at the port of entry to the United States.  The served an official purpose and a good degree of accountability." Today in the mail I received a book that i had ordered on-line. I opened the package eagerly and really enjoyed the dust jacket of my new treasure. The only problem was that the book inside the dust jacket was the wrong one! Just because a document serves an "official purpose" and is "maintained" by an officer who has a "good degree of accountability" doesn't mean that mistakes don't happen.

"Newspaper articles bear no equivilant degree of accountability..." Evidently you've never heard of court cases whereby newspapers have been successfully sued for poor reporting and slanderous articles.

Pat, my entire point is that generalities, even well-meant ones, in a case that has developed and devolved as this issue most definitely has, creates more problems in both the short and long run. All they do is cause arguing over side points.

You have consistantly written that everyone wait on David to present his research in the manner and dorum that he chooses. I completely agree with this. I think it is time that these threads cease and desist until he does. That will allow rhetoric and tempers to calm down on all sides...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Phil,

 "Dewey defeats Truman"

Logs and manifests represent an independent, structured attempt to record and account for the facts.   

Articles written in newspapers don't have the same structure or purpose.
Articles filter information, both correct and incorrect, and present it as the author intends.

That kind of manipulation DOESN'T exist with logs and manifests, hence, I stand by my statement.

I think this is especiallly true circa 1910 when few events were actually witnessed by the person writing the article.

How would a reporter, especially one reasonably removed from an event, know what actually took place ?

Word of mouth would seem to be a logical explanation.

Whereas, ship's logs and manifests were a long time maritime practice absent a bias in presenting the data.
 
For comparison sake, you may want to read the New York Times this weekend, and then try getting on an airplane with someone else's ticket or ID.

Let me know the incident rate with respect to inaccuracies on both endeavors

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

 "Dewey defeats Truman"

Logs and manifests represent an independent, structured attempt to record and account for the facts.   

Articles written in newspapers don't have the same structure or purpose.
Articles filter information, both correct and incorrect, and present it as the author intends.

That kind of manipulation DOESN'T exist with logs and manifests, hence, I stand by my statement.

For comparison sake, you may want to read the New York Times this weekend, and then try getting on an airplane with someone else's ticket or ID.

Let me know the incident rate with respect to inaccuracies on both endeavors

Patrick,

I believe Phil's point is that if information is wrong, incomplete, missing, or misleading, it's wrong, incomplete, missing, or misleading no matter what media it is presented on.

We know the manifests are all of the above.   Let's get past it.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike,

It's a question of reliability.

Some seem to place a high degree of accuracy in newspaper articles, deeming them infallible.

I don't accept that premise.

Others seem to infer that ship manifests should be dismissed as records since some of them contained errors.

I don't accept that premise either.

The ship manifest is a matter of record, wherein a good degree of accountability went along with it.  So much so that the record was turned over to an agent of the Government of the United States, for official purposes.

A newspaper article ......... ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Today, they are much more reliable.

But back in the day, it seems one could give a last name, first initial (sometimes, not even that), country of origin, marital status and nothing else and hop aboard.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

In general, newspaper accounts have a standard of reliability that satisfies most readers.  However, there have always been and will continue to be errors in reporting...of all kinds and not just in newspapers but in other documents both official and otherwise.

The golf articles in early Philadelphia papers were written by men who had more than a passing interest in the subject.  We know that Tillinghast, Dey, Evans and others wrote regular columns on the golf happenings in the district.  Don't you think there is an increased reliability in their accounts as they were in the small inner circles of golf in Philadelphia?  That is of course unless you subscribe to the notion that the world was being misled by a bunch of rogue Quakers    Sometimes pseudonyms were used by those deeply involved in the processes.  I believe their columns should be considered as reliable as those with a bona fide byline. 

Clearly though, the most reliable writings remain those of Hugh Wilson and Alan Wilson.  They, along with Robert Lesley and the committee were there everyday and heavily involved in all activities.

Did turn of the century government workers performing menial repetitious tasks achieve 6 Sigma levels of efficiency?  You would have us believe they do.

[DMoriarty]

I'm with Shivas on this one with regard to the records.

I posted my take on these newspaper articles on another thread but it is more appropriate here.



With newspaper accounts generally, I don't put a lot of faith in them unless:

1.  I can independently verify the accuracy of the sources.
2.  The reporters have first hand information and are expert enough to accurately convey that information. 

This is especially true for social or gossip columns like the golf ones, which are usually just full of the views of whoever has the columnists ear.  What is usually happening is someone gave the columnist some information, and the columnist spruces it up and runs it, but sometimes even then the columnist gets it wrong.

Also the articles are incredibly parasitic.  The other papers borrow the information and use it as their own.

An example from memory, so don't quote me: 

One reviewer referred one or two of Merion's holes as something like  "plain two shot holes."   Later, when the course opened, another paper ostensibly reviewed the course and commented that the golfer had to play over a plain.  Like a "Plain Hole" was a type of hole requiring play over a plain.  Had the course opened in a different time, I wouldn't have been surprised to see   the next paper write that the hole was only reachable only by plane. 

The point is you have to put the article in context and understand the nature of the source material.

[JESII]

Yes counselor, but would they prove that someone did not take a trip?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()