David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO

[Neil_Crafter]

I believe the act of "laying out" as referred to in the sequence, "lay out, build and seed etc" refers to the activity of setting out the golf holes on the land after they have been routed on paper - i.e. the process of getting the outline structure of the golf holes from paper onto the land. This is not a simple activity and would have required surveying skills. I do not believe any post has mentioned this crucial activity as part of the construction process.
Just my 20c for this extensive and intersting thread.
I have enjoyed reading your essay David and the follow ups.
cheers Neil

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm not sure what is so insulting about asking if you and/or Tom MacWood have any additional routing maps, hole drawings, or contemporaneous documentation authored by or suggesting a greater role for Macdonald and Whigham?  

If you've answered that question, I missed it.

As far as Lloyd's involvement, we're trying to find out exactly.   I made that educated "guess" based on the fact that we know the two "ambitious developers" had been tipped off about Merion 16 months prior to the actual purchase (by Lloyd, certainly), and I'm betting that it was at that time that Lloyd "bought in" with Connelly and Nicholson to form Haverford Development Company.

It would make absolute sense.   It seems that efforts to secure land adjacent to the old site and buy the whole thing had failed...the 150 or so acres that Connelly and Nicholson held was one that was being looked at, and probably thru the process of elimination, and some really pretty ingenious business ideas, everyone benefited.

I mean, the club was able to get a steal on the land, which HDC sold cheap so that they could put a premium on housing (I also had the odd, but probably not far-fetched thought today that the L-shaped land configuration for the golf course was done to maximize golf course facing lots (after reading from you how it was promised that the houses would be built facing the course)), I'm sure HDC made a killing in subsequent years, and I'm sure Lloyd and any investors benefited greatly, as well.

But, for HDC to go out and buy another 200 acres just on a "hot tip" that Merion "might" pick them seems wildly speculative to me.   I would think that it was the fact that Lloyd joined HDC, even as a silent partner, that gave these guys the courage to suddenly double+ their original investment.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Do we know more specifically when Macdonald visited Merion for the first time?

I went back through your article again (you accuse me of not having read it but this is my 4th time), and I haven't been able to make that determination.

We know it was after Barkers's June 10th, 1910 visit, and before the property was purchased by the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association in November 1910, but do we know any more specifically?

Can you tell us the date of the report you're quoting from, and if that report mentions any specifics about the dates (and length of time) that Macdonald/Whigham were there?

Thank you.


just to add on to a stream of thought..

It's interesting to see the wording of the specific reasons why the Merion Committee recommended Macdonald and Whigham to do a site survey in 1910 juxtaposed with what Hugh Wilson thought were the specific deficiencies of the committee when he gave credit to both men in his 1916 article;

These gentlemen, besides being famous golfers, have given the matter of Golf Course construction much study, and are perfectly familiar with the qualities of grasses, soils, etc.  It was Mr. Macdonald, assisted by Mr. Whigham, who conceived and constructed the National Course at Southampton. - 1910 Merion Site Committee

T]he experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member.  Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out if we had realized one-half the things we did not know. Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C. B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham. - 1916 Hugh Wilson

David...you're right in the sense that there is not a single word written in regard to Macdonald and Whigham's involvement that refers to "designing" or architecture whatsoever.   All of the talk pre and post was about grasses, and construction techniques, and soils, and advising about "our plans". 

Or was it?

While your essay states;

"Note that Wilson did not even bother to mention the Committee’s lack of experience designing courses, but instead only described their lack of qualification for course construction and green keeping.  It was not that he was an expert in design.  Rather, his concern was only with building the course and growing grass on it.   Wilson’s entire discussion of his role focuses not on the planning, but on the building."

Hugh Wilson states;

"We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.   May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as NGLA and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses."

David...do you think that these hole principles and holes that stood the test of time did so because they were soundly "constructed", with good soils, drainage, and grasses?   Or was he talking architecture when he said they discussed the whole gamut from construction, to hole principles, to what could possibly be the limitations of trying to do it inland (with our natural conditions), to identifying the "finest type of holes".   
 
If Macdonald was just going to hand these guys a plan to build from, why even have the lengthy discussion?   What would be the point?   If the 5 man Merion Committee were to be simply glorified construction foremen, then why talk about features on holes?   Why were they looking at sketches of holes?   They should have just been handed a routing plan on a topo and "have at it, chaps!"

But it's clear that's not what happened, and this is probably the most tortured bit of logic your paper employs.
 

Don't you find it odd that all the subsequent press credit went to Hugh Wilson, from everyone from Max Behr to Tillinghast citing Wilson as the guy...all the local newspapers...Alan Wilson who was there...guys like Richard Francis who lived til 1950 and was a famous rules official....

Not a single one of them every said a single word about either Barker or Macdonald/Whigham routing the golf course.   Not a peep.

Doesn't it stretch belief to believe that a guy like Macdonald, and everything we know about his penchant for bombastic contentiousness, said not a thing about being responsible for Merion in any way shape or form over the next 20 years, even while Merion hosted US Amateurs and US Opens?

And what about Wilson?   Why wouldn't he have set the record straight?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - 

My point is a simple one - that Mr. Wilson would not necessarily have needed Mr. Macdonald to understand the principles of great British architecture, especially as those principles are similar to but not congruent with Macdonald's understanding and conception of them. 

But, he did need CBM, so much so that he and his committee traveled to Southampton to spend a few days with him.
Wilson himself credits CBM with the introduction and infusion of untold knowledge, complete with sketches, etc., etc..

Since Wilson had NOT traveled to the UK prior to meeting with CBM, his meeting with CBM appears to be the single most important architectural tutorage he/they received. [/color]

I believe in architecture's fundamental principles; I don't happen to believe that Macdonald fathered them anew in North America.  I'm not qualified to "unequivocally state" anything at all about anything at all, except that I'm aware of my own existence.

Then you're living in denial.

Wilson himself acknowledges CBM's contribution vis a vis their meeting.
Wilson was receiving info from the "horses mouth", from a man intimately familiar with architecture in the UK.
From a man who had just built a course widely acknowledged as one of the best in the world.

Why do you deny CBM's roll in instiling architectural values in Wilson's data/knowledge base ?[/color]

Tell me, do you wake up being that smart and thinking so clearly and articulating so well?



Only on days that end in "Y" [/color]

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick -
It's nice to see a man with an assured self-regard, and a healthy perspective on himself 

You write: "Wilson himself acknowledges CBM's contribution vis a vis their meeting"

Yes. Indeed he did.  I think that's long been a part of Merion's historical record.

I believe everyone at the time credited Macdonald with a great deal of valuable advice, and recorded that fact.  But what's not recorded anywhere, as far as I can tell, is the belief by anyone at the time that Macdonald designed (or conceived of) Merion.   

That is, the same people who credited Macdonald with advising the Committee headed by H Wilson credited the Committee with building Merion.  Were they being honest and forthright in one instance but not in the other?

I can't seem to get past that question, nor am I too impressed by the fact the Mr. Barker looked at a property for a while and suggested a routing that, as far as I can tell, wasn't in the end used, in whole or in part. 

Also, I fully admit that others are much more familiar with the early iterations of NGLA and Lido and Pipng Rock and Merion (and Pine Valley and Oakmont) than I am; and maybe I'm in denial, but it seems to me that some of the courses relied heavily on the template-variety of fundamental principles and some didn't. 

Peter         

[Patrick_Mucci]

The bulk of Colts work is in the Mid 1920's, a good 10 to 15 years after CBM's work at NGLA.

Patrick

Colt's first course, Rye (1894), was over a decade before Macdonald's work at NGLA.  And he designed many more courses before WW1 than Macdonald did.  So there

I didn't know that Rye was in America, is it next to Mamaroneck ?

Also, why did you leave out the "contexting" portion of my post ?

"MacKenzie's body of work in America[/color] didn't begin until ......

MacDonald was the "Father" of American Architecture.

[JESII]

Pat,

Better re-read which architect Paul was talking about...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick -
It's nice to see a man with an assured self-regard, and a healthy perspective on himself 

You write: "Wilson himself acknowledges CBM's contribution vis a vis their meeting"

Yes. Indeed he did.  I think that's long been a part of Merion's historical record.

I believe everyone at the time credited Macdonald with a great deal of valuable advice, and recorded that fact. 

But what's not recorded anywhere, as far as I can tell, is the belief by anyone at the time that Macdonald designed (or conceived of) Merion.   

I don't know where you're getting these wild ideas from.
NO ONE ever stated that CBM conceived of Merion.
Where did you get that idea ?[/color]

That is, the same people who credited Macdonald with advising the Committee headed by H Wilson credited the Committee with building Merion.  Were they being honest and forthright in one instance but not in the other?

Peter, you're going to have to improve your reading comprehension skills.

We've all acknowledged that Wilson was in charge of "BUILDING" the golf course.

No one disputes that role.
Why are you injecting an irrelevant issue ?[/color]

I can't seem to get past that question, nor am I too impressed by the fact the Mr. Barker looked at a property for a while and suggested a routing that, as far as I can tell, wasn't in the end used, in whole or in part. 

Also, I fully admit that others are much more familiar with the early iterations of NGLA and Lido and Pipng Rock and Merion (and Pine Valley and Oakmont) than I am; and maybe I'm in denial, but it seems to me that some of the courses relied heavily on the template-variety of fundamental principles and some didn't. 

What's that got to do with this issue ?

No one ever claimed that Merion was a course where every hole was a template, or that it relied on the accepted primary templates.

You keep injecting wild premises that NO ONE has put forth, premises that have nothing to do with the core issues .... WHY ?[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,  I explained that there was a drawing in my essay.  In fact almost everything you ask me is answered in my essay.   

As for your pending question.  I find it incredibly insulting and telling about your ability to have a reasonable discussion on these issues.   As I may have said already, I've learned a lot about Merion, but more about you.   

David,

Since you are being so frank, I have to say that this is the type of thing that I find so frustrating about trying to have a discussion with you.

In answer to another question, you provide a piece of your primary source that talks about HH Barker delivering a "report", and I ask the obvious question...did Barker deliver a report or routing, yet your response to me is glib, and begs the next question, which is simply, "How are we supposed to glean from the source document that Barker delivered a routing?"

In the brief time since your White Paper was published here, and discussion began, everyone was suddenly surprised to see a magazine article suddenly appear from Tom MacWood that by any account would seem to be a remarkable, suspiciously timely "find".   Tom has been digging into this stuff for years and  years...are we to believe this suddenly turned up?  

So, to save us all a lot of time and discussion on a subject that is very interesting and important to a lot of people, I'm simply asking, is there any other documentation in the form of routing maps, hole layouts, contemporaneous documentation either by, or about Macdonald/Raynor's involvement that would suggest that their contribution to date has been inaccurate?

Yes or No, David..it's a simple question.   And no, you haven't answered it.

Given the history here, David, I'm not sure how that's insulting.   It's honest and direct, yes, but it's not meant to be anything but a very frank question.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Better re-read which architect Paul was talking about...

JES II,

Better re-read the post in which Paul extracted a comment out of context.

Read the post in it's entirety in order to gain perspective, enabling you to "context" the entirety of my post.

After you do that, try to get a good night's sleep and reply in the morning.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MPC,

It's intellectually dishonest to posture that H D Wilson is Hugh Irvine Wilson.

You know the difference.

Please proceed with the same candor you expect from David Moriarty.

[Mike_Cirba]

MPC,

It's intellectually dishonest to posture that H D Wilson is Hugh Irvine Wilson.

You know the difference.

Please proceed with the same candor you expect from David Moriarty.

Patrick,

The 1880 United States Census says that the Hugh Wilson we know is "Hugh D. Wilson".   

You can't accept one clearly erroneous manifest as factual and throw out others that have no obvious errors when they don't suit David's interpretations of events.   It is what it is, and the fact is that any supposed "legal document" that we're supposed to revise our historical view of an important timeline is laughable when you think about the fact that the name "H D Wilson" was perimissable at all.

Yet, David uses such evidence as one of the cornerstone foundations of his case.

[Peter Pallotta]

"You keep injecting wild premises that NO ONE has put forth, premises that have nothing to do with the core issues .... WHY?"

Patrick - If I'm doing that I don't intend to.

I've read David's essay and many of his posts (and yours and TE's and Mike's etc). I appreciate the knowledge and dedication they all exhibit. But:

For several years I made my living writing and editing/guiding other people's writing. I got used to trying to get the heart of the matter, to reading between the lines, to paying as much attention to what was being said as to what wasn't. I found that even very good and smart writers sometimes needed help to understand what it was they actually believed, and what it was they were really trying to say. 

Because of that, somewhere along the line in this Merion debate, and consciously or not, I zeroed in on the implications of David's analysis, i.e. that the Merion historical record is not only incomplete/incorrect, but that it is MEANINGFULLY incomplete/incorrect....or so it seems to me.

In essence, that others deserve more credit for Merion's creation than has traditionally been given them.

Peter
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

MPC,

It's intellectually dishonest to posture that H D Wilson is Hugh Irvine Wilson.

You know the difference.

Please proceed with the same candor you expect from David Moriarty.

Patrick,

The 1880 United States Census says that the Hugh Wilson we know is "Hugh D. Wilson".   

Mike, you know, and I know, that the 1880 census couldn't possibly list Hugh Irvine Wilson as 1.5 years of age, since he was born on 11-18-1879 AND the 1880 census recorded ALL citizen data as of June 1, 1880.[/color]

You can't accept one clearly erroneous manifest as factual and throw out others that have no obvious errors when they don't suit David's interpretations of events.

No, that's not what I can't accept.
I can't accept your knowingly, erroneously ascribing one false set of data to serve as the foundation for your premise to counter David's.

Your approach is disengenuous.

You're not seeking the truth, you're seeking to undermine David's premise through any means possible, even if they're devious means, and that's intellectually dishonest.[/color]

It is what it is, and the fact is that any supposed "legal document" that we're supposed to revise our historical view of an important timeline is laughable when you think about the fact that the name "H D Wilson" was perimissable at all.

It isn't what you claim it is.

The 1880 census had a recording date of June 1, 1880.
Hugh Irvine Wilson was born on November 18, 1879 and thus, couldn't be 1.5 years old.[/color]

Yet, David uses such evidence as one of the cornerstone foundations of his case.

No he doesn't[/color]

[JESII]

Pat,

That age block say 6/12, not 1.5...you should know, weren't you born around the same date?

[Joe Bausch]

Uhhhh, Pat, yo' you smart guy:  Mike either miscalculated the age or mistyped.  The 1880 Census lists a Hugh D Wilson born in Trenton New Jersey in 1879 to be 6 months old.  It lists these as some of the members of the household (according to Ancestry.com):

William P Wilson 42
Ellen D Wilson (31; I spare the jokes about cradle robbing, huh-huh)
Allan Wilson 10
Wayne McBeigh Wilson 4

I'm not saying whether this means much at all.  But it sure seems to me that you have some confirmational bias going on here.  Why didn't you ask politely:  "Mike, are you sure you calculated that age correctly or perhaps did you mistype?"

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Please don't question my interest or intellectual honesty on this matter

I've purchased a copy of Hugh Wilson's birth certificate.  I'm not sure I see anyone else doing that.

When it arrives I will post the results here.

I've joined not only Manifest.com, but also FindYourPast.com (based on Rich Goodale's recommendation), at the overall cost to date of a few hundred dollars.   I've joined newspaper archive sites, as well.

I've spent way more time than this is probably worth, but I have a deep affinity for Merion and believe that what's been presented to date is but one individual interpretation of historical events based on new information, but I also believe it's a rush to judgment, immediately pronounced here as factual by this site's creator before undergoing critical, independent scrutiny, and it flies in the face of all the history recorded by contemporaries and those who followed over the past 100 years.

It also on its face makes Hugh Wilson out to be thoughtless at best and a liar at worst. 

Then, when we ask questions, or challenge interpretations of facts and are met with glib and facile or misleading and partially accurate evidence and answers, or suddenly, new relevant info appears on the scene several days later for maximum impact,  I can't help but feel that those who are presenting this new evidence have an agenda that claims to only want the truth presented, have other less noble motivations as well.

Ultimately, they may be correct, and have evidence to prove it.    That's ok, but let's get everything on the table and get to the real answers.

That's why I keep asking the fundamental question that David says he finds "insulting".

Because this issue shouldn't be about me, or Tom Paul, or David, or Tom MacWood or anyone else.   It should be about a respectful treatment of history and those men who were there every day creating that wonderful golf course.

[Kyle Harris]

I just realized that tomorrow morning, some very committed and dedicated member of Matt Shaffer's staff will walk on to the first green on the East Course tomorrow, cut a hole in the green, and place a rather nice wicker basket in that hole.

Probably an hour or so later, the first group of the day will hole out and move across Ardmore Avenue to the 2nd tee.

I think, though I don't have any manifests to prove it, that this process will continue throughout most of the summer and people will leave the 18th green no better or worse for the experience knowing that someone in 1910 couldn't write to save their lives.

Good night all.

[Mike_Cirba]

Earlier, in the timeline, I pointed out that other Merion Committee members like Robert W. Lesley, Rodman Griscom, and Dr. Toulmin all went overseas in the years immediately up to and through the creation of Merion East.

In light of this, Indiana Jones came across the following New York Times article from March, 1910, which talked about Macdonald being the forerunner of various committees travelling overseas with the idea of emulating Macdonald, who is portrayed as trying to virtually duplicate great overseas holes in the US verbatim, although by 1910 it seems to be presented a bit as "old news".

"The statements which have been going the rounds of the British golfing papers to the effect that the numerous American golfing professionals now in this country left home armed with instructions from their committees in the United States to copy certain well known holes and hazards on various famous courses remind one of a similar happening in 1906."

"Definite information was then forthcoming relative to a scheme for the formation of a golf course in America which should embrace exact copies of some of the most famous holes and hazards of British links.   The idea originated with Mr. C. B. Macdonald.   He realized that the United States does not possess the same character of country as Great Britain;  it has the sand, on Long Island, at all events, but English turf is wanting."

"But Mr. Macdonald determined to do by artificial means what nature had left undone and he set about the project by touring the United Kingdom, making the most minute calculations of the hoels and hazards he wanted, and in every way leaving nothing to chance so far as precise reproduction might be secured."

"The result was that a little more than a year later particulars were forthcoming of what had been accomplished at Shinnecock Hills, on Long Island.   So far as the features of the course went, the fourth hole was a reproduction of the eleventh at St. Andrews, th seventh a Punch Bowl hole, the eighth was built to resemble the seventh at Leven, and the eleventh was a replica of the Sahara at Sandwich."

"A capital reproduction of the Alps, at Prestwick, was built for the twelfth, the thirteenth was held to be a perfect copy of the famous Redan at North Berwick, the sixteenth was copied from the seventeenth at St. Andrews, and the home green was worked out to resemble the Bottle Hole on the same links."

"It will be noticed that these details date back more than two years and the instructions now given to American professionals in this country makes one wonder how far they are due to the great success at Shinnecock Hills, and a consequent desire by committees of other clubs in America to form similarly inviting difficulties for their own members."

ALthough the article mentions Shinnecock, the author seems to be talking about NGLA.  Somewhat oddly, reports of the actual opening of NGLA place it sometime around 1911, so that fact that it was considered a great success at this early juncture seems inconsistent with what else is known.   Perhaps this was due to the weight of Macdonald's personality and promotion.

I also have to wonder based on what is described as Macdonald's methodologies, and based on courses of Macdonald's I have played, why are 16 of the 18 holes at Merion originals, and the other two very uncertain and unconvicing imitations, if that was the original design intent.

[DMoriarty]

...

You want absolute proof in order for me to draw any conclusions at all.  That is impossible, especially with historical research.  Often we must go with the best inference the facts give us.   
...

STILL WAITING ON HOW WE ALL KNOW THAT LLOYD WAS INVOLVED IN SUMMER 1909.  Your not holding out on us are you Mike?

A couple of things.  First, If you read the rest of my response, you know that many of my conclusions are not inferential but necessary given the facts as we know them. 

Second, Mike is not inferring from known facts, but rather trying to distort the facts to fit the  conclusion he wants.  All this business (to put it politely) about two trips is a good example.   The entire notion was only invented because the  real trip no longer fits with their story.   But the problem is, the made-up earlier trip has to be really early, so he's got to create facts that indicate that Merion was involved before they were really involved.   He even pushed back Merion's entire history by a year so that some HD Wilson's trip with his wife would seem to be relevant, claiming that Wilson went to NGLA in 1909, the year before he inspected the property.  Absolutely absurd, and would be laughably so, if this this kind of garbage wasnt wasting so much of my time.     

That is what he is doing with Lloyd's involvement.  He figures he has got to involve Merion earlier than Wilson's trip, so he pretends that we all should know Lloyd was running HDC as early as Summer 1909.  I dont know that and I am pretty familiar with the documents, including the article he believes told him this.   As to whether Lloyd is involved or not, I dont care and it doesnt matter. 

What I object to is this repeated making up of facts and pretending they are solid and with support when they are far from solid or with support.   

___________________________________
Phillip,  I don’t have a copy of the Barker routing,  If I had it I assure you it would have been in the article.

As for the meaning of the term “lay out” see Neil’s answer, as that is exactly what I was getting at.
____________________________

Patrick -
It's nice to see a man with an assured self-regard, and a healthy perspective on himself 

You write: "Wilson himself acknowledges CBM's contribution vis a vis their meeting"

Yes. Indeed he did.  I think that's long been a part of Merion's historical record.

Sorry, Peter but that is just not the case.   Merion's version of the story was that Hugh I. Wilson went to CBM in preparation of his overseas trip.  In fact, some posting on this thread referred to it as helping Hugh Wilson with his itinerary.   So it has NOT been part of Merion's historical record, even among those here who have looked into Merion in detail.   

I believe everyone at the time credited Macdonald with a great deal of valuable advice, and recorded that fact.  But what's not recorded anywhere, as far as I can tell, is the belief by anyone at the time that Macdonald designed (or conceived of) Merion.   

That is, the same people who credited Macdonald with advising the Committee headed by H Wilson credited the Committee with building Merion.  Were they being honest and forthright in one instance but not in the other?

No one who was actually there credited Hugh I Wilson, either.  No one.   They just always talk around the issue.   The only involved party who spoke to the issue was Whigham, and he did credit Macdonald for the design.     

I can't seem to get past that question, nor am I too impressed by the fact the Mr. Barker looked at a property for a while and suggested a routing that, as far as I can tell, wasn't in the end used, in whole or in part.

How on earth can you tell that it wasn't in the end used?  I surely cannot tell this.  There is much more reason to believe that Barker's routing was used over Wilson's, BECAUSE WILSON DID NOT DO A ROUTING, BUT BEGAN ON THE PROJECT AFTER THE ROUTING WAS DONE.
________________________________________

Mike Cirba wrote:

David,

Since you are being so frank, I have to say that this is the type of thing that I find so frustrating about trying to have a discussion with you.

In answer to another question, you provide a piece of your primary source that talks about HH Barker delivering a "report", and I ask the obvious question...did Barker deliver a report or routing, yet your response to me is glib, and begs the next question, which is simply, "How are we supposed to glean from the source document that Barker delivered a routing?"

My essay directly answered your question.   

In the brief time since your White Paper was published here, and discussion began, everyone was suddenly surprised to see a magazine article suddenly appear from Tom MacWood that by any account would seem to be a remarkable, suspiciously timely "find".   Tom has been digging into this stuff for years and  years...are we to believe this suddenly turned up?

I don’t care what you believe Mike.   I told you what happened.   Yet you continue to imply that Tom MacWood and I are liars who have been manipulating the record and hiding information.  Then you have the audacity to say that you don’t understand how you are being insulting. You are a piece of work Mike.   

Given the history here, David, I'm not sure how that's insulting.   It's honest and direct, yes, but it's not meant to be anything but a very frank question. 

The history here is exactly what makes it so insulting.   It is even more insulting for you to feign that you do not know what I am talking about while continuing to insult me in the very same thread.

Since my return you have maligned my character, integrity, and motives on an almost daily basis both on this website and off.  You have callously ridiculed my intentions, and repeatedly called me a charlatan and an asshole.   Last week you made the bizarre and nonsensical accusation that Tom MacWood and I have long had the article I recently posted, and were laying in wait as part of some secret plot to embarrass you.   In an act of overwhelming hubris or stupidity, you suggest this again in the very same post where you innocently wonder why I am insulted.   

I've repeatedly explained to you on and off the board that you have it wrong, that there is no plot, and that I am not sandbagging with the sources, but your response has been more scoff and scorn, and you have refused to put the matter the matter behind us.

What most galls me is that you and your supposed secret source are too cowardly to actually let me address the scurrilous gossip that you have so freely spread over the website and off in private messages and conversations.   What kind of a spineless punk continously spreads snarky gossip while refusing to even give the wronged party a chance to defend himself?   Your kind, I guess.

If you want to attack my character and spread childish gossip about about me, Tom MacWood, or anyone else, then you ought to be willing to back it up with facts.   Otherwise keep your paranoid delusions to yourself. 

The 1880 United States Census says that the Hugh Wilson we know is "Hugh D. Wilson".   

You can't accept one clearly erroneous manifest as factual and throw out others that have no obvious errors when they don't suit David's interpretations of events.   It is what it is, and the fact is that any supposed "legal document" that we're supposed to revise our historical view of an important timeline is laughable when you think about the fact that the name "H D Wilson" was perimissable at all.

Yet, David uses such evidence as one of the cornerstone foundations of his case.

My essay doesn't even need the manifest.   Hugh Wilson tells us when he went abroad to study.   After the NGLA trip.  All you have to do is place the NGLA trip in the context of events and the entire episode starts to make sense.   The manifest, the letters to Piper/Oakley, the recent article, all they do is help convince those of you who for some strange reason refuse to take Hugh I Wilson at his word.   Of course a few will never be convinced no matter what the evidence.

But lets assume for argument that, after you've loved and left many-a-H.Wilson, you have finally found the H Wilson who is our H I Wilson.  Of course he isnt, but lets humor you and pretend he is.   SO WHAT.    It has nothing to do with this.   Hugh Wilson told us where he learned about the great holes -- NGLA -- and he told us when he went abroad to study -- after NGLA.   This is true whether he took one previous trips or one hundred.  The fact that you refuse to believe Hugh I Wilson is pretty ironic, dont you think?   Of course you dont.

[DMoriarty]

"You keep injecting wild premises that NO ONE has put forth, premises that have nothing to do with the core issues .... WHY?"

Patrick - If I'm doing that I don't intend to.

I've read David's essay and many of his posts (and yours and TE's and Mike's etc). I appreciate the knowledge and dedication they all exhibit. But:

For several years I made my living writing and editing/guiding other people's writing. I got used to trying to get the heart of the matter, to reading between the lines, to paying as much attention to what was being said as to what wasn't. I found that even very good and smart writers sometimes needed help to understand what it was they actually believed, and what it was they were really trying to say. 

Because of that, somewhere along the line in this Merion debate, and consciously or not, I zeroed in on the implications of David's analysis, i.e. that the Merion historical record is not only incomplete/incorrect, but that it is MEANINGFULLY incomplete/incorrect....or so it seems to me.

In essence, that others deserve more credit for Merion's creation than has traditionally been given them.

Peter

______________________________________________________
Peter, I am quite capable of writing esoterically, but I am not doing so in my essay.   Perhaps your search for hidden meaning or a bigger message has led you in a direction that my paper just does not take.  The essay says what it says, and that is what I meant it to say.
Please don't try to make it into something it isnt.  Especially if only for the purpose of dismissing what you THINK I was really trying to accomplish.

Thanks. 

Earlier, in the timeline, I pointed out that other Merion Committee members like Robert W. Lesley, Rodman Griscom, and Dr. Toulmin all went overseas in the years immediately up to and through the creation of Merion East.

In light of this, Indiana Jones came across the following New York Times article from March, 1910, which talked about Macdonald being the forerunner of various committees travelling overseas with the idea of emulating Macdonald, who is portrayed as trying to virtually duplicate great overseas holes in the US verbatim, although by 1910 it seems to be presented a bit as "old news".

"The statements which have been going the rounds of the British golfing papers to the effect that the numerous American golfing professionals now in this country left home armed with instructions from their committees in the United States to copy certain well known holes and hazards on various famous courses remind one of a similar happening in 1906."

"Definite information was then forthcoming relative to a scheme for the formation of a golf course in America which should embrace exact copies of some of the most famous holes and hazards of British links.   The idea originated with Mr. C. B. Macdonald.   He realized that the United States does not possess the same character of country as Great Britain;  it has the sand, on Long Island, at all events, but English turf is wanting."

"But Mr. Macdonald determined to do by artificial means what nature had left undone and he set about the project by touring the United Kingdom, making the most minute calculations of the hoels and hazards he wanted, and in every way leaving nothing to chance so far as precise reproduction might be secured."

"The result was that a little more than a year later particulars were forthcoming of what had been accomplished at Shinnecock Hills, on Long Island.   So far as the features of the course went, the fourth hole was a reproduction of the eleventh at St. Andrews, th seventh a Punch Bowl hole, the eighth was built to resemble the seventh at Leven, and the eleventh was a replica of the Sahara at Sandwich."

"A capital reproduction of the Alps, at Prestwick, was built for the twelfth, the thirteenth was held to be a perfect copy of the famous Redan at North Berwick, the sixteenth was copied from the seventeenth at St. Andrews, and the home green was worked out to resemble the Bottle Hole on the same links."

"It will be noticed that these details date back more than two years and the instructions now given to American professionals in this country makes one wonder how far they are due to the great success at Shinnecock Hills, and a consequent desire by committees of other clubs in America to form similarly inviting difficulties for their own members."

ALthough the article mentions Shinnecock, the author seems to be talking about NGLA.  Somewhat oddly, reports of the actual opening of NGLA place it sometime around 1911, so that fact that it was considered a great success at this early juncture seems inconsistent with what else is known.   Perhaps this was due to the weight of Macdonald's personality and promotion.

I also have to wonder based on what is described as Macdonald's methodologies, and based on courses of Macdonald's I have played, why are 16 of the 18 holes at Merion originals, and the other two very uncertain and unconvicing imitations, if that was the original design intent.

Mike, is there a reason you are reciting an article that I posted on here within the past few days?   Are you suggesting that I posted the article in response to your time line?  Of course that was not the case.   


I wish you were joking about the Shinnecock reference.   It obviously refers to the location, not the course.   As I have said many times, NGLA was a golf course worthy of discussion long before the date of this article.   

But you have ignored this because you would rather draw all sorts of bogus inferences from an extremely misleading opening date.

[Rich Goodale]

David

Thanks for your reply to one of my few and modest contributions to this thread.  I take your take on the meaning in the early 20th century of the phase "lay out", but I do not believe that it is the proper one.  The relevant Webster's definition says clearly, and firstly:

"...to plan in detail..."

It is possible to construe this as meaning to construct, as you (and Neil C) seem to believe, but I think it is an intellectual stretch to do so.  I would argue that it means what it says, i.e. to "lay out" means to develope a detailed plan.  But, of course, the devil is in the details....

It is indisputable that both HH Barker and Macdonald and Whigham were involved in some ways in the process of creating Merion, but to what extent?  My reading of your argument and the evidence which supports it is (as they say in that verdict unique to Scottish Law) "Not Proven!"

My interpretation of what you and others have presented would be something to the effect of:

--Barker advised Merion (in it's broadest sense) in June 1910 about the suitability of the land for a golf course.  In doing so it was likely (but not proven) that he walked the land and prepared some sort of routing (probably primitive, seemingly lost to history, per yopur recent admission).  To say it was suitable, one had to be able to envision 18 holes on the land.  I assume that Barker did although I have no idea at all what those holes might have been, and neither does anybody participating on this thread.  That being said, it is not at all speculative to think that the routing would have taken the same general path as was built, and still exists (i.e. go out left and then cross the road, work your way out and then back to the road, cross the road and finish where you started, at the farmhouse/clubhouse).
--Once the general concept was agreed upon, and after some addiitonal planning had been done, M&W were consulted about a number a matters, the details of which are still vague, based on what I have read.
--Very quickly (at least by today's standards), the club created a Construction Committee, gave the Chairmanship to Wilson, and Bob's Your Uncle. a great golf course eventually emerged.

One interpretation of this Classic Comics precis of the "facts" is that M&W (possibly incorporating Barker's ideas) did a proper layout of the course which they passed onto the powers that be who chose Wilson to manage their implementation.  At the other end of the specturm, one could interpret that Barker's routing was useful, but primitive, M&W advised only on the general scheme as well as providing some specific ideas regarding soils, seeds, etc. (an area where they had significant experience).  Probably they talked about "templates" too, but given the fact that there were very few holes on the original course which evoked British golf, their ideas on this were very unlikely to have been influential.  So, Wilson grabbed the ball and did (in consultation with the rest of the Committee) most of the detailed planning (i.e. "routing").

Based on all that I have read on this thread, and the other inisgnificant snippets of knowledge I have gleaned over the past 61 years, the latter scneario seems more plausible.

Vis a vis your comments regarding Peter P's most recent contriubtion, I must side with him.  I too have spent some time both writing for publication (public and private) and editing other's work.  As you probably know, my first degree was in English Literature.  Peter is absolutely right that all writers have points of view, biases, agendas, histories, etc., even including me and you!  The sum of these characteristics is the "voice" of the writer which pervades every piece they put to paper.  No matter how "neutral" you try to be, you never can be.  In fact, as I think Peter is trying to say, the best of all writing does take a point of view and builds the words, phrase, sentences, paragraphs and chapters upon the evolving fabric of that point of view to create a story.  It is up to the editor to make sure that this this story is clear, consistent and well-written.  It is then up to the reader to decide if this point of view is valid, and if so, interesting.

Cheers

Rich

PS--another snippet for the timeline (sorry if you history buffs already know this) but HH Barker was in Phiily not only on June 10, but also for the US Open held at the Philadelphia Cricket Club a week later.  He finished 9th and received a $30 prize for his efforts.  Also in the field were George Low, AW Tillinghast, Herbert Strong and Alex Ross (DJR's borther).  I wonder if they got together over a beer or three then and talked about the Merion project..........

RFG

PPS--Edited/Modified, mostly for tyops....

R

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Good summary.

I share Peter's and your scepticism about "objective " writing. It doesn't happen. Better to be honest, put your "take" on the table and go from there. Ironically that sort of writing has always seemed more "objective" to me. It allows the reader to see where the writer is trying to take things. That is always helpful to a reader who will rarely know the facts as well as the author.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Since it is still an open question it seems where Hugh Wilson was in 1910---eg we here in Philadelphia just don't know where he could have been and Moriarty has assumed he could not have been abroad simply because he couldn't find any ship manifest with him on it before 1912.

To me that's not exactly the best way to try to prove he wasn't abroad! 

I proved he basically couldn't have been abroad in 1911 because I found letters written by him from Philadelphia in just about every month of 1911. Those were the so-called "agronomy" letters that Wilson wrote for about fourteen years. One thing they do, since there was so many of them is create a pretty good timeline on Wilson.

But those letters began Feb 1, 1911 and we've never had much of a way to put him in Philadelphia before that. But there seems to be a way of doing that at least a little bit.

Just to show that the people from here who some seem to think are only trying to deflect and deny Moriarty's piece are not trying to do that and are only trying to find the truth of Merion's creation we are now trying to find some real evidence when Wilson was here in 1910.

Yesterday, The Creek Club's really good historian, George "Motor-Mouth" Holland, (believe me, "Motor-Mouth" Holland can definitely talk right over a very large room of the world's best comedians all trying to tell a joke at the same time ) told me he found a press account that Wilson played for Merion in the GAP Team Matches (now the Suburban League Matches) in June of 1909. I asked George to see if he could find out if Wilson played for Merion in June 1910! He's checking into that. If he did at least that would put Wilson in Philadelphia in the summer of 1910 and that would probably make this long time seven months abroad story a whole lot less likely.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Please, I thought we'd put that behind us.

I don't understand why you're indignant when I ask for your evidence, or suggest that you might have other evidence that hasn't been shown here prior? 

Case in point;

Your essay contends a number of vital points, but two of the fundamental tenets are that, 1) HH Barker produced a routing after his June, 1910 visit, and 2) That Macdonald/Whigham came after him and produced their own, or somehow revised what Barker did.    In fact, your very first sentence introducing Macdonald and Whigham alludes to that contention when you state, "Apparanetly not content with Barker's routing plan, the Site Committee brought in two renowned amateur golfers and golf course designers, Macdonald & Whigham to inspect the site."

Later, you tell us repeatedly that Wilson and the Committee were just learning how to implement Macdonald and Whigham's "plans", or in other words, their design.   

Those two things are critical to understand and accept if we are to buy into your larger premise, wouldn't you agree?

Yet, when I ask questions about how you came to those conclusions you act insulted.    For instance, on the face of it, I originally accepted it when you told us in your White Paper that Barker had produced a routing for the Committee.   You wrote, "He also included a sketch of a proposed layout....."

Fair enough, but then yesterday in responding to Jeff Brauer asking to see your primary source re: Barker, you produced the following;


Philadelphia, July 1, 1910

TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNMENT OF THE CLUB.

Gentlemen:

The Committee appointed to investigate and report on a permanent Golf course for the Club, beg to report as follows:

Among other properties to which our attention has been called, is a tract of approximately 300 acres . . . . About one-half the tract is owned outright by the Syndicate being represented by Mr. Joseph R. Connell, and our negotiations have been with him.
. . .
Mr. Connell, on his own account, obtained from H.H. Barker, the Garden City professional, a report, of which the following is a copy:
. . .
_________________________

The letter is signed by Lesley, Lloyd, Bodine, Baily, and Felton.   



So, I asked the obvious question, which is that I don't see a mention of a routing...could you show us where that is mentioned?   You dismissively pointed me to your White Paper.

What that suggests to me is that there is other information that you have that shows that Barker produced a routing, yet you won't share that evidence when asked.   

Do you see why I asked if there is somthing else we should be aware of at this juncture or is everything on the table?   It wasn't meant to be insulting, but borne out of an experience of selective production of evidence.


Another Case in Point:

You contend that Macdonald and Whigham likely helped with planning and strongly suggest that it was their routing.   If that were to be true, narrowing down the date of their initial visit would be absolutely fundamental, wouldn't you agree?

For instance, if they came right after Barker in June/July, that could tend to lend some credence, but if they came in October, it would almost rule them out.

In your White Paper, you wrote;


After inspecting the site, Macdonald provided his (and Whigham’s) written opinion “as to what could be done with the property.”[12]  With Macdonald’s letter, the Site Committee now had two written recommendations about what to do with the property; first from Barker, and then from Macdonald and Whigham. The Committee must have preferred the latter, because according to Merion’s Board, the Site Committee’s report “embodied Macdonald’s letter,” and the Committee’s recommendation was based largely upon the views expressed by Macdonald. 



So, in trying to understand this important question, yesterday I asked you if we knew more spcifically when Macdonald/Whigham first came to Merion, because we know it was after Barker on June 10, 1910, and sometime before mid-November.   However, that is the span of half a year, and a pretty significant date to try and pin down.

I asked you for the date of the Committee report you cited, and asked if that report made any specific mention of the date(s) of their visit.

My question was ignored, once again leading me to believe that you have evidence that you're not willing to produce.

So again, David...I'm not trying to insult your personally by asking, especially when there is a history of mistrust and acrimony here.    But, when considering some of the reasons for that history, I think there is a pattern here as exhibited above that is part of the problem.