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

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Please go back and read why the Site Committee recommended Macdonald/Whigham and then read Hugh WIlson's report that discusses their value to the project.

ALL of these guys knew what an Alps and Redan were.   

That has already been established.   If they didn't know from their own overseas visits, they knew from other locals like Tillinghast and Alex Findlay.

In fact, the funny if ironic thing that no one seems to have caught onto yet, but which presents a real twist in how we view Hugh Wilson's overseas visit is simply this;

If David is correct that Wilson's first visit overseas was in 1912, he would have been the ONLY member of the Merion Committee who had NOT GONE overseas at that point!   

In fact, I earlier sketched out Merion President Robert Lesley's repeated overseas visits between 1905-1910.   Griscom had several as well, and Toulmin went, as did Lloyd.   I can look at Richard Francis later, but his name (like Wilson) is so common it's the proverbial needle in a haystack.

These guys wanted to learn about CONSTRUCTION and AGRONOMY.   They could pick up American Golfer if they wanted to see Macdonald's hole sketches.

So, Patrick...I would ask you...who is it that wants to learn the truth and who is it that is trying to perpetuate old myths???

Your contention that Macdonald was the only man in America who knew about these great holes at this time is absolutely incorrect.

He was simply the only man who studied in detail how to CONSTRUCT them and then GROW GRASS on them, even though ironically he had a significant agronomic failure at the exact same time he was trying to advise Merion.

[JESII]

______________________________

JES, 
The Barker letter is copied in the site committee report, so they definitely got it.   
I have found no connection between Connell (one of the developers) and Merion, other than this land deal. 
__________________

David,

Thank you.


One other thing about Barker...and his routing sketch...did his plan include (presumably) the 20 acre Dallas Estate that CBM recommended purchasing?

If not, I would reconsider just what his routing could have been in relation to the implemented routing. In your essay it says..."The former estate is the site of the current third green, the fourth tee and part of the fourth fairway, the sixth green and most of the sixth fairway, seventh hole, the eighth tee and part of the eighth fairway, and the fifth green and part of the approach."

If anyone can post an overhead of the total plot of land we will see just how integral to the overall layout this 21 acre parcel was...it did much more than just enable them to build a championship length course (which I seem to recall being the motivating factor, but cannot locate the quote)...it must have enabled them to completely revisit the land they had to work with. They must have thought so as well because there is more golf in those 21 acres than any other on the property, I would bet...

Just a thought as to the value Barker brought to the table...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

"He was simply the only man who studied in detail how to CONSTRUCT them and then GROW GRASS on them, even though ironically he had a significant agronomic failure at the exact same time he was trying to advise Merion."

So, CBM used the old Mom trick of "Do as I say, not as I do?"

Seriously, I wonder if going to NLGA and seeing it in disarray might have been the factor that convinced Merion that they didn't need to rely on CBM too much.  Although, they did use his recommendation (and fast) about a turf guy.  Given the "Philly Spirit" about architecture that had to be underway even then, I would have believed that they simply wanted to do it their way, believed they could with just a little assistance, etc. and at most, the visit to NGLA convinced them that no one really had ALL the answers, even the great CBMac.  Perhaps seeing the turf problems is what led Wilson to later write that he didn't know what he was getting in to!

Sadly, we will never know unless someone buried a time capsule on the Merion property to be opened 100 years later that contains the real scoop!

Its just fascinating stuff to contemplate about who did what, politics, etc. although I don't think this thread will do anything to enlighten anyone, including posts by yours truly.  I do think DM's research contributes signifigantly to the story though, in showing just how such deals are put together.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

I seemed to have touched a nerve, and I am sorry about that, but I dont think you are understanding what I am saying.  Not trying to disparage Hazard.

Before mid-Nov. 15, I don't think Hazard could have been "in the know" about Merion acquiring the land, because I don't think that there was anything to be "in the know" about.   The Nov. 15 report announced that the the Club had secured the property.  I have no reason to believe  that this happened substantially before this date, and reason to believe that it could not have (the reported timing of the Dallas Estate transaction, for example)   

Unless you have some reason to believe that Merion secured this property much earlier (other than your assumption about when Tillinghast must have received the information) then it seems he must have found out about the same time all this was happening,  mid-November 1910.

As to how much lead time he needed, in the May 1911 article I cited, Hazard comments on the state of the Philadelphia golf courses in THE MIDDLE OF APRIL.   This is the same lead time he had on this story.
__________________________
Wayne,

Again, I am surprised by your comments to Patrick.   He finds the essay compelling.  I for one appreciate that.   

But more to the point.  His role here has simply been to try and rebut a small portion of the WILD SPECULATION that posters like Mike Cirba, TEPaul, and others are engaging in repeatedly.

Mike and TEPaul have posted tens of thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of words on this issue since Ran posted my essay.    What exactly do you think they contributed in the way of NEW INFORMATION or even INFORMATION SUPPORTED BY THE FACTUAL RECORD.

In fact, what has anyone contributed in terms of the factual record, other than Tom MacWood, in abstentia??     Yet you single out Patrick as the one that has not done his homework and is speaking out of school.

If Patrick finds my essay compelling, then he really ought to be able to defend it if he feels so compelled.  And he at least has the essay to point to as a basis.

What does Mike Cirba have to support his endless posts on the issue?  What does TEPaul have, except for a romantic notion of the days of yore?   What do any of these other posters have, other that UNSUPPORTED SPECULATION ABOUT THE WAY THEY THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

If everyone played by the rules you insist Patrick should follow, then this thread would still be on the first page.   

On second thought, maybe you are on to something . . . .

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

No, you didn't hit a nerve...

Yes, there is a possibility that Tilly reported what the letter stated, but I don't think that you can state that it is so. There are many examples that can be shown of information being reported that had to have been slipped into an issue within weeks of it happening.

For the vast majority of things in these magazines that just wasn't the case. I base this on the personal experience of my grandfather who set type for the old Brooklyn Eagle after the turn of the century. He told me it was a very difficult and time-consuming process and that even for daily papers such as his, they worked on issue many days and even weeks in advance so that last minute items could be used.

Unlike the daily papers, magazines and journals such as the American Golfer didn't "stop the presses" to put in a  hot story... To appreciate the lead time, take a look at when the reporting of major championships such as the Open and Amateur were reported and when they actually took place. Usually many weeks and at times even several months separated playing and reporting. And this was for the most important of stories.

The reason I brought it up was two-fold. First because you cited this as an example of Tilly as writing information contemporaneous to its being announced by the club and said that this was proof that you didn't believe that he "was in the know." I strongly disagree with that assertion and believe that this is a case where your need to show that it wasn't so far outweighs mine to show that it was. Tilly's history and friendships with these gentleman and others in the Philadelphia golf and business community is just too well documented.

Secondly, because too many posts, in my opinion, have been made based upon a 21st century perspective rather than an early, just after turn-of-the-20th century reality that these men lived and did things in. A real appreciation of what was involved in simply turning out an issue of a journal such as the American Golfer has been greatly taken for granted...

[DMoriarty]

Phillip.

A agree with you that we should be careful with assumptions and with thinking in 21 century terms.  In fact this is one thing I have been trying to battle against.

For example, many want to judge two of Merion's original holes based on modern notions of the Redan and the Alps, even though back then they were thought to such.

Many here project their modern opinions of  Macdonald's arrogance and unwillingness to help,  even though of these notions were not necessarily true and accurate at the relevant time.   

Even though his perspective is welcome and valuable, Jeff Brauer does this to some degree when projecting back his modern notions of how real estate/ development courses are built back today.   I am not so sure that this makes sense, as that process may have evolved extensively. 

Sean does it to a degree with his understanding of how credit for design should be alloted.

Most posters' project their modern understanding of Wilson and Merion.  One poster noted that some of the evidence indicated that Merion did not like blind holes or geometric features, and used this to support his conclusion that Macdonald must not have been involved.  But that poster ignored that the information comes from the modern course history and possibly from the 1926 Alan Wilson piece, which may not have reflected the feeling in 1909-1912. 

More posters assume NGLA was geometric or industrial.  As far as I can tell, NGLA may have been less geometric and industrial than Merion at that time!

Same goes with peoples understanding of what was known understood about great architecture.

Same goes for many of the other assumptions being made. 

Part of what I try to do in my essay is to better explain what was going on back then, so that people have a more relevant basis on which to draw their conclusions. 

All that being said, while I understand your point, I dont think it applicable to my interpretation of the Hazard article.

First, I did not include my interpretation my essay.   It is nothing that matters to my premise, and I don't absolutely know where he got his information, and I was trying to minimize my assumptions.

Second, I only brought up the timing in my post because someone was speculating about hidden meanings in what seems to be a pretty straightforward Tillinghast blurb, and I was offering a much more plausible interpretation of what might have happened.

Third,  while I agree with you when it comes to reporting on tournaments where results are sent inb transcribed and photographs posted, there are plenty of examples in these columnists writing about something that they knew about that happened very recently.    Tillie describing mid-April course conditions in the May 1911 issue is one example.

Fourth and most importantly, Hazard was reporting on an event that, as far as I can figure, did not happen until November 1910.   Not even Tillinghast could report on events before they happened. 
_____________________

[Mike_Cirba]

Hey Sean Arble

See what I mean yet?

[DMoriarty]

Hey Sean Arble

See what I mean yet?

Nice to see that you are still gossiping behind my back.

Further proof of your class and character, or lack thereof.

[DMoriarty]

LETTER FROM THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS :


HAVERFORD, PA., November 15th, 1910

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE MERION CRICKET CLUB:
The Board of Governors wish to lay before you a matter which has been given very serious consideration by the Board, and which is of vital importance to the Club.
It is probably known to most of you that the present Golf Course is not owned by the Club, but by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company  and Mr. Clement A. Griscom. For the Railroad property the Club has paid a moderate rental, while Mr. Griscom has generously permitted the use of his ground without charge. This arrangement, while most satisfactory to the Club, is one which, in the nature of things, cannot go on indefinitely, and the Board have long felt the desirability, in fact, the necessity of acquiring a permanent course. Land is being taken up so rapidly, that it will not be long before it will be practically impossible to secure a tract lai Lye enough for a Golf Course, anywhere in the vicinity of Haverford, and even if it could be had, judging by present standards of value, the pi ice would be prohibitive. In the opinion of the Board, the Securing of a permanent Course can best be accomplished through the medium of a separate ,corporation, such as the Haverford Land and Improvement Company, which, as most of you doubtless know, holds title to the main Club House and Grounds.
A Committee was appointed by the Board to secure land. They were instructed to acquire the present property, if possible and failing that, to took elsewhere. It was impossible to secure the present course, as the price at which it could be acquired, was more than the Club was able to pay. The Committee continued their efforts, and reported on several properties. The only property accessible to the main Club House, and  at the same time, one that could be financed by the Club, was reported on by the Committee in July, and a copy of the report is attached hereto. This property adjoins the grounds of Haverford College, between College Avenue and Ardmore Avenue, directly on the Philadelphia and Western Railway, with a station at either end of the property  a  plan of the property is enclosed. In the judgment of the Board, it is an unusual opportunity for the Club, and one that should have the cordial support of all the members.
The Club has secured 117 acres at $726.50 an acre, or $85,000.
This is conceded to be an extremely low price, and was only made possible by the action of certain members of the Club, who, with others, not members of the Club have acquired a tract of 338 acres, under the name of the Haverford Development Co. These gentlemen have sold the 117 acres at less than half the average cost them of the  whole tract They feel that the proximity will then lease the Ground to the Club on practically a perpetual lease, the Club agreeing to pay all fixed charges, consisting of interest, taxes, etc. In addition to the land cost of $85,000, it will be necessary for the corporation to raise approximately $40,000, for the development of the course and improvements to existing buildings, to make them suitable for Club purposes, making the total amount

It is proposed to authorized issue of $125,000 Thirty Year Sinking Fund 5% Bonds, in amounts of $1,000 and $500 each, to be on the property, and further secured by the lease above mentioned, so that the boi ids become in effect, guaranteed by The Merion Cricket Club, which will own the entire Capital Stock of the Corporation.  There will be set aside out of the dues as collected, Three Dollars, ($3.00) per annum for each Golf Member, to form a fund towards the retirement of bonds at maturity. The mortgage will contain a provision for the possible retirement of all the outstanding bonds, at any interest period, after January 1, 1916.

It is necessary at this time to provide a fund of $70,000 by the sale of bonds, to be. used as follows:
1st To repaying the Guarantors the $30,000 advanced.
2nd To provide for development purposes as above stated, $40,000.

Furthermore it is hoped that sufficient subscriptions will be received to take tip the entire $125,000 of bonds and thus pay off the $55,000 first mortgage above provided for.

A blank form of subscription is enclosed, and members are urgently requested to respond as soon as possible. They will thereby show loyalty to the Club, and at the same time, secure what is believed to be and excellent investment.   With a total subscription amount of $70,000; about 50% will be required about December 1, 1910, and the balance in two installments of 25% each in 1911 and 1912. 
   
The Committee having this matter in charge and who will be glad to give any information in reference to the subject are
HORATIO G. LLOYD,
ROBERT W. LESLEY,
SAMUEL T. BODINE,
FREDERICK L. BAILY
EDGAR C. FELTON.
The attention of the members is called to the communication concerning the Haverford Development Co. which is enclosed.

By order of the Board

ALLEN EVANS,
President
___________________________________________________
COPY OF REPORT OF COMMITTEE.


Philadelphia, July 1, 1910.


TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNMENT OF
THE MERION CRICKET CLUB.


Gentlemen :

The Committee appointed to investigate and report on a perŽmanent 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 three hundred (300) acres, lying west of the Philadelphia and Western Railway, directly west of Haverford and Ardmore. About one half of the tract, we are informed, is owned outright by a Syndicate, and the remainder is under option, the Syndicate being represented by Mr. Joseph R. Connell, and our negotiations have been with him.

Mr. Connell states that if part of this property should be acquired and used as a Golf Course they intend that all houses on the adjoining property shall face the Course.

The property lies a little over a mile from Haverford Station on the Pennsylvania Railroad, and a station on the Philadelphia and Western Railway is about one hundred yards from where the Club House would be located, assuming that the present house, on what is known as the Johnson property, would be used for Club purposes. This house, built of stone, is in good condition, and, while not ]a] ge, would be adequate with the addition of a locker room. There are also other buildings on the place which could be utilized for Club purposes.

Mr. Connell, on his own account, obtained from H. H. Barker, the Garden City professional, a report, of which the following is a copy :

_____________________________
Mr. Joseph R. Connell,


Dear Sir:

Philadelphia, Pa., June 10, 1910.

I today have inspected the property at Haverford, south of College Avenue, where it is proposed to to lay out a golf course: and beg to submit to you my report.

I am enclosing a sketch of the property in question on which I have roughly shown in pencil a proposed lay out of the course. I would say that the land is in every way adapted to the making of a first class course, comparing most favorably with the best courses in this country, such as Myopia and Garden City.

In the past few years I have laid out upwards of twenty (20) courses in this country, and from my experience I believe the proposed course could be constructed at less expense than any I have heretofore gone over. If the work was commenced at once, the course could be ready for play by the fall of 1911.

Very truly yours,

H. H. BARKER,

Garden City, L. I., N. Y.
______________________
 
The Committee, through Mr. R. E. Griscom, were fortunate enough to get Messrs. C. B. Macdonald and H. J. Wigham to come over from New York and give us the benefit of their experience.

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. Wigham who conceived and constructed the National Course at Southampton, Long Island.

After the visit of these gentlemen Mr. Macdonald wrote to a member of the Committee, expressing the views of himself and Mr. Wigham, as to what could be done with the property.  The report, as made to the Board, embodied Mr. Macdonald's letter, but it was not written for publication.  We do not, therefore, feel justified in printing it. We can properly say, however, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the Committee based its recommendation largely upon their opinion.

Mr. Connell and his associates fully realize the benefit to the remainder of the property if a first class Golf Course established on the ground and, for that reason, offer one hundred (100) acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the Course, at $825 an acre, which we understand, is about one half the average cost of the whole tract; this offer is conditional upon the property being promptly put in shape for a Golf Course.

It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) would be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase.

We particularly desire to impress upon the Board the fact that if this opportunity to acquire a permanent golf course is to be taken advantage of, prompt action is necessary.


Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT W. LESLEY,
HORATIO LLOYD
SAMUEL T. BODINE,
FREDERICK I.. BAILY
EDGAR C. FELTON

Committee
___________________


[EDITED TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPTION.]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

David Moriarty's white paper is the most cogent, comprehensive single piece I've read on Merion, to date.

Exactly how extensive is your study of Merion excluding David Moriarty's essay?  If it has been minimal, a statement such as above has no real value and is not a reflection on David's essay but rather your very low baseline of understanding.

I'll repeat myself.

David's white paper is the most cogent, comprehensive SINGLE piece I've read on Merion, to date.

Could you name me another SINGLE piece that's more comprehensive than David's ?[/color]

I have a family, run a business, am involved with charities, have a social life, play golf and have other pursuits, thus, I'm content to let David and others engage in research.  Despite the consumption of my time by other interests, my ability to reason remains steadfast and keen.
And, to date, David has presented a well structured, well researched, reasoned premise that I'm content with.

We all have obligations to families, work (well, not Tom Paul), golf, charities, a social life and golf in addition to other pursuits.  Yet I found time to research and write a 1650 page book on Flynn with Tom Paul, David found time to research and write his essay. 

I too am writing a book, not on golf, but on coping with cancer, in the hope that it will help patients diagnosed with cancer.  It's also intended to assist and assuage their families as the patient goes through their ordeal.
I don't know how many pages it will be when finished, but, it will be rather comprehensive.[/color]

And some like Mike Cirba and Joe Bausch have found time to dig deep into research resources to present additional information. 

I can assure you that the research I conduct in my business is extensive, time consuming and demanding.

We all have our priorities, and at the present time, researching Merion's history in not high on my list.

However, I've asked you on numerous occassions to come forth with any evidence in your possession that refutes David's facts and premise, and, to date, you haven't produced anything to counter his facts and premise.

Surely, after all your research, you must have something to counter his premise.  If not, then you, like myself, must be content with his efforts.[/color]

So don't give me that complete BS about you not having the time to invest into anything more than you have to date and being content with your minimal process.

It's all about priorities, and researching Merion's history to confirm or refute David's premise is not that high on my list.  I'm content to accept his premise until facts to the contrary refute it.

With respect to my time, my day is occupied from 7:00 am until midnight, every day, and my priorities are properly ordered.[/color]

If you have information which refutes his facts or his premise, please present them.

I'm not inclined to provide you with that information. 

That's cute and convenient.
You criticize David's premise, telling him he didn't do enough research, but, when asked to produce the findings of your efforts, you refuse.

I can only repeat that which I've previously stated.
I'm prepared to accept David's premise until proof to the contrary is presented.  Absent that proof, David's premise stands as the defining history of Merion's beginings.[/color]

Rather than criticize Ran and myself as unknowing cheerleaders, put forth your refutation.

Oh, but you have proved yourself to be unknowing cheerleaders.  You clearly state that you do not have time nor wish to to do any work in this area.  Yet both you and Ran passed rapid judgment on a very detailed and complicated essay without much analysis or due diligence. 

Rapid judgement ?
You must be kidding.
I was aware of David's work long before it hit GCA.com, and you know that.

As to passing judgement, are any of David's facts erroneous ?
If so, please point them out.
Failure to do so can only be interpreted as an absence of contradictory evidence, thus reinforcing the validity of his premise.[/color]

You make it difficult to want to work on your behalf and present the findings on this forum when you take the attitudes you took.  It is that simple.  Rereading Ran's intro to this thread is disturbing and a very poor reflection on Ran's ability to reason and his knowledge of the subject.


We disagree.
David's presented a most cogent summary, based on facts, with prudent man logic.

David's piece is the most comprehensive SINGLE piece I've yet to encounter when it comes to Merion and Wilson's involvement.

If you're so knowledgeable and reasoned, present a refutation.

I suspect that you're scrambling to find something, anything that will counter David's well structured, well reasoned white paper.

For, if you had contradictory evidence, you would have presented it by now.
[/color]

Absent a factual, prudent refutation, I'm willing to accept most of David's premise.

That is readily apparent.  Sit back and relax. 

I continue to do so.

When you present evidence to the contrary I'll take serious note of it.
However, the fact that you haven't presented it indicates that you're scrambling, with TEPaul and others, to find something, anything that will undermine David's white paper.  Until such time as you present your case, I'm willing to accept that Wilson never visited the UK until after he met with CBM, and thus, he couldn't have designed Merion based on the great holes and principles as evidenced by the courses in the UK.

I have my theory on Merion's creation, but, will reveal it at a later date, subsequent to your report.[/color]

Could a man who designed and built NGLA, Yale and Lido NOT be an EXPERT on what would work in the ground on a specific site ?

Why Yes, as a matter of fact.  How disingenuous can you get in a reply?  At the time of Merion's design and construction, Yale and Lido weren't even being considered let alone designed and built. 

That's immaterial, totally irrelevant.
The question was, did CBM possess the ability to construct, etc., etc..
Obviously he did.  He had the knowledge and talent, which were later evidenced by his work at NGLA, Yale and Lido.
In addition, he had already formed a working relationship with Raynor, BEFORE Merion was built.
Or, do you think he acquired the ability to think and perform solely after Merion was constructed ?[/color]

What were the agronomic problems at NGLA?  Why do you think Macdonald knew to recommend Piper and Oakley?  Because your all-knowing CBM had complete agronomic failure. 

NGLA was an abominable site, agronomically, Merion was a farm, an agronomic dream.

MacDonald's agronomic problems at NGLA were linked to the site and to the false sense of security in planting grass and assuming, that like in the UK, it would take, like a duck to water.

But, we're not talking about agronomic issues, we're talking about routing, individual hole design and golfing principles as evidenced by the great courses of the UK.  Try not to divert the discussion away from the core topic.[/color]

What expertise did Macdonald display nearly 15 years later in designing and constructing Creek Club, particularly the water holes? 

The Creek Club remains a spectacular golf course, initially and currently ,hampered by a hostile site.  I suppose your hero Flynn could stop the unusual tides, Northeastern's and Hurricanes and prevent flooding in that section of the property.  Please, get real[/color]

He had complete agronomic failure due to a flawed design plan and construction effort.  So much went wrong that the club had to spend more than the original cost in fixing the problems.  And your man CBM, rather than taking the blame, pointed his sausage finger at Raynor and blamed him.

There was NO agronomic failure.
The site was/is a compromised site due to it's proximity to the water.
The problems have yet to be completely fixed, and probably, never will be.
It's a unique site, with unique problems, but to claim The Creek has a flawed design plan is ludicrous and indicative of your jealousy of CBM and his work.

The holes you mention, Holes # 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are probably some of the greatest holes in golf.  Claiming them to be a part of a flawed design plan goes beyond insanity.[/color]

Construction was one of his strengths as was his understanding of playability.

So in what way was construction one of Macdonald's strengths?  Do you know if he was out on the job on a daily basis overseeing the construction since he was such an expert?  Or was he sitting around inside the clubhouse with wine, women and song?  Did he get his fingers dirty?  Somehow, I doubt it.

Wayno, you've gone over the edge with your blind allegiance to Flynn.

We'll forget about dismissing NGLA for a second, but, to dismiss Lido and Yale, two incredible marvels of design and construction, is so absurd that it's undermining your credibility at a rapid pace.[/color]

This guy knew his stuff, and, he had a valued assistant, Seth Raynor.
If you'll read pages 202-206 you'll see how highly CBM thought of SR and his abilities.

...And, apparently you're unaware of Seth Raynor's abilities.

What exactly were Raynor's abilities in 1910-1912?  We know he was an expert surveyor.  What did he know about golf in the early 1910s?  What did he know about constructing golf courses in the early 1910s?  What are your sources?  Certainly not Macdonald's autobiography that was written more than a decade later, right?  If you aren't going to accept Alan Wilson's writings, why would you accept Macdonald's?

For a very simple reason.

Raynor went on to design and build a great number of incredible golf courses.

His abilities remain for all to see.
He proved his abilities through his work.

How many courses did Alan Wilson design ?

How does his body of work stack up to Raynors ?

The proof is in the pudding, isn't it.

That's why I'm prepared to accept CBM's word, because it's supported by Raynor's products, his wonderful golf courses.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Please go back and read why the Site Committee recommended Macdonald/Whigham and then read Hugh WIlson's report that discusses their value to the project.

ALL of these guys knew what an Alps and Redan were.   

How do you know that ?[/color]

That has already been established.   

No it hasn't.[/color]

If they didn't know from their own overseas visits,

How do you know that they all visited North Berwick and Prestwick ?[/color]

they knew from other locals like Tillinghast and Alex Findlay.

How do you know that ?
Is there any written evidence to support your claim ?[/color]

In fact, the funny if ironic thing that no one seems to have caught onto yet, but which presents a real twist in how we view Hugh Wilson's overseas visit is simply this;

If David is correct that Wilson's first visit overseas was in 1912, he would have been the ONLY member of the Merion Committee who had NOT GONE overseas at that point!   

Yes, but, if he was the man in charge, his unfamiliarity with the great courses of the UK and their design and playing principles would be lost on him.  And, you don't know where all the committee members went when they were overseas.[/color]

In fact, I earlier sketched out Merion President Robert Lesley's repeated overseas visits between 1905-1910.   Griscom had several as well, and Toulmin went, as did Lloyd.   I can look at Richard Francis later, but his name (like Wilson) is so common it's the proverbial needle in a haystack.

But did they study golf courses when the traveled abroad, or was it for social and/or business reasons.

Wilson himself states, in words to the effect, that he didn't have a clue about the design principles of the great courses of the UK until AFTER he visited with CBM.

He wouldn't make that statement if he's already been to the UK.[/color]

These guys wanted to learn about CONSTRUCTION and AGRONOMY.   They could pick up American Golfer if they wanted to see Macdonald's hole sketches.

Yeah, right.  I'd certainly turn over the design and construction of a golf course to a guy who read about construction and agronomy in the "American Golfer" wouldn't you ?  That's such a blatantly foolish statement.  On the other hand, maybe Wilson stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before he started on Merion.[/color]

So, Patrick...I would ask you...who is it that wants to learn the truth and who is it that is trying to perpetuate old myths???

You're in denial, grasping at any straw, seeking any port in a storm, in order to reject David's premise, not by presenting facts or reason, but, by presenting ridiculous analogies.[/color]

Your contention that Macdonald was the only man in America who knew about these great holes at this time is absolutely incorrect.

This is typical of your radical, extreme approach.
Would you cite for me where I ever stated that CBM ws the ONLY man in America who knew about the great holes of the UK ?
Let me know the reply number where I'm alleged to have made that statement.
OR, is it just another desperate attempt to undermine David's premise through a distortion of the facts, truth and prudent reasoning.[/color]

He was simply the only man who studied in detail how to CONSTRUCT them and then GROW GRASS on them, even though ironically he had a significant agronomic failure at the exact same time he was trying to advise Merion.


MacDonald characterizes the NGLA site as follows:

"This property was little known and had never been surveyed.
Every one thought it more or less worthless.
It abounded in bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry, blackberry, and other bushes and was infested by insects.  The only way one could get over the ground was on ponies."

Hardly a great site agronomically.

Whereas, Merion was farmland, wasn't it ?

That's quite a difference, wouldn't you agree ?[/color]

[wsmorrison]

Could you name me another SINGLE piece that's more comprehensive than David's ?

Yes

I too am writing a book, not on golf, but on coping with cancer, in the hope that it will help patients diagnosed with cancer.  It's also intended to assist and assuage their families as the patient goes through their ordeal.
I don't know how many pages it will be when finished, but, it will be rather comprehensive.

I think that is a wonderful endeavor.  I wish you complete success.

We all have our priorities, and at the present time, researching Merion's history in not high on my list.

Then I suppose you should be satisfied with the information you have considered and the conclusions you've drawn.

However, I've asked you on numerous occassions to come forth with any evidence in your possession that refutes David's facts and premise, and, to date, you haven't produced anything to counter his facts and premise.

That's right.  I don't expect that to change.

Surely, after all your research, you must have something to counter his premise.  If not, then you, like myself, must be content with his efforts.

I do, you just aren't aware of them.

That's cute and convenient.
You criticize David's premise, telling him he didn't do enough research, but, when asked to produce the findings of your efforts, you refuse.

That is false.  I never claimed David did not do enough research.  I declared that you didn't do any.

I'm prepared to accept David's premise until proof to the contrary is presented.  Absent that proof, David's premise stands as the defining history of Merion's beginings.

Ran agrees with you.

Rapid judgement ?
You must be kidding.
I was aware of David's work long before it hit GCA.com, and you know that.

No I am not kidding and yes, I was aware of that.

I suspect that you're scrambling to find something, anything that will counter David's well structured, well reasoned white paper.

For, if you had contradictory evidence, you would have presented it by now.

I am not scrambling at all.  I welcome information that details the early history of Merion's East Course.  It would not bother me in the least if Macdonald, Whigham and Barker had a significant role in the design of Merion East.  I want to know the truth.  But can you understand one reason why it wouldn't bother me at all if that were true?  I simply have a higher level of proof than you and a far greater understanding of the history of Merion and its participants.  That perspective and knowledge base is one reason I have a differing view than you or Ran.  A background that you dismiss.

When you present evidence to the contrary I'll take serious note of it.

Be patient.  It is not a high priority for you, so I suspect that won't be difficult.

Why Yes, as a matter of fact.  How disingenuous can you get in a reply?  At the time of Merion's design and construction, Yale and Lido weren't even being considered let alone designed and built.

That's immaterial, totally irrelevant.
The question was, did CBM possess the ability to construct, etc., etc..
Obviously he did.  He had the knowledge and talent, which were later evidenced by his work at NGLA, Yale and Lido.
In addition, he had already formed a working relationship with Raynor, BEFORE Merion was built.

I'm sure others have their opinion on your mistake riddled argument.  Later work has no bearing on the time period under discussion.   Describe the working relationship between Macdonald and Raynor between 1909 and 1912.  Do you even know what it was that Raynor was doing at the time?  Do you know what Travis and Emmet were doing at the time?  Do you even know for sure what Macdonald was doing at the time?  Specifics please if you are to hold up their expertise as evidence of something so crucial to the arguments being presented.

Or, do you think he acquired the ability to think and perform solely after Merion was constructed ?

Nothing I wrote would indicate this.  So why did you pose such a ridiculous question?

NGLA was an abominable site, agronomically, Merion was a farm, an agronomic dream.

If NGLA was such an abominable site agronomically, why did Macdonald select it and thus suffer complete agronomic failure?  He was learning on the job, he was not accomplished to the degree you confer at the time of NGLA's construction.

What kind of farm was Merion?  What do you know about Merion's geology?  What is so dreamy about a site that is basically red clay over schist?  Try to stick with the facts if you please.

But, we're not talking about agronomic issues, we're talking about routing, individual hole design and golfing principles as evidenced by the great courses of the UK.  Try not to divert the discussion away from the core topic.

Oh but we are talking about construction expertise.  You maintained that he was the country's foremost expert on construction. 

The Creek Club remains a spectacular golf course, initially and currently ,hampered by a hostile site.  I suppose your hero Flynn could stop the unusual tides, Northeastern's and Hurricanes and prevent flooding in that section of the property.  Please, get real

It is a spectacular Macdonald course.  But at one time, before some serious and expensive intervention, the water holes were a mess.  Grass wouldn't grow and the construction process didn't provide a viable golf course.  Why is it that an expert in golf course design and construction and a leading surveyor and construction superintendent could mess up so badly?  They were men that could make mistakes.  You act like Macdonald and Raynor were gods.  Just because he had a statue made of himself doesn't mean he has to be worshiped.  He was a tremendously important man in the development of golf and golf architecture in America.  He made mistakes.  But you don't get it, do you?  Merion East had a lot of design flaws at the outset.  I'm not arguing that it couldn't have been Macdonald because of the mistakes and it must have been a novice Wilson.  Given that Macdonald too had a lot to learn, those mistakes could well have been his or Wilson.  At this point, despite the essay and your conclusion, we really don't know based on the information to date.  Maybe Part 2 will change the way we consider the evolution of Merion East.

Raynor went on to design and build a great number of incredible golf courses.

Completely irrelevant given the time frame under discussion. 

How many courses did Alan Wilson design?

Come on, Pat.  What could this possibly have to do with anything?

How does his body of work stack up to Raynors?

What is wrong with you?  Most revealing though.

That's why I'm prepared to accept CBM's word, because it's supported by Raynor's products, his wonderful golf courses.

What words of CBM are you endorsing?  Did Macdonald state that he designed the Merion East course?  I guess that is in Part 2, because I sure haven't seen anything to that effect yet.  Have you?

[TEPaul]

"To paraphrase Tom Paul, what do you think the Merion folks were doing at this time...sitting on their thumbs?  Where was Hugh Wilson in 1910?"

MikeC:

I've somewhat changed my mind. I know longer, or is it no longer?, think Hugh Wilson was intently following around like a callow little novice puppy those two members (Francis and Lloyd) of the soon-to-be committee which he would chair, trying to listen to what they were saying and to learn from them in preparation for that day in January 1911 when he would lead them in creating one of the world's great courses. 

I think by July 1910, Horatio Gates Lloyd and those other rich and famous friends of his and "guarantors" of MCC's future understood that it was necessary to play possum for the next five months or so and basically do nothing except find a "shill" real estate person or two, so they might con a few dumb ducks who owned surrounding properties not part of his power play move on HDC, like that unsuspecting hot blond bomb-shell, Stella Dallas, of the lower section of the L's "south forty".

Georgia's Phil Young is absolutely right about Tillie's "in-the-knowism" and his ability to keep a big bomb-shell news breaker quiet until told to fire with both barrels, just like he kept quiet for up to a year when George Crump told him to keep the prospect of Pine Valley quiet. By the way, Tillie wasn't reporting in the end of June 1910, he actually qualified for the US Open at Philly Cricket's St Martins. I thought you knew that.

Hugh Wilson? What was he doing for the second half of 1910? Can't you guess? Big-Wheel, and man-about-the-world, Horatio L told him:

"Son, I'm about to make you a legend in the history of golf architecture anyway, so don't sweat it trying to run around behind a couple of guys who are "tweaking" the course and trying to hear what they're saying so you can learn something from them just because I said you'd "chair" their asses next year. And furthermore, isn't your wife like a bit more than a little pregnant, meaning you won't be getting much around here for a bunch of months to come anyway, so why don't I send you abroad on Lord Sniffenbritches Uber-yacht that's returning to GB with Horace Hutchinson on it since he's done checking out Charlie's new course in Long Island, and maybe you can nail a couple of those aristorcratic English birds that my friend A.J Drexel will set you up with through his friend Junius P. Morgan, the father of that elephant-nosed "partner-to-be of mine' J.P. Morgan? Furthermore, if I send you over there on Winston Sniffenbritches private Uber-yacht, even some rude wise-ass "know-it-all" lawyer in Calforn-eye-ah in 2008 will never think you could possibly be over there because me and "Lord Sniffer" have sort of an "annuity" bribe deal going on over there with those manifest inspectors on the other side. What else do you expect I'd do that way---you know if moralistic "Miss Grundy-like" Mrs Lloyd catches me screwing around on this side, I'm cooked, well maybe more like "well-done parboiled" and at least if she finds out I've been screwing around over there with one of Junius' aristocratic birds at least I have the option of facing her on my return or walking the plank at the mathematical middle of the Atlantic Ocean on my way home."

And so Hughie went abroad for the rest of the year of 1910, which was actually about 6-7 months. He tended to get kinda sickly, though, which they say affected his eye-sight and his drawing hand and he actually drew North Berwick's redan to look like something that back to front sloped 3rd green that would eventually sit on the top of what used to be a Pennsylvania bank barn which actually Horatio got the young and restless golf course laborer at Merion Haverford, Milton, Mass's William Flynn, to torch one night to intimidate that hot Stella Dallas into selling to him for cheap.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

Hugh I. Wilson was in Europe in the fall of 1910?   No wonder he lost his match in the semifinals of Merion's club championship.

From Hazard, American Golfer, Dec. 1910, the same edition that announced the course purchase:

"At Merion the club championship was won by Mr. J. H. Gordon, who quite easily defeated Mr. H. L. Willoughby in the final. Mr. Hugh Wilson, who had already eliminated Mr. H. W. Perrin, lost his match in the semi-final to the runner-up."

I thought Perrin was one of Merion's best golfers, yet he lost to Wilson, who obviously just mailed it in.

Interesting how your facts just miraculously change to fit your latest (of many) convenient explanations of what you wish happened.  Intellectually suspect, but interesting nonetheless.

[TEPaul]

Moriarty, you are such an amazing dunce. Hugh I. Wilson was abroad about to nail some gorgeous aristocratic bird around Sunningdale after impressing the hell out of her with his Eden, Redan and Alps hole sketches. The guy who lost in the Merion club championship in 1910 was his primary "beard" Hugh G. Wilson who some ship manifest once listed as Ethiopian!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Could you name me another SINGLE piece that's more comprehensive than David's ?

Yes

Could you identify it ?[/color]

I too am writing a book, not on golf, but on coping with cancer, in the hope that it will help patients diagnosed with cancer.  It's also intended to assist and assuage their families as the patient goes through their ordeal.
I don't know how many pages it will be when finished, but, it will be rather comprehensive.

I think that is a wonderful endeavor.  I wish you complete success.

We all have our priorities, and at the present time, researching Merion's history in not high on my list.

Then I suppose you should be satisfied with the information you have considered and the conclusions you've drawn.

To date, I am.[/color]

However, I've asked you on numerous occassions to come forth with any evidence in your possession that refutes David's facts and premise, and, to date, you haven't produced anything to counter his facts and premise.

That's right.  I don't expect that to change.

Then, absent factual challenge, David's premise must stand until evidence to the contrary refutes his premise.[/color]

Surely, after all your research, you must have something to counter his premise.  If not, then you, like myself, must be content with his efforts.

I do, you just aren't aware of them.

Again, until that evidence is presented, is verified and counters David's premise, his premise must stand as a reasonable presentation of the history of Merion.[/color]

That's cute and convenient.
You criticize David's premise, telling him he didn't do enough research, but, when asked to produce the findings of your efforts, you refuse.

That is false.  I never claimed David did not do enough research.  I declared that you didn't do any.

I never claimed that I did any research.
I also declared that I'm willing to accept David's presentation, as I will be just as willing to accept a factual presentation by you.[/color]

I'm prepared to accept David's premise until proof to the contrary is presented.  Absent that proof, David's premise stands as the defining history of Merion's beginings.

Ran agrees with you.

Rapid judgement ?
You must be kidding.
I was aware of David's work long before it hit GCA.com, and you know that.

No I am not kidding and yes, I was aware of that.

I suspect that you're scrambling to find something, anything that will counter David's well structured, well reasoned white paper.

For, if you had contradictory evidence, you would have presented it by now.

I am not scrambling at all.  I welcome information that details the early history of Merion's East Course.  It would not bother me in the least if Macdonald, Whigham and Barker had a significant role in the design of Merion East.  I want to know the truth.  But can you understand one reason why it wouldn't bother me at all if that were true?  I simply have a higher level of proof than you and a far greater understanding of the history of Merion and its participants.  That perspective and knowledge base is one reason I have a differing view than you or Ran.  A background that you dismiss.

Absent a presentation of your higher level of proof, David's premise remains valid.

While I can't speak for Ran, like myself, if supportive evidence to the contrary refutes David's premise, we'll accept that.  But, until that evidence is brought forth, verified and accepted, David's premise has to stand.[/color]

When you present evidence to the contrary I'll take serious note of it.

Be patient.  It is not a high priority for you, so I suspect that won't be difficult.

I have no problem being patient.
If you recall, you, MPC and TEPaul couldn't remain patient when I indicated that David would be posting a white paper on GCA.com.
I patiently await your presentation. [/color]

Why Yes, as a matter of fact.  How disingenuous can you get in a reply?  At the time of Merion's design and construction, Yale and Lido weren't even being considered let alone designed and built.

That's immaterial, totally irrelevant.
The question was, did CBM possess the ability to construct, etc., etc..
Obviously he did.  He had the knowledge and talent, which were later evidenced by his work at NGLA, Yale and Lido.
In addition, he had already formed a working relationship with Raynor, BEFORE Merion was built.

I'm sure others have their opinion on your mistake riddled argument. 
If you'll point out the mistakes, I'll review them.[/color]

Later work has no bearing on the time period under discussion.   

That's absurd.
His prior and subsequent work was proof positive that he already possessed the knowledge and the talent.[/color]

Describe the working relationship between Macdonald and Raynor between 1909 and 1912. 

It began as an employer - employee relationship with Raynor serving as a surveyor, and blossomed into a full partnership.[/color]

Do you even know what it was that Raynor was doing at the time? 
In what context could you evaluate my answer ?
[/color]

Do you know what Travis and Emmet were doing at the time? 
In what context could you evaluate my answer ?
[/color]

Do you even know for sure what Macdonald was doing at the time? 


In what context could you evaluate my answer ?[/color]

Specifics please if you are to hold up their expertise as evidence of something so crucial to the arguments being presented.

The denial of their expertise, especially CBM's is foolish on your part.
Even Merion recognized their credentials, asking them to consult on the golf course.

To diminish, or dismiss CBM, HJH and SR as accomplished architectural experts of the time is again, foolish on your part.[/color]

Or, do you think he acquired the ability to think and perform solely after Merion was constructed ?

Nothing I wrote would indicate this.  So why did you pose such a ridiculous question?

It is clearly what you've infered.[/color]

NGLA was an abominable site, agronomically, Merion was a farm, an agronomic dream.

If NGLA was such an abominable site agronomically, why did Macdonald select it and thus suffer complete agronomic failure? 

My take is because he evaluated the land from an architectural and not an agronomic perspective.  He found on the land the desired locations for his template holes, and that was his overriding consideration.  In addition, I believe the nearby presence of Shinnecock made him take the agronomic issues for granted.[/color]

He was learning on the job, he was not accomplished to the degree you confer at the time of NGLA's construction.

That's sheer nonsense.
You're deliberately transposing architectural issues with agronomic issues in order to further your premise.  The agronomic issues have NOTHING to do with the routing of a course, the individual hole and feature designs.

Your attempt to discount and diminish CBM's architectural genius by interjecting non related issues, namely agronomy, fails miserably.[/color]  

What kind of farm was Merion? 

What difference does it make what kind of farms where indigenous to the area ?[/color]

What do you know about Merion's geology?

It's part of the Eastern Atlantic Plain.[/color] 

What is so dreamy about a site that is basically red clay over schist? 


Ardmore and Montgomery County were heavily populated with farms/farmland.  Do you deny that ?

Farmlands are more agronomically friendly than bogs and swamps.
Do you deny that ?[/color]

Try to stick with the facts if you please.

I have[/color]

But, we're not talking about agronomic issues, we're talking about routing, individual hole design and golfing principles as evidenced by the great courses of the UK.  Try not to divert the discussion away from the core topic.

Oh but we are talking about construction expertise.  You maintained that he was the country's foremost expert on construction. 

On golf course construction, yes, that's correct.
[/color]

The Creek Club remains a spectacular golf course, initially and currently ,hampered by a hostile site.  I suppose your hero Flynn could stop the unusual tides, Northeastern's and Hurricanes and prevent flooding in that section of the property.  Please, get real

It is a spectacular Macdonald course.  But at one time, before some serious and expensive intervention, the water holes were a mess.  Grass wouldn't grow and the construction process didn't provide a viable golf course. 


The water holes were not a mess.
They were subject to Mother Nature's wrath.

And, the current construction process still doesn't protect those holes from Mother Nature's wrath.

The site remains a hostile site, subject to the whims of the tides and Mother Nature.[/color]

Why is it that an expert in golf course design and construction and a leading surveyor and construction superintendent could mess up so badly? 


They didn't mess up at all.
They were given a parcel of land to design a golf course on, and a good portion of that parcel was a hostile site.  It still is, and you know that.[/color]

They were men that could make mistakes. 

Just like Flynn, they were mortals, who could made mistakes[/color]

You act like Macdonald and Raynor were gods. 

That's not true, but, in 1911 they were FAR, FAR more knowledgeable and experienced than Wilson in design, construction and the understanding of the great courses of the UK.[/color]

Just because he had a statue made of himself doesn't mean he has to be worshiped. 

That's your Flynn defensive mode speaking.
I can assure you that you hold Flynn to a loftier position.[/color]

He was a tremendously important man in the development of golf and golf architecture in America. 

That's why Merion and Wilson retained his services and consulted with him.[/color]

He made mistakes.  But you don't get it, do you? 

Yes, I do get it.
I completely "get" the impact of a potential demotion of Wilson's involvement/abilities in 1909-1910 and the ripple effect impacting Flynn.[/color]

Merion East had a lot of design flaws at the outset.

It still has some today.
Certainly you can't view the crossovers as a routing or design "plus"
Like NGLA, GCGC, Maidstone, Shinnecock and others it traverses roads.[/color] 

I'm not arguing that it couldn't have been Macdonald because of the mistakes and it must have been a novice Wilson. 

Neither am I.
I never assigned debits to the project.

Truth be told, I think Merion was a collaborative, not a solo effort.
One with a number of participants, including Wilson, CBM, HJH and others.[/color]

Given that Macdonald too had a lot to learn, those mistakes could well have been his or Wilson. 

None of my posts have been about errors in the design of Merion.
That element is for another thread.
My position, which has been consistent, is that David's premise is factually supported to a large degree and uses prudent man logic to further his conclusions, and, that lacking evidence to the contrary, his premise would appear to be the ONLY SINGLE COMPREHENSIVE WRITTEN document, to date, that provides a reasonable accounting with respect to the genesis of Merion.[/color]

At this point, despite the essay and your conclusion, we really don't know based on the information to date.  Maybe Part 2 will change the way we consider the evolution of Merion East.

I've stated, all along, that more information would be most helpful, but, there's been no refutation of David's premise to date.  That doesn't mean that his premise is "the Gospel", but, you have to give it a good degree of credence because he presents a substantive array of facts to support his premise.  Facts and a time line that would seem to amend the previously accepted history regarding the creation of Merion.

If nothing else, David's white paper will trigger further research, which will either prove or disprove his premise, OR, leave us where we are today.

From a common sense perspective, I can't find any factual errors in his white paper, and, from a prudent man perspective, I can't find any fault with his reasoning.

But, I'm willing to sit back and review whatever new evidence is brought forth.

As I stated above, I believe that Merion, like many other courses in the early part of the 20th century, was a collaborative effort up until Wilson built the golf course[/color]

Raynor went on to design and build a great number of incredible golf courses.

Completely irrelevant given the time frame under discussion. 

No it's not.  It's a reafirmation that CBM was correct in his assessment of SR's abilities, and it's a reafirmation of SR's abilities in the context of his working relationship with CBM.

Lot's of guys go to school to be architects.  They read, study and aspire.
However, talent is a fickle attribute.  Some have it, some don't.
CBM and SR had it.  GCA was an inherent quality honed by experience.[/color]

How many courses did Alan Wilson design?

Come on, Pat.  What could this possibly have to do with anything?


You questioned SR's talent and I merely drew a comparison.[/color]

How does his body of work stack up to Raynors?

What is wrong with you?  Most revealing though.

Wayno, you can't question SR's abilities and then when I point to his curriculum vitae, cry foul.   The man was highly accomplished.[/color]

That's why I'm prepared to accept CBM's word, because it's supported by Raynor's products, his wonderful golf courses.

What words of CBM are you endorsing? 


You know the words CBM was endorsing because you questioned those words.  I only presented SR's accomplishments as proof of CBM's assessment.[/color]

Did Macdonald state that he designed the Merion East course? 

I never stated that he did.
On the other hand, did he ever state that he didn't ? [/color]

I guess that is in Part 2, because I sure haven't seen anything to that effect yet.  Have you?

I haven't seen anything to the contrary either.
I guess we'll just have to wait for part II.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"I guess we'll just have to wait for part II."


I don't think so. Not this time Patrick. He's had his fifteen minutes in the sun and he got badly burned! 

[Mike_Cirba]

I find this post to be extraordinary.  I don't know what has been presented that would cause someone to "walk away".  Mike, it is clear you disagree with David, but you have yet to put together a coherent argument as to why.  Instead of asking questions, put your argument together in a way which directly refutes David or supports your theory, of which I am not at all sure of what it is.  I agree that David hasn't shown enough to disprove the Wilson attribute, but remember that David is starting in a hole as it were.  You lot are assuming Wilson was the man and are asking for David to show proof that he wasn't or that someone else was.  If we start from scratch and assume we don't know what went on then it isn't at all clear who did what.  Though I will admit (imo anyway) that as the man in charge I would give Wilson the lion's share of credit.  Seeking help is no weakness and not a reason to "lose" credit for Merion.  Jeff is right, David has shown documents to at least make an alternative thesis possible.  He may be right, he may be wrong, but it is the process which counts as much as anything right now.

Ciao 

Sean,

It's really very simple.   There are only so many hours in a day, days in a week, weeks in a year, and so on, and I'd rather spend my time on GCA productively.

I'm not sure if you were here during the initial "Merion Wars" but as a grizzled vet of both of those battles, I can tell you that it was not what I'd call fun and it ended at an impasse.

I was part of the group who privately asked for David to come back to this site, and his new evidence that he hinted at sounded very intriguing.   Other events occurred that led me to question his motives, but let's not go into that right now.

The bottom line is that he's presented his new evidence, and like yourself I find it interesting but not conclusive in any way, it's presented with heavy editorial slant in favor the what he hopes is the end result, and I find the whole thing a bit puzzling as to why David would try to credit Macdonald for the design when during his lifetime and for the next 20-odd years Charles Macdonald never did.

Does anyone find that curious?   I certainly do, because Macdonald was a giant at the time and could be a blowhard at times.   If he had one stitch of effort at Merion that he didn't feel was properly attributed to him...and let's remember that Merion quickly became rather celebrated, hosting the most important tournament in the US only four years after opening,...I'm sure the whole world would have heard about it...VERY loud and clear.

He certainly didn't need someone making a case for him 100 years later that he never felt justified in making for himself.

So, enjoy...and in a few weeks I think you'll see the wisdom of my exiting stage left... 

David Moriarty,

When I stated yesterday;

Sean Arble,

See what I mean yet? 


This exchange above from post #177 when I was hoping to walk away from this fruitless, pointless discussion a collective six billion words of hot air and ego ago was what I was referring to.

In fact, it was so obtuse I have doubts whether he knew what I was referring to.

So, I wasn't gossiping about you behind your back, nor was it meant as an insult to you...only to this once again infinite parsing of words, terms, and time-consuming, resolutionless (until yesterday) exercise.   

Your obviously frustrated response almost makes me wish that I had.

As far as what I've brought to this party that's factual, I can think of a couple of things off the tops of my head;

1) Absolute proof that the shipping manifests are an error-laden, inconclusive source of evidence.

2) The fact that Hugh Wilson is listed as "Hugh D. Wilson" at the time he was six months old on a US Census.   I"ve also purchased his birth certificate and will list what it states when it arrives.

3) Multiple news sources, all of which you discount that say every way from sundown that Hugh Wilson conceived, laid out, constructed, was responsible for, and planned the holes at Merion East.

4) Various other hypothesis that seek to offer alternative explanations for the new evidence you have presented.

5) Proof that even if Wilson didn't go to GB until 1912 as you suggest, ALL of the other Committee members had done so, including Merion President Robert Lesley, who seemed to spend more time in Europe than the USA, as had all of their close friends like Tillinghast, and Crump, and Thomas, and FIndlay and Geist, and Gimbel.   To suggest they hadn't played golf over there, as Patrick has, is simply remarkable in the level of denial and a flaccid attempt to perpetuate the Charles Macdonald myth in light of your new evidence.

6) Various other manifests that show H. Wilson, Hugh D. Wilson, etc. coming from England and France in the years prior to construction that may or may not be our guy.

I'm sure there's other stuff, but I haven't really had others clamoring to me to stop wasting their time with my "endless posts".   In fact, most of the folks here who I know have very open minds seem to be pretty much in agreement, whether they be Sean, Rich Goodale, RJ Daley, Lou Duran, Peter Palotta, Phil Young, Jeff Brauer, Sully, and others I've probably forgotten about who were much wiser than me and dropped out rather than continually debate with you on the meaning and interpretations of this new evidence. 

On the other hand, you do have Patrick and his love of CB Macdonald firmly in your corner so this might go on for another several hundred posts. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Perhaps it's fitting to end this thread which I think has really not been very fair at time to the memory, talents, and persistive genius of Hugh Wilson, with this blurb following the 1916 US Amateur victory of Chick Evans at Merion;

"Evans win over such a superlatively trapped course as Merion ends the criticism as to the value of his performance at Minikahda, which has as few hazards as any well known course the country over.   "Bill" Fownes is reported as having said that Merion was the most scientifically trapped links he had ever played over in this country.   George S. Lyons, after barely failing to qualify, couldn't help but noting the difference between the courses and Englewood, where in 1906 he was runner-up, and wondered what Eben Byers, who beat him there could do amid Haverford's endless troubles.   Somehow, it did seem to the contenders last week, as if Hugh Wilson, Robert Lesley, and Howard Perrin had set the Merion hazards on rollers and shifted them around several times a day as stage hands do scenery."

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

To paraphrase Twain, the news of my essay's death has been greatly exaggerated.  By you and TEPaul, that is.   

But we all now know one thing for certain, and that is the identity of those with the petty agendas.   You and TEPaul's euphoric overreactions to TEPaul's unsupportable conjecture are proof positive. 

I've read your list of contributions above, and must apologize for not being clear enough in my post to Wayne.  I was referring to new and RELEVANT information which was SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS.   

Most of your list is entirely irrelevant, the rest is not supported by the facts.    But no matter, we all try to contribute in our own way.   I do have one question, though:You write

3) Multiple news sources, all of which you discount that say every way from sundown that Hugh Wilson conceived, laid out, constructed, was responsible for, and planned the holes at Merion East.

Could you list these for me, I seemed to have missed them.  I recall Joe Bausch finding and posting some articles, are these to what you refer?     

I am particularly interested in the multiple early news sources "that say every way from sundown that Hugh  Wilson conceived . . . and planned the holes at Merion East."   I dont remember any that say he conceived and planned the holes.   So please, refresh my memory. 

Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MPC,

You allege that I made the following statement.

To suggest they hadn't played golf over there, as Patrick has, is simply remarkable in the level of denial and a flaccid attempt to perpetuate the Charles Macdonald myth in light of your new evidence.


Can you cite where I made that statement ?

Absent your citation, would you correct your post.

What I asked for was proof of the courses they're alleged to have seen.
That's a reasonable request, isn't it ?

Since it's apparent that Wilson NEVER saw a course in the UK until after his visit to CBM, why do you contend that all of the other members of the committee studied the courses of the UK prior to 1911.  Since that's your contention, you should have no difficulty in substantiating it.

Absent that substantiation, is it not reasonable to conclude that perhaps they weren't as versed in GCA as you'd have us believe ?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, 

I have a question along similar lines as Patrick's. You have repeatedly claimed that M&W were only involved to advise on growing grass and on construction techniques and such.   I have read the Hugh Wilson's description of the NGLA meeting a number of times, and for the life of me I just can't figure out what Macdonald taught him about growing grass and construction.   Given that Wilson's essay was written for Piper and Oakley's book on golf Agronomy, Wilson surely would have described this if it happened the way you say.   So, could you point it out to me.

While you are at it, perhaps you could explain to me why Wilson praises Macdonald for teaching the committee how to incorporate the underlying principles of the great holes into Merion's natural conditions?  Did he really mean to say the underlying agronomic principles of the great holes?  It sure doesn't seem like it from the essay, but perhaps you are privy to sections I have not seen. 

Thanks. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David and Patrick,

You two sure have a lot to say about my meaningless, irrelevant contributions.   

Patrick,

Here are the responses you posted to my contention that Tillinghast, Findlay, Crump, Lesley, et.al. had played the great courses of GB prior to Merion's construction;


ALL of these guys knew what an Alps and Redan were.   

How do you know that ?[/color]

That has already been established.   

No it hasn't.[/color]

If they didn't know from their own overseas visits,

How do you know that they all visited North Berwick and Prestwick ?[/color]

they knew from other locals like Tillinghast and Alex Findlay.

How do you know that ?
Is there any written evidence to support your claim ?[/color]


Some things you just have to accept as reality because I'm not going to go back through the itineraries and writings of these guys.   Your responses are needlessly contentious and contribute nothing because you know better that all of them were well-to-do, avid golfers who played regulary and had curious minds.

Please see this May 1912 article and read the first few paragraphs.   Lotsa guys were doing this, and no matter how much you try to ignore the main point, the Merion members certainly did not need CB to tell them an Alps from a Redan. 



I'm thinking if I had video of it Patrick, you'd accuse me of tampering with the film.   

David/Patrick;

DON'T YOU THINK THAT THESE ARE THE "PRINCIPLES" OF THE GREAT COURSES THAT MACDONALD TAUGHT??!?!?  THIS ARTICLE POINTS THEM RIGHT OUT FOR EVERYONE.

Or do you still think he was drawing a routing that no one has ever heard of, no one has ever seen, no one ever claimed, and which are supposedly to a golf course where his template style was IGNORED in favor of a more natural style, purposefully?    

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick/David,

If you have any real proof or even a sniff of evidence pointing to Macdonald/Whigham's routing of Merion, please let's see it.

Otherwise...NEXT CASE!!!   

Bailiff....show them the way out, please. 

[TEPaul]

"But we all now know one thing for certain, and that is the identity of those with the petty agendas.   You and TEPaul's euphoric overreactions to TEPaul's unsupportable conjecture are proof positive."


David Moriarty:

If I can somehow engage you in a really intelligent (read not dismissive or constant denials on your part) of all the ramifications and the significance of this Francis land-swap story and WHEN you speculate it took place I think we will find your entire essay may not be very supportable and is definitely not based on what you keep claiming is fact, UNLESS you really can produce some specfic land transfer transactions that support your assumption of that Francis land swap event, and particularly WHEN you say it took place. All of that is something I've definitely never been aware of.

If you can do that I very well may buy into your conclusion or get a whole lot more interested in it because I am not aware of those specific transactions at a date or even the year that would remotely support your premise about what you said about Francis and that particular event. I guarantee you I will keep at your interpretation of that entire Francis story so everyone who reads these threads is aware of it.

I'm not even sure, at this point, if you're aware of all the significance in that entire story to your essay. We should get into that because if you have something I've never been aware of, again, you may end up going a long way to convincing me that your conclusion in your essay should be seriously looked into. But if you have none of the specifics you seem to base your Francis premise on I can't see that your essay will hang together.

Are you ready to really go over that entire Francis story now?