News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Phil_the_Author

It takes a bit of time to catch up after being away, but in the Macdonald letter, he wrote:

"As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

Wayne, have either you or anyone else approached someone at baltusrol such as Rick Wolffe to see if Merion ever did this? If so there might be some interesting bits of information that could be gleaned...

TEPaul

Phil:

What you are referring to about some connection to Baltusrol's soil or some drainage issue is something that would really kick in with Wilson's so called "agronomy" letters of which there are over 1200 over fourteen years.

Merion did have drainage issues with a few greens (actually it still does in a way ;) ) that had to be rebuilt and resodded with sod from the old Haverford course. In a word, mistakes were certainly made in that way in first phase design and construction as it related to agronomy.

The fact is all those letters are basically about growing grass. If there was even 5% as much written by Wilson about architecture as there was written about the agronomy of the course I doubt we would be having any of these discussions about Macdonald's part in the architecture of Merion East. I doubt Moriarty would've even attempted to write his essay as it would've been so obvious what Wilson and his committee really did do.

Unfortunately, we have never found anything from him about the architecture of the course that comes close to what we have from him about its agronomy.

TEPaul

"Has anyone yet tried to answer why the Ardmore Land Development Company, purportedly run by Conelly, had Barker out there to develop a routing on June 10th, 1910, and then Macdonald/Whigham came out a few days later, evidently at the request of HG Lloyd, who supposedly had no ownership of the property at that time?"


MikeC:

Trying to explain that at this point would still be speculation on our part but we most certainly have been thinking about it and trying to figure that out. The available direct source material we have to date is probably as confusing as it is edifying on this subject. But we may try to dredge up some incorporation papers for HDC to see what it was and what it was begun for and by whom.

At this point it could've been Connell and his fellow developers (who had nothing to do with MCC or Lloyd and the search committee at that point) or it could've had something to do with Lloyd and his fellow MCC investors. What we do seem to know is on November 15, 1910 Lloyd seems to be using HDC as an investment vehicle for stock subscription for MCC members.  The letter to the entire membership in this vein is signed by only Lloyd himself but in that letter he gives no indication of his position or roll with HDC or anything like that. But he does say in that letter that HDC will be or has been nominally capitalized to the tune of $300,000. As I've pointed out before on here many times this is precisely the kind of thing Lloyd and Drexel & Co of which Lloyd appears to be the "managing partner" at this time, did. That was their business---eg underwriting all kinds of business ventures and largely to do with the American railroads.

By the way, one source explains that in 1910 Lloyd's Allgates property was 25 acres and that it would eventually be expanded into 75 acres. And of course we can tell where it is----all I have to do is drive over there and look at where it is in relation to the golf course and that HDC development land that once consisted of 338 acres!  ;) 
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 10:49:57 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

MikeC:

The somewhat confusing thing about figuring out who started HDC and for what purpose is the apparent existence of the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company that on a Franklin Real Estate map of the area in 1908 appears to own the Johnson Farm.

I'm not sure at what point Connell and his four other investors or developers got control of the 140 acre Johnson Farm (most of which is Merion G.C. today) or the remaining 221 acres that became the HDC residential development land in 1910 but if the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company was Connell and his same group I can't exactly figure out why they would have formed HDC by at least 1909 unless of course HDC was Lloyd and his MCC investors at that point who were beginning to enter into this whole equation, AND, unless of course HDC only ever encompassed and included as its asset the remaining 221 acres that was not the Johnson Farm.

I am also having a hard time figuring out what this seemingly important or indicative contract (indenture) of June 24, 1909 that references the Title and Trust Company of Philadelphia (Nickolson is its president) as the "party of the first part", and Connell and his four fellow investors or developers as "the party of the second part", and the Haverford Development Company as "the party of the third part" is all about or what particular land the indenture is including and referencing. The indenture does have a specific "metes and bounds" section to it but I can't really follow it all other than it does describe land beginning at Bucks Lane which I do know is at the very top of the HDC Development Company land that appears on the 1910 plan that was send out to the MCC membership on November 15, 1910 simultaneous with Lloyd's letter to the MCC membership soliciting subscriptions in HDC stock and/or residential real estate purchase through HDC.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 11:16:30 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Tom,

I'm becoming convinced that understanding the real estate dealings of Lloyd and his relationship with Connell's group is the key to the whole thing. 

It occurred to me yesterday while looking for more info on AllGates, and the timing of that land being purchased, and plans drawn up, and opening are remarkably parallel to that of the east course.

Then when one considers where it is located, its proximity to the HDC lands targeted for other estate homes, all wrapped around by the land for the golf course, it isn't difficult to speculate accurately how this might have transpired.   It's proving it that might take some doing, especially if the transaction records are as indecipherable as you mention.

The other mystery, of course, is what was Hugh Wilson doing specifically before January 1911, and you're absolutely right.   There's more of a chance of Ron Paul being elected President in 2008 than there is of Hugh Wilson not being involved deeply prior to then, because there is no way in Hades that Robert W. Lesley would have put him in a chairmanship position over these men if he wasn't on top of every issue and detail that had transpired up to that point, and there is also no chance in Hades that Lesley would have appointed Wilson if he didn't think he knew his Alps from his As..er...Redan at this point, because Lesley certainly had that broad, international golf experience as did other members of the committee like Griscom, and they weren't going to hand over their golfing futures and Merion's reputation to someone as vapid and inexperienced as Moriarty tries to portray him.     However, finding actual documentation, much less a plan seems to be a needle in a haystack.

Might these plans have existed in Lesley's papers?   In Lloyd's??   Very very possibly, yet I have no idea if their business and personal documents still exist and might be archived somewhere, or if they are lost, thrown out, burned in a fire, dumped into a landfill, or sitting in a box in a warehouse somewhere, lost to the annals of time.   

Therefore, all we have is what contemporaries wrote about him, and some like Tillinghast claim to have seen the plans and that they were Wilson's, but the fact that the burden of proof is somehow on us to find more direct evidence of Wilson's involvement in 100 year old records is only verifiable proof positive of how bizarrely twisted and disconfigured this whole sad & misleading episode has become.   

I think Wilson deserves presumption of innocence here, but there are some who see that the only way they can elevate Macdonald's role is through an attempt to diminish the work and talents of Hugh Wilson and his committee and I find that perplexing, aggravating, and ultimately, revealing.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 01:01:34 PM by MichaelPaulCirba »

henrye

Come on henrye, do you really need to ask a question like that? How dense can people be really? These clubs read these threads too, don't you realize that and people from these clubs discuss them sometimes mostly with bemusement. These clubs know who people like Moriarty and MacWood are on this website. Do you really think these clubs feel like letting people like that into their archives when these people have essentially been criticizing and insulting us and our intentions and by extension a club like Merion around here for about five years? We are the ones they know, we are the ones who've done a lot of their historical research for them, not Moriarty and MacWood and we are the ones they're watching being criticized and insulted with crap like this "Philadelpia Syndrome" bullshit of MacWood's. MacWood started the first thread about this Merion and Macdonald stuff and Moriarty just picked up on it and took it to a new level of speculation. One of MacWood's threads on Merion was created to challenge "legends" and the "status quo". If you think some of these clubs enjoy some of this blatant revisionism, then you don't understand human nature very well. One of Moriarty's friends on here about six years ago decided to call Merion's Buddy Marucci 'the Devil Incarnate' on here. What did he think that was going to do--get Merion to ask for his opinion of their bunker project?

Some of the people on here and their attitude that some of these clubs ought to do anything they want for them is completely nonsensical!

If anyone wants to get someone's attention to give them or help them with something then the very first thing they need to do is learn how to be polite about it and not so arrogant as to virtually demand it as their good right simply because they're interested in golf course architecture.

TEPaul,

I realize from this thread that there is a lot of animosity amongst a few.  I did observe, however, that Wayne & David seemed to be sharing information, and while there is clearly still some tension based on differing opinions, I have to believe that the cooperation between those 2 is a step forward.  If the club has more documents and information that might shed some light on these theories I think it would be unfortunate to keep them hidden.

As for the liberal dispensation of criticism, insults and the questioning of intentions, you have certainly dished out a disproportionate share.  Be that as it may, I don't see how throwing barbs your way has any connection at all with extending that towards being malicious to clubs like Merion or its members.  In fact, I take no issue with clubs like Merion when a self-proclaimed extension of the club calls me dense.

Lastly, while I know neither individual beyond their contributions to this website, I would be surprised if your characterization of David Moriarty or Tom MacWood is a view held by many.

Mike_Cirba

The whole idea that there was this degree of specialization as we understand it today between designing and constructing is really based on a misunderstanding of how closely those activities had been historically linked up until 1910.

I'm going to type up three separate articles, and I'd like for you to consider the wording, and then think about the courses that had been "built" between 1888 and 1910, and how at that time most folks and golfers didn't even know what a "golf course architect" was.   Macdonald, in fact, defined that term to a great degree.

Philadelphia Inquirer 1915

"By the time this letter is in proint the annual meeting of the United States Golf Association will have adjourned and some at least of its deliberations must be matter of common knowledge, but one cannot resist the temptation to say something more about that pulsing question - the amateur status.   It is doubtful if the problem in all it's immensity can be threshed out in a single evening, along with other business matters.   Whether it is or not, it is bound to be a burning topic throughout 1915, becase there can no longer be temporarizing with the rule upon which the whole future of the sport depends.   Most of the trouble lies in the fact that the long existing by-law like the Sherman act againsts trusts, has not been enforced.   However, it is with rules as it is with clothing.   They frequently are not ony outgrown, but there is call for different cut and fabric."

"For instance, a dozen years ago there was no such profession as the links architect.   The greens keeper did about all the course planning that was required, outside of the club professionals who played, gave lessons, made clubs, sold balls, etc.   Each of those duties is now becoming more specialized. "

"It will be a hard task to convince golfers, the country over, that a man who keeps greens cannot be an amateur, while the one who made the very same greens remains a simon-pure.  The argument advanced in favor of excepting he links architect is that such work calls for ability of a rare sort, in the nature of a special gift.  Don't you believe it.   There are as many good course architects now as there are really expert green keepers."

"It is the experience of the last ten years that has created both callings in the Western Hemisphere and it is almost as difficult to separate the two as to divorce a musical instrument from the music it makes through human agency." 



Another Inquirer article from January 1917 discusses the impact of the amateur ban on golf course architects who take money for their work, and mentions all of the men in the region who had recently had architectural activity and it's impact on them.   In fact, when talk of this banning began some years prior, there was no distinction concerning omitting those who architected without financial compensation.    This led to some of the lack of publicity by anyone who did not fully intend to become a Professional architect, like Tillinghast.

In any case, witness the number of different terminolgies bandied about to describe what we today view as golf course architecture.   There was clearly not the singular distinctions we think of today and the words, laid out, constructed, designed, built, responsible for, etc., were thought of synonymously and often used interchangeably as this article shows.   Let's also not forget that things were even more so seven years prior to this article in 1910, and that the idea of an "architect" as a separate calling had evolved quite a bit over that time.

"The proposed ban on golf course architects will undoubtedly result in a great big howl from those gentlemen who are coining all sorts of money and have been doing so for the past two or three years.   Yet, after all it affects very few amateurs, and prominent among them are Walter J. Travis, three times the amateur champion of this country and the only American who has ever won the amateur championship of Great Britain and a Philadelphian (Tillinghast).   "Travis has done a lot of course construction and among other courses that he has changed is the Philadelphia Country Club.   The PHiladelphian has changed the St. David's and Old York Road clubs and he is the man who built the Shawnee course where the women will play their championship."

"Should the ruling stand there is very little doubt that the majority of the course architects will prefer to surrender their amateur status rather than give up a business that just now is in a very prosperous condition.   Some of these architects get as high as $100 a day for their services and in many cases all they do is to spend a day or so at the course and then send the clubs blueprints of the changes to be made.   Very little of the actual construction work is done by them personally."

"Only one Philadelphian is affected by the rule and all the other amateurs have been doing this work as a matter of interest and love of the game.   George Klauder had much to do with the laying out of the Aronimink and Cobb's Creek courses.   George Crump had done wonders at Pine Valley.  Hugh Wilson built BOTH the Merion courses and the course at Seaview.   Ab Smith has done a lot of construction work at Huntingdon Valley, Cobb's Creek, and North Hills, but it is very doubtful if any one of these ever got a penny for his services.   According to the old rule golf architects were as good amateurs as the (garbled) who played once a week and were excepted from the ban placed upon those who infringed the amateur rule."

Finally, as late as 1940, when the League Island Park municipal (now FDR Park) course opened in Philadelphia, the Inquirer reported the following.   It should be noted that Joe Bausch has found evidence that local star Ed Clarey had designed local courses (Heritage CC) as early as the mid 20s, and had been affiliated with public golf most of his life.  Somewhat ironically, Hugh Wilson was part of the site selection committee that picked this site and one other in 1924 as targets for locating future municipal courses for the city;

Describing the accompanying photo;

"Joseph Carson, president of the Fairmount Park Commission, drivesout the first ball as left to right, Edward Clarey who constructed the course; Alan Corson, the Park Commission's chief engineer, and Bernard Samuel, president of the City Council look on."

Then, in the body of the article that describes the course;

"The League Island course, located at 20th an Pattison Sts. is one of Philadelphia's series of places for the pay-as-you-play fan.   But, it is a bit different from Cobb's Creek and Juniata.   The chief distinctions are the unusually large greens, well trapped, nd it's grass tees."

"The course has been constructed to offer a good test for the expert as well as not to be too difficult for the duffer.   Every hole is well trapped and besides the boundaries, which offer penalties for the wandering shotmaker, there is Shedbrook Creek, 20 feet wide, which winds through the property..."


I am uncertain if David was aware that the terms were used that synonymously and interchangeably during that period, even as late as 1940, at least in Philadelphia.   I'm thinking he made the fundamental, if understandable mistake of viewing it from our modern understanding  of the terms.

Otherwise, to suggest to the uninitiated reader and those with only a passing modern interest in this historical topic that they were clear cut distinctions based on our modern understandings is something that is not only wholly historically inaccurate but also very misleading.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 02:56:07 PM by MichaelPaulCirba »

TEPaul

henrye;

I have no idea how many share my characterization of MacWood and Moriarty, and I also assume it may not be one and the same among some or even most. All I know is how the people I know both here and at Merion feel about them, and again, their feelings may never necessarily be one and the same. Tom MacWood has not been on this website for over a year. Some here and at Merion remember some of the threads he started and participated in about Merion/Macdonald and some remember a thread he started and participated in about questioning legends and status quo. I certainly don't speak for Merion and have never attempted to. I speak only for myself as to how I see Merion and also the many members I know there and who know me. Wayne Morrison is a Merion member, I'm not and never have been. I belong to Gulph Mills G.C. The only purpose of my post to you is to try to explain how some clubs feel about demands for information or access to their archives from people they do not know. I know this because I know a good many people from Merion and obviously this is a subject we have discussed for years. To demand information from Wayne Morrison he may have about Merion I feel can potentially put him in a difficult position with the club if he disseminates it because I do know Merion has not exactly authorized him to disseminate their archives all over the world of the Internet. I just feel that people on here should understand that and respect Merion's position and certainly respect Wayne Morrison's position. I don't believe that Merion necessarily has anything they feel they should hide from anyone but certainly numerous members of Merion have tried to follow this essay by Moriarty and the discussion of it on here. I feel that they generally believe it would be quite interesting and even benefical if it could be proven that Macdonald had more to do with their architecture than they heretofore realized. However, having said that, not a single Merion member I know and have spoken with about this is in the slightest bit impressed by the technique and logic that Moriarty has used in his essay, and particularly on these threads on his essay, to try to conclude or prove or even explain what he concluded in his essay, and I competely share that feeling and have said so many times on this subject on here.

TEPaul

"Tom,

I'm becoming convinced that understanding the real estate dealings of Lloyd and his relationship with Connell's group is the key to the whole thing. 


MikeC:

I don't know whether it's the key to understanding what Wilson and the people who would be on his committee were doing at any particular time before January 1911 (although it should shed light on it) but I think I'm beginning to figure out what Lloyd was doing both for the club and with this HDC real estate development, both when and for what reasons.

At this point, it seems pretty clear to see what he had done by around the middle of November of 1910 for MCC and the move of the golf course (and golf club within MCC), for MCC real estate investors and purchasers, as well as perhaps for those developers represented by Connell.

Patrick_Mucci

Two more questions:

1.  Suppose Merion sent Macdonald a topo map sometime in 1910, after he visited the site.  Could he have designed the course, given that map and the few days he spent there?  If they sent photos as well, could that help him? 

Jim,

Donald Ross made a career out of doing this.

Mike Cirba and Tommy Naccarato have previously indicated that Rees Jones did the same thing.

So, why would it be a stretch for CBM to do it ?
[/color]

No one has produced a shred of evidence this happened.  Just curious if CBM could come up with one of the most perfect routings ever in this way.   

I don't know that it's perfect, but it fits the property very well, and, yes, I believe  M&W could come up with it.   Especially if you context it as Mike Cirba would like you to, that a committee of complete novices did it.  So, ask yourself, which is more likely ?  ;D
[/color]

2.  When M&W visited Merion in June 1910, is it likely they did some rough routing, at least of a few holes?  Architects, or those who know how they work: if you are asked to evaluate a prospective site, and find it exciting, would you map out in your mind some possible hole layouts?  I would have thought so.  And while I have zero experience in designing or building golf courses, it surprises me a bit that M&W would write Merion that they felt a first-class 18 hole course could fit on such tight grounds, unless they had some idea of what those holes were and where they would go.

I'd agree with that concept.
[/color]


Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
David,

I am half way through your Missing Faces piece. Aftere reading for the ninth or tenth time your hot smoking gun the famous "what can be done with the land" letter I have to stop and ask you, before I waste any more time on this: does it get any better than this? Do you ever provide any real evidence that MacDonald and Whigham actually designed Merion? I mean all I have read half way through this is some very laughable conjecture on your part. Should I continue?

TEPaul

Bradley:

Read the rest if you want but he doesn't provide anything concrete on a Macdonald routing and design plan in 1910. Pretty clearly the reason he didn't is there wasn't one. Basically his technique to come to his conclusion is syllogistic.

Patrick_Mucci

Bradley,

Were you one of those rotten kids who told us the ending to the movie before we went to see it ?

Mike_Cirba

Bradley,

It turns out that 1) The Macdonald Letter to the Site Committee was full of generalities, pleasantries, and little else, 2) The effort to suggest that the term "Construction Committee" meant that Hugh Wilson's Committee was involved in "Construction" only has been disproven by a litany of similar documentation from that era that involved course architecture and design as we know it today, 3) We now know that CB Macdonald didn't recommend the land for the Committe to purchase, 4) Hugh Wilson definitely went to Europe in the spring of 1912 to study courses and no one has proven that he ever went prior, and 5) the HH Barker routing was seemingly discarded quickly, and 6) No one knows exactly what Hugh Wilson was doing prior to January 1911, and 7) we're sort of divided whether a routing was done in 1910 or 1911...even possibly before the visits of M&W and Barker, but I'm of the camp that they did it in the fall of that year, and 8) Plans were evidently done by April 1911 because TIllinghast claimed that he had seen them.

That's about it.   

Phil_the_Author

Bradley,

While I may disagree with David's conclusion in his article, I certainly respect the time, energy, dedication and just plain hard work that was put into it's development and writing.

Speaking from experience, it is not the negative review but the attitude of the reviewer that an author finds offensive. You wrote, "I am half way through your Missing Faces piece. Aftere reading for the ninth or tenth time your hot smoking gun the famous "what can be done with the land" letter I have to stop and ask you, before I waste any more time on this: does it get any better than this?"

Consider how you would view David if he responded by saying something to the effect that he wrote the piece for minds that can not only read the words but understand them, so please don't stress your over-wrought brain any further and don't finish it reading it. The meaning of it is certainly lost on someone of your wit."

I bring this up because CIVILITY and GRACE have been lacking on this and other threads and the idea of discreement without being disagreeable is something that needs stating.

Please don't add to it... be above it and CRITICIZE his work; don't mock it.


Jim Nugent

Patrick, I know Donald Ross designed plenty of courses that way.  CBM is not Ross, though.  (And thank god he sure is not Rees Jones, or I don't think we'd have NGLA or any of Macdonald's other great courses.)  Hence my question.   

Did CBM design any other courses that way?  Did Ross design any masterpieces like that?  Is that how he did Seminole?  Pinehurst?  Oakland Hills? 

From CBM's letter to Merion, it's clear to me he did NOT go there on that trip mainly to design.  He went there to see what kind of course could be built there, if any.  He gave them general advice. 

   

Jim Nugent

Patrick, Leeds was a complete novice.  Yet he designed and built Myopia Hunt.  Ran calls MH "one of the few landmark masterpieces of golf course architecture in the United States."

In fact, Findlay said Wilson and Leeds did the same thing.   

Without any smoking guns, my sense is that Wilson and the Committee probably did most of the design and routing.  My guess is that M&W gave them some important ideas, and shared some of the routing/hole ideas they had from their visit in June 1910. 

TEPaul

Phil:

Excuse me if I question the need for that post of yours to Bradley Anderson about his reaction to David Moriarty's essay.

I think we've all had about enough of the sensibilities and sensitivities of the author of this essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" on how he feels about the people who've offered various critiques and criticisms of his essay. Instead of taking their critiques and criticisms and remarks personally, perhaps he, and even you, should realize what they say is not about the author but only about what he writes!

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Phil,

I think that anyone who says he is smarter than oral tradition, and all of those people who lived back then, who were apparently duped into believing something erroneous, which happened incidently very close to their own time, is guilty of chronological snobery, and that deserves exactly the kind of treatment that it has received on this site.

Phil_the_Author

Bradley,

When you write, "I think that anyone who says he is smarter than oral tradition, and all of those people who lived back then, who were apparently duped into believing something erroneous, which happened incidently very close to their own time, is guilty of chronological snobery, and that deserves exactly the kind of treatment that it has received on this site..."

Now THAT is a well-written piece of criticism, something that your first one wasn't. Still, how can you make that statement when you admit that you have only HALF-READ David's essay? You asked David if it gets, "any better than this? Do you ever provide any real evidence that MacDonald and Whigham actually designed Merion?.. Should I continue?"

If those are REAL questions then you have no basis for the mocking tone and words that went along with them. If they aren't then your statement is gauche and inappropriate.

To tell the chef what he is making is glorified crap and to proclaim it as such to the world BEFORE when he has only half-finished it (from your perspective) and then to proclaim it as such to the world is uncalled-for. It may very well be crap, but at least respect the work and author enough to finish it before declaring it as such, and then do so in a civilized manner.

Tom, the diatribes and running insults thrown at David, Tom Macwood and others denigrates both you and the site. That is the largest loss to me in all of this. Enlightened criticism is what these discussions should contain, not angry rants. Before you think that I am trefering just to you, I am not; David and Tom Macwood and others are equally guilty and in some cases even more so.

Tom Macwood should come back on this site and defend himself rather than reading quietly from the sidelines and messaging others about the comments and complaining about statements made.

Passions incite learning and discoveries; it also brings about hard and hurt feelings when it isn't controlled. Step back and take a careful look and you'll see that this is what happened...

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Phil,

Honestly, I am not being cynical here. The truth is we encounter this kind of scholarism much to often today: where someone interprets the explicit of history in light of the implicit. And what is most troubling to me about this, is when everyone is sent scrambling to research the claims against the conventional understanding of things that have been long held, no one ever comes to the defense of the intellectual integrity of all of those people who lived in that time, or the oral tradition that they began. Modern scholars get away with this, only because there is no one living from that generation to defend themselves, and apparently because every generation thinks it is smarter than it's forebearers.

I recognize that the integrity of Whigam is at stake here, but over above that we have the intellectual integrity of an entire club and community of people. Or am I missing something obvious here?

Either way, I will read the rest of the piece.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bradley,

No doubt peoples integrity comes in second these days, vs. the old days. How would you like to have been esteemed enough to sit on the Warren Commission and then had your conclusions questioned to this day, with a few name calling incidents thrown in to boot. :D

I only mention JFK report because I think it has changed us, more than any single incident,  from wanting to believe what those in charge say to a nation of disbelievers.  There are many, many, other govt. actions that have changed the public mindset to believe almost any statement of historical fact is part of a conspiracy.

Also, nostalgia is big in this country and many true facts of "conventional wisdom" actually don't stand up to scrutiny.  Such bits of "conventional wisdom" like the 50's was a carefree time and the Cowboy era was all great come to mind.  Much of our "conventional wisdom" actually comes from what we are exposed to (i.e. television shows like Happy Days and John Wayne movies) and not actual fact.  And there is always perspective - Cowboy era not so great if you were an Indian, and the 50's not so great for some WWII vets, blacks not shown in Happy Days, etc.

I mention the 50's because it was about as long ago from today as Tolhursts history was from the creation of Merion.  Myths CAN be created in that time frame.

So, there are shades of grey in history. I for one, was willing to believe the backstory was at least more complicated, if not different, than the synopsis histories printed by the club.  That, for no other reason that the members in those days simply didn't write that book as a comprehensive history, and Wayne, DM, Tom Mac and others are interested more now in what really happened than Tolhurst may have been at his time and for his purposes to generally chronicle the clubs overall history.

So, there is always perspective in history, always new evidence, and our understanding of it can always "change".  All of that may not have happened in the Merion threads, but I don't believe we can sum it up as "the old guys knew what they were talking about."  More to the point, I doubt society as a whole will ever go back to unquestioning ways you suggest we ought to. 

This kind of thing will continue, together with (in a generally faster moving, I want it now society) the pressure to publish faster, perhaps to lesser standards than of scholars past in many cases.  So I can agree with you there, except that historians of the era (again, think White Mans perspective of the old west) haven't always held up to the highest standards you profess that they had either.  They certainly have been accused of interpreting the implicit rather than the explicit, as well.

I think the short version is that DM probably came up a bit short on evidence by scholarly standards and did probably reach a bit in some of his conclusions.  And, as human nature would have it, if we can disprove one conclusion, we like to simplify and discredit all conclusions.  That, too is a matter of some perspective.  I think in the end, DM's piece, while not perfect, will contribute to the history of Merion. 

Heck, at this point, I think its very existence MAKES it a part of Merion's history!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Bradley:

Thank you for those two posts. I think they show the most commonsense by a mile of anyone who's contributed to these threads. Nevertheless, I'd expect perhaps quite a few on here will not agree with you. But I hope others will continue to say what you have. I think Merion and clubs like it will thank you too. I even expect some on here to accuse a club like Merion or some of it members of being defensive or trying to hide something---eg just another extension and rerunning of this ridiculous "Philadelphia Syndrome" crap we've heard on here before. That attitude does not and should not promote cooperation, in my opinion. It can only stifle it.

"Tom, the diatribes and running insults thrown at David, Tom Macwood and others denigrates both you and the site. That is the largest loss to me in all of this."

Phil:

You're most certainly entitled to your own opinions on here as we all are. I feel very strongly about some of the things written and inferred on here about Merion and some of us in Philadelphia and I have not hesitated to state on here what I feel about that and why and I'll continue to do that. Merion G.C. may've been willing to speak for themselves on here some years ago but having one of their prominent members called "the Devil Incarnate" on this discussion board destroyed that and probably forever. THAT is the very thing that denigrates this website! Apparently some feel they can say anything they want to about some golf clubs with absolutely no consequences. I don't think things ever work that way and they shouldn't.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 08:27:13 AM by TEPaul »

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jeff,

I think we need to be careful not to mix what comes out of Hollywood with the work of real historians. There was a lot of good reliable history written in the 50's and 60's.

No doubt every generation suffers from it's own temporal myopia, but that is exactly why we need to protect some measure of trust in old accounts and old ideas. Because they provide us the only fresh perspective of things against our own bias. We could get a fresh perspective from the history of the future too, but it hasn't been written yet.  ;)


Rich Goodale

Bradley

Very interesting posts.  I look forward to your thoughts once you have read all of David M's piece.  Thanks.

Rich

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back