Don't you understand that the methodology of the design of Merion East was done by a committee of five men including Hugh Wilson as the chairman of that committee?
I alluded to that a long time ago.[/color]
The history of Merion has never claimed that Hugh Wilson designed the course by himself.
That's not what Jim Nugent stated[/color]
On the other hand, his brother did report that all the other members of Wilson's committee told him that 'they have each told me that he (H. Wilson) is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West course.'
Patrick, those are the same people who were on the committee with Hugh Wilson and that's what they ALL told Alan Wilson for his report on the first history of Merion by 35 year MCC treasurer William Philler. All those four other men were around to say what they did to Alan Wilson and read what Philler would write about the creation of both courses from Alan Wilson's report. I see no reason at all NOT to at least take all of THEIR words for what happened in 1911 and 1912 with Merion East!
I'd agree, except that Wilson died in 1925 and they may have been generous in their praise, especially to Wilson's brother.[/color]
But apparently people like you and Moriarty and MacWood want to just ignore that seminal report or dismiss it as hyperbole or some lie or some outrageous eulogy.
That's not true.
Also, why do you categorize the eulogy as "outrageous" unless you've drawn a predetermined conclusion which eliminates any information to the contrary ?[/color]
There is no evidence at all that any of us should do this but you three just keep persisting anyway. Why is that exactly?
That's also not true.
I've receieve dozens of emails and IM's stating that they believe that DM's premise has some merit and that there needs to be additional research done on the subject.
Why is it that the defenders all reside within 25 miles if Independence Hall ? [/color]
And furthermore, we here in Philadelphia are not interested in legends and myths, particularly if that trip abroad IS A MYTH!
Then why has it been perpetuated, perpetuated in the sense that that single trip mined the architectural foundation for the golf course ?[/color]
But the point is EVEN IF THAT 1910 trip abroad IS A MYTH it makes no difference at all as to Hugh Wilson and his committee doing exactly what that Alan Wilson report said they did!
To a degree it goes to form versus substance.
If the trip is a myth, and I believe that it is, it furthers my theory that Merion is the product of a collaborative effort, in its routing and hole design.
And, dare I say it, probably gives a little more weight to CBM's advice.[/color]
The FACT is these MCC meeting minutes really do prove WHY THAT IS so and why the fact that Wilson AND HIS COMMITTEE have always been given credit for DESIGNING and BUILDING Merion East with some advice and suggestions from Macdonald and Whigam is the truth.
No one disputes the attribution for credit for construction, so we can dispense with those references.
It seems that the MCC meeting minutes confirm my theory of a collaborative effort, a theory that seemed to run afoul of the widely held belief that Wilson designed Merion.[/color]
The FACT is these meeting minutes ALSO completely support what Alan Wilson's report says, other than what he meant when he said; 'The land was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England.'
Furthermore, the trip he took abroad in 1912 and was a pretty short one. It was described by Richard Francis to Russel Oakley as 'a hurried trip'. And Hugh Wilson NEVER said to anyone, as far as we can see, the purpose of that "hurried trip abroad". He never said a single word about it to Piper or Oakley who he was communicating with on almost a weekly basis on agronomy at that time. One wonders why he never said anything about the purpose of that trip.
Surely, you want the history of Merion to accurately reflect factual events and not events that can't be documented.
Absent proof of a 7 month trip to the UK prior to Jan, 1911, don't you think there should be some editing ?[/color]
Hugh Wilson in his own report in 1916 referred to his trip abroad as one that happened 'later' although he never said what date later meant.
That would seem to rule out multiple trips.[/color]
He also said his trip abroad confirmed Macdonald's teachings.
If he studied the great courses in the UK for 7 months prior to Jan 1911, wouldn't his visit with MacDonald have confirmed his findings in the UK instead of the other way around ?[/color]
If one thinks about it that could certainly mean something that had already been done at Merion East which merely meant what Macdonald had taught them previously at that two day NGLA visit and what they went back to Ardmore and designed themselves and Macdonald merely came to Philadelphia for a day and approved of (with perhaps some advice of suggestions during that single day.
It also seems to confirm that Wilson NEVER took more than one trip, the one in 1912, and that his trip revealed all that MacDonald had taught him.
However, if it was such a brief trip, as you allude to, one has to wonder how much he could have learned.[/color]
As you will see Macdonald did NOT give MCC at routing in 1910. Nobody did. In 1910 THERE WAS NO ROUTING and DESIGN for Merion East as the course was built in 1911! ALL the routing, layout and design plans would be developed in 1911 and by Wilson and his committee that they would show to Macdonald in April (and perhaps to him when they went to NGLA) and which he went over during a single day and approved of one of them with perhaps the suggestion to actually buy and use that 3.744 acre P&W railroad strip of land next to the clubhouse.
It would seem it may've already been part of one of their plans as Macdonald recommended using that same small piece in his letter in June 29, 1910.
The above two paragraphs contradict one another.
On one hand you state that nothing occured until 1911 and on the other your content that they already had plans as early as June of 1910.
Surely, you can see that there's a clear conflict, one that states that plans were already in existance in June of 1910 and the other that states that in 1910 there was NO ROUTING and NO DESIGN, ergo, no plans.
What troubles me about the above paragraph is the notion that astute business men would buy a unique parcel/s of land, absent any notion as to whether or not it could accomodate a championship golf course.[/color]
But there was no definite golf course routing for the way the course was built in 1910 and we have the documentation to prove it.
I thought construction didn't begin until 1911 ? ? ?[/color]
Matter of fact, that documentation even explains why a Richard Francis would make that late night bike ride to see Lloyd to get permission to swap some land. But that was not in 1910, it was in 1911, as I've said all along.
And if that is the case, and it is, it means the conclusion in "The Missing Faces of Merion" that Macdonald gave them a routing (with some help from Francis and Lloyd in 1910) to build the course to in 1911 is wrong!
Not if CBM's routing included that land[/color]
Again, trips abroad have nothing to do with the facts here of who routed and designed and built Merion East---
It does have to do with what the history books say.
And, it does have to do with the genesis of the golf course.
Now, there's a clear disconnect between the great courses of the UK and Merion, whereas before, the connection was a critical component of the design of the golf course.
You just can't gloss over material, factual errors in the history of the golf course.[/color]
that's all we care about here. We do not care at all about perpetuating a myth (if it is one) that he went abroad in 1910 and for seven months. Why that was reported the way it was in the Tolhurst history books is still a mystery--an enigma.
I agree, but, the record should be set straight.
You know that I believe that the routing and design of the holes was a collaborative effort.
One of the design features I've always been fascinated by are the crossovers, they're ingenius.[/color]
That story has nothing to do with the FACTS of who designed and created Merion East even though David Moriarty tried to make that story have something to do with it!
The story has been inextricably tied to the genesis of Merion.
And, the connection to the great holes of the UK
While I think these are seperate issues, they have been connected in history.
David's piece debunks the myths surrounding Merion being based upon the great holes of the UK.
As to its author/s, I've made my "collaborative" position known, but, not many have historically agreed with that position other than you, Wayno and some folks at Merion.
Even today, Mike Cirba and Jim Nugent claim that Wilson and Wilson alone routed and designed Merion.[/color]
What we have said all along in these five years since Moriarty and MacWood have been trying to look into what they both seem to refer to as the "legend and myth" of Merion is that those two Wilson reports are correct in what they say about Wilson and his committee and Macdonald/Whigam's part in what they did for Wilson and his committee.
So "The Missing Faces of Merion" is not correct, it's wrong, in its primary premise and conclusion that Macdonald gave MCC a routing (with some help from Francis and Lloyd--eg that late night visit land swap idea) IN 1910!
It is not wrong in its entirety.
Like a lease, if one section is rendered invalid, it doesn't automatically invalidate all of the other sections.[/color]
Frankly, Patrick, your fixation with over-arguing some of these points sort of reminds me of The TITANIC. I already told you to get off a sinking ship but you don't seem to want to listen and now you too are about to hit a figurative iceberg and SINK!
I'd like to think of myself as a survivor
One thing's for sure.
I don't have that much time to devote to this interesting thread[/color]
[/quote]