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

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Talk about a shotgun approach!

What are you now, an expert on how those people got to Europe and when?

I'm expert enough to know that they didn't fly or take the train in 1909.

My trips across the Atlantic on the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth don't make me an expert on the subject, but, my general knowledge of the North Atlantic in the winter months allows me to draw reasonable conclusions.
And, one of those conclusions is that travel across the North Atlantic in relatively small ships in winter was a dangerous undertaking, one that was typically avoided, AND, still is with private yachts.

By the way, in Mid-April 1912, what was it that sunk the unsinkable ship, the Titanic, in the North Atlantic.  Did they hit a palm tree, another boat, or
coconuts bobbing in the water.[/color]

Did you notice what I just said about that Drexel yacht, the Alcedo, and how it was commissioned into the US Navy?  That thing was almost 300 feet. Do you think the US Navy commissioned it to fight the German Navy just to send it abroad in the summer while the crew on it hung around MCC or something in the winter and just goofed off waiting for the weather to get warm again so they could go over and fight the Germans in pleasant weather? Some of the things you say are so off-the-wall there're laughable!  

That's because, despite your personal linkage, you're not that familiar with the USS Alcedo.

Don't you find it interesting that the ship sailed from the U.S. to Europe in August, a summer month.

And, that the USS Alcedo's missions were confined to the French Coast, not crossing or patroling the North Atlantic.

Perhaps you should undertake a family or naval refresher course.[/color]

We will continue to look into WHY the Merion Tolhurst history books and perhaps an earlier one reported that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and for seven months but if it turns out he never did that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference anyway to what Wilson and his committee did regarding the routing, design and building of Merion East but perhaps you haven't even figured out THAT yet.

Yes it does.

The legend states that Wilson's design of the golf course, holes and features were a direct result of his 7 month trip to study the great courses of the UK Prior to Jan 1911.

If he never made that trip prior to 1911, then, the myth, assumption and attribution are all wrong.

It means that the golf course is the result of ANOTHER PROCESS.

(Enter my collaboration theory)

Meaning that the routing, course, holes and features were not a direct result of his studying the great holes of the UK, but, rather, attributable to another methodology.[/color]

I guess this is what happens when people like start actually believing some of the premises and conclusions of an essay like "The Missing Faces of Merion."

You choose to believe the "party line", automatically dismissing DM's work.
I'm more inclined to think that the party line is flawed and that the final or reasonable answer lies in additional research.

And, it's my contention that Merion is the product of a collaborative effort, not a solo effort that's only attributable to Wilson.

My interest in Francis remains.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"The legend states that Wilson's design of the golf course, holes and features were a direct result of his 7 month trip to study the great courses of the UK Prior to Jan 1911.

If he never made that trip prior to 1911, then, the myth, assumption and attribution are all wrong.

It means that the golf course is the result of ANOTHER PROCESS.

(Enter my collaboration theory)

Meaning that the routing, course, holes and features were not a direct result of his studying the great holes of the UK, but, rather, attributable to another methodology>"


Patrick:

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? The history of Merion has never claimed that Hugh Wilson designed the course by himself. 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!

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. There is no evidence at all that any of us should do this but you three just keep persisting anyway. Why is that exactly?

And furthermore, we here in Philadelphia are not interested in legends and myths, particularly if that trip abroad IS A MYTH!

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!

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. 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 too 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.

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. He also said his trip abroad confirmed Macdonald's teachings. 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.

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.

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. 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!

Again, trips abroad have nothing to do with the facts here of who routed and designed and built Merion East---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.

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!

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!

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! 

[TEPaul]

Jim Nugent:

Your post #273 is really cogent and must have taken a good deal of time to do. I'm impressed and I wish a lot more on here were willing to think as intuitively about all of this as I believe you did in that post, instead of getting into all this odd syllogistic reasoning day after day!  Thanks!

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd like to give a summary of why I think Wilson and Committee probably designed Merion and M&W did not.  Though I also believe M&W advised Wilson on the design, and may have given him some specific hole/routing ideas.  

First, problems with the theory that CBM designed Merion:

1.  CBM does not say he designed the course.  He says absolutely nothing about this.  This apparently is extremely OOC for him, if in fact he was Merion's architect.

It's not OCC for him.
Upon what do you base your statement.

MacDonald's primary focus seemed to have been NGLA, Lido, Yale and Mid-Ocean, but, that doesn't exclude the work he performed on other sites.[/color]
2.  Merion does not say CBM designed the course.

Whom do they say designed the course ?[/color]
  
3.  No one else in history gives any hint that CBM designed Merion, except Wrigham, who was Macdonald's son-in-law.  Wrigham made this claim once, nearly 30 years after the fact, in passing, as part of an obituary for CBM that contained other factual errors.

You don't know that he ONLY made the claim once.
You only know that he made the claim in CBM's obituary.[/color]
 
4.  CBM had very little opportunity to do the design.  He visited the prospective site for a few days in June 1910.  But Merion had not even bought the land yet, and Macdonald's letter to the committee shows his purpose during that trip was not to design a course.  It was to evaluate the site, and advise Merion whether he thought they could build a 1st-class course there.  If he did route Merion, it was almost surely based on that one trip.  Perhaps someone sent him a topo map later.  But there is no evidence anyone did that.  

You only know of MacDonald's trip in June.
You can't state, unequivically, that he didn't either visit or have other communications with the club.[/color]

And even if they did, could CBM have come up with such an intricate routing in this way?  

Yes, he could, just the way Ross was able to do the same thing at many of his courses.[/color]

I asked earlier if he designed any other course in this manner.  No one could give a single example.  

Just because others on this site haven't provide an example doesn't mean he couldn't have designed the course.[/color]

It certainly is not how he designed NGLA.  And that is the only CBM course rated as highly as Merion.

That's immaterial[/color]
 
5.  There is no evidence that Raynor had any involvement of any kind with Merion.  

Is it not logical to conclude that if MacDonald was involved that Raynor was involved ?[/color]

But there also is no evidence that CBM designed any courses without Raynor, once they collaborated on NGLA.  

Ergo, since we know that MacDonald was involved, according to you,  Raynor must have been involved[/color]

6.  Merion, as I understand it, did not and does not look like other courses CBM designed.  

How can you make that statement ?

Are you saying that the 3rd hole doesn't look like other MacDonald holes ?

That the Alps and Eden holes weren't like other MacDonald holes ?

Have you played Merion ?
What other MacDonald courses have you played that qualify you to make that statement ?[/color]


When it opened, it had at most a few templates.  Many on this site debate even that: at best the so-called templates were poorly or half-way done, at worst they may not have existed at all.  One example: the alleged Redan green apparently sloped back to front, and did not allow runup shots.  

Some of the greatest names in GCA have labeled it a Redan, but you've aligned yourself with the "philly" crowd and are thus in denial with respect to the hole.  

Accomodating a run up shot is NOT the defining feature of a redan.[/color]

Descriptions I've seen of the course from back then noted that Merion did NOT copy the famous holes.  

Then the descriptions you've seen are inaccurate.
Alps, Edens and Redans are famous holes.[/color]

As I understand it, this stands in marked contrast to other courses CBM designed.

Then your understanding is wrong.
You chose to look at CBM courses solely in the context of the famous template holes while completely ignoring the other holes on his golf courses.

For someone who's seen so little, if any of his work, you sure are adept at drawing conclusions on issues you're totally unfamiliar with.[/color]

7.  Besides not looking like other CBM courses,

On what comparison of CBM courses do you base that comment ?[/color]

Merion probably did not look like the course CBM recommended to the committee.  

How do you know that ?

What did the course CBM recommended look like ?[/color]

In his June 1910 letter, he suggested a sporty 6000 yard course.  The course actually designed and built was a championship 6245 yarder, with room to expand to 6500 yards.  

MacDonald was clear in writing that each hole should have a 20-30 yard margin for additional length, so you can throw your argument out the window.[/color]

This may be one reason Merion chose not to have CBM design their course: the shorter course he suggested was not the course they wanted.    


How do you know that ?[/color]

8.  David's theory rests on the idea that Merion's design was finished by November 1910...

That's untrue, and would indicate that you haven't read all of the posts on this subject.[/color]

Wilson was not part of Merion's Construction Committee until January 1911 or later...and therefore could not have designed the course.  

Could you cite where David makes that statement in his white paper ?
Construction and design are two different disciplines although field work can alter the intended design.[/color]

But David cannot prove Wilson was not involved earlier.  

The burden of proof isn't on David.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that Wilson routed and designed the golf course.

They have to prove that he did.[/color]

All he can do is show they didn't form the Construction Committee till 1911.  It seems likely to me that Wilson WAS involved: I doubt Merion would have turned over construction of this course to a complete novice who had no experience with or knowledge of the project.

According to Wilson, that's exactly what he was.
Didn't you read Wilson's own words after he visited with MacDonald.
He confirmed how little he knew.
Haven't you been reading these posts ? ........ carefully ?[/color]

9.  Merion's committee wrote a letter to members, apparently in 1911, saying plans were being prepared for the course.  

Apparently ?

What committee wrote the letter and when was it dated ?

That doesn't mean that the course wasn't already routed.
Wilson sails to the UK in 1912 to learn more about GCA, and as a result, fine tunes Merion.  That seems in perfect harmony with the letter you cite.[/color]

While we have argued over what they meant, one explanation is that they were still designing the course in 1911.  

It's been widely acknowledged that the course continued to take shape post 1912 at the hands of Wilson and his committee.[/color]

If so, that throws out David's claim that the course was completely designed by November 1910.

David NEVER made that statement.
That's merely wishful thinking on your part.
The golfing universe acknowledges that the course continued to be designed/altered/fine tuned post 1912.[/color]
      
10.  David's theory also rests on the idea that Wilson did not travel abroad till at least 1912.  David cannot prove that is so either.  

He doesn't have to.
The burden of proof is on those who claim he did travel to the UK prior to Jan, 1911, spending 7 months studying golf courses.[/color]

In fact, as the quote in #3 below shows, the USGA believes Wilson traveled to Europe in 1910 to study courses.  

Believing and having proof are two different levels of fact finding.
One is a leap of faith, the other is factual.[/color]

As a side note that may be relevant: I've seen Wilson referred to as a Scottish immigrant.  Does that mean he was born in Scotland?  

It's clear that you haven't been reading this thread with any degree of comprehension.

Don't you recall that his American birth certificate was referenced ?

Don't you see how you continually grasp at straws or phantom facts to support a conclusion that you've already reached ?[/color]

Reasons to believe Wilson designed Merion:

1.  Tillie says he did.  

Whigham says it was CBM.[/color]

2.  Merion history says he did.

Could you cite that reference for me.
I believe that Merion's history says that Francis and Wilson designed Merion.[/color]

3.  The USGA says Wilson designed Merion: "The baskets have been part of Merion’s lore since the club moved to its current location in 1912.  It’s not a closely guarded secret, but nobody associated with the club seems to know the origin.  It is clearly linked in some way to a trip taken by course designer Hugh Wilson in 1910 when he was sent by the club to study the best courses in Europe before the course was built on its current site."  So the USGA says Wilson designed Merion; and that he went abroad in 1910.


I think they got their dates wrong.

NO ONE has substantiated that Wilson spent 7 months in the UK prior to Jan, 1911.[/color]

4.  Tolhurst says Wilson designed Merion.

Are you sure that co-credit isn't given to Francis ?[/color]

5.  Herbert Warren Wind says Wilson designed Merion, and even favorably compares Wilson as an architect with CBM as an architect.  


That may be his opinion, but, has he read David Moriarty's white paper.
Perhaps he'd change his mind.[/color]

6.  Wilson himself apparently says or implies he designed Merion, as the following passage from David's essay shows:  Quoting Tolson, David says "Wilson admitted that the concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England . . . Yet none of the holes at Merion is an out and out copy."  The concepts sprang from holes HE'D seen in Scotland and England.  BTW, this also suggests there were no template holes at Merion: there were no out-and-out copies.  Another strike against CBM.    


There's only one MAJOR problem with that passage.

Wilson didn't travel to the UK until 1912, after the course was routed and the individual holes designed and constructed.

No template holes, how obtuse or dense can you be ?

What do you call a Redan, Alps and Eden.

MacDonald, Doak, Jones and others called # 3 a Redan.
Tillinghast referenced the Eden hole, # 15, and the Alps hole is # 10.  
So how can you state that no template holes existed ?
You're in denial, plain and simple.[/color]

7.  Alex Findlay, noted golf writer and architect from back then, implies Wilson designed Merion, by equating what he did with what Leeds did at Myopia Hunt.  Findlay never breathed a word that CBM designed the course.

Findlay called # 3 a Redan.

As to Myopia, are you sure Leeds routed that golf course ?

He wasn't a member of Myopia in 1894 when the first nine was routed and designed, so, can you say with absolute certainty that he routed and designed all of Myopia ?[/color]
    
8.  Alan Wilson says Wilson designed Merion.  Some say that since Wilson is HM's brother, he may not be trusted.  Perhaps.  But then the same standard should apply to Wrigham, who was CBM's son-in-law.

I don't believe that both men were lying.

I believe that both men were telling the truth.

When you view the creation of Merion as a collaboration, both statements ring true.[/color]  

Also, if you take away Wrigham's eulogy, no one at all says CBM designed Merion.  If you take away Alan Wilson's claim, a number of people and sources still say HM designed Merion.

So, TRUTH is determined through the democratic process ?

If Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, James Carville, Paul Begala and others say that nothing happened, does that mean that nothing happened ? [/color] 

Could Wilson have designed Merion?

1.  Patrick says a novice like Wilson could not design a course like Merion.  But other first-timers have designed world-class courses.  

Leeds is one example.  He designed and built Myopia Hunt, with zero experience in gca, and apparently zero help from experts.

You don't know that.
[/color]

2.  Wilson had the help of men who had traveled abroad, and seen the world's best courses and holes.

Which men ?  And what courses did each man STUDY ?[/color]

3.  Wilson almost surely had the help of CBM.  


He acknowledges same in writing[/color]

4.  Wilson almost surely was aware of the famous European holes, from newspaper and magazine reports, from others at his club and on the golf committee.  

Actually, his awareness was the result of him having watched the British Open on ABC for dozens of years.

You don't have a clue about Merion, NGLA and other MacDonald courses and you live in an age of instant electronic access, yet, you'd have us believe that Wilson became an expert by reading about these holes and from hearing about them from third parties.

Well, I guess that makes all of us experts.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Whom do they say designed the course ?"

Patrick:

Are you actually asking that question seriously?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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]

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Whom do they say designed the course ?"

Patrick:

Are you actually asking that question seriously?

TEPaul,

Do me a favor, when I direct a question to a particular party, let them answer the question by themselves.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

Do me a favor, when I direct a question to a particular party, let them answer the question by themselves.

Thanks"


Pat:

Sure, no problem. I swear your parents should've let you be the lawyer you always wanted to be!

[DMoriarty]

If the history books say he went abroad in 1910 and for about seven months I don't think it speaks volumes about an inability to look at this with an open mind if we continue to look into it!!

Perhaps you think it never happened but why should we think that without trying to prove it? Should anyone expect us to stop looking into it because you say so on these threads or you think your essay concludes it didn't happen?

Prove what?  We have no reason to believe it happened.   Wilson's own words are inconsistent with it happening.    You just cannot give it up. 

You did find that 1912 ship manifest that essentially proved the Merion story that was referred to in the Merion history book as "a romantic story" was not a romantic story at all, and I think Wayne found some evidence later that Wilson really was booked on the Titanic. Don't forget it was me a few weeks ago who essentially proved Wilson could not have been abroad in 1911 and it was me who found R. Francis' letter that said H. Wilson was making a 'hurried trip' abroad in 1912. Until we find evidence that can conclusively prove he was not over there in 1910 or that he could not have had time to be over there in 1910 we will continue to look into it. Maybe you thinks that shows some inability to have and open mind but we don't.

Wayne has proof that H.Wilson had a ticket on the Titanic?   He implied he did, but I'll believe it when I see it.  My guess is the same story dripped down through Wilson's family, and for Wayne that is proof enough.  But Wayne doesn't think he has to prove what he states as truth, so I doubt we will ever come clean.  At least he won't unless the facts unambiguously help him.   

Think of all the information you guys have sat on through the years, likely because you thought it would be misinterpreted or misunderstood if put out there.  But so far it is you guys who have done all the misinterpreting and misunderstanding. 

Speaking of which, I wish you were joking that you "essentially proved that he did not travel in 1911."  I told you repeatedly, starting over a year ago, that the letters would tell us whether he traveled in 1911, but you ignored that, at least until my essay came out.  I drag you guys kicking and screaming  for a year and one-half until the conclusion is inevitable, and now YOU proved it?  Because you finally bothered to look at something that I suggested over a year ago, and over a year after I had already established a time line demonstrating a 1911 trip was impossible?

Apparently you did not realize (because you've certainly never mentioned it) that Rodman Griscom's father was . . .

Wrong again.  If you'd read my essay you'd know this.

You can dismiss these people by saying, as you did, that we don't need to discuss the lives of the rich and famous.

What I said was your romanticized rantings regarding the rich add nothing to the conversation unless you include relevant facts. 

Again, as you will see, it really doesn't make any difference to who routed, designed and constructed Merion East WHEN Wilson went abroad or even if he never did go abroad! The fact is even if he didn't go abroad in 1910 or at any time, he and his committee routed, designed and built Merion East with advice and suggestions from Macdonald and Whigam during a day in early April 1911. And furthermore to that, there was no definite routing and course design in 1910 as you have virtually based your essay on. All of this basically reinforces with more detail the two things we have always said on here we've relied on the accuracy of as to the story of the creation of Merion East----those two Wilson brothers' reports describing the creations of Merion East and West courses!

All I read is "Blah Blah Blah" until you provide your sources.   If you ever do.   

All of this just underscores that there is every good right and reason why another essay should be done explaining what really did happen with the creation of Merion East! If this essay happens to counterpoint much of what you said in your essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion", well, that's just the way it is, I guess. All it is, is the real and accurate history of Merion East and there is nothing adverserial about it or intended.

What a joke.  You can't angrily state that you are out to prove me wrong and make me look like a fool, then, when you realize that this doesnt play in Peoria, pretend that you are on a quest for the truth.

If you want the truth out, it is simple enough.   I'll revise my essay based on the new source material.   But then you guys really dont want me  to see the new source material, do you?   Gee, I wonder why?   

[DMoriarty]

JES and Jim,

I had a long post here to JES and a short one to Jim, but I was using this as a basis for another post and accidentally deleted what I had.  Sorry,

If you guys would like I can try and recreate it, but if you have seen it, then I wont.

Sorry again.

[Sean_A]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water:

I'd like to give a summary of why I think Wilson and Committee probably designed Merion and M&W did not.  Though I also believe M&W advised Wilson on the design, and may have given him some specific hole/routing ideas. 

I am not sure how this is all that much different than what I have been saying?  Are you?
[/quote]

David

You mean to say, after all this bullshit, you think that Wilson designed the course with consultation (practically the very definition of committee chairman) from others?  You may have stated this in your piece, but if that is your conclusion, your piece doesn't lead the reader (at least me) to believe this is your conclusion.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Ditto

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Your post #732 is just another good reason why we here (certainly Wayne and me and Merion) are not willing to collaborate with you on a new essay on the creation of Merion in the years 1909-1912.

To suggest such a thing as I did to you and Tom MacWood (on an email with others included) was a really bad idea on my part. I thought it might minimize or end the continuous antagonism you two have alternately and together shown toward both us and others here in Philadelphia. The way this Macdonald/Merion thing was conducted by both of you over more than five and a half years is one of the best testimonials there has ever been on this website of how researchers should NOT go about trying to research the architectural history of a golf club. Your last post (#732) is just another glaring example of that!

Thankfully, we care enough about Merion to bother to do the detailed research for another essay to challenge your highly speculative, syllogisitic and specious essay that distorts the architectural history of Merion in those years.

I guess we should thank you for inspiring us to do this but at the end of the day and after over five years of this contentiousness from you two the validity of the two reports we have always stood behind (The Wilson Brothers) will be reestablished.

Wayne and I weren't doing a story on Merion's architectural history on this early phase anyway---we were doing a story on the life and work of architect William Flynn and his particpation in any significant way did not really begin at Merion until around 1915.

One thing that probably will need revising in the Merion history is this issue of the trip or trips he took abroad and when and why but as we will show with Board meeting minutes from this time, even if he never went abroad at all it wouldn't have made any difference to what he and his committee actually did regarding the routing, design and building of Merion East.

You seem to have used the timing of his trip abroad as a way to establish a premise that he and his committee could not have done what they did without a routing and design for the way the course was to be built being given to them by Macdonald/Whigam in 1910. In our opinion (and in Merion's opinion and others) that is the import and the conclusion of your essay and it is very wrong. It just didn't happen that way, that's the fact of the matter and it proves the conclusion of your essay wrong.

But the thing that upsets me the most is apparently people like you and MacWood, for whatever your own reasons, just don't think or can even understand that it was possible for Wilson and his committee to do what they did do with Merion's creation. And because you two seem to think that way it seems you need to come up with all kinds of specious reasons why someone else had to do it. As professor Loewen coigned the term you two are complete "No-Can-Doist" theorists and researchers, and highly speculative and specious ones at that!

To me that basic modus operandi and technique completely distorts and disrespects an important time and course in architecture's history and evolution and the men who were involved and responsible for it.

[TEPaul]

"If you want the truth out, it is simple enough.   I'll revise my essay based on the new source material.   But then you guys really dont want me  to see the new source material, do you?   Gee, I wonder why?"


David Moriarty:

We do want the truth out, and it is simple enough---eg we will do it ourselves this time! You had your chance when you put "The Missing Faces of Merion" on the In My Opinion section of this website.

Of course we want you to see this new source material but you can see it and critique it and do anything you want with it including putting it in Part Two of your essay  at the same time and in the same way everyone else on here interested in it can see it. We don't control Merion G.C., they speak for themselves and make their own decisions on what to do with their source material. You recently asked them to turn it over to you and you know what they told you, don't you? And, GEE, David Moriarty, should anyone wonder why that is?   

Oh sure, everyone knows the reason for that, right? It's all some massive conspiracy amongst locals to protect Philadelphia architects from having their "Legend" status and "myths" shattered by a couple of "No-Can-Doists" who've hardly even been here and have never understood the reality of people like Wilson and his committee and consequently feel the need to challenge it and revise it with speciously reasoned essays and discussions on here.

It's probably time to dredge back up and quote on here that seminal Tom MacWood "Philadelphia Syndrome" remark from over four years ago. It seems that's about where all this started! You've been an excellent champion of that "Philadelphia Syndrome" conspiracy theory of MacWood's and your essay and all your posts on here (including that last one #732) is more than sufficient evidence of it. Peter Wagner was right when he said on here that you act like some peevish little girl, particularly in how often you cast aspersions on Merion member Wayne Morrison who's done most all the grunt-work source material searching for these threads anyway. I noticed you apologized to Wagner but now on post #732 you are right back to casting aspersions on Merion member Wayne Morrison again!

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said yesterday:

"1. Wilson was NOT "unanimously cited" as the one who did most of the design, at least not by anyone who was actually there and knew.   In fact, I don't think any of those who were there and involved stated that Wilson was largely responsible for the design.   If I missed something I'd be glad to reconsider this, but the facts as I know them just do not support your conclusion."


David Moriarty:

That remark there by you yesterday pretty much just takes the cake in both how and why your essay was so completely slanted and lacking in good and balanced research into who created Merion East.

Hugh Wilson certainly was unamimously cited as the man who did most of the design of both Merion East and West, and more importantly he was unanimously cited by ALL the four men who were the ones who worked on the design of Merion with him on that committee. The fact that you don't seem to know that, at this point, or that you've just continued to dismiss it, ignore it, or rationalize it away in some weak attempt to assign the very words of it to eulogy or hyperbole or whatever other syllogistic and specious reasoning you've employed all along, pretty much tells the tale of how you went about your essay. A balanced investigation and analysis did not seem to be what you were after. It's almost as if you came to your conclusion FIRST that Macdonald routed the course and you used whatever reasoning you could to promote that and just ignored most everything that refuted it.

We told you all along that if you ignored or dismissed ALL of Alan Wilson's report you'd probably be doing it at the risk of the credibility of your essay and now that is proving to be the case.

Even in the last 24 hours I put the appropriate words from Alan Wilson's report on this very thread of how Hugh Wilson was unanimously cited by ALL the men who actually worked on that committee with him but it appears you have missed it again or just continued to dismiss it.

And I noticed in your essay you took something of a backhanded swipe at me by saying I put the appropriate parts of Alan Wilson's report on this website and then deleted it, and so you couldn't even quote it. But the point is, David Moriarty, you knew where to ask for that report and find it and you just never asked for it did you? That's some real lack of even an attempt to collaborate for balanced documentary material, don't you think?

I don't call that very balanced OR serious research if you really want to get to the truth of who created Merion East!

[DMoriarty]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water:

I'd like to give a summary of why I think Wilson and Committee probably designed Merion and M&W did not.  Though I also believe M&W advised Wilson on the design, and may have given him some specific hole/routing ideas. 

I am not sure how this is all that much different than what I have been saying?  Are you?

David

You mean to say, after all this bullshit, you think that Wilson designed the course with consultation (practically the very definition of committee chairman) from others?  You may have stated this in your piece, but if that is your conclusion, your piece doesn't lead the reader (at least me) to believe this is your conclusion.

Ciao

Sean and Rich,

You mean to say, after all this, that you ignored what I wrote in my essay, and ignored my many requests that you believe my intentions as set out in the essay, and instead applied your own motives and conclusions in place of mine?   

I don't care about attribution, so made no statement of who "designed" the course in the sense you use it.   M&W were integrally involved in the entire planning process.   

[Andy Hughes]

Is this a correct statement-- "Hugh I. Wilson wrote that he became involved in the project in early 1911."?

[Rich Goodale]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water:

I'd like to give a summary of why I think Wilson and Committee probably designed Merion and M&W did not.  Though I also believe M&W advised Wilson on the design, and may have given him some specific hole/routing ideas. 

I am not sure how this is all that much different than what I have been saying?  Are you?

David

You mean to say, after all this bullshit, you think that Wilson designed the course with consultation (practically the very definition of committee chairman) from others?  You may have stated this in your piece, but if that is your conclusion, your piece doesn't lead the reader (at least me) to believe this is your conclusion.

Ciao

Sean and Rich,

You mean to say, after all this, that you ignored what I wrote in my essay, and ignored my many requests that you believe my intentions as set out in the essay, and instead applied your own motives and conclusions in place of mine?   

I don't care about attribution, so made no statement of who "designed" the course in the sense you use it.   M&W were integrally involved in the entire planning process.   

I can't speak for Sean, Dave, but I've read your essay far too many times, trying to find the beef, but all I get are a few new peripheral facts, a number of new and old interpretations of those facts and of the many more facts that have been known for ages, and vague promises of more to come.

It may not come easy to you, but I think a lot of us on here would love to see you present a cogent summary of what you think are the possible important implications of your research (integrated with the reasearch of others).  250 words or less.  If you really have something interesting to say, you ought to be able to say it within those parameters.

Slainte

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Is this a correct statement-- "Hugh I. Wilson wrote that he became involved in the project in early 1911."?"

AndyH:

Not exactly. What Hugh Wilson wrote is his committee was formed in early 1911. He never said anything about if he was involved before that or if he wasn't involved before that. David Moriarty said he was not involved before 1911 but apparently the only reason he has said that is because he hasn't found any evidence that he was involved before that.

On the other hand, in his essay Moriarty has concluded that two members who would be appointed to his committee in early 1911 were out there "tweaking" Macdonald's routing that had been done before November 15 1910.

Doesn't it seem sort of odd logic that on the one hand Moriarty ASSUMES Wilson couldn't have had anything to do with ideas on the course before 1911 BECAUSE his committee had not yet been appointed, while on the other hand, he has two future members of that committee who would serve under Wilson who WERE out there working on Macdonald's routing?

We don't believe there was a definite routing in 1910 and there is a letter in the files that states that and we believe the MCC meeting minutes confirm that so it doesn't look like work on routing plans was done until the first month or so of 1911 anyway. The MCC meeting minutes are also pretty clear on who did all the numerous plans that were done in the winter and early spring of 1911.

[TEPaul]

Richard The Magnificient:

As to what David Moriarty concluded in his essay isn't this clear enough for you? It certainly is for me! 




From his essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion."

"In reality, Wilson neither planned the routing nor conceived of the holes at Merion East.  The course was planned months before Merion even appointed Wilson and his “Construction Committee.” Wilson and his Construction Committee were not appointed to design the course or conceive of the holes, but were to do what the name of their committee implies, construct the golf course.  They laid the course out on the ground and built it according to plan.

Finally, while the original routing plan for Merion East may never be located, we can piece together enough of the early history to know that H.H. Barker sketched the first routing plan, but it may have been superceded by C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigham, who played a major role in planning the course.   Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd also contributed."


You see from above Moriarty very clearly mentions "the original routing plan" above and then he pretty clearly said all Wilson and his committee did is build that course 'according to plan' (except for Francis and Lloyd, two men who were not yet appointed to the committee who were out there before Nov. 15, 1910 "tweaking" Macdonald's routing  ).

Well, if it wasn't Wilson and his committee's plan then whose plan was it in 1910? I think we can see since Moriarty's (and MacWood's) interest has always been to show that Macdonald or Macdonald/Whigam have never been given the credit they deserve by Merion for the architecture of Merion East that essentially it was Macdonald's plan (routing?).

Even though Tom MacWood who Moriarty said in his essay supplied the research material on one HH Barker, seems to think that HH Barker has never been given the credit HE DESERVES for the routing of Merion East!   

By the way, nobody but nobody around the entire creation of Merion East EVER used the word "routing" as far as we've ever been able to see. They ALL seemed to refer to what we today call a routing, as a "course" or a "plan" or a "layout".

And yet, David Moriarty asks us in his essay to believe, in this case, that all "layout" meant then was to only specifically CONSTRUCT a golf course to a pre-existing routing and design! 

Frankly, I've almost forgotten how many completely speculative, specious, syllogistic and illogical things he did say in his essay. This is one helluva piece of work from a truly "serious" researcher, don't you think?   

[JC Jones]

Richard The Magnificient:

As to what David Moriarty concluded in his essay isn't this clear enough for you? It certainly is for me! 




From his essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion."

"In reality, Wilson neither planned the routing nor conceived of the holes at Merion East.  The course was planned months before Merion even appointed Wilson and his “Construction Committee.” Wilson and his Construction Committee were not appointed to design the course or conceive of the holes, but were to do what the name of their committee implies, construct the golf course.  They laid the course out on the ground and built it according to plan.

Finally, while the original routing plan for Merion East may never be located, we can piece together enough of the early history to know that H.H. Barker sketched the first routing plan, but it may have been superceded by C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigham, who played a major role in planning the course.   Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd also contributed."


Moriarty pretty clearly said all Wilson and his committee did is build that course 'according to plan'?

Well, if it wasn't Wilson and his committee's plan then whose plan was it in 1910? I think we can see since Moriarty (and MacWood's) interest has always been to show that Macdonald or Macdonald/Whigam have never been given the credit they deserve for the architecture of Merion East that essentially it was Macdonald's plan (routing?).

By the way, nobody but nobody around the entire creation of Merion East EVER used the word "routing" as far as we've ever been able to see. They seemed to refer to what we today call a routing, as a "course" or a "plan" or a "layout".

Let me first say that I have enjoyed all 22 heated pages of this debate and I think this is exactly why I am member here.  The amount I have learned about a place I have only (and likely, will only) see on TV and in pictures, is priceless and the stories are, to me, as interesting as the Jefferson wine bottles.

I want to preface this question by saying that I dont mean it in any accusatory manner, it is merely a question.  For the year-ish I've been a member here I've held the opinions of you and Wayne in high regard so I am not questioning your intent here merely asking what it is.

You express above that DM's interest has always been to show that CBM should get some credit.

What is your interest?

[TEPaul]

"The amount I have learned about a place I have only (and likely, will only) see on TV and in pictures, is priceless and the stories are, to me, as interesting as the Jefferson wine bottles."

JC:

Do you think C.B. Macdonald designed those interesting Jefferson wine bottles too? If so, you better tell that serious West Coast researcher, D. Moriarty, about that. Maybe he can put that into his PART THREE about Macdonald and Wilson and Merion East!

[Rich Goodale]

JC/TEP

Weren't at least some of those "Jefferson" wine bottles proved to be counterfiet?

RFG

[TEPaul]

"I want to preface this question by saying that I dont mean it in any accusatory manner, it is merely a question.  For the year-ish I've been a member here I've held the opinions of you and Wayne in high regard so I am not questioning your intent here merely asking what it is.

You express above that DM's interest has always been to show that CBM should get some credit.

What is your interest?"


JC:

No problem at all--none. It's a good question. Wayne and my only interest in all this is to show as clearly as we possibly can who-all was involved in the routing and design and construction of Merion East, how and when in as much detail as this source material provides, period, end of story.

Of course David Moriarty will tell us that we are out to get him or some other such lunacy but that is not the case at all.

These recently discovered meeting minutes from the old MCC club and some supporting letters show in more detail than those Wilson reports and the Tolhurst Merion history books who-all was involved, how and when. And that includes Wilson and his commitee and Macdonald and Whigam. Unfortunately, or fortunately in the timeframe when the actually routing, design and construction processes went on (1911) there is not a single mention we've been able to find about H.H. Barker's contribution. That was mentioned back in the middle of 1910 as a plan an independent real estate developer supplied MCC with but it appears it was never considered after that.

[DMoriarty]

Is this a correct statement-- "Hugh I. Wilson wrote that he became involved in the project in early 1911."?

He said he was appointed to the committee in early 1911.  He also wrote that the committee members knew no more about construction and greenkeeping than the average club member,  and that at the time he was appointed he did not know what he was getting himself into.    He also wrote that  M&W gave him a good start in the principles of laying out the holes.   He does not reference or mention any earlier involvement.   

All of this is entirely inconsistent the notion that in 1910 having traveled abroad to study golf courses and may have already been trying to plan the course.

I have never seen anything to suggest that Hugh I. Wilson was involved earlier.  The first evidence of his involvement of which I am aware is reportedly a February 1, 1911 letter. 

Here are the first few sentences of Hugh Wilson wrote about becoming involved in the project.

The Merion Cricket Club, of Philadelphia, played golf on leased property for nearly twenty years and, as is usual in this country, the land became so valuable that the club was forced to move.  This experience showed the advantage of permanancy, so early in 1911 the Club appointed a committee consisting of Messrs. Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin, and Wilson to construct a new course on the 125 acres of land which had been purchased.   The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member.  Looking back on the work, I feel certain we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized on-half of the things we did not know.   Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham.

We have no reason to believe Hugh Wilson was involved earlier, and many reasons [including his own statements] to believe he wasn't.  Apparently not even the mystery documents support the notion that H Wilson was involved earlier. 

_______________________________________

TEPaul,   Your duplicitous nature shines through even in your answer to Andy's simple question.   As usual, you misrepresent my essay.   Also you continue to twist the facts to try and lead readers down a path that you KNOW has no validity.

 H.G. Lloyd was on the site Committee as well as the later Construction Committee.  Yet you repeatedly use his  early involvement -- before the site was even purchased -- to support your claim that Hugh Wilson may have been involved.

As for Francis, there is evidence that he was involved earlier, most likely because his engineering skills were needed in figuring out if the holes would fit.   There is no evidence that Hugh Wilson was involved earlier, and I can think of no reason they would have needed maritime(?) insurance. 

_________________________