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

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

I'm guilty, things were moving fast this afternoon on this thread and I basically missed your post #750.

However, Wayne saw it and I've read it now. I believe Ran Morrissett has been made aware of it.

You've been told a number of times now why Wayne wants to hold the actual transcription dissemination of these recently found MCC meeting minutes UNTIL he can get permission from these two clubs to use them on here either with an essay or otherwise. He's done a ton of legwork on this entire subject but people on here and most certainly you have just got to understand and appreciate his position as a member of Merion and as someone who MCC which is still closely connected to Merion Golf but is not the same club has allowed him access to. Without their permission to disseminate this kind of club archive material how can anyone who's thinking halfway responsibly expect him to do anything other than what he is trying to do?

Do you have absolutely no understanding of this? If you do why in the world did you just write another post like that despicable #750 which continues to bait and disparage him and his motives when you've been asked so many times not to do that? Have you no consideration for anyone Moriarty??

If anything happened to Wayne Morrison in or with either of these clubs for what he is trying to do for this website and a better understanding of the history of Merion the blame needs to fall squarely on your callous and inconsiderate head because now you are gambling with someone's actual and daily life. What lengths do you really think you should go to in continuing to promote whatever it is you think you're trying to promote on here?

If anything happens to him over what he's done because of your CONTINUOUS and irresponsible baiting and disparaging of him on here, this entire website, and certainly including Ran Morrissett, should take your sorry ass and throw it off this website for the rest of your life.

So I implore you, and you've been asked pretty nicely a number of times by a couple of people on here---do not hang another post on this website like that #750 in which you continue to disparage Wayne Morrison's modus operandi and his intentions and motives when you've been asked a number of times to please not do that.

Patrick, you're a friend of mine, and you certainly know and understand clubs and I'm asking you as well now, weigh in here and send Moriarty a message any way you want to and implore him to stop this crap he's putting on here about Wayne Morrison and his motives and intentions. I don't care about me because I don't belong to Merion but I care about Wayne as we all should

We want all of Golfclubatlas to have the benefit of a good discussion on this interesting subject but this disparaging of Merion member Morrison by Moriarty who is the ONLY ONE on here doing it has just got to stop and it's got to stop right now!

[TEPaul]

"TE -
I was about to post that I thought this thread should end.  But I for one would very much like to read your thoughts about the reasons why Merion approached Macdonald in the first place."

My pleasure, Peter, but I think I'd rather do that on its own thread.

[DMoriarty]

Dave

This is just my opinion, but the tone of your piece didn't reflect a belief that Wilson was the main man at Merion.  Above, you seem to be saying that Wilson was the main man.  I think if you go back and read your piece you will see how one can be confused.  You spend an inordinate amount of time describing what everybody other than Wilson may have done.   Just to be clear, do you think Wilson was the main man who utilized resources that were available to him?

Ciao

In answering your question I am telling you what I think happened, and not necessarily what I can or will try to support 100% at this time.  So please take it with a grain of salt. 

Not sure what you mean by main man?  I think Wilson was the main man once construction began.  During the pre-construction planning he may have been the main man among those from Merion, but I do not think he was the main creative force behind the plan for the golf course.   I am not saying that M&W were in charge or that they made all the decisions.  Rather, my guess is that Wilson et al. took everything M&W would give them and tried to make it work at Merion.  I think that is why they went to NGLA to meet with M&W for two days-- they needed M&W's guidance and explanation as to how and why to put certain holes in certain places.   

I don't really trust much of what TEPaul writes without him providing support, but if there really were multiple routings in 1911 that doesn't surprise me.  They were trying to make it work and trying different things, and it sounds like M&W may have chosen for them.

My guess is that it was something like the Macdonald-Raynor courses.   According to Whigham, Raynor would often be the one on-site doing the initial planning, but he was trying to plan a CBM course based on CBM's general ideas.  Macdonald would then examine and critique the plan and Raynor would make the changes.     

The difference is Macdonald may have been more hands on at Merion than he was with some of the Macdonald-Raynor designs. 
-- My guess is that M&W gave them some idea of the holes and their placement in 1910, and I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise.   (I am speculating here, but I really doubt that the only contact he had with them for the 7-8 months between the first course visit and the NGLA meeting was the single letter that Wayne posted.  And I really doubt that the site Committee members came away from the first committee with only that letter.)
-- They may have tried to work it out on paper before they went to see M&W, but if they were, they were likely using his ideas when they were trying to work it out.
-- They went to see him and he clarified what he had in mind with sketches, examples, etc..
-- They tried to make this work, and may have considered multiple layouts to make it work.
-- M&W came back down to help them get it right. 
-- They built the course.

So if this is correct who was the main man?   I don't know, and I really don't care.  I am more interested in trying to figure out what happened, because I think it was an important point in the history of American golf course design.

Sean, I noticed your comment in the other thread about the sides not being as far apart as one might think, and while that is possible, especially now that TEPaul is busy trying to claim my ideas as his own.

But still I wonder if perhaps your exposure to these various threads has skewed your understanding of Merion's accepted history, because almost every section in my paper has some fact or analysis that goes beyond or contradicts Merion's  accepted history as it has been understood by almost everyone, including golf writers, golf historians, Tolhurst, Wayne and TEPaul and Mike Cirba.

While I have avoided doing so because it is too close to the credit issue for my comfort, I recently tried to explain a few of the places where Merion's history has been wrong to JES, and cut and paste the same to you, as that post is probably lost in the ocean of TEPaul posts.
 
-- I have never read an account or summary of Merion's history that mentioned that M&W were brought in to inspect the site before Merion purchased it, at least not one written in the past 80 years. 
-- I have never read a historical account (other than Hugh Wilson's essay and Alan Wilson's incomplete mention) that accurately portrayed M&W's role at the NGLA meeting.   Historians and golf writers (and the authors of the yet to be released point-by-point counter to my essay) have relegated M&W's role in these meetings to that of  glorified travel agents.   In reality, they were helping Wilson and his Committee plan the course! 
-- Also, I have never read an account or summary that mentioned that M&W were back on site right before construction, to further help and guide Wilson and his Committee plan and lay out the course.
In short, I have never read another modern account of Merion's history that acknowledges that M&W repeatedly helped the Wilson and his Committee plan the course! 

Moreover, Wilson's role has been exaggerated or otherwise misrepresented by history.   
--He did not travel abroad before building the course. 
--The concepts for the holes did not "spring from the holes he had seen overseas." 
--If he grasped the principles of Scottish and English course design better that Charles Blair Macdonald did," then he gained this knowledge after the initial Merion East was designed and built. 
--Same if his "touch in adopting the features of the famous British holes appears to have been surer than Macdonald's." 

In sum, no modern account explains that M&W were there aiding Merion and both Committees every step of the way until construction began.

Tolhurst's only mentions of M&W's involvement are as follows
1) Before Wilson left to study abroad, "he discussed his itinerary with" CBM.
2) "When Wilson returned from England, both Macdonald and . . . Whigham  . . . freely gave their advice.  So the Club had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill and knowledge of the Committee. "

This is a drastic understatement of M&W's role, and an overstatement of Wilson's.  According to Hugh Wilson, he and his Committee did not have any skill or experience in designing, laying out, or building golf courses, and it was Macdonald and Whigham who guided them through this process!

I hope this helps you understand what I am trying to accomplish here.

[Mike_Cirba]

The idea that Hugh Wilson never travelled abroad before 1912 is seemingly absurd and almost nonsensical given his background and connections, but the truth is simply that it might not be proven in our lifetimes, even with improvements in historical databases and search capabilities.   

I say this simply because I've spent a good deal of time with Ancestry.com and Findyourpast.com during the past few weeks and I've pointed out some of the errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in  the past, not to mention that it's all based on handwriting analysis of some horribly scripted paper documents, but let me simply provide two more examples;

Joe Bausch asked me to look up the date of June 29th, 1907, as the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on that date that "Hugh Wilson" from Philadelphia sailed out of New York for Glasgow on that date on the ship "Columbia".

Firstly, the Ancestry.com site only shows incoming traffic..not outgoing.

However, unless our Hugh Wilson emigrated from Philadelphia to Scotland, there is not a single reasonable example of a "Hugh Wilson" coming back to the United States in 1907, to any port!   

The closest is an "H. Wilson", who came back to Philadelphia in May (before this trip), and who was 19 years old.

Another example of personal interest to me, given my Cobb's Creek research, is the case of one Joseph Coble, the 1924 United States Publinx Champion, who developed his game at Cobb's Creek.

Coble was born in 1897, and emigrated to the United States in 1904 with his two brothers. 

He lived near Atlantic City, and then moved to northern New Jersey, where he caddied for Jerome Travers when he won the 1910 US Open at Baltusrol.

He spent 3.5 years in France, fighting in World War I, before coming back to Philadelphia to live in 1919.

He stayed in the Philadelphia area his entire life, until his death in 1951.

So, given all of those moves...emigration..enlistment...stable background, etc....what do we have available to us for Joe Coble on Ancestry.Com?

Well..

We'd never know he arrived in the United States in 1904.

There is no record of it.

We'd never know he was here during the 1910 Census.

There is no record of it.

We'd never know he enlisted or was drafted.

There is no record of it.

We'd never know he returned before 1920, or was in the US during the 1920 Census.

There is no record of it.

By 1930, we have the FIRST and ONLY mention of Joe Coble's existence, wherein the 1930 US Census we see Joe, his wife Emma, and his daughter Regina.

There are no further records available in Ancestry.Com,...not in the 1940 or 1950 census records, not in death records, or anything else.

Yet, this is the Bible we've been presented with that is supposed to be our record of proof that Hugh Wilson never went to Europe in 1910.

I might just as well argue that because Barack Obama was never mentioned in the year 2000 in the New York Times as someone who was a presidential contender in 2008 that it would have been impossible for him to be one and have a similar grounds for accuracy.

[Mike_Cirba]

My guess is that it was something like the Macdonald-Raynor courses.   According to Whigham, Raynor would often be the one on-site doing the initial planning, but he was trying to plan a CBM course based on CBM's general ideas.  Macdonald would then examine and critique the plan and Raynor would make the changes.     

The difference is Macdonald may have been more hands on at Merion than he was with some of the Macdonald-Raynor designs. 

David,

CB Macdonald was onsite at Merion for 1 day prior to site selection and 1 day prior to construction (giving his opinion on which of 5 plans might work best with the property) between mid-June 1910 when the site was being selected and the course opening in mid-September 1912 and you would have us believe that he somehow got the shaft in the story of the creation of Merion, or worse yet, that he was somehow more "hands on" at Merion than at his other courses...courses that have been attributed to him without question?

David...surely you can see that Macdonald and Whigham's onsite time of 48 hours during a total time-period of NINTEEN THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED, AND FOURTY-EIGHT HOURS might not have constituted much if anything to the creation of Merion East, despite all the very gracious, hospitable, respectful, humble, and genteel words of the Wilson's et.al. to the contrary.

[TEPaul]

Wait a minute David Moriarty:

Is it actually possible that you don’t see a rather large inconsistency between what you JUST said above on this thread----eg:



“I don't really trust much of what TEPaul writes without him providing support, but if there really were multiple routings in 1911 that doesn't surprise me.  They were trying to make it work and trying different things, and it sounds like M&W may have chosen for them.”

AND THIS, which you said in your essay:

“"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."


What the hell are you going to do next, put the fact in PART TWO of your essay that Wilson and his committee did multiple routing of the course in 1911 and Macdonald didn’t do one in 1910 and that YOU TOLD ME THAT??? 

Does anyone on this website really want to listen to this crap from this joker any more?

I suggest everyone carefully read what Moriarty just said that's quoted above in this post and what he said in his essay and how preposterously inconsistent it really is.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

The really fun part is that isn't what David is purporting to present at all.

Or is it?

He's also trying to simultanously prove that Wilson's Committee didn't design the golf course while proving that it was designed by Committee.

He's trying to find out who did what when while telling us that it makes sense that none of them actually did anything at that time because they already did nothing in 1910.

And Macdonald had more "hands on" work at Merion in the 2 of 822 days between site selection and construction that he spent at Merion than any of his other courses where there is clear attribution for him.

And he was simply and humbly noble and silent at Merion when he continuously and ferociously took on virtually anyone and everything to do with golf during his ANGRY period which seems to have lasted...oh...between 1910 and his death in the late 1930s.

It's ALL in there TOM...IF YOU JUST READ THE ESSAY, for crying out loud!

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Sometime perhaps in the next year or so all of us are going to have to realize that it doesn't make any difference at all WHEN Wilson went abroad or even if he NEVER went abroad. The fact is the board meeting minutes of MCC from 1911 will show that he and his committee did the routing and design plans for the way Merion East was built and that Macdonald/Whigam just advised them and made suggestions about THEIR (Wilson and committee's) routings and design plans just as the Wilson brothers reports have always said.

As clear as this all is for all kinds of reasons I just know when a guy like Moriarty actually reads the specific words of those board meeting minutes, despite all the other surrounding information, he will probably try to tell us that Macdonald/Whigam did there own routing and design plan in one day on April 6, 1911 and that that was the plan that Wilson and committee built. Mark my word, this is something he will try to claim when he reads these meeting minutes! 

Whatever Tolhurst's interpretation of trips and events was is something that probably needs to be looked into until some answer is found for why he said what he did in his history book but that will never change the validity of these 1910 and 1911 board meeting minutes as to what ACTUALLY happened in 1910 and 1911.

Do you think it's ever going to be possible that Moriarty or any of these people on here are EVER going to really understand that??

[Mike_Cirba]

Do you think it's ever going to be possible that Moriarty or any of these people on here are EVER going to really understand that??

Tom,

I don't know about "these people", but I do believe that as long as there is a single unproven fact left open to be exploited or misconstrued to a larger audience who have neither the time nor resources nor inclination to dig into the endless, poorly-documented quarry that is the history of golf in 1910, you can be pretty damn sure that it will be exploited for personal attention and the furthering of personal agendas on this site.

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty:

I'm guilty, things were moving fast this afternoon on this thread and I basically missed your post #750.

However, Wayne saw it and I've read it now. I believe Ran Morrissett has been made aware of it.

I've reviewed the post and stand by every word of it and would be glad to explain further if necessary.   

You've been told a number of times now why Wayne wants to hold the actual transcription dissemination of these recently found MCC meeting minutes UNTIL he can get permission from these two clubs to use them on here either with an essay or otherwise.

As far as I am concerned you don't speak for Wayne or Merion.  If Wayne wants to discuss the issue with me he knows how to reach me.  He should have handled it off-site in the first place. I'd like to hear about his change of heart on peer review. 

Do you have absolutely no understanding of this? If you do why in the world did you just write another post like that despicable #750 which continues to bait and disparage him and his motives when you've been asked so many times not to do that? Have you no consideration for anyone Moriarty??

I expect you guys to play be the same rules as everyone else.   If you cant use the documents, then don't.   If you want to use them then do so transparently.    This ought to be obvious to anyone, even you.   

You guys just don't want to take responsibility for your own irresponsibility, both to the Clubs and to this website.  You are doing us all of us-- the clubs and the site-- a disservice by presenting your version without giving us a chance to challenge it. 

If anything happened to Wayne Morrison in or with either of these clubs for what he is trying to do for this website and a better understanding of the history of Merion the blame needs to fall squarely on your callous and inconsiderate head because now you are gambling with someone's actual and daily life. What lengths do you really think you should go to in continuing to promote whatever it is you think you're trying to promote on here?

If anything happens to Wayne he has only himself to blame.   He cherry-picked documents to try and make a point, and then set up both Clubs as his scapegoats for his refusal to come clean with the rest.   Yet he continues to let you use the documents on a daily basis to trya and make your points without real, verifiable support. 

Wayne controls the documents, not me.    I am more than willing to respect the Club's confidentiality, it is you guys who are not.

If the documents cannot be used, he and you should not use them.  If they can be used, they should be be subject to scrutiny and review.   

If anything happens to him over what he's done because of your CONTINUOUS and irresponsible baiting and disparaging of him on here, this entire website, and certainly including Ran Morrissett, should take your sorry ass and throw it off this website for the rest of your life.

If I get thrown off because of Wayne's lapse in judgment, then so be it. 

So I implore you, and you've been asked pretty nicely a number of times by a couple of people on here---do not hang another post on this website like that #750 in which you continue to disparage Wayne Morrison's modus operandi and his intentions and motives when you've been asked a number of times to please not do that.

I call them as I see them.  And am willing to produce the facts to back up what I see.  As long as you guys give us only your version of the facts to support one side of the argument, I will continue to do so. 

We want all of Golfclubatlas to have the benefit of a good discussion on this interesting subject but this disparaging of Merion member Morrison by Moriarty who is the ONLY ONE on here doing it has just got to stop and it's got to stop right now!

It is not a "discussion" if only one side is allowed to speak.  And that is what you have been doing and what you have been advocating. 
______________________________________

Look Tom, I sympathize with Wayne, he not only has to worry about the Clubs, but he has you running rampant with supposedly confidential information and repeatedly misrepresenting the views of his Club. 

But I am not the problem. You and Wayne created this mess and make it worse on a daily basis.  I am sure the Clubs realize this whether or not I point it out.  My concern is not with the Clubs, but is with how information is presented on here.  Wayne needs to play by the same rules he demands of everyone else.   Surely that is reasonable. 

If Wayne wants to discuss this further or to try to bring it to some sort of resolution, have him contact me.  He knows how to reach me. 

____________________________________

David Moriarty:

Of course I'm not kidding you.

Well I read your post of the "facts" as you choose to present them, and even based on these, you MUST be kidding me.  Nothing you wrote would proves that there was no planning done in 1910.  In fact it implies that there was, because you have to go out of your way to write things like  "no definite course has been planned" or  "there was no routing 1910 anything like the course got built."   

You wouldn't have to include all the modifiers if no planning had taken place.  You include them so you can create the impression that no planning had taken place, when in fact you must know that planning had taken place.   

But you imply otherwise again and again. Yet another cheap rhetorical trick to to try and fool people without technically being caught lying.  This is exactly the sort of manipulation of the source material that would be avoided if you guys would  come clean.

But you just refuse to listen and it is no wonder at all as it's not the truth you are after, you are apparently only after trying to salvage these speculative premises of yours that Macdonald produced a routing before November 15 1910 and Francis and Lloyd "tweaked" it. It's certainly clear to all of us that if you can't do that your whole essay and its conclusion falls apart.

Refuse to listen?   I listen to facts, not your or Wayne's skewed version of what facts you choose to mention.  But regardless of your past misinterpretations and omissions, I'd still only listen to the facts, because that is the way historical research works. 

But I'll tell you right now if you use that ridiculous technique with these letters and meeting minutes the discussion with us will be done. I don't care how much you choose to defend your unsupportable premises men like these do not write a letter to the president of the club proposing a complex financial structure and engage in hyperbole, and these obviously intelligent and effective and powerful men do not sit in board meetings with one another and engage in hyperbole over something they are all trying to accomplish together.

So if you even insinuate something like that in the future when these documents are disseminated, as you have so often in the past, I would be shocked if a single person on this website or anywhere else took you and your essay seriously, not that many seem to now.

These paragraphs and many others again demonstrate that you are either unwilling or unable to understand what has gone on here.   I never accused any of these men of engaging in hyperbole.  I mentioned the possibility once as a counter to my own argument.   But you are much more interested in maligning me and making me look like the bad guy than dealing with the facts.  Same thing you guys have done with M&W.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I don't know about "these people", but I do believe that as long as there is a single unproven fact left open to be exploited or misconstrued to a larger audience who have neither the time nor resources nor inclination to dig into the endless, poorly-documented quarry that is the history of golf in 1910, you can be pretty damn sure that it will be exploited for personal attention and the furthering of personal agendas on this site."

Mike:

You may be right about that. Maybe that day has come on this website. Wayne and I have talked about that and if that day has come the both of us will just shut the door on this place and just let it have these 30 pages thread disussions with waste-of-time people like Moriarty and we'll just go on to other things that are more productive, in our opinions, with the history of golf course architecture.

[DMoriarty]

My guess is that it was something like the Macdonald-Raynor courses.   According to Whigham, Raynor would often be the one on-site doing the initial planning, but he was trying to plan a CBM course based on CBM's general ideas.  Macdonald would then examine and critique the plan and Raynor would make the changes.     

The difference is Macdonald may have been more hands on at Merion than he was with some of the Macdonald-Raynor designs. 

David,

CB Macdonald was onsite at Merion for 1 day prior to site selection and 1 day prior to construction (giving his opinion on which of 5 plans might work best with the property) between mid-June 1910 when the site was being selected and the course opening in mid-September 1912 and you would have us believe that he somehow got the shaft in the story of the creation of Merion, or worse yet, that he was somehow more "hands on" at Merion than at his other courses...courses that have been attributed to him without question?

David...surely you can see that Macdonald and Whigham's onsite time of 48 hours during a total time-period of NINTEEN THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED, AND FOURTY-EIGHT HOURS might not have constituted much if anything to the creation of Merion East, despite all the very gracious, hospitable, respectful, humble, and genteel words of the Wilson's et.al. to the contrary.

Mike, You're back.

And still with assertions without basis.   One day and one day?    I don't recall seeing any proof of this.   

But I see you too are referencing the supposedly confidential documents. 

Is there anyone out there who has not reviewed the source material, other than me?? 

But whatever, you are still offering facts and conclusions without supporting them.

And you forgot the NGLA time.  And whatever time he spent working on this stuff when he was at NGLA.

Regardless, one cannot judge their contribution based on time.  Their time was much more valuable than the time of many others.
_______________

As for your latest wild goose chase, I didnt read it all, but I am curious what you think it would prove if Wilson traveled abroad in 1907?

Wait a minute David Moriarty:

Is it actually possible that you don’t see a rather large inconsistency between what you JUST said above on this thread----eg:



“I don't really trust much of what TEPaul writes without him providing support, but if there really were multiple routings in 1911 that doesn't surprise me.  They were trying to make it work and trying different things, and it sounds like M&W may have chosen for them.”

AND THIS, which you said in your essay:

“"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."

What the hell are you going to do next, put the fact in PART TWO of your essay that Wilson and his committee did multiple routing of the course in 1911 and Macdonald didn’t do one in 1910 and that YOU TOLD ME THAT??? 

Does anyone on this website really want to listen to this crap from this joker any more?

I suggest everyone carefully read what Moriarty just said that's quoted above in this post and what he said in his essay and how preposterously inconsistent it really is.

No contradiction.  They were trying to work it out in 1910.   Francis told us that, and so far no facts contradict this.  But Wilson was not involved until later.  And M&W did play a major role in the planning.

Nonetheless, I will probably rewrite this paragraph in my essay to better reflects the facts as I currently know them.  My plan has always been to update it as more facts became known, and the one letter that has been produce casts some doubt on exactly how and when the routing was planned.   But without disclosure of the rest, who knows?

[TEPaul]

"No contradiction.  They were trying to work it out in 1910.   Francis told us that, and so far no facts contradict this."

Is that right?

You show me and all of us WHERE Francis told us his landswap idea HAPPENED in 1910! And if you can't do that what are you going to do next Moriarty, just dismiss it or ignore it again?

[DMoriarty]

"No contradiction.  They were trying to work it out in 1910.   Francis told us that, and so far no facts contradict this."

Is that right?

You show me and all of us WHERE Francis told us his landswap idea HAPPENED in 1910! And if you can't do that what are you going to do next Moriarty, just dismiss it or ignore it again?

Francis told us the details of the swap, and Merion's Board and the map they distributed provide the information necessary to date it.   

But if there are primary sources to the contrary, I will gladly consider them.  Your version is not a primary source.

[TEPaul]

"You guys just don't want to take responsibility for your own irresponsibility, both to the Clubs and to this website.  You are doing us all of us-- the clubs and the site-- a disservice by presenting your version without giving us a chance to challenge it.  


Quote
If anything happened to Wayne Morrison in or with either of these clubs for what he is trying to do for this website and a better understanding of the history of Merion the blame needs to fall squarely on your callous and inconsiderate head because now you are gambling with someone's actual and daily life. What lengths do you really think you should go to in continuing to promote whatever it is you think you're trying to promote on here?

If anything happens to Wayne he has only himself to blame.   He cherry-picked documents to try and make a point, and then set up both Clubs as his scapegoats for his refusal to come clean with the rest.   Yet he continues to let you use the documents on a daily basis to trya and make your points without real, verifiable support.  

Wayne controls the documents, not me.    I am more than willing to respect the Club's confidentiality, it is you guys who are not.

If the documents cannot be used, he and you should not use them.  If they can be used, they should be be subject to scrutiny and review.  


Quote
If anything happens to him over what he's done because of your CONTINUOUS and irresponsible baiting and disparaging of him on here, this entire website, and certainly including Ran Morrissett, should take your sorry ass and throw it off this website for the rest of your life.

If I get thrown off because of Wayne's lapse in judgment, then so be it.  


Quote
So I implore you, and you've been asked pretty nicely a number of times by a couple of people on here---do not hang another post on this website like that #750 in which you continue to disparage Wayne Morrison's modus operandi and his intentions and motives when you've been asked a number of times to please not do that.

I call them as I see them.  And am willing to produce the facts to back up what I see.  As long as you guys give us only your version of the facts to support one side of the argument, I will continue to do so."




All right then, I asked you not to insult Wayne Morrison's intentions again and you did.

We talked to Ran Morrissett about it and we will put an IMO essay on here if we get the clubs' permission. We'll do it for the good of the accurate history of Merion. And I'll consider doing another one on the dangers to historiography of the type of revisionist history you've foisted on here.

Wayne and I have talked about it and although it's pretty amazing to imagine we think you've pretty much single handedly destroyed the credibility of this website with some of the things we care about like Merion G.C. and neither one of us are interested in this website any longer as long as you're on it acting the way you have. We feel we have better and more important things to do with our interest in architecture and its history than this.

  

[DMoriarty]

All right then, I asked you not to insult Wayne Morrison's intentions again and you did.

We talked to Ran Morrissett about it and we will put an IMO essay on here if we get the clubs' permission. We'll do it for the good of the accurate history of Merion. And I'll consider doing another one on the dangers to historiography of the type of revisionist history you've foisted on here.

Wayne and I have talked about it and although it's pretty amazing to imagine we think you've pretty much single handedly destroyed the credibility of this website with some of the things we care about like Merion G.C. and neither one of us are interested in this website any longer as long as you're on it acting the way you have. We feel we have better and more important things to do with our interest in architecture and its history than this.

I insulted his intentions?  By insisting he follow the same generally accepted standards as everyone else? 

Interesting perspective, but I disagree. 

Good Luck.

   

[Sean_A]

Dave

This is just my opinion, but the tone of your piece didn't reflect a belief that Wilson was the main man at Merion.  Above, you seem to be saying that Wilson was the main man.  I think if you go back and read your piece you will see how one can be confused.  You spend an inordinate amount of time describing what everybody other than Wilson may have done.   Just to be clear, do you think Wilson was the main man who utilized resources that were available to him?

Ciao

In answering your question I am telling you what I think happened, and not necessarily what I can or will try to support 100% at this time.  So please take it with a grain of salt. 

Not sure what you mean by main man?  I think Wilson was the main man once construction began.  During the pre-construction planning he may have been the main man among those from Merion, but I do not think he was the main creative force behind the plan for the golf course.   I am not saying that M&W were in charge or that they made all the decisions.  Rather, my guess is that Wilson et al. took everything M&W would give them and tried to make it work at Merion.  I think that is why they went to NGLA to meet with M&W for two days-- they needed M&W's guidance and explanation as to how and why to put certain holes in certain places.   

I don't really trust much of what TEPaul writes without him providing support, but if there really were multiple routings in 1911 that doesn't surprise me.  They were trying to make it work and trying different things, and it sounds like M&W may have chosen for them.

My guess is that it was something like the Macdonald-Raynor courses.   According to Whigham, Raynor would often be the one on-site doing the initial planning, but he was trying to plan a CBM course based on CBM's general ideas.  Macdonald would then examine and critique the plan and Raynor would make the changes.     

The difference is Macdonald may have been more hands on at Merion than he was with some of the Macdonald-Raynor designs. 
-- My guess is that M&W gave them some idea of the holes and their placement in 1910, and I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise.   (I am speculating here, but I really doubt that the only contact he had with them for the 7-8 months between the first course visit and the NGLA meeting was the single letter that Wayne posted.  And I really doubt that the site Committee members came away from the first committee with only that letter.)
-- They may have tried to work it out on paper before they went to see M&W, but if they were, they were likely using his ideas when they were trying to work it out.
-- They went to see him and he clarified what he had in mind with sketches, examples, etc..
-- They tried to make this work, and may have considered multiple layouts to make it work.
-- M&W came back down to help them get it right. 
-- They built the course.

So if this is correct who was the main man?   I don't know, and I really don't care.  I am more interested in trying to figure out what happened, because I think it was an important point in the history of American golf course design.

Sean, I noticed your comment in the other thread about the sides not being as far apart as one might think, and while that is possible, especially now that TEPaul is busy trying to claim my ideas as his own.

But still I wonder if perhaps your exposure to these various threads has skewed your understanding of Merion's accepted history, because almost every section in my paper has some fact or analysis that goes beyond or contradicts Merion's  accepted history as it has been understood by almost everyone, including golf writers, golf historians, Tolhurst, Wayne and TEPaul and Mike Cirba.

While I have avoided doing so because it is too close to the credit issue for my comfort, I recently tried to explain a few of the places where Merion's history has been wrong to JES, and cut and paste the same to you, as that post is probably lost in the ocean of TEPaul posts.
 
-- I have never read an account or summary of Merion's history that mentioned that M&W were brought in to inspect the site before Merion purchased it, at least not one written in the past 80 years. 
-- I have never read a historical account (other than Hugh Wilson's essay and Alan Wilson's incomplete mention) that accurately portrayed M&W's role at the NGLA meeting.   Historians and golf writers (and the authors of the yet to be released point-by-point counter to my essay) have relegated M&W's role in these meetings to that of  glorified travel agents.   In reality, they were helping Wilson and his Committee plan the course! 
-- Also, I have never read an account or summary that mentioned that M&W were back on site right before construction, to further help and guide Wilson and his Committee plan and lay out the course.
In short, I have never read another modern account of Merion's history that acknowledges that M&W repeatedly helped the Wilson and his Committee plan the course! 

Moreover, Wilson's role has been exaggerated or otherwise misrepresented by history.   
--He did not travel abroad before building the course. 
--The concepts for the holes did not "spring from the holes he had seen overseas." 
--If he grasped the principles of Scottish and English course design better that Charles Blair Macdonald did," then he gained this knowledge after the initial Merion East was designed and built. 
--Same if his "touch in adopting the features of the famous British holes appears to have been surer than Macdonald's." 

In sum, no modern account explains that M&W were there aiding Merion and both Committees every step of the way until construction began.

Tolhurst's only mentions of M&W's involvement are as follows
1) Before Wilson left to study abroad, "he discussed his itinerary with" CBM.
2) "When Wilson returned from England, both Macdonald and . . . Whigham  . . . freely gave their advice.  So the Club had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill and knowledge of the Committee. "

This is a drastic understatement of M&W's role, and an overstatement of Wilson's.  According to Hugh Wilson, he and his Committee did not have any skill or experience in designing, laying out, or building golf courses, and it was Macdonald and Whigham who guided them through this process!

I hope this helps you understand what I am trying to accomplish here.

David

Thanks for the reply.  It does make things clearer in my mind.  However, I must admit that you are skating on very thin ice, at least as thin as the idea of Wilson never travelling to the UK before or during the making of Merion which I do believe a trip in 1912 would at least have had some effect in how the course eventually turned out.  A point that seems lost in all the back biting and also why I think Wilson was the main man - he remained at Merion. 

I guess my problem with your concept would start with the idea that there was no guiding force behind the Merion project.  Every project has a main man either explicitly or implicitly.  I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that several different people were making decisions without some form of overall control. 

In any case, I can accept your theory as a possibility, but agree to disagree until more cards are played. 

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

David

Thanks for the reply.  It does make things clearer in my mind.  However, I must admit that you are skating on very thin ice, at least as thin as the idea of Wilson never travelling to the UK before or during the making of Merion which I do believe a trip in 1912 would at least have had some effect in how the course eventually turned out.  A point that seems lost in all the back biting and also why I think Wilson was the main man - he remained at Merion.

I guess my problem with your concept would start with the idea that there was no guiding force behind the Merion project.  Every project has a main man either explicitly or implicitly.  I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that several different people were making decisions without some form of overall control. 

In any case, I can accept your theory as a possibility, but agree to disagree until more cards are played. 

Ciao

I think there were identifiable guiding forces. 
-On the financial and business side there was H.G. Lloyd who played a large role in making the whole thing happen and kept his hand in the design and construction process. 
-On the creative side the facts as I know them strongly suggest M&W were the creative forces throughout the planning process.   
-Once construction got going Wilson appears to have become the main man, and his creative role may have blossomed as he gained experience and knowledge, and after he studied overseas.

Where it gets confusing is when we start to put labels on it.   M&W were "advisors."  But this has been used to discount their involvement.    But, hypothetically, if M&W advised on every aspect of the plan, and their advice was always followed, then should we ignore or discount their contribution simply because the were called "advisors."  I don't think so, but this really is not my issue.

One of my issues is why, from a design perspective, did the course turn out the way it did, and I think I need to understand the earliest iteration of the course to figure this out.   So it doesn't matter who gets credited, but it does matter what ideas formed the basis for the holes. 


As for the trip,  I'll bet the 1912 trip had an impact.   But as far as I know it did not change the underlying ideas and principles that formed the basis for the golf holes.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

The short answer is that you use Ancestry.Com as a primary source in your document, and then state that because you were only able to find a single visit (re: "Manifest") of a Hugh Wilson returning to the US from abroad (the trip in 1912), then there is no way that he went prior.

It's what you imply, it's what you state, and a large part of your argument hinges on that premise.

Basically, if you read my post, which you claim you haven't, you'd see once again that your primary source is almost worthless in that regard...actually, it's worse than worthless because partial information is way more misleading than simply missing information.   It's like trying to base a case on the street snitch who suddenly changes his story on the witness stand.

I do wish it was much more accurate because I am trying to use it for other research purposes, but it truly sucks the big one.   It's not the company's fault...it's a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out".

To answer your specific question about what it would mean if Hugh Wilson went to Europe in 1907, the short answer would be that he went to Europe in 1907.   Given his sporting background, his love of golf, and his connections, it's likely he'd have played a round or two.

The real truth is that he could have gone once, or ten times, or fifty times overseas prior to 1912 and we'd likely never know it given the scant, inaccurate info available from the online sources, as well as the possibility of him travelling on a private vessel.   

We just don't know, and given the partial and error-laden records available, it's unlikely we'll find out.


As far as Macdonald's onsite time of 48 hours of 19,548 available between his June 1910 visit and the opening of the course, we also know that half of that time was spent creating the next-to-worthless "letter" that's been produced here previously.   

So, sometime after 5 routings magically appeared, he came back for a day in April 1911 and helped them pick the best one.

BFFD.   

[Andy Hughes]

Why put Wilson on the committee at all, much less at its head if he knew so little. Particularly with Fred Pickering onsite...a man who had built quite a few highly regarded courses at the time.?

Mike, OK, I know I am getting a little jab here.  But I have known you (virtually) long enough to know that you must wonder the same thing. And other than your best guesses last week (which were reasonably possible), there really has been no comment or documentation on why it was Wilson. If it has been Travis or Pickering or Colt, we would not really need to wonder, but Wilson?

[Andy Hughes]

"David, why do you believe that with so many wealthy, high-powered members desiring a top golf course they went with someone who by his own admission didn't know much about the task? It seems such an oddity to me."

Andy:

I believe I have a good and really simple answer for that but David Moriarty has gotten so weird with us here, I'd be happy to tell you what my opinion is on that but only if you address the question to me!

Tom, why do you believe that with so many wealthy, high-powered members desiring a top golf course they went with someone who by his own admission didn't know much about the task? It seems such an oddity to me.   

[Andy Hughes]

If he was involved before 1911, then the rest of his 1916 essay makes no sense.

David, to what are you referring specifically?  The help from CBM, trip to NGLA etc?

[Andy Hughes]

First, I dont think he was put in charge.  I am not even sure that the committee had a chair when it was appointed.   I suspect that it did not.

Second, I think Merion planned to lean heavily on CBM and they did.

Interesting.  You think Wilson gradually, then, became the leader of the Committee? It certainly sounded from later writings that there wasn't much doubt who was actually in charge or making the decisions.
Why do you think Merion planned to lean on CBM? Was there something in the early documentation that leads you to that belief?

[Peter Pallotta]

Sorry gents, but IMO there is nothing good coming out of this thread anymore, and much that is wildly counterproductive besides being regretable and mean-spirited.  David's written an essay, based on the facts he had and what he derived/concluded from those facts. Tom and Wayne will write their essay on the same basis. All this talk of co-operation and sharing of sources and peer review is nonsensical on a site like this, IMO. But at any rate, it seems to me that the thread has become a marketing exercise - a re-packaging of the elements of the argument(s) for the benefit of the masses. And that re-packaging is actually a devolution, not a progression. David, in your case you seem to be arguing from absence in two different (and opposite) ways, i.e. when you can't find a record of Wilson travelling, it proves to you he didn't go; but when you can't find a record of M&W routing/designing the course, it proves to you that the record is wrong. How in goodness is anyone suppossed to work with that, or move towards greater clarity and understanding through that approach? It seems to me the very definition of arguing from conclusions and of a priori reasoning, which is fine in an opinion piece and as the foundation for speculative analysis, but won't hold up if the aim is developing an agreed upon and definitive history. For me, the shame is that there is much to learn here besides the specifics of Merion's earliest days. (I'm somewhat interested in that; but really, I'd be much more interested if one day I could walk the course alongside an expert guide who can point out all its strengths and the reasons why it's held in such high regard).  This process/debate could have been an opportunity to better understand the early history of  golf course architecture in America, i.e. the interplay of the various approaches and challenges and people and ideas struggling together to hash out greater refinement and sophistication in the art and craft of golf course architecture, and most importantly what the ultimate goals of that art and craft should be.   

Peter   

[Patrick_Mucci]

The idea that Hugh Wilson never travelled abroad before 1912 is seemingly absurd and almost nonsensical given his background and connections, but the truth is simply that it might not be proven in our lifetimes, even with improvements in historical databases and search capabilities.   

Mike,  Tolhurst writes "that BEFORE he left to study abroad he discussed his itinerary with MacDonald."

If, as you insisted, MacDonald's first visit to Merion was in June of 1910, that could only mean that Wilson traveled abroad subsequent to that date.

However, we know that Wilson played in a tournament in October of 1910.

Tell me how he compressed an extended 7 month trip to study courses in the UK to less than 3 months ?

Do you think that Wilson attended the meeting at Merion in June of 1910 with MacDonald, or do you think that he wasn't in the loop yet ?

And, If Wilson studied in the UK for 7 months prior to the committee meeting with MacDonald at NGLA, why did he write about how little he knew and how much he learned from that meeting  ?

You continue to cling to the romantic notion that Wilson spent 7 months studying the great courses of the UK prior to Jan, 1911, when absolutely NO concrete evidence supports that claim, AND, writings from multiple parties clearly place his FIRST visit to the UK in 1912.

It's absurd of you to claim otherwise.[/color]

I say this simply because I've spent a good deal of time with Ancestry.com and Findyourpast.com during the past few weeks and I've pointed out some of the errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in  the past, not to mention that it's all based on handwriting analysis of some horribly scripted paper documents, but let me simply provide two more examples;

Joe Bausch asked me to look up the date of June 29th, 1907, as the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on that date that "Hugh Wilson" from Philadelphia sailed out of New York for Glasgow on that date on the ship "Columbia".

Firstly, the Ancestry.com site only shows incoming traffic..not outgoing.

However, unless our Hugh Wilson emigrated from Philadelphia to Scotland, there is not a single reasonable example of a "Hugh Wilson" coming back to the United States in 1907, to any port!   

Not "OUR" Hugh Wilson, but, "A" Hugh Wilson[/color]

The closest is an "H. Wilson", who came back to Philadelphia in May (before this trip), and who was 19 years old.

Another example of personal interest to me, given my Cobb's Creek research, is the case of one Joseph Coble, the 1924 United States Publinx Champion, who developed his game at Cobb's Creek.

Coble was born in 1897, and emigrated to the United States in 1904 with his two brothers. 

He lived near Atlantic City, and then moved to northern New Jersey, where he caddied for Jerome Travers when he won the 1910 US Open at Baltusrol.

He spent 3.5 years in France, fighting in World War I, before coming back to Philadelphia to live in 1919.

He stayed in the Philadelphia area his entire life, until his death in 1951.

So, given all of those moves...emigration..enlistment...stable background, etc....what do we have available to us for Joe Coble on Ancestry.Com?

Well..

We'd never know he arrived in the United States in 1904.

There is no record of it.

We'd never know he was here during the 1910 Census.

There is no record of it.

We'd never know he enlisted or was drafted.

There is no record of it.

We'd never know he returned before 1920, or was in the US during the 1920 Census.

There is no record of it.

By 1930, we have the FIRST and ONLY mention of Joe Coble's existence, wherein the 1930 US Census we see Joe, his wife Emma, and his daughter Regina.

There are no further records available in Ancestry.Com,...not in the 1940 or 1950 census records, not in death records, or anything else.

Joe Coble, and everything about him is irrelevant to the issue at hand.[/color]

Yet, this is the Bible we've been presented with that is supposed to be our record of proof that Hugh Wilson never went to Europe in 1910.

Not by itself, but in conjunction with Wilson's own words, newspaper articles, Tolhurst's own words, etc., et..

The broadening body of evidence leads prudent men to reach a reasonable conclusion, not an irrational, wishful conclusion based on Joe Coble's life.[/color]

I might just as well argue that because Barack Obama was never mentioned in the year 2000 in the New York Times as someone who was a presidential contender in 2008 that it would have been impossible for him to be one and have a similar grounds for accuracy.


Mike, your reasoning gets more absurd as your desperation to glorify Wilson's curriculum vitae intensifies.

Just out of curiosity, WHY would Wilson go to the UK in 1904 or 1907 to study golf courses ?

And, if he did, why would he need MacDonald to help him with his itinerary of courses to study on a subsequent trip ?

If he was as learned about the great courses and holes of the UK, as you indicated, from reading newspapers, magazines and talking to others who had been there, why, after he was there once, would he need MacDonald to lay out his itinerary of courses to study ?

Sure, even through your biased eyes, you can see the folly of your insistance that Wilson went to the UK prior to June, 1910 to study the great courses for 7 months.

The records and more importantly, the chronology and logic don't support your contention, which relies, misguided on the life and tracking of Joe Coble[/color]