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

[TEPaul]

(Message deleted due to the stupidity of the person who posted it)

I would like to say that I've been called on the carpet, so to speak, by more than one GOLFCLUBATLASER for the inconsiderate and shocking nature of my earlier post in this space on the He-Man nature of the style and type of Merion East apparently due to what I said were the preferences of those Men from Merion who created it. I only meant to be humorous and I hope I was not too insensitive regarding the sensibilities of any of those wonderful men of Merion of a century ago about their sexual orientations or whatever.

And I particularly apologize to Devereaux Emmet and any vestiges of his family that are left today. I do not think he was gay and consequently could not have been the initiator or leader of a school of architecture I referred to as the "Great American School of GAY Golf Course Architecture."

As for Devereaux preferences in architecture or otherwise, all I can say is when he went to see his haberdasher or hat maker when he bought that crazy hat and white suit that he had on when he had that famous photograph taken-----well, Dev, I think you just had a sort of a bad suit and hat selection day, no more, and I'm sorry I took humorous advantage of your lapse of judgment on that particular day.

But I will say one thing, I have always wondered where Tom Wolfe got that crazy white suit outfit idea that was his trademark, and now I know!

[TEPaul]

double post, I don't get the mechanics of this site anymore 

[DMoriarty]

TomPaul,  I am no longer participating in the "substance" of this thread, as I have already answered every question at least three times.   There is little if any "substance" anyway since you and your buddies are still playing hide-the-ball with the sources.

Forgive me all else, but I cannot help but comment on this latest asinine post. 

TEPaul, Wayne, and Mike have been similarly snickering and misleading for years.  It is their usual M.O.  Their heroes' accomplishments have been fictionalized and exaggerated well beyond what any reasonable reading of the historical record will support, and at least TomP and Wayne have long had reason to know this.   So TomP, Wayne, Mike, and others are reduced to  tearing down these TRULY GREAT AND IMPORTANT MEN, the very same men who did as much or more for American Golf and Golf Design than any other men in history.  Absolutely despicable.

And for years they have done exactly the same thing on this board. When MacWood, when I, or when anyone else brings forward any FACTS that they don't like and don't want revealed they attack mercilessly.  They call us liars, call into question our intelligence, methods,  and our motivations.   Lie about our actions.   Try everything they
 can to curtain us from the historical record.  Even lie to us about what Merion, the USGA, Rand Jerris, and mysterious and anonomous Canadian researchers and others think about our work.   Tear us down to build up their own shaky legends.  It has never been about the TRUTH for these guys, it has been about pride.  Concealing the truth.  Saving face.   Protecting their lies and legends.     A conspiracy of two.  Now three.

In humor or not, it is outrageous, offensive, and an embarrassment to them, Merion, gca.com, and all of golf. 

-How dare they continue to portray these great men in the light they do? 
-How dare they twist and bash their lives and accomplishments and ridicule them?
-How dare they make them the target of  juvenile snickering and rampant MaCcarthy Era paranoia and homophobia?

TEPaul of all people, the one who keeps claiming special insight into the lives of the great men of the era, insisting that we need to bestow upon their select "MEN" of Philadelphia the upmost respect and continue to credit them not only for that they did, but for everything he imagines they might have done. 

These guys have been doing this for years. 
- Whigham a "toady" and a lackey whose word is worthless and must be disregarded? 
- Macdonald an arrogant and selfish ass, and an incompetent hack, with little or no experience or knowledge at the time?
- NGLA nothing but a bunch of rote copies, lacking in originality and creativity, and not even a real course until 1911?   
- "Little Devie??"
- But the "MEN OF MERION" these were "ALL REAL MEN" in comparison.

TomPaul, Wayne, Mike Cirba, either you guys are completely ignorant of the bigger picture of Golf Course Architecture in America or you are entirely duplicitous and dishonest, or both. 

Go ahead Tom.  Say you were joking.  Attack my sense of humor, as you often do as another way to try and knock me rather than focusing on the issues.  But imagine I had made similar jokes about your Philadelphia MEN.  For years.  And interspersed my "humor" with outright misrepresentations about what really happened.    I don't think you'd have much "humor" then.  You guys cannot even handle the TRUTH about your legends, much less jokes about them. 

Don't get me wrong, your Philadelphia heroes and Merion's heroes (namely Hugh Wilson, Lloyd, Francis, and Lesley) all contributed significantly to Merion and to American golf in general, and other Philadelphians who you rarely if ever mention might have even contributed as much or more.   

But you've insulting their memories enough and embarrassed Merion and gca.com and Golf enough by the way you and Wayne have for so long misread their words and duplicitously exaggerated and inflated their actions.   It is even more embarrassing and insulting that you, Wayne, and Mike have chosen to do so by demeaning some of the greatest names in the history of golf, MEN that your heroes obviously respected much more than you guys ever could. 

Yet TEPaul, Wayne, Mike, and others constantly caricature, diminish, and brutalize the reputations of these TRULY great men, whose lives and records do not need the embellishment and exaggeration you heap on your local heroes. 

For the life of me, I have no idea why Merion, Philadelphia, the USGA or anyone else allows these narrow-minded, homophobic provincials to speak in their name.  They give a bad name to all of golf.   But  I guess that is their business, not mine.
_____________________

Mike "FOOL ME TWICE SAYONARA" Cirba. 
You are back.   Again.   I thought you left the site?  Again.   In another fit of rage, was it?    Something about some big conspiracy to sandbag with the documents, wasn't it?   How'd you get that thread deleted, anyway?   And why?  There was no substance in it, but it was pretty good insight into your character. 

Sort of ironic, though, don't you think?   You stormed off in another fit, unfounded again, about some of us supposedly sandbagging with the documents?   Yet there you are, everyday relying on documents that are being intentionally screened off from certain of us.    By the way, are you a member of M.C.C. or M.G.C.?   How do you feel about posting about their private information without their permission?

As usual, your sense of justice and outrage only goes one way.  Naturally.  Another sign of a closed mind.
_________________________

There.  I feel better now.  Now back to my hole.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Is there absolutely no area at all you don't use to antagonize people??

We've seen blatant speculation on your part and remarkably specious reasoning adamantly passed off by you as fact with a great American course and its architect despite almost every kind and type of evidence to the contrary.

We've seen you constantly try to act the part of "Miss Manners" with your ragging on this website about incivility with just about everyone. And after all that just look at that last post of yours!

And now you're upset because you don't even appreciate or understand the difference between humor and disrepect!!??

I don't think there is anything you haven't done yet to degrade this website and the fun of being on it.

Obviously I don't think Devereaux Emmet was gay nor was his architecture (exactly how could golf architecture be gay anyway  ). It's merely the humor many of us saw in a single photograph of him when he was dressed like some former-day caricature of Tom Wolfe.

As for you, I have no idea what in the world your problem really is but whatever it is it's massive!

[Kirk Gill]

I have to say, David, that TePaul's last long post made me laugh out loud.

Apparently you had a different reaction.

[Mike_Cirba]

Holy Cow, David...I have no idea what to say about that rant but I guess I'm glad you feel better. 

I don't want to tear down anyone and I don't believe I have.   I love the MacRaynor courses I've played and I've pointed out here that he was a genius and a leader and a visionary and a great architect.   He was also a bit of a blowhard, a bit of a bully, and completely intransigent when the mood struck him.   I think George Bahto would tell you all of that, as well.     

As much as you fault us for propagating myths, I believe you're trying to replace one myth with another.   You're trying to tell us that no one in this country had a clue prior to the arrival of Macdonald and that's just not true.    Yes, he helped, and he led, and he was a pioneer.   But golf already was here 20 years before NGLA and although much of it was crap there were already a number of enlightened folks who were trying to change that and actively studying and working on improving golf and its courses, in parallel with him.   And Macdonald was surely at the vanguard of that effort, no question.

He just didn't design Merion...at least not according to any evidence I've seen.

Your paper argued that Merion bought the land in 1910 to fit the routing that had been developed, ostensibly by Macdonald but we've since learned that Macdonald's letter in July was just some very vague, general insights into things the club should look at.

Your paper argued that Francis had to have done his land swap, and thus the routing had to be completed before 1911 and the creation of Wilson's Committee, but we see now that the triangle land was only 90 yards wide, not 130, and the whole idea of what Francis meant with his land swap comes into view and thus had to happen after November 15, 1910.

These facts and findings have nothing to do with propping up myths or protecting local heros.   They are just the realities of where the investigation has led to date.   

As far as the minutes, I thought Wayne and Tom were very clear about the need to get permissions prior to disseminating that informational content here.   Surely you can understand that?   I don't see how that's unreasonable in any way.

I can tell you that I haven't seen any of the minutes, nor have I heard of anything beyond what little hints Tom Paul wrote here...the same as everyone else here knows.   

I'm not surprised by what they say it says, and I think it's very consistent with all of the other evidence, and particularly what Alan Wilson said about advising "on our plans", as in helping them select the best of multiple plans or routings they put together.

As I mentioned, I do think your paper has great value in a number of areas, but primarily the fact that it asked great questions that has caused a number of people to dig deeper to get to the real true story.

Questions remain, but I do think a number of things have been clarified and I think that's all for the good.   

Once again, I'm sorry things have gotten this frustrating for everyone.

[TEPaul]

Yeah, on second thought I should delete that one too. What's the point of even thinking about decsending into the gutter anymore with this guy? 

[DMoriarty]

I have to say, David, that TePaul's last long post made me laugh out loud.

Apparently you had a different reaction.

I hope you were laughing at the absurdity of the reference to Whigham as a toady. 

Still I probably did have a different reaction.  But then I have read the exact same thing probably a dozen times before, and it is always in the overall context of diminishing these guys' accomplisments and reputations.   

TEPaul cannot seem to get over a funny photo from the era, but that is typical of his juvenile behavior.   Hee Hee.  He's holding a purse. Hee Hee.  That is SO gay. Hee Hee.  It is like watching Beavis and Butthead, only our "Butthead" is a grown man, yet even more juvenile than the original.

But setting aside the immaturity and homophobic bent of TEPaul comments, what I object to is  that he and others have, over the years, repeatedly diminished and purposefully understated the accomplishments of these great men, and almost always in the context of trying to prop up those Philadelphia men that TEPaul worships.   The jokes and caricatures  are symptomatic of an entire approach.  Tear down others to try and build up your own. 

Think back earlier to to when TEPaul and others were scoffing at Whigham and dismissing his words.  I recall that your reaction was something like, you guys can't be talking about the H.J. Whigham who was the magazine editor, can you?  Because if you are then his words ought to be taken seriously.

I also recall that your comment was largely ignored.  They knew it was the same guy.  But that doesn't fit in with the picture they paint of Whigham as a numskull, hack, and Macdonald sycophant whose statement ought to be entirely and summarily dismissed.   To acknowledge the man's vast qualifications, credibility, and knowledge would make it impossible to summarily discard his words.  So they ignore you, and continue to poke fun, ridicule, and debase him instead.   Same as they do anyone on here who disagrees with them.
______________________________

To be fair I should point out that, while I haven't gone back and checked, I don't think Wayne has participated in the juvenile "gay architecture" jokes that TEPaul can't seem to stop making.   Nonetheless, in my opinion, Wayne's disrespect for Macdonald and Whigham's courses, accomplishments, contributions, and qualifications is palpable in almost everything he has ever written about these great men.   

To really understand this, one need look no further than Wayne's top 25 greatest dead architects, where Flynn is second (behind Colt) and Macdonald does not even crack the top 15.

[TEPaul]

"I hope you were laughing at the absurdity of the reference to Whigham as a toady. 

Still I probably did have a different reaction.  But then I have read the exact same thing probably a dozen times before, and it is always in the overall context of diminishing these guys' accomplisments and reputations.   

TEPaul cannot seem to get over a funny photo from the era, but that is typical of his juvenile behavior.   Hee Hee.  He's holding a purse. Hee Hee.  That is SO gay. Hee Hee.  It is like watching Beavis and Butthead, only our "Butthead" is a grown man, yet even more juvenile than the original.

But setting aside the immaturity and homophobic bent of TEPaul comments, what I object to is  that he and others have, over the years, repeatedly diminished and purposefully understated the accomplishments of these great men, and almost always in the context of trying to prop up those Philadelphia men that TEPaul worships.   The jokes and caricatures  are symptomatic of an entire approach.  Tear down others to try and build up your own. 

Think back earlier to to when TEPaul and others were scoffing at Whigham and dismissing his words.  I recall that your reaction was something like, you guys can't be talking about the H.J. Whigham who was the magazine editor, can you?  Because if you are then his words ought to be taken seriously.

I also recall that your comment was largely ignored.  They knew it was the same guy.  But that doesn't fit in with the picture they paint of Whigham as a numskull, hack, and Macdonald sycophant whose statement ought to be entirely and summarily dismissed.   To acknowledge the man's vast qualifications, credibility, and knowledge would make it impossible to summarily discard his words.  So they ignore you, and continue to poke fun, ridicule, and debase him instead.   Same as they do anyone on here who disagrees with them.
______________________________

To be fair I should point out that, while I haven't gone back and checked, I don't think Wayne has participated in the juvenile "gay architecture" jokes that TEPaul can't seem to stop making.   Nonetheless, in my opinion, Wayne's disrespect for Macdonald and Whigham's courses, accomplishments, contributions, and qualifications is palpable in almost everything he has ever written about these great men.   

To really understand this, one need look no further than Wayne's top 25 greatest dead architects, where Flynn is second (behind Colt) and Macdonald does not even crack the top 15."

[TEPaul]

Wow,

If that last post by Moriarty doesn't just about say it all, and thank God it does so he can never weasel and hedge again about what he really does think. I reposted it so he could never change a thing about it.

Now, after we finish the IMO essay on Merion East, I really am going to do another IMO piece that  does get into the total historical revisionism of this contributor with some great courses and the architects who did them.

This guy has tried to turn one of America's most amazing amateur/sportsmen architects into some "know-nothing" who couldn't have done a routing and design without having C.B. Macdonald do it for him.

The supreme irony is Moriarty doesn't know anything about Hugh Wilson and his talents and more interesting still he doesn't know much of anything about Macdonald in 1910 and 1911 either.

But the craziest thing of all is what he just said about Wayne Morrison's feeling about Macdonald and his architecture. Wayne Morrison does have some problems with Macdonald's style and particularly Raynor's and his articulation of why that is (a real lack of natural lines) will always be more of a scholarly, informed and thoughtful architectural opinion and offering than anything this Moriarty will ever learn or understand or certainly write. Talk about blind glorification of one architect at the expense of another architect.

Moriarty actually said since Macdonald didn't make Wayne Morrison's top fifteen architects that that shows Wayne Morrison is "disrespecting" Charles Blair Macdonald?!?

David Moriarty, I'm glad you wrote that post and let it be memorialized on this thread because it goes far beyond blatant glorifying and proselytizing and right to the heart of patent stupidity on your part! I realize you have said on here that your think you have a lot to learn about these subjects but I sure never thought it would be this much.

[Kirk Gill]

I hope you were laughing at the absurdity of the reference to Whigham as a toady. 

I have to be honest. I did laugh, a little. I considered posting about the fact that Whigham had just married Macdonald's daughter (Frances?) in November of 1909, and found myself wondering if he would have been more of a toady prior to the marriage (as to make a good impression) or after (to cement his place).

I hope, honestly, that everyone who has been a party to these discussions knows that all of these folks were eminent men, and people of great distinction. That said, sometimes the threads get pretty deep, and pretty serious, and pretty dense, and letting a little air in doesn't do any harm. It's needed. If you feel like the air is blowing too hard in one direction, then perhaps just choose to laugh, and like that guy in Mary Poppins let it make you float to the ceiling for a bit.

[TEPaul]

Look, I like Macdonald and Raynor a lot and I guess Whigam is OK too even if I've never known what he actually contributed to architecture---with a father-in-law like Macdonald I guess it would be pretty hard for most people to ever know. How many daughters did C.B. have anyway and sons-in-law? I heard some son-in-law of Charlie's bragged he could actually drive the green on the old cape hole at NGLA before it was moved, and when Macdonald heard about that he threatened to disinherit the guy if he actually did it. I think the son-in-law did do it. Was that Whigam? If so it doesn't sound like he was a toady to me.

But that's me, and this is a free country and I believe anyone can have most any opinion they want on most anything. So big damn deal if Wayne doesn't really like the look of the National School architecture. He's not the first one and he won't be the last. He does like how that architecture plays he just thinks it doesn't have very natural lines and he really likes natural lines in architecture!

But I do admit that Wayne does have a sort of interesting way of expressing his opinions sometimes. I mean we were over at Shinnecock one time and then we went next door to Southampton GC and hung out for a few hours with Gene Greco.

I'm sure some insulting knucklehead on a slow architecture learning curve who outrageously glorifies Macdonald without really knowing much about him doesn't realize this but Macdonald and Raynor and Whigam are actually all buried in the same cemetary near one another very close to Southampton G.C. on Rte #27.

So we all decided to go over there and pay tribute to these great men. We were amongst their graves staring down at them solemnly and very respectfully, and, THEN, to our collective horror Wayne started pissing on C.B. and then one of the other's grave was close enough that he pissed on him too. I forget which one was about thirty yards away and Wayne just didn't have enough left to get that far to piss on him too and I don't think he wanted to walk that far and risk pissing on his own trousers either. We actually have some photographs of this entire momentary horror! I mean you can't really blame Wayno for this anyway, because the fact is he just has this conditon of Terette's Syndrome that doesn't manifest itself with involuntary shocking words like most Terette's Syndrome people, it only manifests itself in involuntary actual scatology of the liquid variety! We don't call him "The Pissboy" for nothing, you know.

I think it was Whigam who Wayne wasn't able to get too so I think it is totally outrageous that some dumb-ass on here would accuse Wayno Morrison of ever disrespecting Whigam.

[TEPaul]

"That said, sometimes the threads get pretty deep, and pretty serious, and pretty dense, and letting a little air in doesn't do any harm. It's needed. If you feel like the air is blowing too hard in one direction, then perhaps just choose to laugh, and like that guy in Mary Poppins let it make you float to the ceiling for a bit."

Kirk:

Do you think that guy who floated to the ceiling in Mary Poppins was Devereaux Emmet?

[DMoriarty]

I hope, honestly, that everyone who has been a party to these discussions knows that all of these folks were eminent men, and people of great distinction.

One can hope, but this is not the case.   If these guys have any idea that these were eminent men, they aren't letting on, at least as to those outside the Delaware Valley.   

Unfortunately, most readers on this site check in once in a while and they believe whatever they read.  In other words, they use these threads as their primary source of information, and it influences their knowledge base and beliefs about the issues.     So they think Macdonald an overrated megalomaniac with little skill or experience who would never help anyone, and who had no greater reputation or experience than someone like Pickering.   Whigham was nothing but his know-nothing lackey whose only qualification was that he married Macdonald's daughter.   NGLA was a formulaic course, entirely unoriginal, not even close to finished in 1910, built while Merion was being built and was no greater or more famous than a half dozen other courses in existence at the time, etc.

Seriously, that is what many readers believe, because chances are when the tune in one of these guys have probably just posted something like this.   

And even those who claim the most expertise don't have much, because if it isn't about their Phiiadelphia heroes, then these guys just don't bother to look at it.   

Take TEPaul, above.  He never knew Whigham actually contributed to architecture.  Whigham was one of the the most prominent and prolific writers on golf design at the time, authoring and co-authoring numerous articles in numerous newspapers and publications, and even helped design one of America's earliest and two of America's best courses-- NGLA and Merion-- yet TEPaul says he never knew Whigham actually contributed to architecture??   And TEPaul is one of the people who the USGA has picked to help set up their archives project!  Yikes.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Certainly someone "could have" created a routing prior to the property being purchased, but other than Barker's discarded renderings, we have no proof that anyone else did.   

You don't have proof that anyone didn't, either.[/color]

Certainly Macdonald's wishy-washy July 1st letter did not, and we know that despite Macdonald's waffling, the site committee, under Lloyd's auspices with HDC moved forward immediately after anyway to purchase the Dallas Estate and create a recommendation to the Board of Governors and membership for the purchase of nearly all the land the course occupies today.

MacDonald waffling ?

Obviously you've interpreted the letter differently than most.[/color]

If there is proof to the contrary, someone should just step forward with that evidence.   In theory, flying monkeys could have shot out of my butt too, but that doesn't mean it happened.   

Then, where did all those dark hairs come from, and why were you heard yelling, "boy that hurts" ?[/color]

It's pretty clear that the intent was to use 2/3 of the available land for real estate, and the other 1/3 for the golf course.   The Johnson Farm was already in the "L-shape" that exists today, it adjoined the RR tracks and had a few buildings that would be useful for their purposes.  The real estate component would occupy the "inside" of the L, with golf course facing estate homes. 

That's irrelevant.[/color]

You make it sound as though these guys were flippin' idiots,

Not at all.

Do you think that you and a group from GCA.com could route and design a world class golf course on a limited and unique parcel of land in less than three (3) months ? [/color]

Patrick.   Three months is a long time, especially considering the limitations they were under with the narrowness of the property, as well as the fact that the initial routing was anything but perfect when it opened, as seven of the holes were partially or totally changed in the first 12 years.

Mike, you're advocating the theory that a committee of complete architectural novices, without any outside assistance, routed and designed Merion's golf course on a unique and confining parcel of land in less than three (3) months in the dead of winter in 1911.

I don't buy it.

I believe they started before Jan of 1911 and that they enlisted outside help.

I also believe that Francis's role was larger.[/color]

Given that the widest part of the property on either side of Ardmore Ave was not wide enough for a medium length par four, perhaps you can tell us how else they may have routed it?

I'm afraid that I don't understand your question.
How is it not wide enough, especially in an age when fairways were shared ?[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I don't think that's a correct assessment.

Frankly, I don't think you could go back over the 8 or so years I've been on this site and find me being critical of more than a small handful of holes that I know Macdonald built.

I've made no bones about the fact that I consider NGLA in my top five courses I've ever played, and probably one of the few 10's in the world.

To make that assessment almost 100 years after it opened is clear indication of the respect I have for its brilliance.

There are a handful of holes there I think might be overrated, but others I think are frankly underrated.   It's a masterpiece and you seem to want to ignore the fact that I've repeatedly referred to Macdonald as both a genius and a leader and vanguard architect, as well as sometimes being a blowhard and cantankerous man who seemed to relish conflict.

You want to defend Whigham, but I believe there is less reason to elevate his status historically than there is to bring more attention to Devereaux Emmett, who we poke fun of here because it's easy, and yes, to us juveniles it's pretty funny too.

But the guy was absolutely AMAZING, and although he hasn't been around for some time, there used to be a fellow here, James Morgan, who was researching him and we both agreed that he was vastly underrecognized, and that perhaps HE is the guy who really deserves much more of the credit for the elevation of early American golf, but was perhaps overshadowed by Macdonald's ebullient, larger-than-life personality.

Certainly the fact that he created Garden City in the late 1800s (later revised by Travis), and created many wonderful courses for the next 35 years (unfortunately most being disfigured or abandoned), and was also the guy who CREATED THE SKETCHES of the great holes overseas for Macdonald, and who also worked day after day on NGLA with Macdonald and Raynor and Whigham, one can make a serious case that if any one man is still underestimated, or grievously ignored by history, it was Emmett.

So yes, David, we are sometimes farcical in our characterizations of ancient ODG's, sometimes to prove a point, sometimes just being silly, and sometimes just because it might tend to lighten an overly serious tension around our dialouges, because as Bob Huntley wisely said recently, we are still and all just discussing F*CKING golf courses, then just please snicker at our infantilism, but please don't reduce our most serious thoughts, our best ideas, and most convincing arguments to those posts of ours that are simply meant to amuse, or change the tone of an obviously escalating tension around a thread.

I do take your views seriously, and although I don't agree with a good deal of your conclusions, I do respect you, your ideas, and try to give you the latitude of mercy and generous understanding when your passion for your topic takes you on a careening ride off the rails, as both of us have done recently.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You're forgetting that we now KNOW that the Francis Swap happened AFTER November 15th, 1910, because of a very simple FACT.

Mike,

I've said it a thousand times, but, I'll repeat it for you again.

The date of the swap is immaterial.

Please reference the Sand Hills analogy.[/color]

The scale drawing produced by the engineers, dated November 15th, 1910 has the base of the triangle at only 90 yards wide, not 130.

If two engineers measuring the same parcel came up with a substantive disparity, how do you determine which one was right, absent a third opinion ?[/color]

Or did they just measure wrong too? 

See my comment above[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Please sing along with me;

"I feel pretty..oh so pretty...I'm as pretty as I can be..."



You're now arguing that civil engineers made a 30% mistake on a 90 yard wide piece of land, which you know is silly.   Combined with the Macdonald letter, it's very, very clear that no golf course routing existed prior to November 1910, and that the Francis Land Swap clearly happened when he was part of NOVICE Hugh Wilson's committee sometime between then and April, 1911.

You can admit when you're wrong, although I know you never will.     

It does feel good...trust me.   

Like the little train that could...I know you can, I know you can, I know you can. 

[Mike_Cirba]

By the way, David...

In case you missed it in your zealous attempt to paint me into a provincial homophobe.

I believe the original routing of Merion was...something much less than perfect, as is evidenced by the fact that fully 7 of the holes were partially or wholly rerouted or significantly altered within the first dozen years after opening.

These guys were clearly learning on the job, but what they had going for them was Wilson's almost obsessive persistence and eager curiosity to learn anything and everything about his topic.

He was also luckily helped by the experience and talents of those around him...first Macdonald & Whigham, then Pickering, then Flynn & Valentine, but HE drove the ship, and if there is one thing that has gotten under my skin during this whole, contentious discussion is the idea that he was some gloried construction foreman, because there is not a single historical account that portrays him in any way but a dedicated, persistent, curious, passionate, visionary, and bold leader who took what Macdonald and Whigham gave him and jumped higher and ran faster and arguably took golf course architecture in America into a new, more natural, and more creative direction.   He was a rare genius as well, but one more defined by dogged, plodding determination than some easy spark of singular inspiration.

Any other characterization just doesn't accurately portray his life's work, and I've continually felt for some odd reason that I needed to defend him against what seemed to me to be an easy, opportunistic oversimplification that sought to reduce what you've characterized as a historical "myth", with one equally flawed, unrealistic portrayal.

So, that's my "provincial" belief, which I think views both men accurately with their flaws and strengths.

As far as the other way you've tried to portray me, I think Hugh Wilson was pretty damn good-looking, but Macdonald was a bit too stuffy and formal for my tastes.   A bit looser, and he might be quite the catch 

[DMoriarty]

David,

I don't think that's a correct assessment.

Frankly, I don't think you could go back over the 8 or so years I've been on this site and find me being critical of more than a small handful of holes that I know Macdonald built.

I've made no bones about the fact that I consider NGLA in my top five courses I've ever played, and probably one of the few 10's in the world.

To make that assessment almost 100 years after it opened is clear indication of the respect I have for its brilliance.

There are a handful of holes there I think might be overrated, but others I think are frankly underrated.   It's a masterpiece and you seem to want to ignore the fact that I've repeatedly referred to Macdonald as both a genius and a leader and vanguard architect, as well as sometimes being a blowhard and cantankerous man who seemed to relish conflict.

You want to defend Whigham, but I believe there is less reason to elevate his status historically than there is to bring more attention to Devereaux Emmett, who we poke fun of here because it's easy, and yes, to us juveniles it's pretty funny too.

But the guy was absolutely AMAZING, and although he hasn't been around for some time, there used to be a fellow here, James Morgan, who was researching him and we both agreed that he was vastly underrecognized, and that perhaps HE is the guy who really deserves much more of the credit for the elevation of early American golf, but was perhaps overshadowed by Macdonald's ebullient, larger-than-life personality.

Certainly the fact that he created Garden City in the late 1800s (later revised by Travis), and created many wonderful courses for the next 35 years (unfortunately most being disfigured or abandoned), and was also the guy who CREATED THE SKETCHES of the great holes overseas for Macdonald, and who also worked day after day on NGLA with Macdonald and Raynor and Whigham, one can make a serious case that if any one man is still underestimated, or grievously ignored by history, it was Emmett.

So yes, David, we are sometimes farcical in our characterizations of ancient ODG's, sometimes to prove a point, sometimes just being silly, and sometimes just because it might tend to lighten an overly serious tension around our dialouges, because as Bob Huntley wisely said recently, we are still and all just discussing F*CKING golf courses, then just please snicker at our infantilism, but please don't reduce our most serious thoughts, our best ideas, and most convincing arguments to those posts of ours that are simply meant to amuse, or change the tone of an obviously escalating tension around a thread.

I do take your views seriously, and although I don't agree with a good deal of your conclusions, I do respect you, your ideas, and try to give you the latitude of mercy and generous understanding when your passion for your topic takes you on a careening ride off the rails, as both of us have done recently.

Mike Cirba, if you actually do have any respect for these men, that just makes your mischaracterization of their accomplishments all that much more offensive.  Why go back eight years?   During this very thread you have repeatedly:
1.  Portrayed NGLA as being under construction and far from complete in 1910.
2.  Stated that Macdonald and Whigham were known primarily just as good golfers in 1910. 
3.  Portrayed Macdonald as absolutely arrogant and unwilling to help other courses, and unwilling to lift a finger without being credited.
4.  Stated that there were many other courses at the time which were of comparable quality and notoriety as NGLA.
5.  Claimed that Macdonald and Whigham had little expertise or experience when it came to design.
6.  Stated if they were known for anything else besides golf, it was for their construction and agronomy expertise.

All these claims were made to diminish their qualifications, reputations, and accomplishments at the time they became involved with Merion.  They are mostly unsupportable or inaccurate, and if you truly thought them to be supportable and accurate then you have vastly overstated your knowledge and understanding of the era.

[TEPaul]

"Patrick,

If Engineer/Surveyor Richard Francis was out on the property in 1910 "tweaking Macdonald's routing" and doing the "Francis Land Swap" Tango per David's IMO piece, then why was the site survey drawn to scale on November 15, 1910 created by "Pugh and Hubbard - Civil Engineers"?     

Because they were an independent firm, one that could provide the survey, completely at arms length.

One of the motions I brought before virtually every club board that I've served on, was that the club could not transact business with a member.

I believe that it avoids conflicts of interest.

Many organizations require every board member to sign a "conflict of interest" form stating that they have no beneficial or conflicting connection with the institution.

Why wouldn't Merion embark on the same prudent policy ?"



Pat:

For some reason (and God only knows why ) I was beginning to feel you were most of the way home on what really happened at Ardmore with Horatio Gates Lloyd and MCC and this entity HDC which by the end of 1910 he had essentially put himself (with the help of Evans and Cuylers) completely in control of. He didn't do that to benefit himself, he did it for his friends and clubmates.

But that entire last post of yours to Mike Cirba's questions only proves you don't understanding what Lloyd did, how and why. And I do mean almost zero understanding. Your problem is you are putting those men back then into the context of your own experiences and the world of your times through your own eyes!

You just can't do that, Pat, you have to really look at what Lloyd did and not just assume he did what you would do. That's bad historiagraphy, just as David Moriarty has done with his Macdonald/Merion idea by torturing facts and events to conclude Macdonald routed Merion East.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You're now arguing that civil engineers made a 30% mistake on a 90 yard wide piece of land, which you know is silly. 

I'm not arguing, I'm stating that there are conflicting measurements presented by two parties, both of whom were engineers.[/color]

Combined with the Macdonald letter, it's very, very clear that no golf course routing existed prior to November 1910,

How can you make that claim ?
Only your convoluted logic could bring you to that conclusion, one you reached long before any evidence was presented.[/color]

and that the Francis Land Swap clearly happened when he was part of NOVICE Hugh Wilson's committee sometime between then and April, 1911.


I believe that Moriarty claims it was in the fall of 1910.
But, again, the date of the swap is immaterial.
It's the date of the realization of the need for the land that's important.[/color]

You can admit when you're wrong, although I know you never will.     

How can I be wrong when I merely raise questions ?[/color]

It does feel good...trust me.   

That's because you have far, far more experience in that area. [/color]

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike C -

a small point but I wanted to mention it simply because I'd never thought of it before (even if I think I had it in the back of my mind). You wrote a couple of pages back:

"Similarly, the whole idea that the Merion course that opened in 1912 was perfectly great out of the box is similarly inaccurate.  By 1924, almost half of the course...7 holes...had been wholly or partially rerouted and many other holes were completely revised in terms of bunkering configurations. As Tillinghast mentioned...when it opened in the fall of 1912 it was still very much a work in progress, with many of the holes "being but rough drafts of the problems conceived by Hugh Wilson and committee"."

Thanks for that. That strikes me as important, though I'm not sure how or why.

Also, what do you think (and/or what's the consensus) on what Tillinghast meant with the line you quote from him? I'm guessing there's debate about that, but I read it as Tillinghast using the word "problems" as a synonym for "a golf hole's challenge or test or strategy". So what he was saying is that the strategic principles behind the golf holes conceived by Wilson were still in draft form in the fall of 1912. Does that make sense?

Peter     

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Patrick,

If Engineer/Surveyor Richard Francis was out on the property in 1910 "tweaking Macdonald's routing" and doing the "Francis Land Swap" Tango per David's IMO piece, then why was the site survey drawn to scale on November 15, 1910 created by "Pugh and Hubbard - Civil Engineers"?     

Because they were an independent firm, one that could provide the survey, completely at arms length.

One of the motions I brought before virtually every club board that I've served on, was that the club could not transact business with a member.

I believe that it avoids conflicts of interest.

Many organizations require every board member to sign a "conflict of interest" form stating that they have no beneficial or conflicting connection with the institution.

Why wouldn't Merion embark on the same prudent policy ?"

Pat:

For some reason (and God only knows why ) I was beginning to feel you were most of the way home on what really happened at Ardmore with Horatio Gates Lloyd and MCC and this entity HDC which by the end of 1910 he had essentially put himself (with the help of Evans and Cuylers) completely in control of. He didn't do that to benefit himself, he did it for his friends and clubmates.

What has that got to do with the name of the firm that conducted a survey ?[/color]

But that entire last post of yours to Mike Cirba's questions only proves you don't understanding what Lloyd did, how and why.

I anxiously await your explanation as to how the name of the firm providing the survey has any relevance to the chain of events that occured at Merion.[/color]

And I do mean almost zero understanding. Your problem is you are putting those men back then into the context of your own experiences and the world of your times through your own eyes!

I think you're confusing posts.
Mike Cirba attached an absurd significance to the name of the firm that provided the survey, when absolutely no prudent inferences or conclusions could be drawn.  If the name of the firm was Smith & Willensky would that make a difference ?[/color]

You just can't do that, Pat, you have to really look at what Lloyd did and not just assume he did what you would do. That's bad historiagraphy, just as David Moriarty has done with his Macdonald/Merion idea by torturing facts and events to conclude Macdonald routed Merion East.

TE, you don't know what you're talking about.

Tell me, please, what significance do you attach to the NAME of the firm that provided the survey ?

What can you gleen from their name that sheds any substantive ray of light on Merion ?[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter

Actually, it should read

"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems,(COMMA) conceived by the construction committee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson."

It's been a long time since grammar school for me, but my reading of it is that the noun is "holes" which are then described two ways;   "'are but rough drafts of the problems" and "conceived by the construction committee...".

Did you do sentence diagrams in school too?