[Jeff_Brauer]

I should probably apologize to TePaul for questioning my intelligence......why single him out when millions viewing golfclubatlas.com worldwide are questioning it (starting with yours truly) for being involved in this discussion anyway!

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - I thought these two paragraphs and questions of yours particularly good/relevant:

"In any case, CBM and Whigham apparently spent three days at Merion.  The question to me, regardless of how modern day historians might credit the design (or older day historians) is what did CBM recommend to Merion and how closely was it followed initially? 

We know it had to be initially, because of all the subsequent changes to the course up until 1925 or so.  And for those, I think all credit Wilson.  I would like to know how much (if any) the basic routing was CBM, even if a land parcel came available later that changed the routing."

Yes.

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

I should probalby ammend that to say they made two trips there and MCC made one to NGLA. And, as it has been pointed out, those trips may have been more than one day each.  I suspect we will now have to start checking hotel records in the Philly area to be sure!

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

I'm doing a post for you explaining how I think Lloyd was behind all of this as well as answer your question about Allgates and when I think it had to have been that Francis took that late night bike ride. I'm certain it was in 1911 and probably towards the end of the summer. Francis' bike ride was one mile and Allgates is a mile from Francis' house. Lloyd bought the land for Allgates at some point in 1910 and he put a big mansion on it. Obviously he needed to build it and getting it all done in 1910 wouldn't have given him the time to do that and move in.

I got to go. Today is the Baily Cup (HVGC, HVGC, Pine Valley, GMGC). All the brass from Merion will be there and I'm sure all this will come up. I'll finish the post tomorrow.

But I think Lloyd and some of his MCC buddies were behind everything. Moriarty wants to know why his name doesn't ever show up. The reason for that is a guy like that didn't put his name on things, he created corporate structures and financed them with his own money or by raising it himself. That's what the guy did for a living sometimes in gargantuan size. If his damn wife went on a big NYC shopping spree he probably would've incorporated that too somehow.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Enjoy the day.

One thing is for sure, if Francis got on his bike in his jammies about midnight to go discsuss Merion's architecture with Lloyd in his jammies, then they clearly had a passion for the building and design of that golf course!

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,  I think H Wilson described the NGLA trip as three days.  We don't know how long either of M&W's two trips to Merion lasted.

TEPaul, 

I skimmed your post above and see that you have solved the mystery.  All you needed to do was

1.  Assume HG Lloyd had moved into Allgates in 1910, even though they did not even start constructing it until 1910 and didn't finish until 1913.  But maybe it wasnt finished when they moved in.
2.  Pretend that Francis said he was riding to Lloyd's new house.
2.  Take Tolhurt's word for where Francis lived.
3.  Mismeasure by about a mile. 

In other words, you pretty much made up the facts to suit your theory.   

-In May of 1910 Francis lived on Summit Grove Ave.   About  2.3 miles to Allgates.
-Haverford Station is 2 miles to Allgates, not 1 mile.

-But in May of 1910 H.G. Lloyd lived on Polo Road.  It was about .8 of a mile from Summit Grove Avenue to Allgates, or a bit longer, depending on where he lived on Summit Grove
-It was 1.1 miles from Haverford Station to Polo Road. 

The bike ride had to be before Lloyd moved into Allgates.   When did you say that was?  1910?  Why do I suspect you'll be pushing that date well back?

[DMoriarty]

Would the Haverford Development Company make more money on a model that was based upon a complete residential development or as a residential development with 1/3 of the land available for use to be used as a golf course at half the per acreage price?  The HDC was also involved in the construction and sale of homes on improved lots.  There was a lot more money to be made without a golf course. 

Surely the added value of homes next to open space would defray some of the cost concessions to the golf course.  However, it would not yield the same sort of return as if the entire land acquired was used for housing, right? 

HDC must have thought the golf course would benefit them financially.   They probably had a point.  Given that they had been sitting on the land since 1907, they were probably willing to try a golf course.

By your logic we would have no real estate golf.  Developers use courses all the time to attract home buyers.  And this was not just a golf course, it was part of the Merion Cricket Club. 

Plus, the Board directly addressed the financial justification for the deal in their report.  Are you suggesting they were intentionally misleading the members and the potential investors in HDC? 

Yet we shouldn't lose sight of something.   An accurate determination of when the internal land swap occurred and the 16th green constructed may undermine David's timeline and conclusion that the timeline doesn't support a role by Wilson until after construction and therefore design took place. 

Not so fast.   In an effort to avoid all speculation, I offered a reasoning that was not subjective and produced a necessary conclusion.  But this is not to say that it is the only reasoning that would apply.  But lets burn that bridge when we get to it.

However, David's essay and conclusions are based upon circumstantial evidence and a shaky timeline.   If it should turn out that David's portrayal of hyperbole and mistaken dates by Francis is true, it is still only circumstantial evidence.  There is no report to know if Macdonald's plans were carried out.  This fact alone prevents one from making certain conclusions.  Perhaps other plans were utilized.  Who knows if the plans used were from an outside source, Pickering or the committee?  Local newspapers and those involved in the decision making and work itself all point the credit to Wilson and his committee.   

Please point me toward exactly where my time line is shaky. 

Even if Lloyd came into the Haverford Development Company at a later date, it does not prove how much involvement Wilson had at any given time nor does it alter the attribution of Macdonald.  We know when the construction committee was formed, we don't know what they were doing before the formal announcement of that committee.  We also know that Wilson's definition of construction included design theory and aesthetics.  We know a 1913 dinner praised Wilson for his laying out and construction of the course.  We know Alan Wilson stated clearly what Wilson and committee were responsible for.  We know Hugh and Alan Wilson thanked Macdonald and Whigham for some as yet unknown role.  At this point, there is no clear evidence of the extent of Macdonald and Whigham's involvement and thus there is as yet no need for a revised attribution.

Wayne,  you seem only concerned with attribution and whether to revise it.  That is not my issue.   The standard of proof you set up is unreasonable.  The newspaper articles are ambiguous, at best, and the rest of what you site is either ambiguous or inaccurate.   

Macdonald's role is not unknown.  aspects of it are, but we now know much about it. 

[wsmorrison]

David,

The reason I discussed the real estate proposal was to demonstrate the likely scenario that members of Merion were deeply involved and invested in HDC and had the interests of the golf course in mind more so than to maximize profits.  How you can go from that obvious conclusion to intentionally misleading the membership is beyond me.  I merely wanted to point out that their interests were very much aligned yet you suppose the opposite.  Isn't it any wonder why we aren't in the same book let alone on the same page.

You say that I seem to be concerned with attribution.  In fact you, Mucci, Schmidt and Morrissett have shown a tendency to accuse Philadelphians of protecting legends (note your use of the Legendary Hugh Wilson in your essay) in the face of other evidence.  I am concerned about the sort of tactics and evidence you use and others accept to apply attributions elsewhere.  Not to protect our traditions but because I see faulty conclusions based on a progression of suppositions.   While you are crafty in the extent to which you attribute the routing to Macdonald and Whigham, you leave no doubt in your essay and subsequent posts that you are trying to establish that Wilson had NOTHING to do with the routing and design of the first iteration of Merion's first Ardmore course.  You limit his role to standing around waiting to receive construction instructions while others in the club are actively involved in tweaking a plan (ostensibly by Macdonald and Whigham with the possibility of some Barker).  In the essay you dance around the extent of Macdonald and Whigham's role in the routing and design concepts but you mention in no uncertain terms that Wilson had nothing to do with it.  You say that the role of Macdonald (and I presume Whigham) is not completely known but that you know much about it.  What exactly do you know about any of the initial design iteration which can be attributed to Macdonald and Whigham?  Please don't offer up the Alps and Redan hole concepts as some measure of proof.  The green may look like a Redan green but in fact it is sloped in the exact opposite way and required an aerial shot only.  How do you know that not a single design can be attributed to Wilson? 

You lack the material for conclusive proof.  I've said on another thread that it is very possible that we cannot prove everything about who did exactly what at Merion.  In fact we come up woefully short.  That is true of the design evolutions of Myopia, NGLA, Garden City and every other club of that era and many clubs that were developed later.  So we are left with one statement by Whigham that Macdonald planned Merion's course.  You say that Macdonald modestly avoided mentioning the work his entire life.  What about Macdonald leads you to conclude he was a modest man in any regard?

I maintain, not that the status quo is correct, but that you have not proved it is incorrect.  We don't have Barker's plan.  We don't have Macdonald's report.  Therefore you went on a quest ot prove, by circumstantial evidence, that Wilson could not possibly have done the planning.  You and others express the lack of talent and experience necessary within the committee to do the work.  I remain unsatisfied that you have proved any of this.  They hired an experienced construction and design man in Pickering.  They had on staff a railroad engineer trained in civil engineering in Toomey.  By the way, I have not seen definitive proof if you wish to challenge this.

As far as demonstrating which part of your timeline is shaky, it would be simpler to present which parts are not shaky.  It is all in the essay for everyone to determine for themselves.  It must be obvious by now that reviewing such an essay requires certain subjective determinations.  It is not a cut and dried history.  You think it is solid, as do others.  I do not.  Not for some protective desire but because I just don't think you come close to the necessary standard of proof for me.  This being Pennsylvania, I'll state it this way, your keystone may crumble under close scrutiny, which you requested.  If it does, I think you must accept that the remaining structure will collapse. 

[TEPaul]

“The bike ride had to be before Lloyd moved into Allgates.   When did you say that was?  1910?  Why do I suspect you'll be pushing that date well back?”

David:

Good find about where Francis and Lloyd lived in 1910. Did they also live in the same places in 1911?? 

When everyone sees the size of the house at Allgates I’m sure they could understand he may not have moved in for a few years after buying the original 25 acres in 1910. Frankly, I didn’t know where Lloyd lived before 1910, so that new info is interesting in and of itself, at least. But the fact he lived nearby doesn’t change anything as far as I’m concerned as to the date of that bike ride being in 1910 or 1911. What does very much interest me is the entirety of Francis’ story about that bike ride land swap idea and all he said about it. What also very much interests me is what Alan Wilson says in his report about the creation of Merion, as I've always said on these threads. When talking to some of the people who run Merion yesterday these are also the things that seem to concern them about the way your essay reads.

Here's Francis’s story again in its entirety:


"Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the LAYOUT of the golf course.
          The land was shaped like a capital "L" and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion---with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Avenue---but the last five holes were another question.
           I was looking at a map of the property one night when I had an idea. Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr Lloyd on the telephone, found he had not gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him. The idea was this: We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some we could use?
          Mr. Lloyd agreed. The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee. Within a day or two, the quarryman had his drills up where the the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so that, the green could be built as it is today."

And here is perhaps the most indicative parts of Alan Wilson’s report about the creation of Merion East and West describing what Hugh Wilson and his committee did in that creation:

“There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.
   The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.
   These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work.”






Some on here may not be aware of your lack of logic in ASSUMING that land swap event happened in 1910 instead of 1911, as is far more logical, but these following points should make that more clear:

1.   You have conveniently assumed that Hugh Wilson who was the chairman did nothing until his committee was appointed in Jan, 1911. Your assumption is that he could not have done anything with a routing and design BECAUSE his committee HAD NOT been appointed until Jan. 1911.

2.   But yet you DON’T make the same assumption about two people who would serve on the committee beginning in 1911 under Wilson----eg Francis and Lloyd!    One logically asks oneself why that is? The only logical reason most can see is that you have to do that to maintain your assumption that Macdonald routed the course when you ASSUME that Francis and Lloyd were out there in 1910 “tweaking” Macdonald’s routing by their participation ALONE in this land-swap idea in 1910 that shows on that November 1910 plan in your piece,  Frankly, #2 would be a bit more believable if you hadn’t made the assumption you did in #1, but everyone can certainly see you made that ASSUMPTION in #1 merely to make Hugh Wilson look like a complete novice beginning in Jan, 1911. 

3.   When one reads Francis’ words; “"Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the LAYOUT of the golf course.”, one certainly wonders if Francis was doing all that in 1910 as you suggest, who were those people he was talking to and why was he spending many hours over a drawing board and running instruments in the field BEFORE Hugh Wilson and HE AND Lloyd had been appointed to that committee to do the very things Francis is describing?? 

4.   Francis also informs us; “The land was shaped like a capital "L" and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion---with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Avenue---but the last five holes were another question.” That certainly sounds to me and to most people who understand this story and Alan Wilson’s report that thirteen holes had ALREADY been done to their satisfaction either on a plan or actually built on the ground when those last five holes became a problem! Could that have happened in 1910 too, in your opinion, months BEFORE the committee was EVEN appointed AND about six or more months before the course went into construction in the spring of 1911?? 

5.   And, then, YOUR ASSUMPTION of the explanation of the resolution created by that late night land swap idea of Francis’ when he says:  “Within a day or two, the quarryman had his drills up where the the 16th green is and blasted off the top of the hill so that, the green could be built as it is today.", is to assign to it HYPERBOLE on Francis’ part since the blasting on that hole logically never would have taken place until probably late in the summer of 1911 when the course was nearing completion.

6.     Your progression of these events in 1910 in your essay seems to try to lead anyone to conclude that there must have been a 1910 two-man phantom committee (Francis and Lloyd ) that was never actually appointed, and certainly NEVER mentioned in the history of Merion in any way, shape or form!! You ask us to ASSUME that Francis and Lloyd were out there ALONE to carry out some comprehensive “design and routing tweaking” effort of a Macdonald routing and design BEFORE the committee they would serve on to create the course was formed in 1911. I think most who know ALL the surrounding historical information of the creation of Merion, including Alan Wilson’s report, understand YOU MUST do this or a Macdonald routing and design would essentially have no credibility at all because of the realities of actual timelines!----eg that it really was Wilson and his committee that did all this as reflected in Alan Wilson’s report which of course you ALSO have to dismiss or ignore in your essay to maintain your conclusion!   

7.   Not to mention that the two men you assign this really illogical occurrence to---eg Francis and Lloyd----NEVER even insinuated such a thing occurred in 1910 pervious to the creation of Hugh Wilson’s committee. On the contrary, THEY WERE ALSO the ones Alan Wilson was referring to when he said in his report:  “…..and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, THEY HAVE EACH TOLD ME that HE (H. Wilson) is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course.”  To this remark by Alan Wilson you and seemingly some others on here, simply ASSUME that Alan Wilson must have been totally unfactual in saying that (basically lying, in fact) merely to glorify his brother. And, even more illogically, that others who were very much still alive to read it, including Francis and Lloyd (and Toulmin), must have ALL been in on this massive glorification gig to distort facts, as well. 

It is not that Merion and those who run it are not interested in knowing if Macdonald had more to do with their course than they realized----they really are interested in that----but it is definitely the totally illogical way your essay bends and distorts events and Merion reports to try to show how he did. Perhaps you don't mind dismissing, distorting or ignoring Alan Wilson's words and his report on the creation of Merion to your convenience but Merion and some of us certainly do mind!


No sir, David, those who I spoke to from Merion yesterday who are the ones who essentially run that club and who have read some of this and are familiar with ALL of Merion’s history just sort of shook their heads and rolled their eyes, not about your subject, per se, but about the lack of logic or your essay as it attempted to shift important surrounding and relevant events and progressions and dismiss, ignore and explain away the recorded history of those things and therir various interrelating timelines to make it convenient to reinterpret it this way---eg THAT Macdonald routed and designed Merion East and that Wilson and his committee basically just constructed the course to that Macdonald routing and desigin plan.

Frankly, most of them from yesterday at HVGC (The Baily Cup (that's Frederick Baily of the 1910 Merion search committee, by the way ) between HVGC, Merion, Pine Valley, GMGC) who’ve looked at GOLFCLUBALTAS.com recently were much more interesting in discussing this effort to restore Cobb’s Creek! One of them even asked me, with a wink, if this man thinks Macdonald routed and designed that course too! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

No sir, David, those who I spoke to from Merion yesterday who are the ones who essentially run that club and who have read some of this and are familiar with ALL of Merion’s history just sort of shook their heads and rolled their eyes as to the lack of logic or your essay as it attempted to shift events and dismiss, ignore and explain away the recorded history to make it convenient to reinterpret it this way.

Here's what I don't understand.
If they were familiar with ALL of Merion's history, why have they allowed the perpetuation of the myth that Wilson traveled to the UK for seven months, prior to 1911 to study the great courses of the UK ?

As MPC has shown us, Tillinghast himself references Wilson's trip in the summer of 1912.

And, Wilson's own words, subsequent to visiting CBM would seem to confirm same.

If they're familiar with ALL of the history, how do you account for that oversight ?   And, what's being done to correct it ?

Frankly, most of them who’ve looked at GOLFCLUBALTAS.com recently were much more interesting in discussing this effort to restore Cobb’s Creek!
 
One of them even asked me, with a wink, if this man thinks Macdonald routed and designed that course too!

The effort to restore Cobb's Creek is a noble one, but, your last sentence would seem to contradict the position that the club would welcome news that CBM was one of the routers and hole designers, let alone, the router and hole designer.  But, I can understand that, I'd feel the same way.
It's human nature. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

The article says he visited in 1912.

It doesn't say that was his first and only visit.

As for what holes had bunkers, two separate accounts state that very few holes had them.   By definition, Macdonalds template holes had very prescriptive, rote bunkering to achieve their strategies. 

Macdonald did not design or lay out Merion, much as you may wish it.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

The article says he visited in 1912.

It doesn't say that was his first and only visit.

It doesn't state that it was a REPEAT visit either.

It says that this was the visit in which he studied the courses and holes and brought that knowledge back to apply to Merion.

Nowhere was it ever mentioned by anyone that he made two trips for this purpose.  But, you can continue to cling to that notion.[/color]

As for what holes had bunkers, two separate accounts state that very few holes had them. 

Well, which holes had them ?
You initially implied that none had them, now it's "very few".
But, if the holes with bunkers were the template holes, the Alps, Redan and Eden, what would that tell you ?

And, were they refering to fairway bunkers, greenside bunkers or both.
[/color]

Macdonald did not design or lay out Merion.


How do you know that ?  And can you prove it beyond a doubt ?[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

How do you know that ?  And can you prove it beyond a doubt ?[/b][/color]

Patrick,

I don't need to prove it.   There is no reason to because there is absolutely no record that he did, despite what you want to believe. 

When you guys have some proof that he did, give me a call. 

Or even any remotely new evidence that he did.   

He was a prominent man.   Someone somewhere might have reported something???

The lack of evidence screams loudly.

[TEPaul]

"Here's what I don't understand.
If they were familiar with ALL of Merion's history, why have they allowed the perpetuation of the myth that Wilson traveled to the UK for seven months, prior to 1911 to study the great courses of the UK ?"


Patrick:

Here's why, and after I explain it to you if you still don't understand it then that will just be your problem.

It's because, to date, no one, that's NO ONE, and that includes all of us and Merion G.C. too, really knows if Hugh Wilson did or did not go abroad in 1910.

And if people like you or David Moriarty or Tom MacWood or whomever else, are actually trying to convince ANYONE, including us or Merion G.C. that PROOF has now been provided that he could not possibly have been over there simply because no ship manifest or other evidence has YET been found that he was over there, well, all I can tell you is neither us nor Merion or any other rationale mind is likely to accept that. The idea is that because nothing has YET been found by these people that he could NOT have been over there, and that that consititutes PROOF that he could not have been over there. That is simply an attempt to PROVE a NEGATIVE and that has not been done by those people on here and it never will be---essentially proving a negative can never be provided that way.

There is perhaps only one way to actually PROVE that he was NOT over there in 1910, as far as I'm concerned, and that way is to prove, as I did for 1911, that he was in Philadelpia or elsewhere other than abroad consistently enough throughout the entire year of 1910 that it provides no opportunity whatsoever for him to have been abroad in 1910.

That really would be prove to everyone's satisfaction that he was not over there in 1910 but that kind of timeline proof has never been found and provided, at this point, almost a century later, and it may never be provided!

Again, if you can't understand THAT, I see no reason to keep discussing it with you.

[TEPaul]

"Macdonald did not design or lay out Merion.

How do you know that ?  And can you prove it beyond a doubt ?"


Patrick:

At this point, I don't think the club or any of us feel the need to prove that beyond a doubt. There is and has always been more than sufficient evidence about who did layout and design Merion. All that has basically been dismissed and ignored or distorted in Moriarty's essay. I don't think Merion feels the need to prove beyond a doubt that others who were around Merion back then such as Whigam or Flynn or Pickering or Francis or Lloyd or Toulmin designed Merion either! 

We are comfortable with the record of who created Merion, particularly the Alan Wilson report, and to date no one has found any way at all to refute what he wrote in that report about who created Merion and how. Ignoring it or dismissing it is definitely not refuting it and NO ONE that we or Merion knows and respects thinks it is a way of refuting Alan Wilson and his report!

All of you who seem to be trying to promote that Macdonald routed and designed Merion have simply ignored Alan Wilson or tried to illogically dismiss or distort or rationalize away what he said. We don't buy that and we feel it's a completely ineffective way of analyzing Merion's architectural history. I have always said that on these threads and I will continue to unless and until something actually physically turns up to the contrary.

There is only one thing that would refute what Alan Wilson wrote and that is the production of a routing and design plan from Macdonald that matches the way the course was first built. To date no one is aware of such a thing and so the recorded history of the architecture of Merion and who did it and how is still very much intact with the material Merion has which is by no means insignificant, despite David Moriarty's illogic ridden essay---"The Missing Faces of Merion"!

[TEPaul]

"The effort to restore Cobb's Creek is a noble one, but, your last sentence would seem to contradict the position that the club would welcome news that CBM was one of the routers and hole designers, let alone, the router and hole designer.  But, I can understand that, I'd feel the same way.
It's human nature. "


Patrick:

One of the things that seems to constantly annoy both people on here and elsewhere is that despite what people who really do know tell you, you seem to act as if they are lying somehow.

I know far more members from Merion than you do, or Moriarty or MacWood do, and if you don't believe me just ask Wayne or other members of Merion. And I can guarantee you, completely guarantee it, that ALL the people I have talked to recently including most of the ones who run that place, many of whom I spoke with yesterday, do not now, and would not, have any problem whatsoever if it turned out Macdonald routed and designed that course. Some of them seem to think that would really be neat and would doubtless ADD to Merion's history. So, due to that, it would seem you aren't much of a judge of human nature, at least when it comes to Merion.

But what none of them were impressed with was the type of logic (almost complete lack of it in the context of what is available in Merion's historical archives) used by Moriarty in his essay. For those who really know most all of Merion's history he was completely ineffective in refuting what is available on Merion's history because he really did dismiss, ignore or distort it rather than effectively try to refute it.

David Moriarty did do a lot of extremely interesting and in-depth research, and that is impressive and he should be congratulated for all that hard work, but that alone should never impress people if it cannot be used effectively to establish a cogent conclusion.

It seems like an awful lot of people are simply impressed by the extent of research on here, and that seems to include Ran Morrissett. But that does not go to the real point of a subject, even one heavily researched, and that is-----does its conclusion hang together in the face of material to the contrary. I my opinion, that is the very same problem Tom MacWood had with his really heavily and well researched piece, "Arts and Crafts Golf"! Many were impressed by that piece simply because of the extent of its research, but it seems the best analytical minds on here began to dismiss it, despite all that research, simply because many of its assumptions and its conclusion just didn't hang together. One good analyst on here termed it "A lot of smoke and no fire" and another good analyst on here termed it, "positivist". I agree with both of them. But I go even farther, as I thought it was basically "revisionist" of the real history and the evolution of the architecture of that time, and that just bothers me, as I don't like to see people accept anything but the truth of history.

In our opinion to date, Moriarty's essay just does not refute the accepted architectural history of Merion----not even close, in fact. But maybe he has something else in Part Two! Maybe that will contain Macdonald's routing and design plan of Merion East that can show that was the way the course was first built.

When that happens, I guarantee you that both we AND Merion G.C. will be glad to accept it as well as his conclusion and put that in as a necessary reinterpretation of Merion's architectural history!

And lastly, it seems an additonal problem on here with the likes of Moriarty and MacWood with their essays is that if others disagree with them and really challenge their assumptions and premises and their conclusion, they tend to take it personally and accuse others of incivility or some ulterior agenda or defensiveness or whatever in the protection of legends and the status quo.

And even worse yet, if anyone dares to question their motives in writing something they seem to take that as some attempt to destroy their reputations. But while I do say that about them and I feel that way, I do recognize they are just two of a very few who have even attempted to write really comprehensive essays on architecture or a course on here.

But it is not that way from Merion or any of us here in Philadelphia, we are not being defensive about our courses and architects and it virtually never has been that way, despite their seemingly never-ending accusations to the contrary (this ridiculous labeling on here by MacWood of what he calls "The Philadelphia Syndrome") which really is the only thing that sometimes annoys us and clubs like Merion.

The irony is GOLFCLUBALTAS.com once had so much potential as a research, resource and wonderful discussion site that very likely could have included the participation on this discussion section of Merion itself. But that was virtually destroyed some year ago when one self-proclaimed purist on here decided to do things on this website like call Buddy Marucci, Merion's former green chairman, project committee member, and current captain of the Walker Cup, by the way, 'the Devil Incarnate' on here.

And then these other two, and perhaps Pat Mucci too, kept harping on how defensive Merion and we are in this town who really know the course and the club.

Although, many who read GOLFCLUBATLAS.com think most on here are a bunch of passionate addicts on architecture, I think there always was a good deal of respect in what some of us know about architecture and these courses.

From that I think this website always had quite a lot of credibility. But I think recently it has lost not just a little but a lot of it and over a club, Merion, that never did a damn thing to deserve what it got on here from some of those people, most of whom have either been to it once or never.

I think what really happened, particularly with MacWood when he basically started all this over Macdonald and Merion over five years ago in Feb, 2003 (check out the thread "Re: Macdonald and Merion" which is today probably no farther back then in the last then pages), is that he found a few old newspaper or magazine articles from the early teens about Merion and he thought he must have made some GREAT RESEARCH FIND about its creation and who did it that might require a reinterpretation of Merion's architectural history.

What he should have done, instead of virtually challenging us with them and incessantly asking us what they meant, was to just call us up here and ask us about them and we could've told him those articles have ALWAYS been in Merion's archives, probably since the day they were printed in the early teens, and that Merion's history as always accurately reflected what they say and what they mean.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The effort to restore Cobb's Creek is a noble one, but, your last sentence would seem to contradict the position that the club would welcome news that CBM was one of the routers and hole designers, let alone, the router and hole designer.  But, I can understand that, I'd feel the same way.
It's human nature. "


Patrick:

One of the things that seems to constantly annoy both people on here and elsewhere is that despite what people who really do know tell you, you seem to act as if they are lying somehow.

Not at all.
I'm stating that your statement was somewhat contradictory.
In one instance embracing discovery and in the other instance, a condescending wink, wink, nod, nod.

You can't have it both ways.[/color

I know far more members from Merion than you do, or Moriarty or MacWood do, and if you don't believe me just ask Wayne or other members of Merion.

The issue isn't about numerical superiority.[/color]

And I can guarantee you, completely guarantee it, that ALL the people I have talked to recently including most of the ones who run that place, many of whom I spoke with yesterday, do not now, and would not, have any problem whatsoever if it turned out Macdonald routed and designed that course.

Then why the condescending, disparaging wink, wink, nod, nod ?

You can't have it both ways.[/color]

Some of them seem to think that would really be neat and would doubtless ADD to Merion's history. So, due to that, it would seem you aren't much of a judge of human nature, at least when it comes to Merion.

I know what a wink, wink, nod, nod means and I don't need you to reinterpret it for me.

You wrote the passage, not me.  I'm merely responding, in a prudent man fashion, to what YOU wrote.  You can't have it both ways.[/color]

But what none of them were impressed with was the type of logic (almost complete lack of it in the context of what is available in Merion's historical archives) used by Moriarty in his essay. For those who really know most all of Merion's history he was completely ineffective in refuting what is available on Merion's history because he really did dismiss, ignore or distort it rather than effectively try to refute it.

It's my guess that others, located more than a 25 mile radius from Ardmore would disagree with the above paragraph.

I don't consider Ran Morrissett a dolt ........ off the golf course. [/color]

David Moriarty did do a lot of extremely interesting and in-depth research, and that is impressive and he should be congratulated for all that hard work, but that alone should never impress people if it cannot be used effectively to establish a cogent conclusion.

I'd agree with that.  However, some feel that his presentation has merit.

I don't know exactly what David concluded.
He himself asked that question of others and they've yet to respond.[/color]

It seems like an awful lot of people are simply impressed by the extent of research on here, and that seems to include Ran Morrissett. But that does not go to the real point of a subject, even one heavily researched, and that is-----does its conclusion hang together in the face of material to the contrary.

I would ask you again.  What conclusions did David state that he had arrived at ?[/color]

I my opinion, that is the very same problem Tom MacWood had with his really heavily and well researched piece, "Arts and Crafts Golf"! Many were impressed by that piece simply because of the extent of its research, but it seems the best analytical minds on here began to dismiss it, despite all that research, simply because many of its assumptions and its conclusion just didn't hang together. One good analyst on here termed it "A lot of smoke and no fire" and another good analyst on here termed it, "positivist". I agree with both of them. But I go even farther, as I thought it was basically "revisionist" of the real history and the evolution of the architecture of that time, and that just bothers me, as I don't like to see people accept anything but the truth of history.

You and I have agreed on the basics of the above paragraph, but, you too have been guilty of creating a premise that relies on a leap of faith, with a lot of "ifs", "maybe's" and "perhaps".

I think the fundamental issue is to research for the purpose of coming to a prudent man conclusion rather than coming to a conclusion and researching to support that conclusion while ignoring support for its refutation.[/color]

In our opinion to date, Moriarty's essay just does not refute the accepted architectural history of Merion----not even close, in fact.

Whom are you referencing when you use the word, "our" ?[/color]

But maybe he has something else in Part Two!

Maybe that will contain Macdonald's routing and design plan of Merion East that can show that was the way the course was first built.

I don't know that David is ascerting that.

I think he's asking for proof that Wilson is responsible for the routing and hole designs.  I think he's debunked some myths and has arrived at the core question.  Who routed and designed Merion ?

I've repeated on and off line that I felt that Merion was probably a collabortive effort, with CBM acting in a participatory role.

Finding and/or retrieving documents 100 years old is a daunting if not impossible task and we may never know the answer.  But, at the end of the day, you can't say that DM's treatise wasn't an important work in an effort to determine the details of Merion's genesis.[/color]

When that happens, I guarantee you that both we AND Merion G.C. will be glad to accept it as well as his conclusion and put that in as a necessary reinterpretation of Merion's architectural history!

I would think so.
I know that I'd be delighted if CBM or other prominent figures in early American golf were involved in the creation of my club.
But, the wink, wink, nod, nod seemed to portent a cool reception to a presentation that represented a departure from the currently accepted history.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Not at all.
I'm stating that your statement was somewhat contradictory.
In one instance embracing discovery and in the other instance, a condescending wink, wink, nod, nod.
You can't have it both ways."


Patrick:

As usual, I have no idea what you mean by that. I doubt anyone does.

I think one of the real problems with people like you and Moriarty and MacWood on this Macdonald/Merion thing is you ask us to keep an open mind when what you really mean or hope for is that we will accept the assumptions and conclusion of something like Moriarty's "The Missing Faces of Merion."

It's not a matter of an open mind, it's only a matter of what we know about the history of Merion and the material that makes it up about Merion, essentially requires us to challenge as illogical, dismissive and distorting some of the things said in that essay.

And we wish we had physical evidence of ALL the facts of all the events of that time but we just don't---no club of that age has that, and frankly Merion probably has more of it than most clubs of its age. We wish we had films and audio tapes of all the details that went on out there but no club has that.

But the thing that some of you have done is just to begin to approach a subject none of you know very well in the beginning under the presumption that the existing history (MacWood's "legends" and "status quo" thread) has to be wrong or incomplete and that the people who were there and recorded it have to be lying about the truth and distorting the facts somehow.

There's still a lot to learn about the history of golf course architecture but I don't think anyone out there has the time or interest to get into that kind of approach. I sure know I don't nor does Wayne Morrison.

[TEPaul]

"Then why the condescending, disparaging wink, wink, nod, nod ?
I know what a wink, wink, nod, nod means and I don't need you to reinterpret it for me.
You wrote the passage, not me.  I'm merely responding, in a prudent man fashion, to what YOU wrote.  You can't have it both ways."


What are you talking about? Who said that? If you think I did then go find where I said that on here and quote me!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Here's what I don't understand.
If they were familiar with ALL of Merion's history, why have they allowed the perpetuation of the myth that Wilson traveled to the UK for seven months, prior to 1911 to study the great courses of the UK ?"


Patrick:

Here's why, and after I explain it to you if you still don't understand it then that will just be your problem.

It's because, to date, no one, that's NO ONE, and that includes all of us and Merion G.C. too, really knows if Hugh Wilson did or did not go abroad in 1910.

If you DON'T know if he went abroad in 1910, why proclaim that he did ?

Why is his alleged 7 month trip to the UK presented as fact and part of the Merion history ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Then why the condescending, disparaging wink, wink, nod, nod ?

I know what a wink, wink, nod, nod means and I don't need you to reinterpret it for me.

You wrote the passage, not me.  I'm merely responding, in a prudent man fashion, to what YOU wrote.  You can't have it both ways."

What are you talking about?
Who said that?
If you think I did then go find where I said that on here and quote me!

TEPaul, here's the citation, the direct quote from a post you made.[/color]

"Frankly, most of them from yesterday at HVGC (The Baily Cup (that's Frederick Baily of the 1910 Merion search committee, by the way  ) between HVGC, Merion, Pine Valley, GMGC) who’ve looked at GOLFCLUBALTAS.com recently were much more interesting in discussing this effort to restore Cobb’s Creek!


One of them even asked me, with a wink, if this man thinks Macdonald routed and designed that course too!"  [/color]

[TEPaul]

“I don't know exactly what David concluded.
He himself asked that question of others and they've yet to respond.[/color]
I would ask you again.  What conclusions did David state that he had arrived at ?”


Patrick:

Here they are. This is what I specifically asked him and following that is what he specifically responded to the subject of this particular thread for which I thanked him for making it clear what he thought:



Quote from: TEPaul on May 06, 2008, 09:06:57 am
David:

I'd like to get some clarification of this part of your essay:


"What of Francis’ description of the quarrymen blasting off the top of a hill “a few days” after the land exchange, so that the 16th green could be built?  According to Francis’ description of events, the entire matter, from the time of Francis’ late night epiphany to the time the quarrymen blasted the green site, took place within a couple of days.  But two separate legal entities could never have completed a formal exchange of titles in a couple of days, especially since Merion’s land was encumbered.   Francis’ recollection of the timing of the timing may have been hyperbole, but if not, then it makes sense only if there was no formal land exchange, but rather a change to the terms made before Merion actually optioned the 117-acre parcel in November 1910.  And if the hilltop was actually blasted a few days after this alteration, then it was when the Haverford Development Company controlled the land, not Merion Cricket Club.  Given Lloyd’s close relationship with both, this seems entirely possible."

What about particularly those last three sentences? I think they may indicate a scenario we feel may have very likely happened given Lloyd's control and/or influence on "both sides of the fence", as it were. And if it was that way what do you make of that?




His response was:

“I have said all along that I think it possible that the blasting could have occurred while HDC still controlled the property, especially if it was around the time Lloyd became involved in HDC.  It is even still a definite possibility that the blasting occurred on HDC's watch whether or not Lloyd was involved.

Some other circumstantial evidence that the blasting might have occurred before Merion agreed to purchase the land on :
1. Merion brought in M&W, so they were obviously trying to be careful to purchase property that was actually useful for the course, so it is not much of a stretch to suggest that they may have wanted to see if the quarry would work for the green site before they made their purchase.
2.  HDC was a motivated seller, and one who needed a substantial sum of money ($150,000 + $85,000) to exercise its options and further carry out its grand development plans (which according to the press included building houses.)   They certainly had incentive to conform the land to Merion's specifications before the sale. 
3.  Francis did not write the Merion did the blasting, but referred to the "quarryman" doing the blasting.    So Merion may not have been directly involved.
4.  Lesley wrote that the land was found adapted for golf.  A blasted green site would certainly qualify as adapted for golf,  and adjusting the property lines to fit the needs of the course would qualify as well.

But as I said, these are circumstantial, and while together they could be used to make a strong case, there is no need to rely on circumstantial evidence here.   According to the map sent to the Membership by the Board, the golf course property already contained the "swap" land before Nov. 15."”



That’s what he said and I am not one of the ones who did not respond. My response to what he said is very much on record on this thread.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Regarding your post #95 there was nothing from anyone I talked to yesterday from Merion who was disparaging to Moriarty or his essay. None of them even know who he is. Most all of them who really do know and understand the details of the history of Merion simply don't even come close to buying the logic he used to assume and conclude that Macdonald routed and designed the East and Wilson and Committee simply constructed to it. That's a pretty bold assumption and conclusion to those people who probably know a lot more about Merion than David Moriarty ever will. Nobody, except perhaps Whigam in a eulogy to Macdonald thirty years after the fact, has ever come up with something remotely like that in almost a century with that club, that's for sure.

Look, Pat, I know I don't have the time to be concerned if David Moriarty thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with his essay is DISPARAGING him and I hope you don't either.

If that's the way people like Moriarty and MacWood react to others who don't agree with their essays, I'm quite sure none of us need to wet-nurse their ultra-fragile sensibilities. They should know that if they put those things out there that's probably the price they'll pay for illogically conceived assumptions and conclusions! 

I think the best way for Moriarty to resolve his hurt feelings or whatever makes him take whatever people say to him about his essay so personally, is to maybe just look himself in the mirror and have a little talk with himself about reality when one writes essays that vast numbers of people see as illogical, distorting and dismissive of various things they believe in for what they consider to be very good and valid reasons.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The conclusions you reference are not contained in David's white paper.

They are David's opinion's, removed from his white paper, when he was interogated.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

The conclusions you reference are not contained in David's white paper.

They are David's opinion's, removed from his white paper, when he was interogated."



So what, Patrick? What do you think this discussion group is for?  If all there was to this website was an "In My Opinion" section with no discussion section to discuss IMO pieces then no one would say anything about them would they?   But this website has a discussion section too or maybe you've never been aware of that either which would probably mean you're right about 1/2 percent of the time instead of the 2 percent of the time I used to think you were!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()