[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Wayno found nothing that would support or reinforce the notion that Wilson designed Merion.

You continue to draw conclusions based on wishful thinking.

Why do you continue to ignore Francis's own words regarding him being on his drawing board for long hours and adjusting instruments in the field.

What do you think he was doing on both endeavors ?

Patrick,

Hmmm...let me think...what might Richard Francis be doing as the Engineer/Surveyor on the team who designed Merion?   Hmmm???

HE'D BE DOING A SITE SURVEY!! 

You're always the guy who says he who is the boss calls the shots.

HUGH WILSON WAS THE BOSS!!

Richard Francis's boss!!

Man...you'd swear you never worked out in the field before!   

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Shivas asked you a simple question and all three of your answers were wiffs.   Care to try again? 

What does the letter prove conclusively?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Shivas asked you a simple question and all three of your answers were wiffs.   Care to try again? 

What does the letter prove conclusively?

David,

I thought you wanted to talk about "FACTS".

There is not a single FACT that you're left with that suggests that M&W routed Merion or that they did anything more than the historical record indicates and has always been believed to be true.

Your hypothetical story, purportedly based on the "FACTS" you discovered has been completely disproven, so now you are merely left with the smoldering ashes of the ruins of a roof collapse that occurred because of lack of foundational evidence.

It's ok...it's difficult to challenge the historical record, even if it is based on "legends", because most of those things are indeed based on fact, even if the written record of such events has been lost, destroyed, misplaced, forgotten, or never existed in the first place.   

What you did in challenging those assertions took some degree of guts and determination, but you fell a significant distance short in trying to prove your case.   It's ok...I just would have gone about it a bit differently had I been in your shoes, but I do understand the contentious history.

Still, I do thank you for bringing the new facts to light that you did, and ultimately I believe that will be a good thing, no matter how much sludge we all have to personally wade through given the contentious, adversarial tone.

[DMoriarty]

You want facts Mike.   The fact is that there was no routing in the letter. 

That is all I can conclude.    Other than that, the facts remain exactly the same.    If you think you can conclude with any certainty any more than that, you are deluding yourself. 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Wayno found nothing that would support or reinforce the notion that Wilson designed Merion.

You continue to draw conclusions based on wishful thinking.

Why do you continue to ignore Francis's own words regarding him being on his drawing board for long hours and adjusting instruments in the field.

What do you think he was doing on both endeavors ?

Patrick,

Hmmm...let me think...what might Richard Francis be doing as the Engineer/Surveyor on the team who designed Merion?   Hmmm???

Now you're saying that a team designed Merion.
I thought you said that Wilson designed Merion ?[/color]

HE'D BE DOING A SITE SURVEY!! 


Why would they need a site survey at that point ?

Might he have been crafting the routing and individual hole designs ?

Might he have been formalizing a routing plan and the individual hole designs ?

Might that routing and the individual hole designs been roughed out by inidividuals other than Francis ?[/color]

You're always the guy who says he who is the boss calls the shots.

HUGH WILSON WAS THE BOSS!!

Only of the construction committee, charged with building the course.
Something you continually forget .... when it's convenient.[/color]

Richard Francis's boss!!

Ahhh, but, if Francis was tasked to rout and/or design the holes, then that aspect of the project would be his baby.

Or, if Francis was tasked to convert someone's rough drafts of the routing and/or hole designs to a formalized plan, then, that aspect of the project would be his baby.

You're too anxious to preclude reasonable alternatives, continually presenting your predisposed conclusion as the ONLY alternative, absent substantive evidence that rules out any other possibilities.[/color]

Man...you'd swear you never worked out in the field before!   


It's been a while .... a long while.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"HUGH WILSON WAS THE BOSS!!

Only of the construction committee, charged with building the course.
Something you continually forget .... when it's convenient."


Patrick:

How do you know Wilson's committee was only charged with just building the course? Do you know that because Moriarty whispered that in your ear as some sort of FACT? 

How about we all take the word of someone who was actually there throughout it all---eg Alan Wilson?He wrote:  "Except for this (Macdonald's advice at NGLA and Ardmore twice), the ENTIRE RESPONISIBILTY 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 Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.


Honestly, Pat, all of us really do need to consider Alan Wilson's specific words a bit more than your speculations and David Moriarty's.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

"HUGH WILSON WAS THE BOSS!!

Only of the construction committee, charged with building the course.
Something you continually forget .... when it's convenient."


Patrick:

How do you know Wilson's committee was only charged with just building the course?

How do you know that it wasn't ?[/color]

Do you know that because Moriarty whispered that in your ear as some sort of FACT? 

No.

It's been widely reported that Wilson was appointed to head the CONSTUCTION COMMITTEE, not the SITE committee, not the DESIGN committee, not the PROJECT committee, but, the CONSTRUCTION commitee.
Hence, logic would leave one to believe that his task and job description was to head the construction committee.[/color]

How about we all take the word of someone who was actually there throughout it all---eg Alan Wilson?

He wrote:  "Except for this (Macdonald's advice at NGLA and Ardmore twice), the ENTIRE RESPONISIBILTY 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 Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.

Why didn't Alan Wilson assign design credit to his brother ?

It follows my contention that Merion was the product of a collaborative effort.

And, it would seem to point more in the direction of Francis, who spent very long hours on his drawing board and in the field adjusting instruments.

As I stated earlier, Francis could be the linch pin to the mystery surrounding the routing and individual hole designs.[/color]

Honestly, Pat, all of us really do need to consider Alan Wilson's specific words a bit more than your speculations and David Moriarty's.   

Then again, perhaps you and others should consider delving into the details of Francis's involvement.

Alan Wilson stated that the design of Merion was the result of a committee effort, and not the sole efforts of Hugh Wilson.  Hence, determining the respective roles of the committee members should be paramount.

And, with Francis being an engineer, spending long hours on his drawing board and in the field, don't you think that's a reasonable path to follow in trying to unravel the mystery of the routing and individual hole designs ?

What was he doing on his drawing board ?

Formalizing M&W ideas ?
Formalizing his own ideas
Formalizing Barker's ideas
Formalizing Wilson's ideas
Formalizing the consensus of ideas ?

It's certainly deserving of continued research, don't you agree ?[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Your analysis neglects the uncomfortable fact that Francis and the other members of the Committee were the ones who told Alan Wilson that Hugh Wilson was the one in the main responsible for the architecture of the course.

He was the chairman of the committee.   Should he not have been given credit?   Would you give Tom Doak less credit for a design because Jim Urbina did more of the actual construction work.

And, from all accounts of the others on the committee, he was not a figurehead, he was the most responsible for the design and construction.   

The party they threw for him right after the course opens tell you everything you need to know, as does Tillinghast's words, who saw the plans and said they were Wilson's.

You guys just can't accept reality and the fact that Macdonald and Whigham had little if anything to do with the design of Merion.

Some great expert advice in that letter, don't you think? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Your analysis neglects the uncomfortable fact that Francis and the other members of the Committee were the ones who told Alan Wilson that Hugh Wilson was the one in the main responsible for the architecture of the course.

Could you cite those specific passages from each committe member for me ?
[/color]

He was the chairman of the committee.   
Should he not have been given credit?   


That depends on the actual work he did and not his title.

If a committee chair delegates a responsibility to a committee member and that committee member exexcutes his repsonsibility, let's say in this instance, routing the golf course and designing the individual holes, who deserves credit for that, the committeeman or the chairman ?

Please don't introduce extraneous nonsense, just answer the above question.[/color]

Would you give Tom Doak less credit for a design because Jim Urbina did more of the actual construction work.

That's my very point.  If Francis designed the course and Wilson did the actual construction, you'd give Francis and not Wilson the design credit, just like in your Doak example.[/color]

And, from all accounts of the others on the committee, he was not a figurehead, he was the most responsible for the design and construction.   


Could you cite the specific references to Wilson ROUTING and designing the individual holes ?

What was Francis doing on those very long hours he spent on his drawing board and in the field, holding HIW's hand ?[/color]

The party they threw for him right after the course opens tell you everything you need to know, as does Tillinghast's words, who saw the plans and said they were Wilson's.

So, the "party" is the critical evidence ?
The "party" tells us exactly who did what on the project ?

As to AWT's remarks, did he know who drew the plans ?
Did he know where the concepts came from ?

Remember, Wilson himself says he knew very little until he met with CBM.

We also know that it's alleged that Wilson was armed with sketches.

Where did he get those sketches ?

And, are those sketches the basis for the individual hole designs at Merion ?

If those sketches came from MacDonald, and if those sketches were used to formulate the basis for the individual hole designs at Merion, I'll let you conclude as to where design credit belongs. [/color]

You guys just can't accept reality and the fact that Macdonald and Whigham had little if anything to do with the design of Merion.


Time will tell.[/color]

Some great expert advice in that letter, don't you think? 

There's some, but, the sketches, the famous missing MacDonald sketches might be the expert advice you're afraid to look for.  [/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Time has told. 

So has this expert letter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Why did you avoid answering the question I asked you in reply # 84 ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Wait...I just found the actual Telegram Macdonald first sent to Lloyd;

From: Mr. Charles Macdonald
To: Mr. Horatio Gates Lloyd
June 28, 1910

My good man, HG, (stop)

Nice piece of property (stop)

Did you create that "L" shape for ego gratification, or luck of the draw?  (stop) ("Whigmam, take a note...remind me that the next property we buy needs to be "M" shaped")

Think you can get more than a medium length par four widthwise at any point? (stop)

Love that heavy clay soil (stop)

That road going through the middle should be a nice feature.   Do you have liability insurance?  Flood insurance?? (stop)

As if you don't have enough property limitations, what the heck are you going to do with that quarry?  (stop)

At least you can get there by train pretty easily (stop)

So, you've already bought up that land for your new place?    How many acres did you say were allocated to golf? (stop)

Well, I'll do my best to make it sound plausible, but you owe me one!  (stop)  ("Whigham, should i ask HG for Boardwalk or Park Place?")

Sincerely,
Charlie

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Why did you avoid answering the question I asked you in reply # 84 ?

Patrick,

If I'm counting correctly, you asked me 10 separate questions in reply #84.   

Which one should I answer first? 

What do you make of that telegram I posted above?   

[DMoriarty]

Ah yes, more sarcasm and hominem attacks.  Anything rather than addressing the issues.

You and TEPaul pronounced that the June 29 CBM  letter conclusively rebutted everything in my essay, from the Francis swap story to the date of Wilson's involvement.   Do you still hold that opinion? 

If so, explain what about the letter conclusively disproves
1.) The timing of the Francis land swap.
2.)  The timing of Wilson's involvement.
3.)  The existence of some sort of a routing plan at the time of the Francis Land Swap.

The June 29, 1910 CBM letter did not contain a routing.   
-But does anything in the letter prove that CBM and M&W did NOT provide additional advice as to how the holes should be arranged?   
-Does the letter prove that Merion never provided M&W  with a contour map so M&W could  determine with more certainty if the holes would fit?   
-Does it prove that there was no contact between M&W and the Site committee betweeen June 29, 1910 and Nov. 15, 1910?   
-How about between June 29, 1910 and the NGLA Meeting?

These are simple questions, and they are all intentionally focused only on what it is that the June 29, 1910 proves and disproves.  For the sake of clarity and brevity, perhaps you could limit your answers to what the June 29, 1910 letter proves and disproves, as well?

Because after the way TEPaul and you have hyped this letter, I am pretty disappointed with how little the letter actually clarifies.

[JESII]

David,

You could also be disappointed with how little the letter actually says at all.

It seems to say exactly what the Merion Committees credited him with that you have hung alot of your argument on..."those wonderful sportsmen...M&W...spoke well of the prospects..."

Seems they were being forthright in their rememberances...at some point you ought to at least recognize that...even if you continue fighting your fight.

[DMoriarty]

David,

You could also be disappointed with how little the letter actually says at all.

It seems to say exactly what the Merion Committees credited him with that you have hung alot of your argument on..."those wonderful sportsmen...M&W...spoke well of the prospects..."

Seems they were being forthright in their rememberances...at some point you ought to at least recognize that...even if you continue fighting your fight.

I saw you wrote something like this above; that the letter had led you to the conclusion that M&W had been properly credited.   But that has been your conclusion from the beginning, hasn't it?  And the letter just reinforced this?

You say I should recognize that the Merion Committees properly credited CBM. But I have never said otherwise.  In fact, I repeatedly return to the words of the chairs of the two committees, Lesley and Hugh I. Wilson, and while I dont have them in front of me right now, I think I have accepted everything they wrote as true (excepting Wilson's mistaken date regarding the West.)

So I don't understand just exactly what it is that you think I should recognize.   

My guess is that it comes down to the attribution issue again.  They were called "advisors" and that is apparently where you might think the conversation should end.   But this is a starting point to me, and raises more questions that it answers.   What exactly did the advise about?  The routing?  The hole types within a predetermined routing?   Agronomy issues as Mike Cirba thinks?   etc.

Jim,  Remember that when I started down this road, most here believed that the ideas and concepts built into the East Course stemmed from what Wilson had learned on his trip abroad.   Macdonald's role was thought to have been limited to 1) helping Wilson plan his trip abroad, and 2) providing some general information and description of the principles of golf course design.   That is it.

There are questions to be answered that go beyond what the chairs wrote, and those are the questions in which I am interested. 

[JESII]

David,

If you don't mind, check that you have all the names how you want them in that last post. I am sure you are talking about Wilson's trip abroad (not Macdonalds) and in the first sentence of your second paragraph...you may have meant Wilson, but I was refering to the committees properly acknowledging CBM for his efforts.

And I agree that this letter by CBM in no way ends the conversation if the goal of the conversation was to figure out what happened and when...

If the goal of the conversation was to prove that the land Merion was built on was purchased because of the routing CBM had provided, I think that conversation has ended.

If the goal is to suggest that Hugh Wilson COULD NOT HAVE have routed or designed Merion East (as of opening day 1912) because he was not involved until January 1911, the conversation is not over...but it should be from anyone who thinks Hugh Wilson did rout and design the course because it is absolutely incumbent upon your side of the argument to prove that it did not happen...

Remind me again how it was proven that he could not possibly have gone overseas prior to Spring 1912. I am serious, maybe I missed the conclusive post, but my recollection is that the proof is that his name is absent from the manifests checked...I am sure there are other contributing factors that provoked Mucci to state several times that it is now a fact that he didn't go prior to 1912...I think you even just inferred such to Lou Duran on one of the other threads...

[DMoriarty]

Jim

Thanks.  I made the changes.

I dont think the conversation is over as to who planned the routing before Nov. 15, 1910 (assuming Francis' description accurate.)  M&W are still possibilities.  Wilson is not. 

[JESII]

David,

Forgive me for asking because I am sure you've gone over it about 100 times, but how did you prove that Hugh Wilson could not possibly have routed Merion?

[JESII]

David,

I may be very wrong with my suspicions about the timing of all this stuff...I think it all happened well earlier than you guys are talking about...so I figured I better go check the best source I have at the moment for alot of factual information on the story...your essay...and the timeline for Hugh Wilson begins in October 1910 in Philadelphia.

Why so late?

The Site Committee (I am aware he was not part of) was very likely established a full year prior...according to the story of the club realizing they could not possibly buy their original piece of land and announcing to the membership that they were going to look for more suitable permanent residence.

[DMoriarty]

The sources, including HIW, point to him becoming involved in Jan 1911.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

I just got back from a 4-day research trip to the PGA Museum and Library in Port St. Lucie. This is a marvelous facility that contains more magazines from the early days than any other archive I know. I will be sharing a number of "finds" with the group in the next few days, including a very exciting find that links Merion with Cobb's Creek!

I'll let you wait on that till tomorrow.

I just want to say once again that "far and Sure" is DEFINITELY, 100%, ABSOLUTELY, NO-WAY-IN-HELLSKY Tillinghast. Among the proofs is Travis identified himself as being :"Far and Sure" (now I'll have to dig that out from where I've buried it away, as well as there being a number of issues where a column written by "Far and Sure" is followed by another one written by "Hazard" in the same issue. If they were the same person that wouldn't happen.

Sorry Mike...

[JESII]

The sources, including HIW, point to him becoming involved in Jan 1911.

David,

If the source materials are the string of different quotes, indirectly linked, from interviews and writings at later dates with the NGLA trip as the sole unassailably accurate date in the whole pot, I am afraid that's does not quite pass muster with me.

Is there something more clear than that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Why did you avoid answering the question I asked you in reply # 84 ?

Patrick,

If I'm counting correctly, you asked me 10 separate questions in reply #84.   

Just answer this one.


If a committee chair delegates a responsibility to a committee member and that committee member exexcutes his repsonsibility, let's say in this instance, routing the golf course and designing the individual holes, who deserves credit for that, the committeeman or the chairman ?[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Just answer this one.


If a committee chair delegates a responsibility to a committee member and that committee member exexcutes his repsonsibility, let's say in this instance, routing the golf course and designing the individual holes, who deserves credit for that, the committeeman or the chairman ?[/color]

Patrick,

The answer is, like most things in life, it depends.

If an architect hires a draftsman, and communicates a grand vision with enough details to give the draftsman a clear idea of how to put together a blueprint, and then hires a surveyor, to go out and see if the dimensions of the blueprint match properly with the intended site, and then hires a builder to piece together the materials into the finished product, and the architect had yea or nay approval power at each phase as well as oversight, review, and most importantly, revision and quality control, than absolutely the architect is the man in charge.

In that scenario, let me ask you this...is the person(s) paying the bills...the stakeholders in the process...in this case the governing board and President of the club..

If things go awry, who are they going to go to?   The surveyor? 

Or the man in charge?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()