[Melvyn Morrow]

The Historical Facts - or - Poor, Inaccurate Research relying upon ones speculation and opinions.

The Merion debate had the makings of a very informative subject. I was led to believe that new information was at hand. I started off looking forward to an interesting, constructive, open and informative exchange.

Those participating having a reputation of acquiring a reasonable level of golfing knowledge, plus being known to enjoy an open, honest, perhaps on occasion, an extremely frank, even heated, discussion on the subject of Golf Course Architecture.

The debate seemed to stumble before it started; the long wait for, so called, new information.  Yet, when the document was posted ‘IMO’ it clearly showed a depth of detail and must have taken some time to produce.

Whilst the debate is far from over, I do not feel that is has been really constructive. Very quickly lines were drawn in the sand, neither side actually
achieving the knock out blow (well, it seemed that was what was at stake), then quality of the posts deteriorated.

I’m not going, nor am I able, to proportion blame, however I will make the following comments:
David after some considerable amount of work produced a very detailed essay which I believe we ALL agree was very interesting. However, we must also remember that it was filed under ‘In My Opinion’ and therefore, it is David’s opinion. Certain documents could appear to support his opinion, but, ultimately, it was his opinion.
As for, well, let’s call them the Merion Group - Firm believers in the traditions of Merion and therefore requiring total proof before even considering the possibility of changing their minds. Their opinion is that Merion Club records stand.

Who is right? Well, I expect we will just have to wait and see. However, a few observations: let’s start with the Merion Group, IMHO, some of you have let yourselves down. You have not conducted yourselves in a way that might have won you support. You, as we all do, have fallen into the trap of letting your heart rule instead of your head. I understand as I normally suffer from that problem, but at least it shows warmth and passion - that’s my excuse.

As for David’s essay & posts, excellent, massive amount of hard work and time, but no knock out revelation or coup de grace. So we have to regard his essay as his opinion. Unlike the Merion Group who defend with perhaps, passion, David’s comments come across as a matter of fact, a statement of events – ‘I have said it so it must be right’, type of statement which comes over at times as rather arrogant as his case has not yet been proved.

Out of all of us it took young Peter Wagner to try and bring the discussions back to a proper debate; a young man, with great promise and clearly a love of the Game and GCS.com.  I’m pleased to see that his comments struck home.       
   
We all know that Newspapers, Books and Golfing Magazines do not always publish the true record for whatever reason, so we must use their information with care and always seek genuine sources from the original land owners or estate records.

A classic error has appeared in Golf Monthly regards Old Tom’s Centenary, see web page http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/news/golf_s_godfather__old_tom_morris_article_256987.html

Old Tom never won the Championship Belt outright nor did he ever win the Claret Jug, this was Young Tom not Old Tom. Also the Old Course 18 hole info is incorrect. Yes, he planned most of his later course as 18 holes and set the standard for an 18 hole course through the UK. If Golf Magazine gets it wrong with their knowledge on the game (plus having the detailed info I sent them), then we must tread carefully when undertake our research. The new information I have collected in the last 12 months from original sources, has helped me realise that many have dismissed the early designer’s abilities and their real contributions to the founding of our modern game. The blame, if any, would need to be placed upon the shoulders of those that followed in their footsteps and should have known better.

So debate is important but we need to have open minds otherwise the process is worthless.     

[Mike_Cirba]

Melvyn,

As a dispassionate outsider, perhaps you could offer your thoughts on the following summary, and point out where you think me or any of the others have let our hearts overrule our heads.   This is my understanding after all this debate, copied from what I summarized last night and I think this is exactly what the facts have shown. 

If you feel that I'm misrepresenting some facts, please let me know.   Thanks.

"Richard Francis absolutely had a clear role in the routing and design of Merion East.   He was one of five men in Hugh Wilson's construction committee who routed the course, conceived of the problems, and built the holes, all with the valuable advice of CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham."

"My attempts at humor are borne of the sense of the silliness of all of this.   David's essay raised some serious questions that would tend to make it appear that 1) The land was purchased based on Macdonald's visit and presumed routing around mid 1910, and 2) A routing had to have been done prior to purchase (of course, by Macdonald & Whigham) because the triangle of land purportedly referred to in the Francis Land Swap was there when the purchase was recommended and the land map drawn in November 1910."

"Both of these assumptions would lead us to believe that the course was routed before Hugh Wilson arrived on the scene, as head of the Construction Committee in early 1911, supporting David's thesis that CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham, and not Hugh Wilson, actually designed the course."

"However, due to the diligent work of Wayne and Tom, we now know without any doubt that 1) CB Macdonald's visit in June 1910 yielded a single letter that under any reasonable review was a very hedged recommendation to purchase the property, but first get some soil samples...a more generic, non-commital, polite letter could almost not be imagined. and 2) The Triangle of land has now been found to only measure 90 yards wide at its widest point, instantly making very clear what the Francis Land Swap was all about, and also immediately PROVING that the work Francis did surveying and mapping and helping with the routing happened AFTER November 15, 1910, and with the accompanying minutes that apparently mention this land transfer in April 1911 that Tom mentioned, we now know that it all happened during the time Wilson was in charge."

"We also now know more clearly what Alan Wilson said when he gave credit  to M&W for "advising as to our planS (as in plural), as evidently when Macdonald came back in April 1911 he helped the committee pick out the best of multiple plans (routings) that the committee had been considering."

"At this juncture, unless new evidence is produced, I think any reasonable and prudent man would simply say "case closed", and move on."

"At this juncture, though, the facts have been aired, the debates have taken place, and the historical record stands, only to be supplemented by whatever else might be uncovered in the future."

"For now though, nice try guys.   Seriously....some excellent questions were raised, and I'm of the belief that at the end of the day much more will actually be known about the details of the origins of Merion and that's a good thing."

I would add to this that David's report did uncover the interesting historical note that Merion was actually planned as a land deal with a large real estate component, and David's report also cast doubt on the timing and length of Hugh WIlson's trip abroad.

Am I missing or misrepresenting anything that the facts have shown?

Thanks.

[Paul_Turner]

It should also be noted that the Golf Monthly Magazine article is wrong in crediting Muirfield and Carnoustie to Old Tom and possibly Rosapenna too (architect: Brown).

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mike

All open debate is good and hopefully will result with moving the subject matter forward. Because at the end of the day the only thing that matters
to All should be the Truth.

Yet, as Human Beings we have an additional factor which has to enter into
the equation, that of passion which sometimes get the better of us.

Yes I feel the debate has moved on, some very useful information is coming forward and I understand your post.

One thing I hope is that no one is holding back, and that all information is being freely circulated (once the appropriate permission has been acquired).

I also believe that we all have a right to our opinion but that should not be forced upon others. Arrogance and bloody mindedness has no place in a debate but perhaps may add some interest to a Discussion Group


Paul

Re Rosapenna/ Brown See your own Post of the 23rd of March 08.
Brown modified a few holes on Old Tom’s course in 1895 some 3 years of
so after it was opened. I listed the length of the original holes and details on Old Tom course.

As for Muirfield & Carnoustie both by Old Tom with Carnoustie mods starting in the early 1840’s under Alan Robertson. What makes you say
he was not involved?

[Paul_Turner]

Melvyn

Anyone reading that article would conclude that the current Muirfield and Carnoustie are Old Tom courses but there's virtually nothing of his courses left.

Not sure about your Rosapenna conclusions.  The aritcle states that Brown was responsible in laying out the holes. 

[Peter Wagner]

Melvyn,

I've seen this kind of impassioned debate for most of my adult life.  I sort of grew up in the computer science community of the late 70's and 80's when major breakthroughs in technology and methodology were happening weekly.  There were endless debates among those pioneers and you would laugh at how silly the arguments were and how crazed and over the line the opponents got.  Keep in mind these were normal, very intelligent, and polite people.  Challenging a high level computer architect's plan to raise the clock rate of the main cpu because it screwed up the timing between the outbound cpus was tantamount to calling him a 'f-ing hack loser' in front of his peers.  A challenge like that would cause all work to stop, sides would be taken and lines in the sand drawn.  As I said, it was silly. (Watching computer nerds fight is actually pretty entertaining!)

It's human nature though.  Unfortunately, there is a part in each of us that defies logic and it drives us to say crazy things in defense of our position.  Never mind that it be about something fairly trivial.

The trick in these situations is perspective.  If the combatants can be allowed to pull back to a higher perspective then progress can usually be made.  And the best solution of all is to try really hard to avoid these potholes of life.

Hmm, perhaps enough philosophy from me today.  Sorry for the soapbox.

- Peter

PS.  Just finished "Tommy's Honor", a good book about 2 very interesting people during an interesting time.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Paul

Old Tom did design them but of course lots has changed over the years with very little remaining, but does that mean Old Tom did not design them.

They both more or less remained unchanged for nearly 30 years. As for Brown he came on the scene in 1895 after the original course was opened. The Club was formed in 1895 and Brown then modified the original course (I believe that involved some three holes). Two year earlier Old Tom’s course was opened in the 15th August 1893 and I previously gave you the name, length and par for each of the 18 holes. Yes some of Old Tom's holes have now disappeared, due to erosion and land deals, but there are still a few left.

Peter

Before I comment I think I need a full English translation of your post
but reading your lips I may have understood the general point!!

PS Is the instructions on the soapbox in English?

[Paul_Turner]

Melvyn

No I disagree, if the course that Old Tom designed doesn't exist anymore,  then he didn't design the current course.  So calling Carnoustie or Muirfield and Old Tom design is misleading and not fact.

What was your source for the 1893 card? Is it dated as 1893?  Thanks.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Paul

Old Tom is not responsible for the course played today at Muirferld or Carnoustie but he was the one of the early designers and I see not problem crediting him with his involvement. Each course should have a record of all designers and exactly their involvement.

Sourse from archive information from the Estate of the 4 & 5th Earl of Leitrim, in the form of reports from The Committee set up upon the death
of the 4th Earl. The purpose of this Committee was to finish the project of the Hotel and Golf course and advising the 5th Earl of progress. There is also a contemporary guide book describing each of the actual holes in apparently some detail although I have not seen this. 

[RJ_Daley]

Damn, if only the had a succession history of the Earls of Ardmore and Dukes of South Hampton, we'd have this whole Merion thing put to rest... 

[Paul_Turner]

Melvyn

But does the source give a date for that card of Rosapenna?

[TEPaul]

"I've seen this kind of impassioned debate for most of my adult life.  I sort of grew up in the computer science community of the late 70's and 80's when major breakthroughs in technology and methodology were happening weekly.  There were endless debates among those pioneers and you would laugh at how silly the arguments were and how crazed and over the line the opponents got.  Keep in mind these were normal, very intelligent, and polite people.  Challenging a high level computer architect's plan to raise the clock rate of the main cpu because it screwed up the timing between the outbound cpus was tantamount to calling him a 'f-ing hack loser' in front of his peers.  A challenge like that would cause all work to stop, sides would be taken and lines in the sand drawn.  As I said, it was silly. (Watching computer nerds fight is actually pretty entertaining!)"


Peter:

I think you know me a little bit and I've got to tell you I look for humor wherever I can find it. And old New York Jewish stock analyst told me that about 40 years ago and I think it was about the best advice I ever got. That paragraph of yours is not only very appropriate to this particular thread's subject and it has a message but the humor in it is the kind I love---it's perfect, particularly that last sentence in parentheses.

[Bradley Anderson]

Melvyn,

If I had an "opinion" about the history and tradition of a world renown club I would not come to this venue to air it out. This is too studious of a group. 

[Garland Bayley]

Melvyn,

As far as your initial post to this thread, I have one thing to say. Rock On!

[Kyle Harris]

Melvyn,

I've seen this kind of impassioned debate for most of my adult life.  I sort of grew up in the computer science community of the late 70's and 80's when major breakthroughs in technology and methodology were happening weekly.  There were endless debates among those pioneers and you would laugh at how silly the arguments were and how crazed and over the line the opponents got.  Keep in mind these were normal, very intelligent, and polite people.  Challenging a high level computer architect's plan to raise the clock rate of the main cpu because it screwed up the timing between the outbound cpus was tantamount to calling him a 'f-ing hack loser' in front of his peers.  A challenge like that would cause all work to stop, sides would be taken and lines in the sand drawn.  As I said, it was silly. (Watching computer nerds fight is actually pretty entertaining!)

pwn that hax0r, n00b

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

Finally something you write makes total sense

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()