Revisionism

[Peter Pallotta]

David - thanks.

I see it a bit differently. You hadn't been a member of the discussion board (for quite some time) prior to your essay being posted. Only then did the rest of us get to see it and discuss it (and your sources) with you. But Tom's already here, and has been here a long time; and I just don't find it unusual (or improper) that if he's preparing to write his own essay about the creation of Merion, he'd be tossing out and working out ideas here on the board.  I'm not  asking you to take his word for it, and I'm not asking you not to defend your own essay in the face of the critiques, rhetorical o otherwise; I'm just suggesting that your calls for Tom to make public here and now any souces he may have (and that the rest of us don't) are understandable only in the context of the very heated and acrimonious debate that's ongoing.

Peter

[DMoriarty]

David - thanks.

I see it a bit differently. You hadn't been a member of the discussion board (for quite some time) prior to your essay being posted. Only then did the rest of us get to see it and discuss it (and your sources) with you. But Tom's already here, and has been here a long time; and I just don't find it unusual (or improper) that if he's preparing to write his own essay about the creation of Merion, he'd be tossing out and working out ideas here on the board.  I'm not  asking you to take his word for it, and I'm not asking you not to defend your own essay in the face of the critiques, rhetorical o otherwise; I'm just suggesting that your calls for Tom to make public here and now any souces he may have (and that the rest of us don't) are understandable only in the context of the very heated and acrimonious debate that's ongoing.

Peter

Of course you see it differently, Peter. 

He writes his opinion. I write mine.  I will always support mine.  I will always call him on it when he refuses to support his.   

Just like when he claimed that Merion bought the golf course property in 1909, when he makes a claim but refuses to support it, then the support is probably not there.

[TEPaul]

"So you acknowledge David revised the history of Merion?"

Tom MacWood:

Definitely! I think his research first established the fact that Wilson went abroad in 1912 and that that may've been the first time. Eventually, that got me to go back to Far Hills and check those agronomy letters for a timeline of a 1912 trip and sure enough Francis wrote a letter to Oakley that Wilson had taken a 'hurried trip abroad' (at some point between March 1,1912 (which was Wilson's last letter to Oakley) and May 1,1912 which is when he sailed from Cherboroug France for the USA).

But this has nothing at all to do with the creation of Merion East and Moriarty's contention that Macdonald provided Merion with a routing for Merion East in 1910 which Wilson and committee merely CONSTRUCTED to in 1911 which is what Moriarty concludes in his essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion."

[TEPaul]

"I would be glad to dismiss the conclusion if there is evidence that refutes the evidence I offered."

David Moriarty:

For about the tenth time you didn't offer ANY EVIDENCE! So stop saying you did! All you did is offer your OPINION---YOUR THEORY. THAT is not the same thing as FACTUAL EVIDENCE. How in the hell many times are we going to have to tell you that BEFORE you admit it???

WHAT EVIDENCE did you offer? That Macdonald provided a routing in 1910?? Where is it?? Where is it ever mentioned??

What about Francis's event in 1910 before November 15, 1910??? Where is the evidence??

It isn't anything more than YOUR OPINION, your THEORY. It is NOT EVIDENCE----not even close!!

[DMoriarty]

My post above was about the timing of the Francis land swap. 

What about Francis's event in 1910 before November 15, 1910??? Where is the evidence??

It isn't anything more than YOUR OPINION, your THEORY. It is NOT EVIDENCE----not even close!!

-- Francis described the parcel of land Merion "swapped" to obtain. 
-- The "swap" land was part of the the golf course land in the Nov. 15, 1910 property plan. 
-- Therefore the swap occurred before Nov. 15, 1910.

-- Francis wrote that he was working on the plan at the time of the swap. 
-- Therefore, Francis was working on the plan before Nov. 15, 1910.   

It is not that complicated.

[TEPaul]

"-- Francis described the parcel of land Merion "swapped" to obtain. 
-- The "swap" land was part of the the golf course land in the Nov. 15, 1910 property plan. 
-- Therefore the swap occurred before Nov. 15, 1910."


Francis did nothing of the kind. He described the DIMENSIONS of the land that was GOTTEN AFTER the swap in 1911 NOT before. BEFORE the swap the dimensions of that triangle shown in that Nov. 15, 1910 plan was about 95x265. AFTER the swap it was about 130x190 just as he described in 1950.

"-- Francis wrote that he was working on the plan at the time of the swap."


He did indeed and as the MCC records will show that was in the winter or spring of 1911 and not before November 15, 1010 which the record will show was BEFORE any definite course and before all the various courses were conceived by Wilson and committee in 1911. 


"-- Therefore, Francis was working on the plan before Nov. 15, 1910."

THEREFORE, you are entirely wrong and as my thread, "Understanding the Importance of the Richard Francis late night event" has shown your whole F...ing essay's assumptions and premises and conclusions fall apart.


 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I think it's a very interesting fact you've raised regarding Wilson's trip in 1912, and as I mentioned a few weeks back, I believe without additional proof to the contrary, this should be recognized as THE trip of lore.

That does not mean that he never went abroad prior to then, but that it can't be proven.   

I've gone over all the accounts of his travel overseas from the publications in 1912 thru 1918 and have no real reason to believe that he did go prior to 1910.  If you think about it, there is no reason to take 6-7 months necessarily to study say, the top 10-15 courses.    He could have done it within two months in 1912.

I believe the fact you found should be included in Merion's history.   I have no issue with that at all, and certainly believe you should be credited in that regard.

[Thomas MacWood]

"So you acknowledge David revised the history of Merion?"

Tom MacWood:

Definitely! I think his research first established the fact that Wilson went abroad in 1912 and that that may've been the first time. Eventually, that got me to go back to Far Hills and check those agronomy letters for a timeline of a 1912 trip and sure enough Francis wrote a letter to Oakley that Wilson had taken a 'hurried trip abroad' (at some point between March 1,1912 (which was Wilson's last letter to Oakley) and May 1,1912 which is when he sailed from Cherboroug France for the USA).

But this has nothing at all to do with the creation of Merion East and Moriarty's contention that Macdonald provided Merion with a routing for Merion East in 1910 which Wilson and committee merely CONSTRUCTED to in 1911 which is what Moriarty concludes in his essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion."

TE
This has nothing to do with the creation of Merion-East? If Wilson's trip has nothing to do with the creation of Merion why does every account written about the courses creation (in the last thirty years) mention Wilson's trip abroad in 1910 prominently?

'They dispatched young Wilson to Scotland and England to take a post-graduate course in British linksland before transforming a section of Philadelphia's Mainb Line--the long stretch of the city's social elite suburbs--into a 'golf links' no proper Philadelphian would be ashamed of.' ~~The World Atlas of Golf

'The committee decided a first-hand look at the famous courses of Britian was needed before any attempt to build a course was made. Hugh Wilson was given the honor of making the trip." ~~C&W

'In 1911 before work work on Merion started, Wilson, a relatively young Princeton graduate, was selected by the reigning junta at the club to go to Britian and see what he could learn from studying the famous courses.' ~~HWW Great Golf Courses of the World

'Hugh Wilson, chairman of the committee, was the principal arhcitect of the new course. A graduate of Princeton and crack golfer, Wilson made his living as an insurance man, but its fames as an intuitively-gifted golf course designer. The committee sent Wilson to England and Scotland to study their famous courses and he returned with a lot of drawings which the committee examined most carefully.'~~1st Merion History, Heilman

'In 1910, the Committee decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for the new course. Before he left, he visited the siter of the NGLA, America's first modern golf course, then under construction in Southampton, NY. while there he discussed an itenerary with Charles B Macdonald, the designer of the National and winner of the first US Am in 1895. Macdonald had made a similar journey for the same purpose some eight years earlier'~~2nd Merion, History Tolhurst

'Wilson spent two solid days with C.B. MacDonald in New York in sort of a crash course in how to go about building a golf course and how to find architectural inspiration by studying golf courses and architecture in Europe. Following that Wilson then spent six months in Europe in 1910 doing just that. (Wilson's European trip preceded Geo. Crump's by a few months). In 1911 Wilson with a number of others working with him (most notably F. Pickering, W. Flynn, J. Valentine, possibly H. Toomey, A. Wilson) began constructing Merion East in 1911 and essentially had the course built by 1912 for a strictly architectural cost of $45,000. ' ~~TEP GCA 2003

'In the Wilson letter regarding the history of Merion Golf it is evident that the time from the formation of the comittee to actual construction was relatively short given Wilson's trip to Europe.  He says that a committee was formed in early 1911 to construct a new golf course on the 125 acres of land that was just purchased.  It goes on to say that they had a great start by visiting Macdonald for 2 days at his bungalow at NGLA where they absorbed ideas on golf course construction and prinicipals of holes in the famous courses abroad that stood the test of time.  They went over the NGLA studying the holes.  Then it appears that Wilson went off to Europe to study the courses discussed and recommended by Macdonald.  However, it later states that after collecting information from all the local (Philly) committees and greenkeepers they begun the course construction in the Spring of 1911 and opened the course on September 14, 1912, just a year after the September 1911 seeding.'~~W. Morrisson GCA 2003

It would seem the trip was very important to the story. You appear to be doing a little revisionism yourself saying that trip has nothing to do with the creation of Merion.

[Jeff_Brauer]

All of history is part opinion/perspective....read Japanese vs. American histories on the events of August 6, 1945.  While what happened is not questioned, the meaning of it is hotly debated from very personal perspectives.  ALMOST as hotly debated as the Merion design credit, where all parties basically agree that CBM did something, and the argument here seems to be over how much credit he should recieve in the history books for what he did.

The arguments really aren't over what actually happenend here, they are about our opinions as to how history should view, well, history.  As such, the arguments will never end.......as evidenced by this thread!

[BCrosby]

Tom MacW -

Do you think it is necessary to the case that Wilson designed Merion that he had visited UK courses prior to completing his design?

If so, please tell us why.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

I have a plane to catch, and I don't want to reopen the Merion thread but I'll answer for Tom (or myself, really)  I think we forget how much Merion changed from 1912 to even 1916 when holes had been rerouted, bunkers shifted, etc. 

No question the trip influenced the initial re-design, IMHO, but it obviously couldn't have affected the original design, right?  The original ideas came from the visit to NGLA and other Philly courses then existing.

Maybe all of the arguments could cease if everyone simply agreed to move Merion's opening date to 1916 and considered the earlier years as a longer than normal grow in and revising period!

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacW -

Do you think it is necessary to the case that Wilson designed Merion that he had visited UK courses prior to completing his design?

If so, please tell us why.

Bob

Bob
Perhaps it would have been more enlightening to ask that question to the persons who wrote the accounts above. It seems to me it was the cornerstone of the Merion creation story as told by these gentlemen. Do you agree?

To answer your question it is not necessarily necessary but it does dramatically change the facts we've told for the last fifty years, and therefore requires us to re-evaluate the entire creation story.

Jeff
I agree with you about the course changing, although much of the routing is the same. If you look through the old thread for 2003 (David has a link to it) you'll see I mentioned that on several occasions. The issue being debated is not how the course evolved but the facts surrounding its initial creation.

Were there new facts presented in the debate surrounding the events of 8/6/1945?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said;
“TE
This has nothing to do with the creation of Merion-East? If Wilson's trip has nothing to do with the creation of Merion why does every account written about the courses creation (in the last thirty years) mention Wilson's trip abroad in 1910 prominently?”

Tom MacW:

I’ve been saying this on here for some weeks now. I’m not sure many have picked up on it. It’s also why I asked David Moriarty if he understood why I asked him why he mentioned Toulmin in this context in a post. He did not respond. He finally said he did understand but as usual he failed to mention what his understanding was. Therefore, at this point I’m not sure if he does understand the significance of it or just doesn’t want to discuss the significance of it. Ordinarily, I might say that since you ask, at this point, it shows, again, you’re not very good at deduction (or else you're just not bothering to read and follow these threads) but I won’t claim that of you now, and again, because I’m not sure many have grasped the significance of it despite me writing what I feel the significance of it is for about the last three weeks.

Nevertheless, I’ll go over it one more time and I hope you understand it this time.

I feel that story may not have entered the story of Merion’s history until perhaps 40-50 years AFTER the creation of Merion East in 1910-1911. Why do I say that? Because we can not find any mention of that story in Merion’s archives or anywhere else before perhaps the 1950s. If that is the case the story has absolutely no bearing on the facts involved in the creation of Merion in 1910-1911 which has been the only time we’ve ever concentrated on and discussed on these Merion threads with you and David Moriarty and it is also the only timeframe he deals with in his essay, “The Missing Faces of Merion.”



Tom MacWood said;
“It would seem the trip was very important to the story. You appear to be doing a little revisionism yourself saying that trip has nothing to do with the creation of Merion.”



Perhaps that story of a 1910 trip was considered important to the creation story of Merion in the second half of the last century but nevertheless it has nothing to do with the facts of what happened during the creation of Merion perhaps a half century early. If you call that revisionism on my part, so be it. I call it a pretty important discovery in the entire story of Merion.

I have even offered my feeling on how I think that 1910 trip story, and for seven month, and including drawings and sketches and surveyor’s maps from abroad may’ve begun perhaps a half century after the original creation of Merion East in 1910-1911. I feel it probably was a result of someone misinterpreting these words from Alan Wilson’s report in 1926; “The land was FOUND in 1910 and as a first step Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links of Scotland and England.” Alan Wilson did not actually say Hugh Wilson went abroad in 1910 he only says “as a first step”, and perhaps since he was writing his report about fifteen years after the events of 1910-1911, and considering he was well aware the golf course was still in a “designing” phase in 1926 (that actually lasted about twenty years) perhaps he considered Hugh Wilson’s trip in 1912 to be something of a first step, not to mention that Merion would undergo significant redesign under Wilson and Flynn in 1915-16 and again in the 1920s and not to mention that at that point Merion West had not even been designed and built or the land for it bought.

I hope that clears up that 1910 story for you and how it has no bearing on the facts of the events of 1910 and 1911. It’s really not that hard to understand if one gives it all a little extra thought.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

As mentioned, I'm willing to give David credit for discovering the Wilson 1912 trip that lasted sometime less than two months.  This was never known prior.

For discussion purposes, and because no documentary proof has been found to contradict it, I'm even willing to entertain the idea that this was THE trip, but I'm not sure what it changes about who designed Merion.  

We know that the course that opened in Sept. 1912 was described as hardly bunkered, a "work in progress", and a "rough draft".    So, I'd also say that if Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the course in the spring of 1912, this would not be inconsistent with the story.

But, even given all of that, how to discount these reports from the time?


Philly Inquirer – 9/15/12 – “Clubs & Clubmen” column

“Mr. Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the new course and helped largely in the planning of the holes.”

Philadelphia Public Ledger – 10/12/13 – William Evans

“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course.  Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect.  

Philadelphia Public Ledger – 11/1/14 - William Evans

“Then comes Hugh I. Wilson of Merion, whose word ought to count for a great deal, for he laid out both the Merion courses and the Seaview links.   He has this to say.. "
 
Philly Inquirer 12/06/14 – Joe Bunker

“Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned.  He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “

Philly Inquirer 1/24/15 – Joe Bunker

“Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses…have laid out the golf course in Cobb’s Creek Park.”

Philly Inquirer 4/23/16 – Joe Bunker

“Nearly every hole on the course (Merion East) has been stiffened (for the US Am) so that in another month or two it will resemble a really excellent championship course.  Hugh Wilson is the course architect and Winthrop Sargent is chairman of the Green Committee.  These two men have given a lot of time and attention to the changes and improvements.  Before anything was done to the course originally, Mr. Wilson visited every golf course of any note not only in Great Britain, but in this country as well, with the result that Merion’s East Course is the last word in golf course architecture.  It has been improved each year until not it is almost perfect from a golf standpoint.


We also know about "Far and Sure"'s account right after the course opened.

Were all of these writers delusional?   Guys like Evans and Tillinghast knew Wilson personally.   Why would Hugh Wilson not have corrected the record if it had been false.


Here is what I think Tom...

To lay this issue to rest, and to prove that Hugh Wilson didn't go to Great Britain in 1910, I would ask for you or David to find where Hugh Wilson might have been between the months of March and September 1910 that would preclude him being in Europe.

Instead of asking us to find the proverbial needle in a haystack filled with errors, omissions, incompletions, etc. (the shipping manifests) as I've shown on here repeatedly, perhaps you and David could set out to find him being anywhere but Europe during those months.

If you find proof, that should end any further speculation and would certainly entitle the both of you to change that part of Merion's history, in my opinion.

Until then, all you've proven is that he went to Europe in 1912....not that he didn't go before the course was routed beginning spring 1911.

Also, I'd ask one other question, which I believe might be worthy of it's own thread.

Given the land that was purchased in 1910/11, how else might one have routed Merion?   You architects playing along at home can answer as well.  

[TEPaul]

"For discussion purposes, and because no documentary proof has been found to contradict it, I'm even willing to entertain the idea that this was THE trip, but I'm not sure what it changes about who designed Merion."

Mike Cirba:

But I'm sure. I believe it's virtually certain it does not change who designed Merion East and West and the MCC board meeting minutes and surrounding and pertinent letters and documents to those minutes virtually ensures what happened in 1910 and 1910 and they also reconfirm the reports of Hugh and Alan Wilson in this regard which I've been saying for over five years now stand unrefuted, and more so now than ever. 

I do realize the fact that I even mention these things is something that is disturbing to David Moriarty because apparently he feels he should be given access to them simultaneous with someone else. I apologize about that but once again, permission to transcribe them needs to happen first. Hopefully they will be made available to him and everyone else but in the meantime these are just my opinions, and anyone can take them for what they think they're worth. At this time, I stand behind them as an accurate description of the creation of Merion East.

[Kalen Braley]

Is it possible to have a new thread opened and not have it devolve into more post-Merion mud flinging?

Or should we just stop talking about pretty much everything and anything that can in any shape, way, or form be related to issues on the Merion thread?   

[Thomas MacWood]

Perhaps that story of a 1910 trip was considered important to the creation story of Merion in the second half of the last century but nevertheless it has nothing to do with the facts of what happened during the creation of Merion perhaps a half century early. If you call that revisionism on my part, so be it. I call it a pretty important discovery in the entire story of Merion.

I have even offered my feeling on how I think that 1910 trip story, and for seven month, and including drawings and sketches and surveyor’s maps from abroad may’ve begun perhaps a half century after the original creation of Merion East in 1910-1911. I feel it probably was a result of someone misinterpreting these words from Alan Wilson’s report in 1926; “The land was FOUND in 1910 and as a first step Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links of Scotland and England.” Alan Wilson did not actually say Hugh Wilson went abroad in 1910 he only says “as a first step”, and perhaps since he was writing his report about fifteen years after the events of 1910-1911, and considering he was well aware the golf course was still in a “designing” phase in 1926 (that actually lasted about twenty years) perhaps he considered Hugh Wilson’s trip in 1912 to be something of a first step, not to mention that Merion would undergo significant redesign under Wilson and Flynn in 1915-16 and again in the 1920s and not to mention that at that point Merion West had not even been designed and built or the land for it bought.

TE
Interesting conjecture. That would be a major revision to the history we've been told over the last fifty years.

[Thomas MacWood]

But, even given all of that, how to discount these reports from the time?

Mike
The fact that there is no report prior to 1912 would have been one clue. I also think that in focusing on what happened on the East there has been a tendency to forget the West course was being projected during this time frame. That may have led to some of the errors in interpretation. Thankfully David's research identified this major mistake.

[Mike_Cirba]

"For discussion purposes, and because no documentary proof has been found to contradict it, I'm even willing to entertain the idea that this was THE trip, but I'm not sure what it changes about who designed Merion."

Mike Cirba:

But I'm sure. I believe it's virtually certain it does not change who designed Merion East and West and the MCC board meeting minutes and surrounding and pertinent letters and documents to those minutes virtually ensures what happened in 1910 and 1910 and they also reconfirm the reports of Hugh and Alan Wilson in this regard which I've been saying for over five years now stand unrefuted, and more so now than ever. 

I do realize the fact that I even mention these things is something that is disturbing to David Moriarty because apparently he feels he should be given access to them simultaneous with someone else. I apologize about that but once again, permission to transcribe them needs to happen first. Hopefully they will be made available to him and everyone else but in the meantime these are just my opinions, and anyone can take them for what they think they're worth. At this time, I stand behind them as an accurate description of the creation of Merion East.

Tom Paul,

I understand.   I'm just not yet ready to say that Hugh Wilson didn't go to Europe in 1910 because of everything Joe Bausch and others have found written about Wilson during those years, 1910 remains an almost complete mystery.

We know he played in a tournament in October of that year, and we know that in November, Tillinghast writing as "Hazard" bemoaned the fact that Hugh Wilson was among several who hadn't been participating in tournament play during the year.

I also believe that there would have been no reason for Hugh Wilson to have necessarily attended the Macdonald visit in June 1910, as it was clearly about site selection and whether to purchase the Johnson Farm/Dallas Estates and whether they seemed reasonably suitable for building a golf course.

We know from Macdonald's letter that this was the clear purpose of that visit, so why would Wilson need to be there?

[TEPaul]

"TE
Interesting conjecture. That would be a major revision of the history we've been told over the last fifty years."


Tom MacWood:

Yes it would be and it should be reflected in Merion's history and archives and it is my feeling it will be. I've pretty much been trying to imply that regarding this 1910 story for about three weeks now, perhaps longer----even understanding that a few on here do not appreciate me "implying" anything on here or providing my "opinion" on anything on here without first supplying them with everything from which my own opinions come---again, sorry about that---please just take my implications and opinions for what you think they're worth!! If you think they are conjecture or speculation, then so be it! 

However, and once again, it has no bearing on the events (1910-1911) that have been under consideration on here between you and David Moriarty and us for over five years now about the roll of Macdonald/Whigam and about the roll of Hugh Wilson and his committee regarding the creation of Merion East at Ardmore in the years 1910-1911.

Your assumptions and conjecture all along has apparently been that Macdonald/Whigam's roll was somehow minimized by Merion back then and that somehow Hugh Wilson's roll was transformed into some kind of "legend" status that he did not factually deserve. We will show in an upcoming report their roll back then was not minimized at all, and that the reports of Hugh and Alan Wilson among other things is ample evidence of it, as we have been saying for over five years now. And we will additionally show that Hugh Wilson's roll as it was recorded back then is deserved.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike
The fact that there is no report prior to 1912 would have been one clue. I also think that in focusing on what happened on the East there has been a tendency to forget the West course was being projected during this time frame. That may have led to some of the errors in interpretation. Thankfully David's research identified this major mistake.

Tom,

Many clubs were sending guys overseas during those years and most of them didn't come back and build a Merion.   Why should it have been reported prior to the course opening in 1912?    Wasn't it after the course opened to some acclaim that it was noted?  

What major mistake did David's research identify?  

Merion's West course wasn't opened until May of 1914.    It was clearly, first and foremost, an overflow course...not some magical grand design as you and David assert.   Walter Travis wrote shortly after the opening that the East was the much superior course from a championship perspective.

There is no way on this planet that William Evans was referring to the West course as the "new course" when he wrote in October 1913, "Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect."  

Even if we take that logical leap, doesn't "some years ago" refer to more than one?   It isn't even a "couple of years ago", or "two years ago"...."some" has more in common with "several" than "one", don't you think?

Once again, Tom...I think when you and/or David can show Hugh Wilson being somewhere other than Europe between March and September 1910 you've proven that part of your case.

[Thomas MacWood]

"TE
Interesting conjecture. That would be a major revision of the history we've been told over the last fifty years."


Tom MacWood:

Yes it would be and it should be reflected in Merion's history and archives and it is my feeling it will be. I've pretty much been trying to imply that regarding this 1910 story for about three weeks now, perhaps longer. However, and once again, it has no bearing on the events (1910-1911) that have been under consideration on here between you and David Moriarty and us for over five years now about the roll of Macdonald/Whigam and about the roll of Hugh Wilson and his committee regarding the creation of Merion East at Ardmore in the years 1910-1911.

Your assumptions and conjecture all along has apparently been that Macdonald/Whigam's roll was somehow minimized by Merion back then. We will show in an upcoming report it was not minimized at all.

How long will it take you to complete the report? Will you also be re-writing the Flynn book to reflect the new info on Merion?

[DMoriarty]

I’ve been saying this on here for some weeks now. I’m not sure many have picked up on it. It’s also why I asked David Moriarty if he understood why I asked him why he mentioned Toulmin in this context in a post. He did not respond. He finally said he did understand but as usual he failed to mention what his understanding was. Therefore, at this point I’m not sure if he does understand the significance of it or just doesn’t want to discuss the significance of it. Ordinarily, I might say that since you ask, at this point, it shows, again, you’re not very good at deduction (or else you're just not bothering to read and follow these threads) but I won’t claim that of you now, and again, because I’m not sure many have grasped the significance of it despite me writing what I feel the significance of it is for about the last three weeks.

For the fourth time.  I do understand.  But I am not going to tell you why you asked me.  That would be presumptuous of me.  Plus I am tired of your constant quizzes.

I feel that story may not have entered the story of Merion’s history until perhaps 40-50 years AFTER the creation of Merion East in 1910-1911. Why do I say that? Because we can not find any mention of that story in Merion’s archives or anywhere else before perhaps the 1950s. If that is the case the story has absolutely no bearing on the facts involved in the creation of Merion in 1910-1911 which has been the only time we’ve ever concentrated on and discussed on these Merion threads with you and David Moriarty and it is also the only timeframe he deals with in his essay, “The Missing Faces of Merion.”

You lose me here every time.  Not because I don't understand, but because what you are saying is tautological.   The trip happened after 1911, so it couldn't have influenced what happened in 1911.   Hardly groundbreaking at this point, because it was more than covered in my essay.

But what it does impact is the accepted understanding of how Merion was created.  And that is what my paper was about.

I have even offered my feeling on how I think that 1910 trip story, and for seven month, and including drawings and sketches and surveyor’s maps from abroad may’ve begun perhaps a half century after the original creation of Merion East in 1910-1911. I feel it probably was a result of someone misinterpreting these words from Alan Wilson’s report in 1926; “The land was FOUND in 1910 and as a first step Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links of Scotland and England.” Alan Wilson did not actually say Hugh Wilson went abroad in 1910 he only says “as a first step”, and perhaps since he was writing his report about fifteen years after the events of 1910-1911, and considering he was well aware the golf course was still in a “designing” phase in 1926 (that actually lasted about twenty years) perhaps he considered Hugh Wilson’s trip in 1912 to be something of a first step, not to mention that Merion would undergo significant redesign under Wilson and Flynn in 1915-16 and again in the 1920s and not to mention that at that point Merion West had not even been designed and built or the land for it bought.

Why do you continue to present this as if it is something you came up with in the past few weeks?   It is covered completely in the essay.   

I hope that clears up that 1910 story for you and how it has no bearing on the facts of the events of 1910 and 1911. It’s really not that hard to understand if one gives it all a little extra thought.

Perhaps you need to give some thought to the full implication of this. 

[Sean_A]

I’ve been saying this on here for some weeks now. I’m not sure many have picked up on it. It’s also why I asked David Moriarty if he understood why I asked him why he mentioned Toulmin in this context in a post. He did not respond. He finally said he did understand but as usual he failed to mention what his understanding was. Therefore, at this point I’m not sure if he does understand the significance of it or just doesn’t want to discuss the significance of it. Ordinarily, I might say that since you ask, at this point, it shows, again, you’re not very good at deduction (or else you're just not bothering to read and follow these threads) but I won’t claim that of you now, and again, because I’m not sure many have grasped the significance of it despite me writing what I feel the significance of it is for about the last three weeks.

For the fourth time.  I do understand.  But I am not going to tell you why you asked me.  That would be presumptuous of me.  Plus I am tired of your constant quizzes.

I feel that story may not have entered the story of Merion’s history until perhaps 40-50 years AFTER the creation of Merion East in 1910-1911. Why do I say that? Because we can not find any mention of that story in Merion’s archives or anywhere else before perhaps the 1950s. If that is the case the story has absolutely no bearing on the facts involved in the creation of Merion in 1910-1911 which has been the only time we’ve ever concentrated on and discussed on these Merion threads with you and David Moriarty and it is also the only timeframe he deals with in his essay, “The Missing Faces of Merion.”

You lose me here every time.  Not because I don't understand, but because what you are saying is tautological.   The trip happened after 1911, so it couldn't have influenced what happened in 1911.   Hardly groundbreaking at this point, because it was more than covered in my essay.

But what it does impact is the accepted understanding of how Merion was created.  And that is what my paper was about.

I have even offered my feeling on how I think that 1910 trip story, and for seven month, and including drawings and sketches and surveyor’s maps from abroad may’ve begun perhaps a half century after the original creation of Merion East in 1910-1911. I feel it probably was a result of someone misinterpreting these words from Alan Wilson’s report in 1926; “The land was FOUND in 1910 and as a first step Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links of Scotland and England.” Alan Wilson did not actually say Hugh Wilson went abroad in 1910 he only says “as a first step”, and perhaps since he was writing his report about fifteen years after the events of 1910-1911, and considering he was well aware the golf course was still in a “designing” phase in 1926 (that actually lasted about twenty years) perhaps he considered Hugh Wilson’s trip in 1912 to be something of a first step, not to mention that Merion would undergo significant redesign under Wilson and Flynn in 1915-16 and again in the 1920s and not to mention that at that point Merion West had not even been designed and built or the land for it bought.

Why do you continue to present this as if it is something you came up with in the past few weeks?   It is covered completely in the essay.   

I hope that clears up that 1910 story for you and how it has no bearing on the facts of the events of 1910 and 1911. It’s really not that hard to understand if one gives it all a little extra thought.

Perhaps you need to give some thought to the full implication of this. 

David

I am going to ask a straight forward question.  Do you or do you not believe that Wilson (with the help and advice of various people) could have been the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion without ever setting foot on British soil?

Ciao

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom,

Many clubs were sending guys overseas during those years and most of them didn't come back and build a Merion.   Why should it have been reported prior to the course opening in 1912?    Wasn't it after the course opened to some acclaim that it was noted?  

What major mistake did David's research identify?  

Merion's West course wasn't opened until May of 1914.    It was clearly, first and foremost, an overflow course...not some magical grand design as you and David assert.   Walter Travis wrote shortly after the opening that the East was the much superior course from a championship perspective.

There is no way on this planet that William Evans was referring to the West course as the "new course" when he wrote in October 1913, "Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect."  

Even if we take that logical leap, doesn't "some years ago" refer to more than one?   It isn't even a "couple of years ago", or "two years ago"...."some" has more in common with "several" than "one", don't you think?

Mike
The major mistake David idenitied was the cornerstone of the Merion story. That Hugh Wilson traveled to the UK in 1910. Every historical account is based upon the story Wilson traveled abroad, came back and designed Merion-East.

Was Crump's trip abroad reported at the time it happened? Yes. I believe it was.

Do you have any other examples of other trips abroad that were not reported at the time?