Revisionism

[Kirk Gill]

That was certainly part of it, but the most important error my have been the misunderstanding of the NGLA meeting, where M&W's contributions were reduced to glorified travel agents who offered some general introduction to the principles of golf architecture. 

David, I agree that this is a key point, but the meaning of the point is, to me, still somewhat of a mystery. I think that your timeline clearly shows that the Wilson trip as originally reported, with M&W as "glorified travel agents" (who, incidentally, coined this phrase?) didn't happen as has been repeatedly reported over time. Thus, the importance of that NGLA visit may have been minimized. My question is, on what basis can we then go the other direction and elevate the nature of that meeting to the point that it was about specific routing or design work on Merion East? That is my basic question. If this is something you feel you explained fully in your essay, then as a reader I have to say that I didn't "get it," and would appreciate it if you would explain further.

[TEPaul]

"TE
By transparency I mean if you are going to utilize this expert to give your account legitimacy, and also use him as a source of criticizing a competing report you must reveal his identity.

Otherwise how can an independent observer judge if he is credible or not, or if he even exists? Using a make believe or unquailifed scholar is poor scholarship."



Tom MacWood:

I'm sure that would be just fine when we write a report. But this is not a report, it's the discussion section of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. Maybe you think it's the same thing. I don't.

[Jim Nugent]

Hugh Wilson traveled to the UK to study golf architecture in 1912, after Merion-East was constructed.

I think the chances are fair Wilson went to the UK before his 1912 trip.  In October 1913, William Evans wrote in the Philadelphia Ledger that "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."

I've heard Evans described as the insider's insider on the Phillie golf scene then.  He was writing contemporaneously, about events he was in position to know well.  He cannot have been referring to Wilson's 1912 trip, because he said "some years ago" in 1913.  

If Evans is right -- and he was in position to know -- Wilson made an earlier trip to GB.  I would think "some years ago" means 1911, 1910 or earlier.  

Evans also strongly suggests in this quote that Wilson designed Merion.  What else could he be talking about, when in 1913 he says Wilson "has no superior as a golf architect"?

Are there reasons we should discount or distrust what Evans said?    

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
What are your imaginary expert's qualifications?

Jim
There doesn't seem to be any question Wilson went overseas in 1912 to study golf architecture. Even if Wilson did go overseas several years prior (and there is nothing to suggest he made more than one trip, including HW's own account and that of his brother), why would a reporter in 1913 completely ignore the trip from the previous year? That makes absolutely no sense. The only conclusion one can draw is Evans was not a very good reporter. No era is immune from poor reporting as was proved in the last couple days on the initiation fee thread.

[DMoriarty]

That was certainly part of it, but the most important error my have been the misunderstanding of the NGLA meeting, where M&W's contributions were reduced to glorified travel agents who offered some general introduction to the principles of golf architecture.

David, I agree that this is a key point, but the meaning of the point is, to me, still somewhat of a mystery. I think that your timeline clearly shows that the Wilson trip as originally reported, with M&W as "glorified travel agents" (who, incidentally, coined this phrase?) didn't happen as has been repeatedly reported over time. Thus, the importance of that NGLA visit may have been minimized. My question is, on what basis can we then go the other direction and elevate the nature of that meeting to the point that it was about specific routing or design work on Merion East? That is my basic question. If this is something you feel you explained fully in your essay, then as a reader I have to say that I didn't "get it," and would appreciate it if you would explain further.

Kirk, I should have been more specific and clear about this in my essay.  I will explain further, but I don't feel like this is the proper time or place for it. 

Do you mind taking a look at my response above to your post about revisionism.  I am interested in your take on it.  Thanks. 

______________________

"Tom,  the wine on the Lucky Charms comment was a joke. I thought you wanted humor?  Or is it only funny when you do the joking?  Should I have finished with a   ?"


No, thanks for clearing that up, I appreciate that, and as you know I love humor on here. And yes I guess with remarks like that intended to be a joke you probably should always use some sort of emoticon as most people on here don't seem to get the gist of jokes without them, unfortunately.

Sorry Tom, I don't use emoticons, except in satire.   But generally when I reference pouring Merlot over Lucky Charms, or whenever  I reference children's cereal, I am joking.   I hope this helps. 
__________________________

"Is that the same important researcher and observer who started all the garbage about my ulterior motives and clandestine agenda?  The one who Mike Cirba, bless his heart, got so worked up about for so long?"


I don't know about that. All I know is he gave Ran Morrissett a number of reasons why he felt your essay was pretty poor scholarship. I did talk to him about that in detail later and I see exactly what he means. He will certainly be a "reviewer" for anything I write on this subject in the future. 

I think this "academic scholar" must be using his reputation to further his own agenda.   
-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would cast general aspersions over another's work without backing it up with facts.
-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would go behind the back of another to privately attack the foundation and methodology of another researcher.   
-- Even the most dense "academic scholar" knows critiques of another's work must necessarily be subject to at least the same standards of review that the scholar is requiring for the work he or she is criticizing.
-- No self-respecting scholar would ever take anonymous pot shots or spread false rumors about another researcher, nor try to trash talk or gossip about another researcher without giving that researcher a chance to respond.
-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would an allow misguided friends or associates to conduct witch hunts based on the "scholar's" gossip.
-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would hold himself out as an expert in a field other than his own.

To me, your "academic scholar" must be a fraud, and an extremely passive-aggressive one at that.  And he certianly appears to have his own agenda.  In fact, it almost seems as if this scholar is on a mission to prove that this website has lost it's way or something.  Why else contact Ran instead of me?   He seems to be dancing around behind the scenes pulling your strings, and the strings of others.   Surely you guys are not going to rely on this joker's "expertise" when it comes to your paper, because given his or her behavior, he or she has absolutely zero credibility  as a scholar on these issues. 

A "scholar" ought not to let his or her emotions run a way with him or her, causing him or her to abandon scholarship for partisan rhetoric.   Maybe he or she would be more comfortable in a discipline where the scholarship is more black and white, say perhaps . . . Entomology, where the "scholar" could study annoying little pests or something.  Seems like he or she might be comfortable there.

_________________________________

David

The lawyer in you is coming out.  It was a straightforward yes or no question.  I am surprised you answered that it wasn't possible for Wilson to have been the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion, but you are entitled to your opinion.  I will say that I don't believe your essay came anywhere near establishing this opinion with much credibility.  However, I do look forward to part II.  I am sure there will be a surprise or two included.

Ciao

I did not say that it wasn't possible for Wilson to have been the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion East.   I have no idea whether that was possible or not, because there are too many other intervening factors involved.    It is impossible to isolate just this one fact (that he did not travel) from all the others, like the NGLA meeting and M&W's course visits.

What I said was that I do not think he was the driving force behind the design.

_______________________________________

Mike:

Again, a trip before 1912 I just don't see making any difference to the interpretation of what happened given these board minutes et al.

But if Wilson did go over there for seven months in 1910 one really does wonder why he didn't say that in his own report. For the longest time I thought it possible that he may've gotten his year dates wrong in his report when he mentioned 1911 because he really did get two other year dates wrong on the next page involving Merion West. But now I can see so clearly with this new material that it just doesn't matter.

Translation:  Come on Cirba, you are embarrassing us by continuing to harp on this issue.   Never mind that we have fought tooth and nail to keep the legend alive for the past 1 1/2 years.  EVEN THOUGH WE DONT WANT TO ADMIT THIS OUTRIGHT, we now know we were wrong, so we have got to change tactics.   Never mind what we said for years about the importance of the trip, the new party line is that the trip did not matter one way or another.   Didn't you get the memo?  

I am glad you finally understand Mike.

___________________
 

"TE
By transparency I mean if you are going to utilize this expert to give your account legitimacy, and also use him as a source of criticizing a competing report you must reveal his identity.

Otherwise how can an independent observer judge if he is credible or not, or if he even exists? Using a make believe or unquailifed scholar is poor scholarship."



Tom MacWood:

I'm sure that would be just fine when we write a report. But this is not a report, it's the discussion section of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. Maybe you think it's the same thing. I don't.

More irony.   TEPaul is criticizing me for not properly dealing with the source material, but using as his support the supposed statements of an anonomous researcher who he refused to name.      And who says double standards do not exist!

TEPaul,  this all reminds me of the prestigious professional Canadian researcher you invented a couple of years ago to try and convince me to send my posts to you for vetting before I posted them.   Your fictional Canadian researcher insisted on anonymity too as I recall.  Maybe the two know each other?  Perhaps they could attend a Passive-Aggressive Conference together and play some golf.

I think I have more respect for the Canadian one you made up, rather than this current one, who unfortunately is probably real.   They both have about the same credibility, though.
________________________

[Sean_A]

_________________________________

David

The lawyer in you is coming out.  It was a straightforward yes or no question.  I am surprised you answered that it wasn't possible for Wilson to have been the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion, but you are entitled to your opinion.  I will say that I don't believe your essay came anywhere near establishing this opinion with much credibility.  However, I do look forward to part II.  I am sure there will be a surprise or two included.

Ciao

I did not say that it wasn't possible for Wilson to have been the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion East.   I have no idea whether that was possible or not, because there are too many other intervening factors involved.    It is impossible to isolate just this one fact (that he did not travel) from all the others, like the NGLA meeting and M&W's course visits.

What I said was that I do not think he was the driving force behind the design.

David

Hmmm, so you will hazard an opinion that Wilson was not the driving force behind the design of Merion, but you can't say if it was possible that Wilson was the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion.  I am not quite sure why you mince the words so.  You evade the question, for what purpose I cannot tell, but it sounds very fishy.  Fine, I will try a new question.  Since I surmise that you are still seeking info for what I believe is the agenda of your essay (and I don't write that in an insulting way because everybody has an agenda - even those who say they merely seek the truth); if you don't believe Wilson was the driving fore behind the creation of Merion, who would you GUESS is?   

If you don't want to answer the question, just say so - its fair enough, but don't offer up any lawyering nonsense.  I have no time for that sort of stuff.

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Tom MacW asks:

"It seems to me {Wilson's purorted 1910 trip] was the cornerstone of the Merion creation story as told by these gentlemen. Do you agree?"

No, I do not agree. The trip was incorrectly reported as a fact. But the absence of a trip does not mandate that we deny design credit to Wilson. That argument only works if there were design features at Merion that couldn't possibley be there without a trip to the UK, an argument that I think is unpersuasive. Balanced against that weak argument are a number of contemporary accounts giving Wilson design credit. I am always open to hear more, but as of now I see no reason to change traditonal design attributions.    

Tom MacW also asks:

"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.

No. It only "dramatically changes the facts" if you believe a trip to the UK was a necessary condition to Wilson designing Merion. As noted, I don't see the trip as a necessary condition. In fact, I don't see whether he made a trip or not as being very relevant to much of anything. Assuming Wilson never left our shores, he had more than sufficient exposure to great designs to do a great design himself. He was a very talented guy. Which is why I've been puzzled about all the fuss made over his soi disant UK trip.

Bob  

[Thomas MacWood]

Bob
You don't agree that Wilson traveling abroad to study, and then returning and designing the course has been the keystone of the Merion creation legend? Even the most zealous Merion defender wouldn't deny that fact.

[TEPaul]

"I think this "academic scholar" must be using his reputation to further his own agenda."

I don't think he has an agenda other than not liking poor scholarship.  

"-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would cast general aspersions over another's work without backing it up with facts."

He did back his critique up with facts.

"-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would go behind the back of another to privately attack the foundation and methodology of another researcher."

Is that right?  

"-- Even the most dense "academic scholar" knows critiques of another's work must necessarily be subject to at least the same standards of review that the scholar is requiring for the work he or she is criticizing."

Really? Even if he's making a critique of what shouldn't go on this website to the Administator?

"-- No self-respecting scholar would ever take anonymous pot shots or spread false rumors about another researcher, nor try to trash talk or gossip about another researcher without giving that researcher a chance to respond."

Respond any time you like.

"-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would an allow misguided friends or associates to conduct witch hunts based on the "scholar's" gossip."

Misguided friends and associations? We're just trying to prevent poor sholarship about Merion.

"-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would hold himself out as an expert in a field other than his own."

Academic scholarship is just academic scholarship, I guess.

"To me, your "academic scholar" must be a fraud, and an extremely passive-aggressive one at that.  And he certianly appears to have his own agenda.  In fact, it almost seems as if this scholar is on a mission to prove that this website has lost it's way or something.  Why else contact Ran instead of me?   He seems to be dancing around behind the scenes pulling your strings, and the strings of others.   Surely you guys are not going to rely on this joker's "expertise" when it comes to your paper, because given his or her behavior, he or she has absolutely zero credibility  as a scholar on these issues."

A fraud? You do get a bit carried away with any critique about anything you say, don't you. He contacted Ran because this is his website, I guess. Yes, he does think this website is going downhill.

"A "scholar" ought not to let his or her emotions run a way with him or her, causing him or her to abandon scholarship for partisan rhetoric.   Maybe he or she would be more comfortable in a discipline where the scholarship is more black and white, say perhaps . . . Entomology, where the "scholar" could study annoying little pests or something.  Seems like he or she might be comfortable there."

A scholar ought not to let his emotions run away with him? I guess you don't consider yourself much of a scholar, then, right?

[TEPaul]

"Translation:  Come on Cirba, you are embarrassing us by continuing to harp on this issue.   Never mind that we have fought tooth and nail to keep the legend alive for the past 1 1/2 years.  EVEN THOUGH WE DONT WANT TO ADMIT THIS OUTRIGHT, we now know we were wrong, so we have got to change tactics.   Never mind what we said for years about the importance of the trip, the new party line is that the trip did not matter one way or another.   Didn't you get the memo?"



Interesting translaton there. Believe me, Hugh I. Wilson's legend is alive and well everywhere except perhaps in your own mind and in the mind of that self-proclaiming "expert researcher" you acknowledged as contributing to your essay who seems to be really struggling to get "up-to-speed" in these discussion threads. I wonder why that is.  

[TEPaul]

"You don't agree that Wilson traveling abroad to study, and then returning and designing the course has been the keystone of the Merion creation legend? Even the most zealous Merion defender wouldn't deny that fact."


Tom MacWood:

I guess some might consider me a zealous Merion defender and I certainly deny that fact. I'm also not sure why you're having a hard time grasping the reality of this 1910 trip story (or perhaps I should belay that thought---I guess I probably am sure why you're having a hard time grasping the reality of this 1910 trip story).

The fact is Hugh Wilson was considered to be a legend in architecture many decades before that 1910 trip story ever occured. I guess you've failed to read what George Thomas, arguably one of golf architecture greatest talents said about Hugh I. Wilson, in his book, "Golf Course Architecture in America", arguably one of the finest books ever written on golf course architecture.

I thought you said you've read books on golf course architecture. Apparently you missed one of the best or else you failed to read what Thomas said about Wilson perhaps thirty years before that 1910 trip story ever came about.

[TEPaul]

"Are there reasons we should discount or distrust what Evans said?"


JimN:

For anyone who has followed these threads closely (and I might guess there are not many of those ), there certainly seems to be a primary reason why the accounts of a whole host of people, including those who were there for the creation of Merion East in 1910-1911, and including the other members of Wilson's committee, and Wilson's brother have been ignored, dismissed, rationalized away etc, etc. That primary reason seem to be almost none of their accounts support the assumptions, premises and conclusions of this essay. So what else could the author do but ignore, or dismiss or rationalize away their accounts and other pertinent facts and chronologies?

This has been precisely our point from the beginning of the posting of this essay on this website.

But now these recently discovered MCC Board meeting minutes explain in some more detail why these accounts were written as they were and why various events and chronologies are part of Merion's record. At this point it would not surprise me at all,  however, if these two fellows who are hanging onto their completely unrealistic notions and dragging this out, will probably try to ignore, dismiss or rationalize away what is reported in these MCC board meeting minutes.

They may even try to say all these men on the board and on those committees were engaging in hyperbole or whatever which the author has certainly used in his essay to rationalize away events and accounts and such that clearly do not fit into his assumptions and premises and conclusion.

If that actually happens, and judging from what has transpired in the last month or so it probably will happen, but, at that point, we will be gone from these threads and this discussion because, after-all, what would be the point of continuing? In our opinions, at that point, the record of Merion and the legend of Wilson will be assured for all to see, and there really wouldn't be much more to say about it.

[BCrosby]

Bob
You don't agree that Wilson traveling abroad to study, and then returning and designing the course has been the keystone of the Merion creation legend? Even the most zealous Merion defender wouldn't deny that fact.

Tom -

Of course it's been a part of the legend. And the legend about the trip turns out to be wrong. David gets full points for establishing that.

But that's not the interesting question. Historians get stuff wrong all the time.

What IS interesting is the significance attached to that historical error. Does it bear on the design attribution of Merion? I thought that was the point of this exercise. That's the interesting question. That's what the people want to know.

My view is that the historians' whiff on the trip doesn't matter as to that issue. The fact that a number of club historians got Wilson's trip wrong has little or no bearing on who designed Merion. What was built at Merion that couldn't have been built absent first hand knowledge of courses in the UK? I can't think of anything.

And if that is the case, then it seems proper that the design attribution continue to rely on the best (albeit imperfect) contemporary evidence, virtually all of which points to Wilson.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"And if that is the case, then it seems proper that the design attribution continue to rely on the best (albeit imperfect) contemporary evidence, virtually all of which points to Wilson."


Bob:

For a course of this particular era, or perhaps any era, I may be mistaken, but I think it's probably a little rare to actually have available to us today an account or a report about the creation of a golf course from someone who was there at the creation, so to speak, and who seemingly quite diligently interviewed all the remaining men who actually worked on the routing and design of the golf course.

Of course, I'm speaking of Alan Wilson's report.

In the case of Pine Valley, there was something fairly similar and that was the two apparently independent recordings (that I have come to call Pine Valley's "Rememberances") of two men who were seemingly closest to Crump in his six years on the job at Pine Valley---eg Father Simon Carr and A.B. Smith. Thank God they recorded as they did what he was doing through that time, what he was thinking and what he wanted to do. in this chronology, I must surely also mention the valuable newspaper and magazine recordings of the goings-on at Pine Valley by Crump's friend, A.W. Tillinghast.

In a way Alan Wilson's report is something like that even if it is in no wise as detailed architecturally hole by hole.

Nevertheless, it is pretty shocking to me that this kind of really valuable report has been so ignored, so dismissed and so rationalized away as this one of Alan Wilson's has been. I've been saying this for years now but very few seem willing to listen.

[Thomas MacWood]

Bob
You don't agree that Wilson traveling abroad to study, and then returning and designing the course has been the keystone of the Merion creation legend? Even the most zealous Merion defender wouldn't deny that fact.

But that's not the interesting question. Historians get stuff wrong all the time.

What IS interesting is the significance attached to that historical error. Does it bear on the design attribution of Merion? I thought that was the point of this exercise. That's the interesting question. That's what the people want to know.

My view is that the historians' whiff on the trip doesn't matter as to that issue. The fact that a number of club historians got Wilson's trip wrong has little or no bearing on who designed Merion. What was built at Merion that couldn't have been built absent first hand knowledge of courses in the UK? I can't think of anything.

And if that is the case, then it seems proper that the design attribution continue to rely on the best (albeit imperfect) contemporary evidence, virtually all of which points to Wilson.

Bob

Bob
You are right, historians do get stuff wrong all the time. Examples of historian getting things wrong can be found at Pebble Beach, Myopia, PVGC, Oakmont and now Merion. Do you see a pattern?

[DMoriarty]

David

Hmmm, so you will hazard an opinion that Wilson was not the driving force behind the design of Merion, but you can't say if it was possible that Wilson was the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion.  I am not quite sure why you mince the words so.  You evade the question, for what purpose I cannot tell, but it sounds very fishy.  Fine, I will try a new question.  Since I surmise that you are still seeking info for what I believe is the agenda of your essay (and I don't write that in an insulting way because everybody has an agenda - even those who say they merely seek the truth); if you don't believe Wilson was the driving fore behind the creation of Merion, who would you GUESS is?   

If you don't want to answer the question, just say so - its fair enough, but don't offer up any lawyering nonsense.  I have no time for that sort of stuff.

I think you missed my point.  I dont think Wilson was the driving creative force behind the design or the creation of Merion East.   

But that was not your question.   You asked whether it was possible that he could have been the driving force behind the creation without first having traveled abroad.   

Whether or not that is possible depends on to many other factors, such as who helped him, how much help he received, how much he was just carrying out someone else's vision, what he was exposed to, etc.  All those factors point to the same two men.  I have said before (in response to you, I think) that I think M&W were the driving created forces behind the design and H.G. Lloyd may have been the driving force behind the deal. 

And that is not a "guess" on my part, but my opinion based on the facts as I know them.  If there are facts that indicate otherwise I have yet to see them.   What TEPaul has let slip out so far about the Top Secret MCC documents convinces me of this all the more. 

____________________

Tom MacW asks:

"It seems to me {Wilson's purorted 1910 trip] was the cornerstone of the Merion creation story as told by these gentlemen. Do you agree?"

No, I do not agree. The trip was incorrectly reported as a fact. But the absence of a trip does not mandate that we deny design credit to Wilson. That argument only works if there were design features at Merion that couldn't possibley be there without a trip to the UK, an argument that I think is unpersuasive. Balanced against that weak argument are a number of contemporary accounts giving Wilson design credit. I am always open to hear more, but as of now I see no reason to change traditonal design attributions. 

At the time the course opened it was reported that nearly every hole was based on features from holes abroad, and multiple reputable and knowledgeable men commented that some of the holes and features were based upon holes abroad.

There were no sources at the time that gave Wilson "design" credit.  At best a few wrote something like Robert Lesley, who noted that the committee "laid the course out on the ground," but Lesley credits M&W with advising them.  Even his brother only gives credit for that which M&W did not do.   

My guess is that, except for some stray newspaper accounts, the story about Wilson being responsible for designing the course probably surfaced about the same time as the story about him traveling abroad to study the great courses.  By this point M&W's contribution at the NGLA meeing had been reatly diminished by the misunderstanding about the trip, M&W's visit to finalize the routing had been largely forgotten, as had their initial visit, and whatever communication occurred in between.   

[I am not trying to open up the debate again about the various reports.  I am familiar with them.  I disagree with the way some interpret them. Discussing them for the 20th time wont change likely that.]

So I think we have the account in my essay (with some necessary modification) versus another wholly modern account.   The account on my essay (with some necessary modification) is consistent with the historical record while the other modern account is not.  The original accounts credited both the Committee and M&W, but is not clear on who did what (some things are clear, like who built the course, but the design is not clear)

But if you want to stick with the original understanding, I suggest that Lesley's, as he was president of MCC Golf Association and on the Site Committee.   Both the Committee and M&W ought to be credited.

Tom MacW also asks:

"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.

No. It only "dramatically changes the facts" if you believe a trip to the UK was a necessary condition to Wilson designing Merion. As noted, I don't see the trip as a necessary condition. In fact, I don't see whether he made a trip or not as being very relevant to much of anything. Assuming Wilson never left our shores, he had more than sufficient exposure to great designs to do a great design himself. He was a very talented guy. Which is why I've been puzzled about all the fuss made over his soi disant UK trip.

Bob 

 

Bob, the overseas trip (with a few mentions of general advice from Macdonald) has always been presented as THE MAIN REASON Wilson knew enough to pull off what he pulled off at Merion.  So at the very least, Merion's history must be rewritten to indicate that this is not the case.   

Also, we must also reconsider just how he knew enough to pull it off, and from where all those great ideas came.

Also, we know that M&W were much more involved than we thought.  Even TPaul claims that it was M&W who chose the final routing.

You speculate that he had more than sufficient exposure to the great designs without ever having gone abroad.  But why go out of our way to suppose where Wilson learned what he learned when he tells us that it was Macdonald and Whigham that taught the Committee how the holes should be laid out at Merion, and NGLA that they studied (with Macdonald) to learn how to pull it off?   As for the overseas holes he eventually say, they confirmed what M&W had already taught him. 

[Sean_A]

David

Hmmm, so you will hazard an opinion that Wilson was not the driving force behind the design of Merion, but you can't say if it was possible that Wilson was the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion.  I am not quite sure why you mince the words so.  You evade the question, for what purpose I cannot tell, but it sounds very fishy.  Fine, I will try a new question.  Since I surmise that you are still seeking info for what I believe is the agenda of your essay (and I don't write that in an insulting way because everybody has an agenda - even those who say they merely seek the truth); if you don't believe Wilson was the driving fore behind the creation of Merion, who would you GUESS is?   

If you don't want to answer the question, just say so - its fair enough, but don't offer up any lawyering nonsense.  I have no time for that sort of stuff.

I think you missed my point.  I dont think Wilson was the driving creative force behind the design or the creation of Merion East.   

But that was not your question.   You asked whether it was possible that he could have been the driving force behind the creation without first having traveled abroad.   

Whether or not that is possible depends on to many other factors, such as who helped him, how much help he received, how much he was just carrying out someone else's vision, what he was exposed to, etc.  All those factors point to the same two men.  I have said before (in response to you, I think) that I think M&W were the driving created forces behind the design and H.G. Lloyd may have been the driving force behind the deal. 

David

I do believe that you are the only person who could say the above - much like a parent defending their child.  At least we have moved on a bit.  Though it is curious how you believe that all factors point toward M&W.  Presumably you have determined that several factors are not relevant, except for the idea that Wilson could design a course (and from what I can gather a rather rudimentary one compared with the final product) without ever going to the UK. 

You have more than satisfied my suspicions that your agenda was front loaded with MacDitis.  As I say, this is not a bad thing at all, everybody has an agenda - its just that you choose to couch yours in lawyerism.

Ciao 

[BCrosby]

David -

I read the record differently. Ex post hoc, several people thought Wilson did a wonderful job at Merion because - they thought incorrectly - he had been to the UK. Turns out he probably didn't go.

The issue is whether those errors require us to modify the traditional design attribution of the course. I don't thnk those errors have that sort of significance. As noted above to Tom MacW, that's because unless there are features at Merion that couldn't possibly have been designed by someone who hadn't been to the UK, the fact that Wilson didn't get on a boat is not probative of much of anything.   

I don't see those sorts of features at Merion. But that's a hurdle your argument has to jump if you want to give to those historical errors the force you want to give them.

It seems to me the best and most plausible story of Merion's original design remains something like the traditional one. Most contemporary observers there on the ground gave Wilson the credit. He would have been a logical choice for the project. He had played all the best US courses, he was respected by all and was a very perceptive, talented fellow.

I think you have done a good job of highlighting CBM's role in consulting with Merion in the early stages. That's a wonderful and important contribution. But if the point of your essay (something about which you have been very coy) was to reallocate design credit, I don't think you have carried that burden.

Bob

 

[TEPaul]

"Bob, the overseas trip (with a few mentions of general advice from Macdonald) has always been presented as THE MAIN REASON Wilson knew enough to pull off what he pulled off at Merion.  So at the very least, Merion's history must be rewritten to indicate that this is not the case."


David Moriarty:

We need to take a very serious look at that statement of yours as it seems to contain the kind of assumption (as innocence as it may at first seem) that can lead down a very wrong road and to a very poor conclusion.

You mention "the overseas trip". What overseas trip are you referring to---the one in 1912 or the one in 1910 which may not have happened in which it has been said he stayed abroad for seven months and returned with sketches and drawings and surveyor's maps?

If it is the 1910 trip story you're referring to then what do you mean by "always" when you say; "the overseas trip (with a few mentions of general advice from Macdonald) has always been presented as THE MAIN REASON Wilson knew enough to pull off what he pulled off at Merion."

In your mind does that "always" mean back to 1926 or 1916 or even 1910?

[Thomas MacWood]

David -

I read the record differently. Ex post hoc, several people thought Wilson did a wonderful job at Merion because - they thought incorrectly - he had been to the UK. Turns out he probably didn't go.

The issue is whether those errors require us to modify the traditional design attribution of the course. I don't thnk those errors have that sort of significance. As noted above to Tom MacW, that's because unless there are features at Merion that couldn't possibly have been designed by someone who hadn't been to the UK, the fact that Wilson didn't get on a boat is not probative of much of anything.   

I don't see those sorts of features at Merion. But that's a hurdle your argument has to jump if you want to give to those historical errors the force you want to give them.

It seems to me the best and most plausible story of Merion's original design remains something like the traditional one. Most contemporary observers there on the ground gave Wilson the credit. He would have been a logical choice for the project. He had played all the best US courses, he was respected by all and was a very perceptive, talented fellow.

I think you have done a good job of highlighting CBM's role in consulting with Merion in the early stages. That's a wonderful and important contribution. But if the point of your essay (something about which you have been very coy) was to reallocate design credit, I don't think you have carried that burden.

Bob

Bob
I'm not aware of any first-time golf architect who incorporated those famous holes into their maiden design (who wasn't intimately familar with the holes being duplicated). I'm sure someone will put forth Seth Raynor but Raynor had been building those holes under Macdonald instructions for years. He could probably build them in his sleep.

Is it your opinion that Wilson incorporated the famous holes due to Macdonald's influence? If so, how far do you think that influence or consulting went?

[DMoriarty]

David

I do believe that you are the only person who could say the above - much like a parent defending their child.  At least we have moved on a bit.  Though it is curious how you believe that all factors point toward M&W.  Presumably you have determined that several factors are not relevant, except for the idea that Wilson could design a course (and from what I can gather a rather rudimentary one compared with the final product) without ever going to the UK. 

You have more than satisfied my suspicions that your agenda was front loaded with MacDitis.  As I say, this is not a bad thing at all, everybody has an agenda - its just that you choose to couch yours in lawyerism.

Ciao 

Sean,  I am a bit surprised by this last post.   You seemed to have abandoned all semblance of conversation and have instead joined the rest with accusations, insults, and aspersions.  Too bad.   

When I say that all the factors point to M&W, that is because I am dealing not with what may have been "possible" but with what Hugh Wilson, Alan Wilson, Robert Lesley, and MCC's board said about the issue.   According to HW it was NGLA that he studied.   According to HW it was M&W who taught the committee to to incorporate the principles of the great holes into the lanscape at Merion.  According to HW he and his committee knew nothing more than the average club member before he went to M&W.  etc.

___________________________________

David -

I read the record differently. Ex post hoc, several people thought Wilson did a wonderful job at Merion because - they thought incorrectly - he had been to the UK. Turns out he probably didn't go.

In my mind this raises a bit of a chicken and the egg problem.   I am not so sure that they would have credited him with the initial design had they not misunderstood the trip. 
________________________________________

As noted above to Tom MacW, that's because unless there are features at Merion that couldn't possibly have been designed by someone who hadn't been to the UK, the fact that Wilson didn't get on a boat is not probative of much of anything.

I don't see those sorts of features at Merion. But that's a hurdle your argument has to jump if you want to give to those historical errors the force you want to give them. 

I agree that the next step ought to be a thorough examination of what was on the ground at the time of the opening, but I am not sure we'd be looking for the same things.   What are these features you are looking for?

As might be clear from my conversation with Sean, I view this is an impossible standard.   What would a course look like that couldn't possibly have been designed from someone who had not gone to the U.K.? 

Wouldn't it make more sense to look for tell-tale signs of M&W's involvement in the design?   

[Mike_Cirba]

David

Are you suggesting that Tilly, the Merion committee. and contemporary colleagues and newswriters like Evans would all have withdrawn their credit of Hugh Wilson with the design had they known he went abroad in 1912 instead of 1910?

[DMoriarty]

David

Are you suggesting that Tilly, the Merion committee. and contemporary colleagues and newswriters like Evans would all have withdrawn their credit of Hugh Wilson with the design had they known he went abroad in 1912 instead of 1910?

Mike I am not going to go through every source with you again.  We've done that repeatedly, and we disagree about the their various significances.   Wilson deserves much of the credit for what happened over the years at Merion.  My issue is much narrower.   As I have said regarding the narrow issue of how the course was originally created, Lesley, Hugh Wilson, and H.J. Whigham were in the best position to know what happened.  Alan Wilson's  account only credits Wilson for that which M&W did not contribute.

[Lou_Duran]

Sorry, but is this now an argument about credit for a purported course design that didn't survive more than a couple of years?  Maybe that's why Macdonald never challenged the record.  Why bother claiming credit for something that was not good enough even in the short term?

[TEPaul]

"In my mind this raises a bit of a chicken and the egg problem.   I am not so sure that they would have credited him with the initial design had they not misunderstood the trip."

 



Who is they? Who wouldn't have credited him with the initial design had they not misunderstood the trip?