[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said:

"Alan Wilson's  account only credits Wilson for that which M&W did not contribute."


Alan Wilson's report said:

"Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam...twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about OUR plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the layout of the East Course were of the greatest help and value. EXCEPT FOR THIS, the ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY for the DESIGN and construction of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd, Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chariman....and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that HE (HUGH I. WILSON) IS THE PERSON in the MAIN RESPONSIBLE for the ARCHITECTURE of the EAST and West Courses."


No matter how anyone slices those words (except apparently David Moriarty and Tom MacWood) it is just not hard at all to understand what they mean and why they reflect the accurate history of the creation of Merion East and why Hugh Wilson has been considered the architect!   

(However, beginning around 1916 and on, William Flynn is now given co-design credit with Hugh Wilson).

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty said:

"Alan Wilson's  account only credits Wilson for that which M&W did not contribute."


Alan Wilson's report said:

"Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam...twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about OUR plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the layout of the East Course were of the greatest help and value. EXCEPT FOR THIS, the ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY for the DESIGN and construction of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd, Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chariman....and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that HE (HUGH I. WILSON) IS THE PERSON in the MAIN RESPONSIBLE for the ARCHITECTURE of the EAST and West Courses."


No matter how anyone slices those words (except apparently David Moriarty and Tom MacWood) it is just not hard at all to understand what they mean and why they reflect the accurate history of the creation of Merion East!   

That is some selective editing on your part, T  M.   You left out the part about how the plan evolved after Wilson's return from Europe.

[Mike_Cirba]

Lou,

Its even sillier than that.

If you think about it, we're being asked to buy that novice Wilson went from a caveman's understanding of golf architecture (after having spent the previous tenyears playing the best courses in the US, mind you, to suddenly learning enough in less than 48 hours with M+W to instantly be transformed into a great architect.

Renind me never to mutter another humble or magnamonious word lest some future historian try to reduce me to an emptyheaded caricature!

[TEPaul]

"You left out the part about how the plan evolved after Wilson's return from Europe."

And there are good and totally documented reasons for that which is part of Merion's record----eg the course was architecturally revised by Hugh Wilson (and Flynn) in two major phases which included the remainder of Hugh I. Wilson's life.

But even that does not take into account that Merion East was also being revised rather extensively for a variety of reasons between 1912 and 1916.

There are even a few other factors in the entire MCC and MCC Golf Association story. One account mentions that when Merion East Opened for play in September of 1912, the old Haverford course was shut down.

It wasn't, it remained in play for another year. And that makes very good sense in the over-all scheme of things as they were apparently doing some rather extensive architectural work on Merion East at that time for a variety of reasons including some failed greens.

Matter of fact the primary reason both the East and West courses became incredibly crowded so quickly is something I don't think I understood before. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Perhaps Macdonald + Whigham zapped Hugh Wilson with gamma rays during his overnight stay at NGLA?

The transformation of Bruce Banner into The Hulk is nothing compared to this INCREDIBLE story of how M+W turned humble, dunderheaded Wilson into SuperArchie just by the brilliance of their imparted principles.

God must be envious because he imparted less wisdom to Moses on the mountain than what these two did to Wilson overnite!

[Thomas MacWood]

Is Lou your scholar?

[TEPaul]

"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."


I don't know who you're referring to when you say 'we thought' but I don't think Macdonald/Whigam were more involved than some of us in Philadelphia who know Merion's history well ever thought.

You also said there that TPaul claims that it was M&W who chose the final routing.

Yes, I would say that would be my opinion. But what does that mean exactly? What does that mean to you David Moriarty? Does it mean to you that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed the golf course?

It does not mean that to me at all. What I believe they did is simply select one of the routings done by Wilson and his committee that they felt was the best routing and the best plan. There's no question in my mind, given what both Wilsons said in their separate reports, that they and the club had plenty of respect for Macdonald and Whigam, and apparently they had no problem at all going with what Macdonald and Whigam felt was the best course routed and designed by Wilson and his committee at that time.

So once again, this seems to be a misinterpretation on your part that indicates Macdonald did not route and design the course, Hugh Wilson and his committee did just as all the accounts from back then indicate, certainly including Alan Wilson's report quoted above. Did Macdonald and Whigam offer their advice and suggestions at that point which was just a single day? Yes they did and both of the Wilson reports and the Merion record has always mentioned that.

But if you think Macdonald and Whigam could have possibly come up with their own routing and design for Merion East in a single day (April 6) all I can say is you sure don't understand golf course architecture very well.

[TEPaul]

"Is Lou your scholar?"

Is Lou whose scholar?   

[Andy Hughes]

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?

If you think about it, we're being asked to buy that novice Wilson went from a caveman's understanding of golf architecture (after having spent the previous tenyears playing the best courses in the US, mind you, to suddenly learning enough in less than 48 hours with M+W to instantly be transformed into a great architect.

Mike, in a sense though, when your hyperbole is stripped away, there is a kernel of truth to the position you mock.  That first iteration of Merion seems not to have been particularly good, as you have said 7 (I think?) holes were re-routed entirely and there were no hazards as they were to be added later--it's likely safe to say there was not much strategy to the course if it lacked hazards?

Add to that your stance that there wasn't much choice for the routing itself, and what exactly was the brilliance of that first iteration?  Wilson may have been a talented man and fast learner who created a wonderful course, but those 10 years of playing the finest courses in the country, on top of the 7 month trip to study all the best courses in Great Britain if he did indeed make that trip, clearly did not lead to a good course.

Put another way, would you say a great architect created the first iteration, or a very mediocre one who became a great gca later?

[DMoriarty]

"You left out the part about how the plan evolved after Wilson's return from Europe."

And there are good and totally documented reasons for that which is part of Merion's record----eg the course was architecturally revised by Hugh Wilson (and Flynn) in two major phases which included the remainder of Hugh I. Wilson's life.

Do you recall your reaction the first time I suggested this to you over a year ago?    I do.   My how your view has changed.

But if this is now your view, then you have to apply it to the bit you quoted about how Wilson was "in the main responsible."  It is the same sentence, isn't it? 

"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."


I don't know who you're referring to when you say 'we thought' but I don't think Macdonald/Whigam were more involved than some of us in Philadelphia who know Merion's history well ever thought.

This is just backpedaling here Tom, again.  You guys were wrong about the purposes of the NGLA visit.  You discounted and minimized the M&W course visits.   You guys didn't even know that it was Merion who brought them in (or it least you so claimed.)   Until Tom MacWood pushed the issue on here, I am told that Wayne's tome did not even include the mention of both visits.   You still have never acknowledged and real contribution, and fought tooth and nail against recognizing any.   Now, you even try to discount the significance that M&W finalized the routing.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,

Its even sillier than that.

If you think about it, we're being asked to buy that novice Wilson went from a caveman's understanding of golf architecture (after having spent the previous tenyears playing the best courses in the US, mind you, to suddenly learning enough in less than 48 hours with M+W to instantly be transformed into a great architect.

Renind me never to mutter another humble or magnamonious word lest some future historian try to reduce me to an emptyheaded caricature!

[Lou_Duran]

Mike Cirba,

I made a similar point what seems neons ago in one of the Merion threads.  But if you follow the mindset of some folks here, being a professional golfer or a top-notch amateur pretty much rules knowing much of anything about gca or how to design a course.  Golf must be one of those rare things where experience with the product is detrimental.  No wonder Raynor was such a genius.  I guess Macdonald gets a pass because he spent some months "studying" in Scotland.  Maybe Wilson was a fast learner (or Macdonald a great teacher?), but no, that doesn't fit the template. 

Tom MacWood,

Ouch!   Me a scholar?  I would never presume so, after all I only have two degrees and they're from Ohio State.  Talk about a throw away insult that's revealing of the sender!      I don't mean to get personal, but may I ask what you university you attended? 

[Eric Smith]

Perhaps Macdonald + Whigham zapped Hugh Wilson with gamma rays during his overnight stay at NGLA?

The transformation of Bruce Banner into The Hulk is nothing compared to this INCREDIBLE story of how M+W turned humble, dunderheaded Wilson into SuperArchie just by the brilliance of their imparted principles.

Is Lou your scholar?

"Is Lou your scholar?"

Is Lou whose scholar?   

I think he was talking about Lou Ferrigno 

[Kirk Gill]

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

Sorry I've been a bit out of the loop. I had a decent (if not overly long-winded) response typed up, and then I had to reboot, and I don't know that I can recapture, but here's a go at it (and I'll admit it - I just re-read this thing and it's long-winded as hell):

Truth (or even a dissenting opinion, be it true or not) has been snuffed out by the "powers that be" throughout human history. It's happening in Zimbabwe right now. Galileo and Socrates both paid a huge price for what they believed and publicly stated.

But to step back just a bit from those iconic historical figures and narrow the scope of our discussion a bit, we're talking about writing history, and challenging accepted views of what happened in the past, not about theories that are perceived to be undermining the power of a government or a religion. The two may be analogous, but there are differences.

You said "Those that want to hold onto the old "truths" will vilify and ostracize those with the new ideas, painting them as dangerous, misguided, careless, unintelligent, uneducated, inexperienced, outsiders, unwelcome, prying, rabble-rousers trying to upset the comfortable order, people who have overstepped their social status." Now, taken as a whole, the consequences you're describing fall considerably short of what happened to Galileo or Socrates. That said, it seems like what you're really saying is that those who accept a certain notion of history mightn't accept a change to that orthodoxy with open arms.

In response one might say "well, duh !" The notion that people might resist changing their beliefs, that they might not have open minds, and that they might defensively turn on the messenger bringing these beliefs to them strikes me as pretty obvious.

So what are historians to do who want to challenge an orthodox view, who, as Mr. McPherson suggested in his quote, "...have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions" ?

I'm by no means a historian, but if I was going to write something that I knew would challenge some preconceived notions, or maybe even step on a few toes, there are a few things that I might do to minimize the backlash and allow my new information to receive the analysis and perhaps acceptance that it deserves.

I'd apply an extreme amount of academic rigour to my writing. It's like when you have a championship boxing match - the challenger usually needs a decisive victory over the reigning champion. If the fight's close, then the champion will get the benefit of the doubt, and be granted the victory. I'd make absolutely sure that my facts were accurate and verifiable, and I'd make sure that my conclusions stood up to any assault by those that might have a vested interest in the theories I was trying to debunk. And I'd make sure of this down the line, from the smallest and most seemingly innocuous point to the biggest, most obvious bone of contention. Because those who disagree with you will always tend to view your theories as a house of cards - that if one thing doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then the rest of it is likely bogus as well. And I'd have a thick skin. Criticism will be inevitable, so I'd be ready for it.

One of the comments you made about those who disagree with new ideas was "Shouldn't we be more suspicious of those with almost a mythical devotion the old truth, as if the old "truth" were JFK or some other Martyred figure too sacred to be exposed the harsh light of critical review?" The reality is that sometimes people have a very personal connection to something, a connection that you do not share. It's not hard to see how such a person will react when something that they cherish is being threatened. You can, as an historian either reject them and their feelings as not being relevant to your inquiry, or you can attempt understanding, and make an effort to address their concerns in  your work. Either way, the criticism will still flow, but I guess that's to be expected (see "thick skin" reference above).

Lastly, you said "But what does the agenda matter anyway?   What if the person is TOTALLY agenda driven, yet his research sound and facts accurate.   Should his theories be dismissed, and if so, on what basis?  If the facts support the theories, what is the basis for denying its validity."

Look, everyone has an agenda. To me the whole notion of objectivity in writing is more of an ideal to be aspired to than something that is actually done. But if someone decides what it is they want to prove before even beginning their research, isn't it just possible that this notion gets built in to the filtering process when doing the research, and that the facts that are found might just arrange themselves to prove that point? The historian has to be self-aware enough to understand their own biases and the way that those biases might negatively impact the soundness of their research and the validity of their theories.

(Sorry for the short novel. I obviously ate my wheaties this morning. Unfortunately, I think the milk was rancid.......)

[Lou_Duran]

Come on Eric, why ruin the fun!

[Bradley Anderson]

C.S. Lewis, author of Narnia, and good friend of JRR Tolkein wrote this in response to modern biblical criticism, which I think speaks partly to the issue of revisionism.

The undermining of the old orthodoxy has been mainly the work of divines engaged in New Testament criticism.  The authority of experts in that discipline is the authority in deference to whom we are asked to give up a huge mass of beliefs shared in common by the early Church, the Fathers, the Middle Ages, the Reformers, and even the nineteenth century.  I want to explain what it is that makes me skeptical about this authority.  Ignorantly skeptical, as you will all too easily see.  But the skepticism is the father of the ignorance.  It is hard to persevere in a close study when you can work up no prima facie confidence in your teachers.

….. first bleat.  These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves.  They claim to see fern-seed and can't see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight.

Now for my second bleat.  All theology of the liberal type involves at some point -- and often involves throughout -- the claim that the real behaviour and purpose and teaching of Christ came very rapidly to be misunderstood and misrepresented by His followers, and has been recovered or exhumed only by modern scholars.  Now long before I became interested in theology I had met this kind of theory elsewhere.  The tradition of Jowett still dominated the study of ancient philosophy when I was reading Greats.  One was brought up to believe that the real meaning of Plato had been misunderstood by Aristotle and wildly travestied by the neo-Platonists, only to be recovered by the moderns.  When recovered, it turned out (most fortunately) that Plato had really all along been an English Hegelian, rather like T.H. Green.  I have met it a third time in my own professional studies; every week a clever undergraduate, every quarter a dull American don, discovers for the first time what some Shakespearian play really meant.  But in this third instance I am a privileged person.  The revolution in thought and sentiment which has occurred in my own lifetime is so great that I belong, mentally, to Shakespeare's world far more than to that of these recent interpreters.  I see -- I feel it in my bones -- I know beyond argument -- that most of their interpretations are merely impossible; they involve a way of looking at things which was not known in 1914, much less in the Jacobean period.  This daily confirms my suspicion of the same approach to Plato or the New Testament.  The idea that any man or writer should be opaque to those who lived in the same culture, spoke the same language, shared the same habitual imagery and unconscious assumptions, and yet be transparent to those who have none of these advantages, is in my opinion preposterous.  There is an a priori improbability in it which almost no argument and no evidence could counterbalance.

……. my fourth bleat -- which is also my loudest and longest -- is still to come.

All this sort of criticism attempts to reconstruct the genesis of the texts it studies; what vanished documents each author used, when and where he wrote, with what purposes, under what influences -- the whole Sitz im Leben [8] of the text.  This is done with immense erudition and great ingenuity.  And at first sight it is very convincing.  I think I should be convinced by it myself, but that I carry about with me a charm – the herb moly [9] -- against it. You must excuse me if I now speak for a while of myself.  The value of what I say depends on its being first-hand evidence.

What forearms me against all these reconstructions is the fact that I have seen it all from the other end of the stick.  I have watched reviewers reconstructing the genesis of my own books in just this way.

Until you come to be reviewed yourself you would never believe how little of an ordinary review is taken up by criticism in the strict sense: by evaluation, praise, or censure, of the book actually written.  Most of it is taken up with imaginary histories of the process by which you wrote it.  The very terms which the reviewers use in praising or dispraising often imply such a history.  They praise a passage as 'spontaneous' and censure another as 'laboured'; that is, they think they know that you wrote the one currente calamo [10] and the other invita Minerva [11].

What the value of such reconstructions is I learned very early in my career.  I had published a book of essays; and the one into which I had put most of my heart, the one I really cared about and in which I discharged a keen enthusiasm, was on William Morris.  And in almost the first review I was told that this was obviously the only one in the book in which I had felt no interest.  Now don't mistake.  The critic was, I now believe, quite right in thinking it the worst essay in the book; at least everyone agreed with him.  Where he was totally wrong was in his imaginary history of the causes which produced its dullness.

Well, this made me prick up my ears. Since then I have watched with some care similar imaginary histories both of my own books and of books by friends whose real history I knew.  Reviewers, both friendly and hostile, will dash you off such histories with great confidence; will tell you what public events had directed the author's mind to this or that, what other authors had influenced him, what his over-all intention was, what sort of audience he principally addressed, why -- and when -- he did everything.

Now I must first record my impression; then distinct from it, what I can say with certainty.  My impression is that in the whole of my experience not one of these guesses has on any one point been right; that the method shows a record of 100 per cent failure.  You would expect that by mere chance they would hit as often as they miss.  But it is my impression that they do no such thing.  I can't remember a single hit.  But as I have not kept a careful record my mere impression may be mistaken.  What I think I can say with certainty is that they are usually wrong.

And yet they would often sound -- if you didn't know the truth -- extremely convincing.  Many reviewers said that the Ring in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings  was suggested by the atom bomb.  What could be more plausible?  Here is a book published when everyone was preoccupied by that sinister invention; here in the centre of the book is a weapon which it seems madness to throw away yet fatal to use.  Yet in fact, the chronology of the book's composition makes the theory impossible.  Only the other week a reviewer said that a fairy tale by my friend roger Lancelyn Green was influenced by fairy tales of mine.  Nothing could be more probable.  I have an imaginary country with a beneficent lion in it: Green, one with a beneficent tiger.  Green and I can be proved to read one another's works; to be indeed in various ways closely associated.  The case for an affiliation is far stronger than many which we accept as conclusive when dead authors are concerned.  But it's all untrue nevertheless.  I know the genesis of that Tiger and that Lion and they are quite independent.[12]

Now this surely ought to give us pause.  The reconstruction of the history of a text, when the text is ancient, sounds very convincing.  But one is after all sailing by dead reckoning; the results cannot be checked by fact.  In order to decide how reliable the method is, what more could you ask than to be shown an instance where the same method is at work and we have the facts to check it by?  Well, that is what I have done.  And we find, that when this check is available, the results are either always, or else nearly always, wrong.  The 'assured results of modern scholarship', as to the way in which an old book was written, are 'assured', we may conclude, only because the men who knew the facts are dead and can't blow the gaff.  The huge essays in my own field which reconstruct the history of Piers Plowman  or The Faerie Queene  are most unlikely to be anything but sheer illusions.

Am I then venturing to compare every whipster who writes a review in a modern weekly with these great scholars who have devoted their whole lives to the detailed study of the New Testament?  If the former are always wrong, does it follow that the latter must fare no better?
There are two answers to this.  First, while I respect the learning of the great Biblical critics, I am not yet persuaded that their judgment is equally to be respected.  But, secondly, consider with what overwhelming advantages the mere reviewers start.  They reconstruct the history of a book written by someone whose mother-tongue is the same as theirs; a contemporary, educated like themselves, living in something like the same mental and spiritual climate.  They have everything to help them.  The superiority in judgment and diligence which you are going to attribute to the Biblical critics will have to be almost superhuman if it is to offset the fact that they are everywhere faced with customs, language, race-characteristics, a religious background, habits of composition, and basic assumptions, which no scholarship will ever enable any man now alive to know as surely and intimately and instinctively as the reviewer can know mine.  And for the very same reason, remember, the Biblical critics, whatever reconstructions they devise, can never be crudely proved wrong.  St. Mark is dead.  When they meet St. Peter there will be more pressing matters to discuss.

[Thomas MacWood]

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?

Lou
Don't be coy. I know you are TE's anonimous scholar. I didn't fall of the turnip truck yestersay...or is it I wasn't born yesterday.

[TEPaul]

"Do you recall your reaction the first time I suggested this to you over a year ago?    I do.   My how your view has changed.

But if this is now your view, then you have to apply it to the bit you quoted about how Wilson was "in the main responsible."  It is the same sentence, isn't it?"

According to Alan Wilson the other members of Hugh Wilson's committee told him "in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses. To me that pretty much precludes your conclusion that Macdonald routed Merion East or was the creative driving force behind it.

Your essay was primarily on Macdonald's contribution to Merion East wasn't it? As far as I can tell April 6, 1911 was the last time Macdonald/Whigam had anything to do with it although there is a letter from Macdonald to Wilson in the "agronomy" letters about the amount of fertilizer to apply to greens.  

[TEPaul]

"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?"


Don't forget in April 1911 Macdonald did say that he thought the last seven holes would be the best on any inland course in the world.

[TEPaul]

"This is just backpedaling here Tom, again.  You guys were wrong about the purposes of the NGLA visit.  You discounted and minimized the M&W course visits.   You guys didn't even know that it was Merion who brought them in (or it least you so claimed.)   Until Tom MacWood pushed the issue on here, I am told that Wayne's tome did not even include the mention of both visits.   You still have never acknowledged and real contribution, and fought tooth and nail against recognizing any.   Now, you even try to discount the significance that M&W finalized the routing."

David Moriarty:

That's just more of your garbage.

We've known for years what happened at the NGLA visit. It's been right there in both Wilson reports and we read both of them carefully years ago. Nothing has changed at all.

We do know more about Macdonald/Whigam's two visits to Merion Ardmore from the MCC board minutes including Macdonald's letter and the accounts in April 1911 and they include little more from Macdonald/Whigam than we ever thought. The Wilson reports reflect them quite well and there is no minimizing of Macdonald's roll.

Perhaps you just don't understand it but looking over the plans Hugh Wilson and his committee developed and approving one of them is most definitely not the same thing as Macdonald/Whigam being responsible for the routing and design of the East course. Plus, logicially, you really always have just overlooked the most obvious fact of all and that is Macdonald/Whigam probably did not spend more than two days at Ardmore anyway and how much could anyone do in that limited amount of time even IF he wanted to do a routing and design, which by the way, there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that Macdonald even wanted to do such a thing for Merion.

These are some of the more obvious and logical items to me that you seem to refuse to face up to in your zeal to make your over-reaching points and premises and conclusion.

No, I think Macdonald did exactly what Merion said back then he did----advised and made suggestions in two short visits and had them to NGLA to go over his plans from abroad and his plans of NGLA, he took them out on the course the next day where he showed them architectural principles on the ground and then they just went home and did it themselves. He then came back to Ardmore for a day, looked over their plans and the grounds and then approved one of their plans and they went with that one which was not developed by Macdonald but by them.

That's pretty much the story of the 1910-1911 creation of Merion and it does not include Macdonald routing or designing the course or being the driving creative force behind it. It is what's always been said----advice and suggestions, nothing more. Everyone, including Macdonald, seemed to have always been comfortable with that record until you and Tom MacWood came along.

You can continue to try to pound a square peg into a round hole with your continued tortured logic, David Moriarty, but it will never work, in my opinion.

As I have said for five years, I stand behing Alan Wilson's report and it remains unrefuted because I believe it is unrefutable. It's the truth of the creation of Merion East.

[Lou_Duran]

"I didn't fall of the turnip truck yestersay...or is it I wasn't born yesterday."

Tom MacWood,

I was under the impression that you hitchiked from Philadelphia in said turnip truck, and slipped out quietly in Columbus under the cover of darkness. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Is that a wicker basket he's holding?

[TEPaul]

Kirk:

I think your post #139 is a good one but obviously most of it was in response to a question to you by Moriarty about "revisionism"or how he thinks this essay about Merion is some kind of productive revisionism, and you talk a lot about how someone doing what he seemed to try to do should go about it.

However, many of the ways he went about this subject I don't think should be something used as a reasonable example of a productive way to go about as essay like that. For starters, he basically tried to make it sound like it is always a given that those he's essentially challenging will denigrated him simply because he’s questioning the facts behind the story of a “legend”. David Moriarty cast those who he figured might disagree with him or his essay this way:

“"Those that want to hold onto the old "truths" will vilify and ostracize those with the new ideas, painting them as dangerous, misguided, careless, unintelligent, uneducated, inexperienced, outsiders, unwelcome, prying, rabble-rousers trying to upset the comfortable order, people who have overstepped their social status."

In my opinion, that is more than a little hysterical on his part and just sort of a cheap trick (perhaps of the courtroom variety) to cast the other side as the bad guys at the beginning before the jury has even heard his argument.

In my opinion, there are probably a lot of stories about legends in golf architecture that are inherently suspect stories for a variety of reasons but I really don’t think Merion’s is one of them. Moriarty may’ve just picked up on this subject of Merion because Tom MacWood just used it in a thread over five years ago when he had virtually no real reason to even think such a thing other than the fact that he had already run afoul of some people here in Philadelphia because of some pretty odd logic and tactics of his own. David Moriarty also had a chip on his shoulder towards these same Philadelphians before he even seemingly developed his interest in Merion's history. It also seems he may've always had a tendency on here to sort of over-glorify and idolize C.B. Macdonald too for some reason going way back on here.

It is that kind of unreasonable “foot-in-the-door” technique with very little reason to question something that disturbs me about the modus operandi those two guys generally use and used again with Macdonald, Wilson and Merion.

But essentially once the essay was posted David Moriarty’s modus operandi throughout has been basically nothing much more than the kind of thing that gives lawyers a bad name. Things like facts, the truth or even commonsense and logic sort of get shunted aside and the only thing important to him seems to be to not appear to lose an argument or even a single point in an argument.

I think getting at facts and getting at the truth of Merion East's history is completely secondary to people like that if it even has any importance to them at all.

Does having an "agenda" going in to something like that really matter? Perhaps it doesn't in all cases but in David Moriarty's case, and probably Tom MacWood's too, I think it makes all the difference and I don't see that much of anything benefical usually comes out of it, historically or otherwise.

[DMoriarty]

Truth (or even a dissenting opinion, be it true or not) has been snuffed out by the "powers that be" throughout human history. It's happening in Zimbabwe right now. Galileo and Socrates both paid a huge price for what they believed and publicly stated.

But to step back just a bit from those iconic historical figures and narrow the scope of our discussion a bit, we're talking about writing history, and challenging accepted views of what happened in the past, not about theories that are perceived to be undermining the power of a government or a religion. The two may be analogous, but there are differences.

You said "Those that want to hold onto the old "truths" will vilify and ostracize those with the new ideas, painting them as dangerous, misguided, careless, unintelligent, uneducated, inexperienced, outsiders, unwelcome, prying, rabble-rousers trying to upset the comfortable order, people who have overstepped their social status." Now, taken as a whole, the consequences you're describing fall considerably short of what happened to Galileo or Socrates. That said, it seems like what you're really saying is that those who accept a certain notion of history mightn't accept a change to that orthodoxy with open arms.

Obviously personal verbal attacks are well short of forced suicide or execution, but I think you may have missed my entire point.  I am not really talking about the actual physical or even verbal persecution, but rather the rhetorical use and value of ridiculing, demonizing, and ostracizing those who challenge the beloved status quo.   

Think of how Whigham is portrayed on this website, for example.  Whigham claimed that Macdonald designed Merion.  Not only that but he was there.  Not only that but he extremely knowledgeable on the topic of golf courses and design.   Not only that but he was a well respected and well known journalist and editor.   So what is the response?   Portray him as an idiot, a sycophant, a servile sissy.   In humor?  In part, maybe.  But the comments have a rhetorical purpose and impact.  I guarantee you that are many readers of this website who now completely discount his statement, because he was nothing but CBM's lackey. 

In response one might say "well, duh!" The notion that people might resist changing their beliefs, that they might not have open minds, and that they might defensively turn on the messenger bringing these beliefs to them strikes me as pretty obvious.

You write like this behavior is justified.  It is not.  Studying history is supposed to be about learning and analyzing what actually happened.  It is not supposed to be about protecting the status quo or vilifying those who might.  Objectivity might just be a goal, but even so we ought to be very suspicious of those who completely cast all objectivity to scatter in the wind.  At the very least, when one resorts to this type of behavior it usually indicates that there are cracks in the status quo.  Same goes for the rest of the shenanigans that I outlined above.  All these are used to avoid a frank and honest discussion of the actual facts. 

But all the still,  I understand why they behave the way the behave.  But this is all the more reason to question their analysis and tactics.  They are motivated by an overwhelming instinct to protect their own, and that bias will undoubtedly skew their research and analysis.  At least this is the case when "fact and analysis" are replaced by name calling, demonization, hyperbole and hysterics.  This was my point.   When these behaviors come out, it is a pretty good indication that all reasonable analysis has been discarded and replaced with a circle the wagons, fight to the death, truth be damned mentality.
 

Look, everyone has an agenda. To me the whole notion of objectivity in writing is more of an ideal to be aspired to than something that is actually done. But if someone decides what it is they want to prove before even beginning their research, isn't it just possible that this notion gets built in to the filtering process when doing the research, and that the facts that are found might just arrange themselves to prove that point? The historian has to be self-aware enough to understand their own biases and the way that those biases might negatively impact the soundness of their research and the validity of their theories.

In my opinion you are overly concerned with how the "challenger's" biases might impact the soundness  of their research and theories, but not nearly concerned enough with how the "champion's" bias impact the soundness of their research and the validity of their theories.   The champions of the status quo already have the deck stacked in their favor and the community on their side.   This is the status quo.   So I don't understand why you are so ready to criticize a "challenger's" motives, but explain away some pretty atrocious behavior on the part of the "champion."  Facts are facts.  Sound analysis is sound analysis.   All the rest is just noise meant to distract from the truth. 


Again, thank for your response.

Best,

DM
_______________________________

Bradley Anderson:

Thanks for the article above.   Is it a round-about way of answering that you did not read or consider the analysis of the Shakespeare scholars but criticized them nonetheless because you just know they must be wrong?   

I find the essay a strange choice for a discussion about historical revisionism, but perhaps an appropriate one for reasons I doubt you intended.   In my limited understanding, C.S. Lewis spent much of his efforts defending the notion of Christ as a Diety, and as one in the same as God.  The "revisionists" were ones who had great respect for Jesus but did not view him as God.   Contrary to his implication in the essay this debate was not started by misguided modern scholars trying to rewrite history, but has been ongoing since the time of Christ. 

Also, while Lewis tried to apply what he viewed as historically accurate accounts from scripture to prove his point, I hope we can agree that at some point one must move away from rational analysis in such discussions.  I don't think we ought to do that with the Merion debate.   

All that being said, I do think that Lewis may nonetheless provide some insight into this debate. 

If I recall correctly from many years ago.  One of Lewis' main arguments was that Jesus either claimed he was God or was treated as God and did not deny it.   Therefor Jesus had to be either crazy, lying, or God ("lunatic, liar, or lord" or something like that.)   For Lewis, these were the only choices we had when trying to understand Jesus; accept him as God, condemn him as a liar, or dismiss him as a lunatic. 

One problem with Lewis line of reasoning as I understand the argument, is that it is not entirely clear that Jesus thought he was God, or that it was even suggested until later.   Another problem is that Lewis' presents his three as the only choices, but there are other possibilities.   Jesus as lesser diety for example.   Jesus as a man who God chose as conduit, for another.

While the circumstance pales in comparison by almost any standard, there are some similarities in our situation.   Hugh Wilson never claimed to have designed Merion, and I don't think anyone else who was there claimed that the Committee layed out the course WITHOUT THE GUIDANCE OF M&W.   

Yet you and others insist that looking into M&W's role in the design is "chronological elitism," or substituting our views for theres, or calling the men of Merion liars, or  calling Wilson an idiot, incompetent, incapable, etc.

First, as I said above, the facts do not suggest what many think they suggest.  Second,  there are many other options than just the ones presented by you and others.   For example, as I state in my essay, Wilson was a great man, and competent, and his greatest quality may have been that he was an avid learner and not afraid to seek out the best advice available.  So he he went to M&W who guided him through the rest of the design process, and then he built a pretty terrific golf course.   

Does this mean that the Men of Merion are liars or that I am practicing "chronological elitism?"   No. My version is entirely consistent with the record.  Does it mean that Wilson was incompetent, an idiot, etc?   Of course not.   

So I guess in the end I disagree with the Lewis approach.  His choices are not the only ones.   It may sometimes work if we really know for sure that those that were there were thinking (as in the case of his discussion of Lewis' own motives,)   But when we don't know for sure it is just a way of cutting off legitimate research and analysis. 

[TEPaul]

"Think of how Whigham is portrayed on this website, for example.  Whigham claimed that Macdonald designed Merion.  Not only that but he was there.  Not only that but he extremely knowledgeable on the topic of golf courses and design.   Not only that but he was a well respected and well known journalist and editor.   So what is the response?   Portray him as an idiot, a sycophant, a servile sissy.   In humor?  In part, maybe.  But the comments have a rhetorical purpose and impact.  I guarantee you that are many readers of this website who now completely discount his statement, because he was nothing but CBM's lackey."


David Moriarty, look, there has been some low-brow humor on the part of all of us in this five year argument you and MacWood have been conducting with the architectural attribution of Merion, but do not try to tell me I feel that H.J.Whigam was nothing more than Macdonald's lackey.

Whigam did say that Macdonald designed Merion in a written eulogy to Macdonald thirty years after the fact of Merion's creation and I really can't explain that on Whigam's part.

On the other hand, YOU are completely ignoring, dismissing and rationalizing away the words of what happened with the creation of Merion by a whole host of very upstanding and honorable men who were there at Merion to both work on and observe what went on with Merion who were both there and would've know better than Whigam by a factor of at least a thousand.

Feel free to just continue to ignore, dismiss and rationalize away all those people and continue to torture facts, events, chronologies etc, we really don't care because it is not going to change the truth of the creation of Merion.

The fact is you are just wrong about Merion, and you always have been. I feel the more people who understand that on here the more this website and the people who read it will benefit.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()