News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #150 on: June 14, 2008, 12:37:40 AM »
David Moriarty:

Let me ask you a very serious question----honestly.

Is it really possible that you actually BELIEVE the things you've said in your essay and on these threads following it? I find it truly incredible to imagine that you really do!  ;) ;)

Jeff Fortson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #151 on: June 14, 2008, 12:48:14 AM »
David & Tom.....

are you guys still going at it? 

Some things haven't changed!


Jeff F.
#nowhitebelt

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #152 on: June 14, 2008, 12:57:11 AM »
Jeff Forston:

Yeah, we are, but there is good news and bad news to that, I think.

The bad new is most on here don't seem to like it, and have no interest in contributing to it or following it.

On the other hand, we do have a new contributor on here---Kirk Gill, and just a few others like him who say when these kinds of threads like the Merion ones go to the back pages he actually loses interest in the site.

That gives me some hope. My point is I'd take less than ten Kirk Gills on this website COMPARED TO most of the rest on here and I think this place would be immeasurably better and far more informative and educational.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #153 on: June 14, 2008, 04:50:01 AM »

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 am abandoning all semblence of conversation because I think most folks reading your essay wouldn't agree that you proved your case concerning M&W?  I think this is a stretch.  To put me in the group who have openly, willfully and apparently without shame verbally abused you over and over again is beyond the pale.  In fact, I have been one of the few to call a spade a spade where this lot is concerned.  Perhaps you have become too comfortable with being on the defensive.  Complete your Part II and let it speak for itself.   

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #154 on: June 14, 2008, 08:41:13 AM »
"To put me in the group who have openly, willfully and apparently without shame verbally abused you over and over again is beyond the pale.  In fact, I have been one of the few to call a spade a spade where this lot is concerned."


Sean:

I agree with you. How does it feel?

This has been going on with some of us in Philadelphia for over five years. I'm not a good example but the treatment of Mike Cirba certainly is. He might be one of the most reasonable contributors on this site. Even Peter Pollotta got accused. My advice at this point would be for essay writers of Moriarty's type essay to very carefully consider Kirk Gill's post #139. Doesn't get much more reasonable than that.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #155 on: June 14, 2008, 08:55:40 AM »
"To put me in the group who have openly, willfully and apparently without shame verbally abused you over and over again is beyond the pale.  In fact, I have been one of the few to call a spade a spade where this lot is concerned."


Sean:

I agree with you. How does it feel?

This has been going on with some of us in Philadelphia for over five years. I'm not a good example but the treatment of Mike Cirba certainly is. He might be one of the most reasonable contributors on this site. Even Peter Pollotta got accused. My advice at this point would be for essay writers of Moriarty's type essay to very carefully consider Kirk Gill's post #139. Doesn't get much more reasonable than that.

TomP

I don't need any chippy comments from you.  So far as I am concerned, you are the main guy throwing insults around and you are the main reason for the Merion vitriol.  You continue to mention how the site is in disrepute because of the stupid nonsense, but you carry on and on.  You just don't seem able to control yourself. Put a lid on it and perhaps this whole pile of shit will decompose. 

Ciao
Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #156 on: June 14, 2008, 09:01:17 AM »

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 am abandoning all semblence of conversation because I think most folks reading your essay wouldn't agree that you proved your case concerning M&W?  I think this is a stretch.  To put me in the group who have openly, willfully and apparently without shame verbally abused you over and over again is beyond the pale.  In fact, I have been one of the few to call a spade a spade where this lot is concerned.  Perhaps you have become too comfortable with being on the defensive.  Complete your Part II and let it speak for itself.   

Ciao

Sean,  I apologize.  You do not deserve to be put in the same camp with those you describe.  While I haven't agreed with you much, you have been above the fray throughout and I appreciate that.  I didnt see any substantive point in your above post, and I still don't, but still it is polite and tame compared to most of what goes on here.  So again I am sorry to have included you in that group.   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #157 on: June 14, 2008, 09:11:14 AM »
“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 Moriarty:

That is just not the case at all. You are contradicting what Alan Wilson said about the design of Merion East and who was responsible for it.

In your essay you said:


“While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes.”

This is what Alan Wilson’s report said about who designed Merion East:

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."

Alan Wilson said except for M/W’s advice the entire responsibility for the design of Merion East rests upon the special Construction committee and that the other four members of the committee told him in the main Hugh Wilson was the person responsible for the DESIGN of the ARCHITECTURE of MERION EAST.

Your essay’s conclusion as reflected in the remark quoted from it above assigns the planning of the layout to M/W and that is simply not true and it’s historically inaccurate as are a number of your explanations of the events in your essay such as the timing of the Francis solution and your explanation of that #15 and #16 triangle and a 1910 routing from Macdonald. Alan Wilson’s report is historically accurate and the MCC board meeting minutes confirm it in that Hugh Wilson and his committee planned the layout and the design of Merion East in 1911.

I expect you to continually deny the accurate historic record of the creation of Merion East but it seems most now see what you are doing. To me that's the benefit of these threads that also proves Alan Wilson's report is unrefuted and very likely unrefutable. He does not say M/W were in the main responsible for the design of Merion East he says Hugh Wilson was.

That's been the architectural attribution at the creation of Merion in 1910-1911 and on and it's unrefuted with the exception of Flynn's part after 1916 which Wayne Morrison proved with numerous architectural plans and drawings about five years ago and which the Merion record now reflects.

Did Wilson and his committee think they got a great education in the principles of architecture from Macdonald/Whigam during their two day visit to NGLA in 1911? Definitely, and the Merion record liberally reflects that, and always has. But the historical truth is they did their own routing, planning, laying out and designing with some advice and suggestions from Mscdonald/Whigam during a single day---April 6, 1911.


« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 09:39:58 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #158 on: June 14, 2008, 09:43:07 AM »
"TomP

I don't need any chippy comments from you.  So far as I am concerned, you are the main guy throwing insults around and you are the main reason for the Merion vitriol.  You continue to mention how the site is in disrepute because of the stupid nonsense, but you carry on and on.  You just don't seem able to control yourself. Put a lid on it and perhaps this whole pile of shit will decompose."


And I sure don't need any from you either, Sean Arble. Welcome to Moriarty's shit-heap. I'm glad you now realize you got a taste of it too. My interest all along is in defending the accuracy of Merion East's architectural record and I'll continue to do it.

« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 09:44:55 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #159 on: June 14, 2008, 09:49:45 AM »
"So again I am sorry to have included you in that group."

'THAT group', Moriarty?

Tom MacWood's "Philadelphia Syndrome" and now your "THAT GROUP"??

Why don't you reread Kirk Gill's post #139, as both it and him seem to be about the only reasonable thing left in these Merion threads and figure out some way to apply it and this website and most everyone on here could get back to some sanity and productivity.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #160 on: June 14, 2008, 10:59:13 AM »
David,

You wrote: "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."

If that is your position than I guess we do not disagree.

Don't you think that every single golf course ever built has been done with some influence and counsel from other architects and golfers? And wouldn't that be the case with the majority of golf courses in this era? Wouldn't all of those men be comparing notes with one another?

In the gospels Jesus made numerous claims of deity. Indeed those words might have been added later by His own disciples, but in order for that have actually happened without anyone crying foul, the whole mass of common man living in those times would have to have been very very stupid and gullable. These were people who were willing to be fed to lions before renouncing their faith, and that kind of zeal may seem odd to us today, but it would pay close attention to what exactly it is that it believed don't you think?

If I changed the names on the Declaration of Independance, do think no one would notice? I just think it is astonishing how so much of modern scholarship is predicated on the assumption that people before us were stupid. So I place a lot of stock in oral tradition. And really David, am I bound to invest 100 hours of reading into every time some scholar comes along and says that my hero Abe Lincoln was gay?

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #161 on: June 14, 2008, 11:34:39 AM »
Bradley:

If Moriarty, at least starts by removing this from his essay, then in my opinion, it will most certainly be a start and I doubt I'll have much problem with his essay or him: And he would probably need to clean up his explanation of the timing of that Francis idea and his statement there was a Macdonald routing in 1910 that Wilson and his committee merely "CONSTRUCTED" to ;) in 1911.  It just didn't happen that way.

Moriarty said in his essay:
“While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes.”

That statement is simply not true. It's a real revision of the accurate history of Merion East. Wilson and his committee very much did design Merion East and he and his committee DID PLAN the original layout and conceive of the holes.

You just can't have Wilson and his committee doing all that and then have Macdonald and Whigam doing it all too----and in a grand total of about two days to boot compared to a number of months with Wilson and his committee.

It just doesn't work that way in the real world----not that some of the notions on this website could be or should be considered the real world anymore.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #162 on: June 14, 2008, 11:50:13 AM »
I may be the only one who sees it this way but IMO Alan Wilson’s October 1926 report on the creation of the Merion golf courses entitled "Merion's East and West Courses" should be taken with a large grain of salt. (See the report at the bottom)

1. The account is second hand. Near the end of his description of how events unfolded he writes, “they [the committee members] have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture both of this and of the West course.” Alan Wilson was not a member of either committee, and as far as I can tell was not involved in any way, so understandibly he would interview those on the committee who were involved. Unfortunately second hand accounts are prone to errors and misinterpretations. His biggest error was a doozy “The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England.” I suspect he was told Hugh went abroad prior to designing the West, and confused the two events.

2. The title of the essay is ‘Merion East and West Courses’ and is written as if the creation of the two courses was more or less a single seamless process. There is a mention of the first course being so popular that they immediately decided to build a second course, but that’s it.  One is led to assume the details of who and what are largely the same. That obviously was not the case ~ the circumstances surrounding their design and construction were quite different, as was the character of the two courses when they were completed. M&W were involved with the East but not the West and Wilson went abroad prior to designing and building the West ~ two major distinctions.

3. The account was written in 1926, yet there is no mention of the East course’s continual improvement, including a major redesign that resulted in five entirely new holes. For the committee to say that Wilson was in the main responsible for the architecture of both the East and West courses in 1926 would not be a stretch, however AW places this statement in a peculiar position within the account, which leads to a distortion of the early events.  

4. Macdonald - the man, powerful golf figure and internationally acclaimed golf architect - was viewed in a very different light in 1926 as compared to 1911 or even 1916 (when Hugh Wilson wrote his account). He is religated to sportsman in this account. Merion and the Philadelphia's golf elite saw themselves in a very differfent light in 1926 as well, as compared to 1911 or 1916. It is only natural that change in perception would color the account.

5. Hugh Wilson died just prior to the report being written. One wonders if the loss of his brother affected Alan Wilson’s judgment.

IMO the report is suspect, and that may be why it never saw the light of day. It was never published or included in a book, magazine or newspaper.

    "There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both "Homemade". When it was known that we must give up the old course, a "Special Committee on New Golf Grounds"--composed of the late Frederick L. Bailey, S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton. H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chariman,--chose the sites; and a "Special Construction Committee" designed and buit the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, ---both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick---twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds 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 lay-out 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 Commitee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E.Griscom, H.G. Lloyd, Dr, Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.
        The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture both of this and of the West course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year."
« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 11:54:40 AM by Tom MacWood »

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #163 on: June 14, 2008, 12:44:38 PM »
Tom Paul,

Moriarty said in his essay:
“While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes.”

That statement is the linge pin of the whole piece really isn't it?

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #164 on: June 14, 2008, 12:58:39 PM »
"I may be the only one who sees it this way but IMO Alan Wilson’s October 1926 report on the creation of the Merion golf courses entitled "Merion's East and West Courses" should be taken with a large grain of salt."


Tom:

We here are aware you feel that way about Alan Wilson and his report---eg that you take it with a grain of salt and you probably always have or at least as long as you've been aware of it. We're aware that David Moriarty apparently feels the same way and has treated Alan Wilson's report the same way. We feel you've always felt that way and approached it that way but our belief is you two do that and look at him and his report amongst a number of other events that stand in the way of the notions you're trying to promote for two basic and primary reasons;

1. It simply allows you to promote your own ideas that are really not supported by fact or by fairly obvious chronologies that can only be promoted if you just ignore, dismiss or rationalize away those parts of Merion's records that disagree with your ideas or contradict them.

2. Most of the people who read your essays are just not aware of all the surrounding evidence that contradicts your theories which of course you diligently fail to submit if you are even aware of it with your basic lack of familiarity with some of these clubs, and you understand that readers may never become aware of this kind of material that contradicts your theories.

On that issue of the reliability of Alan Wilson's report we will always disagree with you and very likely strenuously. As I know you're aware much good information has been found from the old archives of MCC that fortunately completely supports Wilson's report and thankfully goes into far more detail particularly on the business aspects but also on the architectural side.

I realize you aren't aware of this material and either were we until about a month ago.

All of us who do this kind of research and analysis understand that there might be something out there that will alter and contradict our opinions and theories and in the case of Merion this is exactly what has happened to David Moriarty's theories on Merion as well as apparently your theories.

Again, Alan Wilson's report stands unrefuted and I believe that's because it is unrefutable regarding the creation of Merion. But the good news is the MCC board meetings make things much clearer in that vein.

Another good example is this Francis event that Moriarty tried to slide back into 1910 when it did not happen. There are now two clear examples of why and how that couldn't happen---one he seems aware of and denies even in the fact of simple measurement and the other he's not aware of.

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #165 on: June 14, 2008, 01:04:29 PM »
"Tom Paul,

Moriarty said in his essay:
“While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes.”

That statement is the linge pin of the whole piece really isn't it?"



Bradley:

I certainly think so. What do you think? I think that is pretty much the final conclusion he tried to come to. I surely don't see any other way to interpret that.

I mean why do we need to keep mincing words on these threads? What he said there is Wilson and his committee did not design or layout or conceive of the holes of Merion East but they did and that's just the way it is unless of course he tries to deny everything to do with Merion including denying the members of the board of MCC in 1910-1911 were reporting the truth to one another.

Does anyone really want to hear him deny something like that next and discuss it endlessly because that is exactly what I suspect Moriarty and MacWood will do when they become aware of that.

My interest on this website is to try to convince as many as I can how wrong they've been with their theories because they are not what happened at Merion back then. I've said all along the whole essay is a series of a priori reasoning that's basically an example of "house-of-cards" reasoning. At this point, it doesn't matter to Merion as they understand all these events a lot better than most on here.
 
« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 01:17:18 PM by TEPaul »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #166 on: June 14, 2008, 01:16:17 PM »

Again, Alan Wilson's report stands unrefuted and I believe that's because it is unrefutable regarding the creation of Merion. But the good news is the MCC board meetings make things much clearer in that vein.


TE
I just refuted it. It is a second hand account. His description of the chain of events is wrong. “The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England.” He confuses facts surrounding the creation of the East with the West. There is no mention of the East course being remodeled. His characterization of Macdonald as a golfing figure is considerably understated. Other than that its fabulous.


Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #167 on: June 14, 2008, 01:20:51 PM »
David, you said:

Quote
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.

If we're willing to believe this about those who have taken issue with some of the contentions in your essay, I think that you have to admit that you've fallen into this trap as well. I think there's been a lot of "reasonable analysis" on these threads, but there's been a lot of personal invective as well. I guess all I'm suggesting is that this shouldn't be too surprising given the history between you guys (I read that old thread on Merion #10 again, and it existed then, prior to your essay) and given the personal nature of all of your connections to Merion and its history.

It's easier for me to be reasonable on this subject - my interest is more academic and my perspective is more distant.

Tom MacWood - interesting take on Alan Wilson's report. A couple questions. You say that his account is second-hand because he was not on the committee, and that it may be prone to errors. Has anyone who WAS on the committee written anything that differs substantially from Alan Wilson's account? David's essay has made it pretty clear that there was no trip to Britain in 1910. In your opinion, does the fact that Alan Wilson got this wrong make the entire work suspect?

In regards to the title and how it relates to the contents of the piece, it seems to me that A. Wilson goes to some length to detail what he saw as the difference between the design of the two courses - the involvement of Macdonald and Whigham, even though he doesn't detail the specifics of their involvement.

You mention a "distortion of the early events." What distortion? The role of Macdonald and Whigham? He mentions their role. You may feel they had a greater role, but I believe that is still in question. You seem to feel that the reference to Macdonald as a "good and kindly sportsm(a)n" was "relegating" him to a lesser role. Reading the piece, it feels more like a compliment.

You mention that the recent death of his brother might have affected A. Wilson's judgement. As a counterpoint, what effect did the death of Charles Blair Macdonald have on the judgement of his son-in-law and longtime confidant H.J. Whigham? Should we be suspicious of his eulogy?

Lastly, what was the intended purpose of this essay? I just can't seem to remember where this piece was found. Was it distributed to the membership of Merion, or to the Board ? If it was a private communication, then one has to ask how many other private communications of a similar nature WERE published. If none were, then the fact that this wasn't published either shouldn't make it suspect.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #168 on: June 14, 2008, 01:28:06 PM »
"TE
I just refuted it. It is a second hand account. His description of the chain of events is wrong. “The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England.” He confuses facts surrounding the creation of the East with the West. There is no mention of the East course being remodeled. His characterization of Macdonald as a golfing figure is considerably understated. Other than that its fabulous."

Tom:

You did nothing of the kind. Not even close. Since Alan Wilson's report was written fifteen years after the fact his remark about the land found in 1910 and that Wilson went abroad as a first step is simply something that was misinterpreted to 1910, and that's a story apparently you have not yet appreciated as a non-event.

But it really doesn't matter anyway as MCC's board meeting minutes are very clear on the details of what happened in 1910 and 1911.

So you can just continue to state on here that you think you're refuting something but your not and you haven't. All you're doing is what you generally have done in the past---eg try to promote unsupportable theories on much less than complete information.

When all of this is said and done I really do hope most on here will see far more clearly how people like you and David Moriarty do that constantly. If you do things like that without being aware of what you're doing (which is certainly possible) it is somewhat understandable but if you actually do it fully aware of what you're doing I think it is unforgiveable and neither of you have any good right or reason to call yourselves good researchers, analysts or good writers of golf architecture's histories.


TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #169 on: June 14, 2008, 01:53:59 PM »
"Has anyone who WAS on the committee written anything that differs substantially from Alan Wilson's account? David's essay has made it pretty clear that there was no trip to Britain in 1910. In your opinion, does the fact that Alan Wilson got this wrong make the entire work suspect?"

Kirk:

No they have not. Not even close. Matter of fact, Alan Wilson's report was written for the first history of Merion by a man by the name of William Philler who had been MCC's treasurer for about thirty five years and was a prominent Philadelpia lawyer. Also all the other four members of Wilson's committee, Lloyd, Griscom, Francis and Toulmin were very much alive to read this report and this history.

Are all of us really being asked by Moriarty and MacWood to believe that all those upstanding men were all in on some massive Merion conspiracy to completely distort the truth of what they had all done with Hugh Wilson and been part of?? How preposterous are we really going to allow this to get in the face of some totally intransigent attempts to deny reality by these two guys? I mean really? Perhaps MacWood just isn't putting two and two together that way. It wouldn't surprise me and it sure wouldn't be the first time.

Furthermore, neither of them have much idea who Alan Wilson really was and what he did for Merion and Pine Valley and GAP and the USGA. This was one fine and upstanding man---I can guarantee that.

Matter of fact, Alan Wilson was so much around the entire development of Merion that perhaps twenty percent of those fifteen year long "Agronomy" letters between the Wilsons and Piper and Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture that were all done at Merion were from Alan Wilson. Plus Alan Wilson always had more to do with the creation of Pine Valley than Hugh did. They were also business partners in a Philadelphia FAMILY Insurance business. Alan Wilson was there every single step of the way.

Either Moriarty or MacWood said that Alan Wilson couldn't have even known as much about Merion as H.J. Whigam. What a total joke that is. Whigam probably spent no more time at Merion than a few days in forty years while Alan was there every day around his brother for fifteen remaining years Hugh was alive and then longer after he died.

It is not really me catching these revisionists up----it's the facts, events, chronologies and the personalities around Merion who are catching these two guys up. These two guys do not really know nor understand and of these people and events that are catching up and contradicting their unsupportable theories. These two have one massive agenda going here and it's being exposed and quite dramatically, Thank God! 

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #170 on: June 14, 2008, 01:57:33 PM »
"In your opinion, does the fact that Alan Wilson got this wrong make the entire work suspect?"

Kirk:

Alan Wilson's report did not actually say there was a trip abroad in 1910. That story did not occur for perhaps another 40-50 years. I think a lot of people are having a hard time understanding the significance of that now and on here.


"You mention that the recent death of his brother might have affected A. Wilson's judgement. As a counterpoint, what effect did the death of Charles Blair Macdonald have on the judgement of his son-in-law and longtime confidant H.J. Whigham? Should we be suspicious of his eulogy?"

Kirk:

You know that is just such an appropriate point to make.

Alan Wilson has been accused by some on here of EULOGIZING his brother in his 1926 report on the creation of Merion. Of course the other four members of Hugh Wilson's committee who were very much alive and would have read his report would logically have to have been in on some totally untrue and glorifying eulogistic report too.

Alan Wilson was writing his report in 1926 for the man who was in the process of writing Merion's first history, while H.J. Whigam, when he mentioned Macdonald designed Merion WAS WRITING it in his actual EULOGY to Macdonald in 1939!!!   ;)

Let's see here--let's weigh those two against each other----I wonder which one might tend to be more accurate?!? HMMMM, that's really tough, don't you think?!?  ;)

« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 02:07:53 PM by TEPaul »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #171 on: June 14, 2008, 03:17:30 PM »
"TE
I just refuted it. It is a second hand account. His description of the chain of events is wrong. “The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England.” He confuses facts surrounding the creation of the East with the West. There is no mention of the East course being remodeled. His characterization of Macdonald as a golfing figure is considerably understated. Other than that its fabulous."

Tom:

You did nothing of the kind. Not even close. Since Alan Wilson's report was written fifteen years after the fact his remark about the land found in 1910 and that Wilson went abroad as a first step is simply something that was misinterpreted to 1910, and that's a story apparently you have not yet appreciated as a non-event.


TE
I see. It was such a non-event that it became the cornerstone of the Merion story told over the last fifty years, and a major part of Hugh Wilson lore.

Refute means to disprove. His account had been proven to be wrong. Whatever the reason or excuses for his mistakes (faulty memory, misinterpreting the accounts of others, deliberate distortions, etc) ~ the account is suspect.

Was Alan Wilson the man behind the Crump tooth ache-brain abscess story?

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #172 on: June 14, 2008, 03:46:23 PM »
"TE
I see. It was such a non-event that it became the cornerstone of the Merion story told over the last fifty years, and a major part of Hugh Wilson lore."

Tom MacWood:

That's right. Have you figured all that out yet and how it doesn't affect what happened at Merion Ardmore in 1910-1911? ;)

"Refute means to disprove. His account had been proven to be wrong. Whatever the reason or excuses for his mistakes (faulty memory, misinterpreting the accounts of others, deliberate distortions, etc) ~ the account is suspect."

I know what refute means, apparently a lot better than you do. Alan Wilson's account has not been proven wrong--not by you or anyone else. Perhaps you have yet to realize it but Alan Wilson did not actually say in his report that Hugh Wilson went abroad in 1910 but obviously you, like a lot of people in the last fifty years or so, thought he said that. He did not have a faulty memory, he did not misinterpret accounts of others, he did not make any deliberate distortions and his account as to who designed Merion East is not suspect at all.

It really is amazing to consider but I don't think you've figured this out yet.  ;)   :o  ::)

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #173 on: June 14, 2008, 03:52:39 PM »
Tom MacWood, you point to one fact presented by Wilson that was in error, that Hugh Wilson went abroad in 1910, and from there infer that the rest of his points are bogus. You refuted one point that he made, but not the entire piece.

What about, say, David's essay? He seemed to put a lot of weight on the letter that Macdonald wrote to Merion, going so far as to imply that it would contain a routing of the course, or specific design elements. The letter was produced, and it contained no such thing. Yet that same essay contained information regarding the fact that Hugh Wilson almost certainly did not travel to Britain in 1910 after the NGLA visit. Does the fact that one item in his essay was refuted then mean that the rest of the essay should be considered refuted as well?

I just don't get the logic of this.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #174 on: June 14, 2008, 04:08:49 PM »
Kirk:

Once again, Alan Wilson did not actually say Hugh Wilson went abroad in 1910 but apparently Tom MacWood thinks he did and the reasons why he thinks that might be quite interesting.

And if one really does look into all the details surrounding this move to Ardmore there could be a ton of meaning in what he really did say. One of those that I never realized until recently is one story says they shut down the Haverford course when they opened the East in Sept. 1912. The didn't. They didn't shut down the Haverford course until the fall of 1913!


"I just don't get the logic of this."

Welcome to the club, Kirk.  ;)
 
 
 
« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 04:12:22 PM by TEPaul »