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.


Mike_Cirba

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #200 on: June 14, 2008, 11:59:24 PM »
As for the Evans quote, if you have to misrepresent the facts to make your point, then it is probably not worth making. 

1. The West was not "hurriedly being built."   It had been designed, built, and seeded for around over 5 months by the time the article came out.
 
2. You write:  "He went on to say that there were tons of stories talking about the glories of the coming West course at Merion.  You KNOW that this is not what came next.    The next sentence is something like "Those that have visited the new course were greatly pleased with the contsruction."

Why would he write they were greatly pleased with the CONSTRUCTION if the course had been open for a season?  Because the NEW COURSE was not yet open, so all they could do was view was the CONSTRUCTION, and growing grass.

David,

I think you are misunderstanding a fundamentally important part of what William Evans wrote, and I believe that might be a big reason why we are at loggerheads.

When Evans wrote that, in your words;

"The next sentence is something like "Those that have visited the new course were greatly pleased with the contsruction.""

you're making a very understandable mistake....you think he's talking about Merion West when in fact the entire article is about Seaview!

Admittedly, it's a very confusing passage, and it takes some reading...perhaps Joe Bausch can put the entire article up here again because it's more clear when read in context.

However, what the article states after saying "has no superior as a golf course architect.", is as follows;

"Those who have visited the new course have warmly commented on its construction.   The new clubhouse and course will be opened on May 30."

David...Evans is talking about Seaview here, not Merion West.

That was the original proposed opening date for the Seaview course.   I can see how it's confusing because that's also the date that Merion West opened, but that was the prospective Seaview date and there was NEVER a clubhouse opening associated with Merion West...it's a small, log-cabin type starter's shack....but the clubhouse at Seaview...mentioned early and in great detail earlier in the article, was, and is, opulent and of a grand scale.   

Unfortunately, due to construction issues, and the fact that Seaview was one of the first courses in the country to try and suck sand from the bay to build up playable areas, the course didn't open for play until the fall of that year, and not officially until an opening tournament with four of the top players in the game (Chick Evans, etc.) happened in January 1915.

Not long after Hugh Wilson and Francis Ouimet played a match and beat Geist and some other top player....

but yes...Seaview is the course William Evans is most definitely referring to here and I'm sure Joe Bausch can get the whole article up here that make it very obvious.



« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 12:15:38 AM by MikeCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #201 on: June 15, 2008, 12:05:36 AM »
"Perhaps, but you always concealed one part, at least on this website, until around Dec. 2006."

I've never concealed a thing. If there was something you wanted, such as the entire Alan Wilson report you should have asked or perhaps you should have contacted the USGA. You must think some of us are your personal secretary or something.



"Please stop being so rude.  Thanks."

Is there any chance in our future you might consider not saying that about every other post to just about everyone? It really is getting incredibly boring hearing that kind of "everybody-is-against-me", "everybody-is-so-rude-to-me", everybody-misunderstands-what-I-said" refrain from you day after day.  
 
 
 

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #202 on: June 15, 2008, 12:13:11 AM »
Guys, what is the photographic record of the earliest iteration of Merion East? There's been one or two photos posted, like that one with the "alp" in the distance, but are there any aerials or anything of the like?

I think it was Tom MacWood who mentioned that something like seven holes were rebuilt after the course opened, but prior to the bringing in of William Flynn. And this work was done by Wilson and the Committee, yes? There's no argument on this front? Is there even a lengthy verbal description of the course, hole by hole, as it existed on opening day, 1912?
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #203 on: June 15, 2008, 12:59:12 AM »
I think you are misunderstanding a fundamentally important part of what William Evans wrote, and I believe that might be a big reason why we are at loggerheads.

When Evans wrote that, in your words;

"The next sentence is something like "Those that have visited the new course were greatly pleased with the contsruction.""

you're making a very understandable mistake....you think he's talking about Merion West when in fact the entire article is about Seaview!

No misunderstanding and no mistake.  I pointed out that this was a possible interpretation when I first commented on the article..  But I doubt it is what he meant.  He refers to those who went to look at the "new course" and by your understanding of what "new course" means it must be Merion East.  Seaview had just been laid out on the ground and was just beginning construction.  Certainly not a "new course" by your understanding of the term.   Plus, if Construction had just begun at Seaview, then there would not have been anything to be greatly pleased with.

At the very least, it is ambiguous as to whether the sentence referred to the finished but unopen Merion Course (the West) or the Seaview course which was just beginning construction.  I just don't see how it could have been about the
East.   

Why did you write that "he went on to say that there were tons of stories talking about the glories of the coming West course at Merion.

Admittedly, it's a very confusing passage, and it takes some reading...perhaps Joe Bausch can put the entire article up here again because it's more clear when read in context.

Quote
However, what the article states after saying "has no superior as a golf course architect.", is as follows;

"Those who have visited the new course have warmly commented on its construction.   The new clubhouse and course will be opened on May 30."

It is all the same paragraph and the rest of the paragraph is all about Wilson and Merion.  It is only the last sentence (about the clubhouse) that does not fit in.   

Again.  It is ambiguous, at best.   Yet you insist that there is only one way to read it? 

Quote
Unfortunately, due to construction issues, and the fact that Seaview was one of the first courses in the country to try and suck sand from the bay to build up playable areas, the course didn't open for play until the fall of that year, and not officially until an opening tournament with four of the top players in the game (Chick Evans, etc.) happened in January 1915.

Again, all the more reason it could NOT have been Seaview.  It doesnt sound like there was anything to look at in Oct. 1913.

The old article in is the archives.  You can get it yourself if you want.

_______________________

"Perhaps, but you always concealed one part, at least on this website, until around Dec. 2006."

I've never concealed a thing. If there was something you wanted, such as the entire Alan Wilson report you should have asked or perhaps you should have contacted the USGA. You must think some of us are your personal secretary or something.
   

I did ask for it.  Wayne asked me if I had it sometime earlier in 2006, and I told him I did not have it and asked for it.  He refused. 

And you did conceal it.  Even one of your friends  called you out on it, because you had been wasting our time for so long.

Quote
"Please stop being so rude.  Thanks."

Is there any chance in our future you might consider not saying that about every other post to just about everyone? It really is getting incredibly boring hearing that kind of "everybody-is-against-me", "everybody-is-so-rude-to-me", everybody-misunderstands-what-I-said" refrain from you day after day. 

I'd be glad to stop saying it when you stop being rude.   There is no need for it.   And it brings down the entire website. 

Thanks.

« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 01:04:06 AM by DMoriarty »
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)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #204 on: June 15, 2008, 01:12:03 AM »
We have enough animosity between all of us to fuel an atomic weapon.

How bout all of us just defuse and chill...Tom Paul...Tom MacWood...me...David Moriarty...

We probably will never agree to agree on this topic, but howzabout we just keep it to that...as much as we'd probably like to get into a dark GCA alley and pound the living crap out of each other.

From my perspective, it's either time for each of us to strive to improve this site or time for each of us to leave...for good.

I think each of us are way too bright and talented to be spending our precious moments firing bullets at each other.   

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #205 on: June 15, 2008, 01:22:04 AM »

We probably will never agree to agree on this topic, but howzabout we just keep it to that...as much as we'd probably like to get into a dark GCA alley and pound the living crap out of each other.

From my perspective, it's either time for each of us to strive to improve this site .................

Maybe you could sell tickets and donate the proceeds to Ran in addition to your annual "not to exceed par" contribution? That might improve the site.;D
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Revisionism
« Reply #206 on: June 15, 2008, 04:34:43 AM »
This is now the 4th time I've posted this article by William Evans from the 1913 Philadelphia Public Ledger where Seaview is discussed at the end.  And this is the 2nd time I've said this to David M:  I really don't see how you are interpreting what is written here.  The clubhouse being discussed is for Seaview!


@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Jim Nugent

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #207 on: June 15, 2008, 05:26:30 AM »
Quote
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.

I do not mock Whigham.  But for about a dozen reasons, I doubt he is right.  He wrote about Merion and Macdonald/Raynor nearly 30 years after the fact, in passing, when he was closing in on 70 years of age, in a eulogy for his father-in-law, who he admired if not idolized.  The eulogy contained other factual errors.  In all the years before that, Whigham never uttered a word about Macdonald and Merion.  Neither did anyone else, including CBM himself.  Yet other people who wrote about Merion's designer -- including Tilly who was also there -- said Wilson was the architect.  

Whigham doesn't just call Merion a CBM course.  He calls it a Macdonald-Raynor course.  He even suggests how M&R supposedly designed it:

"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans.

"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect. He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read the contour maps he had brought from abroad. Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country. Having helped lay out the eighteen great holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography. The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America. Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars."

So Whigham first describes the M-R design model: Raynor does the groundwork, adapts the NGLA holes to the local topography, and Macdonald corrects the plans.  Whigham includes Merion as one of those courses.  Suggesting Raynor did the groundwork, CBM the final plans, and the course was adapted from the holes at NGLA.  

David, you described Whigham in pretty glowing terms.  Now lets apply what you said about Whigham, to William Evans.  Evans also was extremely knowledgable about golf courses and design.  He was a well-respected journalist, published in the NY Times.  An insider on the Philadelphia golf scene.  A member of the major golf committees there, who knew everyone and everything that took place then.  Writing contemporaneously, not 30 years later, he says Wilson traveled to Great Britain some years before 1913.  

I take that seriously.  A man who was in position to know said Wilson took a trip in 1911, 1910 or earlier.  He wrote this as partial background on the man who had laid out the new Sea View course, which is what this part of Evans' article was about.  

Yet Tom MacWood entirely dismisses Evans.  All because Evans did not also bring up the 1912 trip.  Tom even says the only conclusion one can draw is that Evans was not a good reporter.  This makes zero sense.    

BTW, it doesn't matter much whether Evans was talking about the East or the West, when he said the new Merion course.  What matters is that that in 1913 he said Wilson visited Great Britain "some years ago".  

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #208 on: June 15, 2008, 06:03:18 AM »

I do not mock Whigham.  But for about a dozen reasons, I doubt he is right.  

He wrote about Merion and Macdonald/Raynor nearly 30 years after the fact, in passing, when he was closing in on 70 years of age, in a eulogy for his father-in-law, who he admired if not idolized.  

The eulogy contained other factual errors.  

In all the years before that, Whigham never uttered a word about Macdonald and Merion.  

You don't know that.
That's pure speculation on your part.
[/color]

Neither did anyone else, including CBM himself.  


You don't know that either.
[/color]

Yet other people who wrote about Merion's designer -- including Tilly who was also there -- said Wilson was the architect.  

Whigham doesn't just call Merion a CBM course.  
He calls it a Macdonald-Raynor course.  
He even suggests how M&R supposedly designed it:

Isn't that consistent with almost every CBM course ?
[/color]

"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him.

So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans.

So it's your contention that MacDonald was merely an editor with no original design imput on any projects ?
[/color]

"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect. He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read the contour maps he had brought from abroad. Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country. Having helped lay out the eighteen great holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography. The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America. Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars."

Your reliance on the above quote has lead you down the wrong path.
The above quote is misleading.

MacDonald conceptualized, located and designed holes at NGLA before his association with Raynor.  You're expanding Raynor's initial role with MacDonald beyond its practical boundaries.
[/color]

So Whigham first describes the M-R design model: Raynor does the groundwork, adapts the NGLA holes to the local topography, and Macdonald corrects the plans.  

That's incorrect.
MacDonald adapted his holes of preference to the local topography with Whigham, not Raynor.
[/color]

Whigham includes Merion as one of those courses.  


I've always been more curious about the possible connection between Raynor and Francis at Merion.  And, I've previously stated my belief that if MacDonald was involved, Raynor was involved.
[/color]

Suggesting Raynor did the groundwork, CBM the final plans, and the course was adapted from the holes at NGLA.  

Could you show us where it's stated that Raynor did the groundwork at Merion ?  Could you also show us where the holes at Merion were adapted from the holes at NGLA, starting with # 1 and working your way to # 18 ?
[/color]

David, you described Whigham in pretty glowing terms.  Now lets apply what you said about Whigham, to William Evans.  Evans also was extremely knowledgable about golf courses and design.  He was a well-respected journalist, published in the NY Times.  An insider on the Philadelphia golf scene.  A member of the major golf committees there, who knew everyone and everything that took place then.  Writing contemporaneously, not 30 years later, he says Wilson traveled to Great Britain some years before 1913.  

Evidently, he got his facts wrong, unless "some years" was an inaccurate reference to one year.  Perhaps his draft referenced "one year" and someone edited it to be "some years"
[/color]

I take that seriously.  A man who was in position to know said Wilson took a trip in 1911, 1910 or earlier.  He wrote this as partial background on the man who had laid out the new Sea View course, which is what this part of Evans' article was about.  

Neither the chronology of events nor factual evidence supports that theory.
Do you still cling to it ?
[/color]

Yet Tom MacWood entirely dismisses Evans.  All because Evans did not also bring up the 1912 trip.  Tom even says the only conclusion one can draw is that Evans was not a good reporter.  This makes zero sense.

If Wilson had already taken his the trip in 1910 or 1911 why would he need to consult with CBM as to which courses to visit when he went to the UK after his visit with CBM, and why would newspaper articles announce Wilson's FIRST trip to the UK in 1912 ?

Why do you present a trip to the UK by Wilson prior to 1912 as fact, when there's no evidence of said trip other than hearsay, legend and myth ?
[/color]   

BTW, it doesn't matter much whether Evans was talking about the East or the West, when he said the new Merion course.  What matters is that that in 1913 he said Wilson visited Great Britain "some years ago".  

Lacking proof of said trip, obviously Evans was wrong.
Yet, you insist that Wilson traveled abroad prior to 1912, and according to legend, he stayed there for 7 months.
When did he sail ?   Whom did he meet with ?  Which courses did he visit ?  Where did he stay ?  When did he return ?  The 1912 trip is clearly documented.  Why can't an alleged previous trip find one shred of verifiable documentation to support its existance ?
Perhaps, because it never happened.
[/color]


Jim Nugent

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #209 on: June 15, 2008, 08:12:26 AM »
Pat, if Macdonald said anything about designing Merion, show it to me.  George Bahto says he never saw a thing about this.  Neither David nor Tom MacWood have been able to produce a word.  Maybe you can do better. 

Same with Whigham.  Show me where, besides Macdonald's eulogy, he said CBM-Raynor designed Merion.

Quote
So it's your contention that MacDonald was merely an editor with no original design imput on any projects ?

I made no contention about CBM.  I quoted Whigham, who said Raynor did the groundwork and CBM corrected the plans.

Quote
Your reliance on the above quote has lead you down the wrong path.
The above quote is misleading.  MacDonald conceptualized, located and designed holes at NGLA before his association with Raynor.  You're expanding Raynor's initial role with MacDonald beyond its practical boundaries.

If the quote is misleading, it's not my mistake.  It's Whigham's.  This is how HE says the two of them worked.  You're impeaching Whigham, not me.  Another reason to question his account.  Remember, though, he was talking about courses AFTER NGLA, not NGLA itself. 

Quote
That's incorrect.
MacDonald adapted his holes of preference to the local topography with Whigham, not Raynor.
 

If it's incorrect, again you are saying Whigham is wrong.  You sure are finding errors in that eulogy.  Of course, eulogies are not written or noted for their historical accuracy, are they?     

Quote
Could you show us where it's stated that Raynor did the groundwork at Merion ?  Could you also show us where the holes at Merion were adapted from the holes at NGLA, starting with # 1 and working your way to # 18 ?

Whigham described the Macdonald-Raynor M.O. on courses (after NGLA).  He said Raynor did the groundwork, and adapted the NGLA holes to the local topography.  CBM corrected the plans.  Whigham named Merion as a famous M-R course. 

Quote
Evidently, he got his facts wrong, unless "some years" was an inaccurate reference to one year.  Perhaps his draft referenced "one year" and someone edited it to be "some years"
 

Or maybe he got his facts right.  You don't know, I don't know.  I do take Evans' report seriously, though, since he was there, he was an insider on the Phillie golf scene, and he was an experienced golf reporter.

Quote
Neither the chronology of events nor factual evidence supports that theory.
Do you still cling to it ?

I'm not clinging to anything.  At best our knowledge of the timing of those events is sketchy.  I see this as an open question, that could go either way. 

Quote
If Wilson had already taken his the trip in 1910 or 1911 why would he need to consult with CBM as to which courses to visit when he went to the UK after his visit with CBM, and why would newspaper articles announce Wilson's FIRST trip to the UK in 1912 ?

Why consult with CBM on courses?  Because Wilson recognized that CBM knew a great deal about golf course architecture and the UK.  He valued CBM's input.  Which newspaper articles said Wilson took his first trip in 1912?  And if they (or one, was it really plural?) did, why is that more reliable than Evans' newspaper article?

Quote
Why do you present a trip to the UK by Wilson prior to 1912 as fact, when there's no evidence of said trip other than hearsay, legend and myth ?


I don't present it as fact.  We don't have all the fact, hence all this speculation.  I think Evans' article is evidence, while not proof.  Why do you keep misrepresenting what I'm saying?

Quote
Yet, you insist that Wilson traveled abroad prior to 1912, and according to legend, he stayed there for 7 months. 

You again misrepresent me.  I don't insist anything, except that a knowledgable source from that time says Wilson made a trip before 1912. 








« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 08:15:49 AM by Jim Nugent »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #210 on: June 15, 2008, 08:56:05 AM »
Joe,

Thanks for bearing with us and for pointing out once again that Evans is obviously talking about the "new course" and clubhouse at Seaview, even if the grammar is a bit tortured in spots.

Jim Nugent,

That is one superlative post on Reply #208.   Absolutely stellar.

Patrick,

Happy Father's Day to you, as well and to all the rest of you still reading and writing on these Merion threads!    ;D
« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 08:57:49 AM by MikeCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #211 on: June 15, 2008, 09:56:59 AM »
"If Wilson had already taken his the trip in 1910 or 1911 why would he need to consult with CBM as to which courses to visit when he went to the UK after his visit with CBM,"

Pat:

Just out of interest, can I ask you why you say that Wilson consulted with CBM about what courses to visit in the UK? He certainly may have done that but I'm just wondering where you got that idea? 

Thomas MacWood

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #212 on: June 15, 2008, 10:26:00 AM »
Tom,

I like that style but I'm a bit challenged.

Hopefully I can answer your questions from down here.  ;D

I haven't read the Piper/Oakley letters about the West course, but given that Hugh Wilson was deep into his agronomic studies in 1913, I'm quite sure that there are many referrences to the West course.   What in particular should I take note of?

TE is the Piper/Oakley expert, ask him why Wilson preferred the West.

Could you tell me what you think was "angular" about the early East courses, beside the short-lived "experimental" mounds on 9, and the pretty ugly 10th green complex?   Can you cite one other example?

Don't forget the fairway bunker on 10 as well. It looks like a large rectangle. The 4th hole (the present 7th) and the Redan both had angular grass faced bunkers. The 16th and 17th green complexes were very different. The mound behind the old Alps hole. It doesn't get much more dramatic than the before and after at nine.

What did you think of Walter Travis's view of the West course?   He was the predominant player of the time and obviously was not very impressed.

I'm not familar with Travis's comments and are you sure he was the predominant player in 1916. Prior to 1916 the West had a more modern look than the East. Robert Lesley and the NY Times both did a good job explaining the differences of the two courses. The West was considered more natural and aesthetically pleasing of the two.  

Speaking of which...what do you think of Tom Doak's modern view of the West course?   He gave the East course a "10", and the West a "4".

Doak has always been biased toward Macdonald and Raynor.

Regarding what William Evans wrote, I disagree with Tom Paul and believe that Hugh WIlson went to Europe prior to 1912, and for a more extended period.   There are simply too many accounts near the time the course was built, and I'm thinking the accounts also take into consideration his long playing career in the states prior to Merion East even being designed.   I have no proof of that, but after seeing those shipping manifest logs, and their inaccuracies and omissions, I don't feel that's germane.

If Wilson made a trip prior to 1912 I'm certain the proof will be found somewhere. Those passenger records would be a good place to start since they were manditory for all passengers coming into the states.



TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #213 on: June 15, 2008, 10:36:56 AM »
Tom MacWood said:

"I don't need this."

Tom MacChestnut:

Oh yes you do, and you need it in spades! Do you actually think you can use sick humor about Crump's suicide on here and not expect to be the brunt of humor yourself??  ::)

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #214 on: June 15, 2008, 10:40:04 AM »
"TE is the Piper/Oakley expert, ask him why Wilson preferred the West."


Hugh Wilson preferred the West course? Is that right? Which research source did that one come from?  ;)

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #215 on: June 15, 2008, 10:55:40 AM »
"Regarding what William Evans wrote, I disagree with Tom Paul and believe that Hugh WIlson went to Europe prior to 1912, and for a more extended period.   There are simply too many accounts near the time the course was built, and I'm thinking the accounts also take into consideration his long playing career in the states prior to Merion East even being designed."


MikeC:

I guess it really is hard to get most anyone to understand what I mean by that (and I think I can understand why). I am not saying I think Hugh Wilson DID NOT go abroad in 1910 or before that or at some point previous to 1912.

All I am saying is there is not much doubt in my mind, at this point, that whether he went abroad to study architecture previous to 1912 or whether he DID NOT go abroad to study architecture previous to 1912 it makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE at all as to the facts and the reality of what he and his committee did in 1911 in routing and designing Merion East.

I do admit I probably haven't analyzed all that carefully some of these newspaper accounts around that time and there is a good reason for that----eg I think I have far more direct information on these events of 1910 and 1911 than newspaper accounts.

But since I probably haven't analyzed those newspaper accounts all that carefully, answer me this since you have analyzed them carefully----are you aware of a newspaper account or any account at all that mentions Hugh Wilson was abroad to study architecture for seven months and that he returned from abroad with his own sketches and drawings and surveyor's maps that comes within a couple of decades, at least, of the events of 1910 and 1911? Because if you can I really will be extremely surprised!

But I guess it wouldn't be the first time.  ;)  ;D

I hope you can understand what I mean by all this.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 10:58:03 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #216 on: June 15, 2008, 11:03:39 AM »
"Those passenger records would be a good place to start since they were manditory for all passengers coming into the states."


Tom MacWood:

They may've been. It was something of a requirement at that time that captains of all ships keep a passenger manifest but the thing I doubt anyone really knows, at this point, is if every ship passenger manifest from that time has survived not to even mentioned been digitized (which is the only way anyone on here can search them). If someone like you or Moriarty are seriously trying to make that claim I think I might take that with a serious grain of salt.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #217 on: June 15, 2008, 01:36:46 PM »

I do not mock Whigham.  But for about a dozen reasons, I doubt he is right.  He wrote about Merion and Macdonald/Raynor nearly 30 years after the fact, in passing, when he was closing in on 70 years of age, in a eulogy for his father-in-law, who he admired if not idolized.  The eulogy contained other factual errors.  In all the years before that, Whigham never uttered a word about Macdonald and Merion.  Neither did anyone else, including CBM himself.  Yet other people who wrote about Merion's designer -- including Tilly who was also there -- said Wilson was the architect.  

Whigham doesn't just call Merion a CBM course.  He calls it a Macdonald-Raynor course.  He even suggests how M&R supposedly designed it:

"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans.

"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect. He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read the contour maps he had brought from abroad. Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country. Having helped lay out the eighteen great holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography. The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America. Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars."

So Whigham first describes the M-R design model: Raynor does the groundwork, adapts the NGLA holes to the local topography, and Macdonald corrects the plans.  Whigham includes Merion as one of those courses.  Suggesting Raynor did the groundwork, CBM the final plans, and the course was adapted from the holes at NGLA.  

David, you described Whigham in pretty glowing terms.  Now lets apply what you said about Whigham, to William Evans.  Evans also was extremely knowledgable about golf courses and design.  He was a well-respected journalist, published in the NY Times.  An insider on the Philadelphia golf scene.  A member of the major golf committees there, who knew everyone and everything that took place then.  Writing contemporaneously, not 30 years later, he says Wilson traveled to Great Britain some years before 1913.  

I take that seriously.  A man who was in position to know said Wilson took a trip in 1911, 1910 or earlier.  He wrote this as partial background on the man who had laid out the new Sea View course, which is what this part of Evans' article was about.  

Yet Tom MacWood entirely dismisses Evans.  All because Evans did not also bring up the 1912 trip.  Tom even says the only conclusion one can draw is that Evans was not a good reporter.  This makes zero sense.    

BTW, it doesn't matter much whether Evans was talking about the East or the West, when he said the new Merion course.  What matters is that that in 1913 he said Wilson visited Great Britain "some years ago".  

Jim
Since Macdonald collaborated with Raynor throughout the majority of his design career I don't think Whigham pairing them together in his rememberance is all that big a deal.

As far as Whigham never uttering a word about Merion, how many golf architecture articles did Whigham write from 1913 to 1939? Probably about the same number as Hugh Wilson. 

I don't believe Macdonald mentioned anything about Shinnecock Hills either, and I'm sure he had his reasons.

Merion began redesiging the East course almost immediately after it was finished. The Merion-East of 1928 was a very different course from the Merion-East of 1912. There are plenty of examples of golf architects disowning golf courses, ususally because of a redesign ~ Ross did it, Colt did it, other architects did it.

I don't know much about William Evans; maybe I was too hard on him. But if your goal is to promote the credentials of a golf architect, as Evans was in the Seaview article, why would you mention he travelled abroad once some years ago, when in fact he travelled abroad twice to study golf architect, including most recently the year before? Isn't that an example of sloppy fact finding?

When did Evans begin writing for the Philadelphia Ledger?

It seems to me there are two factions regarding an earlier Wilson trip. You and Mike seem convinced he made two trips, where as TE and Wayne appear resigned to the one 1912 trip. The reaction to Wayne's report should be interesting.

TEPaul

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #218 on: June 15, 2008, 02:05:33 PM »
"It seems to me there are two factions regarding an earlier Wilson trip. You and Mike seem convinced he made two trips, where as TE and Wayne appear resigned to the one 1912 trip. The reaction to Wayne's report should be interesting."


Tom MacWood:

Would you mind expanding on what you mean by the reaction to Wayne's report in the context of Wilson's trip or trips? I don't think I understand what you could mean by that. Thanks

wsmorrison

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #219 on: June 15, 2008, 02:13:59 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Post #213 indicates your understanding of Merion's architectural history is incomplete and replete with errors. 

You do not know how I am resigned as to my thoughts on a Hugh Wilson trip to the UK prior to 1912.  Please do not represent that you do, even if you frame your statement with "appear."  Yet, like Tom Paul, I am now convinced, given the recent addition of MCC archival material, that the question of whether or not Wilson went to the UK prior to the design and construction of Merion East is meaningless as it relates to the design attribution of the course as opened in 1912.  Unlike Tom Paul, I am not interested in correcting your misunderstandings, both large and small.

The reaction to the report will probably prove interesting.  However, it will not be presented in its entirety on this website, if at all in any measure. 
« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 02:32:59 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #220 on: June 15, 2008, 03:20:52 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Post #213 indicates your understanding of Merion's architectural history is incomplete and replete with errors. 

You do not know how I am resigned as to my thoughts on a Hugh Wilson trip to the UK prior to 1912.  Please do not represent that you do, even if you frame your statement with "appear."  Yet, like Tom Paul, I am now convinced, given the recent addition of MCC archival material, that the question of whether or not Wilson went to the UK prior to the design and construction of Merion East is meaningless as it relates to the design attribution of the course as opened in 1912.  Unlike Tom Paul, I am not interested in correcting your misunderstandings, both large and small.

The reaction to the report will probably prove interesting.  However, it will not be presented in its entirety on this website, if at all in any measure. 

Wayne
I'm sorry if I struck a nerve. Is there a reason why a historic club like Merion GC would be hesitant to have their architectural history read by a group whose focus is golf architecture? After all some of the most recent discoveries were found by members of this website, and that information is primarily the reason for the 'report'. I'm not sure who is advising them but I would advise full disclosure otherwise they give the impression of trying to hide something. I'm not aware of any golf club in the world who has tried to keep their architectural history a secret. What good is a 'report' that no one can read - if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there, does it make a noise.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 04:06:21 PM by Tom MacWood »

wsmorrison

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #221 on: June 15, 2008, 04:37:09 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Once again, your ignorance on the subject matter is on full display.    Take some time to consider the error-filled and academically weak essay by Moriarty, the premature endorsement of Moriarty's essay by Ran and the subsequent postings by Moriarty, Mucci and yourself as well as prior postings by you guys over the years as regards Merion, and it may occur to you that the Club may not be enamored with this site.   I don't know for sure, that is simply my opinion.  While they may be aware of some of the ongoings here, it is most important that misinformation is not presented as fact.  In that regard, what has been presented as fact here by you and Moriarty needs to be addressed in some manner.  The way it is addressed may not ultimately be to your satisfaction, which is of no concern to me at all.

The paper that Tom Paul and I are in the process of writing will be entered into the Merion GC Archives and presented to the Merion CC.  The Merion GC Archives is a leading research facility and is open to the public.  You are free to seek permission to utilize the Archives.  How typical is that of a private club?  Yet you have the uninformed nerve to suggest that anything short of full disclosure on this site automatically leads you and other similarly narrow minded like individuals to conclude that there is something to hide.  You ought to come to grips with the fact that the records of a private club are not meant to be openly disseminated on the Internet, even on a golf architecture website.  Your sense of entitlement is overplayed and misunderstood. 

You say you don't know of any golf club in the world that has tried to keep its architectural history a secret.  That is misleading and you know it.  What private golf club goes out of its way to disseminate its detailed record on this or any other website?  Name one.  Merion is at the forefront of sharing its history.  While it may not be in the manner you would have, you are not in any position to dictate terms nor to ascribe motivations when your terms are not met.

Merion is one of a small handful of clubs that is providing significant amounts of its archival material to the USGA.  Just because it is not presented on this site doesn't mean it will not be available.  I've mentioned this several times in the past and yet you refuse to consider it, just as you refuse to consider any material or statements that refute your own agenda.  You have an overly developed sense of victimization as does Moriarty (along with some thin skin).  Consider your own roles in that process. 

The report we are writing will be read, it simply may not be read by you or Moriarty.  While you may not have easy access to our paper because it will not be supplied in full on this site (and perhaps not at all in any form), the clubs involved and the USGA will have access to it.  It is up to you to follow their terms if you want to review it.  Got it?

Now, a tree falling in the woods with no one around does not make a noise.  Neither do accusations, whining or moaning from Ohio or California if no one pays attention.  I will now gladly go back to not paying attention to either one of you. 
« Last Edit: June 16, 2008, 07:20:20 AM by Wayne Morrison »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #222 on: June 15, 2008, 04:57:30 PM »

Pat, if Macdonald said anything about designing Merion, show it to me.  George Bahto says he never saw a thing about this.  Neither David nor Tom MacWood have been able to produce a word.  Maybe you can do better. 

Bahto's inability to produce documents where CBM references Merion isn't proof that CBM didn't mention Merion, it's only proof that Bahto hasn't located any CBM references to Merion.  The same applies to DM and TM.
[/color]

Same with Whigham.  Show me where, besides Macdonald's eulogy, he said CBM-Raynor designed Merion.  

Show me where Hugh Wilson said that he designed Merion.
Absent that documentation, and by your standard, that would mean that he didn't design Merion.
[/color]

Quote
So it's your contention that MacDonald was merely an editor with no original design imput on any projects ?

I made no contention about CBM.  I quoted Whigham, who said Raynor did the groundwork and CBM corrected the plans.

At Merion ?
At NGLA ?
[/color]

Quote
Your reliance on the above quote has lead you down the wrong path.
The above quote is misleading.  MacDonald conceptualized, located and designed holes at NGLA before his association with Raynor.  You're expanding Raynor's initial role with MacDonald beyond its practical boundaries.

If the quote is misleading, it's not my mistake.  It's Whigham's.  This is how HE says the two of them worked. 

That's not true at NGLA.
You're interpreting a general statement as a comprehensive statement to the degree of universality, which isn't true.
[/color]

You're impeaching Whigham, not me. 

No, I'm impeaching your expansion of a general statement to a universal trurth.
[/color]

Another reason to question his account.  Remember, though, he was talking about courses AFTER NGLA, not NGLA itself.

Did he state that ?
If so, it coincides with what I've maintained.
[/color] 

Quote
That's incorrect.
MacDonald adapted his holes of preference to the local topography with Whigham, not Raynor.
 

If it's incorrect, again you are saying Whigham is wrong.  You sure are finding errors in that eulogy.  Of course, eulogies are not written or noted for their historical accuracy, are they?     

No, I'm finding errors in your interpretation, vis a vis your expansion of the statement to include NGLA.
[/color]

Quote
Could you show us where it's stated that Raynor did the groundwork at Merion ?  Could you also show us where the holes at Merion were adapted from the holes at NGLA, starting with # 1 and working your way to # 18 ?

Whigham described the Macdonald-Raynor M.O. on courses (after NGLA).  He said Raynor did the groundwork, and adapted the NGLA holes to the local topography.  CBM corrected the plans.  Whigham named Merion as a famous M-R course. 

You inserted the "after NGLA" qualifier after I questioned your original reference to the Whigham quote/statement.

You're also taking a general statement and making it a universal truth, and I would disagree with that.
CBM-SR courses are replete with holes that bear no resemblance to the holes at NGLA.
You can start with every Biarritz on every CBM-SR course if you want specific evidence to support my position.
[/color]

Quote
Evidently, he got his facts wrong, unless "some years" was an inaccurate reference to one year.  Perhaps his draft referenced "one year" and someone edited it to be "some years"
 

Or maybe he got his facts right.  You don't know, I don't know.  I do take Evans' report seriously, though, since he was there, he was an insider on the Phillie golf scene, and he was an experienced golf reporter.

Your contention is that Evans got his facts right, but Whigham got his facts wrong.

Upon what degree of familiarity with both men do you base your conclusion ?
[/color]

Quote
Neither the chronology of events nor factual evidence supports that theory.
Do you still cling to it ?

I'm not clinging to anything.  At best our knowledge of the timing of those events is sketchy.  I see this as an open question, that could go either way. 

What's your call as of today ?
[/color]

Quote
If Wilson had already taken his the trip in 1910 or 1911 why would he need to consult with CBM as to which courses to visit when he went to the UK after his visit with CBM, and why would newspaper articles announce Wilson's FIRST trip to the UK in 1912 ?

Why consult with CBM on courses?  Because Wilson recognized that CBM knew a great deal about golf course architecture and the UK. 

But, if Wilson had spent 7 months studying the great courses of the UK he wouldn't need CBM's input.

And, Wilson claimed, subsequent to his meeting, that he realized how little he knew prior to the meeting and what a great help CBM had been.

Was Wilson partying in the UK ?
Seems to me that if he spent 7 months studying the great courses of the UK that he wouldn't have been so unknowing going into his meeting with CBM.
[/color]

He valued CBM's input.  Which newspaper articles said Wilson took his first trip in 1912? 

The ones that were posted on the Merion thread.
[/color]

And if they (or one, was it really plural?) did, why is that more reliable than Evans' newspaper article?

Because they fit in with the chronology of events and are like pieces of a puzzle.
[/color]

Quote
Why do you present a trip to the UK by Wilson prior to 1912 as fact, when there's no evidence of said trip other than hearsay, legend and myth ?


I don't present it as fact.  We don't have all the fact, hence all this speculation.  I think Evans' article is evidence, while not proof.  Why do you keep misrepresenting what I'm saying?

I'm not misrepresenting anything you've said, I'm merely trying to clarify what you're saying.
[/color]

Quote
Yet, you insist that Wilson traveled abroad prior to 1912, and according to legend, he stayed there for 7 months. 

You again misrepresent me.  I don't insist anything, except that a knowledgable source from that time says Wilson made a trip before 1912. 


Yet, that knowledgeable source can't produce one iota of evidence to support that contention.

If anything, we've learned that newspapers are pretty unreliable sources.
[/color]


Thomas MacWood

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #223 on: June 15, 2008, 05:43:45 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Once again, your ignorance on the subject matter is on full display.    Take some time to consider the error-filled and academically weak essay by Moriarty, the premature endorsement of Moriarty's essay by Ran and the subsequent postings by Moriarty, Mucci and yourself as well as prior postings by you guys over the years as regards Merion, and it may occur to you that the Club may not be enamored with this site.   I don't know for sure, that is simply my opinion.  While they may be aware of some of the ongoings here, it is most important that misinformation is not presented as fact.  In that regard, what has been presented as fact here by you and Moriarty needs to be addressed in some manner.  The way it is addressed may not ultimately be to your satisfaction, which is of no concern to me at all.

Academically weak? Ouch. Is this according to your make-believe super secret academic? I read your original report on the formation of Merion. Based upon your new found appreciation for the academic process how would rate your own effort?

I don't know why the club would be upset with David, afterall he corrected an error that has been repeated for over fifty years. We both have the utmost respect for Merion. And neither one of has ever urinated on the grave of one of its historic figures. Can you say the same?


The paper that Tom Paul and I are in the process of writing will be entered into the Merion GC Archives and presented to the Merion CC.  The Merion GC Archives is a leading research facility and is open to the public.  You are free to seek permission to utilize the Archives.  How typical is that of a private club?  Yet you have the uniformed nerve to suggest that anything short of full disclosure on this site automatically leads you and other similarly narrow minded like individuals to conclude that there is something to hide.  You ought to come to grips with the fact that the records of a private club are not meant to be openly disseminated on the Internet, even on a golf architecture website.  Your sense of entitlement is overplayed and misunderstood. 

That is encouraging news about access to the report. I look forward to reading it, like I'm sure many others on here look forward to reading it.

You say you don't know of any golf club in the world that has tried to keep its architectural history a secret.  That is misleading and you know it.  What private golf club goes out of its way to disseminate its detailed record on this or any other website?  Name one.  Merion is at the forefront of sharing its history.  While it may not be in the manner you would have, you are not in any position to dictate terms nor to ascribe motivations when your terms are not met.

I commend them, although maybe I have spoke too soon about being able to read it. Is there a reason why there will be special stipulations and terms placed upon access to the report?

Merion is one of a small handful of clubs that is providing significant amounts of its archival material to the USGA.  Just because it is not presented on this site doesn't mean it will not be available.  I've mentioned this several times in the past and yet you refuse to consider it, just as you refuse to consider any material or statements that refute your own agenda.  You have an overly developed sense of victimization as does Moriarty (along with some thin skin).  Consider your own roles in that process. 

Our roles in the process? That sounds like you consider yourself a victim of our process...whatever that means.

The report we are writing will be read, it simply may not be read by you or Moriarty.  While you may not have easy access to our paper because it will not be supplied in full on this site (and perhaps not at all in any form), the clubs involved and the USGA will have access to it.  It is up to you to follow their terms if you want to review it.  Got it?

The USGA has always been extremely helpful to me and other researchers. Providing us with copies of articles, exerpts from books, letters, reports, etc. Are you suggesting they will be handling your report in an extra-special way? If so what are the terms?

Now, a tree falling in the woods with no one around does not make a noise.  Neither do accusations, whining or moaning from Ohio or California if no one pays attention.  I will now gladly go back to not paying attention to either one of you. 

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 05:46:27 PM by Tom MacWood »

wsmorrison

Re: Revisionism
« Reply #224 on: June 15, 2008, 07:21:45 PM »
Academically weak? Ouch. Is this according to your make-believe super secret academic?

Any half-wit can see that the essay was academically weak.  I'm surprised you do not.  As for the make believe academic, he is not mine, he is his own man.  His efforts in the academic community not only clear the highest hurdles of academic excellence, they better mankind.  Your denigration of the man, even though you have no idea who he is, speaks volumes about you.

I read your original report on the formation of Merion. Based upon your new found appreciation for the academic process how would rate your own effort?

The piece I sent you (I wish I hadn't) is several years old.  There has been a great deal more added throughout the book, not just Merion.  I am very pleased with the current manuscript, however, I find no need to rate it, nor do I care at all what you think. 

I commend them, although maybe I have spoke too soon about being able to read it. Is there a reason why there will be special stipulations and terms placed upon access to the report?

Stop making up stories that serve your own purposes.  You make a habit of just that.  I never said there were special stipulations and terms placed upon access to the report.  It isn't even finished yet.  When the report is presented to MGC and MCC, they will decide in what ways it will be available.  I will not be part of that process.  The Merion GC Archives is open to the public following certain procedures.  Visit the club in person, follow the procedures and I expect you'll have access.  The MCC Archives is not yet established and will not be for several years.  I cannot speak for their policies and practices.

I don't know why the club would be upset with David, afterall he corrected an error that has been repeated for over fifty years. We both have the utmost respect for Merion. And neither one of has ever urinated on the grave of one of its historic figures. Can you say the same?

You don't know why anyone or any club would be upset with David?  You are dense.

And you are hereby forewarned not to mention as fact that I urinated on a grave, that is a falsehood that you should not continuously propagate.  I never did such a thing.  Tom Paul and I made a joke about it, a poor one, I admit.  We were having some fun and you obviously do not get enough oxygen in that ivory tower of yours to realize it.  Listen carefully.  I'll use small words.  I never urinated on a grave in my life, in Southampton or elsewhere.  Tom Paul corrected those of you that thought I did after he posted his comic piece.  You choose not to accept it then and you probably won't accept it now.  I could care less if you don't believe me, but you better stop spreading that untruth right now.  Tom wasn't the only one present, so use your expert research skills to find out the truth if you don't accept it from me or Tom.  One clue for you.  I didn't take a ship to Southampton, so no need to look up your comprehensive and infallible ship manifests.

The USGA has always been extremely helpful to me and other researchers. Providing us with copies of articles, exerpts from books, letters, reports, etc. Are you suggesting they will be handling your report in an extra-special way? If so what are the terms?

I said nothing of the kind and intimated nothing of the kind.  You are detached from reality.  Again, the report is not finished, has not been presented to the MGC or MCC, let alone the USGA.   I will not provide you with any information whatsoever, they can do whatever they like.  I did not make any requests to anyone as to who should or should not have access to anything I produce.  They should decide those things on their own.  For you to insinuate that there might be some nefarious plot against you and your fellow expert researcher is preposterous but typical of your behavior and thought patterns. 

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

No, you are simply churlish and elicit such reactions.  Come on, you must realize that by now.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 07:24:06 PM by Wayne Morrison »