Revisionism

[Mike_Cirba]

"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.

Tom Paul,

No, none of the early newspaper accounts that mention Hugh Wilson travelling overseas talk about how long he was there, and I can't recall any mentioning sketches.   

As far as the requirement for all entries into the US to be listed on a manifest, that might have been the law, but in practice it was a complete joke.

I have probably looked at about 1000 of those manifests and they are about as airtight as the Mexican border.    When you can identify someone on the manifest as "H. Wilson", with no age, no residency, no birthdate, no address, no sex, and no occupation, as a good percentage of the manifests do, you can tell what the good folks of the shipping industry thought of that particular federal requirement.

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
I have no idea what churlish means but I figure its not good.

A nefarious plot against me? We're not talking about world affairs here. In my best Allan Iverson imitation "we're talk'n about architecture" ad infitinum.

What does your make-believe super secret acedemic think about you unrinating on the grave of CB Macdonald? I would think objectivity would be a prerequisite. Urinating on the grave of one of the primary subjects could be considered bad form.

You are right. The Merion report you sent me was about two years ago. You had only devoted eight years of research at that point.

I may be a half-wit but at least I don't hide behind the curtain of anonymity. Your acedemic should expose himself....that didn't sound right.

[Mike_Cirba]

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.  

Tom,

I'm really surprised to hear you say that.   The comments I posted are from two separate Walter Travis articles in "American Golfer" at the time of the 1916 US Amateur.

In case you missed where I mentioned it earlier, Walter Travis wrote in 1916;

"The West course at Merion is a fine one in its way, but has little in common with its vastly superior neighbor, the East course, in respect to either the character of the putting greens or the nature of the approach shots."

"Merion boasts of two courses, the East and the West and while the former is undoubtedly good the West course certainly falls far short of championship requirements.   Certainly the golf there is spectacular but in some places the suggestion of hippodroming is too apparent.   To be sure the West course will only be used for play for the qualification in conjunction with the East course, but with this novelty there must come the thought that championships should not breed novelties."

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.

Tom,

Would this be the angular, more geometric Macdonald course you are suggesting?   THere are 20 pages, with some good pictures, including ones of the present 3rd and 7th that you mentioned.  I honestly don't think they look much different today, but others can make that assessment.   Perhaps I can find some modern pics for comparison.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf

Can you tell me what was different about the original 16th and 17th greens that made them more Macdonald-like?   


Finally, I wanted to ask you and David Moriarty who you think designed Merion's West course?

I ask because in late December of 1913 Tillinghast wrote;

Mr. Hugh Wilson and the construction committee have worked exceedingly hard and the various problems appear to be worked out in a masterly fashion.

Now, we know from David's essay that a construction committee only does the work of a real architect, so who was that mystery person for the West course?

[Mike_Cirba]

To understand the unfinished state of the Merion East golf course as late as June 1913, nine months after it opened for play, consider the following blurb written that month from Tillinghast.   Also remember that at the time, Charles Macdonald had not been on the property, or in contact with the club in any way that we know for over 15 months;

The Pennsylvania State Championship wilf be played in Philadelphia this
year on July 9, 10, 11 and 12. The course is yet to be selected. It has been suggested that it go to the new Merion course, but I think that the committee will scarcely take a chance on an undeveloped course after the fiasco of two years ago. At that time the floods made the going at Whitemarsh Valley quite impossible, but aside from this the course was then a bit too young for a championship. This is true of Merion today. I am of the opinion that the Country Club would be a happy selection.

Clever, insightful readers will also note that even though the West course was under construction at this time, Tillnghast still refers to the East course as the "new course" at Merion.

Yet, when William Evans did the same thing a scant four months later, David Moriarty tells us that Evans was talking about the West course, which wouldn't open for another human birth cyle later, in May of 1914.

[Mike_Cirba]

*...accidental double post.

[Thomas MacWood]

"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.

Tom Paul,

No, none of the early newspaper accounts that mention Hugh Wilson travelling overseas talk about how long he was there, and I can't recall any mentioning sketches.   

As far as the requirement for all entries into the US to be listed on a manifest, that might have been the law, but in practice it was a complete joke.

I have probably looked at about 1000 of those manifests and they are about as airtight as the Mexican border.    When you can identify someone on the manifest as "H. Wilson", with no age, no residency, no birthdate, no address, no sex, and no occupation, as a good percentage of the manifests do, you can tell what the good folks of the shipping industry thought of that particular federal requirement.

Mike
I don't know that much about that British site you were using. I get the impression its not as useful as the American site. There are hundreds of thousands tracking their ancesters who don't seem to have any complaints with the American site. I've found it extremely informative. For example did you know William Flynn was 5'4'' 134 pounds? He was the Fred Patek of golf architects.

[TEPaul]

"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

[Thomas MacWood]

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.  

Tom,

I'm really surprised to hear you say that.   The comments I posted are from two separate Walter Travis articles in "American Golfer" at the time of the 1916 US Amateur.

In case you missed where I mentioned it earlier, Walter Travis wrote in 1916;

"The West course at Merion is a fine one in its way, but has little in common with its vastly superior neighbor, the East course, in respect to either the character of the putting greens or the nature of the approach shots."

"Merion boasts of two courses, the East and the West and while the former is undoubtedly good the West course certainly falls far short of championship requirements.   Certainly the golf there is spectacular but in some places the suggestion of hippodroming is too apparent.   To be sure the West course will only be used for play for the qualification in conjunction with the East course, but with this novelty there must come the thought that championships should not breed novelties."

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.

Tom,

Would this be the angular, more geometric Macdonald course you are suggesting?   THere are 20 pages, with some good pictures, including ones of the present 3rd and 7th that you mentioned.  I honestly don't think they look much different today, but others can make that assessment.   Perhaps I can find some modern pics for comparison.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf

Can you tell me what was different about the original 16th and 17th greens that made them more Macdonald-like?   


Finally, I wanted to ask you and David Moriarty who you think designed Merion's West course?

I ask because in late December of 1913 Tillinghast wrote;

Mr. Hugh Wilson and the construction committee have worked exceedingly hard and the various problems appear to be worked out in a masterly fashion.

Now, we know from David's essay that a construction committee only does the work of a real architect, so who was that mystery person for the West course?

Here are some good early photos.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1913/ag93m.pdf

Here is a link to the USGA. Look up the Feb 1916 Golf Illustrated, page 21 and 25. There are very good photo of the old 4th hole and the 17th, which illustrate my point.

http://www.usgamuseum.com/researchers/usga_segl/

This is what Hugh Alison wrote about the West course: 'Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it maybe heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.'

[Thomas MacWood]

To understand the unfinished state of the Merion East golf course as late as June 1913, nine months after it opened for play, consider the following blurb written that month from Tillinghast.   Also remember that at the time, Charles Macdonald had not been on the property, or in contact with the club in any way that we know for over 15 months;

The Pennsylvania State Championship wilf be played in Philadelphia this
year on July 9, 10, 11 and 12. The course is yet to be selected. It has been suggested that it go to the new Merion course, but I think that the committee will scarcely take a chance on an undeveloped course after the fiasco of two years ago. At that time the floods made the going at Whitemarsh Valley quite impossible, but aside from this the course was then a bit too young for a championship. This is true of Merion today. I am of the opinion that the Country Club would be a happy selection.

Clever, insightful readers will also note that even though the West course was under construction at this time, Tillnghast still refers to the East course as the "new course" at Merion.

Yet, when William Evans did the same thing a scant four months later, David Moriarty tells us that Evans was talking about the West course, which wouldn't open for another human birth cyle later, in May of 1914.

Mike
It seems you are you still convinced Evans was accurate when he said Wilson had gone to Europe some years ago. Wayne just said in a post above that a Wilson trip before or after the design of the East is meaningless. Why do you persist?

[wsmorrison]

I have no idea what churlish means but I figure its not good.

It is not a good trait but it is a good characterization of you, MacWood.

What does your make-believe super secret acedemic think about you unrinating on the grave of CB Macdonald? I would think objectivity would be a prerequisite. Urinating on the grave of one of the primary subjects could be considered bad form.

The academic is not make-believe.  He contacted me in private and I respect that privacy.  You and Moriarty obviously do not. 

As for the urinating, again you bring it up.  I suggest you stop lying and spreading false accounts about me.  It appears that when backed into a factual corner, you want to make this personal as a means of diversion.  The least you could do is be accurate with your personal attacks.  Were you a witness to my alleged act?  Do you know for a fact this occurred?  It seems when all is lost when it comes to your poor analysis and faulty conclusions, both you and Moriarty resort to these unkind and false behaviors.  Shall I bring up your behavior at Garden City and other stories where your lack of understanding of the nature of private clubs has been embarrassingly on display?  For now I am too much the gentleman to do so.  If you wish to keep lying and spreading false rumors, I just might sink to your level.

You are right. The Merion report you sent me was about two years ago. You had only devoted eight years of research at that point.

Again you make misstatements about my work.  I did not send you a Merion report, I sent you an early draft (it was not current at the time I sent it to you) of the Flynn book.  Tom and I did not spend years studying the first iteration of Merion East nor the development steps that led up to it.  Once again, we have to remind you that our research and writing was on the works of William Flynn.  Flynn did not arrive on the scene until after the opening of the East Course.  Why would we spend any time at all considering that earliest period for the Flynn book?  It should easily occur to you, but you have an agenda to follow so it is ignored and misrepresented.  But don't underestimate your audience, your systematic behaviors show clearly that you lie, twist and engage in ungentlemanly behaviors.  Your co-expert researcher falls into the same behaviors.  You are two of a kind; unkind and ungentlemanly.

Only when you and Moriarty resurfaced with a continuation of an interesting line of inquiry, but one that you fumbled badly near your own goal line manifesting into a mistake riddled essay, did we feel compelled to address the assumptions and errors you represented as fact and provide a more accurate account of the process leading up to the first iteration of Merion East.  Moriarty's essay wasn't completely worthless.  It provides a few good ideas and new information, but in the main is poor scholarship and does a disservice to the history of the course and club.

Did you share the material with Moriarty?  A yes or no answer is all I am looking for.

I may be a half-wit but at least I don't hide behind the curtain of anonymity. Your acedemic should expose himself....that didn't sound right.

As I said, he is not my academic.  He is his own man.  As his opinions were expressed privately, I am not going to tell you anything about it.  He is not hiding behind a curtain of anonymity.  What makes you think when you behave the way you do any reasonable man would acknowledge you or your misguided attacks?  Because you stomp your foot and demand it?  Grow up. 

Ask your good friend Ran Morrissett if you are so aching to know, the same man contacted Ran and expressed his concerns to the founder and host of this site and a key endorser of the Moriarty essay..  If you weren't so blinded by your biased aims, you would easily see how poorly constructed (no matter how elaborate) and referenced Moriarty's essay is.  More importantly, it is wrong in most of his key conclusions.   It shouldn't take an expert researcher to point that out to you.  Your emotional investment prevents you and Moriarty from realizing this.

[wsmorrison]

Mike Cirba,

Was William Evans related to Allen Evans, the President of Merion CC during this critical phase of East Course development?

[TEPaul]

“It is interesting to note that these Merion conversations went on for months or years without Wayne or TEPaul ever producing the part of the report dealing with M&W and the creation of the courses.  It was only after I had come close to establishing that there was a later trip no earlier trip that Wayne and TEPaul finally came forward with the letter.  Even then they pretended that they had not been withholding it, but claimed they had just found it.  In fact, earlier references indicate that they long had had the letter.  They were not disclosing it because at the time they were refusing to fully acknowledge that M&W's involvement was even as extensive as it was.”

In that June 2008 statement above David Moriarty attempts to make it look like we refused to acknowledge M&W’s involvement as reflected in the Merion archives. That’s hardly the case as the May, 2004 post below on this website reflects: That was over four years ago, by the way.


“Have you ever seen that report of Hugh Wilson's, Tom? The entire first paragraph gives elaborate credit to Macdonald for those two days he apparently gave the entire "committee" at NGLA an education in golf architecture.”

[TEPaul]

"What does your make-believe super secret acedemic think about you unrinating on the grave of CB Macdonald? I would think objectivity would be a prerequisite. Urinating on the grave of one of the primary subjects could be considered bad form."


Tom MacWood:

Wayne Morrison never urinated on Macdonald's grave. Apparently you are just so poor at deducing the meaning of anything you see or read you can't even tell the difference between humor and fact. We'd been at the Southampton G.C. with Gene Greco who belongs to that club and lives in Southampton. We went to the cementary almost next to the Southampton G.C. to see the graves of Macdonald, Whigam and Raynor which are less than thirty yards from one another to pay our respect, nothing more. Wayne Morrison has never disrespected Macdonald, all he has done is honestly said he prefers a more natural looking style of architecture to the well known "engineered" style of the National School. It was a joke and as usual it went right over your head and you took it as a fact! 

Really incredible!!   

What you said above is just one more of many examples of how you really do distort things, and for what?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Thanks for the link.   I love going through those old magazines....I do wish the USGA search was a little more flexible, but there is some great stuff in there.  

I have seen those pictures before but did not at the time note them as being so inherently different than today's course and still really don't, besides what is obvious.    In particular, I don't see any relationship to the Macdonald/Raynor style of work, or particularly their often very elevated, ledged greensites and sharp slopes.    These seem to be much more at plane, on ground level, as most of the greens are still that way today.

What they did remind me a bit of is some of the early pictures I've seen of Woodlands in MA, which Fred Pickering built as well.   We're heading out for the day in a few moments and I can't find them right now, but they are available online on one of the sites, as well.

It does seem in the set of pics I sent earlier that today's seventh green had more sand showing in the bunker than on the one you just sent, but that might be simply due to the angle.

In any case, I really don't see any obvious attempt in any of the pictures to buiild anything that resembles any of Macdonald's "template" holes.   I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't their intent;   either that, or they were really, really bad at it!    

Also, it doesn't matter to me so much that it didn't matter when Wilson went overseas as far as the origins of the East course.   I just still believe he probably did...too many guys at that time seemed to believe so and I'll keep looking.

Wayne,

That's a really good question about the Evans boys..it would certainly be possible..   I wonder if Indiana Jones is already on the scent of that lead! 

[Joe Bausch]

That's a really good question about the Evans boys..it would certainly be possible..   I wonder if Indiana Jones is already on the scent of that lead! 

I've not yet found any linkage of William and Allen Evans.  We needed one of these two to have died before 1923 to have an obit in the Philly Inky which would likely help in determining if they were related.

I have, however, found the name Rowland Evans in early Merion Cricket Club articles where officers are discussed and Allen Evans is mentioned.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Here is a really good example of why we feel trying to do anything productive with you regarding the history of Merion was, is and probably always will be a waste of time. I believe, this is where the antagonism began and I think any reasonable person can see why: This was over four years ago on Merion and Macdonald.

In May, 2004 you said:
" I simply said they advised the board, something they've never been given credit for depsite the overwelming proof."

Later that day I responded to you with:
“Have you ever seen that report of Hugh Wilson's, Tom? The entire first paragraph gives elaborate credit to Macdonald for those two days he apparently gave the entire "committee" at NGLA an education in golf architecture.”

And this:
“All the history books of Merion and all the old material left there give Macdonald a great deal of credit for doing that during those two days at NGLA. Wilson and the committee and the club portray those few days as a remarkable "instant education" in golf architecture from C.B Macdonald.”

Your response the following day was:
“Macdonald & Whigham should be credited for their good will, IMO what they did for Merion reflects their kindness and generosity -- setting aside two days to guide Wilson at NGLA, and then to travel down to Merion on at least two other occasions to lend their expert advice. Why you don't want to give them credit for advising is beyond me...the evidence is overwelming. I can only attribute it to the Philadelphia Syndrom.

I believe your frustration is due to the fact that I'm approaching this with logic and common sense, and simply looking at the evidence....I don't have the emotional investment in the story that you and Wayne appear to have.”


Can you explain why a discussion with you takes that course? Can you explain why following what I said to you about the credit given to Macdonald/Whigam by Wilson you would just ignore that and say to us that there is some kind of “Philadelphia Syndrome” here?  Can you explain why you said we have some frustration about Macdonald’s contribution to Merion after I just finished telling you about the glowing thanks Hugh Wilson gave them----something you probably weren’t aware of at that time in 2004 (obviously you were not aware of the two Wilson reports at that time).

This is really just all about you trying to promote yourself on this website as an excellent researcher isn’t it? This is all about you trying to do that by challenging the research of others, isn’t it? The real irony is apparently you neither read nor acknowledged what I’d just said about the credit given to Macdonald/Whigam by Hugh Wilson, by Merion and referenced by us.

It is just remarkable, that over four years later you continue to do exactly the same thing. David Moriarty has clearly picked up on your modus operandi. My interest, at this point, is to see that this website understands what’s gone on here and that it can hardly be anything other than you two trying to promote yourselves as researchers. What else could all this be? In this years long argument you have tried to distort the history of a great golf course. I think you both have failed miserably in that bullshit agenda of yours and I think it’s important for this website to understand that.

[Thomas MacWood]

Look, I like Macdonald and Raynor a lot and I guess Whigam is OK too even if I've never known what he actually contributed to architecture---with a father-in-law like Macdonald I guess it would be pretty hard for most people to ever know. How many daughters did C.B. have anyway and sons-in-law? I heard some son-in-law of Charlie's bragged he could actually drive the green on the old cape hole at NGLA before it was moved, and when Macdonald heard about that he threatened to disinherit the guy if he actually did it. I think the son-in-law did do it. Was that Whigam? If so it doesn't sound like he was a toady to me.

But that's me, and this is a free country and I believe anyone can have most any opinion they want on most anything. So big damn deal if Wayne doesn't really like the look of the National School architecture. He's not the first one and he won't be the last. He does like how that architecture plays he just thinks it doesn't have very natural lines and he really likes natural lines in architecture!

But I do admit that Wayne does have a sort of interesting way of expressing his opinions sometimes. I mean we were over at Shinnecock one time and then we went next door to Southampton GC and hung out for a few hours with Gene Greco.

I'm sure some insulting knucklehead on a slow architecture learning curve who outrageously glorifies Macdonald without really knowing much about him doesn't realize this but Macdonald and Raynor and Whigam are actually all buried in the same cemetary near one another very close to Southampton G.C. on Rte #27.

So we all decided to go over there and pay tribute to these great men. We were amongst their graves staring down at them solemnly and very respectfully, and, THEN, to our collective horror Wayne started pissing on C.B. and then one of the other's grave was close enough that he pissed on him too. I forget which one was about thirty yards away and Wayne just didn't have enough left to get that far to piss on him too and I don't think he wanted to walk that far and risk pissing on his own trousers either. We actually have some photographs of this entire momentary horror! I mean you can't really blame Wayno for this anyway, because the fact is he just has this conditon of Terette's Syndrome that doesn't manifest itself with involuntary shocking words like most Terette's Syndrome people, it only manifests itself in involuntary actual scatology of the liquid variety! We don't call him "The Pissboy" for nothing, you know.

I think it was Whigam who Wayne wasn't able to get too so I think it is totally outrageous that some dumb-ass on here would accuse Wayno Morrison of ever disrespecting Whigam.

Wayne
Ungentlemanly behavior? You really know how to hurt a guy. I'm sorry I haven't been able to rise to the behavior exhibited by you and TE.

As far as urinating on Macdonald's grave I suppose boys will be boys, although I am a little concerned about your objectivity. Perhaps you could urinate on Wilson's grave to show you play no favorites.

May I suggest you sign the final report submitted to MCC, MGC and the USGA 'the pissboy'. Even those esteemed organziations enjoy a little levity now and again. Another suggestion instead of referring to your report as a white paper, you instead call it a yellow paper.

No I did not share your material with Moriarty (that same answer the previous ten times you asked). But I will be glad to post the Merion part on GCA. It would be interesting exercise to compare and contrast the two reports. We could even invite your make-believe super secret academic to give his two cents...in total secrecy of course.

[TEPaul]

Again, Tom MacWood is not able to distinguish between humor, a joke and fact Pretty sad really in the "dedcution" department. Can a man like this deduce the meaning of golf architectural research material well??

I think not--never have.   

I also won't expect to see him respond to either post #232 or #241.   

[Bradley Anderson]

David M,

I took the challenge and I went to Borders to buy UNMASKING THE REAL SHACKSPHERE. It's just a lot of nonsense so far. And it does exactly what I knew it would - it totally disregards the intelligence of all of the people who lived in those days.

And interestingly enough, the entire argument that the book pontificates against the Bard actually having written what everyone in his day thought he had written, is all based on apparent chronological discrepancies of what other parties reported.

But couldn't we just as easily assume that the reports of where the historical figure was, or what he thought, are not as accurate as what the mass of people who were closest to the historical figure believed and trusted about that person? Shouldn't we give the nod to the people who where there and who passed on their notion of reality to successive generations? Those people are the first source. Those who wrote about it years later are the second source.

If you are reading RC Sproul, you are having a lot more fun than I am.



 

[Mike_Cirba]

This is what Hugh Alison wrote about the West course: 'Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it maybe heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.'

Tom,

Do you think Alison might have been angling for some work there?

I say that because while he praises the site as beautiful, and one of great possibilities (which almost inherently means "unrealized").    He says "it could be made the better of the two", meaning;

1) It isn't at present
2) On such a great, rolling site, with the creek and all, if you turn it over to a master archie like me you might well have something! 

[Tony Ristola]

This was what the president of the American Historical Association James McPherson said about revisionism in 2003:

"The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. "

Should golf architecture history have a different standard?

If revisionism is the search for the truth... then No.
At some point the oozing glob of Signature Designs should find their rightful associate(s).

[DMoriarty]

Jim Nugent,

I think I have responded to your thoughts on Whigham before, a couple of times, but will again briefly.   If I recall correctly the two main errors you attribute to Whigham in the eulogy are:
 1) he calls Yale a Macdonald-Raynor course and you think it should have been just a Raynor course, and
2) He calls Merion a Macdonald-Raynor course when there is no evidence that Raynor was involved.

In my opinion, Whigham was not providing a list of attributions; These are Raynor, these are Macdonald, these are both.   To the contrary, he was listing some of the great courses designed by Macdonald and/or Raynor.   This is consistent with the way he describes the evolution of the working relationship between the two, and resolves an ambiguous use of a hyphen in a way that makes sense.

As for comparing Evan's words to Whigham's words, there is one key difference.  Whigham was there.   As far as I know, Evans was not.  For that matter, as far as I know, Tillinghast was not there either.   

But I do not doubt Evan's veracity, credentials, or credibility.   I just interpret the ambiguity in the article in a manner that is consistent with the text and the facts as I know them.  I've explained my reasoning repeatedly.   

And between Evans and Hugh Wilson, I'll go with Hugh Wilson.   Hugh Wilson said that he studied the great courses abroad "later," after the NGLA trip.  The NGLA trip was in early spring of 1911.   His first extended time to travel was not until 1912. 
_____________________________

Bradley Anderson,

I hope you didn't buy the book because of me.  I wasn't challenging you to buy it, but merely asked whether you had read any of the books before ridiculing them.  I have not read any of the anti-Stratford works.  I was given one of the books and plan to read it at some point, but honestly it is not really my interest. 

I'll stay away from the one you are reading as it doesn't sound all that good.
 

But couldn't we just as easily assume that the reports of where the historical figure was, or what he thought, are not as accurate as what the mass of people who were closest to the historical figure believed and trusted about that person? Shouldn't we give the nod to the people who where there and who passed on their notion of reality to successive generations? Those people are the first source. Those who wrote about it years later are the second source.

I agree entirely that we should go to the "first source" whenever possible. That is why rely on the words of Hugh Wilson, Whigham, Lesley, Merion's Board, Francis, etc.   It is also why I don't worry much about whether or not I am consistent with what eventually became the authoritative account of Merion's history.   

[DMoriarty]

Wayne Morrison, 

Welcome back.
 
Your recent posts are nothing but unfounded and unsupported attacks on me, my essay, and (inexplicably and unnecessarily) Tom Macwood.   Yet without factual or analytical support, your comments are nothing but empty platitudes, completely devoid of any substance or value. They do not speak to the quality or accuracy of my essay, but rather to your anger and your continued inability to address these issues in an open, frank, and fact-based manner. 

1.  Will you ever offer any facts to back up your insults and attacks? 

2.   If you have nothing of substance to offer to the conversation, then what is the purpose or your return?

3.  Months ago you wrote that you would provide me with copies of the documents you photographed at the PA Historical Society.  When will I be receiving my copies?   

[Kirk Gill]

I took the challenge and I went to Borders to buy UNMASKING THE REAL SHACKSPHERE.

Bradley, if you're truly interested in reading about theories regarding the authorship of the Shakespeare canon, check out

http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/

They review the book you're reading, although they like another candidate better. What I love is that they refer to the unlikely notion that a guy named William Shakespeare actually authored his own work as "The Stratford Theory." What's interesting to me about the claims on the site is that most of their issues have to do with a lack of things - no mentions of an author by that name in Stratford, no eulogy, no mention of Shakespeare in court documents, no way that this guy could have known all of those things that he included in his plays. But no positive evidence, no drafts of the plays in another man's hand, no contemporary claims........It's more a process of fostering doubt than actually proving anything.

[Thomas MacWood]

This is what Hugh Alison wrote about the West course: 'Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it maybe heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.'

Tom,

Do you think Alison might have been angling for some work there?

I say that because while he praises the site as beautiful, and one of great possibilities (which almost inherently means "unrealized").    He says "it could be made the better of the two", meaning;

1) It isn't at present
2) On such a great, rolling site, with the creek and all, if you turn it over to a master archie like me you might well have something! 

Mike
I wouldn't be surprised if Alison was trying to get work. On the other hand his description of the course as being more beautiful and natural is consistant with the NY Times article leading up to the 1916 Am and Robert Lesley's article in GI in 1914. It is interesting to note of the five photos in Lesley's article three of them are of the West. It probably was the more photogenic of the two courses at that point wouldn't you agree.

By the way I never said the West was the better of the two courses. Only that it exhibited a modern architectural aesthetic, not unlike the British model at the time, more so than the original East did. And that by the end of the process the East began to look very much like the West, from a stylistic point of view.