[Thomas MacWood]

"TE
You do write some entertaining fiction."

Mr. MacWood:

Thank you, that's because I really don't know when Flynn moved to Philadelphia. I guess we could ask his daughter for you but I fail to see the point of that as you and the other M&M boy almost automatically don't seem to believe anything she says anyway. What does she know, she is only his daughter but she wasn't even born at that point? Maybe you can find the answer somewhere on the Internet which for whatever it's worth appears to be your primary source of information.

If Kilkare was the first golf course Flynn was involved with, the second course would appear to be Merion West, although that is not certain. Pickering's blow up could have happened after both courses were completed and he was acting as greenkeeper, with Flynn as his second in charge. Merion's minutes should be able to answer this question.

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

If you drop your ban on assisting Tom Paul and/or any of his associates, I'd be happy to help you answer some of your questions, hopefully to your satisfaction.  Otherwise, your questions are either rhetorical and possibly in vain. 

Pat,

If publishing a history that is almost completely inaccurate but initiates a more comprehensive research that discovers as much of the truth as possible is to be commended, well then commend to your heart's content.  Perhaps when you've had an opportunity to see the results of our labors, you will commend those of us that got the story right to an equal degree. 

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
I don't think you should be criticizing anyone's historic accuracy. It is pretty apparent now why you've chosen not to put your Merion report on GCA. There is no doubt in my mind if you were confident in it it would have been on the site weeks ago.

The question was rhetorical...you made the decision early on in this thread not add anything of substance, I didn't expect that to change now.

I've given TE plenty of help in the way of new information on Myopia, Merion and Flynn. What I won't do, however, is do his research for him. I've told him where to look. Has he looked for it?

That question was rhetorical too.

[TEPaul]

"If Kilkare was the first golf course Flynn was involved with, the second course would appear to be Merion West, although that is not certain. Pickering's blow up could have happened after both courses were completed and he was acting as greenkeeper, with Flynn as his second in charge. Merion's minutes should be able to answer this question."


Mr. MacWood:

There's some pretty good material (research material) which is essentially in the public domain and outside of Merion G.C. and MCC that goes a long way to answering most of your "if" remarks above.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I said I would likely not post anything on this website to do with the Merion history.  That is a direct response to the original essay, its endorsement by Ran and the acrimony that followed.  I also said that I won't disseminate anything generally until the MCC and MGC have had a chance to review.  That should be quite clear and not anything that occurred to anyone over time.

I will discuss some of your questions and issues offline, by telephone if you like.  I think we can go beyond rhetorical.  I won't deal with your protege at all under any circumstances.  Let me know if you are agreeable.  If not, no worries.
Best,
Wayne

[DMoriarty]

Pat,

If publishing a history that is almost completely inaccurate but initiates a more comprehensive research that discovers as much of the truth as possible is to be commended, well then commend to your heart's content.  Perhaps when you've had an opportunity to see the results of our labors, you will commend those of us that got the story right to an equal degree. 

Wayne Morrison,

"Almost completely inaccurate?"  You are completely wrong.  More importantly, you have not supported your assertion.

Thus far you have produced one document that contradicts one single assumption (clearly identified as such) in my essay.   While I knew that the document likely existed and knew its most probable location, it was unavailable to me despite my best efforts.  In all likelihood, my assumption was wrong as to timing only, but not as to substance.    From what I have heard about the Meeting Minutes, they may go a long ways toward confirming that Macdonald and Whigham were the major creative forces behind the original design of Merion East.   

That is after all what my essay was about.   Wilson did not study overseas before building Merion East.  He was a rank amateur who did not know how to plan, layout, or build a golf course.  Macdonald and Whigham not only told them and taught them how to lay out the course utilizing Merion's natural features, they were even in charge of finalizing the final layout plan before construction began.

Anyway, as you have often written, one must provide a basis for your claims else they are worthless and possibly even damaging, and one must provide this information to all comers so as to be sure that your claims stand up to even the harshest substantive criticism.    That is what I did with my essay.   In fact I not only gave you my sources, I also gave you most of the information you guys used to critique the draft essay.

Doesn't it seem a bit silly to repeatedly claim I am wrong without ever providing your basis or even giving me a chance to respond?   Wouldn't you agree that I provided you with every opportunity to understand and respond to my essay?   

Surely you are doing your club no favors by keeping this issue alive and creating the impression that Merion has something to hide.   Don't get me wrong.  I doubt that Merion has anything to hide, which I why I find it odd that you are behaving like they do have something to hide.  What are you hiding and why are you hiding it?

Surely Merion would prefer if we put this behind us.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Sorry, but even trying not to be involved in the debate I can't let this go by without asking.

You stated, "Macdonald and Whigham not only told them and taught them how to lay out the course utilizing Merion's natural features, they were even in charge of finalizing the final layout plan before construction began..."

Where is there ANYTHING at all, in any written history, record, meetings minutes of on this website that supports you clear statement that Macdonald and Whigham were put "in charge of finalizing the final layout plan before construction began" for Merion East?

To quote you, "you have not supported your assertion."

I have absolutely NO dog in this fight and I think many valid points and questions have been raised that need addressing on boht sides.

This statement is of a fact that has no support at all...

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom,

I said I would likely not post anything on this website to do with the Merion history.  That is a direct response to the original essay, its endorsement by Ran and the acrimony that followed.  I also said that I won't disseminate anything generally until the MCC and MGC have had a chance to review.  That should be quite clear and not anything that occurred to anyone over time.

I will discuss some of your questions and issues offline, by telephone if you like.  I think we can go beyond rhetorical.  I won't deal with your protege at all under any circumstances.  Let me know if you are agreeable.  If not, no worries.
Best,
Wayne

Wayne
Huh? I don't get it. You share information with TE and Mike, and they share the info on here. The bottom line is the information that you want dissemintated is being disseminated on the site, allbeit through third parties. Could you email the answer to TE or Mike?

[wsmorrison]

No worries then. Tom.  I see there is absolutely no need to consider how to find some common ground.  There is none. 

So fare thee well! and if for ever,
Still for ever, fare thee well 

[TEPaul]

"Wayne
Huh? I don't get it. You share information with TE and Mike, and they share the info on here. The bottom line is the information that you want dissemintated is being disseminated on the site, allbeit through third parties.

Mr. MacWood:

Would you prefer we say absolutely nothing on here about the information we have that you don't have? If that's the way you feel, I'm quite sure we could accommodate you and David Moriarty. A few of us have the concerns of the club to consider. I think some realize that's a concern not shared by you or Moriarty. The accuracy of Merion's architectural history most certainly does not have to be validated by you, Moriarty, or even GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, despite the fact apparently you and Moriarty think it does! 

[DMoriarty]

David,

Sorry, but even trying not to be involved in the debate I can't let this go by without asking.

You stated, "Macdonald and Whigham not only told them and taught them how to lay out the course utilizing Merion's natural features, they were even in charge of finalizing the final layout plan before construction began..."

Where is there ANYTHING at all, in any written history, record, meetings minutes of on this website that supports you clear statement that Macdonald and Whigham were put "in charge of finalizing the final layout plan before construction began" for Merion East?

To quote you, "you have not supported your assertion."

I have absolutely NO dog in this fight and I think many valid points and questions have been raised that need addressing on boht sides.

This statement is of a fact that has no support at all...

Phillip, I think if you take a look at my entire post you will notice that I based my comments on what I have been able to glean from the multitude of comments from those who have seen them.   According to many of these comments, the minutes confirm that M&W returned to the Merion property on the eve of construction to finalize the routing. 

"Wayne
Huh? I don't get it. You share information with TE and Mike, and they share the info on here. The bottom line is the information that you want dissemintated is being disseminated on the site, allbeit through third parties.

Mr. MacWood:

Would you prefer we say absolutely nothing on here about the information we have that you don't have? If that's the way you feel, I'm quite sure we could accommodate you and David Moriarty. A few of us have the concerns of the club to consider. I think some realize that's a concern not shared by you or Moriarty. The accuracy of Merion's architectural history most certainly does not have to be validated by you, Moriarty, or even GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, despite the fact apparently you and Moriarty think it does! 

I do not understand why you would every make claims without being willing to back them up.  Imagine if I had refused to offer any support for my draft essay!   Such would have been unconscionable.   One must back up their claims if they expect to be taken seriously.   Wayne has stated this many times. Yet you guys have not backed up your claims. 

If the clubs do not want you to share their information, then by all means you should not.   But you have been sharing  the clubs' information almost daily, apparently at your pleasure.  And you have apparently shown the documents to individuals who have nothign to do with Merion.  And Wayne's last post makes clear that this is not about the clubs, but about keeping the information away from me.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
To be honest with you I am not all that concerned with the clubs. My focus is upon discovering what actually happened. If the clubs are comfortable with their actual history, whatever it might be, they have my respect. If they have a problem with the truth presented in a respectful manner, well then I don't have much sympathy. As an example I have the uptmost respect for Pine Valley and John Ott. I have a suspecion that the clubs aren't nearly as paranoid as you present them, or as paranoid as you are.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You are incorrect for I not only read your entire post several times to make ecrtain of what you wrote, I also reread your essay to see if you had written the same thing there (you didn't) and that I had missed it.

You replied to me with, "I based my comments on what I have been able to glean from the multitude of comments from those who have seen them.   According to many of these comments, the minutes confirm that M&W returned to the Merion property on the eve of construction to finalize the routing."

I'm sorry, but you stated that M&W were put "in charge of finalizing the final layout plan before construction began" for Merion East.

WHO AT MERION put them in charge? Where is the proof for your answer? 

I have no problem with you stating that it is your BELIEF that they were put in charge and that you BASE this belief upon "what you have gleaned" from the comments made by some about what is contained in the Merion minutes.

But that isn't what you did. You unequivocably stated that they were put in charge...

Now I, too, have been following this thread (and others) on this topic and I admit that my power of reasoning may be a bit lacking, but I have yet to see ANYTHING written by anyone who has claimed to have seen the minutes of the Merion meetings whereby anything close to concluding or even strongly hinting at M&W being put in charge of any final routing can be derived.

Also, you have been quite outspoken toward both Tom & Wayne that if they don't provide copies of the documents to which they refer that their statements simply can't be trusted, believed or accepted.

I can understand that. How then can your statement which is based upon HEARSAY STATEMENTS that you tell everyone to disregard be used as the basis for proof of anything?

You ARE a better researcher than that David... you must apply the same standard(s) to yourself that you espouse for others.

Again... What is the actual proof to your conjecture?

[Thomas MacWood]

If Pickering was employed by Johnson contractors does that mean that Flynn was also with that company? Was Heartwellville built by Johnson contractors?

[Thomas MacWood]

Phil
Mike or TE said the other day that the committee presented M&W five potential routings, and Macdonald chose what he thought was the best. At the time it was suggested the thread was veering off course, we were trying to focus on Flynn's early influences not Merion.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

From David's post #178: "Mike Cirba's post above is also extremely misleading.  Like TEPaul, he insists that we take his word for what is contained in the documents recently(?) retrieved from MCC.   There is no justifiable reason why we should not let these documents speak for themselves.   Until they are allowed to, everything written about these documents should be disregarded or at least be taken with a large grain of salt..."

David can't have it both ways!  He CLEARLY states that M&W WERE PUT IN CHARGE and that his "proof" was "According to many of these comments, the minutes confirm..."

According to David himself, Wayne's comments are based on Merion's minutes that he claims to have seen but has stated that he is not at liberty to share therefor they CAN NOT be given any credence. he also states that Tom Paul's comments are based upon HEARSAY COMMENTS told to him by Wayne and this makes them INVALID as he won't produce the minutes either.


He then states that citing documentation as proof producing it for others to see is clearly poor research methodology.

Yet David then states, "I based my comments on what I have been able to glean from the multitude of comments from those who have seen them..."

He based his conclusion, one that is highly controversial as we all know, on even less evidence than Wayne and Tom Paul and yet he shouldn't be taken to task for it?

Why should anyone give his "comments" ANY credibility at all since by his own words they are based SOLELY on the VERY HEARSAY that he has condemned those who stated it?

Again, I have no idea if his "comments" are correct; they may very well be. But he can't be allowed to publicly hold Tom & Wayne to higher research standards than he does himself and not expect to be taken to task for it....

[Dan Herrmann]

Who were the influences of Fownes?

This is a complete guess, but I think you'll find that the Oakmont's development may have been a role model in Merion's development.

[TEPaul]

"I have a suspecion that the clubs aren't nearly as paranoid as you present them, or as paranoid as you are."


Mr. MacWood:

First of all I have never said any club is paranoid about their history, but apparently you have----eg hence this notion you've been attempting to promote on here for over five years that various clubs have created "legends" and glorified their own (architects such as Wilson) without that status being historically deserved!

This is your notion not mine. It is something I do not believe to be the case, certainly not with Wilson or Crump or Leeds. But you seem to continue to try to promote that notion almost any chance you get. This is precisely what I believe IS historic revisionism.

To do that with each club you seem to latch onto some person who apparently you think you've uncovered by your own research and to then massively exaggerate their contribution to the architecture of some course. You did this a few years ago with Pine Valley and Colt, you did it some years ago with Merion and Macdonald/Whigam, and you tried to do it again recently with Willie Campbell and Myopia.

Apparently Mr. Moriarty has jumped right on this bandwagon with you of attempting to massively exaggerate the contributions of others where there is just no factual evidence for such a claim or any justification for it. It is pretty ironic as well as extremely transparent that to do this you also constantly claim with club after club, that each club, their records, their historians etc, etc are massively exaggerating, conducting campaigns of hyperbole or just plain lying about the facts of their architectural histories.

This is precisely why I cannot see that anyone other than the two of you puts much stock in the presentation, rationale and logic of an essay like the one on here on Merion. Almost all the points in that essay that support the essay's conclusions are based on massive exaggerations. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of the actual histories of these courses and the raw material on which they are based cannot and have not failed to see that.

These clubs are not paranoid, and I never said such a thing, and I'm certainly not in the slightest bit paranoid about their histories. That you continue to suggest such a thing is what this preposterous notion and label you came up with---eg "The Philadelphia Syndrome" is based upon.

There is no such thing as a "Philadelphia Syndrome". It is just a fanciful notion you came up with about five years ago to promote your unsupportable and historically revisionist ideas that are apparently designed to make a name for yourself as a researcher.

Fortunately or unfortunately the result of all this over the last few years has probably just served to cast you on here and elsewhere as a pretty poor analyst of golf architectural history.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Moriarty:

Phil Young is absolutely right about some of your recent posts about Merion. You will never be able to deduce the accuracy of anything by completely misrepresenting what others who have information you don't have said about that information.

Completely manufacturing words and ideas that others said and then proceeding to base your beliefs and contentions on them is something you continue to show on here you are very good at.

I dare say no one on here or anywhere else with buy that technique of yours because it is so completely transparent. It's so transparent I dare say even second graders would see through it and members of Merion and others involved with these histories and interpreting them are definitely not second graders! 

[TEPaul]

"Who were the influences of Fownes?"

Dan:

This is an excellent question and frankly probably an enormous subject in a general sense. I think it will be a very controversial one too. The reason I say that is because clearly there are at least two and maybe more on here who for years now have been trying to promote the idea---even the total reality that a man like H.C. Fownes (and/or his son W.C.) could not possibly have come up with the routing and design of Oakmont in 1903 simply because they had never done a course before and were therefore too inexperienced to have done Oakmont's routing and design. They have suggested the very same thing about Merion's Hugh Wilson and perhaps even Pine Valley's Crump or Myopia's Leeds. Because these people on here seem to want to promote this notion their next step is invariably to cast around and find some peripherial figure who must have done it for them. The point is this cannot be historically justified as fact. The fact is these men did what they've been given credit for despite their initial inexperience.

Nothing at Oakmont happened without H.C. Fownes's direct participation, that's for sure. Recently we (of the USGA Architecture Archive) became aware of something we call a real "asset". It is a stick routing done of Oakmont in 1903 before the course was built (there is a photo of this stick routing in Oakmont's history book). It has no name on it but the assumption has always been that H.C. did it himself. This seems to be supported by the fact that there just was noone else there at that time to have done it for him, but I have no doubt at all someone like Tom MacWood will probably come up with some other character like a  Willie Campbell who must have done it for him simply because that analyst (MacWood) can in no way at all fathom how Fownes could have done it himself! 



"This is a complete guess, but I think you'll find that the Oakmont's development may have been a role model in Merion's development."

I think it would be remarkable if Merion when they moved to Ardmore was not in some way aware of what Fownes was doing at Oakmont and how, as they were also aware of what Leeds had been doing and how at Myopia for over a decade but I think it is pretty clear to see from Merion's own records from that time that it was C.B. Macdonald and his NGLA project process that Merion turned to as their role model. I, for one, believe it was not just about the architecture but very much more about this idea of the "amateur/sportsman" getting into the design process even with a committee of other fellow "amateur/sportsmen"----eg in Macdonald's case, Emmet, Whigam and a few others and even Travis for a time until Macdonald let him go. This exact process (the so-called "amateur/sportsman" design process) at NGLA is not speculation---Macdonald explained it in a letter to prospective members himself that he made available in his own book.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

I do understand your frustration and share it, but keep in mind that it is not me who is concealing the source documents and then demanding that we believe the story being sold without support.

This process is far from perfect or ideal.  I'd just as soon we look at exactly what these minutes say, but they are being concealed and only used piecemeal (and without support) to try and make certain claims and deny others.    So I will take what I can get and move on from there. 

Fortunately for those actually interested in figuring out what really happened, this piecemeal manipulation of the core documents has been far from perfect, and in the process of trying to convince us to blindly accept what they want us to believe, Wayne, Tom Paul, and Mike have let slip out information that entirely undercuts their story.   It is in these contradictions that we must look to figure out what these documents really say. 

So while I have a pretty good idea of who at Merion put M&W in charge of choosing the final routing, I cannot say with 100% certainty.   But it is entirely unreasonable to believe that they showed up uninvited to Merion on the eve of construction and forced Merion to accept their recommendations.   Merion brought them back to choose and approve the final layout plan for Merion East.   Yet these guys still try to deny that M&W were involved in designing the course?    I don't get it. Do you?

One more thing, Phillip, notice that no one with access to this information is denying that that Merion brought M&W back in to choose the final routing.  How could they?  They have stated this many times.   

As usual I remain willing to consider any and all ideas and source information which contradicts my interpretations and opinions, but none are forthcoming.   

[DMoriarty]

Dan and Tom Paul,

Fownes and Fownes are certainly an interesting topics and ones worth pursuing, but perhaps on a different thread and this one is supposed to be about Flynn's influences.   

Do you have any basis for believing that Fownes was a major influence of Flynn?

As for your theory that Fownes and Oakmont were the role models for Merion, I have never seen anything that supports this theory, but I would love to here the basis for your speculation.  Perhaps you two should start a thread on the basis for your speculation that Fownes and Oakmont were the model for Wilson and Merion?

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Your statement that "As usual I remain willing to consider any and all ideas and source information which contradicts my interpretations and opinions, but none are forthcoming..." is self-serving and unresponsive to the issue that I raised.   

It is unethical of you to say that Wayne & Tom are both poor researchers and hiding things from you and everyone else and that what they say should be IGNORED if you won't hold yourself to those same research standards.

Whether one agrees with your conclusions or not, your essay was well-thought out and reasoned; what you are doing here by insisting that YOU can make UNSUPPORTED statements of fact while others CANNOT both denigrates that essay and makes your conclusions and statements lose validity.

Remember, it was you who challenged tradition and therefor the burden, not only of proof, but of standards of research is up to you to set and answer to.

Wayne & Tom gave answers to your questions and challenged your conclusions and did so with statements about information they had access to that you and many others such as myself don't. Would it have been nice if they had shown us them? Yes. Do they, especially in Wayne's case, have VALID reasons for not doing so? YES!

I'm sorry, but I can't support conclusions drawn on the "I will take what I can get and move on from there..." school of research. And the fact that "that no one with access to this information is denying..." avenue of thought doesn't prove or disprove a single thing. By that logic it was a sea monster that sank the Titanic because none of the surviving crew denies that it happened that way.

You state that, "So while I have a pretty good idea of who at Merion put M&W in charge of choosing the final routing, I cannot say with 100% certainty." Well why NOT state it, as that same standard of proof didn't stop you from stating that M&W were put in charge? 

There is nothing wrong or dishonorable with saying that you got caught up in the heat and frustrations of this argument. There is nothing incocistent with stating that you BELIEVE so-and-so of merion actually put M&W in charge of the final routing of the golf course bu that you can't state it as yet with 100% certainty.

Your criticisms and concemnations of Wayne, Tom & Mike for their statements because they won't support them with documentary proof can not be given any serious consideration since you obviously don't give it any yourself...

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
It was pure conjecture on my part - How the great Oakmont was designed by Fownes - his one and only design.  And how Wilson (later improved on by Flynn) may have done the same at Merion.   In other words, did the guys from Philly use Pittsburg as a model?

Tom points out that it was actually much more likely to have been CBM at NGLA..

It does tie into Flynn because of his work at Merion West and East. 

[Thomas MacWood]

If Pickering was employed by Johnson contractors does that mean that Flynn was also with that company? Was Heartwellville built by Johnson contractors?

Since Johnson contractors built Mayfield is it possible HH Barker suggested them to Merion?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()