Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?

[Kyle Harris]

There I go, taking myself out of context again.

I meant to say: "I routed myself through the town of Merion one October day."

[TEPaul]

That's close enough Kyle. Under the logic of the new architecture attribution analysis school practiced by these two "independent, expert" researchers that should get you too co-design attribution for Merion East.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I guess you must have unlimited time and focus to argue this the rest of your life.
. . .
Is arguing about the attribution of a golf course on the other side of the country every day on the Internet really what you want as your life's work?

 

I write one response to a days worth of nonsense, and you lecture me on my time management?  Give me a break! You posted over a dozen times yesterday on this issue alone!   

You know what the Merion Committee minutes say.   Please don't act dumb as one of your best friends has seen them and all of us have told you essentially what they say.

I have a good idea of what they say based on what you and TEPaul and Wayne have leaked (and what you haven't leaked) but I haven't discussed them with any friends who have seen the information.  Apparently my friends and I have a different sense of honor and ethics than yours.  Not keeping your word appears to be commonplace in your neck of the woods, but not in mine.

Speaking of which . . .

You know my feelings on a Cobb's Creek restoration, I've expressed them publicly and privately.  But by all means don't let your word to me get in the way of your unnamed friends' paranoia. 

So, in good faith I'll offer a trade....

 

Good faith?  Good faith isn't a deal, a trade, or a guarantee.  It is upright behavior without assurances.  That is the "faith" part.   For example, good faith was providing you with the Wash Post article on Barker, and the synopsis of Columbia's early history including that Ross had reportedly gone after the job.   Good faith was providing you with a photo of Ward playing NGLA in 1909, and explaining my interpretation of the confusion over the two tournaments.   That was my Good Faith for the last few days.   Longer term, my good faith was posting my essay here and opening up my research for a complete vetting, despite your irrational (and continued) paranoia and insults about my intentions.  My good faith was providing Wayne with my research, my interpretations, and my explanations.  My good faith trusting his word that he would provide me with his.   My good faith was trusting his word that he would offer me a detailed critique of my work, with support. 

I've given you all that in good faith, and more.  in fact, dealing with you at all is a major leap of faith after the garbage you've sent my way.   As far as I can tell, you have been acting in bad faith with me from the beginning.   Others started later when acting ethically began no longer matched their various agendas.

You come forward today with how you "Know" that Merion was designed by someone other than Wilson and Committee and I'll send you the research book we created on Cobb's Creek.

I think you need to get a hold of yourself, and look a little more closely at what I wrote above, and to what I was responding.

"And, by the way, I know you are mistaken and can prove it, but why bother when you won't offer any support whatsoever?"

If I were you, I'd make of it, that I know TEPaul is mistaken and if he'd like to get to the bottom of it, then I'd be glad to discuss all the facts with him, but won't discuss all the facts without seeing all the facts.   

Is this a game?

I don't know.  Is it?   You are the one offering up information, then refusing to provide it. You are the one who keeps demanding we answer your questions and provide you with our research, but I don't recall you answering mine or producing anything.  You are one of those making claims without offering any support.    So you tell me, Mike, is this a game?  And if so what are the rules and to whom do they apply.

You claim that this isn't a personal vendetta to make Tom and Wayne look foolish, but then you claim you KNOW that Wilson and Committee didn't design Merion but unless Tom throws his cards first, you won't tell everyone else here??

First Mike, you, Wayne Morrison, Tom Paul, and Joe Bausch are the ones making unsupported claims and withholding information, not me.   

Second, as usual you did not understand my post or my point, have it all garbled in your mind.   You seem to have failed to realize that it was TEPaul who withheld information, not me.   When he comes forward with that information, then his mistake will be evident. 

Third, this agenda stuff is a bunch of crap.   I am not the one who broke of the exchange of ideas and cooperation.    I tried to cooperate in GOOD FAITH, but have been shown only BAD FAITH.  It is quite clear to anyone paying attention who has the agenda.   What could be more agenda driven than running a PR campaign about Merion's early history while refusing to produce the support.   

It is ridiculous that you expect me to offer evidence to disprove a claim that hasn't even been supported (and cannot be) supported.

Is it no fun unless you can prove someone else wrong??

I have no desire to prove anyone wrong,  I just want to get to the truth.  The truth is being masked and hidden in instead we have this masquerade of claims of "proof" when no such "proof" has been forthcoming.  I'll be glad to have an open and frank discussion of the source material, but I'll be damned if I am going to continue to act in good faith when you guys are so obviously acting in bad faith. 

Do you have any respect or consideration for anyone here??

I have respect and consideration for some, but have lost or am losing most of the respect and consideration I had for others.

But why is my "respect" contingent upon me coming forward with everything immediately, yet yours is not?  and Waynes and TEPaul's are not?  And Joe's is not?   Why is it that for Tom and I we have to produce everything immediately or be condemned and criticized for being disrespectful and playing games, but you guys do this song and dance daily?   That is game playing Mike, and it is your game, not mine. 

Have you no respect or consideration for anyone here?   How about Wayne and TomP.  If they had any respect and consideration, then why would they be playing these games?   

Why won't you answer my quesitions about the Columbia clipping or the "laying out" issue.   It seems pretty important in all these docussions, including your Cobb's discussion. 

[wsmorrison]

What was Dr. Walter Harban's role in the design and construction of Columbia CC?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

We're covering old ground on this issue of "laid out" versus "constructed", versus "planned", etc.

This is from the original thread Ran started when he posted your White Paper.


"Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses, George Klauder, one of the constructors of the Aronimink course, and Ab Smith, who had done a lot for the Huntingdon Valley course, have laid out the course in Cobb's Creek park and work begins in early spring.   There are so many natural hazards that this problem has not been much of a bother to the golf architects."

"This last-named club (Philmont) for years was noted as a course where there was not a single artificial hazard.   The club feels that new greens are badly needed and that artificial hazards are essntial.   One of the leading members (Ellis Gimbel) had a great deal to do with the municipal course in Cobb's Creek Park, which was laid out by A.H. Smith, George Crump, Hugh Wilson, and others, and he was greatly impressed with what these experts did.  "

“The fact that there is a golf course at Cobb's Creek is due entirely to the hard efforts of the Philadelphia Golf Association. It took five years to convince the Fairmount Park Commissioners that there was an actual demand for a public links. And after the plans were decided upon Hugh Wilson, the man who laid out the two Merion courses, spent six months laying out the new public course. A.H. Smith, for years one of the most prominent members of the Huntingdon Valley Country Club, gave up his Sundays for as many months to the work of getting the course in shape.”

David...this is all old news.

Many of these terms were used synonymously...laid out, constructed, planned, built, responsible for, etc.

One also has to look at the context, as is so very obvious in each of the quotes above.

As they are in your Columbia snippet...Barker designed the course, no question, and others "laid it out", or in our parlance, constructed or built it.

But, as these quotes and a million others I've come across clearly show, writers of the time also used "laid out" to define architecting, or planning the course.


 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

Once again, we have a choice of quality over quantity.

How many of the purported Barker courses have you actually seen to judge the quality?

I can tell you that in terms of NJ course, Arcola, Rumson, and Raritan Valley are below the Top 50 in that state,

Mike Cirba,

Which version of Arcola ?

Before the Parkway seized several holes vis a vis eminent domain and before Arcola sold off other holes to Buitoni Macaroni, Arcola was a fabulous golf course.

Or, are you talking about Arcola after the Parkway and subsequently, after Buitoni Macaroni ?

[DMoriarty]

What was Dr. Walter Harban's role in the design and construction of Columbia CC?

Dr. Harban described his role in the construction of Columbia in Piper and Oakley's book.  According to what I have read, he constructed the course, or perhaps "laid it out"and constructed it" in the language used at the time.   But, according to what I have read it looks as if Barker planned the course. 

____________________________________

Mike,

I am glad you finally agree that the phrase "lay out" was not always synonymous with "plan" or "design"  and that sometimes the "laying out" was done by someone who did not design the course.   


In my opinion, the person who planned the course is the designer.   Do you agree?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The ultimate test of greatness for you may be the desire to wlal back to the 1st tee after a game, but it ain't for me. 

Then, what's the ultimate test of greatness for you ?

Pat

I don't have an ultimate test for greatness. 

Even if I tried to come up with one, I would likely have to alter it. 

There's nothing wrong with adjusting your criteria.

But, if you don't have any identifiable criteria, how do you relate the merits of a course to others ?

Lets put it this way, I know greatness when I see. 

That may take me one look or dozen, but if a course is great, I will see it sooner or later.

That's a contradiction.

First you state that you know greatness when you see it.

Then you state that you may not see it after one look, a dozen looks or perhaps after fifty looks, but, that eventually, you'll see it.

That doesn't inspire confidence, nor does it speak to your observatory powers and ability to analyze.

One would think that a great course would reveal itself to you after a few plays.

How great could the course be if it took you a dozen or so visits to discern its greatness ? 

Part of the problem with going back to the first tee for me is that many great courses aren't the sort I really want to play very often. 

Could you identify 10 of them for me ?

I can readily concede a course is great, but that I don't have any great affection for it. 

Could you provide 10 examples of courses that fall into that category ?

My ideas of what make up my favourite courses don't necessarily make them great ones.

How do your ideas of what comprises your favorite courses differ from your ideas of what comprises great courses ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I am glad you finally agree that the phrase "lay out" was not always synonymous with "plan" or "design"  and that sometimes the "laying out" was done by someone who did not design the course.   

In my opinion, the person who planned the course is the designer.   Do you agree?

David,

In the examples I've seen from the time, "laying out" was not always synonymous with designing or planning but in most cases it was as seen above in the examples I provided.

I would answer your question about "the designer" as follows.

I sort of stick to the Cornish & Whitten methodology to describe what I mean.   In their book they sometimes say something like;

Linday Ervin (routing)
David Postelwaite

Because sometimes what happens is the example of a course near here called Talamore (not the one with the llamas) that was routed for a previous owner by Geoffrey Cornish, but then taken over by another company and the owner, a Bob Levy Jr., used Cornish's routing but built complete new hole internals and strategies based on his own "design".

Another local example I've played recently is Jack Frost National in the Poconos.    My understanding is that Rees Jones did a routing for previous owners but the project never took off.   A few years back new owners took over and used the Rees routing (which I believe had passed the first set of governmental approvals) and then built the course using Florida architect Terry LaGree to create the internals of the holes.  

Perhaps a better example is the Old Course at Stonewall.   Is it a Tom Doak course or a Tom Fazio course??   After all, with some minor changes, Fazio did the original routing.    

I also hear a similar thing took place at Twisted Dune, but perhaps Archie can weigh in on that one if he wishes.

For my own record-keeping,  I grant the person(s) who actually built the internals of the holes and created the hole strategies, contours, and features with greater credit, so for instance, my recorded attribution for Stonewall reads;

Tom Doak/Gil Hanse/Tom Fazio/Jay Sigel

Would you change that order?

[DMoriarty]

In the examples I've seen from the time, "laying out" was not always synonymous with designing or planning but in most cases it was as seen above in the examples I provided.

Most cases?   Not in my experience.  I am not even sure it is synonymous in the examples above.

Because sometimes what happens is the example of a course near here called Talamore (not the one with the llamas) that was routed for a previous owner by Geoffrey Cornish, but then taken over by another company and the owner, a Bob Levy Jr., used Cornish's routing but built complete new hole internals and strategies based on his own "design".

Another local example I've played recently is Jack Frost National in the Poconos.    My understanding is that Rees Jones did a routing for previous owners but the project never took off.   A few years back new owners took over and used the Rees routing (which I believe had passed the first set of governmental approvals) and then built the course using Florida architect Terry LaGree to create the internals of the holes.  

Perhaps a better example is the Old Course at Stonewall.   Is it a Tom Doak course or a Tom Fazio course??   After all, with some minor changes, Fazio did the original routing.    

I also hear a similar thing took place at Twisted Dune, but perhaps Archie can weigh in on that one if he wishes.

For my own record-keeping,  I grant the person(s) who actually built the internals of the holes and created the hole strategies, contours, and features with greater credit, so for instance, my recorded attribution for Stonewall reads;

Tom Doak/Gil Hanse/Tom Fazio/Jay Sigel

Would you change that order?

I don't know who did what at these places. These are examples where one group replaced another and where they weren't necessarily on the same page with what should be done.    Also, plans often encompass more than just a routing.  So I don't think your examples are applicable.   

You assume that the one who built the hole internals is the one who created the strategies, contours, and features, but what if the strategies, contours, and features were planned by someone else? 

In the past, hasn't the routing largely dictated the possibilities for the rest of the plan?

[Mike_Cirba]

"Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses, George Klauder, one of the constructors of the Aronimink course, and Ab Smith, who had done a lot for the Huntingdon Valley course, have laid out the course in Cobb's Creek park and work begins in early spring.   There are so many natural hazards that this problem has not been much of a bother to the golf architects."


David,

Would you agree that in the case above "laid out" clearly means "planned", "Designed", and "architected"?

At the point this was written, not a single stone was overturned in terms of constructing the course.

As far as your question, routing dictates the framework and in some ways the possibilities and limitations, but the internal plans determine the proof of the pudding.

As Tom Doak often says, the difference between a good course and great course is often in the last 10% details.

[TEPaul]

"I have no desire to prove anyone wrong,  I just want to get to the truth.  The truth is being masked and hidden in instead we have this masquerade of claims of "proof" when no such "proof" has been forthcoming.  I'll be glad to have an open and frank discussion of the source material, but I'll be damned if I am going to continue to act in good faith when you guys are so obviously acting in bad faith.”



Is that right, you have no desire to prove anyone wrong and you just want to get to the truth?

I hardly think anyone who read some of these Merion threads in the years before your essay, then read your essay, and then read these threads in the ensuing five or so months since your essay would ever believe you don’t have a strong desire to prove a lot of people wrong and that the same goes for Mr. MacWood.

You know, this fixation on his part, and apparently yours, that these "legends" like Wilson are all about glorification on the club's part, on Philadelphian's part, and are historically unsupportable! That approach wore out pretty fast a long, long time ago with almost everyone even if you two will probably never take anyone's word and opinion that it did!

Unless you think everyone on here, including members of the club who know their course's architectural history, and for obvious reasons, a whole lot better than you two know it, are total idiots and can’t understand what they read from you two it’s pretty clear to see that your desire (and MacWood’s ) was to prove Merion’s entire almost one hundred year history of who designed their course wrong.

Back then we were all hopeful that there could be a frank and open discussion on this subject with you two but long ago the both of you have proven that was not possible and probably never will be particularly with the way you ignored, dismissed and totally tried to rationalize away someone like Alan Wilson and what he said in his 1926 report about the early architectural history of Merion.

All of us here, including the club, have always said we stand behind that report as to who was responsible for the design of Merion East (and West) and nothing has been forthcoming since you and Mr. MacWood to convince anyone of anything to the contrary.

All this continuous caterwailing on your part about good faith on your part and bad faith on everyone else’s part is unimportant and a deflection. The fact is, at this point, I doubt anyone has any desire at all to even attempt to have a frank and open discussion with you or Mr. MacWood about Merion and probably about a number of other clubs, certainly including Myopia.

The only important thing to do is simply for us to tell you your inferences, premises and conclusions have been wrong and they still are. I doubt anyone would be interested in hearing you say you have new information or even a different interpretation. We’ve all been down that road before with you two and it’s a road which has about zero credibility on your part and on the part of Tom MacWood.

The fact is as golf architectural historians the two of you are pretty much interpretative and analytical disasters. 

However, this is, once again, not to say that your discovery of Wilson's 1912 trip abroad is not important to Merion, because I believe it is to some extent and they will or do understand that as a point of their historical trivia.

It just doesn't happen to make the kind of difference you've inferred it must have because even if Wilson did not go abroad before 1912 the fact is he was still in the main responsible for the architecture of the East and West course from their very beginnings.

He and his committee routed and designed the course and he and his committee was the creative force behind it, not Macdonald and Whigam; they only advised and made suggestions to MCC over a period of not more than approximately 4-5 days over the period of about a year, for which the club amply thanked them, and not a single thing either of you have ever produced or explained in any way at all credibly indicates otherwise, and as I think most everyone familiar with this subject now understands ever will indicate otherwise.

If the two of you continue to claim what you have claimed with the lack of evidence you're both guilty of and responsible for yourselves, we will continue to deny your claims in the interest of the truth of the architectural history of Merion East.

If you want cooperation with the club on their own material, as far as I'm concerned you two can just earn it on your own, as some of us here have over the years.

[DMoriarty]

"Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses, George Klauder, one of the constructors of the Aronimink course, and Ab Smith, who had done a lot for the Huntingdon Valley course, have laid out the course in Cobb's Creek park and work begins in early spring.   There are so many natural hazards that this problem has not been much of a bother to the golf architects."


David,

Would you agree that in the case above "laid out" clearly means "planned", "Designed", and "architected"?

At the point this was written, not a single stone was overturned in terms of constructing the course.

I don't know enough about the details of the courses to say.  But my understanding is that Wilson did not do the bunkers at Seaview, so I guess you don't give him much credit for the design?

As far as your question, routing dictates the framework and in some ways the possibilities and limitations, but the internal plans determine the proof of the pudding.

Shouldn't this at least depend upon the extent of the plan done by the planner, and the amount of work necessary to the internal, and how much creative input is necessary? 

As Tom Doak often says, the difference between a good course and great course is often in the last 10% details.

Does Tom Doak think that one can make a horrible routing into a great course simply by where one places the bunkers?  Or do the site and routing define the range of possibilities for the course?     

Wouldn't the routing be even more important where one was relying on natural slopes and features for much of the strategic interest?

Take 2-9 at Merion East.   Does the routing make these holes special, or is it just a bunker here and there?

__________________________________________

Tom Paul,

If you recall, I tried to cooperate with Wayne Morrison, but then you guys thought you had something to prove me wrong (or as you put it "to make a fool" of me) and you refused to cooperate at all.    So who is it again that has  to prove someone wrong??  Your words have spoken loudly on this issue.  If you would like I can show them to you again.

Unfortunately you seem to be falling into your habit of speaking for Merion again.   Did you join the club in the past few months?   Have you been officially designated as their spokesperson?  Given that your past representations on behalf of Merion and he USGA have been far less than reliable, perhaps you should let Merion speak for itself.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,

If you recall, I tried to cooperate with Wayne Morrison, but then you guys thought you had something to prove me wrong (or as you put it "to make a fool" of me) and you refused to cooperate at all.    So who is it again that has  to prove someone wrong??  Your words have spoken loudly on this issue.  If you would like I can show them to you again.

Unfortunately you seem to be falling into your habit of speaking for Merion again.   Did you join the club in the past few months?   Have you been officially designated as their spokesperson?  Given that your past representations on behalf of Merion and he USGA have been far less than reliable, perhaps you should let Merion speak for itself."







Mr. Moriarty:

Those kinds of posts leave me no real alternative but to tell you that you have no earthly idea about this area or my relationship with Merion or people there and there's no reason at all to go into it with you on here or try to. Believe me, I doubt there is any way at all you would ever understand even if you actually tried.

The point is numerous people and members from Merion read this site and if they had some problem with what we say to you on this website they sure do know us, our phone numbers and where we live, and I doubt they would hesistate to let us know if we were saying something or presenting the club and the architectural history of their courses in some way they didn't appreciate or agree with historically.

You and MacWood don't seem to pick up on subtlety so let me just tell you straight---everything you and MacWood have said about Merion for about the last few years they take as a joke---basically medium to high comedy. That's the way you two and your inferences, premises and conclusions about Wilson, Macdonald/Whigam and certainly Barker have gone over there and in this town and hopefully elsewhere.

And there's very good reason for that which is your agenda to attack "legends" the way you two have with the complete lack of support or hilariously illogical presentations you've made, of which the best example is that essay of yours and your adverserialness and complete lack of logic and familiarity with the administrative records of these clubs.

Newspaper articles will never trump a club like MCC's contemporaneous administrative records of meetings to do with something like a course when it's being planned and created but that crystal clear fact doesn't seem to occur to you two "expert" researchers or you just conveniently dismiss it because the thought of being wrong is so repugnant to you both.

Are you ever going to see MCC's 1910-1911 administrative records? Probably not because at this point no one can understand why either of you deserve to see them. You've proven beyond a scintilla of a doubt it is not possible for you two to analyze anything objectively or to have a frank and open discussion about any of these prominent courses.

The nature of your participation on here with Merion is marginalizing the both of you and probably this website too. It has nothing to do with us, it has to do with the two of you. Hopefully for your own reputations you'll realize that at some point and stop this charade with Merion and Wilson and Macdonald. The accurate history of who designed that course was recorded just about a century ago and we have it. If you want it you'll need to do a whole lot better vis-a-vis the club and us than you have in the past.

What you need to do is go back to square one and begin to study is entire era again including the lives of those so-called "Amateur/sportsmen" designers I've mentioned before as so interesting and those people that the wooden-headed Mr. MacWood referred to as "My Schtick".

I offered to help you and collaborate with you on that subject a  number of times but you always refused. That offer will no longer be on the table again, and for you, that's too bad.

[Mike_Cirba]

"Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses, George Klauder, one of the constructors of the Aronimink course, and Ab Smith, who had done a lot for the Huntingdon Valley course, have laid out the course in Cobb's Creek park and work begins in early spring.   There are so many natural hazards that this problem has not been much of a bother to the golf architects."


David,

Would you agree that in the case above "laid out" clearly means "planned", "Designed", and "architected"?

At the point this was written, not a single stone was overturned in terms of constructing the course.

I don't know enough about the details of the courses to say.  But my understanding is that Wilson did not do the bunkers at Seaview, so I guess you don't give him much credit for the design?

David,

Wilson did do the bunkering at Seaview, and the routing he built exists today in its entirety as the Seaview Bay course.

If you read the thread I started about Hugh Wilson a few months back with any real historical curiousity or actual search for truth you would have understood the real story behind the reasons Donald Ross was brought in to toughen the course instead of Wilson.

But of course, that whole answer is simply another smokescreen.

The rest of your answer here is simultaneously transparent and reflective of your true purpose here;

The answer you provided tells me that you have absolutely no real interest in discussing these issues in any type of reasonable, interested, interesting, or intellectual way, so one is left to assume you are either mentally challenged or totally disengenous.

Since I know it's not the former, I now know it's the latter.

As far as I'm concerned, we have nothing further to discuss.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

Have you ever really analyzed the Ross hole drawings in the halls of the Seaview club?

As to that man from California and his participation or contribution to the discussion of Seaview, he's a compelete waste of time and energy as he basically has been on any and every thread subject he's been part of on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. Have you noticed how he claims almost no one understands his points or what he's trying to say? Isn't that interesting?!?

The guy desperately needs to get out on a construction site so he can gain some modicum of understanding of what golf course architecture is all about, but he doesn't seem able to understand that concept. Either does the gentleman from Ivory Tower, Ohio.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba:

Have you ever really analyzed the Ross hole drawings in the halls of the Seaview club?

Yes, I have Tom...they are some lovely drawings and the work Ross did was certainly helpful to toughen the course a bit.

But...a number of articles that Joe Bausch uncovered that described each hole as Hugh Wilson built it show clearly that much of today's bunkering and strategies were already in place day one.   

Like most courses that Wilson built however, some of the bunkering was left to be done after one saw how the course actually played, rather than go the rote and repetitive and somewhat forced placement method of trying to copy template holes from overseas.

Also, it was clearly pointed out in the early articles that the course was NOT meant to be another Pine Valley, or Merion East, or even another Atlantic City, but instead a fun, pleasurable place to play, much like Merion West.   However, the prevailing tide of thinking at the time was all about creating championship courses for Philadelphia golfers, as evidenced by Cobb's Creek, PV, et.al...

By the end of 1914, Wilson was exhausted.

Despite having a full time job running a maritime insurance business, after the incredible and immediate success of Merion East, as well as word of his studies abroad, he was now viewed across the power brokers of Philly golf as THE MAN, who had studied golf course architecture and construction (as no one before, in the words of Max Behr) and was in high demand.   

In short order starting in late 1910/early 1911, he designed and built Merion East, he designed and built Merion West, he designed and built Seaview for Clarence Geist, he revised and added complete new holes to Philmont for Ellis Gimbel, and he helped his friend Franklin Meehan revamp North Hills.   

His work on golf courses was anything but a high-level managerial role.   In the accounts of Cobb's Creek, he spent six months on that course alone.

At the end of 1914, he resigned as chairman of the Green Committee at Merion to devote more time to business and family.   There is no doubt that at that point he turned down other work, until Robert Lesley a year later put him on a committee to design Cobb's Creek, and then in the following year he made significant changes to Merion East for the 1916 amateur.

He was an AMATEUR SPORTSMAN, a point that neither David nor Tom MacWood apparently will ever understand.    He had a DAY JOB.

With the advent of professionals like Donald Ross coming to fore by the mid teens, golf architecture was about to change into a specialized profession.

THAT is why Donald Ross came to Seaview instead of Hugh Wilson.

Instead of recognizing Hugh Wilson's unbelievable achievements,  David would like to insultingly tear down a legend for his own purposes, but instead only shows his true motivations.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul

I skimmed your answer above, and it seems you did not answer my question.  Are you acting in an official capacity as a spokesman for Merion or not?   You are not a member there, are you?   

Me neither.  So we have something in common.

David,

Wilson did do the bunkering at Seaview, and the routing he built exists today in its entirety as the Seaview Bay course.

Really?  I thought I read something to the contrary, at least for the fairway bunkers.  I'll have to double check.   

As for the rest of your answer, it is pure poppycock.   That you misunderstood my answer has become the norm.  No doubt my fault. 

Anyway, I'd be glad not to NOT discuss these things with you, but I will go on discussing topics that interest me.  Don't feel compelled to participate if you don't want.

As for whatever thread you started, I mean no offense, but  I rarely read the threads you start.  I find I don't get much out of them, so I generally skim the threads looking to see if Joe found any good articles and then turn back to what I feel is more productive.  Again, no offense, but I don't have the time to read everything. 

But you think it worthwhile reading, why don't you send it to me with the Cobb's research you offered to send. 

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul
I skimmed your answer above,"



Mr. Moriarty:

Why don't you do yourself and the rest of us a favor and not skim anyone's answer to your posts and perhaps you may find someday that you'll be able to understand what goes on with the facts involved in these discussions.

Believe me, you definitely don't need any of us on here to denigrate your reputation as you constantly do a very adequate job of that on your own.

When it comes to our relationships with Merion GC, believe me, you and I have absolutely zero in common and I would expect your comprehension of that would never be much better than one of your usual "skim jobs" with most of these posts.   

[DMoriarty]

When it comes to our relationships with Merion GC, believe me, you and I have absolutely zero in common and I would expect your comprehension of that would never be much better than one of your usual "skim jobs" with most of these posts.   

Really, because I have heard that 1) Neither one of us are members; and 2) Substantial portions of the membership thinks us complete assholes. 

[Thomas MacWood]

You are wrong.  We know who routed and designed Merion.  It wasn't Barker, Macdonald or Whigham. 

You know who routed and designed Merion? If you know what routed and designed Merion why have you, TE and Mike been working so hard to discredit Barker and Macdonald the last few weeks?

[wsmorrison]

Your analysis continues to be substandard.
 

[TEPaul]

Mr. Moriarty:

As you've done far more than enough useless and inaccurate speculating about the history of Merion GC over the last few years, I very much doubt Merion GC or this website will care to see your useless speculation on what you and I have in common when it comes to Merion GC or MCC. 

Perhaps the only thing you need to understand and appreciate when it comes to the two of us and Merion is you're the one seemingly claiming entitlement to and virtually demanding access to the club records of Merion Golf and MCC, not me!

Mr. MacWood:

I've never discredited Barker for anything and certainly not Macdonald. Merely explaining they did not route or design Merion East because others did is not discrediting either of them. And explaining that Willie Campbell did not design the original nine at Myopia because others did is not discrediting Campbell either.

That constant line of reasoning on your part has never worked on here. You should know that. When some factually explain someone was not much involved with a club, for you to constantly respond by claiming they're being defensive and discrediting the subject is a bit suspect and perhaps immature, don't you think?

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

It occured to me last night the way Tom MacWood tends to give a guy like Barker design credit for Merion East, he should also give Fazio design credit for C&C's Friar's Head and Doak's original Stonewall and an acquaitance of mine should be given design credit for C&C's Easthampton GC and perhaps I should be given design credit for Mr. Moriarty's home course, Rustic Canyon.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba:

It occured to me last night the way Tom MacWood tends to give a guy like Barker design credit for Merion East, he should also give Fazio design credit for C&C's Friar's Head and Doak's original Stonewall and an acquaitance of mine should be given design credit for C&C's Easthampton GC and perhaps I should be given design credit for Mr. Moriarty's home course, Rustic Canyon.   

Tom,

Please see my response at the top of this page re: Stonewall and others. 

You're absolutely correct, except in the cases I've cited, these folks actually DID do an initial routing that was used, as opposed to Barker, Macdonald, and Whigham, oh my!