News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

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


TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #550 on: September 08, 2008, 09:42:03 PM »
"Part of the land company."

Mr. MacWood:

What does 'part of the land company' mean?

Are you saying you think there was a syndicate that was part of HDC, the real estate holding and development company?

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #551 on: September 08, 2008, 09:46:04 PM »
HDC = syndicate = land company


TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #552 on: September 08, 2008, 10:07:06 PM »
“I think there is evidence out there that suggests Lloyd was part of the syndicate.

HDC = syndicate = land company”


Mr. MacWood:

SO, you think there is evidence out there that suggests Lloyd was part of HDC?? ;)

Where have you been for the last four months or so? No shit he was part of HDC and we have that evidence. What we do not really know is when he began to assume control of HDC but we do know WHEN he had assumed control of it and we know why.

I thought you considered yourself to be an “independent”, “expert” researcher. If so, where have you been all this time on this issue of Merion's move of its course from Haverford to Ardmore? Are you even aware of the residential community to the west of Merion East and the timing and significance of its development and relationship to Merion G.C. and some of its membership back then?

Apparently not!  ::)

That might be just another good reason why someone interested in the details of a golf course and its creation pretty much needs to at least go there before claiming to understand much about it and its history. You really do need to get out of your Ivory Tower in Ohio, Skeebo, and get around to some of these clubs and courses you question the histories of as you've been doing for the last 5-6 years. We live here and we know these things. Obviously you don't. Will you ever?   ???
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 10:17:30 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #553 on: September 08, 2008, 10:09:29 PM »
Tom M,

I think it would be an insult to Barker for the same person/group to invite him in to review a site "for suitability" and immediately, as though they didn't trust him, have Macdonald in to do the same thing.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #554 on: September 08, 2008, 10:13:52 PM »
JES II,

In the field of medicine, especially surgery, it's done daily and is recommended by/for prudent individuals.

It's called "second opinions"  I hope neither you or your family ever need one, but, it's highly recommended because medicine, like GCA is an art based on science and the more highly skilled sets of eyes you get to review your case, the better equiped you are to make a prudent decision.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #555 on: September 08, 2008, 10:30:41 PM »
TE
If you knew he was part of HDC in 1910 why did you object to the article which stated he had the property inspected by Barker?

I'm still waiting for your similar examples to Merion and Columbia 16, 17 and 18.

JES
Golf history is replete with examples of two, three or four architects being consulted on projects. Some would take being considered on par with CBM as a major compliment. From what I understand the two were on site nearly simultaneously. It is illogical to think one was brought in after the other because of some disastisifaction. There is no evidence of that, in fact five months later Barker's comments are found in the Inquirer article.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 10:32:24 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #556 on: September 08, 2008, 10:33:47 PM »
Patrick:

That's true, "second opinions" are most worthwhile but if something is done one generally carries on with one and not both. This very much seems to be the case with MCC, and it would seem to explain why MCC never mentioned Barker again after June 1910.

Mr. Moriarty, in his essay, claims (completely erroneously, I might add) that Macdonald/Whigam offered Merion a routing in 1910 and that future Wilson committee members Francis and Lloyd helped "tweak" ;) Macdonald's routing before mid-November 1910 even before their 'novice' committee chairman, Hugh Wilson became involved in the project!!!  ::) (JEEESUS, WILL SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE US A BREAK WITH THIS KIND OF PREPOSTEROUS LOGIC??).

Is Mr. Moriarty and his MacWoodenheaded "independent", "expert" research mentor and editor trying to infer that Macdonald/Whigam coopted Barker's "rough drawing" and made it there own and gave it to MCC within a week or so in June 1910?? ;)

I think these two clowns should be actively and loudly laughed off this website for their completely scatter-brained opinions, logic and analyses by hopefully about 1498 registered participants of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com!
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 10:37:27 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #557 on: September 08, 2008, 10:47:16 PM »
"I'm still waiting for your similar examples to Merion and Columbia 16, 17 and 18."


I'm sorry, Mr. MacWood, but despite your outlandish claims to the contrary, I don't see much similarity between Merion's #16, #17 and #18 and Columbia's #16, #17 and #18. These preposterous generalizations are something you seem prone to which I feel I picked up on bigtime in your five part essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf."    ;)

 

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #558 on: September 08, 2008, 10:50:50 PM »
"I'm still waiting for your similar examples to Merion and Columbia 16, 17 and 18."


I'm sorry, Mr. MacWood, but despite your outlandish claims to the contrary, I don't see much similarity between Merion's #16, #17 and #18 and Columbia's #16, #17 and #18. These preposterous generalizations are something you seem prone to which I feel I picked up on bigtime in your five part essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf."    ;)

 

TE
As usual you are good at personal insults not so good at backing up your claims.

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #559 on: September 08, 2008, 11:00:41 PM »
"From what I understand the two were on site nearly simultaneously. It is illogical to think one was brought in after the other because of some disastisifaction. There is no evidence of that, in fact five months later Barker's comments are found in the Inquirer article."

Mr. MacWood:

I don't see that MCC necessarily had any dissatisfaction with Barker. I think the reason they never mentioned him again in their administrative records and never used him is simply that they did not want to go with a professional architect, and that they preferred to go with the model evidenced by Macdonald in what he was in the midst of doing at NGLA at that time----eg the design and creation of a golf course using only "amateur/sportsmen" designers (and a committee) as he and Whigam (and Emmet and Travis and the others at NGLA were) but perhaps with a professional engineer as Raynor was and as Merion member Richard Francis was.

This would all seem to be confirmed and underscored by Alan Wilson's significant words in his important report on the history of the creation of East and West courses:

"It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect."    

What do you suppose Alan Wilson meant by "architect" in that particular context Mr. MacWoodenhead??   ;)

Oh, sure, go right ahead and just dismiss, ignore or rationalize that away---AGAIN. You're very good at that in your effectively dwindling attempts to maintain your highly illogical opinions.

Some "expert" researcher you are. Goodness, gracious, spare us all, please!  ;)
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 11:04:06 PM by TEPaul »

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #560 on: September 08, 2008, 11:10:37 PM »
Ah, I've been away from the site for a bit, and here I've gone and missed more discussion on the history of Merion, neatly hidden in a Macdonald/Raynor thread ! Excellent.

As has been said many times on this and other threads, the reality is that the Barker routing has the magic of possibility, but unless a copy of it is found, all of the sound and fury regarding it doesn't signify a darn thing. It's enticing to entertain all kinds of possible renderings of history, but there's a difference between postulation and knowledge.

The routing of Merion as it currently exists may be the work of H. H. Barker, despite any evidence to the contrary, but that's a case that has yet to be made. Am I missing something?

One question, that has probably also already been asked and answered, and I just missed it. What are the earliest photographs of Merion, particularly aerial photos?

That quote of Alan Wilson's seems pretty clear. What reason would he have for saying such a thing, if the work of an already-established architect was used to create the course? Or, because of his own inherent bias, would that inevitably be additional evidence that in fact a professional architect was used?
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #561 on: September 08, 2008, 11:11:15 PM »
"TE
As usual you are good at personal insults not so good at backing up your claims."

Mr. MacWood:

The time has unfortunately come again when you very much deserve to be insulted for your participation on here with this garbage of yours.

If you'd like to see some holes on a course that go through depressions and play up to high and raised greens perhaps you should take the time to visit MYOPIA for the first fucking time in your life!  :P

I think we are back to that point with you where some of us will need to follow you everywhere you go on this website and explain how wrong your opinions really are. I feel the integrity of the history of golf architecture essentially demands that we do that.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #562 on: September 08, 2008, 11:20:35 PM »
TE
I never mentioned MCC. There is no evidence HDC (Connell, Lloyd, Hutson, Atterbury, Filton, etc) were disatisfied with Barker. They brought in Barker and Macdonald because they were the cream of the crop.

Richard Francis is pretty clear on what his contribution was...and when there became an issue relating to HDC who did he immediately call?

Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact.

If you knew Lloyd was part of HDC in 1910 why did you object to the Inquirer article which stated he had the property inspected by Barker & CBM?

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #563 on: September 08, 2008, 11:23:52 PM »
"TE
As usual you are good at personal insults not so good at backing up your claims."

Mr. MacWood:

The time has unfortunately come again when you very much deserve to be insulted for your participation on here with this garbage of yours.

If you'd like to see some holes on a course that go through depressions and play up to high and raised greens perhaps you should take the time to visit MYOPIA for the first fucking time in your life!  :P

I think we are back to that point with you where some of us will need to follow you everywhere you go on this website and explain how wrong your opinions really are. I feel the integrity of the history of golf architecture essentially demands that we do that.

TE
May I suggest you take long deserved break, get away from this subject, recharge your battery and come back with a fresh, more positive perspective.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #564 on: September 08, 2008, 11:30:21 PM »
Ah, I've been away from the site for a bit, and here I've gone and missed more discussion on the history of Merion, neatly hidden in a Macdonald/Raynor thread ! Excellent.

As has been said many times on this and other threads, the reality is that the Barker routing has the magic of possibility, but unless a copy of it is found, all of the sound and fury regarding it doesn't signify a darn thing. It's enticing to entertain all kinds of possible renderings of history, but there's a difference between postulation and knowledge.

The routing of Merion as it currently exists may be the work of H. H. Barker, despite any evidence to the contrary, but that's a case that has yet to be made. Am I missing something?

One question, that has probably also already been asked and answered, and I just missed it. What are the earliest photographs of Merion, particularly aerial photos?

That quote of Alan Wilson's seems pretty clear. What reason would he have for saying such a thing, if the work of an already-established architect was used to create the course? Or, because of his own inherent bias, would that inevitably be additional evidence that in fact a professional architect was used?

Kirk
Unless you know something I don't know there is no copy of any routing by anybody, and there is only one person I'm aware of for certain who produced a routing, the rest is all conjecture. Perhaps you are privy to information I have not seen.

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #565 on: September 08, 2008, 11:33:56 PM »
Suggest anything you like Mr. MacWood but I doubt I will ever take a suggestion of yours. There is too much for me to do hopefully counteracting the damage you do to the history of golf course architecture. I will be there counteracting your garbage every step of the way in the future. Count on it.

I wish I had a worthy opponent in this with you but I don't. Your approach on here is laughable to date.

I think it's a damn shame you either just don't have the guts or the wherewithal to both explain and discuss what is really on your mind with golf course architecture and probably has been on your mind for years.

Personally, I think it's a most valuable general subject.

I would never say such a thing about Mr. Moriarty. To me he is a total negative on here and his only contribution to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is his self-centered penchant to argue any point with no possible hope of accomplishing a single thing that is edifying, educational or positive.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 11:36:18 PM by TEPaul »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #566 on: September 08, 2008, 11:44:44 PM »
TE
If you were to analyze your contribution to this thread over the last few pages you would find plenty of personal insults and condescending comments, but absolutely nothing in the way of substance. Instead of trying tell everyone how they should think and attempting to disparage others why don't you try to add something new and substansive to the topic. As I suggested a break might be just what the doctor ordered. Get away form all this and come back with a fresh perspective.

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #567 on: September 08, 2008, 11:47:35 PM »
Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact.

Is it that Mr. Wilson didn't consider M&W to be architects, or that he didn't consider that the nature of their contribution was such that they were "used" in the way he meant? Just a possibility. What possible reason would Mr. Wilson have to diminish the accompishments of Macdonald? Was there an animosity there?

And Tom, I certainly have no knowledge of any routings that you wouldn't be aware of. My point is that the mere fact that Barker produced a routing doesn't necessarily mean that it was used, and while it may have been of central importance to the creation of the course, how do we go about determining that beyond indulging in conjecture?
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #568 on: September 09, 2008, 12:00:32 AM »
Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact.

Is it that Mr. Wilson didn't consider M&W to be architects, or that he didn't consider that the nature of their contribution was such that they were "used" in the way he meant? Just a possibility. What possible reason would Mr. Wilson have to diminish the accompishments of Macdonald? Was there an animosity there?

And Tom, I certainly have no knowledge of any routings that you wouldn't be aware of. My point is that the mere fact that Barker produced a routing doesn't necessarily mean that it was used, and while it may have been of central importance to the creation of the course, how do we go about determining that beyond indulging in conjecture?

Kirk
Until someone finds the routing or routings we are left to speculate. Hopefully it is educated speculation.

I think you may be on to something. Alan Wilson was fairly active with the Green Section in the 20s and the Green Section "letters" indicate Macdonald had become alienated and uncooperative at that time. That being said I don't think Wilson was insulting Macdonald & Whigham, he was from the old school and made a distinction between amateur sportsmen designers and professional golf architects who were providing essentially the same service.

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #569 on: September 09, 2008, 12:05:53 AM »
"Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact."


Mr. MacWood:

When Alan Wilson mentioned that MCC did not use an "architect" but instead turned to Macdonald/Whigam, I think it's pretty clear to tell that what he meant is MCC did not use a professional! That is underscored by the way Alan Wilson described Macdonald/Whigam in his report ;)

Why do you suppose William Philler who had been the secretary or treasurer of MCC for 35 years (not exactly a position of someone who did not understand what was going on within the club) would ask Alan Wilson to write a report of the history of the golf courses if he was not involved in what went on with the club all those years? Let me point out to you that Francis, Lloyd, Gates and Toulmin who were on Wilson's committee were ALL still very much alive in 1926 when Philler asked Alan Wilson for a report on the history of the golf courses? Why do you suppose Philler didn't ask any or all of them for a report on the history of the courses instead of Alan Wilson? ;)

I'm quite sure, also, you have no real idea who Alan Wilson was and what-all he did and was connected to in golf.

What you should do now is get back to the subject of Lloyd and HDC and MCC and not simply dismiss or ignore another subject when you suspect your previous statements and opinions are about to be checkmated.

It's OK to be wrong if one is coming from a place like you are with no participation with the clubs of the courses you are studying.

I know it's probably easy for you to find interesting material in Michael Hurzdan's impressive collection but when you do, please, in the future, go to the clubs its about and let those who know them so much better than you do help you understand what your material means.

Would you please consider that in the future? I think both you and the rest of us will be better for it on here.


TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #570 on: September 09, 2008, 12:21:23 AM »
"I think you may be on to something. Alan Wilson was fairly active with the Green Section in the 20s and the Green Section "letters" indicate Macdonald had become alienated and uncooperative at that time. That being said I don't think Wilson was insulting Macdonald & Whigham, he was from the old school and made a distinction between amateur sportsmen designers and professional golf architects who were providing essentially the same service."


Mr. MacWood:

What the hell is up with you anyway??

I've been explaining that very concept to you on here for a few years now. The best you could do is call it "My Schtick".   ;) ;)

I think you need to talk some turkey with either me or Ben Dewar or Ran Morrissett, as something seems to be going on with you. A normal person on here doesn't exactly write and spell like you do which seems to be getting worse. "eleged" for Alleged?? Are you kidding me? If you have a problem I don't know about, please, God, just say so and I will back off completely if that's the case.   You may think I'm cruel but I'm not at all. Honestly, this is just a golf architecture discussion group. What can we be expected to know about one another, particualarly if no one on here has seen someone else as seems to be eerily the case with you.

If you're not OK please tell me so, offline, online or however you choose.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #571 on: September 09, 2008, 02:34:23 AM »
That quote of Alan Wilson's seems pretty clear. What reason would he have for saying such a thing, if the work of an already-established architect was used to create the course? Or, because of his own inherent bias, would that inevitably be additional evidence that in fact a professional architect was used?

. . .

Is it that Mr. Wilson didn't consider M&W to be architects, or that he didn't consider that the nature of their contribution was such that they were "used" in the way he meant? Just a possibility. What possible reason would Mr. Wilson have to diminish the accompishments of Macdonald? Was there an animosity there?

Kirk,

You really lose me here about the Alan Wilson letter.   It seems clear to me as well, but it is almost as if you have a different letter. 

I do not seeing the letter as disparaging Macdonald's work at all.  In fact the letter leaves little doubt that M&W were very involved in the initial design of Merion.  If I recall correctly, AW essentially says that except for what M&W contributed, Hugh was the designer.  I don't view this is disparaging at all, but rather as confirmation that M&W contributed.  Keep in mind that the letter wasn't just about the formation of Merion East, but about the formation and evolution of both courses.

As for Barker, Alan Wilson may not have even known he existed.   I have seen no evidence that Alan Wilson was involved in what was going on in 1910 with the course.   Plus, by 1926 Barker's name hadn't come up in conjunction with Merion in years.    So it doesnt make sense to me that Alan Wilson would have been disavowing Barker's contribution in this letter.  Whether he contributed or not, Barker had long ago been cut out of the process.

But there was a professional architect whose name had become closely associated with Merion by 1926.  If Alan Wilson was worried that any professional architect would receive credit rightfully due his brother, that professional architect would most likely have been William Flynn.

Indeed, something appeared in a golf magazine in 1926 that might have given any brother pause.  A rendering of  Merion East was published and displayed prominently on that rendering were the words:

PLAN BY
WILLIAM S. FLYNN
GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT
ARDMORE, PA


Now surely William Flynn could not have meant that he planned Merion, but must have meant that he drew up that particular plan.   But still, the wording suggests otherwise.   As Flynn was well known by then a little protectionism by Hugh's brother would not have been in the least bit surprising.

By the way, the same logic applies equally to Tillinghast's comments in 1934.  There is no reason to think that Tillinghast thought CBM and HJW were stealing Hugh's thunder.  I don't recall a mention of them in association with Merion until back in 1914.

If anyone was being credited with more than he deserved at Merion in 1926 or 1934, it was William S. Flynn.   Who else could it have been?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #572 on: September 09, 2008, 06:32:50 AM »
Tom MacWood & David Moriarty,

Aliens from the planet Moonbeam designed Merion but they weren't professional architects.

Alan Wilson didn't mention them because they had stolen his brain by 1926, and besides, he was jealous and wrote his account while the entire rest of the committee and Macdonald and Whigham were still alive.

HH Barker was one of those aliens.

Can your story get any more preposterous than this one?   ::)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #573 on: September 09, 2008, 06:38:02 AM »
If the Committee already had Barker's routing, and considered it useful, why would they then go ahead and develop multiple routings on their own, including five final routings, of which Macdonald helped them select the best one?

I would like a serious answer...not more smokescreen and completely over the top conjecture.

We know Barker's routing was on 100 acres, and considered additional land not even part of the final purchase.

Why we're even having this stupid conversation is just stultifying and mind-blowing.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #574 on: September 09, 2008, 06:46:12 AM »
"Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact."


Mr. MacWood:

When Alan Wilson mentioned that MCC did not use an "architect" but instead turned to Macdonald/Whigam, I think it's pretty clear to tell that what he meant is MCC did not use a professional! That is underscored by the way Alan Wilson described Macdonald/Whigam in his report ;)

Why do you suppose William Philler who had been the secretary or treasurer of MCC for 35 years (not exactly a position of someone who did not understand what was going on within the club) would ask Alan Wilson to write a report of the history of the golf courses if he was not involved in what went on with the club all those years? Let me point out to you that Francis, Lloyd, Gates and Toulmin who were on Wilson's committee were ALL still very much alive in 1926 when Philler asked Alan Wilson for a report on the history of the golf courses? Why do you suppose Philler didn't ask any or all of them for a report on the history of the courses instead of Alan Wilson? ;)

I'm quite sure, also, you have no real idea who Alan Wilson was and what-all he did and was connected to in golf.

What you should do now is get back to the subject of Lloyd and HDC and MCC and not simply dismiss or ignore another subject when you suspect your previous statements and opinions are about to be checkmated.

It's OK to be wrong if one is coming from a place like you are with no participation with the clubs of the courses you are studying.

I know it's probably easy for you to find interesting material in Michael Hurzdan's impressive collection but when you do, please, in the future, go to the clubs its about and let those who know them so much better than you do help you understand what your material means.

Would you please consider that in the future? I think both you and the rest of us will be better for it on here.


TE
I think Alan Wilson was aksed to write about the history of the course for a few reasons, first out of respect for Hugh who had just recently passed, also because Hugh had been involved with the course longer than anyone, and lastly and most importantly he had completely reshaped the course over the last few years. In fact his obituary in the Green Section Buletin makes it clear what was his greatest architectural accomplishment: remodeling Merion in 1923-24. It is the only architectural accomplishment mentioned. Alan Wilson was closely associated with the Green Section.

Alan Wilson's report is clearly second hand, especially regarding the early years. To put too much weight on this report would be a mistake.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back