Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?

[Thomas MacWood]

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.

Mike
I don't believe anyone has stated that Barker's routing was immediately considered the one, end of story. It was likely one of the five. I also believe it is likely the other four were closely related to his original concept, based on the members of the committee inexperience. The bottom line is no one knows whose routing was eventually chosen.

Would you mention to TE there is no place for personal insults on this site?

[wsmorrison]

Ran, please stop the madness!  Your site has been dragged down beneath the mud because there is no fact checking done on this site.  If you wish to raise the profile of this site by allowing daily train wrecks, and car fires, then this site needs to be reevaluated and changed.  

Tom MacWood and David Moriarty have enough information to be dangerous because it appears they know what they're talking about and in some corners, they are believed.  They fooled you and they fooled Pat Mucci.  Mostly they fool themselves.  Let's hope they don't fool too many in the outside world.  If this site were self-contained and their false and foolish revisionist histories were in a closed loop, who would care at all?  But it is not closed.  This site comes up very readily on Internet search engines so information presented here is readily disseminated.  I don't see that the site can be self-regulated.  There is too much garbage being masqueraded as fact.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the Missing Faces essay that you, unfortunately endorsed with rare enthusiasm.  I know you're going up to Yale pretty soon.  I suggest very strongly that you stop by Philadelphia on your way and have a talk with some of us.  We will show you our raw evidence and the soon to be completed essay on the history of Merion East.  I would like you to consider taking down the essay or issuing a retraction if the evidence presented compels you to do so.  

You have to decide what this site is meant to be.  If this site is to be taken seriously as a resource of valuable information, such as provided by Neil Crafter, Paul Turner and many more I do not name, then you must have FACT CHECKING.  Even though articles are in the IN MY OPINION section, that is not enough of a cover.  This site needs to stop publishing agenda laden essays replete with errors, bad analysis and biased reporting.  It isn't about protecting local legends.  It is about the truth.  That is what this site should promote.  If the truth be boring, so be it.  I don't feel like spending much more time defending the truth on this site from the likes of Moriarty and MacWood when you do nothing at all to minimize the mistakes, both deliberate and unintentional.  Something has got to change, and I believe it must be in the structure of how this website operates.

Start with the Missing Faces of Merion essay.  Do your homework and then make a decision.  You were far too premature in endorsing that essay.  Not once did you talk to Tom Paul, myself, John Capers or anyone that might help you understand the problems with the essay and the implications of publishing it.  You need to do a better job or let everyone know that this site is about banter and free expression, not about serious history.  It is time for you and Ben to restructure or redefine.  You can no longer pretend this site is about serious study when you allow so many untruths to be passed off as fact.

One suggestion to consider is that you charge all 1500 members $10 per year above the voluntary payments and pay someone $15,000 a year as a part time consultant to fact check essays submitted for publication here.  There can be no more hiding behind it being an opinion section.   It does not come across that way in internet searches.  We need better.  In one way or another, we must have it.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'll second that motion, Wayne.

This website could be a great place for historical research and facts, yet this constant speculation and self-serving "analysis" in the constant effort of some to make names for themselves as serious researchers has turned this into a bad version of "National Enquirer", quickly approaching "News of the World". 

Written reports of club's histories are requested to be tossed into the dumper, contemporaneous meeting minutes are pooh-poohed, facts are twisted, we deal with less than 1% possibilities and exceptions, and spend more time on looking at who was Herbert Leeds boyfriend in a month than our current VP candidate has spent on world history her entire life.

Some of us would like to just drop the matter...now and forever...yet this ongoing constant revisionism and failure to even acknowledge the most basic of facts has made dialogue impossible.   Yet, we feel entirely frustrated because we also know that these guys do come off as having enough facts to spread complete misinformation and outright lies furthering their own erroneous and biased agendas.

They claim to want the truth.

Nothing, Nothing...could be further from the truth.

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
Get off your soap box. This is an open forum. If you disagree with anything that is said you can respond. If something is said that is wrong you can correct it. No one is forcing you to participate on this thread or site.

The more important issue IMO is the personal insults coming from your friend. Why don't you do something about that.

[Thomas MacWood]

I'll second that motion, Wayne.

This website could be a great place for historical research and facts, yet this constant speculation and self-serving "analysis" in the constant effort of some to make names for themselves as serious researchers has turned this into a bad version of "National Enquirer", quickly approaching "News of the World". 

Written reports of club's histories are requested to be tossed into the dumper, contemporaneous meeting minutes are pooh-poohed, facts are twisted, we deal with less than 1% possibilities and exceptions, and spend more time on looking at who was Herbert Leeds boyfriend in a month than our current VP candidate has spent on world history her entire life.

Some of us would like to just drop the matter...now and forever...yet this ongoing constant revisionism and failure to even acknowledge the most basic of facts has made dialogue impossible.   Yet, we feel entirely frustrated because we also know that these guys do come off as having enough facts to spread complete misinformation and outright lies furthering their own erroneous and biased agendas.

They claim to want the truth.

Nothing, Nothing...could be further from the truth.

Mike
You are beginning to sound more and more like TE...meeting minutes and constant revisionism. You don't think these explorations have been fruitful? Off the top of my head some of the things we have learned (I'm sure I'm forgetting some):

1. Wilson's overseas trip was in 1912 not 1910
2. Barker was involved in the early stages and produced a routing
3. Barker claimed to have laid out nearly 20 course in 1910
4. In CB Macdonald's early assessment he suggested they purchase more land near the proposed clubhouse
5. In 1910 HG Lloyd was both on the seach committee and part of the development company
6. CBM was much more heavily involved in the process than was originally thought
7. That CBM was given the final selection of five routings
8. That Johnson contractors constructed the course

Try finding that in your Merion history book. Speeking of revision, it appears the entire early history of Merion has been revised and corrected.

What we still don't know
1. Who routed Merion (Barker, M&W or the Committee)
2. Was the original design of the holes heavily influenced by M&W

[Mike_Cirba]

Anyone out there who thinks this is just a difference of academic position and understanding, please ask yourselves the following question...

Why are the only courses that Mr. MacWood and his protege challenge the history of on this open forum those that Tom Paul and/or Wayne Morrison have a vested interest in, either as club historians or as part of their involvement in documenting the history for the new USGA architectural archives??

Why do you think these fellows seem to be spending every waking hour of their lives researching for any tidbit of information that will prove some minor fact wrong, or cast some obscure reference in doubt, or otherwise make these guys look inaccurate or careless?   Why is this only about Myopia and Merion?

They will tell you that they care so much about history and truth that they cannot in good conscience let the world believe that William FLynn may have been involved with creating Kilcare in 1912 instead of 1909 as Wayne so foolishly believes.

But, it isn't that, and by this point their personal agendas should be completely transparent.

Rather than participating in this important new inititiative from the USGA, they'd rather sit on the sidelines and throw rocks.

Rather than see either Tom or Wayne get one scintilla of credit for their ongoing and determined efforts, they'd rather try to tear down their reputations in a public forum.

[wsmorrison]

I think personal insults should be avoided.  My very good friend is not the only one engaged in that sort of activity.  You do it regularly.  Moriarty does it even more regularly and then whines about it when it is returned to him, granted usually in an escalated manner.  I do it as well.  

Are incomplete research, poor analysis and false conclusions a reason to act the way we do?  Perhaps not.  But those causes should be avoided at all cost.  They are not.

I don't care if you think I'm on a soap box or not.  I think there is something structurally wrong with this site and I said so.  If this is an open forum, why are you telling me to get off my soap box?  If I can disagree with you and respond with corrections, why do you have a problem with me doing so towards Ran.  Is he exempt?  According to your own post, you should shut up and let me have my say.

You and Moriarty are dangerous researchers and you harm this site.  I still believe you are not doing so deliberately, though you strain my credulity at times.  You and Moriarty have printed things on this site that make no sense, that have no underpinnings in fact and make conclusions that are historically inaccurate.  

I object to this site allowing this to happen in any case.  I suggest to Ran that he comes to Philadelphia on his way north and sits down with whomever cares to show up to have a roundtable discussion on ways to improve this site.  Fine, MacWood.  You like this site just how it is.  You are a fool.  All it has become is a platform for you to spout your revisionist BS.  Most on here around the world have no idea whether you are right or not.  You shovel so many names, dates and seemingly connected facts that most acquiesce and believe you.  Well, when you start to issue garbage in areas of golf architecture history that I have studied, know better than you and can present evidence that upends your crap, you better believe I feel an obligation, even though it is extremely time consuming, to counter your nonsense.

Moriarty keeps asking us to present our evidence.  We will do so on our timetable, not his.  We will present first to the clubs.  We will then ask them for permission to present the archival material.  If they allow us to do so, we will.  If not, we won't.  You should try giving clubs such consideration, you may be better accepted.  Tom Paul was taken to task for offering to show Jeff a paraphrase of the proof we have that demonstrates the errors of your and Moriarty's ways.  Moriarty went on the offensive as if Tom was showing him the raw data.  I showed Tom Naccarato the files, I showed them to Mike Cirba, to Peter Pallotta and members of MCC and MGC.  We are not hiding anything or protecting any legends.  We are going about our business.  You are excluded now and forever more.  If the clubs want to share the information with you or Mike Hurdzan does, that's fine with me.  I'll never give it to either one of you directly.

Unless this site improves, we will not present it here either, even if given permission by MCC and MGC.  Ran and Ben must take steps to ensure this does not happen again.

So shut up and let me have my say.  You have harmed this site and harmed your reputation.  You may not mind, but since I've seen evidence that my reputation is harmed by association with you through this site, I do care.

I want change.  I want this site to be better.  I want you to change and be better at what you so obviously are passionate about. 

[JESII]

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.

Pat,

Point taken.

It has always seemed odd to me that the message seemed loud and clear that it was Connell that hired Barker and nothing more is known of his effort.

[Thomas MacWood]

Another thing we have learned, if Flynn's first construction experience was at Heartwellville in 1912-13, which seems to be the case, then he was not involved in the initial construction of Merion-East. Which is why Wayne & TE chose to ignore the evidence and had Flynn's involvement at Heartwellville in 1909. Obviously they wanted to keep the myth alive.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jes,

I think I can understand why the Barker routing may have been destroyed forever.  I annually clean out my old files and the first drawings to go are ones I did prelims on but didn't get the final job, and the course was built a different way.  It frankly never occurred to me that someone 100 years from now would be interested in what didn't happen outside of my mind.

Barker may have had space problems in his office, too!

Wayne, and Tepaul,

My apologies for doing anything that has you "taken to task".   I come here for fun and education and suspect others do, too.  I don't like the idea that any of my posts cause any consternation or diminish any fun.  I don't know the exact mission statement of this site, but am sure being miserable was never Ran's intention.

PS - love the "train wrecks and car fires" comment!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom

Sadly, you continue to prove my point.

[JESII]

Jeff,

That is certainly more palatable then what TM and DM would have us believe.

[TEPaul]

"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."

Mr. MacWood:

To not put a good deal of weight on Alan Wilson's report is what would be a real mistake for any researcher interested in the history of Merion. You've always appeared to underestimate his close connection with Hugh Wilson and to Merion East and West. Alan, with Hugh, was an original director of the MCC Golf Association. He was also the chairman of the USGA's Green committee, a committee Hugh probably would've been far more participatory on had it not been for Alan's participation. When Alan offered the USGA his resignation as the chairman of the USGA's green committee following Hugh's sudden death, both Piper and Oakley were fairly devastated by that and we have the letters that prove that. Both brothers believed it not a good idea to overload any committee with two brothers and that was probably the reason Alan did not serve on the Merion committee with Hugh. But that does not mean he did not know everything that was going on with the design and construction of the courses at any time.

You should also note in his report he mentions the opinions of each of the four other men who did serve on Wilson's committee, and he mentioned what they said about Hugh Wilson regarding the architecture of both courses. If a researher does not take that information seriously or tries to ignore it or rationalize it away, any reader should seriously suspect what that researcher is trying to do. That would definitely be the case with both you and Mr. Moriarty.

Lastly, I am sorry if you think I insulted you. I'm merely concerned about you due to your truly bizarre logic on here and the fact that you spell on your posts something like a second grader. I didn't know what else to do except just ask you if you're OK, because if you aren't then I will know to back off on these threads with you. No offense intended, I was just concerned. But if you choose not to respond to my concern then I suppose you think you're still hunky-dory. Cool.

Carry on!

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Let me spend some more time defending the truth from your efforts to undermine it.  I have always stated that Flynn was not involved in the early construction of Merion East and came either late in the process or when Merion West began.  You should check your facts before you misrepresent them.  Stop the madness.

In any case, by the time Pickering was fired during construction of the West Course, Flynn was already in high enough regard that he took Pickering's place.  Now you may find it odd that a 23 year old was placed in charge in a position formerly held by one of the world's leading construction men, but it seems clear Merion recognized talent.  They recognized it in Wilson and they recognized it in Flynn.  I'd say they did very well for themselves.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

You seem to think there is some interesting information out there regarding Lloyd and HDC. Why not discuss that on here? Is there something about that subject you are worried about?

[TEPaul]

Mr Jeffrey Brauer:

No apologies necessary from your esteemedness. Your logic is like the bright sun of a glorious new day and you still look as smart today in your Donald Ross red tartan blazer as you did yesterday and the day before that, and......

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mr. Paul,

Why thank you very much for those nice comments......To be fair, the reason I look as good today in that jacket as I do previously is that its a photograph, and an old one at that!  Frankly, I wouldn't look as good in the jacket if a new photo was taken today. I am older and somehow, the jacket seems to have shrunk a bit.......

A small point, perhaps, but I wonder if you really think Mr. MacWood's logic is bizarre?  In my on again, off again reading of these threads, I believe that that you believe that his starting point is in error.  However, I also believe that his logic follows quite nicely, but if his - or anyone's - starting point happens to be wrong,  all the logic in the world goes for naught.

Sincerely,

The Tartan One.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

There is still more checking to do regarding Flynn and Heartwellville. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, a friend of John Ott's who lives up that way has information from a lady who owns the building that was originally the clubhouse of the course and she told this man she believes she had plans from Flynn on Heartwellville. If she never did one wonders why or even how she dreamed that up.

We will check that out in good time but first I am on a hunt for Raynor's lost routing of CPC the location of which I might be honing in on.  

Furthermore, according to Hugh Wilson's letters it appears Frederick Pickering, construction man par excellence, was the original foreman on the building of the West course but also according to H. Wilson, the "Pick's" wagon hit a couple of cases of scotch that were parked behind the second green of the West course and Freddie fell off his wagon and biffed and banged his own self up pretty bad and Wilson was forced to replace him in his foremanship capacity with Flynn while Mr. Pickering was put on the injured reserve list for a time. Wilson listed Pick's injuries as a severely sprained ankle and a serious foggy head most every day for a time. Mr. Wilson also noted whenever Mr. Pickering was around the West course smelled something like a Scotch whiskey brewery.

Those were the days, Boy! Is it any wonder they created such wonderful and imaginative architecture?

[Adam_Messix]

Wayne--

It seems to me that in the World of Agronomy, there are a lot of young, hungry, go getting guys that gain high profile positions at a very young age.  So I think what Flynn did at age 23 was indeed possible. 

[TEPaul]

"A small point, perhaps, but I wonder if you really think Mr. MacWood's logic is bizarre?  In my on again, off again reading of these threads, I believe that that you believe that his starting point is in error.  However, I also believe that his logic follows quite nicely, but if his - or anyone's - starting point happens to be wrong,  all the logic in the world goes for naught."



My Dear Mr. Jeffrey:

It may be a small point of yours there but it certainly is an excellent point.

I do indeed believe that you believe that I believe that Mr. MacWood's "starting point" is in error, and that from that ERRoneous starting point only garbageous opinion and information flows!

And so, what, in fact, is Mr. MacWood's starting point on this subject of Merion? Well, neither of us need to speculate on that point because we very much have it from Mr. MacWood himself in the form of a few threads that reside in the back pages of this very website. He started those threads himself. One of them is entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion" and the other's subject is the question of "Legends" and how some clubs unfactually and irresponsibly promote their local architects to the status of a "legend."

Apparently, with little or no information on the subject this was clearly Mr. MacWoods "starting point" with Merion architect Hugh Wilson and this unsupportable campaign of Mr. MacWood has been carried on by him and then Mr. Moriarty for over five years now with not a thing to show for it other than the fact that Mr. Wilson really did go abroad in 1912 and almost went down on the Titanic which heretofore Merion and its history thought was only what they called a "romantic story."

I should amend that somewhat. Between the first edition of the Tolhurst Merion history book in 1988 and the second edition in 2004, Merion did apparently realize that if Mr. Wilson really did go abroad in 1910 in preparation to design and build the East course in 1911 and he also almost went down on the Titanic, there was something seriously wrong with that picture since the Titanic did not sink until April, 1912, nearly a year and a half after he returned. Let me amend my amendment. That's why they referred to the "Titanic Story" as "romantic".

Merion now refers to that previous evaluation as their "Humpty Dumpty" timeline approach! 

[Thomas MacWood]

Anyone out there who thinks this is just a difference of academic position and understanding, please ask yourselves the following question...

Why are the only courses that Mr. MacWood and his protege challenge the history of on this open forum those that Tom Paul and/or Wayne Morrison have a vested interest in, either as club historians or as part of their involvement in documenting the history for the new USGA architectural archives??

Why do you think these fellows seem to be spending every waking hour of their lives researching for any tidbit of information that will prove some minor fact wrong, or cast some obscure reference in doubt, or otherwise make these guys look inaccurate or careless?   Why is this only about Myopia and Merion?

They will tell you that they care so much about history and truth that they cannot in good conscience let the world believe that William FLynn may have been involved with creating Kilcare in 1912 instead of 1909 as Wayne so foolishly believes.

But, it isn't that, and by this point their personal agendas should be completely transparent.

Rather than participating in this important new inititiative from the USGA, they'd rather sit on the sidelines and throw rocks.

Rather than see either Tom or Wayne get one scintilla of credit for their ongoing and determined efforts, they'd rather try to tear down their reputations in a public forum.

Mike
You are sounding a bit paranoid. If you paid a little more attention you would see I have questioned and/or corrected the architectural attribution of scores of courses: Bethpage, Myopia, San Francisco, GCGC, NGLA, St. Andrews-Old, St. Andrews-New, Columbus CC, Addington-Old, Olympia Fields-South, Rye, Quaker Ridge, Muirfield, Dornoch, Brora, Lahinch, Cruden Bay, County Down, Worlington, etc.

The better question would be why the irrational reaction in the cases of Merion and PVGC.

[Thomas MacWood]

I think personal insults should be avoided.  My very good friend is not the only one engaged in that sort of activity.  You do it regularly.  Moriarty does it even more regularly and then whines about it when it is returned to him, granted usually in an escalated manner.  I do it as well.  

Are incomplete research, poor analysis and false conclusions a reason to act the way we do?  Perhaps not.  But those causes should be avoided at all cost.  They are not.

I don't care if you think I'm on a soap box or not.  I think there is something structurally wrong with this site and I said so.  If this is an open forum, why are you telling me to get off my soap box?  If I can disagree with you and respond with corrections, why do you have a problem with me doing so towards Ran.  Is he exempt?  According to your own post, you should shut up and let me have my say.

You and Moriarty are dangerous researchers and you harm this site.  I still believe you are not doing so deliberately, though you strain my credulity at times.  You and Moriarty have printed things on this site that make no sense, that have no underpinnings in fact and make conclusions that are historically inaccurate.  

I object to this site allowing this to happen in any case.  I suggest to Ran that he comes to Philadelphia on his way north and sits down with whomever cares to show up to have a roundtable discussion on ways to improve this site.  Fine, MacWood.  You like this site just how it is.  You are a fool.  All it has become is a platform for you to spout your revisionist BS.  Most on here around the world have no idea whether you are right or not.  You shovel so many names, dates and seemingly connected facts that most acquiesce and believe you.  Well, when you start to issue garbage in areas of golf architecture history that I have studied, know better than you and can present evidence that upends your crap, you better believe I feel an obligation, even though it is extremely time consuming, to counter your nonsense.

Moriarty keeps asking us to present our evidence.  We will do so on our timetable, not his.  We will present first to the clubs.  We will then ask them for permission to present the archival material.  If they allow us to do so, we will.  If not, we won't.  You should try giving clubs such consideration, you may be better accepted.  Tom Paul was taken to task for offering to show Jeff a paraphrase of the proof we have that demonstrates the errors of your and Moriarty's ways.  Moriarty went on the offensive as if Tom was showing him the raw data.  I showed Tom Naccarato the files, I showed them to Mike Cirba, to Peter Pallotta and members of MCC and MGC.  We are not hiding anything or protecting any legends.  We are going about our business.  You are excluded now and forever more.  If the clubs want to share the information with you or Mike Hurdzan does, that's fine with me.  I'll never give it to either one of you directly.

Unless this site improves, we will not present it here either, even if given permission by MCC and MGC.  Ran and Ben must take steps to ensure this does not happen again.

So shut up and let me have my say.  You have harmed this site and harmed your reputation.  You may not mind, but since I've seen evidence that my reputation is harmed by association with you through this site, I do care.

I want change.  I want this site to be better.  I want you to change and be better at what you so obviously are passionate about. 

Wayne
You are free to make your own case, no need to stiffle these free excanges....these free exchanges have resulted in wealth of new information.

[TEPaul]

"The better question would be why the irrational reaction in the cases of Merion and PVGC."


Mr. MacWood:

I've never discussed a number of those courses whose architectural attribution you've questioned because I really don't know them. The ones I have focused on with your architectural attribution opinions on here are the ones I do know and very well for years, primarily PVGC, Merion and Myopia. It has never been lost on me that you've never even seen those three and I feel that is and always will be very limiting to your understanding of them.

My reaction to your questioning of the architectural attribution on those three courses is in no way irrational. I've always only pointed out that your opinions are quite wrong and factually unsupportable.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Let me spend some more time defending the truth from your efforts to undermine it.  I have always stated that Flynn was not involved in the early construction of Merion East and came either late in the process or when Merion West began.  You should check your facts before you misrepresent them.  Stop the madness.

In the Wilson letter regarding the history of Merion Golf it is evident that the time from the formation of the comittee to actual construction was relatively short given Wilson's trip to Europe.  He says that a committee was formed in early 1911 to construct a new golf course on the 125 acres of land that was just purchased.  It goes on to say that they had a great start by visiting Macdonald for 2 days at his bungalow at NGLA where they absorbed ideas on golf course construction and prinicipals of holes in the famous courses abroad that stood the test of time.  They went over the NGLA studying the holes.  Then it appears that Wilson went off to Europe to study the courses discussed and recommended by Macdonald.  However, it later states that after collecting information from all the local (Philly) committees and greenkeepers they begun the course construction in the Spring of 1911 and opened the course on September 14, 1912, just a year after the September 1911 seeding.

It seems that if the committee met on Jan 1, 1911 there were only a few months between then and the start of construction.  In fact, seeding would have taken place a mere 9 months later.  Maybe the dates are off.  Perhaps the railroad magnates that funded the new course were accustomed to have their engineers and construction crews work on an expeditious schedule and this certainly appears to be the case.  It must have been a marvelous crew and the engineering efforts of Howard Toomey and the skills of Pickering and Flynn must have been a great help to Wilson. I am certain that many others had advisory roles, such as Macdonald, but any such role must be carefully researched before we can conclude that there was a design contribution.  Certainly there is no visual evidence (of the original 1912 course, not the subsequent revisions) of a style remotely akin to Macdonald and Raynor.  It is remarkable that the efforts of Macdonald and Raynor are so consistant and identifiable throughout all their works.  The only Merion style  is the work of Wilson at Cobb's Creek and of Flynn's body of work.  This should be of no surprise, Wilson and Flynn were very close friends and colleagues that were often together.  Wilson accompanied Flynn to look at the Kittansett site for 2 days and I'm sure there was a spirited interplay of ideas.  It seems as though Wilson had some role at the Seaview 9 that Flynn is credited with.  Wilson, according to his aide Fred Kortebein tried out Pickering in the construction of work at Seaview (although his drinking was more pronounced).  I wouldn't be surprised to find Wilson at other sites that Flynn worked on, particularly around Philadelphia and some of the early 20s redesigns that Flynn did in the DC area as Wilson travelled there often to meet with Piper and Oakley.

I remain open-minded about any influence on Wilson and Flynn by Macdonald and especially those by Thomas, Tillinghast, Crump, and Fownes.  However, until real evidence is found I think that today we must look at Macdonald and Whigham as advisors in a general way.  As to any specifics at Merion, their role would seem to be minimal.  But the search for more information continues.

Here is TE dream scenerio:

Tom MacWood regarding the mystery of the routing of Merion East;

“….there appears to be other facts he chose not to cover in his report for whatever reason: The routing process is not discussed (as far as I can tell),”

Luckily, I’ve just found this chronicle in the back of a frame in Merion’s archives. It’s Hugh Wilson’s chronicle of the day he and his Merion Committee with Fred Pickering, William Flynn and Howard Toomey in tow routed the world famous Merion East golf course.

                                The Laying out of the routing of Merion East
                                                       By
                                              Hugh Irvine Wilson
                                                  Feb, 3, 1911

On a rather warm early February Saturday morning 1911 my committee and I along with William Flynn, Fred Pickering and Howard Toomey collected in front of the clubhouse to route the golf course. The committee consisted of Rodman Griscom, Henry Toulmin, Richard Francis and Horatio Gates.

The winter turf was somewhat soft and spongy and I thanked my lucky stars I’d bought those wonderful Abercrombie & Fitch rubber slip-ons to place over my Peal walking shoes. As we prepared to set out I notice Pickering smelled like a gin mill. I set the stage for this historic moment by announcing “Alright, boys, what do we do now?” Roddy Griscom said; “How the Hell do we know Hugh, years from now some pawky researcher from Ohio might call us rank novices which we probably are and that’s why we sent you to Europe for seven months to study this subject, my boy. Don’t you know what we’re supposed to do now?” Henry Toulmin chimed in; “Hugh, I’m scared, do you think we should go to your office and try that new machine and ask Charlie Macdonald what we should do now?”

Young Bill Flynn said; “ I don’t think that will be necessary Mr Wilson, I think we should start with a tee right here in front of the clubhouse and take a hole over to the corner of Ardmore Ave and the road over there the driveway comes in from.” I told the little mick from Massachussets that despite the fact that he says he’d designed a golf course in Vermont that was a pretty dodgy idea since we were standing right in the middle of the parking circle of the club’s driveway.  But young Bill said: “Mr Wilson, why don’t we bring the driveway in from Ardmore avenue and make a parking lot behind the barn behind us because this will make a most cozy and dramatic starting tee just next to the clubhouse?” I told this over-reaching William that we were not in the business of road-planning, we were here to lay out the routing of a golf course. He did have a good point that a hole over to the elbow of Ardmore Ave and the clubhouse road did look like a reasonable place for a hole, so we walked around to the side of the clubhouse and looked at that angle for a tee from there and it looked just jake to me. And so we proceeded with the first. For some reason Dick Francis had broken away from us and was heading down to the far end at the top of L of the property on the clubhouse side of the road and to allow him to catch up to us again we all walked slightly to the right. I notice young William was sketching our progress and consequently the first hole became a dogleg left.

With Pickering leading the way we proceeded across Ardmore Ave. Pickering stumbled and was nearly killed by a passing car but luckily Hor Gates caught the poor stinking wretch. From the other side of Ardmore Ave we observed the land before us down Ardmore Ave from the promontory above the creek and proceeded that way to a point I thought made a demanding par 5. Bill Flynn said it would make a finer par 5 if we went a bit farther to the end. I told the young man that would make a hole of nearly 575 yards and if we kept that kind of stretching up our course would be criticized for the rest of time as being and overly long slog with far too much total yardage on the card! Bill said we should consider the deleterious effects in the future of this new “Bounding Billie” golf ball and that someday Merion may need to be 8,000 yards because of it.  We continued along with the property line on the right to the end to what seemed a long par 4. We turned back from there as there was no more to go in that direction and followed the property line on the right again to a rise that appeared to make a fine high green for a short hole.

At that point Pickering said he felt he was going to be ill so I told him to step across the boundary fence to the right which he did and as we waited for him Roddy said he was sorry but he had to go #2. I told Roddy that if we were going to be architects and spend long periods of time on the land we should all act like architects and remember to do our business at home in the morning. Roddy trotted into the valley and up the hillside on the other side behind a tree and did his business. Pickering returned with a little more color in his checks and Roddy yelled to us to report that from his vantage squatting behind a tree on the hillside on the other side of the valley that it looked like a fine route ahead of him for another long hole and so the wonderfully long second par 5 with a green just over the creek nearly 600 yards away came into being.

(Unfortunately I found only two pages of what appears to have been about a 15 page report of the routing of Merion East but I will continue to look for the rest).

[Thomas MacWood]

Mr. MacWood:

There is still more checking to do regarding Flynn and Heartwellville. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, a friend of John Ott's who lives up that way has information from a lady who owns the building that was originally the clubhouse of the course and she told this man she believes she had plans from Flynn on Heartwellville. If she never did one wonders why or even how she dreamed that up.

We will check that out in good time but first I am on a hunt for Raynor's lost routing of CPC the location of which I might be honing in on.  

Furthermore, according to Hugh Wilson's letters it appears Frederick Pickering, construction man par excellence, was the original foreman on the building of the West course but also according to H. Wilson, the "Pick's" wagon hit a couple of cases of scotch that were parked behind the second green of the West course and Freddie fell off his wagon and biffed and banged his own self up pretty bad and Wilson was forced to replace him in his foremanship capacity with Flynn while Mr. Pickering was put on the injured reserve list for a time. Wilson listed Pick's injuries as a severely sprained ankle and a serious foggy head most every day for a time. Mr. Wilson also noted whenever Mr. Pickering was around the West course smelled something like a Scotch whiskey brewery.

Those were the days, Boy! Is it any wonder they created such wonderful and imaginative architecture?

TE
I'm glad to see you are still checking and looking  for additional info....but I'm still wondering why you ignored the information you had already collected in favor of a clearly inaccurate myth.