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.


Mike_Cirba

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #625 on: September 09, 2008, 08:44:07 PM »
Tom,

I understand what you're saying and I haven't deviated from my understanding but it does appear to me that that David has deviated from his when he says that he now believes that Hugh Wilson was involved in the "planning" of the course, which we all know is much different than simply "constructing".   

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #626 on: September 09, 2008, 08:51:31 PM »
Mike Cirba,

You can't equate the highly structured process that exists today with how things were done at the begining of the 1900's.

There simply wasn't the clearly defined, compartmentalized, divisions of labor.

The involvement of interested parties in the process of creating a golf course was more akin to the "jack of all trades" concept.

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #627 on: September 09, 2008, 08:57:20 PM »
"I understand what you're saying and I haven't deviated from my understanding but it does appear to me that that David has deviated from his when he says that he now believes that Hugh Wilson was involved in the "planning" of the course, which we all know is much different than simply "constructing"."



Really?

I haven't followed the recent discussion between you two--I guess just the tail end of it. But if he's deviating from his essay on that point then that's a good thing. I'm afraid he will need to do that on numerous points to do with Merion if he ever really wants to get to the truth of what happened there in 1910 and 1911 and eventually understand it. But for him to get to that point I'm sure it will be a long and argumentative road ahead if we can judge from the past. I hope I'm wrong about that.  

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #628 on: September 09, 2008, 08:59:04 PM »
Get out of here, Patrick, we are about six steps ahead and totally around the corner from you on that now!

The ironic thing is all these points were made over and over again in years past on these subjects, and they are all in the back pages. The problem was the other side just constantly ignored, dismissed or rationalized them away back then. Maybe this time they won't. But the funniest thing of all is I expect them next to actually say they thought of them in the first place.

This goes to the heart of what a great teacher is all about and it represents our own relationship on golf course architecture. I've been such a good teacher you actually think you thought of these things yourself. It's sort of like being a great psychoanalyst. I don't get any credit, but that's OK, in the end it's actually quite gratifying to see all my little chickens think the right and the good thoughts on GCA.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2008, 09:09:22 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #629 on: September 09, 2008, 09:13:15 PM »
What about it Mr. MacWood, do you want to talk about Lloyd and his relationship with HDC? You're the one who brought it up.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #630 on: September 09, 2008, 09:15:30 PM »

If you ask me whether I think Hugh Wilson was involved in the planning at this point, I'd say yes.   But again I do not know the history of the course too well.  If you ask me whether the term "laid out" sometimes included a planning component, I'd say yes.

But do I know whether the term meant to design, to plan, to architect in that quote?  No I don't.

If you are frustrated by this, I cannot help you.  Perhaps if you asked questions that do not require "admissions" of your speculation you might be more satisfied with the answer.


Oopps....

Tom Paul,

I went back to find where I had read that and realized that I'm wrong.

I think David has modified his view that Hugh Wilson was probably involved in the "planning" of Cobb's Creek, not Merion.

Mea Culpa.

Oh well..maybe someday.


Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #631 on: September 09, 2008, 09:48:20 PM »
"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:

I feel pretty strongly that all Alan Wilson meant in his report by the fact that Merion did not use an "architect" and that their courses were "home-made", only had to do with the fact that Merion did not hire or use a professional in the design of their courses in 1911-1913 (East and West courses).

Tom, I guess what I'm trying to glean from Wilson's quote is, IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion that history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ? Basically, did Wilson consider Macdonald to be an architect? Or would he have considered M&W to be members of the amateur sportsman category? The quote seems to specifically discount Barker's involvement, but what about M&W ?

I'm not trying to make any case for anything in particular, I'm just trying to understand Wilson, and where he was coming from.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #632 on: September 09, 2008, 10:08:26 PM »
"Mea Culpa.

Oh well..maybe someday."



Maybe so, MikeyC. Don't worry about it. Everytime he comes on here and maintains these insulting and preposterous things about Merion I will be here to deny them. His revisionist history of Merion will never see the light of day on its own as our factual denials will always be right behind it. ;)

Maybe the essayist and Mr. MacWood can eventually concentrate on being the world's best revisionist experts on H.H. Barker. I don't really care about that!


Mike_Cirba

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #633 on: September 09, 2008, 10:34:20 PM »
Tom,

Based on the MCC Meeting Minutes, I thought I should re-post this Tillinghast article Joe Bausch found some months back.

Similar to Alan Wilson's letter, it refers to the "plans".   Please notice the last paragraph.

I have to wonder if Tillinghast was there as well, as they went over the final options drafted by the Committee, and as they selected the best one?   Certainly, I can't imagine any other reason he'd use the plural and not simply say that he's seen the (singular) plan for the new course otherwise.


TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #634 on: September 09, 2008, 11:23:30 PM »
"Tom, I guess what I'm trying to glean from Wilson's quote is, IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion that history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ? Basically, did Wilson consider Macdonald to be an architect? Or would he have considered M&W to be members of the amateur sportsman category? The quote seems to specifically discount Barker's involvement, but what about M&W ?

I'm not trying to make any case for anything in particular, I'm just trying to understand Wilson, and where he was coming from."


Kirk:

I believe I completely understand your question as I think you're asking it and mean it.

IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion than history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ?

In my opinion, of course he would have Kirk. The reason I say that is I don't believe either Hugh or Alan Wilson were using that term "architect" to mean that Macdonald did not understand architecture or did not have architectural talent. I think all Alan Wilson meant by his statement that MCC did not use an architect was that they did not use a PROFESSIONAL who they had to pay. To me all Alan Wilson meant by "architect" was a professional who charged for his architectural services. And that's probably exactly why the MCC Search Commitee report to the MCC board actually mentioned that Barker was on Connell's (a real estate developer who had nothing to do with their club) ACCOUNT and was not paid for by them.

But he most certainly did follow that statement up with the remark that Merion East and West were "homemade". By that, in my opinion, he didn't mean to say that the "amateur/sportsmen" architects (nonprofessionals) Macdonald/Whigam actually routed and designed Merion East, he meant they did those course's routings and designs themselves with Wilson and his committee. That's what the MCC minutes were talking about with all their "plans".

All the rest that he and Hugh said about Macdonald/Whigam's advice and suggestions to MCC for which they roundly thanked them, was basically only about a day at Ardmore in June 1910, a day and a half at NGLA during which Macdonald/Whigam basically showed them all the NGLA plans from abroad and the next day how to do it themselves by showing them what they'd done at NGLA. Would they've been grateful for just that as they said they were in their reports? Damn right they would have been!

Then with the day back at Ardmore on April 6, 1911 at which time Macdonald and Whigam looked over their ground again and what they had done with it with their final five plans and then they got them to approve one of their five plans they'd done since returning from NGLA which they took immediately to their board and had it approved and then proceded to build it.

If one is looking at the word "architect" the way we think of it today would Alan Wilson have called Macdonald an architect? Of course he would have but Alan Wilson did not live today, he lived back then, and what he meant by "architect" was a professional and Macdonald/Whigam were not professionals, that's for damn sure.

Did MCC think Macdonald had more architectural talent than Barker? They probably did or else why would they turn to Macdonald for his advice instead of Barker? Does anyone really think it had something to do with saving money? Are you kidding? These people were some of the most powerful and well-heeled people in America.

At that time people like that who were really interested in doing really good course did not see anything out there by a professional who was much good so they turned to Charlie who they knew was doing something HIMSELF (and with a committee) at NGLA and they decided to do it themselves like he was.

The problem with people like Moriarty and MacWood is they've never spent even 2-4 days on a site being trained in the principles of architecture by someone who really understands architecture and its fundamental principles.

Well, I have and I can clearly understand exactly what Wilson and his committee did over those four or so days over near a year's span from June 1910 to April 1911 with Macdonald/Whigam during three visits over about four days. Then they did it themselves just like the history of the course has always explained. Could Macdonald have done all that over app four days that the Wilson committee did over a perios of months? I doubt that . Would they have even tried to do something like that in that short time? I doubt that too. The point is MCC didn't ask them to do that and they didn't and didn't offer.

And why would Charlie? He had plenty to worry about at that time trying to figure out the agronomy of his course and get it open for general play about a year or two late.

 
« Last Edit: September 09, 2008, 11:30:16 PM by TEPaul »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #635 on: September 09, 2008, 11:30:03 PM »
"Mea Culpa.

Oh well..maybe someday."



Maybe so, MikeyC. Don't worry about it. Everytime he comes on here and maintains these insulting and preposterous things about Merion I will be here to deny them. His revisionist history of Merion will never see the light of day on its own as our factual denials will always be right behind it. ;)

Maybe the essayist and Mr. MacWood can eventually concentrate on being the world's best revisionist experts on H.H. Barker. I don't really care about that!


TE
Instead of the personal snipes why don't you add something of substance to this thread. David has not insulted Merion, and I'm sure they can take care of themselves, and I doubt they would approve of your personal insults.  

Didn't you say Lloyd's connection was common knowledge? 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 #636 on: September 09, 2008, 11:37:49 PM »
"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:

I feel pretty strongly that all Alan Wilson meant in his report by the fact that Merion did not use an "architect" and that their courses were "home-made", only had to do with the fact that Merion did not hire or use a professional in the design of their courses in 1911-1913 (East and West courses).

Tom, I guess what I'm trying to glean from Wilson's quote is, IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion that history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ? Basically, did Wilson consider Macdonald to be an architect? Or would he have considered M&W to be members of the amateur sportsman category? The quote seems to specifically discount Barker's involvement, but what about M&W ?

I'm not trying to make any case for anything in particular, I'm just trying to understand Wilson, and where he was coming from.

Kirk
What do you make of Allan Wilson's explanation of where his information came from? Does Allan Wilson's account discount William Flynn's involvement?

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #637 on: September 09, 2008, 11:44:03 PM »
"Didn't you say Lloyd's connection was common knowledge? 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?"

Mr. MacWood:

I'll try to ignore your first paragraph but I do know Merion, you don't and either does your self possessed protege, and I do know what they think of you two and it ain't that pretty.

NOW, do you want to have a legitimate discussion about Lloyd and HDC?

I did not say that Lloyd's connection to HDC was common knowledge. But I believe I've learned a whole lot more about what he was doing and particularly WHEN and WHY.

Would you like to explain it to me so both I and this website can see what you know since you constantly try to come across as some "expert" researcher or am I going to have to teach you something else significant about Merion's early history---AGAIN?

To your second question, I object to that article because Lloyd did not have the property inspected by Barker--Joseph Connell who had nothing to do with MCC did. The MCC Search Committee's report to the MCC board makes that crystal clear. Perhaps you should try reading it sometime and even you might figure out what it says and means.  ;)

Is there anything else you'd like to learn about Lloyd's relationship with HDC and WHEN and WHY because it's very clear you've never known or understood much about it, what it meant to MCC and its relevence to the design of Merion East and particularly who did it?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2008, 11:53:11 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #638 on: September 10, 2008, 12:01:57 AM »
"Kirk
What do you make of Allan Wilson's explanation of where his information came from? Does Allan Wilson's account discount William Flynn's involvement?"

Kirk:

Go for an answer to that question if you want to--if not speak with me about it. As to what Alan Wilson said about the original creation of the East course in 1911 and the West course in 1913 Mr MacWood's question about William Flynn who was their foreman and greenskeeper probably beginning around 1913 is remarkably stupid, as usual. Perhaps, the expert reseacher from Ohio thinks Wilson and his committee manned shovels, constructed the course and planted the grass on it and maintained their golf courses all by themselves! Nothing these two say on here surprises me anymore!
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 12:04:23 AM by TEPaul »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #639 on: September 10, 2008, 12:05:55 AM »
"Tom, I guess what I'm trying to glean from Wilson's quote is, IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion that history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ? Basically, did Wilson consider Macdonald to be an architect? Or would he have considered M&W to be members of the amateur sportsman category? The quote seems to specifically discount Barker's involvement, but what about M&W ?

I'm not trying to make any case for anything in particular, I'm just trying to understand Wilson, and where he was coming from."


Kirk:

I believe I completely understand your question as I think you're asking it and mean it.

IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion than history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ?

In my opinion, of course he would have Kirk. The reason I say that is I don't believe either Hugh or Alan Wilson were using that term "architect" to mean that Macdonald did not understand architecture or did not have architectural talent. I think all Alan Wilson meant by his statement that MCC did not use an architect was that they did not use a PROFESSIONAL who they had to pay. To me all Alan Wilson meant by "architect" was a professional who charged for his architectural services. And that's probably exactly why the MCC Search Commitee report to the MCC board actually mentioned that Barker was on Connell's (a real estate developer who had nothing to do with their club) ACCOUNT and was not paid for by them.

The Merion of 1926 was much different than the Merion of 1911. Wilson and Flynn had made significant changes to the course. The prototypical Macdonald features had been removed.

But he most certainly did follow that statement up with the remark that Merion East and West were "homemade". By that, in my opinion, he didn't mean to say that the "amateur/sportsmen" architects (nonprofessionals) Macdonald/Whigam actually routed and designed Merion East, he meant they did those course's routings and designs themselves with Wilson and his committee. That's what the MCC minutes were talking about with all their "plans".

Allan Wilson's account is very vague. He does not get into routing or any other architectural details. Its also clear he did not have first hand information. Trying pick apart and analyze his every word is a waste of time.

All the rest that he and Hugh said about Macdonald/Whigam's advice and suggestions to MCC for which they roundly thanked them, was basically only about a day at Ardmore in June 1910, a day and a half at NGLA during which Macdonald/Whigam basically showed them all the NGLA plans from abroad and the next day how to do it themselves by showing them what they'd done at NGLA. Would they've been grateful for just that as they said they were in their reports? Damn right they would have been!

Interesting speculation.

Then with the day back at Ardmore on April 6, 1911 at which time Macdonald and Whigam looked over their ground again and what they had done with it with their final five plans and then they got them to approve one of their five plans they'd done since returning from NGLA which they took immediately to their board and had it approved and then proceded to build it.

What about Wilson's visit or visits to Southampton?

If one is looking at the word "architect" the way we think of it today would Alan Wilson have called Macdonald an architect? Of course he would have but Alan Wilson did not live today, he lived back then, and what he meant by "architect" was a professional and Macdonald/Whigam were not professionals, that's for damn sure.

Did MCC think Macdonald had more architectural talent than Barker? They probably did or else why would they turn to Macdonald for his advice instead of Barker? Does anyone really think it had something to do with saving money? Are you kidding? These people were some of the most powerful and well-heeled people in America.

I would agree Macdonald was the more prominent architect...though thats no slight on Barker. Since the project was closely related to a real estate venture and the membership was being asked to fork over some serious cash to move, do you think there was there any consideration given to having a big name architect associated with the project?

At that time people like that who were really interested in doing really good course did not see anything out there by a professional who was much good so they turned to Charlie who they knew was doing something HIMSELF (and with a committee) at NGLA and they decided to do it themselves like he was.

With that being said do you think they would have been easy selling those involved that Wilson was the right man for the job? How would you sell the membership on Wilson?

The problem with people like Moriarty and MacWood is they've never spent even 2-4 days on a site being trained in the principles of architecture by someone who really understands architecture and its fundamental principles.

Are you certain of the that?

Well, I have and I can clearly understand exactly what Wilson and his committee did over those four or so days over near a year's span from June 1910 to April 1911 with Macdonald/Whigam during three visits over about four days. Then they did it themselves just like the history of the course has always explained. Could Macdonald have done all that over app four days that the Wilson committee did over a perios of months? I doubt that . Would they have even tried to do something like that in that short time? I doubt that too. The point is MCC didn't ask them to do that and they didn't and didn't offer.

Wow...you have a vivid imagination.

And why would Charlie? He had plenty to worry about at that time trying to figure out the agronomy of his course and get it open for general play about a year or two late.

How many trips did Macdonald and/or Whigham make to Philadelphia between 1910 and 1912?

 

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #640 on: September 10, 2008, 12:15:10 AM »
"The Merion of 1926 was much different than the Merion of 1911. Wilson and Flynn had made significant changes to the course. The prototypical Macdonald features had been removed."

That's right Mr. MacWood, and that was fifteen years after the period and events Alan Wilson was talking about and Kirk Gill is asking me about! Isn't this exactly why so many of us have to worry about how dense you are and how incapable you are of having an intelligent discussion on here?

Jeesus Christ, Man, get with it, get with us in these discussions or go get yourself some mental help.


Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #641 on: September 10, 2008, 12:15:40 AM »
"Didn't you say Lloyd's connection was common knowledge? 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?"

Mr. MacWood:

I'll try to ignore your first paragraph but I do know Merion, you don't and either does your self possessed protege, and I do know what they think of you two and it ain't that pretty.

NOW, do you want to have a legitimate discussion about Lloyd and HDC?

I did not say that Lloyd's connection to HDC was common knowledge. But I believe I've learned a whole lot more about what he was doing and particularly WHEN and WHY.

Would you like to explain it to me so both I and this website can see what you know since you constantly try to come across as some "expert" researcher or am I going to have to teach you something else significant about Merion's early history---AGAIN?

To your second question, I object to that article because Lloyd did not have the property inspected by Barker--Joseph Connell who had nothing to do with MCC did. The MCC Search Committee's report to the MCC board makes that crystal clear. Perhaps you should try reading it sometime and even you might figure out what it says and means.  ;)

Is there anything else you'd like to learn about Lloyd's relationship with HDC and WHEN and WHY because it's very clear you've never known or understood much about it, what it meant to MCC and its relevence to the design of Merion East and particularly who did it?

TE
If Connell and Lloyd are both associated with HDC, and Connell has no golfing knowledge, why do you doubt the article stating Lloyd had the property inspected by Baker & Macdonald. The article appears to be completely accurate on every other fact.

I'm sure you know more about HDC that I do. Does that make you feel better?

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #642 on: September 10, 2008, 12:20:57 AM »
"Kirk
What do you make of Allan Wilson's explanation of where his information came from? Does Allan Wilson's account discount William Flynn's involvement?"

Kirk:

Go for an answer to that question if you want to--if not speak with me about it. As to what Alan Wilson said about the original creation of the East course in 1911 and the West course in 1913 Mr MacWood's question about William Flynn who was their foreman and greenskeeper probably beginning around 1913 is remarkably stupid, as usual. Perhaps, the expert reseacher from Ohio thinks Wilson and his committee manned shovels, constructed the course and planted the grass on it and maintained their golf courses all by themselves! Nothing these two say on here surprises me anymore!

I'm sorry I was still thinking about yours and Wayne's earlier posts. Doesn't A.Wilson discuss the West and also mention Hugh Alison?

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #643 on: September 10, 2008, 12:28:35 AM »
"The Merion of 1926 was much different than the Merion of 1911. Wilson and Flynn had made significant changes to the course. The prototypical Macdonald features had been removed."

That's right Mr. MacWood, and that was fifteen years after the period and events Alan Wilson was talking about and Kirk Gill is asking me about! Isn't this exactly why so many of us have to worry about how dense you are and how incapable you are of having an intelligent discussion on here? The rest of your red responses aren't even worth a consideration much less a response.

But I do want to see you talk to me about Lloyd and HDC. I want this website to actually see how little you know about a club and course you are questioning the history of.

Talk to me about what you know about Lloyd and HDC. Do you have the guts to do that Mr. MacWood? I'm betting you don't. I'm betting you'll weasel out of it by ignoring it or asking some more wholly irrelevent questions to deflect the subject, as you usually do on here. ;)


TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #644 on: September 10, 2008, 12:35:59 AM »
"I'm sure you know more about HDC that I do. Does that make you feel better?"

Not at all, and that's not the point. THE POINT IS If YOU are going to question us and then criticize us constantly for what we say in response you better fucking well get with the program and figure out as much or more than we have years ago or just give it up, Skeebo.

This is the essence of your problem and your total lack of contribution to these Merion threads and consequently to this website. This is precisely why people like you and Moriarty are not only a complete waste of everyone's time on these Merion threads but you are a real net negative to these golf courses', like Merion's histories.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #645 on: September 10, 2008, 12:43:22 AM »
Mike Cirba,

1.  I don't think one can cleanly split the process into two parts.  It all depended upon the circumstance.    While questions of attribution are generally secondary to me, the same goes there.   And while you may want to break it out into design and construction, what matters is how they "broke it out" at the time, and they did not simply break it out into design and construction.   

2.  I did not switch my position on Hugh Wilson's involvement at Cobb's Creek.   It seems like he was probably involved in the design process.  I don't recall ever writing otherwise.    I think perhaps you read way to much into my words.

3.  Likewise, I don't have to switch my position on Wilson at Merion.  While accepted lore has Wilson visiting NGLA for travel advice, my essay has him "working out the particulars of the plan" with Macdonald and Whigham at NGLA.  " Working out the particulars of the plan' sounds like involvement to me, and sounds pretty accurate based on the information I had and have.   

4. The last paragraph in the article you just posted is quoted verbatim in my essay.   I find it strange that you keep introducing these articles into the discussion as if they shed some new light on the subject.

____________________________________
Kirk,

As I said in my post above (that has been buried under a couple pages already),  I cannot imagine that Alan Wilson was thinking of Barker when he wrote what he did in 1926.  Barker had not been mentioned for a very long time.   Plus, I have seen no evidence that Alan Wilson was at all involved with the early planning, so he may not even have known who Barker was. 

If anyone, Alan Wilson was most likely concerned with Flynn.  Flynn was around in 1926, and as I said, at least one detailed Merion drawing was published in 1926 that said "Plan by William S. Flynn, Golf Course Architect."   

Same logic  applies to Tillinghast's article 8 years later. 

_____________________________________

Tom Paul,

Your latest round of insults directed at Tom Macwood are completely out of line.  They would be in any situation, but are especially so here because you are the one who seems a bit confused, not MacWood.   

While we may now be getting a better idea of when Flynn first started at Merion, it was very much confused until very recently (and still may be.)   I recall reading somewhere that Wayne credited Flynn as codesigner of Merion West.   Also, according to Merion's history, Flynn supervised the construction and had been a groundskeeper with the Cricket Club and the first groundskeeper at Merion East.

So it is not Tom MacWood who is confused about Flynn.  It was Merion itself, and you and Wayne.   Given that Merion Lore has him there since before the course started, and given that even you guys had him co-designing the West, it is would have been entirely reasonable for Alan Wilson to worry that Flynn would take spotlight that was rightfully Hugh's.   

In fact it looks to me as if Alan Wilson was pretty prophetic and had reason to be concerned, at least over the long hall.   I havent read the Flynn manuscript, but isn't this exactly what you and Wayne have done at Merion?  Shift the spotlight from Hugh to Flynn? 

No wonder Alan Wilson and later Tillinghast where coming to Hugh Wilson's defense!

_________________

Lastly, Tom, before you get too far aflutter with your attacks on MacWood regarding HDC, you may want to recall some of the positions you took on over the past few months.   Also, you might want to recall where you first learned much of what you now are trying to use to support your personal shots at Tom MacWood. 
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 12:50:26 AM by DMoriarty »
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)

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #646 on: September 10, 2008, 12:58:21 AM »
Mr. Moriarty:

Your post isn't worth a response and I doubt many, if any, will be in the future unless someone is interested in the subject of insults day in and day out. I sure do know I'm not. Essentially, you've marginalized yourself with most everyone and certainly with me. Just keep prattling on---maybe you can just entertain yourself all by yourself with your stupid posts. Why don't you just write them and respond to yourself? My suggestion would be that everyone just ignore you. God knows Merion has.

Mr. MacWood:

Do you want to get into an educational discussion about Lloyd and HDC and WHEN he took control of it and WHY and what it all meant to the creation of Merion East and who did it and when or don't you?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 01:01:18 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #647 on: September 10, 2008, 01:12:19 AM »
Mr. Moriarty:

Your post isn't worth a response and I doubt many, if any, will be in the future unless someone is interested in the subject of insults day in and day out. I sure do know I'm not. Essentially, you've marginalized yourself with most everyone and certainly with me. Just keep prattling on---maybe you can just entertain yourself all by yourself with your stupid posts. Why don't you just write them and respond to yourself? My suggestion would be that everyone just ignore you. God knows Merion has.

Insults?  I did not intend any.   As for statement that you are not interested in insults day in and day out, your posts tell a different story.

Quote
Mr. MacWood:

Do you want to get into an educational discussion about Lloyd and HDC and WHEN he took control of it and WHY and what it all meant to the creation of Merion East and who did it and when or don't you?

Are you really planning to try and one-up Tom MacWood using information and analysis that you and Wayne first learned from me? 
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)

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #648 on: September 10, 2008, 06:37:45 AM »
Mr. Moriarty:

Your post isn't worth a response and I doubt many, if any, will be in the future unless someone is interested in the subject of insults day in and day out. I sure do know I'm not. Essentially, you've marginalized yourself with most everyone and certainly with me. Just keep prattling on---maybe you can just entertain yourself all by yourself with your stupid posts. Why don't you just write them and respond to yourself? My suggestion would be that everyone just ignore you. God knows Merion has.

Mr. MacWood:

Do you want to get into an educational discussion about Lloyd and HDC and WHEN he took control of it and WHY and what it all meant to the creation of Merion East and who did it and when or don't you?

TE
You are bizarre. What is up with prefacing all your posts with would you like to discuss, are you ready to discuss, would you like to learn something...  This is a discusion group, we discuss and we give information. If you have something to discuss or share, do it. No need to play games. I've already said I'm sure you know more about the subject than I do.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 08:03:00 AM by Tom MacWood »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #649 on: September 10, 2008, 06:49:33 AM »
Mike Cirba,

1.  I don't think one can cleanly split the process into two parts.  It all depended upon the circumstance.    While questions of attribution are generally secondary to me, the same goes there.   And while you may want to break it out into design and construction, what matters is how they "broke it out" at the time, and they did not simply break it out into design and construction.   

2.  I did not switch my position on Hugh Wilson's involvement at Cobb's Creek.   It seems like he was probably involved in the design process.  I don't recall ever writing otherwise.    I think perhaps you read way to much into my words.

3.  Likewise, I don't have to switch my position on Wilson at Merion.  While accepted lore has Wilson visiting NGLA for travel advice, my essay has him "working out the particulars of the plan" with Macdonald and Whigham at NGLA.  " Working out the particulars of the plan' sounds like involvement to me, and sounds pretty accurate based on the information I had and have.   


Tom,

Just a couple of things in response.

1) I was asking about the winter 1915 news quote where it referred to Wilson and others having "have laid out" Cobb's Creek and "work begins in early spring".     The project got kicked off in January of that year.    Surely without a spade of dirt overturned at that point you'd concede that the writer was using "have laid out" to refer to a planning activity, whether that was on a map, or just staking the land?

2) That was my mistake in reading what you wrote the other day.   I saw where you said, "If you asked me if Hugh WIlson was involved in planning activity, I'd have to say yes>", and inferred that you were talking about Merion, not Cobb's Creek.   

It's good to see that you now would at least acknowledge that he was involved in planning both courses.

3) Agreed.  The MCC minutes discuss more specifically what the Committee did at NGLA but based on everything you knew, that's a valid assessment.

Thanks.

 
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 07:23:29 AM by MikeCirba »