"TE
Thanks for the lecture on the blueblood ethos. One thing I'm not crazy about is portraiting all the amateur/sportsmen as being cut from the same clothe. Over generalizing does not tell me much about the individual man - all these men were unique, with unique stories and backgrounds. This is especially true when analyzing their architectural career, philosphies and influences."
Mr. MacWood:
It's too bad you call that a lecture. I think it's some very good background and basis to be able to understand men like Leeds. Perhaps you don't get that at all, and believe me, I can definitely understand why. It's sort of like not being able to understand a seminal ancient Roman without having a fairly good understanding of the culture, habits, traits, and of course, the ethos of ancient Rome.
That you have some chip on your shoulder about this kind of thing is really obvious but that isn't my concern and either is individually educating you on this stuff. My only concern is simply pointing out when and where you are really inaccurate and revisionist about it and its people.
It is also not lost on me that when you posted that thread of yours on here over five years ago entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion" you explained that you'd run across two articles that mentioned Macdonald/Whigam advised and made suggestions to MCC in 1910 and 1911. You went on to ask if this meant that perhaps Macdonald/Whigam had been slighted and minimized by Merion with what they did for the club. Apparently, you felt you had discovered something important in those two articles you’d just found that either Merion or we here were not aware of. Obviously, you did not know at that time that Macdonald/Whigam's participation had ALWAYS been known to and reflected in Merion's history and we here were well aware of it for years.
In that thread I explained to you that the details of who did what and where on Merion East were generally never recorded and that we were not aware of them and for those reasons, and that they would probably never be known in detail (other than a few seminal ones such as Francis' story).
Then Wayne Morrison eventually came on and explained to you our research process and the details of what is known about Merion's architectural history including Macdonald/Whigam's participation both at NGLA and for a few days at Ardmore.
AGAIN, it is not lost on me that your immediate response to Wayne Morrison was remarkably similar to what you just said to me in your post above----eg "Thanks for the lecture." (I believe I will find that thread and pull it back up to the first page or just quote what you said to him in that vein which is completely similar to what you just said to me in your last post above!
).
Things began to devolve down from there basically beginning these contentious "Merion threads" in which you constantly claimed that we here are being defensive and protecting of our local architect and architecture "Legends". In that particular thread that began over five years ago you coigned this thing you call the "Philadelphia Syndrome" that apparently defines, in your mind, some kind of defensiveness on our part. You are still saying that today, Mr. MacWood, and it is still bullshit and clearly nothing more than some excuse on your part to cover up the fact that you really don't understand much about these subjects. Will you ever? That's a very good question. I doubt you ever will the way you've always carried on in your years on this website, and continue to carry on.
I am not exactly trying to generalize about men like Leeds, Emmet, Crump, Wilson et al but there are definitely some very important common threads and themes in who they were and what they were, what they did and the way they went about it. Failing to recognize that or understand it is to never really understand them or what they did, including their courses and its architecture.
"For example how much do you know about Leeds travels abroad? When he was a young man he traveled the world, but when he was older his focus was the UK. What years did he travel to the UK? Where exactly did he go and who did he meet? Is there a correlation between these UK visits and major alterations to Myopia?"
For a number of years now, Mr. MacWood, I've been trying to figure most all of that out, and I've mentioned on here a number of times WHY! Apparently, you’ve missed all that on here too. I guess this is what happens when you refuse to read posts of more than two paragraphs, as you’ve admitted on here.
I believe that Myopia may've been the FIRST example of really good golf course architecture in this country and obviously I want to know why that was and how Leeds could have done it, and where he found his ideas. So obviously I've wanted to know for some years where he went, who he saw, who he bounced ideas off of and where he found his inspiration to do the big and little things he did at Myopia so long ago. I have some idea but most of the details seem to be elusive. It does not surprise me and Peter Pallotta's sense that he probably was a private and publicity shy man (something I’ve alluded to on here before) makes a lot of sense given the rest of what I know about him and the club knows about him. That he was stand-offish, somewhat of an overbearing martinet probably because of that standoffishness, has been known to me for some years and to the club for well over a century.
Leeds was a remarkably well-rounded athlete in some diverse sports---football, baseball, golf, shooting, and particularly yachting---particularly the America Cup. Perhaps you didn't realize it but I believe the America Cup took place every two years and it alternated between our shores and England's. If he was in that sport the way it's reported he was then he at least got there fairly regularly for that and in that way.
The other thing you apparently fail to understand and appreciate is some people like a Leeds from that world tended to go abroad all the time and sometimes for long periods of time. You don't really need to ask me how and why I know that but I will tell you I most certainly do despite your odd defensiveness about being lectured to about some things you clearly do not know.
I think Leeds may've even sailed around the world and also may've written a book about yachts or yachting.
But there are still many things I don't know about him and would like to know. One of these days I'll make it to Boston and the university that apparently has a good deal about Leeds and his overall family archived.
At this point, I do not even know if Leeds worked and if he did what it was in. I do know there were more than a few of those people in and from his world that never did work in a traditional sense. The reason for that is completely obvious too---eg they didn't have to. And that is why they dedicated themselves to some of the things they did for which they have become famous to us today.
The last point is one really not much worth mentioning to you, I think, because of your limited understanding of those people and that world of theirs. You tend to automatically try to find someone who must have taught men like Leeds how to do what they did or even basically did it for them. I tend to think not----I believe it was very likely that they came up with it themselves with perhaps a modicum of prompting and observational help from others. One could fairly ask both why and how they could do that and I think the answer lies in the fact that they really did think of themselves as the “Best and the Brightest”, they felt they were those fortunate few who were completely classically educated (and they were), they understood what world travel and observation and culture and taste meant and they applied it as they did even with the golf courses and the architecture which made them famous, made them legends, and in my opinion, both rightly and historically and factually so.
I don’t believe this is something you comprehend, Mr. MacWood and perhaps you never will. But if not you never will be a good analyst of this time, those people and the things they produced how and why.