[TEPaul]

MikeC:

You know, of course it is old ground to go over and we've all been there many times before discussing and arguing what Wilson and his committee's roll was with Merion East and what Macdonald/Whigam's may have been, but I appreciate that you reviewed the meaning of terms used by these men back then, particularly when they wrote about specific events and the terms they used to describe them.

Again, I bring up what was meant with specific events with the use of the term "laying out."

As you point out by quoting from David Moriarty's essay on Merion, "The Missing Faces of Merion" he virtually hinges his entire logic, assumption and conclusion that Macdonald/Whigam must have routed and designed Merion East and Wilson and his committee could only have actually constructed (built) the course to that Macd/Whigam "plan" on the fact that the term "laying out" must have meant the actual BUILDING of the golf course, the actual construction of it in fact! (He even offers an Oxford English Dictionary definition of the term "laying out" to apparently try to prove his point).

His clear implication therefore is that Wilson and committee could not have been involved in routing and designing the course on a paper plan if the term "laying out" was used such as in 'we laid out a plan.'

But, you know, Mike, a time-line is a very beautiful thing in how it can virtually prove the accuracy or in Merion's case the virtual lack of accuracy of this claim that Moriarty is making as to what "laying out" actually means or meant to those men involved with Merion in 1911.


"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course....."

and,


"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans.  On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day....."


So what does the use and beauty of a timeline prove when one considers the meaning of a term like "laying out courses" or "laying out plans" in the context of Wilson and his committee or Macdonald/Whigam? Well, when one fits the known and agreed upon dates into the puzzle or question, it's totally obvious; proof, in fact. 

No one has ever said, or ever claimed, that Macdonald/Whigam had a thing to do with Merion or Wilson and his committee between June 1910 and the visit to NGLA which according to a letter from Wilson himself can be proved took place in the second week of March 1911.

But yet the wording of Wilson's report to the Board, given by Golf Chairman Robert Lesley in the middle of April 1911 proves that Wilson and his committee "LAID OUT many different courses" before the second week of March 1911 (the next and only second time Macd/Whigam became involved with the Merion project) and "FIVE DIFFERENT PLANS" FOLLOWING their NGLA visit. In neither case was Macdonald on hand at Merion to help them do this. Again, no one claims he was, not even the essayist Moriarty (although who the Hell really knows what he may "claim" next? ). No newspaper or magazine does, no report does, nothing does or ever has!

But the most telling point that proves the words and term "laying out a plan" could not have meant in this case with Merion, the actual constructing or building of a golf course to a plan, is that no course, no plan had yet even been considered or approved by the Board of Directors of MCC. Therefore when Wilson himself used those words and terms ("laying out numerous courses" and "laying out different plans") to describe what he and his committee had been doing throughout the winter and spring of 1911, the Merion timeline proves that no actual building had yet happened and wouldn't happen for at least a couple of months!!

Of course I'm now assuming that no one would be silly enough to claim that Merion was actually out their building and constructing a golf course BEFORE their Board of Directors of the club considered and APPROVED (and obviously funded) what the golf course was to be! I make that assumption while always understanding that some people, and one or two in particular, on these Merion creation threads have made some remarkably silly claims! 

When the TIMES various events TOOK PLACE are agreed upon by analysts considering some situational subject (in this case Macdonald/Whigam only saw MCC and the Wilson Committee three times---eg June 1910, at NGLA for two days in the second week of March, 1911 and the last time for a day on April 6, 1911) what a bullet-proof TIMELINE can prove is a very beautiful thing indeed!

Therefore, with the case of the meaning of the term "laying out" with Merion East it could not possibly have meant to those men involved with Merion East JUST the actual CONSTRUCTING or BUILDING of the golf course. It had to mean the routing and designing of it FIRST on a paper plan that we know existed from Wilson and his committee because the board meeting minutes state that paper plan was ATTACHED  (the m.m.s state "attached here-with") to Lesley's Board report in the middle of April 1911 to be CONSIDERED by the club's board for APPROVAL.





 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Thanks for sharing that.

Indeed it is a beautiful thing.

If there's a lesson here, one can't make the exact same terminology serve two separate, conflicting masters without getting caught in a web of obvious inconsistencies.

I know...I've fallen into the same trap at times..

[TEPaul]

Phil:

Thanks for your post of this morning.

A couple of things about your post: Just one for now;

1. I do not agree with your interpretation of what Findlay meant when he mentioned "others" in the context of Macdonald holes in the referenced article. I think Findlay was referring to "other holes" and probably template holes from abroad that Macdonald had done at that point (June 1912) that were really great. Frankly, that would pretty much mean, given the timeline of Macdonald's career, the template holes at NGLA) which I think a lot of people, at that point, certainly did thing were really great.

Of course, had Findlay actually said in that article "Other really great holes by Macdonald at MERION" then that would be clear as a bell as to what he was referring to about Macdonald and "Others" (holes). But Findlay did not say Merion and I don't think any amount of parsing grammar or whatever on here will ever prove what he was referring to.

Basically we are all just left with our own opinions on what he may've meant. My opinion, is further affected and influenced by the fact that Macdonald virtually had no time to design or create "other" holes at Merion unless someone actually thinks he could've done all that in a single day and given the fact that in that single day (April 6, 1911) Wilson and his committee showed Macdonald and Whigam five different plans of their own to consider!

I just bet that very very few who are commenting on something like what Findlay meant to say are even aware of the fact that Macdonald really did only have a single day to do this. Of course we've known this for a long time now because we are very familiar now with the administrative records of the club at that time and the timeline and details of it are very specific.

I do understand that many on here just dismiss or don't pay much attention to things involved in the foregoing and I do understand when they analyze these written events (newspaper articles and such) with very little experience with golf architecture on the ground they sort of fail to consider various things that are pretty obvious, pretty telling to what probably happened.

For instance,iIf they actually think Macdonald would have or could have done all that in a single day, I think they are totally nuts. People on here need to consider something like that more and consider it better because it really does involve the realm of what is reasonable or even possible.

[TEPaul]

"If there's a lesson here, one can't make the exact same terminology serve two separate, conflicting masters without getting caught in a web of obvious inconsistencies."


Mike:

That is the ticket---it truly is. And it's most certainly not just terminology, it is actual real life, real time events that took place in provable sequences. That reveals so much about how things happened who did them etc, etc that many have never previously realized----the truth actually, which can become undeniable.

Here's a rock solid perfect example of what I mean----what really good "timelining" can do and prove, and can finally clear up what many, many people for many years never realized.

Take Pine Valley. Very few were ever aware of what Crump may've done or Colt may've done at any particular time. Apparently no one bothered to consider what Tillinghast wrote in detail about what he saw of the holes that were fairly fully developed by Crump BEFORE Colt ever arrived at PV the first time (in other words no one ever considered the actual TIME of Colt's first arrival against descriptions of the course PREVIOUS to that particular Timeline event). Obviously that undeniably proves Crump developed and created those holes or at least that Colt couldn't have!

See what I mean about the beauty of really good "multi-event timelining" and what it can reveal? In that example all I can say is thank God for Tillie and his decades long comprehensive and descriptive architectural writing, particularly back in the early years of PV's creation. Of course it goes without saying that what Tillie described in detail about those holes before Colt ever got there is that his descriptions of the holes are basically the same way the holes are today (the far end of the "Timeline!" 

[Mike_Cirba]

I think it would be interesting to know how many Alps holes existed in the US by June 1912 and how many Macdonald was responsible for.

If I understand the tinelines correctly, you likely had NGLA, Piping Rock, and Sleepy Hollow all in various forms of opening, and the 1905 NY Sun article on Mac and his "ideal holes" mentioned that he was involved in "friendly advisor" at every new big course that was built in the east at that time,

We also know his fascination with ideal holes abroad and copying them here went back a ways before then.

Given Findlay was credited woth playing over 2000 courses in his life, I'd be curious to know how many Alps holes Findlay thought Mac was responsible for in the US by mid 1912.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I don't really know how many Macdonald's "Alps" holes were in existence at the time of Findlay's article or even if they were somewhat if Findlay was aware of them or if they were developed enough for Findlay to refer to them as really great. For the latter reason I would tend to throw out Piping and Sleepy Hollow because neither had opened for play in 1912. That is why I think Findlay meant Macdonald's template holes at NGLA probably including his "Alps."

One also certainly wonders why if Findlay was referring to "Others" as holes at Merion that were really great perhaps including the other two so-called Template holes at Merion (#3 and #15) then why in the world had Macdonald been so light on developing the Alps hole at Merion?? 

That doesn't make much sense to me and that's just another reason I don't believe Findlay was referring to those "Others" as any holes at Merion.

To completely shift gears here, and I preface it all by completely admitting it is total speculation on my part and just a vague opinion, but it seems to me Macdonald, certainly early on, was pretty fond of and prone to holes that either played over roads or had roads around them somehow (many of the Macdonald courses I know sure do that or did).

It occurs to me that if Macdonald had any influence on the routing and design of any holes at Merion (with his advice and help) that he may've suggested or encouraged Wilson to use those holes that routed over Ardmore Ave, including the original #10 (Alps) and #11 and #12 and Macdonald sure did notice that three acres behind the clubhouse both in June 1910 and April 1911 and suggested it's use to the club, apparently twice (at least it is so written).

If all that is in any way true, I think it would be pretty ironic to this kind of subject (Macdonald's influence on Merion) that all those holes are gone now and none of them lasted much more than a decade anyway.

One also wonders how well Macdonald actually knew Wilson. I have a feeling for some obvious reasons that he knew Lloyd, Griscom and Lesley better (for that the Lesley Cup would probably be key).

The reason I mention it is I have a letter from Macdonald to Wilson in June 1911 and he addresses Hugh as "Mr. Wilson". Doesn't sound very "familiar" does it?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Wilson and Mac played in team matches between Philly and NY some years prior.  I'm not home but I'll post the article again tomorrow.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

Thanks for the welcome, and for the voice of reason.

The first "fact" is this statement:

"See your post in this very thread where you claim that you guys have had this Barker article for years, but kept it hidden because you were worried about how others would react..."

I know for a FACT that this isn't true.

Actually Phil, I believe my statement is true.   TEPaul did claim that he and Wayne had that document for years, and kept it hidden because of the possible reaction of others.   He made the claim in a few different posts.  TEPaul then suddenly changed his tune, I assume because Wayne ordered him to.  Which of TEPaul's two versions is the fib?  Personally, I don't know or care.  Either way, TEPaul has an unfortunate and recurring veracity problem when it comes to dealing with the source material, and the double talk and manipulation of the source material severely damages the process.

This article was first found just PRIOR to the GCA holiday gathering enjoyed by many at the Tom Paul barn. I know this because the PERSON WHO SHOWED IT TO TOM & WAYNE shared it with me at that time. I asked if he had shown it to TOM & WAYNE and he replied that he had JUST DONE SO  a FEW DAYS before. I STRONGLY recommended that he post it on GCA despite the fact that I was certain that it would be VERY controversial. He made the decision, at that time, not to do so because he wanted to give careful consideration as to WHEN might be the right time to do so. I know this person well and can COMPLETELY vouch for his integrity in this matter.

Thanks for posting what happened, I figured that there was more a back story that Mike had indicated.  It seems that everyone involved was well aware of the potential significance of the document, which again begs the question why those who found it were sitting on it.   What were they waiting for?  Certain of us to die of old age?

I don't know who showed you the document, but Mike Cirba claims he is the one who found it, and that he was the only one with a copy and that there were no digital copies of it.  Yet I really doubt it was Mike who showed you the document, based on your statement above:
--  By your description its sounds like there was quite a discussion and quite a few people who had seen the article.  In contrast, Mike says that once he and Joe decided was unimportant and uncorroborated, he didnt think much of it. 
-- By your description the person who showed you the document apparently knew that it was germane enough that it ought to be posted, eventually at least.   In contrast, Mike claimed that because it did not meet his standards of corroboration, he gave it no credence and that he didn't think much of it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt your description one bit, but both Mike and TEPaul have told quite different stories, and your description, even though true, does not erase their claims, even if false.

So both Tom & Wayne have only known of this for several months . . .

Not necessarily. You wrote that the person who showed you article also showed it to them last fall.  This has nothing to do with whether or not they had known about it for years. 

Surely the only reason we have the article now is that Joe Bausch wanted no more part in hiding source material, don't you think?. 

___________________

As for your second point; what you see as my personalization of the interpretation of the Findlay article.  That was not my intention, but looking back I can see how you could get that impression.   In my first post I wrote to Henry: "I agree with your common sense reading and frankly find the alternate interpretations to be untenable, at best."  I guess I should have said I agreed with you as well and perhaps with those who emailed me similar views  about this thread before I even started posting.  But to me this is the only "common sense" interpretation.  In this regard, I had no intention of taking credit for figuring it out, but was referring to it as "my" interpretation only to distinguish it from the other interpretations, and not as a statement of ownership or origin. 

Next time I'll try to be more careful with my words.   You certainly did read it similarly or the same and that is worth noting.   In fact, had you kept at it (and I don't blame you for not keeping at it) or had others come forward and backed you up, I probably would have stayed away entirely.    But I've learned a few things by participating, so I guess I am glad I did.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Wilson and Mac played in team matches between Philly and NY some years prior.  I'm not home but I'll post the article again tomorrow."

MikeC:

I know they did but I think maybe only once or twice. I've got the Lesley Cup history book right here. Actually back in their day The Lesley Matches were between GAP and later Pennsylvania against New York and Massachussets. Some years later they added Quebec and its been between those four teams ever since. The Lesley Cup Matches are pretty big (a fair amount of people) and obviously not all of them play together or get to know each other all that well. I've played on the Lesley Cup Matches for about fifteen years now. I'm actually on the Trustees of it as of last year. It's a super fine event and organization----very old world ethos---I love everything about the Lesley Cup. It's been going on for 104 years as of now. Back in the old days the Lesley players from those three and then four regions were definitely the very best amateurs those regions could produce---ie Quimet, Travis, Travers, Marston, Perrin, Crump, Tillie, Macdonald, Whigam etc but in later years the members are more people who have been involved in club or amateur association administrative matters. They've had some USGA presidents and such and some really good Rules people too on the Lesley over the years.

I think Macdonald only played in two of them very early on or maybe I'm thinking of Tillie. I don't think Hugh Wilson was much of a regular on them but I could be wrong about that.

[TEPaul]

Tomorrow or soon I will try to outline in a rather simple syllabus to most all the contributors and viewers on this website how this "Merion Thread Debate" (essentially the Macdonald/whigam or Wilson and committee routing and design dynamic) that has been going on here on GOLFCLUBATLAS for about 4-6 years now due to basically two men ONLY is the biggest waste of time and effort of any architectural issue or architectural question in the history of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com by a factor of at least TEN and likely more! 

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul,

I see you have thrown Merion's privacy concerns completely out the window and are now posting actual portions of their meeting minutes to suit your purposes.   Does Wayne know about this?   Does Merion?

Since Merion's privacy is apparently no longer a concern, don't you think it is about time we got to the bottom of this?  Surely you realize that your claims are meaningless unless and until all of the source material is subject to critical review, not just those portions you that you cherry-pick to support your claims?

Seriously, do you understand the importance of critical review?  If so, why do you think it does not apply to you and Wayne?

I'd appreciate an answer.

Don't get me wrong.  By all means, keep leaking selective snippets to try and make your points.  Did you read above where I wrote that your claims and your selective use the documents are a great contrary indicator?   Well, thanks for your recent posts, they are very helpful.

_____________________

I think it would be interesting to know how many Alps holes existed in the US by June 1912 and how many Macdonald was responsible for.

If I understand the tinelines correctly, you likely had NGLA, Piping Rock, and Sleepy Hollow all in various forms of opening, and the 1905 NY Sun article on Mac and his "ideal holes" mentioned that he was involved in "friendly advisor" at every new big course that was built in the east at that time,

We also know his fascination with ideal holes abroad and copying them here went back a ways before then.

Given Findlay was credited woth playing over 2000 courses in his life, I'd be curious to know how many Alps holes Findlay thought Mac was responsible for in the US by mid 1912.

____________________________

Mike,

I think you should check your facts underlying your timeline of CBM's Alps holes, as well as your unsupported speculation about the possibility of numerous CBM courses and holes up and down the coast.  My, your tune has changed on CBM's early productivity.

Honest questions: 

1.  Does what others and I have called the common sense interpretation of the Findlay article (the interpretation shared by me and others) have any merit whatsoever?

2.  If not then, looking at what Findlay wrote, why not?    (Where is our mistake?  What have we missed?   What doesn't make sense?)

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
I see you have thrown Merion's privacy concerns completely out the window and are now posting actual portions of their meeting minutes to suit your purposes.   Does Wayne know about this?   Does Merion?"


Did I? Oh Shit, I guess I must have had a moment of "lazy-mindedness!!! Well maybe they will kill me for it. 

On the other hand, now you have something you've been demanding and brow-beating some of us here in Philadephia for endlessly, so aren't you kind of at least a little pleased?   

Or is it a fib?

Or is it just a shell game, David Moriarty? 

"Let's see, where is that pea; is it under the first shell or the second or the third?"

Personally, I think your fifteen minutes in the sun on your preposterous Merion architect scam has lasted longer than that which means far too long! 

[TEPaul]

"Well, thanks for your recent posts, they are very helpful."

No problem, Sceebo, make the most of it, but try not to let it go all in some giddy rush to your head, because that has been proven to be a pretty serious void when it comes to the history of Merion!

[DMoriarty]

The article is completely unsupported and not worth being used for toilet tissue, except as muckraking this whole non-issue once again.

David,

Do you not see the irony and inconsistency of dismissing the scores of articles and personal accounts stating that Wilson "laid out" Merion as being exclusive of routing the course and conceiving the holes - in fact, you claim that wording makes him a day laborer to ABW's (anybody but Wilson) plans, yet cling to a single obviously erroneous account of Barker "lay out" and a single account of Findlay stating the MAcdonald "laid out others" as solid design gold.

Despite the tone, sarcasm, and absolutely absurd depiction of my position, there may be a legitimate question in here somewhere and I will attempt to answer it without rehashing too much. 

We've covered this before at length but the phrase "to lay out" is very problematic for all sides because it is used different ways in different circumstances by different people, and not at all consistently.  I've looked at the accounts of the creation of many dozens of courses and will continue to do so, , but at this time I believe that my understanding as set out in the essay is generally accurate.   However, if one looks hard enough one can find the phrase applying to almost anything (except for maybe trip itineraries.)  There is enough variance of use that I will probably take another shot at this section in my essay to clarify, that is if I am ever given a chance to update the essay with more current and accurate information.   

That being said, while routing and conceiving of the holes was sometimes included in the meaning of "to lay out," it was often not included.   And many of the other aspects of creating a golf course were often included, with or without the sometimes independent act of planning.  For example, sometimes the phrase meant to stake out on the ground, sometimes it meant to construct, sometimes it meant to set out the hazards.   Sometimes it is some or all of the above. Occasionally, it apparently meant plan, and little else.

So how do I know what they meant in the case of Merion?   I look at how and when the term is used, and by whom, and I try to figure out what makes the most sense, realizing that I may have to modify my understanding as I learn more.  I also try to imagine what the articles would say if Wilson (and Committee) routed the course and planned the hole concepts (as compared to other articles about other designers and courses.  But mostly I try to figure out what makes sense in the context, and what the phrase might mean versus what it cannot mean, versus what it necessarily means given that context

 For example, I take Robert Lesley's detailed description much more seriously than I would take statement by some  anonymous reporter obviously cribbing off another article.  In fact, Lesley's may be the second (to HW's) best and most detailed account, and one of the only ones of someone involved that described Wilson as having "laid out" anything.   But Lesley wrote something like that Wilson (and the committee) laid out the course upon the ground based upon the advice of CBM and Wilson.   I take him to mean exactly what he wrote.

Or take Alan Wilson's description to which you guys always return.   AW writes that M&W were involved in the design process and only gives HW credit for that which M&W did not do!   How you guys read this as necessarily meaning that Wilson was the initial designer is beyond me, especially given that the praise of Wilson is based upon much more than the initial design, and AW explicitly exempts what A&W did!   Sure, he wrote that HW deserves more credit that the rest of the Committee, but that is not the issue at all.

Or take the 1913 letter about the thank you dinner for HW.   Are they crediting him for the initial routing and hole concepts, or for all the work he undoubtedly had done throughout the entire process, including what had been done by then on the second course?  If you think both then what is your basis?   There is nothing indicating the former, but plenty indicating the latter.  The phrase makes perfect sense whether he routed and came up with the hole concepts or not.   And would a member who loves the new course even know about M&W's involvement? Especially given how little time you guys claim they actually spent at Merion?   Seems hardly likely.

As for Findlay, for the reasons set out above by me and others,  I cannot come up with any other reasonable understanding of the the usage other than that CBM planned other holes at Merion and they turned out great.  If he had used another term or clarified, then that would have been great, but absent any other plausible explanation (none have been offered IMO) I will stick with what is simplest, most obvious, and most grammatically and logically correct.

 It isn't a perfect system, but it is good enough to figure quite a bit out, one one comes at this with an open mind. 

________________________

TEPaul,

Sceebo?   Is that another one of your friendly Quaker terms? 


As for what you revealed from the minutes, it is old news.   You've blurted it out many times before, just not in direct quotes.   

What I really learned is is that your latest version of the story has more holes than both Merion courses and the practice greens, combined.   

But by all means, keep typing.  You must have more beans to spill. 

[TEPaul]

"But by all means, keep typing."


I'm quite sure I probably will as watching your self-centered clownish histrionics on the subject of Merion and some of us in Philadelphia frankly gets more entertaining as time goes on.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Imagine the shoe is on the other foot.  Imagine that the Nov. 24, 1910 article said that Wilson had been appointed to design the course, and I  sat on the article because it was uncorroborated, contained some other inaccuracies, and because it was inconsistent with everything we know thus far.    You would come out of your skin!   

It is the same thing I have been telling Wayne and TEPaul for years:   It is not up to you guys to decide for the rest of us whether or not source material is accurate or important or corroborated.   

Of course the other article about the opening is germane.   In fact I think I cited it in my Essay.  But it is neither new nor all that promising a resource.  If you read it carefully you'll notice that it borrows heavily (but not necessarily accurately) from Findlay's articles.

If you want to argue that: "The course is 6245 yards long as mapped out by [the Committee]" means that the Committee is responsible for choosing the routing and the hole concepts, be my guest.   It is not worth my time to counter.

David,

Could you please show us exactly where in your essay you mention about a Philadelphia News Article in Alex Findlay's paper where a Merion Opening Day report says the Merion East course was "Mapped Out" by Hugh Wilson and Committee?

Yet, you claim you knew of this article all along?? 

Are you now telling us that "Mapped Out" means the same as "Laid Out", which you've previously contended means "Constructed on the ground to someone else's plans" when applied to Hugh Wilson and Committee, yet means "Planned and Routed" when applied to anyone and everyone else but Hugh Wilson and Committee??

Did you think that perhaps some other folks here might have a different interpretation of what "Mapped Out" meant when applied to a brand new golf course and decided for yourself that those folks might not have your incredible prescient insight and didn't deserve to read for themselves and make up their own minds?

Please save your hypocritical "sandbagging" criticisms for someone else.  You've clearly just admitted to that and worse.

The Barker article is not worthy of toilet paper and you know it.   There is no record of Barker ever coming back to Merion after his single day there in June 1910 and you know THAT as well.   This is a red herring and it's not worth publishing here.   

On the other hand, if you had this opening day article mentioning Hugh Wilson and Committee "mapping out" the Merion East course and hid it from all of us all this time, and never even thought it worthy to mention in your article, then we don't have anything left to discuss because intellectual honesty has left the building out the left coast.

[David Stamm]

Mike, forgive me if this has been covered before, trying to follow the massive amounts posts that have been dedicated to Merion has been impossible for me, but what is the date of the above article you just posted?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I simply want to say before this goes much further that we've had a very contentious debate, and if you found some of my joking insulting, then I sincerely apologize.

I had hoped to keep a lighter tone to this discussion than previous go-rounds, and hoped perhaps you'd respond in similarly jovial tone and spirit.

In any case, perhaps too much water has flowed under that bridge, but I remain optimistic that we will meet on other threads and discuss other matters much less conflicted in much more of a cooperative or at least a conversational and collaborative atmosphere.

I continue to strenuously defend my understanding of the early history of Merion and Hugh Wilson and Committee's role until such time as I see definitive proof to the contrary.

I admit that you've been in a difficult position, because you have not had the privilege of seeing in person some of the original MCC minutes, and I've tried to tell you for some time now that many of your interpretations fly in the face of those first-hand accounts, hoping that perhaps we'd meet cooperatviely somewhere between our polar opposites, recognizing that while your research has made some valuable contributions, such as the discovery of the 1912 Wilson Trip, as well as helpfully clarifying Macdonald's role, the attempt to diminish Hugh Wilson's original creative contributions  in the process has not only been historically incorrect, but also unnecessary.

What you and Tom MacWood fail to recognize is that Hugh Wilson was indeed a PRODIGY, and a VIRTUOSO.

In your attempts to bring clarity to early golf course architecture by trying to link everything that took place to some previous experienced source(s), the thing you're both missing is that in-explainable spark of creative and original genius that populates the history of every art form.

Every great original artist takes what came before him, and steals the best ideas but then moves that art into new and creative, and bold original directions.

THAT is what Hugh Wilson did.

Unfortunately, history also shows that many of these great creative geniuses also burn out early and die young, and that also sadly was the case with Hugh Wilson.

Your research is well-meaning, David, and I greatly respect that.   Digging though this stuff is never easy, and it's also sometimes difficult to keep any single individual findings in greater historical perspective.

But where I think you and Tom MacWood's conclusions ultimately come up short is that you both seem to have such a narrow and predisposed view of what you're looking for, and as such, the idea that someone without Macdonald's extensive background and experience could take his brilliant ideas and move them a generation forward in a single, short burst is just utterlly incomprehensible to both of you.   Ironically, the sad fact is that both of you are both old enough and young enough to have watched The Beatles, Cassius Clay, Tiger Woods, Pete Dye, John Kennedy, Keith Haring, Kurt Warner, Bill Gates, Michael Jordan, and probably 100 other revolutionaries in other artistic fields and by now should probably know much better.

I simply don't believe either of you are giving those who came before us enough credit for revolutionary thinking of their own..

David Stamm,

The article I just posted was from the day after Merion East opened in September 1912, and David just now told us that he had this article all along, but saw nothing new, original, or important about it.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Could you please show us exactly where in your essay you mention about a Philadelphia News Article in Alex Findlay's paper where a Merion Opening Day report says the Merion East course was "Mapped Out" by Hugh Wilson and Committee?

Yet, you claim you knew of this article all along?? 

Are you now telling us that "Mapped Out" means the same as "Laid Out", which you've previously contended means "Constructed on the ground to someone else's plans" when applied to Hugh Wilson and Committee, yet means "Planned and Routed" when applied to anyone and everyone else but Hugh Wilson and Committee??

Did you think that perhaps some other folks here might have a different interpretation of what "Mapped Out" meant when applied to a brand new golf course and decided for yourself that those folks might not have your incredible prescient insight and didn't deserve to read for themselves and make up their own minds?

Please save your hypocritical "sandbagging" criticisms for someone else.  You've clearly just admitted to that and worse.

The Barker article is not worthy of toilet paper and you know it.   There is no record of Barker ever coming back to Merion after his single day there in June 1910 and you know THAT as well.   This is a red herring and it's not worth publishing here.   

On the other hand, if you had this opening day article mentioning Hugh Wilson and Committee "mapping out" the Merion East course and hid it from all of us all this time, and never even thought it worthy to mention in your article, then we don't have anything left to discuss because intellectual honesty has left the building out the left coast.

David,

I simply want to say before this goes much further that we've had a very contentious debate, and if you found some of my joking insulting, then I sincerely apologize.

I had hoped to keep a lighter tone to this discussion than previous go-rounds, and hoped perhaps you'd respond in tone and spirit.

In any case, perhaps too much water has flowed under that bridge, but I remain optimistic that we will meet on other threads and discuss other matters much less conflicted in much more of a cooperative or at least a conversational and collaborative atmosphere.

I continue to strenuously defend my understanding of the early history of Merion and Hugh Wilson and Committee's role until such time as I see proof to the contrary.

I admit that you've been in a difficult position, because you have not had the privilege of seeing in person some of the original MCC minutes, and I've tried to tell you that some of your interpretations fly in the face of those first-hand accounts, hoping that perhaps we'd meet somewhere between our polar opposites, recognizing that while your research has made some valuable contributions, such as the discovery of the 1912 Wilson Trip, as well as helpfully clarifying Macdonald's role, the attempt to diminish Hugh Wilson's original creative contributions  in the process has been historically incorrect, but also unnecessary.

What you and Tom MacWood fail to recognize is that Hugh Wilson was indeed a PRODIGY, and a virtuoso.

In your attempts to bring clarity to early golf course architecture by trying to link everything to some previous experienced source(s), the thing you're both missing is that spark of creative and original genius that populates the history of every art form.

Every great original artist takes what came before him, and steals the best ideas but then moves the art into new and creative and original directions.

THAT is what Hugh Wilson did.

Unfortunately, history also shows that many of these great creative geniuses also burn out early and die young, and that also sadly was the case with Hugh Wilson.

Your research is well-meaning, David, and I respect that.

But where it ultimately comes up short is because you have a narrow and predisposed view of what you're looking for, and as such, the idea that someone without Macdonald's background and expericence could take his ideas and move them a generation forward in a single, short burst is incomprehensible to you and Tom MacWood, and the sad fact is that both of you are both old enough and young enough to have watched The Beatles, Cassius Clay, Tiger Woods, Pete Dye, John Kennedy, Keith Haring, Bill Gates, and probably 100 other revolutionaries in other artistic fields and by now should probably know much better.

You're not giving those who came before us enough credit for revolutionary thinking of their own..

Wow.  Not sure what is rushing through your veins, but you are on a roll!

Your argument is that Wilson was simply a PRODIGY and a virtuoso and a true genius???   

But I am the one with a narrow and predisposed view of what I'm looking for? 

Come on Mike.  Wilson was great, not only for Merion East and Merion, but also for American golf.  But let's be honest.  I've seen Merion West and I've seen Cobb's Creek, and while they are both good they fall well short of genius or virtuoso.  Seaview was nowhere near genius, either, from what I can figure from the record.  So if you ever abandon your blind adulation you and others might want to consider what might really happened at the beginning of Merion East to lay the foundation for such a great course.  There was plenty of design genius to go around at the beginning, but I don't think at that point that any of it was Wilson's. 

As for the meeting minutes, they don't mean nearly what you think they mean.  I am sure of it.   

Anyway, I'll continue to stick to the facts, you go ahead and worship whoever you wish. 

In the mean time, you might try getting some sleep.
___________________________

David Stamm,

The article I just posted was from the day after Merion East opened, and David had told us that he had this article all along, but saw nothing new, original, or important about it.

David, you'll have to forgive Mike.  He has obviously gotten himself all wound up and mixed up.  Unfortunately, he has his facts all wrong.  Again. 

I had the article, but I did not hide the article, and that is the key distinction.

Mike,
Surely you understand that we are all free to think what we want about source material? The problem comes when we start hiding and/or lying about the source material because we are afraid of what others might think. You do understand this, don't you?

I said I thought I discussed the article in my essay but it was actually in my posts around the same time.   I'll let you figure out when and where. 

More importantly, there was no sandbagging whatsoever.  To the contrary, I readily and repeatedly disclosed the document to anyone interested. Plus, if it is the article I am thinking of then it is one of those articles from the Sayres scrapbook!
-- I disclosed all of those documents to Wayne and provided him copies of  any he wanted.
-- Wayne had access to and presumably copied the same documents at the PA Historical Archives.
-- You told me that you had access to Wayne's Sayres documents,  and are quite a bit closer to the originals than I am.  If you don't recall the document you should take another look. 
-- I also recall providing Joe Bausch with the citations (as best I could) of every one of these articles from the Sayres books.  Have him check his notes.   

So Mike, your allegation is way off base.  I was open with the document as I could be. 

What is this, the sixth or seventh time you have flown off the handle at me with some absurd allegation?  You really ought to get your facts straight.     It is getting pathetic.

[Mike_Cirba]

Phew...David.   Thanks for finally coming clean.

After billions of words, we finally get to your main point all along.

Merion East is too good to have been designed by Hugh Wilson.


But let's be honest.  I've seen Merion West and I've seen Cobb's Creek, and while they are both good they fall well short of genius or virtuoso.  Seaview was nowhere near genius, either, from what I can figure from the record.  So if you ever abandon your blind adulation you and others might want to consider what might really happened at the beginning of Merion East to lay the foundation for such a great course.  There was plenty of design genius to go around at the beginning, but I don't think at that point that any of it was Wilson's. 


Man...I bet that felt good!   

Also,

The article in question that states that Hugh Wilson and the Committee "Mapped out" Merion East...

Well...

Nobody here had that article until Joe Bausch found it last week.

Nobody else had it all of this time..

except you.   

Are you sure this is your final answer??

David, you'll have to forgive Mike.  He has obviously gotten himself all wound up and mixed up.  Unfortunately, he has his facts all wrong.  Again. 

I had the article, but I did not hide the article, and that is the key distinction.

Mike,
Surely you understand that we are all free to think what we want about source material? The problem comes when we start hiding and/or lying about the source material because we are afraid of what others might think. You do understand this, don't you?

I said I thought I discussed the article in my essay but it was actually in my posts around the same time.   I'll let you figure out when and where. 

More importantly, there was no sandbagging whatsoever.  To the contrary, I readily and repeatedly disclosed the document to anyone interested. Plus, if it is the article I am thinking of then it is one of those articles from the Sayres scrapbook!
-- I disclosed all of those documents to Wayne and provided him copies of  any he wanted.
-- Wayne had access to and presumably copied the same documents at the PA Historical Archives.
-- You told me that you had access to Wayne's Sayres documents,  and are quite a bit closer to the originals than I am.  If you don't recall the document you should take another look. 
-- I also recall providing Joe Bausch with the citations (as best I could) of every one of these articles from the Sayres books.  Have him check his notes.   

So Mike, your allegation is way off base.  I was open with the document as I could be. 

What is this, the sixth or seventh time you have flown off the handle at me with some absurd allegation?  You really ought to get your facts straight.     It is getting pathetic.


Not sure what was in my veins last night, but it must have been the good stuff if I was able to draw out those revelations from you. 

Now perhaps we can all finally move on.

[TEPaul]

“After billions of words, we finally get to your main point all along.
Merion East is too good to have been designed by Hugh Wilson.”


Mike C:

On these so-called Merion/Macdonald threads that have been on this website for about six years now there has been so much overarching mincing of words and argument over what they mean exactly, it’s probably necessary to get David Moriarty’s remarks just above completely exact, at this point.


This is precisely what he said that you paraphrased above:

“So if you ever abandon your blind adulation you and others might want to consider what might really happened at the beginning of Merion East to lay the foundation for such a great course.  There was plenty of design genius to go around at the beginning, but I don't think at that point that any of it was Wilson's.”




I feel particularly his last sentence is the very idea and question that has been driving both Tom MacWood’s and David Moriarty’s continuous mission to expose that the architectural history of Merion as it involves Hugh Wilson (and/or C.B. Macdonald) is flawed and historically inaccurate.

Below is some more of what David Moriarty said recently on this particular thread and it’s of no real difference than what Tom MacWood said (and asked) back in 2003 on a thread he started that I feel strongly started all this endless debate about Merion and WHAT Macdonald's and Wilson’s (or anyone else's for that matter) EXACT ROLL was in the architectural creation of the East course. I think it would be instructive to bring Tom MacWoods 2003 thread back up so we could all see how remarkably similar what he said and what he asked is to what David Moriarty said again on this thread in the last few days. I think MacWood’s thread was entitled “Re: Macdonald and Merion?”  At one point MacWood posted another thread that was around the one above that was about how various clubs tended to idolize or iconize their designers and therefore somehow skew the truth of what they actually did. There is no question in my mind that MacWood felt this way about Pine Valley and Crump and apparently he felt the same way about Hugh Wilson and Merion. It seems he even kept that string going with his questions and contentions about Leeds and Myopia. At some point following MacWood's 2003 thread about Macdonald and Merion, David Moriarty essentially joined him in his cause and with his essential question-----eg who did what exactly and perhaps hole by hole to conceive of the routing and hole designs of Merion East?

It is of course eternally fascinating to me why those two guys, particularly Tom MacWood (because his interest in this essential question was more than just with Merion), have never thought to post threads to ask the very same thing about Charles Blair Macdonald himself-----eg what part did he play EXACTLY and what part EXACTLY did others play in the architectural concepts and designs of the holes and courses that are attributed to him!! 


Here is what Moriarty said recently on this thread that is very similar to what MacWood said back in 2003:


“I'd be glad to answer this and any other questions but not before I see the source material. I have yet to read a single contemporary account that says that Wilson planned the routing and  conceived of the holes.  Surely you understand why I won't take your word for it that such documentation exists.”


“We covered this in great detail many times in the past, and I am not here to rehash old arguments.  In short, the members said he worked hard in laying out and constructing the course, and that of the Committee, he deserves the most credit.  Similar to what Alan Wilson said years later (maybe this letter was Wilson's source.)  I don't disagree with any of it.  But it says nothing about who conceived of and chose the routing, or who conceived of the hole concepts.”   




Let’s consider again the essence of what they (MacWood and Moriarty) are asking (Moriarty can of course confirm it or deny it or add or subtract from it or amend it however he would like since it surely is his feelings about this course and its architects we are concerned with on these threads and these debates).

I will supply how we have tried to answer their real and primary question and I believe I will also uncover and exemplify the total futility of their essential question as well as the total futility of ever being able to supply exact answers to it. I think this is the very point of where these years long thread on this subject have gone and will continue to go, and why they will continue to get hung up in futility with no available answer. In fact, there simply are no answers available to us to the specific question they are asking about Merion. There never have been and consequently there never will be.

All we ever had available to us and I'm quite sure all we ever will have available to us and all we have ever presented and claimed was a long litany of reports and descriptions and attributions that in the creation of Merion East Hugh Wilson, the Chairman of the Committee that included four other fellow members that was charged by MCC to design and build the East and West course and who consulted Macdonald/Whigam and received some help and advice from them on the East course, was in the main the man responsible for Merion East and West.

Frankly, it is pretty unthinkable to me, not to even mention extremely illogical to me that literally scores of people at the time of the creation of Merion East would all get together and agree on some conspiratorial lie about what Wilson did and was responsible for. Why would any of them want to do such a thing back then or even think to do such a thing? What in the world would their reasoning be?? Did they dislike Macdonald for some reason? Did they have something against him? If they did there is not a vestige of evidence of it. There never has been as far as I can see. Quite the opposite in fact!

To me these are the essential questions that sort of conspiracy theorists like MacWood and Moriarty that involve the recorded histories of famous clubs and courses need to begin to ask themselves!

I said to MacWood on that thread back in 2003 that we did not have some specific list of who was responsible for conceiving of specific hole by hole design ideas and concepts and specific hole features and characterstics because that kind of thing was never recorded by anyone anywhere; on these kind of courses and projects, particularly from those days, something like that never was recorded. I doubt it has ever really been recorded like that on any golf course at any time! I’ve said that throughout these years long threads and debates, and I’m saying it again to Moriarty now.

[DMoriarty]

Mike.   You are way out of line once again, and have a lot of nerve to accuse me of sandbagging with the very documents I handed to you guys on a silver platter.   

For the last time Mike,  the article I have came from the Sayres scrapbooks, and you guys have a heck of a lot better access to those documents than me.  In fact you told me that you did.   

You may want to remember that I not only found those documents from 3000 miles away, I brought their contents to light and pointed all of you to them, encouraging you guys take a careful look (something I was unable to do from the West Coast.)  I also sent copies of my stuff to Wayne, who had assured me that he would return the favor by sending me any copies I had not been able to obtain long distance.   Not being a man of his word, Wayne refused to send me anything after he got what he wanted from me.

Now you accuse me of playing games with the very same documents?   I won't read the documents for you Mike, or fly out and make you copies.  It is not my fault if you had it all along but still missed it.   So get off your high horse.  Again.

_______________________________________________

TEPaul and Mike Cirba.

Can you believe it??  I dare write that I don't think Hugh Wilson was a design genius, at least when it came to routing a course and planning the hole concepts.  And I am not even begging forgiveness for my blasphemy. 

I will write it again, only louder so everyone hears. 

I DON'T THINK THAT HUGH WILSON WAS A GENIUS WHEN IT CAME TO ROUTING A COURSE AND PLANNING THE HOLE CONCEPTS.

You guys really think this explains everything?  And that this means that I think "Merion East is too good to have been designed by Hugh Wilson?"  And that this belief has been driving me (and TM!) since 2003?

Hate to break this to you guys, but you've got it completely backwards.

I don't believe Hugh Wilson was a design genius because the facts as I know them do not justify the belief that Hugh Wilson was a design genius.    Simple as that. 

Yet you guys summarily dismiss and discount all my research, interpretation, explanation, and efforts because I have admitted I am a non-believer.   

Interesting.  You guys treat a deeply held belief in Wilson's genius as a prerequisite for understanding Merion East.    This speaks volumes  about your approach, rather than mine. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

That article was not in any Sayres Scrapbook photos any of us have seen.

In fact, until Joe Bausch found it on microfiche last week, none of us had ever seen it.

If you have a copy or photo from the scrapbook, could you post it here so that we can read the headline?

I would think the original Sayres copy is much more readable than the one Joe found and posted from fiche.

What about the article again did you find non-newsworthy about an opening day article in a Philadelphia newspaper  claiming that Hugh Wilson and committee "mapped out" the East course at Merion?




Are you certain you aren't thinking about this article that IS in the Sayres Scrapbook?   

[TEPaul]

"I DON'T THINK THAT HUGH WILSON WAS A GENIUS WHEN IT CAME TO ROUTING A COURSE AND PLANNING THE HOLE CONCEPTS."


David Moriarty;

You don't think Hugh Wilson was a genius? So what? I'm not sure I'd say Wilson was a genius but he was the one who chaired the committee from MCC that routed and designed Merion East (even if it took app. 20+ years to complete) and he is rightfully considered the course's architect along with William Flynn who did so much architectural work on the course from about 1915 on to the date Merion expert Bill Kittleman figures the course was finally finished in the early 1930s.



"Yet you guys summarily dismiss and discount all my research, interpretation, explanation, and efforts because I have admitted I am a non-believer."



Not because you are a non-believer in Hugh Wilson; for me that has nothing to do with anything, but because your research, interpretation and explanation, if you are talking about your threads and posts on here about Merion and your essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" completely sucks.

You presented just about zero material research that explained or even implied Macdonald/Whigam or Barker actually routed and designed Merion East. And when presented with reams of research material from numerous sources from both within and without Merion on who actually did route and design the golf course you discounted or dismissed every bit of it.

It was all the most tortured logic and tortured written presentation imaginable in any attempt to fit Merion's history into some preconceived bullshit conclusion of what Macdonald/Whigam and HH Barker must have done and when, and what Wilson was incapable of doing! 

If any analyst or historian approaches a subject like that one as you did with a patently preconceived conclusion the collected history of a subject like that one will inevitably catch you up and Merion's did that. 

[DMoriarty]

As I said above I haven't checked my files, but if that second one is from the Sayres documents, then it must be the one I have.   They both appear to have been copied from the same Findlay article, or one was copied from the Findlay article then the other copied from the copy. 

What about the article again did you find non-newsworthy about an opening day article in a Philadelphia newspaper  claiming that Hugh Wilson and committee "mapped out" the East course at Merion?

I found it "not newsworthy?"  What are you talking about?   Perhaps in your zeal of last night you got yourself confused.  Here is what I wrote when you asked me about the document:

. . .
2.   Of course the other article about the opening is germane.   In fact I think I cited it in my Essay.  But it is neither new nor all that promising a resource.  If you read it carefully you'll notice that it borrows heavily (but not necessarily accurately) from Findlay's articles.

3.   If you want to argue that: "The course is 6245 yards long as mapped out by [the Committee]" means that the Committee is responsible for choosing the routing and the hole concepts, be my guest.   It is not worth my time to counter.
. . . 

Do you see where I wrote that the article is "germane?"  So we have no more confusion, that means that I think the article is closely related to topic we are discussing.   

You seem to think that if I don't rely on article then I don't consider it germane to the topic at hand.   This is a mistake.  You are confusing the question of the article's relevance, on the one hand, with questions of credibility, persuasiveness, corroberation, etc., on the other. 

So again, the article is germane  to the topic at hand.   I just don't think it makes the case you think it makes.  And it is of little value or importance to me for the reason noted above, but as I wrote, by all means knock yourself out with it for any purposes you like.     

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()