Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson / AWT chats with CBM

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

Your thought that, "If the original #10 was intended to be blind it would certainly have been a silly hole. Forcing a blind uphill shot over a public road is lousy design..." certainly makes a GREAT deal of sense today, but from before the teens and into the twenties it not only worked, but it happened more often than many realize.

For example, in the early 1920's Tilly designed a golf course on the private estate of movie mogul Adolph Zukor. The 1st hole is a long par-4 whose 2nd shot is played to a very blind green green that sits atop a hillside some 40-50 feet above the fairway. The road that the shot MUST be played over was almost solely used by Zukor at that time and rarely by any in the village. Today, this is a VERY active road that STILL must be played over, not once, but twice, as the 17th hole is downhill par-4. The local rule at the Dellwood CC, a private club that enjoys the use of the course, forbids anyone from hitting either driver or any other club that might possibly allow the ball to reach the road. Only a carefully watched second shot may be played over it.

Remember, in the 30 years of golf course growth from the early 1890's to the early 1920's, public and private roads impacted MANY golf course designs with shots being played over them considered a normal aspect of design. If you have any doubts simply go to the AAU site and peruse through early issues of GOLF & The American Golfer and you will see many examples of course designs with roads in them...

[DMoriarty]

Both Mike Cirba and TEPaul used to agree that the hole was blind.  Why the change of heart?   The source material has not changed.   In fact we now have more information indicating that the green was sunken and that the hole played almost identically to the second shot at Prestwick (Findlay's later article.)   

Why is it suddenly so important to claim that the hole could not have been blind?? 

As for me, it doesn't matter.   Those that were there thought it was an Alps hole.  Those there thought it was a sunken green.  At least some of those who were there thought it was blind.   Far be it for me to tell them they were wrong.  I wasn't there. 

But for fun, here is a guess of what is going on. Not really a guess, because TEPaul outlined this a week or two ago.   As it becomes more and more apparent that CBM was responsible for the hole concepts and placement at Merion, they will retreat and retrench once again, this time claiming that CBM was only responsible for things they do not like at Merion (namely this hole and the road crossings) yet they will try to deny his involvement in anything else.    Don't believe me?  Just watch, it has already started. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

No way that mound behind ten was built to protect golfers from errant first tee shots...

...that is unless golfers of that era could hit a snap hook about 290 yards and 80 yards offline!

Kyle,

Please see the following from the 1916 US Amateur program.

I believe it was also David who claimed that I was doing a disservice to history by suggesting that it was not only a backdrop to the 10th green but also probably more functionally a containment mound protecting the 10th green.




EDIT*** David, just saw you post.

Please don't think I'll claim that any of the less than good holes of Merion's first iteration are anyone's responsibility but Hugh Wilson and committee.

I already said that they seemed to have some "oops" moments, especially on those holes where they tried too hard to copy some great hole somewhere else.

For instance, NOBODY liked the 15th green, or the original 8th.

We can see for ourselves that the 10th is sort of less than a great hole, under any honest assessment, and although the 3rd is a superb par three, it doesn't play at all like a redan.

Nevertheless, it was Wilson who was responsible for their creation, and he gets the credit where due as well as the blame where appropriate.

[TEPaul]

"1.   You will transcribe the minutes if you think it helps you, yet not this portion.  I wonder why that is?"



David Moriarty:

Help me? What does that mean? All I've ever been after is the truth of Merion's history as reflected by their records and their recorded and reported history continues to prove to be the truth after much additional research on our part. I tend not to discount and rationalize away the things the MCC board, the MCC minutes, the men of Merion, the committees, Hugh Wilson, and certainly including Alan Wilson's report says. That we all leave to people like you and it's pretty disappointing to say the least.


"2.   Scolding me for not obtaining information that you are hiding from me is a bit silly, even for you."


 We didn't even know MCC had these meeting minutes until after your essay came out. You know you should've researched all Merion's history, including these MCC meeting minutes if you were going to write an essay that said the things you did in it, and you know you should've done that BEFORE you put out that essay, not afterwards.  I don't think you are a dumb guy, David Moriarty, more like an extremely clever one who probably felt you could actually convince people who knew something about Merion's history that something else actually happened. The real reasons you tried to do that in the first place is definitely not lost on us here and has been very obvious for a very long time.

To me you are nothing more than someone like a clever student in law school more interested in the techniques of arguing than in the actual factual history of Merion and who in the main did what and when. You can probably half fool some on here who don't know much about the details of Merion's history of that time and probably don't want to take the time to know it all in detail but you can certainly can  never fool us or those at Merion who really do understand the details of Merion's history. And the latter are the ones you're up against here, not these people on this website who don't really know the details of the entire history or how to analyze it. You are up against some people who really know the details of the history, and the timeline of it and up against them you and your essay have failed miserably and will continue to fail miserably unless or until you finally admit to the obvious of the numerous things about that history that we've been trying to explain to you (and MacWood) for years now!  



"3.   Do you have a copy of the report that you say Wilson wrote for Lesley?   If so, on what basis do you claim the report was written by Wilson?"


Good question indeed. I do have the report and it does not say it was written by Wilson and it is not signed by Wilson. It merely says:

            Golf Committee through Mr Lesley, report (sic) as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
            Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground they went down to the National.....

This is all contained within the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting minutes.


Since the wording of the report said 'your committee' and then said 'they' I just assumed that since Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee that the report was written by Wilson's committee who were the only ones with first hand knowledge of what they'd been doing through the winter and spring of 1911 and at NGLA (again Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee and apparently did not go with them to NGLA in early April 1911) and since Wilson was the chairman of the Wilson committee and chairman generally write reports for the committees they chair, I have assumed that Wilson probably wrote the report that was delivered to the board by Lesley, the chairman of the Golf Committee that the Wilson committee apparently worked and operated under. But I don't know that for sure and I admit that another member of the Wilson committee may've actually written the Wilson Committee report although I can't exactly imagine why another would have rather than Wilson himself.

If you haven't figured this out for yourself at this point, Hugh Wilson was clearly a very efficient and organized man in these kinds of things and his app. 1000 agronomy letters makes that very loud and clear!

Have you ever even belonged to a golf club, David Moriarty, and do you even have a modicum of personal experience in things like this with these kinds of private clubs, how they work, how their committees work and function and report and so forth and so on?

No, I didn't think so! 

[mike_malone]

Philip,

   I'm aware of shots over public roads. A blind approach intended as the play for most golfers would be a weakness ,imo, even then. To make it the critical component of its "aplsness" is a bad idea.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I did think that perhaps the hole was blind, especially for a drive not reaching the crest of the hill.

Then, when I saw the top photo I just posted and really studied it, I saw that the surface of the green was actually a bit raised from the land in the foreground of the picture...the natural surrounds.  It only appears sunken because of the huge mound behind, which extends on each side to encircle the rear sides of the green as well.  There is also mounding behind the bunker on the right.

THEN, when I saw the picture taken from the 9th green area, with the bottom of the back bunker very clearly evident, I realized that it was impossible for the approach to have been blind.

I was wrong prior, but will at least admit what my eyes plainly see.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I've been in that area a thousand times over the years (how many times have you been there David Moriarty? Once at most? ) and believe me there is no way an approach after a decent drive up the hill could be totally blind to a green on the other side of the road if some fairly immense mound was not created in front of that green which it clearly never was. By the way, the photograph from around the 9th green looking up at the original 10th hole was not taken from the ninth green but from the hillside to the right of the creek around the 9th green and somewhat above the 9th green.

[TEPaul]

"Both Mike Cirba and TEPaul used to agree that the hole was blind.  Why the change of heart?   The source material has not changed.   In fact we now have more information indicating that the green was sunken and that the hole played almost identically to the second shot at Prestwick (Findlay's later article.)"



David Moriarty:


Not a single time---not EVER have I said, claimed or implied, not on any of these Merion threads going back some years now, that the original 10th green could have been totally blind---most certainly not from up the hill on the tenth fairway to a green across the street where that green was which never had a manufactured mound in front of it which it clearly never did.

I know that because I've probably been on that ground a thousand times and I know it like the back of my hand and you've been on it how many times----once??


Moriarty, I am really sick and tired of you saying things constantly on these Merion threads and now more than ever that people said on here that they never said at all just to continue to make some bullshit irrelevent and argumentative point of yours.

I hereby call you out on this to show this thread and this website WHERE I EVER SAID THAT OR ANYTHING THAT IMPLIED IT (that you just claimed above that I did. Maybe Mike Cirba did at some point but I never did)!! 

You better find where I said something like that (which of course you are never going to be able to do) and show it on this thread or just admit to me and the participants of this thread and site that I never said such a thing, because if you don't I can't possible see why I don't have every good right and reason to tell you that you are either a pretty stupid fellow or just a preconceived liar!!

If you try to skate around this one and just avoid it and try to pretend there is nothing much to what you said above in this vein, as you have been doing so often in the past, I guarantee you I WILL CALL YOU A LIAR on this website and again for every good and right reason to do so!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fellows,

Robert Lesley tells us exactly what the hole was designed to be.

It was not built to be an Alps in the way we think, and as MacDonald built.

Mike, Why do you presume to know what we think and why do you presume that our thoughts can be collectivized into one single thought in harmony with all of  the individual thoughts ?

You presume conclusions that are false, and then base your premise on those false conclusions.

NOONE, I repeat NOONE on this site has EVER suggested that the 10th at Merion was intended to be a replica of # 3 at NGLA.

For you to  allege that it was, is disengenuous AND false.

it was designed to be "in principle" an Alps hole and then goes on to describe exactly what they thought that meant.

We KNOW that.
Why did it take you so long to realize that ?

Blindness was not a part of it.

I disagree with that.

The photos YOU presented refute your own position.

[Patrick_Mucci]

 
If the original #10 was intended to be blind it would certainly have been a silly hole. Forcing a blind uphill shot over a public road is lousy design.

Obviously, you've never played the 8th and 11th holes at NGLA.

[mike_malone]

Pat,

  Are those NGLA  blind shots up hill?

[Mike_Cirba]

MikeC:

I've been in that area a thousand times over the years (how many times have you been there David Moriarty? Once at most? ) and believe me there is no way an approach after a decent drive up the hill could be totally blind to a green on the other side of the road if some fairly immense mound was not created in front of that green which it clearly never was. By the way, the photograph from around the 9th green looking up at the original 10th hole was not taken from the ninth green but from the hillside to the right of the creek around the 9th green and somewhat above the 9th green.

Tom,

I stated the first time I posted that picture that it was taken from somewhere on the hillside to the right of the 9th green.

In the very beginning, several years ago, when I was less familiar with that specific part of the property, I believe I stated that the approach may have been blind, particularly thinking golfers in 1912 might not be able to carry up to the top of the hill (of course, if you can't make that carry, today's 10th green would be blind as well).

Since then, we've obviously all studied that area a lot, and other pictures from that time period have surfaced, which make clear that the hole was not blind, nor was the green sunken....in fact, the green was raised up significantly beyond the road and bunker.   It just appears to be in a depression because the earthworks around the back and sides are so abrupt.

Patrick,

Are you still trying to tell us the approach was blind?   

Perhaps only to men who will not see.    

Please do explain, because I have no idea how you can say that.   

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm not sure how a "sunken green" rises 8 feet from the front bunker and presumably the road, not to mention "Level from 250 yards from the tee to the green".

Someone will undoubtedly argue that the earthwork mounding in the fronting bunker somehow made the shot blind, but that's impossible as we can clearly see the bottom-line of the rear bunker on the photo taken from down in the valley on the hillside opposite the 9th green.

If those mounds were in any way obtrusive to the approach, at least some of that bottom-line would have been obstructed in the photo.  NONE of it is.

By the way, the drawings in question are by one William Flynn.

[Mike_Cirba]

Something pretty wild just occurred to me.

We now have pictures of what that hole and approach looked like in Sept/Oct 1912, a full EIGHTEEN MONTHS after Macdonald made his last visit to Merion.

Please remember that the huge mound in question is behind the green, and it's obvious there are no bunkers behind embedded in that mound, although it's difficult to see if anything lies in front of the green.   In any case, there are no blinding features short of the green.




Next, we have a photo of the same hole from down on the hillside to the left and below the 10th tee.   Despite not having the same visual advantage as someone standing on the 10th tee, we can see the huge mound behind the green, with a bunker embedded in the face, and we can also see some sand flashing of a fronting bunker, as drawn on the William Flynn sketch.




Finally, it's 1925, and the original Alps hole has been abandoned, with a new green in it's place.    Per Bradley Anderson's thread, we can however still very clearly see the HUGE mound behind the green, now with he embedded bunker overgrown, and we can also see, much like the earlier aerial I posted, that the front bunker is no longer visible, as well, as grass has overtaken the sand.




Aerial from 1924




Aerial from 1925 (note the grass overtaking the front bunker)




Finally, here's a 1924 aerial that provides a very telling view of exactly how much in-play the 10th green would have been for the 335 yard first hole.

In this photo one can also see the original 12th greensite across the road, as well as how tightly all these holes had to be packed together on the 120 acres of L-shaped, clay-based, public-road-intersected property that was recommended as the site of a first class, 6000 yards maximum course by Macdonald, Whigham, and Barker.

[TEPaul]

"Something pretty wild just occurred to me.

We now have pictures of what that hole and approach looked like in Sept/Oct 1912, a full EIGHTEEN MONTHS after Macdonald made his last visit to Merion.

Please remember that the huge mound in question is behind the green, and it's obvious there are no bunkers behind embedded in that mound, although it's difficult to see if anything lies in front of the green.   In any case, there are no blinding features short of the green."



Michael:


There never were any totally blinding features in front of that green. Don't you realize the collective wealth of the photographic evidence shows that loud and clear for those who understand how to analyze it??? Just focus on that alone and not any of this argumentative garbage the likes of Moriarty foists on these threads.

[DMoriarty]

We didn't even know MCC had these meeting minutes until after your essay came out. You know you should've researched all Merion's history, including these MCC meeting minutes if you were going to write an essay that said the things you did in it, and you know you should've done that BEFORE you put out that essay, not afterwards.  I don't think you are a dumb guy, David Moriarty, more like an extremely clever one who probably felt you could actually convince people who knew something about Merion's history that something else actually happened. The real reasons you tried to do that in the first place is definitely not lost on us here and has been very obvious for a very long time.

We've covered this Tom. 
- Unlike you guys, I knew that MCC had the minutes long before my essay came out. 
- Unlike you guys, I tried to get a look at them. 
- Unlike you guys, I don't have the right passwords or bloodlines to be allowed the privilege.   
- I've been very clear from the beginning that one of my goals in with this essay was to force the issue and to bring out the source material that I could not access.   That's why I am so glad that Joe Bausch is around.  The more information the better.   But if you guys really wanted the full truth out we'd have seen those documents long ago. 

"3.   Do you have a copy of the report that you say Wilson wrote for Lesley?   If so, on what basis do you claim the report was written by Wilson?"

Good question indeed. I do have the report and it does not say it was written by Wilson and it is not signed by Wilson. It merely says:

            Golf Committee through Mr Lesley, report (sic) as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
            Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground they went down to the National.....

This is all contained within the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting minutes.

So you don't know for certain whether Wilson wrote the report, yet you claimed you had a Wilson report anyway, based on a bunch of assumptions?  Typical.  Assumptions are fine, but you've got to provide their basis, and that is what you guys have repeatedly failed to do. 

By the way, if one had to surmise from what you transcribed above, one would have to surmise that they went down to NGLA for help planning the layout.  But this is pretty obvious.   

Have you ever even belonged to a golf club, David Moriarty, and do you even have a modicum of personal experience in things like this with these kinds of private clubs, how they work, how their committees work and function and report and so forth and so on?

No, I didn't think so! 

You got me there Tom.  My family didn't provide me with a handful of private golf club memberships for me to fritter away, and I haven't tried to join any.    When it comes to silver spoons and privileges, you've got me beat.   Fortunately for me,  my lack of club status has probably helped more than it has hurt.   As for your inherited memberships, too bad for you that they did not come with a modicum of manners.

[DMoriarty]

"Both Mike Cirba and TEPaul used to agree that the hole was blind.  Why the change of heart?   The source material has not changed.   In fact we now have more information indicating that the green was sunken and that the hole played almost identically to the second shot at Prestwick (Findlay's later article.)"



David Moriarty:


Not a single time---not EVER have I said, claimed or implied, not on any of these Merion threads going back some years now, that the original 10th green could have been totally blind---most certainly not from up the hill on the tenth fairway to a green across the street where that green was which never had a manufactured mound in front of it which it clearly never did.

I know that because I've probably been on that ground a thousand times and I know it like the back of my hand and you've been on it how many times----once??


Moriarty, I am really sick and tired of you saying things constantly on these Merion threads and now more than ever that people said on here that they never said at all just to continue to make some bullshit irrelevent and argumentative point of yours.

I hereby call you out on this to show this thread and this website WHERE I EVER SAID THAT OR ANYTHING THAT IMPLIED IT (that you just claimed above that I did. Maybe Mike Cirba did at some point but I never did)!! 

You better find where I said something like that (which of course you are never going to be able to do) and show it on this thread or just admit to me and the participants of this thread and site that I never said such a thing, because if you don't I can't possible see why I don't have every good right and reason to tell you that you are either a pretty stupid fellow or just a preconceived liar!!

If you try to skate around this one and just avoid it and try to pretend there is nothing much to what you said above in this vein, as you have been doing so often in the past, I guarantee you I WILL CALL YOU A LIAR on this website and again for every good and right reason to do so!

Liar? Stupid?  You need to grow up Tom.  You are starting to sound like your friend Wayne.   


Here is your quote.   You need to start acting like a gentleman.  You are embarrassing us all.

Wayne:

It's hard to tell exactly what it was in front of that old 10th green or how high it was. That second photo above is probably the most indicative I've seen but you can only see a part of the left side of whatever was there.

Was it a berm? Was it some of those "Mid-Surrey" mounds (sometimes referred to as "alpinization") that appeared more clearly on the old 9th hole? It's hard to tell.

But if you look closely at that second photo above you can see some people lying on one of those things and a few people standing behind one, and it's not hard to tell it comes up to at least their waist and maybe higher.

Would that have been enough height directly in front of that green to blind the putting surface from the other side of Ardmore Ave?

Of course it would have.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Reread the quote from the 1916 program on the 10th hole.  The ground sloped down to the green, not up.  Same as to the left and behind.    Wayne made the same mistake, which I tried to explain to him, but to no avail.

Also, the 1916 Program doesn't say what you say it says with regard to whether or not the berm was built to protect golfers. 

[Sean_A]

Mike,

Reread the quote from the 1916 program on the 10th hole.  The ground sloped down to the green, not up.  Same as to the left and behind.    Wayne made the same mistake, which I tried to explain to him, but to no avail.

Also, the 1916 Program doesn't say what you say it says with regard to whether or not the berm was built to protect golfers. 

David

By looking at the people along the side of the photo of #10 it is very clear to me that the green slopes down from the bunker (which fits the text description despite Mike C's claims) then rises gradually back up.  Again, I can't say for certain (and I don't now how Mike or Tom can either), but I think the front of the green may have offered the golfer only a view of the pin if it was a tall one and the back of the green was probably much more visible.  As stated before, the key to the discussion is how people define blind.

This discussion is indicative of how the entire Merion theads have been going.  Neither side willing to bend when it is very obvious that there are many unanswered questions.  I happen to believe the overall story that Wilson was the man, but its entrenched attitudes which make the learning process in this case so much slower than it need be.

Ciao

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Reread the quote from the 1916 program on the 10th hole.  The ground sloped down to the green, not up.  Same as to the left and behind.    Wayne made the same mistake, which I tried to explain to him, but to no avail.

Also, the 1916 Program doesn't say what you say it says with regard to whether or not the berm was built to protect golfers. 

David

By looking at the people along the side of the photo of #10 it is very clear to me that the green slopes down from the bunker (which fits the text description despite Mike C's claims) then rises gradually back up.  Again, I can't say for certain (and I don't now how Mike or Tom can either), but I think the front of the green may have offered the golfer only a view of the pin if it was a tall one and the back of the green was probably much more visible.  As stated before, the key to the discussion is how people define blind.

This discussion is indicative of how the entire Merion theads have been going.  Neither side willing to bend when it is very obvious that there are many unanswered questions.  I happen to believe the overall story that Wilson was the man, but its entrenched attitudes which make the learning process in this case so much slower than it need be.

Ciao

Ciao

Sean,  It is impossible for me to say whether the shot was entirely blind or not, and I don't think it matters one bit.   But I just cannot play along with substituting our interpretations for theirs, and that is what is going on here.  It is just like our discussions with the supposed redan hole.  It doesnt matter what you or I think.  Likewise,  so far as I can tell this was considered an Alps hole, and was apparently considered to be a good one by some at least. 

The reason these things go so slow is every single chip in the old legend has been fought and fought and fought, no matter how much support is offered, and these guys are beyond reasonable conversation on this stuff.    I mean come on!  I just got called "stupid" and a "liar" because I correctly recalled something TEPaul said a few years ago.     Earlier today I got called "dickhead" out of the blue on a thread that had nothing to do Merion.    This kind of garbage is the problem with these threads, and the problem with this site.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Ohhhhhhhhh...now I get it!

The green DROPPED EIGHT FEET from the fronting bunker!!!

I should have realized it being a Macdonald hole and all that he was going for the combo Alps-Biarritz here!

Why,,,,down, down, down in that deep dank pit eight feet under, its a wonder you can even see those golfers in the photo!!

What a stupid I am!

 Also should have realized that a master of deception like Macdonald could have created a magical fronting mound that was daunting to the golfer yet somehow like a vampire was invisible in photographs!!!

I wonder if it required maintenance or if it magically mowed itself??

Sean,

The front wall of the front bunker appears to have a raised upslope a few feet.  I would imagine to a very front hole location the bottom of the flagstick might not be completely visible but we also know that front portion couldn't be very high, much less eight feet, as it doesn't even obscure the bottom line of the back bunker in a photo taken from well below.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Re: the statement I made that you quoted, I think you pretty much need to understand the ground at Merion better as we do or you need to start reading posts on here better so you don't continuously misunderstand and miscontrue what people say on here. For starters from my quote above it looks like you either need to get out to Merion's old tenth area and look it over carefully as we have or else begin to understand the vast difference between a blind putting surface to an approach shot and an entirely blind green as is the case with most all Alps holes done over here by the likes of Leeds and Macdonald but which was definitely not the case with Merion's old tenth if it did not have some massive mound in front of it which it never did have.

Failing that, and given the things you state people say on here is going to make you look like a liar. In this case you probably aren't but it's pretty clear you aren't capable of reading very well and understanding what people write on here. I guess the reason why is pretty clear too with what I say since you've mentioned a number of times you don't even read my posts.  No wonder you continuously misconstrue what I say.

[TEPaul]

"By the way, if one had to surmise from what you transcribed above, one would have to surmise that they went down to NGLA for help planning the layout.  But this is pretty obvious."


David Moriarty:

Yes, one can SURMISE just about anything, and you have certainly shown you're very good at that with your essay and your preconceived agenda to prove Macdonald routed and designed Merion East which he very clearly never did do because the massive wealth of evidence available has always indicated Wilson and his committee did that and even numerous times in the winter and spring of 1911.

I have always contended all these years on these Merion threads that the best available information of what happened back then at Merion is contained in Alan Wilson's report in which he stated that to a man Wilson's own committee stated that Hugh Wilson in the main was responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses.

You can continue to discount, ignore or rationalize that away but we don't do that and either does Merion; we and they never have because there is no reason to.  So you can continue to over-argue basically irrelevent points here and there but you will never get around the fact of and truth of Alan Wilson's report. And that's just for starters, as it has always been on these Merion threads with you. Wilson's report was not just some incidental musings on his part either. His report was a request from the man writing the history of MCC; a man who had for years been MCC's treasurer and secretary.

You may still think those things are inaccurate but we don't and either does Merion. To us this is essentially the crux of this entire matter, always has been, and to date you have provided absolutely nothing at all that calls into question the credibility of important material of just this kind. If you don't or can't provide something or anything in this vein, these Merion threads will just continue to be the useless discussion and argument they have always been.

[TEPaul]

I still just don't understand why all this discussion and argument of the degree of blindness of the old tenth hole at Merion continues to go on. What is the point of any of it? I don't get it. Does anyone on here think that says a single thing about who was responsible for routing and designing that golf hole or Merion East? And if someone on here still thinks that would they mind explaining to me how the degree of blindness of that hole can say anything at all or even imply who routed and designed the hole or the course?

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"We've covered this Tom. 
- Unlike you guys, I knew that MCC had the minutes long before my essay came out."


David Moriarty:

Did you indeed?!?

Would you mind explaining to us how you knew that over a year ago before your essay came out since I'm not aware that even Merion G.C. knew those meeting minutes, correspondences and report from Wilson's committee were even still over at MCC? This sounds to me like your pack of lies and blatant distortions are just continuing to grow in this mind-bending campaign of yours to prove something that never happened.