Merion's Early Timeline

[Dan Herrmann]

Dan:

What is the xenophobia question? Are you talking about that whole Schnecedety Putter fallout thing?

Tom - yep.  David was thinking the reason Merion downplayed CBM's involvement may have been due to a pro-US, anti-European feelings at the time.  I thought it was an interesting theory and wanted to hear more.

Here's what David wrote last week:

While I don't believe that Merion ever intentionally slighted M&W, if we consider what we was ongoing in golf at the time, we can see that there might have been reasons for Merion not to sing CBM's praises too loudly or too often.   This was right about then the Schenectady Putter fiasco broke out, and most of the golfing community in the United States was very much at odds with not only the R and A, but also with CBM personally as he was construed to have sided with the Royal and Ancient and against the United States and its hero of the time, Walter Travis (ironically an Australian) who had beaten them at their own game on their soil with the mallet headed putter.    Tempers were running high and scathing rebukes of CBM were written and printed, and his popularity suffered greatly, and American nationalism toward things golf related was in a fervor.  But again, I don't think the intentionally slighted him, although a changing attitude toward him and what he represented probably did not make it all that conducive a time to brag excessively about one's CBM course.   

That being said, I've always figured that this golfing nationalism might have had something to do with why those in Philadelphia suddenly quit talking about how most of the holes at Merion were modeled after the great holes abroad.   It was no longer all that popular to be following what had happened abroad.   But that sort of thing is tough to prove or quantify.

[Tom MacWood]

I can't believe this thread is 80+ pages long, and it is nothing more than a continuation of my Findlay/Wilson thread and I hold you, M(erion)Cirba, personally responsible for keeping my name from being the longest discussion in GCA.com history! 

AWT first wrote for the Philadelphia Public Ledger beginning in April, 1911.  I have gathered up every article I could find off of microfilm and have a simple web page of said articles here:

http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/golf/PL/1911/AWT/1911_AWT.html

He wrote for them, it appears, until late 1911.  He then moved on to the Philadelphia Press newspaper.  He wrote for PP for many years and I have nearly all of those articles in my possession (these have taken many hours to gather up from microfilm from the Free Library of Philadelphia).  I will attempt in the coming weeks to put together all these articles in digital form for perusal.  However, I seem to remember more than a couple of them included talk about the upcoming course at Merion.

(when this thread becomes more productive and less just rehashing old topics/bravado/insults, I might participate more).   

Joe
Thank you for sharing the fruits of your efforts - the more information the better.

[TEPaul]

"We will just have agree to disagree."

Tom:

Sure, no problem at all since we've pretty much always done that anyway. But seriously, are YOU OK?

[DMoriarty]

David,

You stated, "As I said, Phillip, I  haven't reviewed the articles lately,  but  I recall multiple articles from the spring of 1911 where CBM was AWT's explicit source. Sorry david, But there aren't any articles where CBM is Tilly's "explicit" source.

Really?   Because I cannot imagine him having been more explicit than to describe conversations he had with CBM?   Perhaps you have a different understanding of the word explicit.

"If there are other articles from the spring of 1911 where AWT is explicitly or implicitly relying on other sources regarding Merion I'd love to see them." There are a number of them beginning with the December 1910 American Golfer “Hazard” article in which he “announces” the coming new course at Merion. It is quite clear that he hadn’t been given the information by CBM in the way he wrote of his & Whigham’s visit to see Griscom. He wasn’t present at the meeting or the day when they came to Philadelphia and evidently got this information from Griscom (a close friend) himself.

While I don't necessarily agree with what is "quite clear" from it, I am aware of that article and cite it in my essay.   But whomever the source, the December 1910 article fails to address my point.   I wrote:  "If there are other articles from the spring of 1911 where AWT is explicitly or implicitly relying on other sources . . .;"  and I am still unaware of any such articles.  

As the resident AWT expert, perhaps you can answer my questions:

When did AWT write about first seeing the course, either in progress or finished? I’ll have to look it up for you, but frankly it will take a while as I am swamped with work that will allow for precious little time on here for a bit.  

Thanks.  I'd appreciate that.  No hurry, though, were obviously going nowhere here.

What is the first evidence we have of AWT actually having stepped foot on the ground at Merion East? [font=Verdana]No one can answer that because we don’t know.
Again, you misunderstand.  I didn't ask when he first stepped first on the property, I asked for THE FIRST EVIDENCE of AWT actually having set foot on the property.  
By the way, do you know how close Tilly actually lived to the new Merion? He could stop there any day that he slept at home. Because of his relationship with a number of the members including Board members it is silly to think that he never stepped foot on the property until he wrote that he did. His father also would have been out there in the normal course of his time as well. I will, though, when I get the time, look up for you the first time he mentioned that he had been there which, if memory serves me correctly, was in a newspaper article. [/font]  

Thanks.  I'd appreciate that as well.  

__________________

[Tom MacWood]

" Apparently TEPaul is not familiar with my Essay or he wouldn't be repeatedly asking me to tell him where I think the histories fall short."


David:

I’m sure you can’t believe how familiar I am with your essay. I’ve read it over and over again and not just back then, throughout the last year as well. I know some parts of it so well I almost have it down word for word.

Maybe I never told you this but I actually marvel at that essay. I think it is clever as hell and you probably must be too. I just marvel at how anyone can string together that many false premises, passed off as something even remotely close to fact, to come to the conclusions you do about a lot of Merion’s history and still be able to convince anyone that it makes any sense at all and isn’t just a whole string of tortured logic with false premises and fallacious reasoning to arrive at a few preconceived conclusions.

Over some time I came to realize that even as cleverly done as it is no one could get away with something like that unless their audience knew very little about the history of Merion and the details of it in the first place. In fact, that is and continues to be most of your audience on here.

But the ones who really know Merion recognized what that essay was in a day or two and that includes those from Merion itself who run the place and really do know the details of their history and the people who were involved.

I don’t know whether I ever told you this either but before it came out Wayne and I actually sort of built up the expectancy of it at Merion with some central people. We did that because we had no idea what you planned to say; we actually sort of believed you that you had some information previously unknown by Merion and of course you completely refused to let us see it before it was put on here (that alone says a lot of why we think you did it in the first place).

So when those some central people at Merion read it in the first few days they came back to us and said things like: “What are you two talking about? You said there were some really good researchers on Golfclubatlas. That essay is the biggest bunch of tortured logic imaginable and who in the world is this author? Are we supposed to know him? What has he ever known about us?”

Wayne and I were actually pretty embarrassed that we promoted it at all and then saw that thing, again of course never knowing what it was really about beforehand because you refused to show us anything about it beforehand which again says a lot about what you were doing and continue to do to this day.

No sir, the Tollhurst history books tell the accurate architectural history of Merion with pretty much the single exception of that Wilson trip in 1910 rather than 1912, and they explain Macdonald/Whigam’s contributions appropriately too.


And by the way, there are enough on here who saw through it immediately too. One of the best of them who actually participated for awhile was Bradley Anderson. He didn't get involved in the incessant arguing over all this minutiae which is probably something you promote so as not to have to deal with the larger truth of it. He just recognized pretty quick that the only way someone like you can maintain this kind of guise is to keep claiming that those that were there then and who saw it and reported it accurately were mistaken or engaging in hyperbole because their words almost never fit with your tortured logic so you just kept dismissing what they said and rationalizing it away someone. He recognized that one can only do that just so often without a logical mind smelling a rat and seeing the obvious.

No, it was clever, very clever and just about totally fallacious. We knew we'd probably never get you to admit that but what we wanted to do and I think have done is basically convince most of the rest of the audience what it really is.

Considering what-all else they cover about Merion's history other than architecture, for their size (which isn't great) other than that 1910 trip the Tolhurst Merion history books are historically and factually accurate. Too bad more on this website haven't had the opportunity to read at least one of them so they could see for themselves.

TEP
I hope you are joking. You obviously disagree with David's conclusions, and that's fine, but comparing it to Tolhurst is like comparing a 3rd grade paper to a college theseus. The level of research and scholarship is night and day. David explores areas that Tolhurst never knew or never could hope to know, for example the history of the land purchase. Tolhurst's knowledge of golf architecture is basic, and that is putting it kindly. And I don't know how Desmund didn't get sued by Heilman for plagiarism. David's writing is far superior as well. Other than that I think Tolhurst did a pretty good job.

I'd be surprised if one person on GCA agreed with you.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

To answer your comments:

“Really?   Because I cannot imagine him having been more explicit than to describe conversations he had with CBM?   Perhaps you have a different understanding of the word explicit…”

David, I think you used the wrong term and that is our problem. Yes, Tilly had “explicit” conversations with CBM. But you were using the word in a different manner. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the above sentence in your original post #3093, you stated, “If there are other articles from the spring of 1911 where AWT is explicitly or implicitly relying on other sources regarding Merion I'd love to see them…”

Your use of “explicit” has nothing whatsoever to do with CONVERSATION’S with CBM, but the INFORMATION that you are implying he received during these conversations. In other words, you SEEM to be stating that Tilly’s KNOWLEDGE OF MERION & the WORK DONE DURING THE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURSE is DIRECTLY from CBM. There is not one example of that in any article where Tilly mentions CBM & Merion… NONE. 

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Tilly wrote that he talked to CBM and the conversation mentioned Merion. The “source” of that conversation wasn’t CBM, rather it was Tilly himself. The main SUBJECT of the article was CBM & talking about Merion. “Explicit source” to me refers to the one initiating the subject matter.

You also said, “While I don't necessarily agree with what is "quite clear" from it, I am aware of that article and cite it in my essay.   But whomever the source, the December 1910 article fails to address my point.   I wrote:  "If there are other articles from the spring of 1911 where AWT is explicitly or implicitly relying on other sources . . .;"  and I am still unaware of any such articles.”

There are a good number of them, in fact Joe Bausch referenced some of them in his own comment tonight. I referred to that article simply as a starting point. 

Finally you clarified, “Again, you misunderstand.  I didn't ask when he first stepped first on the property, I asked for THE FIRST EVIDENCE of AWT actually having set foot on the property.”   

Again, this is contained in Tilly’s newspaper accounts, yet that date proves absolutely nothing in terms of who did what at Merion. That Tilly visited the site any number of times before he wrote about it is a near certainty. That his father did as well, and probably a number of times with Tilly himself is also a sure bet. So What!

The question you really want to ask is two-fold. First, what did Tilly himself know about the project and secondly, why didn’t he write about it immediately? Personally I think the answer to the first question is contained in his 1930’s article in which he stated that few knew that Wilson was the person behind the course. The answer to the second is probably a similar one to his not writing about Pine Valley when he already knew about. He was asked not to and so he didn’t.

[DMoriarty]

Dan Hermann,

You were serious about your xenophobia question?  I thought you were just trying to be an asshole.  My mistake, but then I recall your question having been a bit more abrupt when I read it.

As you may recall, I have explained to you repeatedly that I do not believe that old Merion ever intentionally covered up CBM's involvement and why.    And the passage you are quoting ought to be considered accordingly, as it was a continuation and/or afterthought to that point and this post, which immediately preceded it:  

David,
I admit that I didn't understand your reply.  

Do you have anythig from Merion that stated to the public that CBM, not Wilson, designed the course?

Do you or anyone else have anything from Merion written at that time indicating that Hugh Wilson initially designed the course?    I sure don't.    And I am not asking for your opinion but documents from the time where Merion credited Hugh Wilson.    

If you don't then why not?   Does this mean that they were covering up Hugh Wilson's involvement in the initial design from the public?

The problem is that they did not think of these things and write of these things in the same way we did.   But if we put ourselves in the context of the time and look at how they commonly discussed these things, we can see that Lesley, Alan Wilson, and Hugh Wilson all acknowledged M&W's extensive involvement in designing the course.  Also, internally, the board minutes establsih the importance of their extensive involvement.   In addition to that, but moving outside of Merion, so did Tillinghast, Findlay, and Whigham, to name some.

So again, I don't think they ever intentionally covered up his involvement, nor did I say they intentionally downplayed their involvement in any way.   You are overstating my claim, as you do when you use the term "xenophobic."   That is your word and not mine.  If find it too strong and too loaded for what was going on.  

Other than that I am not sure what else you want me to say. I outlined my thoughts in the passage quoted, but I am not going to dig up all my research on the issue or provide you with a thorough and detailed description and analysis, because obviously this crew is just not interested in well researched, fact based, detailed analysis.   Facts are optional at best and it is just more fun to believe what you want to believe and even to make stuff out out of but would rather just make theories up out of whole cloth.

I've an idea, why don't you spend a few months or years gathering all you can on the issue of golf nationalism around this time, compile all you come up with, analyze it, come to your own conclusions, and write it all down in a coherent and cohesive essay.   Then you can post it on here and be told what an idiot and asshole you are, have your motivations constantly questioned, have lies spread about you, even have thinly veiled threats made against your well being, it is a lot of fun!

[Mike_Cirba]

Are we really trying to contend that Mr. Albert Warren Tillinghast, THE MAN who knew literally everything going on around Philadelphia golf and virtually everywhere else did NOT know who was responsible for the design of Philadelphia's first real championship course that he had fought and was the leading advocate and vocal leader for years!?

Moreover, this is being contended because these guys are trying to make the case that Tilly got most of his info from CB Mac, who the same revisionists are telling us is the person who REALLY designed it?!?!

I am utterly speechless....
 

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,  

Please don't tell my how I used the word "explicit."  I used it properly and as intended.   You tried to turn it into something else, but this doesn't change the way I used it.

I've seen no evidence that Tillinghast spent any time on the site during the planning stage (pre mid-April 1911.) f you have evidence, present it. You haven't thus far.   And I unless he lived in the clubhouse, I don't really think the proximity of his house argument all that convincing.  

And Phillip.   Please don't tell me what question I should ask, especially when you haven't even answered the questions I did ask.   You ask whatever question you want, I'll ask mine.  

I look forward to seeing those articles.  

Thanks again.
______________________________

Mike Cirba, Save the usual hyperbole.  It is not as if AWT didn't leave a paper trail.

As for you being speechless, don't get our hopes up.
  

[Mike_Cirba]

This thread is becoming more bizarre than a John Waters/David Lynch collaboration.

We are now seriously at the point of debating whether Tillinghast was wrong (or confused, or lying)  in his straightforward, decades-long contention that Hugh Wilson was the architect of Merion because he got most of his information directly from CB Macdonald, in person.

I have no idea how to respond.   Literally...I'm at a loss.   

Hello?!?!   MacFLY!!?

[john_stiles]

David / TEP / PY,

Who was the first club official, someome involved with club committees, the course, the properties, to write about Merion East after opening ?

Was it Lesley in the Golf Illustrated 1914 ?   With just 3 years lapsed Lesley said "The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about 3 years ago by the following committee:  Hugh Wilson, chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Grissom, Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers Charles B. Macdonald, and H.J. Whigham."

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to have said....The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it by CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham about 3 years ago and built by the following committee:  Hugh Wilson, chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Grissom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin.

So who was the first person, directly involved to write AFTER the course was finished and opened for play ?  Who was quoted in the opening day newspaper articles and what was said ?   Same question for the first articles in American Golfer and Golf Illustrated ?

What were ATW first writings after the course opened ?

CBM and HJW were credited with advising by all before and after the get-go.

[DMoriarty]

David / TEP / PY,

Who was the first club official, someome involved with club committees, the course, the properties, to write about Merion East after opening ?

Was it Lesley in the Golf Illustrated 1914 ?   With just 3 years lapsed Lesley said "The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about 3 years ago by the following committee:  Hugh Wilson, chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Grissom, Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers Charles B. Macdonald, and H.J. Whigham."

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to have said....The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it by CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham about 3 years ago and built by the following committee:  Hugh Wilson, chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Grissom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin.

Just as easy?   Maybe.  But inaccurate.   CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham did not lay out the course on the ground.   Wilson and his committee did.   But they did so with M&W as advisors;  M&W taught them how to do it and even checked up on them to make sure they had done it right.

So who was the first person, directly involved to write AFTER the course was finished and opened for play ?  Who was quoted in the opening day newspaper articles and what was said ?   Same question for the first articles in American Golfer and Golf Illustrated ?

What were ATW first writings after the course opened ?

CBM and HJW were credited with advising by all before and after the get-go.

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh my God...I need to read something rational just so my brain doesn't explode like Shivas's must have.   

Oh...the humanity...the humanity....Lewis Carroll on his worst mushroom-induced trip never spiraled so out of control as this latest twist down the sinkhole darkly... 

I have no idea what else to say here.  We have truly hit a new standard. 


April 1911




May 1911




May 1911




Jan 1913




June 1934

[Mike_Cirba]

John Stiles,

Get it right...

It picks up the sticks and puts them in the basket....

They laid the course on to the ground.

The captains of industry were out there putting sticks in the ground wherever they were told.

Don't deviate, man.   Barker or CB Mac or anyone else on the planet but Hugh wilson had to tell them where to put the sticks.

This is the way it happened.

Get with the program.   

[DMoriarty]

Could someone please post all the articles from 1910-1911 where AWT or anyone else went to that renown expert, Hugh Wilson for his opinion on how things were going.   After all, it was his design, wasn't it?  What did Hugh think of the course?  What did he think of the plans?   Could we see the articles where Hugh Wilson is talking about his own plans?   Surely AWT knew it was HIW's course, so why bother to interview CBM about it?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Was AW Tillinghast wrong in 1934?

Was he lying?

Was he misinformed??

Why didn't he mention Macdonald in his lengthy article when Merion opened?!?!

Much less Barker....sheesh...

Or, are we simply once again, for the 1000th time, misinterpreting him in 1934.

He really meant something else than to say that Hugh Wilson PLANNED and DEVELOPED the course at Merion.

Or perhaps TIlly didn't understand the meaning of the term?

Or perhaps they used it differently back then?

Or are we going to hear, once again, that Tillinghast wasn't talking about the course that opened in 1912, but instead about the course as it existed in 1934?

That perhaps by "planned", he was talking about changes to the course over time, and not at inception??

Or perhaps Tillinghast was jealous of Macdonald and didn't want to give him due credit??

That because he also said "developed", he MUST have been speaking about the evolution of the course, and not its inception.

Or, perhaps Macdonald simply failed to note that HE, Macdonald had really PLANNED the holes...but figured Tillinghast would know that and it didnt' need saying.

Or that Macdonald didn't want Tillinghast to mention that...shhhhhh...the holes came from overseas...which by that time there was some arguments with JH Taylor, and didn't want to stir that pot.''

Or that we all really know that Tilly had some....shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...."problems".

Holy cow...I can't imagine what excuse we're going to hear that tries to tell us that TIllinghast was either confused, insane, lying, misinformed, sick, on a bender, telling a partial story, had the wrong source, was too busy....or perhaps that anyone who actually can read the plain English of what he says clearly says is (Z) All of the Above.  

WTF do you mean that Macdonald taught them how to place the holes on the F*cking ground?!?

That is an insane statement, meaning nothing.

He taught them where to place sticks to make locations of tees and greens?!?

I could do that to an 8-year old??

Better yet, the press gave these Captains of Industry much credit for this exercise.

Tillinghast said that Hugh Wilson and his Committee deserved the congratulations of all golfers for their ability to place stakes in the ground.

Are you kidding us??!

Do you know that one of Tillinghast's reports has information that is ONLY included in the MCC Board Meeting Minutes?

And yet, you and MacWood are trying to tell us that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about and that he wasn't there??

Simply because after the plan was approved at Merion and construction started (ALL of which Tilly reported on in depth) in late April 1911, he didn't get back during construction until he played the course shortly after it opened in autumn 1912?

Even with that, he still reported on the ongoing work during the middle of 1911, but that had NOTHING to do with who the architect was...that was grassing and growing.

Please explain what the hell you guys are talking about because this is truly historic revisionism in its worst form, where even expert eye-witnesses back then are put under some interrogation room lamp and their very simple, straightforward words are screened and construed in the most damning, most suspicious possible light.

This is a travesty.

[john_stiles]

Well,  if anyone were to rewrite Lesley's artcile of 1914,  what would you have to write to give more credit to CBM and HJW ?

It would be straight forward to do so.  Just cannot get past the articles that CBM and HJW were 'advisers'.

Are we out of fresh articles about Merion ?     Any new articles to review ?

In the 1897 'British Golf Links,'  Hutchinson uses the word 'laid out' to include alll work. There is no distinction in his description.  No other verbs are used.  As in.....Tom Dunn laid out the nine hole course to be opened this summer. 

[Gib_Papazian]

I think Mackenzie made a secret visit and routed out the course with Tom MacWood's great uncle that the family does not like to talk about - but only after intentionally getting Macdonald drunk in a whorehouse before the Green Committee meeting so he and Robert Hunter could take advantage of C.B.'s plans and take credit for Raynor's routing plan .

3124 posts later, my theory sounds more credible than the rest of the argumentative bullshit.

Macdonald gave advice and was enthusiastic about the project. He was enough of a gentleman to insist his name be kept out of the papers so the Wilson's got their well deserved credit. Merion was NOT designed by Macdonald. I can only find 2 or 3 "template holes" - thus he imparted his general wisdom, made a couple visits like all the Golden Age guys did on their friendly competitors, and went back to the bar at NGLA and had a scotch or two with Morgan OBrien.

The rest is just a bunch of pinheads spewing drivel on the internet because either they do not have a tee time or their wives are having a tampon crisis.

This thread is how spontaneous combustion happens.  

[TEPaul]

"I am utterly speechless...."

Mike:

If you really do feel that way you should go with it with this thread which I suggested to you a while ago. I should too.

[Tom MacWood]

I think Mackenzie made a secret visit and routed out the course with Tom MacWood's great uncle that the family does not like to talk about - but only after intentionally getting Macdonald drunk in a whorehouse before the Green Committee meeting so he and Robert Hunter could take advantage of C.B.'s plans and take credit for Raynor's routing plan .

3124 posts later, my theory sounds more credible than the rest of the argumentative bullshit.

Macdonald gave advice and was enthusiastic about the project. He was enough of a gentleman to insist his name be kept out of the papers so the Wilson's got their well deserved credit. Merion was NOT designed by Macdonald. I can only find 2 or 3 "template holes" - thus he imparted his general wisdom, made a couple visits like all the Golden Age guys did on their friendly competitors, and went back to the bar at NGLA and had a scotch or two with Morgan OBrien.

The rest is just a bunch of pinheads spewing drivel on the internet because either they do not have a tee time or their wives are having a tampon crisis.

This thread is how spontaneous combustion happens.  

How familiar are you with the original 1912 Merion layout? I'm not an expert on the CBM features at the old Merion, Moriarty has studied that aspect quite a bit and would be the one to ask, but I know there are more than two or three features incorporated into the design. The Redan and Alps are obvious, there was also Principals Nose, a green based on the Eden, and a hole incorporating the Valley of Sin. I also recall a debate about a Road hole, Short hole, Biarritz green (#17?) and a Bottle. Over the years most of those features were removed through a steady redesign; several holes were abandoned and several new holes took their place.

[Tom MacWood]

"I am utterly speechless...."

Mike:

If you really do feel that way you should go with it with this thread which I suggested to you a while ago. I should too. Later you proclaimed this thread a travesty and it probably is in many ways.

However, one post really struck me in one way last night and then in a different way this morning. It's Tom MacWood's #3112. At first it sort of upset me but this morning (didn't sleep much last night so I'm back over in the barn/office really early) I had a very different impression. What that post says in some ways really does seem like a whole new approach, reality and mentality that I at first did not and probably do not or ever will agree with but it sure is real and it's not going to go away in our changing world of approach to information collection, interpretation, dissemination and presentation and clubs and friends are going to have to deal with these changes in the future.

I've got an idea for a subject that might be the most important this website has ever dealt with in what this website is or can be. I'd like to run the idea by you and Tom MacWood. There is someone in the wings mulling over an idea like this; we've talked about it a bit. He has good credibility and a good history in golf architecture/architect research, writing and presentation.

Can we email you about this Tom Mac? If not I'll just go with the guy in the wings who hopefully will take it on somehow.

I'm sorry post 3112 upset you. You can disagree with his conclusions, but you have to give David credit for an excellent well researched essay. It is light years ahead of Tolhurst's account of the course's history. The depth of analysis is far superior to any of the Merion histories, including your own. Although yours is very good too.  

I know most people respect and admire the time and effort required to produce something like that, even if you don't. There was ton of new information revealed in the essay, information you will not find in any of the histories. I believe even the most dedicated fans of Merion and Hugh Wilson learned a quite a bit from it (excluding yourself of course).

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Please feel free to include me on any related issue, particularly if you think there is a way to make this more productive than it's been.   Thanks.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You have gone beyond absurdity now.

"Could someone please post all the articles from 1910-1911 where AWT or anyone else went to that renown expert, Hugh Wilson for his opinion on how things were going.   After all, it was his design, wasn't it?"

Better than that, why don't YOU post ANY ARTICLE from 1910-1911 that states Charles Blair Macdonald designed Merion East? After all, it was his design wasn't it?

"What did Hugh think of the course?  What did he think of the plans?   Could we see the articles where Hugh Wilson is talking about his own plans?"

Better than that, why don't YOU post ANY ARTICLE from 1910-1911 in which CBM EXPLICITLY tells us what HE THINKS of the course and is talking about HIS OWN PLANS?  

"Surely AWT knew it was HIW's course, so why bother to interview CBM about it?"

Before I will produce any articles on Tilly, how about YOU showing one where Tilly INTERVIEWED CBM about Merion? Of course, I realize I am challenging you on the use of the word and how dare I do that, but you did use the phrase and word.

A CONVERSATION BETWEEN FRIENDS in which Merion was discussed is certainly NOT AN INTERVIEW ON THE SUBJECT even when Tilly mentions it in a gossipy manner as a SMALL ITEM in a column. Or is the word “Chat” in the Dictionary by David synonomous with “Interview?”

Tilly wrote in May 1911, “I had a CHAT with C.B. Macdonald and he told me more about the new course at Merion…”

It is that type of twisting of language to fit your belief that you accuse everyone else of doing.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
This what we know regarding Tilly and Merion during the planning phase. Tilly reported in AG in 12/1910 that Merion was building a new golf course. He also reported M&W had recently gone over the site. M&W actually went over the site in June. In April 1911 PL Tilly reports he has seen enough of the new plans to warrant confidence the dreams of the committee will become a reality. No mention from what location he is reporting from. In May 1911 AG Tilly reports the planning stage is nearing completion, and M&W, who are assisting the committee, have visited Merion and are pleased with the prospects. He tells us CBM believes seven of the holes will the equal to any in the country. In May 1911 PL Tilly reports from Garden City that CBM tells him Merion will be the finest inland courses in the country.

There are four known reports at present. Anything you can add would of great assistance.

Of the four known reports, the first report appears to be second hand or based on a release from the club. That is based on the fact Tilly misreported M&W had recently visited the site. The April PL and May AG articles discuss the plans. No mention of when or where Tilly saw the plans, but since AG typically reports on events from the previous month, these two reports are likely from the same time frame. And then we have the conversation at GCGC.

There are a couple of mentions of the committee, but no members of the committee are identified by name. Tilly talks about seeing plans but never mentions anything about visiting the site.

[TEPaul]

"but you have to give David credit for an excellent well researched essay."


Tom:

I would give David Moriarty credit for the extent of the research he did from his particular vantage point but I sure wouldn't say his essay was well researched because there was plenty of pertinent information he did not have when he published his essay. He may not have known that of course when he published it but he certainly should have suspected it since he did not have a close relationship with Merion FIRST and that right there is most of my point and issue with him and his essay and it shows. He apparently tried to use Wayne to help him with his research but with his attitude and well-known adverserialness towards some of us here that sure didn't last long and that shows too.

But I wouldn't deny he may've worked hard on it even though I'm not aware of it since he rather proudly withheld any review of the essay from us before he published it. I can't recall who he sent it to for review, perhaps you and Pat Mucci and TommyN, three people who most surely do not have the familiarity with Merion's overall history some of us here did and do.

Do I think the essay is excellent? Of course not. Despite the research effort I think it is about the most egregrious slanting and distorting and revisionism of the history of an important golf course and architect imaginable and worse than that it is so transparent to those who really know Merion's history that we can actually see how the assumptions and premises, contentions and conclusions are all apparently carefully and cleverly preconceived. When Jeff Brauer cogently said on here the other day, the two of you just set out to prove Merion's history wrong somehow, he sure wasn't whistling Dixie.

I guess this is what courtroom lawyers are expected to do and do if they have a guilty client----eg do whatever they can, ignore facts, dismiss and rationalize away evidence, parse words and interpretations to their potential favor and pull the wool over the jury's eyes if they have to and if they can to get their client off by any means allow within the purview of the judge.

He treated the whole thing like some courtroom procedure with Merion and its recorded history being the prosecution and M/W being his defendant client. He even seems to think that there is some courtroom discovery requirement in all of this with his constant demands all material albeit private from the club be turned over to him.

Merion knows that, we know that and I think just about everyone on Golfclubatlas knows it too, at this point. It seems like the only two left trying to defend the indefensible are you and him.

You two set this all up years ago under the premise you were trying to get to the bottom of what you referred to as the Mystery of Merion and who designed it. There is no mystery who designed it; there never was; there was no mystery at Merion about Macdonald/Whigam advising and helping on three occasions in 1910 and 1911 either, that has always been recorded and reported in Merion's history but the two of you knew so little about Merion and its history six years ago you didn't even know that when you began this campaign which eventually became a charade on here.

I do give him credit for perhaps a good deal of work but I firmly believe he should have established a good and intimate relationship with Merion first and because he either didn't or couldn't I suppose he decided to do it anyway and in another way which does not work for any historian and so of course his essay isn't excellent in my opinion; quite the opposite, one of the worst distortions of factual history and revisionism I have ever seen----truly!