[Mike_Cirba]

As I think more about it, David...you say Macdonald originally thought he'd need about 110 acres but ended up buying 205 and depending on the measuring, used say 180 acres for the course, that he thought would be ideal at about 6100 yards.

Why in the world then would he recommend Merion buy only 65 pct of the land that he needed at NGLA, especially considering the property was bisected with a public road and had a large quarry unusable for greens, tees, or fairways?

Despite such limited acreage, would you still ask us to believe that he remotely routed the Merion course and designed the holes based on a single visit nine months prior and had His plan waiting for the committee when they arrived at NGLA?

[DMoriarty]

Let me clarify a few things.

1. The Ag letters I referenced were retrieved from the USGA by Tom MacWood.  I mentioned that because he is the one who gave them to me.  We have heard for years that Wayne and TEPaul have reviewed these Ag letters many years ago, but this baffles me.  If they had truly reviewed these letters years ago, they would have known that:
      1.  CBM was involved in Merion's project and communicating with Wilson from the beginning of Wilson's involvement and for months after the construction began.
      2.  Merion already possessed a blueprint of the course at the time Wilson began working on the project.
      3.  The legend that Wilson traveled to NGLA to get advice and then traveled overseas to study BEFORE the course was built was wrong.

As I see it the most likely explanations for their failure to understand and/or disseminate this information are:

a.   TEPaul and Wayne were so set in their beliefs about Merion that, while they did review they letters, they did not understand these and other implications from these letters.

b..   TEPaul and Wayne were so set in their beliefs about Merion that, while they did review they letters, they did intentionally ignored and hid these and other implications from these letters.

c.   TEPaul and Wayne were so set in their beliefs about Merion that they never even bothered to review the letters in the first place, and instead just constantly referenced them as if they had a thorough knowledge of them.

Whether one of these or a combination, TEPaul and Wayne brought very little relevant from these letters until AFTER my essay, and as outlined above, they still never brought forward much of what directly cuts against their argument.

Once again we have proof that having access to documents means nothing is one is not willing or capable of understanding them and accurately disseminating the information.  

____________________

Mike can we please keep the NGLA discussion to the NGLA thread?  Perhaps you just posted this in the wrong place, but I think I addressed your post over there.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Haven't Tom and Wayne already made clear here about 4,226,924 times prevously that they were originally looking through those letters to find references to William Flynn, who they were writing a book about?

If that is so, and it is, then why are you and Tom MacWood on this crusade to prove them wrong about things they weren't even considering in the first place?

I mean, frankly...who cares?   

also,

As relates to those letters, could you educate us on what the letters say related to your point #2?

Thanks

[JESII]

MIke,

I don't know for a fact, but isn't there much more wetland type area at NGLA than Merion? This would dictate a larger purchase, no?

[Mike_Cirba]

I have just become aware of a truly astounding piece of never seen before old newspaper information that is bound to just blow the entire top right off of Merion's early architectural history and its connection to C.B. Macdonald and Whigam. Truly amazing stuff and coincidentally it emanates from that expert golf architectural researcher/writer that started all this stuff off on Merion over six years ago. This stuff is remarkable and when one has the chance to carefully consider it all it's actually extremely funny too. But I'll tell you one thing; it looks like Macdonald is finally going to get all the credit he deserves for what he did for Merion and Philadelphia back in 1910.

Tom,

Could you elaborate?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  I was just clarifying something so as to avoid any misunderstanding of what I meant when I said that Tom MacWood retrieved this information.    

As for what TEPaul and Wayne say about why they have so badly botched Merion record, it differs from what they said while they were misrepresenting the material to us all these years.

But you are right.  Who cares?  I don't really care and it shouldn't matter but unfortunately it does for two reasons:
1.   TEPaul keeps misrepresenting what happened with the source material, and as long as he continues to do this, I will continue to set the record straight.  
2.  More importantly,  THESE TWO ARE STILL ASKING US TO TAKE THEIR WORD FOR SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF MERION'S HISTORY.   As long as they insist on us taking their word for what the source material says, I will continue to remind them and all of us that their word is no good when it comes to the source material, and that trusting them even a little bit would be a monumental mistake.  

After all, Mike, they are asking all of you to disbelieve me and my essay simply on their credibility.   This puts their credibility squarely at issue, and as long as they do this, then I will continue to honestly portray them as not being worthy on any trust whatsoever.

If they ever do come clean, then the issue of their total lack of credibility will be a bygone and we can move on to understanding what really happened.  

[Mike_Cirba]

MIke,

I don't know for a fact, but isn't there much more wetland type area at NGLA than Merion? This would dictate a larger purchase, no?

Jim,

Not really, and since there wasn't really an EPA back then my understanding is that they just filled in some of the low-lying areas.

They also used some for water hazards, such as 13 & 14.

I  originally meant to post this idea/comment on the NGLA thread, (too many related threads going on)  but I've attached an aerial to that thread if you want to see the land configuration.

[JESII]

MIke,

They wouldn't fill in a low lying area if they didn't want to use it...but they might have to buy it if it were internal...like I said, I don't know NGLA, it was simply a thought as to why CBM bought 180 acres out there...we sure know you don't need 180 acres to build 18 holes, don't we?

[Mike_Cirba]

MIke,

They wouldn't fill in a low lying area if they didn't want to use it...but they might have to buy it if it were internal...like I said, I don't know NGLA, it was simply a thought as to why CBM bought 180 acres out there...we sure know you don't need 180 acres to build 18 holes, don't we?

Jim,

That's right...we know an eighteen hole course can be less than 180 acres, and certainly less than 205, which is why I find it so odd that Macdonald first thought he needed about 110 for NGLA, purchased 205, and seemingly used about 180.

[TEPaul]

"David,

Haven't Tom and Wayne already made clear here about 4,226,924 times prevously that they were originally looking through those letters to find references to William Flynn, who they were writing a book about?

If that is so, and it is, then why are you and Tom MacWood on this crusade to prove them wrong about things they weren't even considering in the first place?

I mean, frankly...who cares?"  



Mike:

Thanks for mentioning that AGAIN!

We have mentioned that so many times on here but do you really think a person like David Moriarty is going to accept that? OF COURSE NOT! And if that doesn't just about tell the entire tale of what he has been doing on these Merion threads for years I can't imagine what could.

And now that he is flat out of any conceivable way to credibly defend that totally speculative and fallacious essay of his resorting to those kinds of accusations and petty competitivenesses is all he has left apparently.

And this is a person who often says on here he's concerned about his own reputation?! If his reputation ended up in the toilet which I'm pretty sure it already has with most that would not concern me a bit. He deserves that in spades, in my opinion, for the total waste of time that essay and these Merion threads he's been on have created.

[john_stiles]

Tom and David
With all of the beating up you two are performing on each other, you should  know that all of this has resulted in people learning that McDonald was part of the creation of Merion, and that Hugh Wilson should not be honored with ALL of the credit.

Obviously, CBM was mentioned in many of the early articles (Lesley/Golf Illustrated 1914), etc, etc.    Even  'early modern texts',  'The Golf Course' by Cornish and Whitten, 1981,  repeat the old articles that   " C.B.Macdonald  and H.J. Whigham both offered advice on the endeavor."    And the book mentions CBM in a few other paragraphs with respect to Merion.   So, there can be no doubt CBM and Whigham were given some credit as advisors from day numero uno to the present day.

So, in all of the early articles from different sources,  why were  CBM and Whigham not given more credit than being advisors ?

Will be most interesting to see more 'articles' or 'facts.'     After reading much of the early articles,   my gut feeling is that  CBM/HJW  advice would have been mostly about turf, construction, etc. given CBM's difficulties and learning during the actual construction and grassing of NGLA.  

Still have not seen the magic bullet with respect to CBM/HJW earning more credit than 'advisors'.

Let's get back to posting a few newly found articles or perhaps even a snippet of a Merion record.

[TEPaul]

"Whether one of these or a combination, TEPaul and Wayne brought very little relevant from these letters until AFTER my essay, and as outlined above, they still never brought forward much of what directly cuts against their argument.

Once again we have proof that having access to documents means nothing is one is not willing or capable of understanding them and accurately disseminating the information."



David Moriarty:

One of the reasons we never considered bringing forth what you now say is relevent material until after your essay came out is neither of us even remotely considered that even you would seriously consider writing an essay about Merion that said the things that the "Missing Faces of Merion" does. We had no idea what to expect because as you well know you certainly didn't let on a thing about it to us before putting it on here. But even we never considered it would be anywhere near as fallacious as it is. We had no way at all of predicting that or maybe we would have put some relevent material from those agronomy letters on here BEFORE your essay. You never asked me for a single thing before your essay, that's for damned sure! All you're capable of doing is DEMANDING it AFTER THE FACT!  

[TEPaul]

"Let's get back to posting a few newly found articles or perhaps even a snippet of a Merion record."


JohnS:

See post #145 of the "Merion Memories" thread. I'm not done yet with that Macdonald/Merion timeline but when I get finished every mention about Macdonald by MCC in that year he was involved there 3-4 times will be listed and quoted. It's not that hard to do because there's not all that much of it. It only amounts to three face to face contacts in ten months. If he was writing letters and corresponding with them during the interim between those three contacts in June, 1910, March 1911 at NGLA and then April 6, 1911 no one ever recorded it for some odd reason. They certainly recorded the other three contacts so if they didn't record any others if in fact they existed which it doesn't appear they did, one should certainly wonder why if they were of the slightest significance, don't you think?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You need to reconsider what you wrote in :

HenryE:

No, there is no further correspondences between Macdonald and Merion on record and no mention anywhere of any connection orther than the followiing;

1. Macdonald's June 29, 1910 letter to Lloyd about his June 1910 visit to Ardmore;

2. The Wilson Committee's April report to the board that mentions their visit to NGLA (March, 1911)

3. The mention of Macdonald/Whigam's single day visit to Ardmore on April, 1911.

Anything other than that is completely fabricated and total speculation by David Moriarty, the same man who demands FACTS from everyone else, yet provides none himself and constantly engages in completely unfactual speculation! What's new? 

And also:

JohnS:

See post #145 of the "Merion Memories" thread. I'm not done yet with that Macdonald/Merion timeline but when I get finished every mention about Macdonald by MCC in that year he was involved there 3-4 times will be listed and quoted. It's not that hard to do because there's not all that much of it. It only amounts to three face to face contacts in ten months. If he was writing letters and corresponding with them during the interim between those three contacts in June, 1910, March 1911 at NGLA and then April 6, 1911 no one ever recorded it for some odd reason. They certainly recorded the other three contacts so if they didn't record any others if in fact they existed which it doesn't appear they did, one should certainly wonder why if they were of the slightest significance, don't you think?

This was published in the May 14, 1911 edition of the Philadelphia Record. The columnist was the "Glf Editor" A.W. Tillinghast:

"I had a chat with C.B. Macdonald and he told me more about the new course at Merion. He is really very enthusiastic about it, and he asserts that Philadelphia will have at Haverford the finest inland course in America. Mr. Macdonald's enthusiasm is only natural, For he has been very active in working with the committee, [bold, italics, underline mine] but from his description of many of the proposed holes I can readily understand why he is so sanguine. No description of the links can be attempted at this time, for the work is still in its infancy."

This report certainly gives credence to CBM being in FAR more contact with the committee than you had previously thought and at a time BEFORE the course was evidently laid out. Tilly mentioned that CBM spoke of "proposed holes" so this is definitely during the planning stages yet since he stated that "no description of the links" could be given because the project was in its "infancy" at that time.

Is it possible and reasonable to conclude that CBM WAS deeply involved in the EARLIEST stages of coming up with a design (hence why he would be asked to view the 5 proposed routings later on) and the club simply went with a DIFFERENT architect(s) (the construction committee) when the final decision was being made?

This scenario has happened throughout the history of golf course architecture. It would also explain how and why tilly would write in the '30's that Wilson was the forgotten designer of Merion.

[DMoriarty]

John Stiles,

I think I have covered most of your questions in a few recent posts in other threads, but let me try to pull it together here.

So, in all of the early articles from different sources,  why were  CBM and Whigham not given more credit than being advisors ?

This was a transitional/revolutionary time for golf course design in america, and the concepts of golf course designer and golf course architect were just developing.  Consequently they were all struggling to find the terms to describe what was going on.  As far as I can tell, the title "golf course architect" was scarcely used back then.  There are a few mentions here and there, but for the most part the concept was a not really yet defined.     So I don't think we can draw any conclusions for their failure to use modern descriptions of what was going on.

Plus, at the time, those who actually arranged the course on the ground and built it were the ones most credited (especially if they were a club member.)  I have no evidence that M&W were directly involved in the construction or additions that took place after the course was initially built, so it was pretty easy for the rest of the world to think of it as a Merion creation. 

While they were called advisors, sources with first hand knowledge, Hugh Wilson, Lesley, and Whigham, noted that CBM was involved in planning the layout.  Other second hand sources like Tillinghast and Alan Wilson did too.   

So it is a mistake to assume from the word "advisors" that they did not play a crucial role, or that Merion did not recognize this in the beginning.  When he announced the courses to the world, Lesley acknowledged M&W right along with the Committee.   He called the members part of a "Committee" and M&W "advisors,"  and later generations have used this to diminish M&W's contribution, but what was he supposed to call them?   They weren't members and couldn't have been part of the committee.   They didn't build the course.   They weren't on site.    I don't think there was the phrase "consulting architect" had been invented, nor was there much use of the phrase "golf course architect" at this time.   "Advisors" was not a necessarily a diminutive term, and wasn't meant as such, and we shouldn't treat it as such.

Think of all the contributions of those who undoubtedly offered advice in the way we seem to think of the term offering advice.   Piper, Oakley, Beale, Pickering, Findlay and others.  Yet Lesley only listed the Committee and M&W as responsible for the course.   If Lesley saw fit to include M&W in 1914, we ought to respect that and consider it carefully.

  my gut feeling is that  CBM/HJW  advice would have been mostly about turf, construction, etc. given CBM's difficulties and learning during the actual construction and grassing of NGLA.  

There is ample evidence that M&W were involved in planning the course:

1.   At end of 1910 or the beginning of 1911, Merion's Board announced to the members that experts were at work preparing plans for the course. 
  -  It is not clear that Wilson had even been appointed yet, and he was by his own admission a complete novice in this sort of thing. 
  -  The only three experts involved up until this point were Barker, CBM, and HJW.
  -  While the record is somewhat ambiguous regarding Barker's potential continued involvement, the only two experts that were definitely still involved in this project at this point were M&W. 
  -  At this point M&W had already inspected the property, noted that the Quarry and creeks had great potential for first class golf holes, provided approximate hole distances, and recommended the addition of the area behind the clubhouse.  But they could not tell Merion if the course they had envisioned would fit on the land without a contour map.
  -  Merion got a contour map, and sometime before February 1, 1911 the there was a blueprint of the course, presumably created or recommened by the "experts" who were planning the course.

2. The timing and events surrounding the NGLA trip indicates that Merion's specific lay out and construction primary topic.
  -  The meeting occurred shortly before Merion was to begin building the course.
  -  The committee had been trying unsuccessfully to come up with precise course when they went to NGLA to meet with M&W. 
  -  Whatever happened at NGLA allowed them to come up with five variations to show M&W a at their visit a few weeks later.
  -  M&W were brought back to Merion to determine the final routing. 
  -  Hugh Wilson's 1916 essay M&W taught the committee how to apply the classic principles onto the land at Merion.

4.  The RR land behind the clubhouse was used in the routing at M&W's specific suggestion (both in June and again in March) even though the land was not even part of the land first considered for a golf course. 

5.  The Ag letters indicate that Wilson and Macdonald were corresponding from the time Wilson became involved through the planning process.
  -  Given Wilson's insistence on getting the best advice possible, it is impossible to believe he did not consult with CBM (who had seen the course) about hole locations.
  -  Given Wilson's lack of experience and M&W's expertise, it is highly unlikely that Merion wouldn't have insisted that CBM be as involved in the planning as possible.
  -  The explicit mention in the Minutes that M&W were brought in to approve of the plans indicates that it was important to Merion that M&W were involved in the design. 

Quote
I'm struggling to see how this could be the case given the ongoing activity of Wilson and his colleagues and the listing of M&W as giving advice rather than giving them billing as course architects/designers.

1.   This was a transitional/revolutionary time for golf course design in america, and the concepts of golf course designer and golf course architect were just developing.  Consequently they were all struggling to find the terms to describe what was going on.  As far as I can tell, the title "golf course architect" was scarcely used back then.  There are a few mentions here and there, but for the most part the concept was a not really yet defined.     So I don't think we can draw any conclusions for their failure to use modern descriptions of what was going on.

2.  Sources with first hand knowledge, Hugh Wilson, Lesley, and Whigham, noted that CBM was involved in planning the layout.  Other second hand sources like Tillinghast and Alan Wilson did too.

3.  At the time, those who actually arranged the course on the ground and built it were the ones most credited (especially if they were a club member.)  I have no evidence that M&W were directly involved in the construction or additions that took place after the course was initially built, so it was pretty easy for the rest of the world to think of it as a Merion creation. 

This is just a brief oultine of the answers to your questions.  There is more, and much more detail.

[DMoriarty]

Phil,

Interesting point, but M&W determined the final layout plan and the board approved of it in April 1911.   Now obviously a lot happened at Merion later, especially after the opening, and CBM wasn't likely involved in any of that except perhaps indirectly.

You point is a good one though as it reaffirms that CBM was closely working with Wilson and the committee on the plans for the course. 

[TEPaul]

Phil:

I'm sorry, in my Merion/Macdonald timeline I am only including what comes directly from MCC in that particular timespan and from people there in that timespan and not any newspaper articles. I think others on here like Joe Bausch have supplied just about everything from this time frame to do with newspaper articles. It is just the MCC stuff itself that some seem to be demanding of me about a Macdonald/Merion timeline as I believe I have everything there is extant on that. If there is something else out there from MCC itself and someone has it they should put it on here or at least mention what exactly it is.

Of course what a person like David Moriarty who says things like something "must have happened"  without supported it with an account of the real item is just his usual blatant speculation he tries to make seem like it may be fact. 

[TEPaul]

"Is it possible and reasonable to conclude that CBM WAS deeply involved in the EARLIEST stages of coming up with a design (hence why he would be asked to view the 5 proposed routings later on) and the club simply went with a DIFFERENT architect(s) (the construction committee) when the final decision was being made?"


Phil:

Let me ask you an honest question. Have you actually been following the details of these threads? I ask because if you have been and you actually ask a question like that one I find it pretty amazing, particularly the last part of it. I mean I guess some people just tend to discount everthing a club records about what they are doing when trying to design and build a golf course but honestly I personally see no value at all in that kind of approach on here. Sorry; but maybe you ask simply because you haven't really been following the details of this thread.

[DMoriarty]

Anyone else notice how the only opposition to my position are vague and general references to how it has already been all determined, and that I am wrong wrong wrong.  Anyone seen any VERIFIABLE FACTS and ANALYSIS  to back any of this up.  I sure haven't.

I wonder where this supposed factual analysis is?   Is there a sister site I don't know about?   Has anyone seen it, and if so can that person reference me to specifically to this FACTUAL ANALYSIS?   Or is it like the Merion documents where we just have to take these statements on belief alone?

Because to me it seems like some are just hoping that you take their word for this stuff and leave it at that.  Same as always.

[TEPaul]

"1.   At end of 1910 or the beginning of 1911, Merion's Board announced to the members that experts were at work preparing plans for the course.  
  -  It is not clear that Wilson had even been appointed yet, and he was by his own admission a complete novice in this sort of thing.  
  -  The only three experts involved up until this point were Barker, CBM, and HJW."



In my opinion, this is the single biggest fallacy and stretch in "The Missing Faces of Merion" and I recognized it the moment I first read it.

Who David Moriarty thinks were "The Experts" referred to by MCC when Wilson and committee were beginning to get to work in the beginning of 1911 and who MCC was referring to as "The experts" is definitely NOT one and the same. One of the reasons that is so obvious is at that time there was nobody else around other than Wilson and his Committee.

Furthermore the records and reports of that time are just rife with mention of people who were very good golfers from clubs who were constantly referred to as " the experts" and including with design simply because they were such good golfers. Maybe some today don't look at it that way but we need to recognize a good many did look at it that way back then, that's for sure! We mentioned this and documented it for David Moriarty in the past but like everything else he ignored it and dismissed it apparently recognizing it does not support what he says in his fallacious and revisionist essay.

Does he sound like a man who really wants to learn anything?

[JESII]

Tom,

Is it possible that Lloyd owned HDC from the beginning of HDC's corporate establishment?

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

Tillinghast also wrote that he saw "the plans" for Merion right in that same timeframe.   I'm sure he also spoke to Macdonald when Big Mac was in town on April 19th to help the committee select the best of those plans the Committee had created, so yes, most definitely both men were quite familiar with the proposed holes for the new course.

Tillinghast also then wrote a course opening article for American Cricketer that made no mention of Mac and instead said that Hugh Wilson and the Committee "deserved the congratulatons of all golfers".   Much have been some construction they did, huh?      

As you know, he also wrote that Hugh Wilson "planned and developed" the course at Merion, and said he was a gifted architect.

Sounds like the best eye-witness in history to tell us exactly what happend, and guess what...he did! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

MIke,

I don't know for a fact, but isn't there much more wetland type area at NGLA than Merion?
This would dictate a larger purchase, no?

Jim,

Not really, and since there wasn't really an EPA back then my understanding is that they just filled in some of the low-lying areas.

Mike,

In addition to being flat out wrong, that's a disengenuous answer.

Jim didn't ask if the area was declared wetlands, he asked if there were wetland type areas, the kind which would make the land unsuitable or incapable of accomodating a golf course.

We know that the answer to Jim's inquiry is "YES, there were plenty of wetland like areas at NGLA"

Macdonald stated: "This property was little known and had never been surveyed.
Every one thought it more or less worthless.
It ABOUNDED IN BOGS AND SWAMPS...'

"In many places the land was impoverished.
These had to be topdressed.
Roughly speaking we have probably put some 10,000 loads of good soil, including manure, on the property."

And you're telling us that the properties were about the same, that they just filled in some low-lying areas ?   ?    ?

Mike, please, if you can't tell the truth, don't post.

They also used some for water hazards, such as 13 & 14.

How about at # 9, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18 ?

I  originally meant to post this idea/comment on the NGLA thread, (too many related threads going on)  but I've attached an aerial to that thread if you want to see the land configuration.

Why don't you study the aerial you posted before commenting on the golf course ?  

[DMoriarty]

Phil,

Tillinghast also wrote that he saw "the plans" for Merion right in that same timeframe.   I'm sure he also spoke to Macdonald when Big Mac was in town on April 19th to help the committee select the best of those plans the Committee had created, so yes, most definitely both men were quite familiar with the proposed holes for the new course.

Tillinghast also then wrote a course opening article for American Cricketer that made no mention of Mac and instead said that Hugh Wilson and the Committee "deserved the congratulatons of all golfers".   Much have been some construction they did, huh?      

As you know, he also wrote that Hugh Wilson "planned and developed" the course at Merion, and said he was a gifted architect.

Sounds like the best eye-witness in history to tell us exactly what happend, and guess what...he did! 

Yet another disingenuous post Mike.   You string together quotes from different contexts made over a 25 year span as if it was all said one day in 1911.   You also call him an "eye witness" but as far as I can tell, his early accounts of the course (such as the one Phil references) were second hand.   Perhaps you still don't understand what an eye witness is?         When did Tillinghast first see Merion East?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

Is it possible that Lloyd owned HDC from the beginning of HDC's corporate establishment?"



Sully:

In my opinion, no it is not; not at all. We know now exactly who the owners were and their percentages and we know who the board of directors were too. I think you asked me something about the HDC recapitalization in 1910. I'll get to that a bit later.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()