[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I stated that it was Tom Paul who wrote that and made it clear in the first sentence.   He sent it to me a few months back, and I copied it to Word because I thought it made perfect sense.

I chose to use it because he clearly made points that I wasn't going to even try and improve on in answering your questions.

Nevertheless, since you're also avoiding my questions and back to playing word games, I can see once again our dialogue has no practical or productive purpose.

Perhaps others who are actually interested in getting to the truth like Bryan Izatt will answer how they think the Francis Land Swap happened before November 1910 if the boundaries for the golf course were not even located by the end of December 1910.  

[DMoriarty]

Mike, there is something wrong with your quote.  Will you please recheck it because as written it does not make sense. I copied it verbatim.

-  And if not, then could you explain why you think it says that Lesley was an expert?"...himself and other golf experts."   Please don't be obtuse, because it's crap and it makes you look stupid.

Nice editing . . . Here is the the quote
"Robert W. Lesley . . . stated . . . that he had seen plans for an eighteen hole public golf course prepared as the result of many consultations with himself and other golf experts laid out at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park."  

Something is wrong with the quote. Read it.  Robert Lesley is not being called a golf expert.   The "golf experts" were apparently "laid out" at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park.  Was there a Scottish cemetery there?   Who laid out the course?  Who planned it?   Who is consulting whom?

Mike, the passage you provided is nonsense.   Either you typed it wrong, or it was nonsense in the paper.  

-And could you please look up the meaning of the word "verbatim" and then specifically point out the portions of the two articles that are verbatim?I was stating in answer to your question that copied it verbatim from the newspaper,and yes, I double-checked.
If this is true the quote is nonsense.  Wouldn't you agree?
-And could you please tell me why you are crediting Lesley with an announcement apparently by Sayres?You don't know it was Sayres, but even if it was, Sayres, Evans, and the Board of Governors got their official info on golf at Merion from the Golf Committee, headed by Robert Lesley.   But, you already know that...I am unaware of any facts indicating that Merion's board had even been made aware of Wilson and his committee by this point, much less any evidence that they referred to them as experts.  Enlighten me.

-And could you please tell me why you are crediting Lesley with language in a Phil. Press aritcle by an author you don't name? Their is no byline.   You can look it up in the 1/21/1915 Philadelphia Press in an article on the annual GAP January meeting, titled Townsend, Golf Secretary, Quits, and it's the third paragraph in the story.   But you are not suggesting it was anyone at Merion are you?

-And, while we've always known that some of the members at Merion were good but not great club golfers, what does that have to do with whether they were experts at designing golf courses, as the term was commonly used at the time?   I'm done with this subject on how "expert" was used at the time.   Let's let others decide whether I've proved my point because I'm very confident that people can read.

What a cop out Mike.  

You claimed there were hundreds of courses designed by clubbies who were considered experts at designing golf courses merely because they were good players.   It seems that you cannot come up with a single example where this was actually the case.    To make it easier on the readers, will you at least acknowledge that you have not been able to locate even a single example to support your claims?

And Mike, you missed the last part of my post.   What are we supposed to have learned from the article mentioning US Amateur Champion H. Chandler Egan?  Other than what the resume of a real amateur "golf expert" should look like, that is?

-Could you please explain to me what that reference to H. Chandler Egan as a "golf expert" in that context has to do with designing courses?  

-And while your at it, take a look at H. Chandler Egan's golfing accomplishments by 1904, and tell me that you are seriously comparing his level of expertise in golf to Wilson, Francis, Toulmin, Lloyd, and Griscom?  Or all of them combined for that matter!     Let me help you . . .   Start with the 1904 US Amateur Championship, and work your back through time . . .  multiple Western Open Championships and Multiple NCAA Championships, an Olympic Team Championship, and an Olympic Silver Medal.   And that was 1904 or BEFORE.  In other words, if there ever was an amateur "golf expert" in the United States, Egan was it.   Had he resided from Philadelphia we'd never hear the end of him.   It is telling that you have to go all the way to H. Chandler Egan to find an example, and even there not one about design.

- And after all that, PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS! Because TEPaul's post did not.

David,

I stated that it was Tom Paul who wrote that and made it clear in the first sentence.   He sent it to me a few months back, and I copied it to Word because I thought it made perfect sense.

Except it said "a few days back" at the time I answered the post.  Don't play TEPaul games, Mike.

I chose to use it because he clearly made points that I wasn't going to even try and improve on in answering your questions.

Nevertheless, since you're also avoiding my questions and back to playing word games, I can see once again our dialogue has no practical or productive purpose.

Perhaps others who are actually interested in getting to the truth like Bryan Izatt will answer how they think the Francis Land Swap happened before November 1910 if the boundaries for the golf course were not even located by the end of December 1910.  

You premise is wrong. You have no evidence that there was no set boundary.  And whether the  boundary was flexible has nothing to do with the swap, which wasn't a swap at all, but a change in what was to be sold.   See my explanations to you about NGLA and yo might get what I mean.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Tom Paul sent it to me a few months back.  

As far as your seeming inability to understand simple English, I honestly don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse or whether the inaccurate definition you're created in your own mind to define what "laid out" meant has corrupted your thinking to the point where nothing make sense in some bizarro revisionist history world in your head.

Let me break it down for you, and then I'm done with this nonsense.

Robert Lesley stated that he had seen plans (i.e. ON PAPER) (noun) for an eighteen hole public golf course...laid out (verb) at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park.   The plans had been created as the result of many consultations with Lesley (himself) and other golf experts.

It's not difficult, David.   I'm confident you even have the ability to understand the wording of the MCC Minutes, despite some of the arcane phrasing.

And there was no set boundary for the golf course as of December 1910.   I WILL wager you on that, even if only theoretically, as I'm uncertain in your world if we'd actually agree the sky is blue and I personally don't believe in gambling.   If you are actually interested in finding out what really happened you need to accept that as fact and see where that leaves your thinking.   It really isn't a bad place, but you just have to make room for both CB Macdonald AND Hugh Wilson instead of trying to diminish one to elevate another.  

But David, on this other crap that is simply about trying to knock Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison, and Hugh Wilson, I'm through wasting time and engaging with you on this.   I'm tired of your insults and your transparent agenda.   I'll be happy to discuss this topic with others genuinely interested and not mostly trying to grind personal axes, but if you insist on this narrow, single-mindedness and unwillingness to intelligently accept and discuss contrary information then I'll leave it up to you to try and convince the very few you may have left who think the whole of your theories make any sense at all.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

A few comments on two points that you made.

The first is where you stated, “Tom Paul,

What is your status in this discussion group?  Are you back?  Or are you still suspended? 
- Because if you are back, then shouldn't you just post under your own name instead of creating the fiction that you no longer want to participate when you are actually participating through Cirba on a daily basis?
- And if you are still suspended, then why are you having Mike Cirba post messages for you?   If Ran doesn't want you posting, shouldn't you show him enough respect to abide by his suspension?”

Tom has not been suspended as far as I know. The proof is quite plain for all to see. When someone is banned or suspended their name appears as “guest.” Tom Paul's does not. Isn’t that what happened to Tom Macwood? Secondly, if you look on the members list you will see thet “Tepaul” is still recognized as an active member. So Tom has simply chosen to not take part in the group. For how long only he knows. If it is for good, he will be missed just as you were when you took your sabbatical(s)

Also, what is wrong with posting for someone if they ask? Tom Macwood asked several on here to do so for him, including me. I considered it a privilege to do so and would do it for others as well.

If you condemn Mike for doing this, and I honestly have no idea if he has or not, then you must also condemn me & others and Tom Macwood for also doing so.

You also stated, “One of the many problems with your methodology is that it ignores virtually all of those were actually referred to as "golf experts" in conjunction with designing courses. There are no professionals on these lists, and if you care to actually read the old articles you will find that in the context of designing courses, the phrase "golf expert" applies to professionals and/or those with design experience.   Wilson, a good but not great club golfer, was neither of these in late December or early January 1910…”

There are a number of ways to look at the following. This advertisement is from the November 1895 issue of The Golfer magazine:

"Golf LINKS Laid Out  An expert Golfer will lay out links at reasonable rates in the New England and Middle States. He has laid out a number of links in this country…  L.J. & W.J. DOOGUE

As to whether or not Hugh Wilson should be considered an “Expert Golfer”; at the least, in an earlier post you recognized Tilly as being one, yet when the handicaps were assigned they listed Tilly as a “5” and Wilson as a “6”…  Those at 5 or better were 10 in number, so I can’t see how you could state Tilly is an expert “golfer” but that Wilson is not…

Tom Macwood went even further stating, “His activity during a 13 year period is comparable to one good year from Tillinghast, Crump, Perrin, Travis, Macdonald or Whigham. Wilson was a good golfer; he was not among the better golfers in Philadelphia…
Clearly the handicap system recognized that he was… By the way, Perrin was also only one stroke better as a “5” and Crump was considered Wilson’s EQUAL as also a “6.”

In addition, David, you stated that, “Wilson, a good but not great club golfer, was neither of these in late December or early January 1910.”

Again, the handicap system and Wilson’s fellow golfers, among whom were some that you have already declared as “experts” not only recognized him as their equal but also RANKED him as such…

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does anyone know a historian? I would love a professional opinion on all of these arguments and their validity, from all sides.

My impression is that as amateur sportsman historians, we all flunk!  We continually argue vauge and questionable points around the edges.  In the end, IMHO, its still all a matter of opinion. 

DM thinks there have to be even more letters like the Oakley ones that Wilson wrote back and forth that have been lost to history, but even if CBM only did what the record shows, DM thinks that CBM should be credited with more attribution than he has gotten.  There is probably a case to be made for that, but MCC has the final say, even if more clarity comes out on this.

Tom MacWood's theory on Barker makes close to zero sense, based on the actuall written record and probably shouldn't be seriously debated, at least until he comes up with some corroboration on his one newspaper article.

I have suggested to TePaul that he spend some money having college students track down the Oakley file in Washington, and also look into other sources around Philly - ie. Pugh and Hubbard Surveyors, HDC descendants, etc.  It seems pretty clear that no new documents will show up in the MCC files so the task should be to look elsewhere.

I also wonder why (other than the common sense to stay out of a cat fight) why George Bahto isn't consulted more on this.  He must have had access to some of CBM's records when he wrote his book, no?  Did he find anything relevant to MCC?  If so, why isn't more in his book about it?

[DMoriarty]

David,

Tom Paul sent it to me a few months back.  
So why then did you write "a few days" then change it after my response?

As far as your seeming inability to understand simple English, I honestly don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse or whether the inaccurate definition you're created in your own mind to define what "laid out" meant has corrupted your thinking to the point where nothing make sense in some bizarro revisionist history world in your head.

Let me break it down for you, and then I'm done with this nonsense.

Robert Lesley stated that he had seen plans (i.e. ON PAPER) (noun) for an eighteen hole public golf course...laid out (verb) at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park.   The plans had been created as the result of many consultations with Lesley (himself) and other golf experts.

Sorry Mike, but the sentence as you presented it is nonsense, and your explanation makes even less sense.  You can't just pretend the sentence says something it doesn't to fit your needs.   - Lesley consulting with himself?   Or is there a mystery man who had consulted with Lesley and other golf experts?   And is this the same mystery man who laid out the course, because in your reading Lesley and the experts only made the plans.  

Here again is the sentence:
"Robert W. Lesley, president, stated on behalf of the Committee on the Park Golf Course, that he had seen plans for an eighteen hole public golf course prepared as the result of many consultations with himself and other golf experts laid out at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park."

Can someone else tell Mike that the sentence does not seem to make any sense?   He won't believe me, no matter how many times he is wrong.  
And Mike, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE ARTICLE. CAN YOU POST IT?   NOT YOUR TRANSCRIPT, BUT THE ARTICLE?  THANKS.

I am glad though, Mike, that you now agree with me that oftentimes planning a course is different than laying it out.

It's not difficult, David.   I'm confident you even have the ability to understand the wording of the MCC Minutes, despite some of the arcane phrasing.

You of all people criticizing my ability to understand this stuff?  Finally, you made me laugh.  Thanks.

And there was no set boundary for the golf course as of December 1910.   I WILL wager you on that, even if only theoretically, as I'm uncertain in your world if we'd actually agree the sky is blue and I personally don't believe in gambling.   If you are actually interested in finding out what really happened you need to accept that as fact and see where that leaves your thinking.   It really isn't a bad place, but you just have to make room for both CB Macdonald AND Hugh Wilson instead of trying to diminish one to elevate another.  

I'll believe there was no set boundary as soon as I see evidence of it.  So far as I know, everyone at Merion thought they bought exactly 117 acres, and nothing about a flexible or indeterminate boundary.    Besides if you want me to accept facts, you need to come up with facts.  Verifiable facts.   So far it is just you demanding we believe you based on what?  TEPaul's incomplete and evolving description of a letter?  I don't think so.

And, Mike, even if the boundary was not yet finalized it makes no difference.   Francis still wrote what he wrote, and tweaking the boundary won't change that.  I am going with my man Francis until the facts indicate otherwise.

But David, on this other crap that is simply about trying to knock Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison, and Hugh Wilson, I'm through wasting time and engaging with you on this.   I'm tired of your insults and your transparent agenda.   I'll be happy to discuss this topic with others genuinely interested and not mostly trying to grind personal axes, but if you insist on this narrow, single-mindedness and unwillingness to intelligently accept and discuss contrary information then I'll leave it up to you to try and convince the very few you may have left who think the whole of your theories make any sense at all.

How come every time you just cannot answer simple questions you try and cut off conversation?  

1. What FACTS back up your claim that before 1910 there were hundreds of clubbies who were considered "experts" at designing golf courses just because they were good but not club golfers?   Because the more I look at the FACTS, the more I can see that this was just not the case.  

2. What did Hugh Wilson do to design Merion, and what verifiable facts back up whatever you think he did?

[DMoriarty]

Tom has not been suspended as far as I know. The proof is quite plain for all to see. When someone is banned or suspended their name appears as “guest.” Tom Paul's does not. Isn’t that what happened to Tom Macwood? Secondly, if you look on the members list you will see thet “Tepaul” is still recognized as an active member. So Tom has simply chosen to not take part in the group. For how long only he knows. If it is for good, he will be missed just as you were when you took your sabbatical(s)

Phillip, You are mistaken.  One can be suspended from posting without going "guest."  I know because after some complained about my defending myself against TePaul and calling him out for blatantly doctoring extremely relevant source material, I too was suspended.  I still don't understand why exactly, but I suspect that it was just the easiest way for Ran to deal with it.   As far as I know TEPaul is still suspended and rightfully so.

Also, what is wrong with posting for someone if they ask? Tom Macwood asked several on here to do so for him, including me. I considered it a privilege to do so and would do it for others as well.

If you condemn Mike for doing this, and I honestly have no idea if he has or not, then you must also condemn me & others and Tom Macwood for also doing so.

First, I think that TomM was welcome here when he was having you post.  Second, if you have no idea whether Mike is posting for TEPaul and Wayne, then you haven't been paying attention.  Third, if TEPaul is suspended then he shouldn't be using back door avenues to post, and Mike shouldn't be facilitating it.  It is Ran's site and if he doesn't want TEPaul participating, then TEPaul ought not to be.

As for the rest, this has nothing to do with AWT.  We were talking about Mike's claim that hundreds of clubbies were considered experts at designing courses simply because they were good but not great club golfers.   I've read dozens and dozens of articles, and have yet to find an example of a clubbie being called an "expert" at designing courses simply because he was a good club golfer.  In fact they are almost all professionals or those with prior experience designing courses.   But you substitute in the phrase "expert golfer" and change the focus to golfing ability rather than design expertise, but that is not what design expertise referred to.   Merion's committee did not write about "expert golfers" or "good club golfers."  Rather they wrote about "experts at work planning the course."   In my experience this meant either professionals or those who had golf design experience.  

In short Phillip, I don't know why you are trying to make this about AWT, but I have no opinion on his ability as a golfer, and don't recall expressing one.  You have written that by 1910 he was designing courses professionally by 1910, so I imagine one would consider him an expert at designing courses if not by then, then soon after.  But again it is not my issue.  

It doesn't matter who you, Mike, Tom MacWood, or I thought were expert golfers.  My concern is with how those there then referred to those who designed the courses, and in that context the design "experts" were either professionals or experienced.

[DMoriarty]

DM thinks there have to be even more letters like the Oakley ones that Wilson wrote back and forth that have been lost to history, but even if CBM only did what the record shows, DM thinks that CBM should be credited with more attribution than he has gotten.  There is probably a case to be made for that, but MCC has the final say, even if more clarity comes out on this.

Whether there is a case to be made or not, this is not my issue.  I just want to figure out who did what.  As for the existence of more letters, anyone reading Wilson's letters to Oakley would have to reasonably expect that he sent letters to others as well.

Tom MacWood's theory on Barker makes close to zero sense, based on the actuall written record and probably shouldn't be seriously debated, at least until he comes up with some corroboration on his one newspaper article.

Sorry to say so Jeff, but TomM's theory both makes more sense and has more corroboration than yours did.   There are articles that have Barker being hired around that time, and MCC's reference to "experts at Work" certainly did not apply to Hugh Wilson and his Committee.  They were neither experts nor is their any evidence they were yet at work.  And there is no evidence that Merion's board even knew they existed as a committee (if they did by the beginning of January 1911.

I have suggested to TePaul that he spend some money having college students track down the Oakley file in Washington, and also look into other sources around Philly - ie. Pugh and Hubbard Surveyors, HDC descendants, etc.  It seems pretty clear that no new documents will show up in the MCC files so the task should be to look elsewhere.

It is not clear at all that there is no information in the MCC files.  Information slips out fairly often.  What is clear is that TEPaul and Wayne do not want us to see what is really there, and this alone is good reason to believe that there is much more.  

Your suggestion to TEPaul assumes he has an interest in figuring out what happened, and it is obvious that he does not.  He's told us over and over again that he thinks he already knows what happened, and we ought to quit looking.  

Besides, if he was truly interested in the truth there would be no reason to conceal the information he is concealing.  Nor would there be any reason to doctor source material or mislead us about what the source material said and doesn't say.  

[Sean_A]

David,

I don't speak for either Tom or Wayne.   In some cases, Tom has forwarded me specific information that I've copied verbatim here attributing it to him.    I've probably spoken to Wayne one time in the past two months, since a day together at Merion West.   I've been busy and I know he is.

Of course you speak for them.  Almost on a daily basis.  Whether based on emails from them or direct conversations, you are repeatedly relaying what they want you to.  If you ask me, the whole thing is a bit disrespectful to Ran since TEPaul is not currently a welcome participant on these boards, is he?   But then you've created the impression that TEPaul is absent by his own choice, so maybe he has mislead you into thinking that this is the case.

In other case, such as what I wrote about "taking title", I'm trying to reconstruct a phone conversation and it based on "my" understanding of something we talked about a few weeks ago.  

I do know that he felt that whatever it specifically said is not as meaningful as the fact that Lloyd simply purchased the 161 acres himself, not representing either entity.   In thinking about it, I think that's what he meant when he said that Lloyd didn't take title for HDC; not that Cuyler didn't recommend it, but instead he purchased it under his name.  

This is a new story on your part Mike.   You said it was because of confusing language, and then said again that you know TEPaul said the language was confusing.  But now you are saying that it wasn't a misunderstanding based on confusing language but that TEPaul just changes his mind??   Which is it?

I think your example of Rothwell is not a good one to compare to Lloyd.   Rothwell was clearly a middle-man, holding title from 1 to 3 days at most.   Lloyd had the land that became Merion for almost seven months.

Thanks for your opinion, but how long they each respectively held title is irrelevant since IMO both of them were limited on what they could do with it because of their duties and obligations to the real interested parties, HDC and MCC.  In other words, as I have been saying all along, Lloyd played the role of a bridge, middleman, or guarantor, in order to expedite the deal.   At least that is what the facts as I understand them indicate.

I'd also like you to know that what I wrote this morning is not speculation.   The boundaries for the golf course were not definitely established as late as the second part of December, 1910.   It's why Lloyd purchased the whole shooting match.

I wish you were joking Mike, but I am sure you are not.  

MIKE, YOU HAVE JUST CLAIMED THAT THE SUPPOSED SENTENCE FROM THE CUYLER LETTER DOES NOT SAY AND/OR MEAN WHAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN TOLD.   YOU CAN'T NOW DRAW A CONCLUSION FROM THE VERY SAME SUPPOSED SENTENCE AND CLAIM YOUR CONCLUSION IS NOT SPECULATIVE.  

I feel for you Mike.  These guys have so manipulated the record that you apparently cannot even keep track, and are claiming the same information is both true and false in the very same post.   It is really unfair of TEPaul to leave you to try and keep track of all his deception.  
  

Also, I'm cooking dinner right now, but let me leave you with the following;

"Robert W. Lesley, president, stated on behalf of the Committee on the Park Golf Course, that he had seen plans for an eighteen hole public golf course prepared as the result of many consultations with himself and other golf experts laid out at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park."  

"...He added further that he is assured that work on the preparation of the course will be begun as soon as the weather permits in the Spring.  The new links will be of championship length and character and will give Philadelphia a public golf course second to none in the United States."

- Philadelphia Press, 1/21/1915

The quote doesn't quite make sense as you have it written.   Do you mind rechecking it?    

Did you notice that quote is treating "had plans created" and "laid out" were different processes?  

Surely you are not making anything out of the reference to unidentified experts are you?   If so could you show me the portion of this article where these experts are clearly identified?  And please don't tell me that because you think you otherwise know who these experts were, that this is definitely to whom the article applies.  

Sound familiar?

No, not really.




My questions, Mike?

David

Get off your soap box.  Either prove that Mike is a talk piece for T Paul or stop making unfounded allegations.  Alright, your language is better than T Paul's, but your intent is the same - an attempt to debase someone.  Many on this site have pleaded for restraint and things have gotten better, but for some reason you feel the need to bait others.  Does this somehow make you feel better?

Ciao   

[Dan Herrmann]

Sean,
David has also accused me of speaking for Wayne and/or Tom.    Definitely not the case.   I owe Tom a phone call about the golf ball testing at my club, and Wayne and I chat via e-mail occasionally - usually about the Phillies. 

Actually, I consider it a bit of a badge of honor to be so accused, even if it's not true.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good morning.

Yes, I agree that Wilson was a prolific letter writer to Oakley, and that alone is enough to suggest that he wrote several to CBM and others that have been lost.  Those kinds of letters might very well clear up some mysteries as to who did what.

As a kid, I always tried to figure out which parts of what Beatles songs Lennon and McCartney wrote.  Generally I figured if one sang it, they wrote it, but they never cared for whatever reason to distill it beyond Lennon-McCartney.  Who did what in the MCC design is equally fascinating, but in the end, if MCC didn't care enough at the time to record it, or lost the records, then it will be hard to decipher.  Was the Walrus really TePaul?

While my "no interim boundary" theory may or may not be correct, I will have to cheerfully disagree that there is enough evidence of Barker's involvement to even merit discussion.  To be precise, there is ONE article that says Barker was hired in November, not plural.  And that article could easily be referring to the June visit, based on the other stuff in it, even if some stuff was new.  Given how vague club records, newspaper articles, etc., are in this (and nearly any other historical matter when you start digging) I believe TMac needs more corroborating evidence.

TEPaul does think he knows what happened, but then again, so do you, Tom MacWood and others.  No one knows what we know for sure.  Does he have an agenda?  Perhaps, but its getting clearer that Tom M also has one.  Maybe you do, too, although we are all guility of calling our opinions "calls for truth" and others opinions "agendas."

I am not suspicious of TePaul as you and Tom Mac are. I understand the reasons why he won't share.  IMHO, one of the prime methods of stirring up interest in any conspiracy theory is to try to discredit the official record or its keepers.  (Think Warren Commission here)  You have done that and TMac beats the drum.

Going back to the Barker theory, I keep asking Tom Mac why he thinks its a victory for Barker to have been hired in December and apparently fired by March, given the club doesn't mention him and obviously didn't take his advice because they again turned to CBM for advice.  Are you really saying you believe in Tom Mac's theory, given that it contradicts your own considering CBM?  I have trouble following three theories on this thread, especially if a major participant tells me that he believes in two of them!

Or, are you just busting my theory up by comparing it to another unsupportable theory of TMacs?  If so, that's okay by me.  At least its civil discussion!

[DMoriarty]

David

Get off your soap box.  Either prove that Mike is a talk piece for T Paul or stop making unfounded allegations.  Alright, your language is better than T Paul's, but your intent is the same - an attempt to debase someone.  Many on this site have pleaded for restraint and things have gotten better, but for some reason you feel the need to bait others.  Does this somehow make you feel better?

Ciao   

Glad to see you contribute Sean, but I wish it was on something of a bit more substance and with a bit more familiarity with what was going on.  We could use your perspective.   

Had you been reading these threads since TEPaul's departure, you'd know that it cannot seriously be questioned that Mike had been a talk piece for TEPaul both explicitly and otherwise.   For example, just in the past few pages, Mike has recanted on the Cuyler quote on behalf of TEPaul, writing twice that confusing language lead TEPaul to state that Cuyler wrote that HDC took title to the land in Lloyd's name, but that really wasn't the case.  Then after I explained that TEPaul had given us what he represented as an EXACT QUOTE, Mike recanted on his recantment on behalf of TEPaul . . . .  More directly, Mike has posted a number of times by beginning something like here's what TEPaul wrote to me about this . . .

There is plenty of proof if you really want it, but if I started to lay it out I might be accused of trying to debase Mike and/or TEPaul.

As for my attempts to debase anyone, I am afraid I don't understand.   TEPaul and Wayne's mistreatment of the source material are at the heart of this matter and frankly the only reason these discussions are ongoing.   Would you have me make nice by ignoring what is obvious so as to not hurt anyone's feelings?   It seems a better solution would be for them to stop so that we can put this matter behind us.
_________________________

Dan, I hate to take away your "badge of honor" but  I don't recall accusing you of speaking for Wayne and/or Tom, nor do I think you have been repeating what they want you two on these websites.    In fact I  don't recall you ever offering anything of substance at all, whether for them or to back up your own unchanging opinion.

But, nonetheless, if I have accused you of posting on behalf of TEPaul and/or Wayne, I apologize. 

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
I requested Ran & Ben take me off the site. We had a very good relationship at the time and we continue to have a very good relationship. I decided to reactivate when you forwarded the last message I asked you to post directly to Mike C.

Jeff
Victory for Barker? I only go where the facts take me, and in this case I've been taken in several different directions over time. I learned a long time ago the truth is a lot more interesting than your preconceived ideas of what it should be. That is the difference between you and I, you look at history as trying to prove you are right, at the end of the day a winner will be declared, in your case you and Wilson. You can not look at that way, you have to keep an open mind, and have the ability to change course as new information comes in. And you must continually test your ideas and theories, for example why would Merion put their project in the hands of an unqualified novice. If you have a logical explanation I'd be willing to consider it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

As we have discussed, you don't have enough facts to go where you need to go with Barker.

As I have also said, your new claims that up to 45 courses are misattributed away from Willie Watson strikes me as you actually looking to prove that nearly everyone else has history wrong and that only you can ride in on the White Horse and save us all.  IMHO, while there are probably a few mis-attributions out there, you and others (Whitten and Burbeck come to mind) probably are over invested in pop culture where a good mystery is required to keep all entertained. 

Its funny that you twist it back to me having an preconcieved notion of where the MCC threads should go.  In fact, I at one time admitted to flopping like a tuna on the dock, until enough papers came out to substantially substantiate in my mind the basics of the long held MCC timeline and history. 

Questioning things is continually necessary, I agree.  History does get revised as new facts come to light, sometimes in odd ways.  I just don't see any of us providin any new facts to change MCC history, which is what you attempted to do starting in 2004.  I simply don't think any of our positions would pass the vetting of a major newspaper before printing, or of a college histroy dept before deciding to publish a professor's new book.

I do think that once a topic comes up, there should probably be some resolution, not endless debates.  As someone's tag line says, reasonable men can make decisions based on what the majority of the evidence says.

As to me providing you a logical explanation, don't count on it. IMHO, reading the documents that say that Wilson and committee were largely responsible for the course, with CBM, means that logic or not, that is how it happened.  If you are the one challenging the existing set of facts, you are the one who needs to provide the bulk of the evidence to overturn the history as written, not Merion.  You must prove that MCC is hiding the facts, not merely allege it.  The burden of proof is on you to come up with facts that Barker designed MCC, not on anyone else to use "logic" to refute your theory, so get to work!

[Mike_Cirba]

Here's the deal folks.

Wayne Morrison is a member of Merion Golf Club and found the MCC Minutes in the attic of Merion Cricket Club.   For those who are unaware, MCC has no direct connection to what is today Merion Golf Club.  There are real people to consider here.

His previous attempts to share source information here such as the Macdonald letter were turned into a public circus on GCA.   EVERYONE let things get out of control and we are all to blame, but simple common courtesy and personal respect should lead us to consider and revise how these things are done in the future in this new Internet world, especially when a former valuable contributor here is a member of the club whose history and the actions of its legacy members are suddenly being "analyzed" and challenged.  

As a result of some of the subsequent "discussion" that took place afterwards, things became so heated that Wayne and Tom MacWood were asked to leave the site.   Wayne was rightfully upset that so few here defended him, and has NO interest in helping this site by providing information one way or another.   He could frankly care less what David and Tom MacWood think or believe.  

He and Tom Paul are writing a book and all of the information they found will be included.   The information will also be made a permanent part of the Merion Golf Club Historical Archives.

Wayne has expressed to both me and Tom Paul over time that he does not want us to use information and minutes  he has shown us as a friend to further discussion on this site.   I know Tom wasn't particularly good at honoring Wayne's request and I don't think I've been either, because when you read the revisionist spin and bullshit that comes out here on a regular basis, it's difficult to hold your tongue, especially as the memories of good and honorable men like Hugh Wilson get dragged through the dirt.

You can say what you want about the theories here, but it is undeniable that David and Tom are calling Hugh Wilson and many others at Merion and others like Tillinghast liars by omission because they knew the supposed truth that CB Macdonald or HH Barker, or ANYBODY but Hugh Wilson...even members of his own committee...actually designed the course and yet let the "myth" be propagated.  It is shameful.

So, for anyone who truly wants to know what happened, I can tell you what I know and I'm not lying or trying to misrepresent facts.   I've seen the April 19, 1911 minutes.   I know what Cuyler said about there being no defined boundary for the golf course as of December 1910.  

Those are facts David did not have at his disposal when he wrote his essay.  Since they directly contradict his theories, he apparently has chosen to try and discredit both those facts and those who are the messengers.

From my perspective, I'm going to try and honor Wayne's request in the future.   I've provided a lot of material to this thread, much of which came to me from Wayne a year or more ago in the form of the Sayres Scrapbook and then David has the audacity to ask me to put up an article that I only have a paper copy of because he doesn't believe it says what it says.   Well, David, I've told you the newspaper, the day, and the headline.  Look it up.   You are the one who is telling us that the historical record is wrong yet scream at us daily to prove that it is right.   It's past the point of all absurdity.

I will continue to discuss this matter here with anyone who wants to actually understand the facts, or is invested in trying to solve some of the remaining mysteries, like Bryan and Jeff, and some others.

But if others just want to use this thread to rant further, to insult further, and to continue to call the men of Merion past and present liars, well they will be seen for what they are and no further retort should be necessary.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You wrote, "Phil, I requested Ran & Ben take me off the site. We had a very good relationship at the time and we continue to have a very good relationship. I decided to reactivate when you forwarded the last message I asked you to post directly to Mike C."

Since you state that publicly, at least state the entirety of it including the reason for my doing so. You had emailed me with 4 different things you wanted posted, one after another, in direct repsonse to things that Mike had posted and then was answeriung you with. It was before I was able to post the last one that Mike stated that he was no longer going to participate in the thread and so to make certain that he received your comments and questions that I emailed them to him in hopes the two of you could have the discussion that you desired. That is why I wrote:

Hi Tom,

Before I could post this and the three that follow it, Mike posted that he feels the thread has run its course and that he is stepping out of the discussion. I, therefor, have taken the liberty to email this and the other three to him in hopes that he will answer your questions directly.

Hope it works for you,

Phil

That it motivated you to request a return I am GREATLY pleased by. That it was done in an underhanded manner revealing private conversations with you as your statement appears to imply, I would strongly disagree and you know that wasn’t the case.

[Mike_Cirba]

May, 1913

At this time, Merion East had just opened and Merion West was just being designed.   According to revisionist history, Hugh Wilson did not yet have design experience, at least not that anyone in the press would have known of.





Another news account the same day;




I'm also wondering if anyone has any pictures of George Crump "laying out" Cobb's Creek "on the ground"?  

[John_Cullum]

At the end of the day isn't all of this bickering about precisely who did what in 1910 and 1911 really just academic. As I understand it, there is no dispute that post 1911 all of the additions and renovations, rerouting and acquisition of new land south of Ardmore Avenue the work of H. Wilson? That's the Merion GC that everyone raves about today, and it seems by all accounts to be vastly superior to the 1911 version.

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

Albert Camus or Samuel Beckett of the French Theatre of the Absurd could not write a more bizarre, strangely compelling tragicomedy.

[DMoriarty]

Good evening Jeff.  

Tom MacWood has no agenda of which I know.  And his Barker theory, which is just a theory, has something else going for it besides the article.  We know for sure that Barker did a routing.  That is more than we can say for absolutely certain about anyone else.  You used to be an advocate for the position that included Barker, arguing that it was likely a collaboration and a progression where the different parties built upon each others' ideas.  You sure have moved away from that position.  What happened?

MacWood's theory is just that.  If you don't want to discuss it then don't.  But I see no reason for you to insist that it doesn't even merit consideration because as far as I can tell, it is as good or better than many of the theories out there.   At least we know Barker did a routing, at least we know he was in demand at the time, at least we know that he had some experience, and at least we know that one source reported that he was hired.   That is a lot more than we know about Hugh Wilson's involvement in the design process around this same time.  Barker is a possibility.   Personally I think his involvement was earlier, but I have no strong evidence that he was NOT involved in December as well.  

Sometimes that is the best we can do, look at various theories and see if we can eliminate them.  So far, we certainly cannot eliminate Barker.  Frankly there is much more reason to eliminate Wilson for whatever happened before NGLA, but I am not willing to eliminate him either

You wrote:
TEPaul does think he knows what happened, but then again, so do you, Tom MacWood and others.  No one knows what we know for sure.  Does he have an agenda?  Perhaps, but its getting clearer that Tom M also has one.  Maybe you do, too, although we are all guility of calling our opinions "calls for truth" and others opinions "agendas."

There is a fundamental difference between my and TomM's methodology on the one hand, and TEPaul's on the other.   When Tom and I propose a theory or make a claim, we put it out there for everyone to see, and provide the support for vetting and verification.  So you can look at what Tom says about Barker and disagree with him.   TEPaul does not play by this most basic rule.  Instead he demands that we believe him without vetting his claims and without verifying his facts.  This cannot stand.  He's got to back up his claims with facts for verification same as anyone else.    

With transparency, our "agendas" if we have them are readily visible to everyone.  While TEPaul obviously has an agenda, the real problem is the lack of transparency and verifiability with his claims.

I am not suspicious of TePaul as you and Tom Mac are. I understand the reasons why he won't share.  IMHO, one of the prime methods of stirring up interest in any conspiracy theory is to try to discredit the official record or its keepers.  (Think Warren Commission here)  You have done that and TMac beats the drum.

No one is accusing Merion of anything.  I just want to vet the claims against me and verify the facts.  

What do you suppose your oft cited "historian" would say about a discussion where one side rips the other side and claims to have all the answers, but then refuses to support their claims with facts, and refuses to let their claims be vetted?   Any "historian" who tried that would have absolutely no credibility whatsoever and would be shunned quicker than a cheat.    Yet that is the situation we have here.  

Let me put it this way, let's assume that TEPaul and Wayne were above board and had pure intentions in all of this.   In other words let's set their motivations aside.     I still would not take their word for anything nor should anyone else who is seriously interested in getting at the truth.  That is why we have discussions.  To vet arguments.  That is why academia has extensive peer review.   That is why facts are checked and reconsidered.  And, again, without attacking or even considering their motivations, look at how many mistakes and misrepresentations they have made!  If we had took their word for it without challenging them we would still think that all CBM did was help Wilson plan for his pre-design trip abroad.  

For another example, unlike you I have faith in Tom MacWood's motivations, but I still don't accept his theories or interpretations without verifying the facts and vetting his claims.   Blindly accepting what he writes as true would be harmful to our ultimate goal which is to figure out what really happened.  So usually that means that we ought to question and question and question until we are absolutely sure we have it, and then we need to hold that up to the rest of the world so they can question some more.   That is what I expect will be done with any and all of my claims, and it is what needs to be done with theirs.    

Going back to the Barker theory, I keep asking Tom Mac why he thinks its a victory for Barker to have been hired in December and apparently fired by March, given the club doesn't mention him and obviously didn't take his advice because they again turned to CBM for advice.  Are you really saying you believe in Tom Mac's theory, given that it contradicts your own considering CBM?  I have trouble following three theories on this thread, especially if a major participant tells me that he believes in two of them!

A victory for him to get hired and then fired?  What does this have to do with figuring out what really happened?  If the facts indicate that this was the case, then so be it.    That is a major difference in approach here.   Many seem to be acting as advocates for certain men or positions, and it is really hard not to given all the hostility, but ultimately I don't really look at that way.   I just want to figure out who did what.   If someone looks better or worse in the process, then believe it or not, that is not really my concern.    Let me put it this way, if the final result of all of this is that we find a Hugh Wilson plan, or a letter describing where he departed with CBM and how he went his own way, and it explains what happened, then I will come out of this the winner.   All I want is to get all the facts on the table, and to hopefully figure out who did what, no matter where the chips fall.   If this happens I will be satisfied.

Do I "believe" TomMacWood's theory?   I believe it is possible that it happened the way that he has theorized.  I don't think it is the most likely scenario, and I have a few possible alternate explanations regarding a few of his facts.  But it is definitely possible that it happened the way he surmised, and I'd be a fool to throw out possible scenarios with some evidential backing without good reason.    

By the way,  I feel the same way about the possibility of Hugh Wilson and his Committee trying to lay out the course or at least fiddling with an inherited preliminary routing in early 1911.  There have been a few representations that -- if they are ever verified as accurate -- would support this scenario.  And while I see it as unlikely, it is not impossible that it could have happened this way, so I leave open the possibility.    My objection is with those who insist that this is definitely the case, and those who insist I must accept others' representations as FACTS.     

Or, are you just busting my theory up by comparing it to another unsupportable theory of TMacs?  If so, that's okay by me.  At least its civil discussion!

I really do think TomM's theory has more support.   More importantly, TomM has not claimed his theory resolves the issue and is based on irrefutable facts!  You have made these types of claims, and this is counterproductive.   And, in short, even if you are correct about the borders being flexible, this does not address the question of how much was done before January 1, 1911, or even whether the francis swap took place during this time period.   So I don't think your theory amounts to much factually or rhetorically.

[DMoriarty]

May, 1913

At this time, Merion East had just opened and Merion West was just being designed.   According to revisionist history, Hugh Wilson did not yet have design experience, at least not that anyone in the press would have known of.

Hugh wilson did not have "design experience" in 1913?   He had just effectively apprenticed under CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham, the foremost designers in America at the time, and must have had some input into the initial design of Merion.  He had traveled abroad to study the great courses, and had added a number of finishing touches to Merion.  Also, Merion West was already planned by this point!

By May of 1913 Hugh Wilson had design experience.   However, in January 1910 he did not.

[Bryan Izatt]

Re Catherwood Estate, I originally asked

As a separate question, the article below that you refer to, says in the last line that the new links adjoin the McFadden and Catherwood Estates.  McFadden I can place.  All the deeds start at the corner of that property up at the end of the Francis triangle.  But the Catherwood Estate, I can't place.  Anybody got any ideas on where it was?

Mike responded,

The D.B.C. Catherwood estate was across College Ave from the McFadden estate. It was probably 15-20 acres that was part of the 63 acres HDC developed above College Ave.

I am embarrassed to say that the Catherwood Estate was staring me in the face on both the RR map and the land plan.  It is indeed north of College, but was 12 acres, and it was not part of the Connor Estate or therefore, the 338 acre HDC tract.

The article ends by describing where the golf course property is:

it adjoins the prorperty of Haverford College            -   Check

between College and Ardmore                                  -   Check

directly on the P&W RR with stations at both ends    -   Check

the price paid was $85,000                                        -   Check

it's a little over a mile from Haverford station              -   Check

the links adjoin the McFadden Estate                         -   Check

the links adjoin the Catherwood Estate                      -   

Where does this last claim come from?  Do you suppose that at the time of the article, January 7, 1911 that they were considering land north of College for the course?  Or is this just another newspaper "fact" that we're going to throw away.  What does that imply for the rest of the article.  Is it not troubling that we continually need to disregard parts of, or whole press reports, of the time because they don't fit with our understanding of the events?

[Bryan Izatt]

I don't know specifically who "they" were.  It's a theory.  But, it seems likely to me that the Merion men were doing something between July  and November 1910.  It could have been drawing plans on the back of napkins in the grill room.  Possibly Lloyd, the site committee, Wilson, Francis .....?  You don't need to formalize a committee before you actually start to work on a project.

Bryan
What evidence leads you to believe the "Merion men" were doing something between July and November? In order for a theory to be plausible shouldn't there be at least a few facts.

Sure, it would be good if there were facts.  For the period between July and November, we seem to be short of any facts.  I wonder if we'll ever find anything in the MCC records or minutes for that time period that relate to what was going on behind the scenes.  Most likely these kind of things, if they were happening, wouldn't have made it to the minutes.  Does anybody believe that MCC, Wilson, LLoyd, Barker, and  M&W, depending on your pet theories, were all sitting on their hands for that 4 months?  Do you believe that nobody was noodling on designs in that time period?  Do you believe that activity didn't resume until the Construction Committee or whatever Wilson's committee was called was formed in January?

Within this void, I put my two step swap out there.  When more factual information is available we can vet it or discredit it.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Maybe an example would help?   At various points in time Rothwell apparently held title to just about all the property we are discussing.   But it would be a mistake and overly simplistic to say that he ever really owned the property, because he was obligated -- by agreements we have not seen -- to pass the title and money on to the various real owners.   I think Lloyd was in a somewhat similar position; effectively holding title for the real parties and severely constrained in what he could and couldn't do with the property, and obligated by agreements that we don't yet have to pass the title along to the real parties as soon as certain obligations were met.

I have a lot of trouble with comparing Rothwell with Lloyd.  Rothwell was a clerk from Philadelphia.  Lloyd was one of, if not the biggest money man for both HDC and MCC.  I see no way to compare who they were and where they were coming from vis-a-vis these transactions.  You can believe that the agreements that obligated Lloyd's conduct just haven't been discovered yet.  I'm not sure I believe that they exist.  I think that they probably did these deals based on gentleman's agreements.  Since Lloyd was playing both sides of the fence in the transaction, I guess he was only asking himself to trust himself to protect the interests of both HDC and MCC.

Because while title evidences ownership, the agreements between the parties also evidences ownership in that it defines the nature and extent of the the various rights and obligations with regard to the property.  Cuyler wrote that Lloyd was taking title on HDC's behalf, which should mean that while title was in his name, he was acting as an agent or representative of HDC, and that would have made HDC the owner in fact, subject to whatever deal Lloyd had made with HDC.   Likewise MCC claimed that they had purchased the property and that certain members made this possible, implying that Lloyd was acting on their behalf.

I see you've already blown a gasket on  Tom's retraction on this point, which, by the way he did some time ago, so I'm not going to rehash it.  You are still assuming that there were agreements between the parties, but until we see them there is no point in debating whether Lloyd was constrained.

So in my layman's opinion, until we better understand the various agreements to the parties it seems overly simplistic and misleading to treat Lloyd as the actual and unencumbered owner.

If there are various agreements to understand.  What you describe as simplistic and misleading here, you describe as sticking to the known facts in other circumstances.  The one fact we have now is that Lloyd owned the land (or held title showing his ownership if it makes you feel better).  There is no contrary evidence or facts at the moment.

_______________

I don't have the info with me regarding Catherwood, but I will look later.

___________________

Did you get a chance to look at the statements by TEPaul and Shivas regarding the term "approved?"   They leave little doubt that TEPaul is claiming that the minutes say "approved" and that it is not synonymous to "liked." 

Yes, I looked at them and at Mike's confirmation.  I still question Tom and Mike's interpretation.  What position do you think that M&W had within MCC that gave them authority to "approve".

I hate to fall back on dictionary definitions, and I really don't want to debate the merits of definitions as per the blue print debate, but I do note that there are two definitions of approve:

?▸ verb:  judge to be right or commendable; think well of
▸ verb:  give sanction to "

 

_________________________

Can you tell us where TEPaul claimed that there was a Construction Committee Meeting on January 11, 1911?

We have over 2,700 posts.  I don't really recall where I found it, but I didn't make it up.  I did change it to "there about" to reflect that there was uncertainty.  The earliest reference to it that comes up from the wondrous search engine is from Jeff in post #1830.  Perhaps Jeff remembers where it came from.  If you and Mike and Jeff and Tom all agree that there is no valid reference to that date I'll change it. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Hugh wilson did not have "design experience" in 1913?   He had just effectively apprenticed under CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham, the foremost designers in America at the time, and must have had some input into the initial design of Merion.  He had traveled abroad to study the great courses, and had added a number of finishing touches to Merion.  Also, Merion West was already planned by this point!

By May of 1913 Hugh Wilson had design experience.   However, in January 1910 he did not.

David,

Although it's finally nice to see you acknowledge that Hugh Wilson "must have had some iinput into the initial design of Merion" (is this progress?), I do have to ask how a typical newspaper writer would have any of the knowledge that he had done any of the things you mentioned above.   Merion West wasn't open for another year, so there would be no visible evidence of any design of Wilson's in existence had he not been responsible for Merion East.

I also know that Wilson said he learned a lot from M&W during his 1) overnite stay at NGLA and 2) M&W's one day visit on 4/6/1911, mostly about construction and agronomy as he told us, but I do have to wonder.

Are the correct principles so simple of design that they can be taught in a few hours?

I just see you throw out the word "apprenticeship" and that to me normally implies months, if not years of study.   You make it sound as though it was some type of formal training taking rigorous discipline and I don't see how you couldn't just use the term "advised" Wilson instead, because that to me seems much more appropriate.   Certainly everyone there at the time seemed to think that was the correct terminology.

Bryan,

Good question.   What's the date of the article again?

If nothing else, I think it goes to the point where there was NO determined boundary for the golf course as of December 1911, which is fact, not supposition.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()