Merion's Early Timeline

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Honestly, why bother to keep going on this thread? Look at that last post! The essayist is completely hysterical, lashing out at everything and everybody. I suppose that's what happens when you write an essay like that and end up with maybe one person at best who supports it and that being the one who apparently encouraged you to write it in the first place. Unfortunately, it seems Merion lost interest in it about fifteen months ago.

But maybe there's still hope. Perhaps Part Two will be a blockbuster that includes the information we provided that was found at MCC within the last year after apparently being there unseen and unconsidered for perhaps a century! Or did Tolhurst see that information and simply feel there was no reason to include its details since it was so obvious otherwise who routed and designed Merion East?

I wish we could ask Tolhurst about that but unfortunately that's impossible now.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike:

Honestly, why bother to keep going on this thread? Look at that last post! The essayist is completely hysterical, lashing out at everything and everybody. I suppose that's what happens when you write an essay like that and end up with maybe one person at best who supports it and that being the one who apparently encouraged you to write it in the first place. Unfortunately, it seems Merion lost interest in it about fifteen months ago.

But maybe there's still hope. Perhaps Part Two will be a blockbuster that includes the information we provided that was found at MCC within the last year after apparently being there unseen and unconsidered for perhaps a century! Or did Tolhurst see that information and simply feel there was no reason to include its details since it was so obvious otherwise who routed and designed Merion East?

I wish we could ask Tolhurst about that but unfortunately that's impossible now.

Tom,

You're right, of course.

I wouldn't even know where to begin to respond to something like that but it speaks for itself, so perhaps this is a good place to just leave well enough alone.

[Tom MacWood]

How do you read this part?

"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course."

I will admit it is a tough question, but after 3000+ posts on this thread -- 2000+ supporting your position -- I'm a little surprised by the lack of responses. It reminds me of the problems you had answering the question why Lloyd & Co would choose Wilson when they had a long pattern of choosing the best of the best. It is inexplicable.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

You're right, of course.

I wouldn't even know where to begin to respond to something like that but it speaks for itself, so perhaps this is a good place to just leave well enough alone.

Mike,  finally we agree. My post does speak for itself, and relies on quotations from your own supposed source to do it.   I don't blame you for not answering.  Actually I commend you for it.  It is about time you stopped claiming that CBM, Whigham, and now Behr were all wrong.

__________________________________

I noticed no one answered my request for any facts about whether Alan Wilson had first-hand knowledge of what exactly went on during the period where M&W were directly involved.   Sometimes these non-answers speak themselves, too.

[TEPaul]

"I will admit it is a tough question, but after 3000+ posts on this thread -- 2000+ supporting your position -- I'm a little surprised by the lack of responses. It reminds me of the problems you had answering the question why Lloyd & Co would choose Wilson when they had a long pattern of choosing the best of the best. It is inexplicable."


Tom:

I'm sure it does seem like a tough question to some a century after the fact. As we said to you when you started this Macdonald and Merion issue over six and a half years ago in most every case with these old courses the men that laid them out and designed them just didn't record in minute detail what they did or who was responsible for each hole of the course as you had asked in that thread years ago (except in some very rare example like Francis's story for a US Open 39 years after the fact. Apparently since Francis was the last member of the Wilson Committee still around someone from the club or the USGA probably asked him for some remembrances for the 1950 US Open program.)

Apparently you didn't want to accept that answer and explanation we gave you to your questions in that vein on your "Re; Macdonald and Merion" thread six and a  half years ago and your only response was to call for more research and the search for more documentation of what was recorded.

Well, now we have supplied all we have and probably all that exists and some of it is pretty indicative such as that Wilson report to the board meeting of 4/19/1911 (and board meeting minutes and correspondences) that may not have been seen in a century. But you don't seem to want to accept that either for what it pretty obviously means about who laid out and designed Merion East----eg the Wilson Committee as that report and the board documentation indicated. You don't seem to want to accept the fact that everyone who was around back then said Wilson and his committee designed the course with some help and advice from M/W on three occasions over ten months. That's a total of about four days in ten months for M/W and the Wilson report indicates the Wilson Committee was at work on it through all the winter and early spring months of 1911 but apparently that doesn't mean much to you either. With Barker the club did mention his name when a real estate developer trying to sell MCC land offered them what Barker had said and done for him but after that the club never mentioned Barker again but they certainly did mention who laid out their course for them.

So it seems like your almost automatic reaction to what you consider to be insufficient evidence that proves Wilson and Committee could not have possibly done it you start searhing around for some evidence that someone else must have done it such as Barker when there is far less evidence of that than the Wilson Committee doing it.

That Wilson Committee report is pretty indicative to us and to the club but if you don't see why then I guess you never will.

As far as why Lloyd and Merion turned to Wilson and his committee to design the course the explanation to that is not that its not true because you think he had no experience but that obviously they did think he (and his committee) had the talent to do it and that's why they chose him. Just because you can't understand why they felt that way about Wilson and his committee doesn't mean they didn't feel that way about Wilson and committee being able to do it.

It's too bad that Lloyd and Merion didn't record just for your specific benefit exactly why they felt that way about Wilson and his committee but as we told you over six and a half years ago with your "Re: Macdonald and Merion" thread unfortunately they did not think to record for posterity all their thinking and all the reasons for every little detail and who thought of it. With almost every club and project I've ever heard of that kind of recording of who thought of every architectural detail never happened, at any time actually, but you just seem to refuse to accept that fact too. That's why I keep telling you that you need to get out in the field and really watch how these things happen. If you ever want to understand it you need the experience to understand it. Get out in the field on some project for a week at least and you will understand what I'm saying to you in this vein. 

That has virtually never happened on any architectural project but again, apparently you just don't want to accept that reality so you seem to cast around for your own reality to what happened with little to no support or evidence to back it up.

You two guys began this issue over six and a half years ago claiming there was some mystery behind who designed Merion East as if that was some established or accepted fact. It wasn't, it never was; there never was any mystery about who designed Merion East back then and that is why everyone back then and henceforth attributed the course to Wilson who was the chairman of the committee who did it. The help and advice they got from M/W was also something the club always knew (and appreciated) and recorded in their administrative records even though around six and a half years ago obviously you did not realize that either, and so you began this entire issue based on your lack of knowledge and information.

There's no reason to continue this. There is no mystery. There is no issue of who designed Merion East. There never was, even though you apparently didn't realize that six and a half years ago. You should realize it now!
 
 

[Tom MacWood]

"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course."

TEP
Thanks for your long thoughtful reponse unfortunately it does not address my question. You were the person who requested the Allan Wilson statement be posted. You and Mike proceded to highlight what you considered important portions of his statetment. You and Mike explained to us the meaning of those excerpts, but now after months of opinions and explanations you cannot address my question.

Do you read his statement as a mistaken understanding of the chronology? As Mike pointed out he seems to have a detailed understanding of all the other facts, and one would presume he knew when his brother (and business partner) travelled overseas. Or do you read it literally? That in his mind Hugh Wilson's first architectural step followed the trip in 1912. Or do you read it some other way?

Allan does not say when he travelled overseas only that it occured after the land was found.

[TEPaul]

"Do you read his statement as a misunderstanding of the chronology? As Mike pointed out he seems to have a detailed understanding of all the other facts, and one would presume he knew when his brother (and business) partner travelled overseas. Or do you read it literally. That in his mind Hugh's first architectural step was the trip in 1912. Or do you read it some other way?"


Tom:

I don't believe Alan Wilson's statement was his misunderstanding of the chronology of Merion East and I don't believe Alan Wilson didn't understand that the routing and laying out of design plans by the Wilson Committee in the winter and spring months of 1911 could be considered "architecture" (if someone actually asked him that specifically). Merion obviously intended to evolve some of the architecture of Merion East such as the bunkering and such slowly and over an extended period of time (we certainly know that as an actual fact because that is what they did and said they did). Actually Hugh Wilson even mused to P&O in letters that that was the ideal way to create good architecture if the club would allow it and had the time and opportunity to do it that way). Alan Wilson was also reporting on the creation of Merion East from a time of fifteen years after the fact and was probably not ONLY looking at it as we are in the specific timeframe of 1910 and 1911 even though he certainly mentioned that time in what he said in his letter to Philler. But I just don't believe that because this might seem somewhat inconsistent to us (or particularly to you) that it means that someone other than the Wilson Committee routed and planned the design of Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911 (including the advice from Macdonald at NGLA and on April 6, 1911).  And this is from what we know was reported both from and about the Wilson Committee involvement. The flipside of that is there just is nothing from anyone anywhere ro at any time to indicate that someone else did it or was even there to do it. To suggest that MacDonald could have done it for them at NGLA has no evidence at all to support it (including the Wilson report and the letter to Oakley about the NGLA visit) that makes any mention at all of anyone working on Merion's design plan while at NGLA) and on April 6 1911 the plans were already produced by the Wilson Committee and Macdonald just essentially looked them over and looked the ground over and said he would approve one of them as containing the best last seven holes on any inland course in the world. You might think Macdonald came up with an entire routing and design plan for them on April 6, 1911 but anyone who knows a thing about routing and designing and architecture knows that is virtually impossible and not something a man who utilized the philosophy and modus operandi Macdonald did would even attempt even if he was asked to do that which there is no evidence at all that he was asked to do that. Plus if he actually did do something like that at either NGLA or on April 6, 1911 I see no reason whatsover why MCC would not have said so in the Wilson report and in the board meeting of 4/19/1911.

This is the way I look at it and if you disagree then that's your perogative, so henceforth and considering all we've discussed to date I see no reason to go over any of this again.

Merion is aware of all of this and I know how they look at this and interpret it all, at this point, and ultimately that is what I care about. If something else comes up of consequence that casts new light on any of this then I can certainly see this being given reconsideration but to date with what we have it is very obvious to us and to Merion who routed and designed Merion East in 1911.

And so unless you have something else I don't see any reason to continue the discussion of this subject.




"Allan does not say when he travelled overseas only that it occured after the land was found."


That's true, he doesn't. And again his name spelled Alan not Allan. His name is Alan D. Wilson! Richard Francis actually says in a letter when Hugh Wilson traveled overseas. Have you gotten that far yet in those agronomy letters?

[mike_malone]

  After all of these posts I still don't know what they meant by "architecture" back then.  What part did routing play in their view of architecture? I also don't know who routed Merion.  The arguments have gone for pages because no one has the evidence!! Also, I believe the course sort of routed itself and the adjustments came as they realized that the ideal yardage was increasing. They may not have assigned as much importance to routing in the architectural scope of work as we do. They also didn't seem to be focused on architectural attribution as much as we are.

   For all of these reasons I expect this topic to go on forever!!

[Tom MacWood]

I don't believe Alan Wilson's statement was his misunderstanding of the chronology of Merion East...Alan Wilson was also reporting on the creation of Merion East from a time of fifteen years after the fact and was probably not ONLY looking at it as we are in the specific timeframe of 1910 and 1911 even though he certainly mentioned that time in what he said in his letter to Philler. But I just don't believe that because this might seem somewhat inconsistent to us (or particularly to you) that it means that someone other than the Wilson Committee routed and planned the design of Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911 (including the advice from Macdonald at NGLA and on April 6, 1911).

TEP
We agree, I do not believe he was confused. I take Allan Wilson's description literally, the first step of Hugh Wilson exerting his architectural ideas on the course occured after the trip in 1912. You are absolutley right about the deliberate approach they were taking, in adding hazards and such. This is confirmed by Tilly's report shortly after the course opened. He says there are very few hazards in place as yet, and describes the introducion of Mid-Surrey mounds on several holes. Those mounds are an exmaple of Hugh Wilson exerting his architectrual influence based on what he observed on his trip. I don't believe Allen Wilson is inconsistent at all. Clearly he didn't consider routing all that important, but in fairness to him routing was not something many considered important at the time.

And his statement is consistent with Lesley's statement that a rouing existed early on, prior to the trip to the NGLA, and is consistent with Hugh Wilson's comments in his first letters to P&O, that a routing or staked out course existed prior to the trip to the NGLA. It seems likely the course was routed in late November or some time in December, and before the constrcution committee was formed.

[Mike_Cirba]

"From the survey, Macdonald made a rough sketch of the holes he planned to build, and with Raynor, located potential sites and elevations for greens, tees, and turning points in the fairway. Macdonald tinkered endlessly with the routing plan.   Finally, after months of planning, he was ready to move to the next step." - George Bahto - "The Evangelist of Golf"

December 1906





Inexplicable, yes...

What I find inexplicable is how anyone could read the articles and understand the painstaking, detailed, design and planning process that Macdonald used at NGLA and then argue senselessly and without the slightest bit of evidence that he must have produced a routing plan for Merion during his one day there in June 1910 (when Macdonald clearly tells us he didn't and couldn't even say whether it was enough land there for a first-class golf course), or that he did a one-day routing when Merion came to visit him at NGLA in March, 1911 (which we know he didn't because 1) Many plans were created by the Merion Committee prior to that meeting and 2) five revisions were developed subsequent to that meeting).  

We also already know that he didn't create one on his final one-day visit to Merion in April 1911 because it is written that he approved one of the final five plans.

We also see from the evidence above that once Macdonald secured 205 acres out of over 400, there were no fixed boundaries because they wanted the latitude to build the course wherever they needed to.

We also see from the evidence above that Macdonald originally believed he'd need about 110 acres for his golf course, and was going to use the remaining for homes for subscribers.

We also see from the evidence above that Macdonald's original idea that a Short hole at the end of the point near Bullshead Bay never happened, and it's clear they were still tossing around just very basic ideas based on some key natural features.

We know the course as built eventually took somewhere between 150-170 acres, so at the time they bought the property to say a routing was completed is just simply not true.


I find it inexplicable how intelligent men can know so much about this fundamamental shift in the way things were done in the US that Macdonald pioneered, yet still sit here straight-facedly and tell us that Barker or Macdonald must have done a one-day routing at the request of Merion.

Unbelievable, really.    

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
There is more than one way to skin a cat.

How many days did it take Macdonald to route Piping Rock or Sleepy Hollow? How many days did it take Barker to route Columbia or Mayfield? How many days did it take Mackenzie to route Royal Melbourne or Adelaide; Alison to route Hirono or Tokyo; Colt to route PV, Old Elm or Toronto?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  they first did an initial rough routing, on horseback, over a couple of days.

Then, over months, they tinkered with the details of the plan.   

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike
There is more than one way to skin a cat.

How many days did it take Macdonald to route Piping Rock or Sleepy Hollow? How many days did it take Barker to route Columbia or Mayfield? How many days did it take Mackenzie to route Royal Melbourne or Adelaide; Alison to route Hirono or Tokyo; Colt to route PV, Old Elm or Toronto?

Tom,

Yes, and I routed a new course for Merion on a Google aerial overhead in about 2 hours, only using the original Johnson Farm land.  

Those guys were hacks!  

Seriously, Tom, Barker obviously thought he could.   After all, he already routed something in pencil during his one-day visit in June and along with that, told them if they got to it right away the could have the best darn course in the country in 15 months.    Of course, I'm sure he told that to all the girls.   I'm sure it was brilliant.

These guys were in business long enough to know when they were getting a snow job.   The Barker letter to Connell is simply standard boiler plate rhetoric about how special their land was and how he could make it equal to any course in the country...blah, blah...  

But does anything in the Merion record indicate ever using Barker.    No, instead, there were many golf courses developed before the NGLA visit, and five different plans afterwards.

As badly as you want it to be, there is zero chance that Barker routed Merion.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,  they first did an initial rough routing, on horseback, over a couple of days.

Then, over months, they tinkered with the details of the plan.   

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

David,

When the initial rough routing is 10%, and the "tinkering" is 90% of the architectural planning pre-construction, then I think it's a misrepresentation to say that the routing was done in two days. 

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  they first did an initial rough routing, on horseback, over a couple of days.

Then, over months, they tinkered with the details of the plan.   

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

David,

When the initial rough routing is 10%, and the "tinkering" is 90% of the architectural planning pre-construction, then I think it's a misrepresentation to say that the routing was done in two days. 

Give us a all break Mike.  There are always a lot of details to be worked out after the rough routing.   That these take time does not change the fact that a rough routing existed.   

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Did the rough routing take place in 1906, or 1907?

When was Seth Raynor hired?

Also, does anyone know any of the other courses built in the early years where Macdonald was a "friendly adviser" as seen in this 1905 article?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
We agree, I do not believe he was confused. I take Allan Wilson's description literally, the first step of Hugh Wilson exerting his architectural ideas on the course occured after the trip in 1912."

Tom:

I'm glad you think we agree then. It's fine if you want to interpret what Alan Wilson said or meant was the architecture Hugh Wilson was involved with was only after he returned from abroad in the beginning of May, 1912. This however, does not preclude the fact that Wilson and his committee were laying out numerous iterations of Merion East and finally five plans of Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911. We (Merion) have that all important Wilson report to the board meeting of 4/19/1911 to prove that. What else Alan Wilson said in that letter is indicative of what Wilson and his committee did but luckily we do not have to parse and ponder over what Alan Wilson meant fifteen years later when he said: "The course was found in 1910 and as a first step the club sent Hugh Wilson abroad" because the Alan Wilson letter is by no means all we have that indicates what Wilson and his committee did and when including obviously in the winter and spring and before a routing and design was approved by the club.

I've said on here a number of times that the Wilson report found at MCC in the last year is probably the single most conclusive material evidence of what Wilson and his committee did with the routing and design of Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911. And we can couple that with the fact that Merion or MCC at no time ever even mentioned any other routing and design plan from anyone else they ever even considered. This is exactly why you are having such a hard time convincing anyone Barker had anything to do with the routing and design of Merion East and why David Moriarty has had such a hard time convincing anyone that Macdonald did as well.  But at least MCC always recorded that M/W helped and advised them on those plans something there is no evidence at all of Barker ever doing.

[DMoriarty]

This is crazy, Mike.  We are rehashing the same old points we covered inyour Bombshell thread.   I explained there that this is what you do.  You bring up the same points again and again, never listening to the legitimate critiques of your position; ignoring them.   Then, like the lunar cycle, you come right back around to the same arguments to do it again.

Reread your own Bombshell thread, but this time read my posts.  I identify when the initial routing took place.  

I don't know offhand when Raynor was hired.  You ought to be able to figure it out as easy as me, so figure it out yourself.  

I don't know which courses to which the article referred.

[DMoriarty]

My congratulations to TEPaul on becoming a member of Merion.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Yes, and I routed a new course for Merion on a Google aerial overhead in about 2 hours, only using the original Johnson Farm land.   

Those guys were hacks! 

Seriously, Tom, Barker obviously thought he could.   After all, he already routed something in pencil during his one-day visit in June and along with that, told them if they got to it right away the could have the best darn course in the country in 15 months.    Of course, I'm sure he told that to all the girls.   I'm sure it was brilliant.

These guys were in business long enough to know when they were getting a snow job.   The Barker letter to Connell is simply standard boiler plate rhetoric about how special their land was and how he could make it equal to any course in the country...blah, blah...   

But does anything in the Merion record indicate ever using Barker.    No, instead, there were many golf courses developed before the NGLA visit, and five different plans afterwards.

As badly as you want it to be, there is zero chance that Barker routed Merion.   

Mike
What is it with you? Every time new information is discussed that deviates from your notion of how Merion was formed you immediately go on the attack of Barker or Macdonald or Whigham, and make accusations as to the motivation of others.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Did the rough routing take place in 1906, or 1907?

When was Seth Raynor hired?

Also, does anyone know any of the other courses built in the early years where Macdonald was a "friendly adviser" as seen in this 1905 article?

Mike,

Congrats on at least providing a new source of evidence that CBM was brought in as a friendly advisor to many courses, apparently not noted previously, and suggesting that this was a logical approach for him at MCC, given he didn't really set up a gca shop until after MCC.  And this article suggests that CBM was a qualified golf course expert as BOTH A fine player and one with experience as a gca and/or friendly advisor.

According to Bahto, Raynor was hired in 1907.

I wonder if Ran can add conferencing to this site so we can sing the old golf songs that apparently extolled the virtues of the old Scottish golf holes and sing them together.  What gay old fun that would be!

And since we parse every word of every article, I suspect many will discuss whether CBM having "a wide experience" in laying out golf courses means he would be overweight at the time, or just prefer wide fw.  Or maybe, just maybe, someone in a newspaper wrote something that wasn't perfectly gramatically correct (or as i would say, their grammar could be gooder) again showing the folly of relying on parsing words to prove the train stopped in Philly, etc.

My main point is, its an interesting new article and it does suggest that the friendly advisor thing was somewhat common with CBM.  Of course, we have to parse the word "friendly" and "advisor" for another 93 pages. And, since you cut the article off at a line starting "In an article about laying out golf courses....." I suspect you will be accused of withholding info to suit your purposes.  Actually, I would like to see the next section of that article myself, but don't think you did that on purpose!

But, enjoy it while you can, its a nice find.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I believe the article was found by Joe Bausch and has been posted before.

Perhaps you could chime in on this question below as well.

Thanks.
_____________________________________________________________________


Question for those who blindly accept TEPaul's representations regarding the April 19, 1911 meeting minutes (including Mike Cirba);

Do you believe that TEPaul has ever even seen the actual meeting minutes?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I must have missed that, so thanks for the clarification.  I have been out of the loop for a while, intentionally.

While I can't be certain, I do believe that TePaul has seen those minutes.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for the answer Jeff.

Mike?

[Tom MacWood]

"TEP
We agree, I do not believe he was confused. I take Allan Wilson's description literally, the first step of Hugh Wilson exerting his architectural ideas on the course occured after the trip in 1912."

Tom:

I'm glad you think we agree then. It's fine if you want to interpret what Alan Wilson said or meant was the architecture Hugh Wilson was involved with was only after he returned from abroad in the beginning of May, 1912. This however, does not preclude the fact that Wilson and his committee were laying out numerous iterations of Merion East and finally five plans of Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911.

That is not what Allan Wilson or Hugh Wilson wrote.

We (Merion) have that all important Wilson report to the board meeting of 4/19/1911 to prove that.

You do have the report, that is true, whether it proves what you say it proves remains to be seen. The fact that you have only given us a disjointed portion of the report, with a confusing narrative mode, does seem to indicate there are portions of the report you would prefer hidden. The question is why?

What else Alan Wilson said in that letter is indicative of what Wilson and his committee did but luckily we do not have to parse and ponder over what Alan Wilson meant fifteen years later when he said: "The course was found in 1910 and as a first step the club sent Hugh Wilson abroad" because the Alan Wilson letter is by no means all we have that indicates what Wilson and his committee did and when including obviously in the winter and spring and before a routing and design was approved by the club.

I'm not parsing it. I'm doing what you told us we should, I'm taking his words literally.

I've said on here a number of times that the Wilson report found at MCC in the last year is probably the single most conclusive material evidence of what Wilson and his committee did with the routing and design of Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911. And we can couple that with the fact that Merion or MCC at no time ever even mentioned any other routing and design plan from anyone else they ever even considered. This is exactly why you are having such a hard time convincing anyone Barker had anything to do with the routing and design of Merion East and why David Moriarty has had such a hard time convincing anyone that Macdonald did as well.  But at least MCC always recorded that M/W helped and advised them on those plans something there is no evidence at all of Barker ever doing.

The fact that you continue to call it the "Wilson report" despite the fact Lesley gave it, and it apparently does not mention Wilson or his committee by name, brings further questions. I would also caution you not to jump to the conclusion that "plans" translate to routing. Lesley tells us a course or routing was in existence prior to the NGLA visit, that was rearranged when they returned. Common sense indicates the plans were a tweaking of that course, as opposed to five new full routings. Wilson's ongoing preparation of the ground also indicate this had to be a tweaking.