[Mark Pearce]

Will it be me?

[Eric Smith]

shoot...

[Mark Pearce]

This time?

[Mark Pearce]

One more time?

[Mark Pearce]

OK, I'll let someone else have the (glory).

[Eric Smith]

spacing sleepers randomly is cool   

[John Moore II]

Does anyone actually care to answer the questions I posed?

[DMoriarty]

(I think its going to take another 15 posts or so to get this to 100 pages, so maybe I'll try to ask a relevant question to all parties involved)


Do all involved in the research not have access to the same primary source documents? If not, why not?

NO.  Because so far only Wayne Morrison has had access to the old meeting minute books from MCC, and he has chosen to use that material to selectively and piecemeal to support his side of the argument and to attack others, but he has not allowed that material to be viewed, verified, or vetted.   Since Wayne no longer participates, he has periodically provided copies of this source material to TEPaul and Mike Cirba, so they could continue the charade.   Wayne, TEPaul, and Mike Cirba have brought forward snippets and passages and have claimed that they are exact transcriptions of the source material, but over time their supposed exact transcriptions have changed substantively, thus indicating that, intentionally or not, they are misrepresenting the content of the source material.

On that same idea, how, if everyone is reading from the same primary source documents, do 2 groups of people manage to come up with nearly polar opposite conclusions as to what happened?

We aren't all reading the source material.  One group is demanding to see the source material for ourselves, and the other is demanding that we take their word for the contents.

Are these primary documents available for public viewing? If not, why have they not been published in some fashion so that the active observer might be able to take a look at the primary material for himself?

See above.
This new paper to be published that I seem to recall Tom Paul mentioning a page or so back, will it be published with proper University of Chicago citations like a normal, peer reviewed scholarly work? If not, why not? Citations add to the credibility of the work. I would put very little stock in the David Moriarity piece that caused the previous engagement in this war last year because frankly the endnotes citing the primary and secondary sources used to write the piece are pathetic. Whenever this next piece comes out, please use legitimate citations for works used, otherwise, it will amount to a pile of garbage to anyone who knows what a proper piece of scholarly writing should look like.

New papers, books, point-by-point counterpoints, works to "make a fool" of me, etc. have been promised since my essay came out and even before, but so far none have been forthcoming.   I won't hold my breath.

As far as your comments about my endnotes, your point is well taken.   The essay was rushed out due to the near riot that rumor of its existence had caused on these boards, and in my rush I chose substance over form and that may have been a mistake.   That being said, my essay was intended very much as a draft for discussion and comment, and I will update all the citations and sources if I ever get a chance to see the actual source material so it can be properly updated.    Also, ALL of my source material was made available on these boards and elsewhere immediately after my essay first appeared on here.  There was never any attempt to hide information or misrepresent anything.

So, maybe I, and the rest of the observers, can get some answers.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Adam_Messix]

100 Pages......incredible

[Tom MacWood]

(I think its going to take another 15 posts or so to get this to 100 pages, so maybe I'll try to ask a relevant question to all parties involved)


Do all involved in the research not have access to the same primary source documents? If not, why not?

On that same idea, how, if everyone is reading from the same primary source documents, do 2 groups of people manage to come up with nearly polar opposite conclusions as to what happened?

Are these primary documents available for public viewing? If not, why have they not been published in some fashion so that the active observer might be able to take a look at the primary material for himself?

This new paper to be published that I seem to recall Tom Paul mentioning a page or so back, will it be published with proper University of Chicago citations like a normal, peer reviewed scholarly work? If not, why not? Citations add to the credibility of the work. I would put very little stock in the David Moriarity piece that caused the previous engagement in this war last year because frankly the endnotes citing the primary and secondary sources used to write the piece are pathetic. Whenever this next piece comes out, please use legitimate citations for works used, otherwise, it will amount to a pile of garbage to anyone who knows what a proper piece of scholarly writing should look like.

So, maybe I, and the rest of the observers, can get some answers.

The answer is no. TEP, Wayne and Mike have not written an account so they obviously have no citations.

David and I have shared what we have with everyone who has requested it. David included a great deal of info with his essay, including citations. Since then we have posted copies of Wilson's Passenger record, an article documenting Wilson trip from a British magazine, the Francis article, months of letters from Wilson and Oakley, and Hugh Wilson's entire account written in 1916.

TEP and Wayne have shared a transcription of the CBM letter and a transcription of the Allan Wilson's letter. We later learned TEP removed an important phrase from the A. Wilson letter. They have refused to share copies of the original documents and refused to share the April 1911 report, which contains important information from December 1910 to April 1911.

[john_stiles]

A hundred will be a snap.....

As Lesley wrote, and all the information to date shows, and as Merion history reflects, CBM and HJW were adivsers.  They were given such credit by all since the very early days of Merion.

My first 'modern' book on architecture, 'The Golf Course' 1981, even has an attribution to CBM and HJW, that they both offered advice on the endeavor.  

While this doesn't match the credit owed CBM and HJW according to Moriarity and Macwood, there has never been any writings by anyone to dispute  CBM and HJW's advice.

Is there any earlier article by a club official, involved with the Merion East course, than R.W. Lesley's 1914 article in Golf Illustarted ?

Are there any later articles that dispute that,  other than the eulogy of a bereft relative at the funeral of his best friend who was a leading golf figure for decades.


David,

Until the Merion records you desire appear to you,    many records give CBM and HJW credit as being advisers.  
With only two site property visits by CBM/HJW,   the last only to confer a blessing on the one of the five plans, there just isn't enough weight to give CBM and HJW any more credit than is written by Lesley, et al.

[DMoriarty]

John,

As I have explained many times, you are drastically overstating the amount of credit M&W  were being given at the eve of my essay.   CBM's role had largely been reduced to that of a glorified travel agent.    For you and others to suggest that they have always been given their due seems to be just the latest attempt to sweep the issue under the rug.

I don't dispute that they were advisors, but that doesn't answer the question of the nature of their advice.

And again,  I don't care about the credit issue.   Merion can ignore them all together for all I care.  I want to figure out what happened.  I am having trouble understanding how your repeated conclusions about the term "advisors" gets us any closer to that goal.

[DMoriarty]

Here is what Merion Golf Club's own website has to say about the origins of the course.  From
http://merion.memberstatements.com/tour/tours.cfm?tourid=16114.

Note that not only is much of the history of the origins wrong, it does not even mention CBM and HW.   Please stop writing they have always been acknowledged M&W as advisers.

Merion Golf Club
· A Brief History ·

Merion.  To all true golfers, the name conjures up stirring images.  Merion's East Course, always on everyone's list of favorites, is a traditional golf club where history has been made time and time again.

There's no doubt that the gods of golf have smiled on Merion.  The Club was founded at just the right moment in time, when the game was in its infancy in this country.  It was founded in a marvelously right location, where sports minded men and women have always abounded.  And it had the right golf course architect, Hugh Wilson, a gifted amateur whose maiden effort, according to USGA president Richard S. Tufts, was a "model test of golfing skill and judgement for future architects to "copy".

In 1910, the committee to lay out the new course decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for Merion.  He spent about seven months abroad, playing and studying courses and sketching the features that struck him most favorably.  One mystery which still surrounds Wilson's trip to Britain is the origin of the wicker flagsticks, and it is still part of Merion's mystique.   The layout that Wilson fashioned at Merion was masterly.  He fitted the holes onto the land as compactly as a jigsaw puzzle.  As a result, players only had to step a few yards from each green to the next tee.  The trip to the Old Country had certainly paid off.

Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England. The 3rd hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (the Redan) and the 17th, with its swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrew's 18th hole.

On September 12, 1912, the old course at Haverford was closed, and on the 14th, the new course and the clubhouse were opened to members.  A report of the opening said the course was "among experts, considered the finest inland links in the country".  This was an assessment that has been echoed down through the years.

If someone were to ask what ingredients make up Merion today, the recipe would include the following:  One great golf course, another sporty golf course (the West), a tradition of great championships, a membership mindful of Merion's place in history and a dedicated staff.

The current condition of the course is constantly compared to early photographs and every effort is made to insure that people playing the course today compete on the same course as did the champions of old.  For that reason, also, the course if maintained as though to hold championships daily. There is always an intermediate rough.  The Dunes Grass and Scotch Broom are other Merion traditions, as is the way that bunkers are maintained with peninsulas, island of grass and "eyebrows."

Traditions at Merion are concerned with the playing of the game.  No mulligans are permitted at the first tee.  Players and caddies alike are expected to respect the course and others on the course by leaving each hole better than the way they found it-replacing divots, raking bunkers, and fixing pitch marks and by leaving it quickly.  Slow play earns a reprimand at Merion.

Traditionally, the East Course is a walking course.  The only people allowed to use golf carts are those with a medical necessity.  Merion is committed to its caddie program.  Caddies are trained and are expected to be able to tell players the exact yardage on any shot.  There are no yardage markers anywhere on the course. In appreciation, Merion members are always around the leaders in contributions to the J. Wood Platt Caddie Scholarship Fund.

All in all, Merion is about golf.  It honors history and the continuing values of the game.

The grand old course made its debut in national competition when it hosted the 1916 U.S. Amateur.  The 1916 championship also marked the first national appearance of Robert T. "Bobby" Jones, Jr., then 14 years old, who went on to win his first National Amateur in 1924. Jones closed his international career winning the 1930 U.S. Amateur on Merion's eleventh hole in the same year.

Merion continues to make golf history to the present day.  Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, Lloyd Mangrum, Cary Middlecoff, Jimmy Demaret, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson, David Graham, Johnny Miller -- Merion has known them all.

[Anthony Gray]

100 Pages......incredible

  On my death bed a will recieve total consciousnes.

  Anthony

[Bill_McBride]

100 Pages......incredible

  On my death bed a will recieve total consciousnes.

  Anthony

As I expired I heard the lama whisper......................................"Get spell checker." 

[Mike_Cirba]

"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying....."

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."


THAT is what the minutes say according to my understanding and it's what I've probably copied here at least 5 times previously, and consistently.   It is also consistent to what I saw of the minutes in person, on two separate occassions, the second time with Joe Bausch in attendance.


Does anyone not agree that it was Hugh WIlson's committee who went "down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald..."??

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "after laying out many golf courses..."... AFTER went down to NGLA??!?!?!?!?!?

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "on our return" rearranged the course and laid out five different plans?!?!?!?!?!?!?  


Wayne Morrison found the documents.

He wants nothing to do with this website, nor is he going to provide additional information here.   He got kicked off and he has no interest in what David and/or MacWood think or want.

He has asked Tom Paul and I NOT to provide any information here as is his right.


We have what we have and that is all that will be forthcoming.

If anyone wants to talk about that evidence or answer the obvious questions I ask above, then let's do it.

The rest...the charges...the rest...is bullshit and is simply seeking to avoid dealing with the FACT that there is ZERO evidence left that hasn't been disproven of anyone other than Hugh WIlson and Committee designing Merion with CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham as advisors.  

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Do you mind correcting the spelling error in the Subject line of this thread?  Thanks.

Do you really think Wayne would have given you the information if he didn't know damn well that you were going to use it to advance his argument?   Why else would he have showed the information to you, twice, and even let you copy the information?   You are not a member of Merion, are you?    Is Joe Bausch?   Is TEPaul?   In short, Mike, your assertion that you are going against Wayne's will (and therefore against Merion's) is laughable.    If it were true then you guys would be real first class jerks and Wayne and Merion would have every reason to be extremely upset with both of you, but we know it is not true.   I mean look at your post.  You again cite what you claim is the source material and then two lines later say you are not at liberty to post it?  Give us a break.   

Plus it makes no difference.  Wayne himself has posted supposed source material yet refused to allow it to be viewed, verified, and vetted.   And if the source material was a big secret, then the last people he should have given it to were you and TEPaul.    No matter how you look at it, it all comes back to the fact that Wayne handled (and is handling) the MCC documents in a manner calculated to get out one side of the story, and to refute the other.    Why else would he agree to show them to you?   And not me?   In his mind you are on his side, and I am not.

________________________________________________

As for your latest supposed transcription of the source material.  It is no more reliable than the rest.    Sometimes the beginning says "after laying out many different courses . . .  ," but sometimes it says "WE laid out many different courses . . . "   

If the latter is correct  then we have something like:

Your [Golf] committee desires to report that after WE laid out many different courses on the new land, THEY went down the National Course with Mr. Macdonald . . .

WE laid out many different courses.  THEY went down to the National . . . .    WE and THEY refer to different groups of people.

[Dan Herrmann]

What good can come from further discussions here?   

[Mike Leveille]

What good can come of further discussion on this thread?  I have the over on an over-under bet as to how many times the primary participants can vow to resign from this thread and/or website only to post again on this thread.   With the bet set at 16 and bonus points for any participant who resigns and comes back within the span of three posts, I am on the verge of victory.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Construct any strawmen you wish, but this is what the minutes say.   

Dan,

Nothing good, that's for certain...

All attempts towards productive end such as looking at land aquisition timelines and where the 117 acres may have been have been effectively subverted so now even guys like Bryan Izatt and Jim Sullivan have wisely skipped town.

So, since there are no further attempts to actually discuss real evidence, or actually even discuss what guys like Tilly and "Far and Sure" wrote, last one out of this room please shut out the lights...

[Mike Hendren]

Never mind.

[Rich Goodale]

Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.......

[john_stiles]

When information or new information is posted,   versus attacks,     it is every bit as good as the cheater line (45 pages and counting) or any of the photo logs, or any post about where everyone has played,  or will play.

I view most topics once, even all the photo logs, trip reports, unending rating issues, Anthony's humor or dementia, the old JakaB material,  etc.

Merion will get re-started in earnest when more information is found, leaks out, or is presented, hopefully in another year or two.

I'm betting on RW Lesley, the Merion guy, not to be confused with my plumber's assistant, RW Leaky.

[Dan Herrmann]

Time to turn out the lights..

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan,

Would you mind locking up, as well?

Thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()