[Patrick_Mucci]

Gentlemen,

I would like to suggest a short intermission from this circular argument so that we all may share a moment with a group that does not care if Hugh Wilson, C.B. Macdonald or Mary Pickford designed Merion.

This must be seen to be believed:

From our friend Dan Kelly.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/23/massive-dance-number.html


Gib,

What a great way to begin a marriage.

I wish them a lifetime of the joy and happiness that's in that video.

As to David's efforts and opinion piece, they were attacked PRIOR to being presented, so how objective has the post-release criticism been ?

If there are flaws in David's opinion piece they should be pointed out and documented. 

I'm sure that David would edit his opinion piece to reflect the correction/s

[Mike_Cirba]

Here's a link to the recent article about the wonderful work that been ongoing at Merion Golf Club's Historical Archives;

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/entertainment/20090723_History_in_the_archives_of_Merion_Golf_Club.html

[TEPaul]

"How would you know what transpired between the Merion historian and myself?"


Tom:

I believe something like that is no business of yours. It's my own business and the historian's and the club's. I don't know of any golf club where someone requesting information access gets to tell members and friends and the club he's requesting information access of what they can and cannot do or can and cannot say regarding his request.  



JohnK:

Thanks for your answer to my question of you. Let me ask you another one. Did my question to you sound to you like I was cutting off all information or being intimidating?




"TEP
If you are referring to Wayne, he (and you) are receiving the respect you deserve based upon the respect you have given others over the years."


Tom:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, very much including you. I have no problem at all with that. But when it comes to seeking access to information from Merion or even perhaps seeking respect from it, Wayne and me aren't in the process of trying to seek either right now----but you are!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

To be accurate, I think it's fair to say that your view of Cobb's Creek "evolved.

Initially, it was "Wilson oriented".

Additional research seems to have revealed that the course was not Wilson's, but rather the product of a collaborative effort.

Joe's research has been helpful, however, newspaper articles always left me with more than a slight element of doubt with respect to irrefutable accuracy.

Phillip Young,

I think you've taken some of Tom MacWood's remarks out of context, especially the remarks concerning Wayno's perceived or practical role with respect to the disemination of information relating to Merion and/or MCC.

Essentially, you have two camps, those protecting, preserving and perpetuating the status quo and those questioning, doubting and rejecting the status quo.

I think you'll find examples where each camp's position has merit.

The real issue shouldn't be about which camp's particular position will carry a given argument, rather, it should be about the search for the truth, irrespective of whose camp benefits from that revelation and/or whose ego is bruised.

While some of the discussion turned heated, if not ugly, it's the relevant content, not the method of delivery that should be focused on.

I PM'd/emailed/phoned the parties involved and requested that they eliminate/reduce the personal facets of the discussion and focus on the issues.  As you can see, my efforts at mediation failed.

There's nothing wrong with heated debates as long as the topic remains "the issue" and not the typist/poster.

More is known about Merion, today, than prior to the creation of this and related threads.

Should that be deemed a "good" or "bad" byproduct of these threads and GCA.com ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

To be accurate, I think it's fair to say that your view of Cobb's Creek "evolved.

Initially, it was "Wilson oriented".

Additional research seems to have revealed that the course was not Wilson's, but rather the product of a collaborative effort.

Joe's research has been helpful, however, newspaper articles always left me with more than a slight element of doubt with respect to irrefutable accuracy.

Patrick,

Most contemporaneous accounts call Hugh Wilson and Ab Smith the principal architects of Cobb's Creek, although all of the others helped collaboratively, primarily during the planning and routing stages.   Those two were also highly involved in the construction process and one account credits WIlson with spending six months on the project.

We have way more than news accounts, though.   We have the original GAP minutes, where Robert Lesley names the committee members, and then later credits them.

The larger point is simply that our research and its findings was done in the sunshine of open dialogue and collaboration on GCA, where our findings could be discussed and vetted, and contrary to Tom MacWood's contention, none of it was designed to protect any local "myths".

The irony is, much like the efforts to reduce Hugh Wilson's role at Merion to construction supervisor, all of the subsequent research led to a much greater understanding of the man and his architectural and agronomic contributions to the game.

Where prior he was sometimes seen as a plebian, hands-off, aristocratic figurehead, the subsequent research and findings have shown him to be as virtually hands-on and involved in every detail as Pete Dye.

[TEPaul]

"More is known about Merion, today, than prior to the creation of this and related threads.

Should that be deemed a "good" or "bad" byproduct of these threads and GCA.com ?"


Pat:

I think that is good, obviously. Would you care to list what you think the "more" is that's now known from Merion's perspective because of these threads that they may not have known (at least in modern times) before these threads? Give it a shot, and I'll do the same from my perspective of their perspective since I know all of them and speak with them regularly.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You are incorrect when you state that I’ve “…taken some of Tom MacWood's remarks out of context, especially the remarks concerning Wayno's perceived or practical role with respect to the disemination of information relating to Merion and/or MCC…”

You are doing that in your own statement when you state that Tom stated a “perceived or practical role…” That is incorrect. There is simply no way that the statement, “Wayne is the acting archivist for Merion, and has a control of all their documents…” to mean anything other than that. Merion has given the CONTROL of all their archives and documents contained therein to John Capers III and NO ONE ELSE!

You further stated that, “Essentially, you have two camps, those protecting, preserving and perpetuating the status quo and those questioning, doubting and rejecting the status quo. I think you'll find examples where each camp's position has merit. The real issue shouldn't be about which camp's particular position will carry a given argument, rather, it should be about the search for the truth, irrespective of whose camp benefits from that revelation and/or whose ego is bruised…”

All of that is true and I’ve never said anything different.

You continued, “While some of the discussion turned heated, if not ugly, it's the relevant content, not the method of delivery that should be focused on…”

I COMPLETELY agree with that. UNFORTUNATELY, despite my directly having asked in public on these threads and through private emails and/or phone conversations Tom Paul, Tom Macwood, David Moriarity, Wayne Morrison & Mike Cirba to be “the BETTER MAN” and to “STOP” other than Wayne the ugliness you cite continues.

“There's nothing wrong with heated debates as long as the topic remains "the issue" and not the typist/poster…” That is true, unfortunately these haven’t been heated debates but rather they have into an embarrassment for many involved.

“More is known about Merion, today, than prior to the creation of this and related threads. Should that be deemed a "good" or "bad" byproduct of these threads and GCA.com ?”

It SHOULD be deemed a GOOD byproduct. Again, UNFORTUNATELY the poor behavior displayed throughout the “debates” has long ago transcended any “good” that might have come of them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"More is known about Merion, today, than prior to the creation of this and related threads.

Should that be deemed a "good" or "bad" byproduct of these threads and GCA.com ?"

Pat:

I think that is good, obviously.

Agreed.

Would you care to list what "more" is now known from Merion's perspective becasue of these threads?

NO, because it varies, depending upon each person's prior knowledge of Merion.

Give it a shot, and I'll do the same from my perspective and their perspective since I know all of them and speak with them regularly.


TE, that's a foolish position on your part.

There wasn't one person in a million, including you, Mike and Wayno, who knew or understood how the site originally coalesced.

The amount of information discovered and revealed has been significant.

One can only hope that the process will continue.

[TEPaul]

"I COMPLETELY agree with that. UNFORTUNATELY, despite my directly having asked in public on these threads and through private emails and/or phone conversations Tom Paul, Tom Macwood, David Moriarity, Wayne Morrison & Mike Cirba to be “the BETTER MAN” and to “STOP” other than Wayne the ugliness you cite continues."




Jeeesus Phil, give me a break, will you? I look in the mirror for most of these last two months and what do I see? I see a BETTER MAN, that's what I see!!! I haven't said anything UGLY on here for weeks on end. Read my posts to Tom MacWood! What's even remotely UGLY about any of them? I might even be the new Poster Boy for civility and cordiality and honesty on all Internet websites that have discussion sections that constantly mimic a Friday night barroom brawl in Dodge City right after the cowboys got paid!

I'm just pointing out to Tom MacWood if he wants access to Merion's archives he just has to follow the procedure anyone else does and that does pretty much require him coming here to Philadelphia, to Merion, and to their Archive room if he wants access to Merion's archives. He has tried to get access to Merion's archives recently and the same thing was explained to him as Merion explains to anyone else. I guess he doesn't feel like admitting that on here for some reason, and only Tom MacWood knows what that reason is. He has to come here if he follows their procedures but perhaps he thinks Merion should just send him their archives or download everything they have onto his computer or something. It doesn't work that way----not with Merion anyway.

The only other thing I'm pointing out to him is that if he wants access to Merion perhaps he should not first insult and denigrate one of their historians and their primary architectural historian on a world-wide Internet site that Merion is familiar with. Is there anything ugly about pointing that out to him?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

I have tried despite a continuing cascade of insults and questioning of my motives and methods hurled in my direction throughout this thread to not respond in kind.

I've tried to keep discussion focused on the evidence at hand.

I've done it once again in the past day where I'm being told that the only reason I'm protecting the Hugh Wilson "myth" is because of some interest in restoring Cobb's Creek.

The fact is, these guys seem to want to talk about anything and everything else except the facts, which we've presented to them time and again.   

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Those are very nice articles, but very nice articles are a dime a dozen. Cobbs Creek was not a golf course of architectural significance nationally.

[TEPaul]

"There wasn't one person in a million, including you, Mike and Wayno, who knew or understood how the site originally coalesced."


Pat:

What do you mean by 'how the site coalesced?' Do you mean Horatio Gates Lloyd and his part in the deal with the residential developers? Or do you mean Wilson and committee and the actual design and construction of the golf course?

Furthermore, how can you say there's not one in a million who knows whatever about Merion? How do you know what anyone who really knows Merion knows?

The exact answer is you don't.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You are incorrect when you state that I’ve “…taken some of Tom MacWood's remarks out of context, especially the remarks concerning Wayno's perceived or practical role with respect to the disemination of information relating to Merion and/or MCC…”

We disagree

You are doing that in your own statement when you state that Tom stated a “perceived or practical role…” That is incorrect. There is simply no way that the statement, “Wayne is the acting archivist for Merion, and has a control of all their documents…” to mean anything other than that. Merion has given the CONTROL of all their archives and documents contained therein to John Capers III and NO ONE ELSE!

We also disagree on the above point.
Tom MacWood stated that Wayno is the "acting" archivist for Merion.
Wayne appears to be the ONLY participant on this site that has been given access to and has seen and diseminated bits of information related to Merion.   Since no one else on this site has been granted access, for practical or perceived purposes Wayno was "acting" as the archivist for this site.
I don't read Tom MacWood's post as extending beyond this website.  Perhaps you do, and that's where our positions are at odds.

You further stated that, “Essentially, you have two camps, those protecting, preserving and perpetuating the status quo and those questioning, doubting and rejecting the status quo. I think you'll find examples where each camp's position has merit. The real issue shouldn't be about which camp's particular position will carry a given argument, rather, it should be about the search for the truth, irrespective of whose camp benefits from that revelation and/or whose ego is bruised…”

All of that is true and I’ve never said anything different.

You continued, “While some of the discussion turned heated, if not ugly, it's the relevant content, not the method of delivery that should be focused on…”

I COMPLETELY agree with that. UNFORTUNATELY, despite my directly having asked in public on these threads and through private emails and/or phone conversations Tom Paul, Tom Macwood, David Moriarity, Wayne Morrison & Mike Cirba to be “the BETTER MAN” and to “STOP” other than Wayne the ugliness you cite continues.

Agreed.  For some reason Merion and related topics seem to have an inherent angst factor built into them.

“There's nothing wrong with heated debates as long as the topic remains "the issue" and not the typist/poster…”

That is true, unfortunately these haven’t been heated debates but rather they have into an embarrassment for many involved.

“More is known about Merion, today, than prior to the creation of this and related threads. Should that be deemed a "good" or "bad" byproduct of these threads and GCA.com ?”

It SHOULD be deemed a GOOD byproduct. Again, UNFORTUNATELY the poor behavior displayed throughout the “debates” has long ago transcended any “good” that might have come of them.

I don't know that I agree with that.
I think the ugliness has been unfortunate, but, I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water..

Hopefully, the angst factor will subside and meaningful due diligence and discovery can continue.

However, I do understand David's and Tom's frustrations with having to rely on third party disemination, especially when they perceive the third parties as being selective/biased in their disemination/s

[David Stamm]

Mike
Those are very nice articles, but very nice articles are a dime a dozen. Cobbs Creek was not a golf course of architectural significance nationally.

So because of that Cobbs Creek is not a noteworthy course? There are plenty of courses that are architecturally significant that have not garnered national praise, Tom.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"There wasn't one person in a million, including you, Mike and Wayno, who knew or understood how the site originally coalesced."


Pat:

What do you mean by 'how the site coalesced?' Do you mean Horatio Gates Lloyd and his part in the deal with the residential developers? Or do you mean Wilson and committee and the actual design and construction of the golf course?

Furthermore, how can you say there's not one in a million who knows whatever about Merion? How do you know what anyone who really knows Merion knows?

The exact answer is you don't.  

TE, whom, on this site, and elsewhere, knew and understood the genesis of the site at Merion until Mike Cirba, Bryan Izatt, Jeff Brauer, Jim Sullivan, David Moriarty, Tom MacWood, you and others attempted the reconstruction ?

[John Moore II]

JohnK:

Thanks for your answer to my question of you. Let me ask you another one. Did my question to you sound to you like I was cutting off all information or being intimidating?

No, your queston didn't really sound that way. From what I understand, you would not be the one in position to cut off any information to start with since you do not have the original access; I may be incorrect in that understanding, however. I cannot comment on anyone else's possible motives in the matter. I do know that there is exceptionally bad feelings between participants here. And no, I doubt you are being intimidating to any of the other participants.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood.

From the time it opened in 1916 until Bethpage was built in the mid 30s, Cobbs Creek was acknowledged as the finest public course in the country.

It was also the first public course designed specifically as a very challenging, if eminently playable, test of golf, with the idea being that a very difficult course help develop great local players which it did..

[TEPaul]

"TE, whom, on this site, and elsewhere, knew and understood the genesis of the site at Merion until Mike Cirba, Bryan Izatt, Jeff Brauer, Jim Sullivan, David Moriarty, Tom MacWood, you and others attempted the reconstruction?"


Pat:

If by the genesis of the site you mean Wilson and Committee designing and constructing Merion East and not for instance Lloyd's part in the residential real estate development and the business structure that was created back then, I would say anyone from Merion who is familiar with Merion's history books and their archives. That would definitely include Merion's historian and a number of others. As I said on here previously, I believe the only thing the Merion history books got wrong was the fact that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and not 1912. They also did not include any references to those early MCC meeting minutes, Macdonald's letter, Cuyler's letters, the Wilson report to the board meeting of 4/19/1911 because that material has always been at MCC and was never transported to Merion GC when it became an independent entity from MCC. The latter material only serves to completely strengthen and confirm what the Merion GC and their history books give Wilson and his committee credit for and what so many other sources around the time of the creation gave him and them credit for. They all also always gave Macdonald and Whigam credit for their help and advice, even though some like MacWood and Moriarty did not know that when they began all this.

As far as familiarity with those MCC documents, MCC's historian who I've spoken with recently was probably familiar with them as MCC has been and is in the process of really dedicating time and money to preserving, cateloguing, inventorying their own archives. They may use the same professional archivist as Merion GC did. Merion GC's archives, room etc is as impressive as it gets as you might be able to tell by that recent article from the Philadelphia Inquirer that was posted on this thread.



"For some reason Merion and related topics seem to have an inherent angst factor built into them."


There is absolutely no "angst factor" at Merion or around here. Just because two people on here accused us of having some angst factor and trying to preserve some myth or legend about Hugh Wilson and Merion East definitely does not make it so, that's for sure. They both said there was some mystery attached to who designed Merion. There never was any mystery at all, that idea was nothing more than completely unfounded and unsupported words from those two. Their initial mistake with this whole Macdonald advice and help thing was that since neither one of those two had any relationship with Merion they were not aware when they began this that both we and Merion has always been aware of Macdonald/Whigam's part and it has been mentioned from the very beginning and including in Merion's history books.

It may sound strange to you to hear that now, Pat, because you've never known much of anything about Merion's architectural history anyway and because this entire thing has been so completely trumped up by those two. They have truly tried to perpetuate a very large mountain out of a very small molehill----eg Wilson went abroad in 1912 and not 1910. Of course the Barker stretch is nigh onto ridiculous but that is not the first time something like that has happened with Tom MacWood. He tried to promote the same idea with Willie Campbell and Herbert Leeds' Myopia. And when asked repeatedly he refused to produce any actual evidence of his claim only saying he would not provide anything for or to any club I was involved with.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TE, whom, on this site, and elsewhere, knew and understood the genesis of the site at Merion until Mike Cirba, Bryan Izatt, Jeff Brauer, Jim Sullivan, David Moriarty, Tom MacWood, you and others attempted the reconstruction?"

Pat:

If by the genesis of the site you mean Wilson and Committee designing and constructing Merion East and not for instance Lloyd's part in the residential real estate development and the business structure that was created back then, I would say anyone from Merion who is familiar with Merion's history books and their archives.

Don't compartmentalize, segregate and isolate one issue from all the others. 
Neither you nor anyone else on this site was aware of the intricate piecing together of the land parcels that resulted in the ultimate configuration of the clubs property/boundaries/golf course.
I know a good number of members of Merion who weren't aware of the genesis of the property/boundaries/golf course.

The fact that Merion's "official" record/history is still in error leads a prudent man to agree with my general statement.


That would definitely include Merion's historian and a number of others. As I said on here previously, I believe the only thing the Merion history books got wrong was the fact that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and not 1912.


That's not an inconsequential mistake.
In fact, it was a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion.

It would also lead a prudent person to ask for verification with respect to other facets of Merion's history.

They also did not include any references to those early MCC meeting minutes, Macdonald's letter, Cuyler's letters, the Wilson report to the board meeting of 4/19/1911 because that material has always been at MCC and was never transported to Merion GC when it became an independent entity from MCC.

That would seem to indicate that Merion was unaware of those aspects of their history.
It would seem that the discovery and revelation of that information filled in missing elements with respect to Merion's history

The latter material only serves to completely strengthen and confirm what the Merion GC and their history books give Wilson and his committee credit for and what so many other sources around the time of the creation gave him and them credit for. They all also always gave Macdonald and Whigam credit for their help and advice, even though some like MacWood and Moriarty did not know that when they began all this.


TE, you were also unaware of those credits.
It was ONLY AFTER the MCC archives were accessed that this information came to light.
Had it not been for Moriarty and MacWood that information would have remained in a dark, dusty attic or basement.
It would seem that the complete production of the MCC archival material would be in everyone's best interest.

As far as familiarity with those MCC documents, MCC's historian who I've spoken with recently was probably familiar with them as MCC has been and is in the process of really dedicating time and money to preserving, cateloguing, inventorying their own archives.

I'm not so accepting of that statement.
If it hadn't been for Moriarty and MacWood I question whether those documents would have seen the light of day or the public's eye.

They may use the same professional archivist as Merion GC did. Merion GC's archives, room etc is as impressive as it gets as you might be able to tell by that recent article from the Philadelphia Inquirer that was posted on this thread.

I applaud the efforts of those clubs that value and publish their architectural and club records.
Those early clubs are substantively responsible for the popularity and growth of golf in America.
The archival information in their possession is a wonderful asset that should be shared as a part of the history of golf in America.

"For some reason Merion and related topics seem to have an inherent angst factor built into them."

There is absolutely no "angst factor" at Merion or around here. Just because two people on here accused us of having some angst factor and trying to preserve some myth or legend about Hugh Wilson and Merion East definitely does not make it so, that's for sure. They both said there was some mystery attached to who designed Merion. There never was any mystery at all, that idea was nothing more than completely unfounded and unsupported words from those two. Their initial mistake with this whole Macdonald advice and help thing was that since neither one of those two had any relationship with Merion they were not aware when they began this that both we and Merion has always been aware of Macdonald/Whigam's part and it has been mentioned from the very beginning and including in Merion's history books.

I don't know why you're confining your remarks and opinion to this thread.
Don't you recall the "Merion Bunker thread"  Hanse, MacDonald & Sons, etc. etc..  That thread and others had ample "angst"

It may sound strange to you to hear that now, Pat, because you've never known much of anything about Merion's architectural history anyway and because this entire thing has been so completely trumped up by those two.   

I can assure you that Moriarty and MacWood weren't the first to provide information to my MERION data base.

However, you may recall that Moriarty and MacWood claimed that # 10 was an "Alps" hole and that I refuted their contention.
Subsequently, I changed my position and agreed with them.

Moriarty and MacWood have provided valuable research regarding Merion and other clubs.

They have truly tried to perpetuate a very large mountain out of a very small molehill----eg Wilson went abroad in 1912 and not 1910. Of course the Barker stretch is nigh onto ridiculous but that is not the first time something like that has happened with Tom MacWood. He tried to promote the same idea with Willie Campbell and Herbert Leeds' Myopia. And when asked repeatedly he refused to produce any actual evidence of his claim only saying he would not provide anything for or to any club I was involved with.  

Moriarty was correct about the timing of Wilson's trip, despite the heat and attempts at refutation he took from Mike Cirba and others.

Why not give the Devil his DUE ?

[TEPaul]

"The fact that Merion's "official" record/history is still in error leads a prudent man to agree with my general statement."


Pat:

Still in error how so?



"That's not an inconsequential mistake.
In fact, it was a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion."


Pat, that's where you are wrong---really wrong. The 1912 rather than the 1910 trip was not a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion's. That's what David Moriarty's essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" tried to make it look like that was the linch pin with a series of specious a priori reasoning; that was his linch pin not Merion's, but that is just not the case at all in the real history of Merion, never was. He tried to use that revelation (which I certainly do and have given him plenty of credit for pinning down with his ship passenger manifest searches) to construct a number of his own premises around that mistake in Merion's history that are just not historically accurate and we proved it as completely as any reasonable mind would require proof.

The fact that Moriarty or MacWood haven't accepted it and probably never will has nothing to do with it----ie Merion's actual history of the Wilson Committee in the winter and spring of 1911. Everybody at Merion back then in the winter and spring of 1911 sure could see what Wilson and his committee did with numerous routings and designs but that Wilson report to the board that may not have been seen in a century definitely sealed the deal for us today, and getting hysterical over lack of access to information from us (which isn't even true ) or trying to parse the hell out of every damn word such as "we" or "they"  in that report is never going to change that fact.

[TEPaul]

By the way, Patrick, half the time on this thread people are arguing over someone getting personal and ugly with someone else. So I just want to say I actually think you are an expert on a few things and I want to commend you for them so as to get back on a slightly more touchy/feely atmosphere around here.

I think you are one of the most clever strategic golfers I've ever seen in my life and times and believe me I've seen a lot of them. You sure do know how to adjust and you are a most effective bettor in golf as well.

And I also think you are an expert letch and a really expert windbag, so to hopefully get this thread back on a more friendly footing, I just felt I should publicly tell you that!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The fact that Merion's "official" record/history is still in error leads a prudent man to agree with my general statement."

Pat:

Still in error how so?

"That's not an inconsequential mistake.
In fact, it was a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion."

Pat, that's where you are wrong---really wrong. The 1912 rather than the 1910 trip was not a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion's.


We disagree.
The premise was that Wilson traveled abroad and studied the great courses of the UK and as a result, he routed and designed Merion based on what he observed, studied and discovered in his travels in the UK.

I'd say that the above explanation of Merion's creation is a substantive error and consequential in the explanation of how Merion came into being.

That's what David Moriarty's essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" tried to make it look like that was the linch pin with a series of specious a priori reasoning; that was his linch pin not Merion's, but that is just not the case at all in the real history of Merion, never was.


I don't know how you deny the significance of the error regarding the date of Wilson's travels abroad, the basis and result of those travels and the fact that Merion was already routed by the time Wilson went abroad, two years after he was alleged to have gone abroad to observe and study the principles of the great courses of the UK for the specific purpose of incorporating them into Merion.

He tried to use that revelation (which I certainly do and have given him plenty of credit for pinning down with his ship passenger manifest searches) to construct a number of his own premises around that mistake in Merion's history that are just not historically accurate and we proved it as completely as any reasonable mind would require proof.

I'm afraid that you lost me with that last paragraph.
If it was alleged that Wilson sailed in 1910 to observe and study the great courses and design principles of the UK for the express purpose of incorporating them into the design of Merion, BUT, he never sailed until 1912, AFTER the course had been routed, you don't think that Moriarty's account is accurate and Merion's account is grossly INACCURATE ?  ?   ?

The incorrect date of Wilson's trip created and perpetuated the myth regarding the genesis and lineage of Merion.

The fact that Moriarty or MacWood haven't accepted it and probably never will has nothing to do with it----ie Merion's actual history of the Wilson Committee in the winter and spring of 1911. Everybody at Merion back then in the winter and spring of 1911 sure could see what Wilson and his committee did with numerous routings and designs but that Wilson report to the board that may not have been seen in a century definitely sealed the deal for us [today[/size],

But you didn't know that until AFTER Moriarty wrote his position paper.

AND, we're NOT BACK in 1911, we're in 2009.

and getting hysterical over lack of access to information from us (which isn't even true ) or trying to parse the hell out of every damn word such as "we" or "they"  in that report is never going to change that fact.

As I've said numerous times, "I don't know what happened circa 1909-1912, but, I'd like to find out", and I don't think hording documents and/or complete information furthers that quest.

You keep on harping on Moriarty and MacWood, but, the issue/s isn't/aren't about Moriarty and MacWood, the issue is about searching for the truth, finding out as much as we can vis a vis varifiable information.

If that leads to the discovery of a routing and design signed by Wilson, so be it.
If it leads to a routing and design signed by Donald Ross, so be it.
It's not about who is right, partially right, or wrong or partially wrong, it's about establishing what actually transpired, as best as can be determined by prudent men.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick.

If any of us were "prudent men", this thread would have been at most one-page long.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood.

From the time it opened in 1916 until Bethpage was built in the mid 30s, Cobbs Creek was acknowledged as the finest public course in the country.

It was also the first public course designed specifically as a very challenging, if eminently playable, test of golf, with the idea being that a very difficult course help develop great local players which it did..

Acknowledged as the finest public course in the country by who?

What about Brackenridge Park (Tillinghast), Griffith Park (Thomas), Harding Park (Watson), Brookside (Bell), Lake Chabot (Lock), Sharp Park (Mackenzie), Patty Jewett, East Potomac (Travis), Ottawa Park, Jacksonville Muni (Ross), Bay Shore (Tippet), Pasadena Muni (Stiles/Hagen), Bobby Jones (Ross), Miami Muni (Ross), Erskine Park (O'Neil), George Wright (Ross), Keller, Mark Twain (Ross), Swope Park (Tillinghast), Salisbury Links (Emmet), Bayside (Mackenzie), Wilmington Muni (Ross), and Eastmoreland (Egan)?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Those are very nice articles, but very nice articles are a dime a dozen. Cobbs Creek was not a golf course of architectural significance nationally.

So because of that Cobbs Creek is not a noteworthy course? There are plenty of courses that are architecturally significant that have not garnered national praise, Tom.

David
Cobbs Creek has never been considered architecturally significant in its own city much less nationally.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()