next »

[Mike_Cirba]

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

Tom,

Let's first disavow this ridiculous revisionist notion that Cobb's Creek was never considered architecturally significant in it's own city.   The fact it hosted the US Publinks in 1928, and even in the mid 50s hosted the Philadephia Daily News Open in 1954 and 1955 on the PGA tour is indicative of a course of merit, but let's see what was being written about Cobb's Creek during it's heyday in the 20s.














First, you made up a story that I had created a new version of the MCC Minutes...which, I proved you wrong about.

Then, you made up a story that I was only hanging onto the Hugh Wilson myth because of my interest in Cobb's Creek, which I already completely proved you wrong about, as well, and our complete discovery process regarding Cobb's Creek is viewable to anyone and everyone here.

Now, you make up another whopper....Cobb's Creek was never a significant golf course in Philadelphia....sheesh, Tom...I don't know where you get this stuff.....

[Tom MacWood]

Well we know at least Frank McCracken liked it. We are still waiting for you to answer my question, who acknowledged it was the finest public course in the country between 1916 and 1936?

And by the way who is Frank McCracken?

[John_Conley]

David, here is a post from over a year ago on another thread.  How prescient!

David Stamm
Sr. Member

 Offline

Posts: 3399


The strategy of the course is the soul of the game


    Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2008, 11:05:28 AM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Obviously alot of work went into this. Thank you for the efforts you put into this, David. I look forward to the discussions.

[Mike_Cirba]

Well we know at least Frank McCracken liked it. We are still waiting for you to answer my question, who acknowledged it was the finest public course in the country between 1916 and 1936?

And by the way who is Frank McCracken?

Tom,

Who is "we"?   I suspect most here are not fooled by your latest attempt to divert from actually discussing the facts of the Merion history.

Bernard Darwin was not in town that day, apparently.

Your contention that Merion was not a top course in Philadelphia is simply wrong.  

Perhaps Joe Bausch or Geoff Walsh will weigh in...or perhaps they'll just realize that it's a colossal waste of their time to do so.

Just stop making up lies about me.   It doesn't reflect well on you and there should be no reason to do so if you believed you had some actual facts on your side.

[TEPaul]

"Your contention that Merion was not a top course in Philadelphia is simply wrong.  

Perhaps Joe Bausch or Geoff Walsh will weigh in...or perhaps they'll just realize that it's a collossal waste of their time to do so."



Mike:

With Tom MacWood or someone like him on this website who might make the kinds of blanket statements he does and then try to pass them off as fact or some general consensus of opinion, perhaps the best thing to do to prevent these things from dragging on and on and on is to just tell him when he first makes these kinds of statements that in your opinion he is completely wrong and why and just LEAVE IT AT THAT!  


If you don't do that his modus seems to be to follow them up with 101 foolish and irrelevent questions which just drags things on and on and on.


On the other hand, as I just mentioned to you I think this whole Merion thing that has been going on on here for about six and a half years really is beginning to make some of these clubs sit up and take notice about what they may need to do and want to do about access seeking of information to do with their private clubs. This is an issue I don't believe has ever been much thought of or considered that much in the past (given that various clubs tend to look at it in both individual and different ways depending upon who the information access seekers are) but I think this is beginning to precipitate it now. Will it be damaging or restricting to people like us on this website with such a delving interest into some details of the histories of some clubs?

I believe it certainly might be damaging and limiting depending on the club but I hope it won't be. I think all of us on here have a very real responibility to consider this larger philosophical issue and how we will approach it in the future in a practical way.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
If you are going to make a bold statement like that (the finest public golf course in the country) one would presume you have several sources, maybe Travis or Tilly or Thomas or Verdant Greene or someone like that.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

Doesn't the same go for you? If you are going to make a bold statement, as you have on here, that Hugh Wilson and his committee only constructed Merion East to someone else's routing and design plan one would presume you have several sources to confirm that, maybe Travis or Tilly or Thomas or Verdant Greene or someone like that.

Do you?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike
Why are you avoiding my question? Cobbs Creek was acknowledged as the finest public course in the country by who?

PS: At the time Salisbury Links opened in 1907 it was considered a cutting edge design. Travis wrote an important article on the course for Country Life.

TMac,

To paraphrase your ownself, "Important articles are a dime a dozen".  Here is your response to Mike C about various articles he posted.

Mike
Those are very nice articles, but very nice articles are a dime a dozen.

Of course, only you know what an important article is.  Not to mention train schedules!

BTW, I have not read the Tollhurst history, save quoted posted here.  It doesn't matter. It was written well later and got one fact wrong.  Conspiracy buffs have jumped on that to say all MCC history is wrong.  Now, we have found documents that flesh out what happened, and you and DM and PM continue to beat the drum on a book that is less relevant than the contemporary documents to figuring out MCC history, which is what you say you are trying to do here.

And, you accuse others of distractions while debating Cobbs Creek, pointing to books that are not as relevant and asking dumb questions designed soley to make someone waste time answering them.  But, play on.

BTW, all insults on the Merion thread aside, I really do think you could start a nice thread on early public golf in America and with your background knowledge, it could be quite a thread, perhaps the best thing ever done on golf club atlas.  My insults to you are strictly limited to my frustrations on this thread!

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

Doesn't the same go for you? If you are going to make a bold statement, as you have on here, that Hugh Wilson and his committee only constructed Merion East to someone else's routing and design plan one would presume you have several sources to confirm that, maybe Travis or Tilly or Thomas or Verdant Greene or someone like that.

Do you?

TEP
Apples and oranges. Regarding Merion I put forward the most likely scenario based on the facts presently known. Mike said CC was acknowledged as the finest public golf course in the country.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Why are you avoiding my question? Cobbs Creek was acknowledged as the finest public course in the country by who?

PS: At the time Salisbury Links opened in 1907 it was considered a cutting edge design. Travis wrote an important article on the course for Country Life.

TMac,

To paraphrase your ownself, "Important articles are a dime a dozen".  Here is your response to Mike C about various articles he posted.

Mike
Those are very nice articles, but very nice articles are a dime a dozen.

Of course, only you know what an important article is.  Not to mention train schedules!

BTW, I have not read the Tollhurst history, save quoted posted here.  It doesn't matter. It was written well later and got one fact wrong.  Conspiracy buffs have jumped on that to say all MCC history is wrong.  Now, we have found documents that flesh out what happened, and you and DM and PM continue to beat the drum on a book that is less relevant than the contemporary documents to figuring out MCC history, which is what you say you are trying to do here.

And, you accuse others of distractions while debating Cobbs Creek, pointing to books that are not as relevant and asking dumb questions designed soley to make someone waste time answering them.  But, play on.

BTW, all insults on the Merion thread aside, I really do think you could start a nice thread on early public golf in America and with your background knowledge, it could be quite a thread, perhaps the best thing ever done on golf club atlas.  My insults to you are strictly limited to my frustrations on this thread!

Jeff
Is that what I said? I believe I said 'very nice' articles are a dime a dozen. Someone, or a number of someones, proclaiming CC is the finest public course in the country is a little better than a 'nice article.' Wouldn't you agree? And we are told CC was considered the finest public course for two decades. Who said it? Anyone?

I never claimed Salisbury Links was the finest public course in the country, only that it was considered a cutting edge design in 1907-08. Would you like me to forward on the Travis article?

If you haven't read the Tolhurst book how do you know he only got one fact wrong? What is your feeling about sins of omission.

You are the only one throwing around the loaded term 'conspiracy.' I have not suggested there was a conspiracy, nor has anyone else I know suggested it. Do you have a special interest in conspiracies?
 

[David Stamm]

David, here is a post from over a year ago on another thread.  How prescient!

David Stamm
Sr. Member

 Offline

Posts: 3399


The strategy of the course is the soul of the game


    Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2008, 11:05:28 AM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Obviously alot of work went into this. Thank you for the efforts you put into this, David. I look forward to the discussions.

As usual, I should've kept my pie hole shut.

[TEPaul]

"Regarding Merion I put forward the most likely scenario based on the facts presently known."


Tom:

Understood. I just think it is important to add that your stated scenario that Wilson and committee only constructed the course to someone else's plan doesn't seem to get any support from anyone other than David Moriarty who you apparently helped write that essay or at least advised him on it.

If your scenario on Merion and Wilson and committee's part in it does get support from others who are they other than David Moriarty?


Tom, I have a question for you that remarkably may never have been brought up or actually asked on this website:

The question is----In your opinion does a club like Merion GC have a right (legally or otherwise) to bar someone access to their private material for any reason they see fit?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tmac,

I cut and pasted your exact quote from GCA>COM so yes, that is exactly what you said.  And I qualified it that you would probably say your assessment of an important article would Trump a nice article.

I told you what I felt about sins of omission - just because Tollhurst got that one point wrong is NOT a reason (necessarily) to believe he got everything wrong.  Yeah, you can check, but why go back to his later article when you can look at (admittedly transcripts, for which you have yet another conspiracy theory) of the contemporaneous minutes.  I think it is WEIRD to use a book from 40 years, later, train schedules and the like rather than primary source dox.  And that is the primary reason I disagree with your theory.

I do live in Dallas, so the conspriacy theories smack of what I hear around here.  Lets discredit the Warren Comm.....er, I mean, the Merion Historian.  Do that and the rest of the Dominos Fall!

[Tom MacWood]

"Regarding Merion I put forward the most likely scenario based on the facts presently known."


Tom:

Understood. I just think it is important to add that your stated scenario that Wilson and committee only constructed the course to someone else's plan doesn't seem to get any support from anyone other than David Moriarty who you apparently helped write that essay or at least advised him on it.

If your scenario on Merion and Wilson and committee's part in it does get support from others who are they other than David Moriarty?


Tom, I have a question for you that remarkably may never have been brought up or actually asked on this website:

The question is----In your opinion does a club like Merion GC have a right (legally or otherwise) to bar someone access to their private material for any reason they see fit?

TEP
I haven't taken a poll.

Being a private club of course Merion can ban me or whomever they want from their archive. Throughout history there have been organizations who have attempted to controll the dissemination of information and to controll how and what is written about them, and in most cases it usually backfires.

[Tom MacWood]

Tmac,

I cut and pasted your exact quote from GCA>COM so yes, that is exactly what you said.  And I qualified it that you would probably say your assessment of an important article would Trump a nice article.

I told you what I felt about sins of omission - just because Tollhurst got that one point wrong is NOT a reason (necessarily) to believe he got everything wrong.  Yeah, you can check, but why go back to his later article when you can look at (admittedly transcripts, for which you have yet another conspiracy theory) of the contemporaneous minutes.  I think it is WEIRD to use a book from 40 years, later, train schedules and the like rather than primary source dox.  And that is the primary reason I disagree with your theory.

I do live in Dallas, so the conspriacy theories smack of what I hear around here.  Lets discredit the Warren Comm.....er, I mean, the Merion Historian.  Do that and the rest of the Dominos Fall!

Jeff
I don't know how many club histories you have read. There are several that are very well done from architectural standpoint,Tolhurst's is not one of them. You should read it before you declair he only made one mistake.

[DMoriarty]

Excuse me while I clarify something.

TEPaul has been claiming that the only my only contribution to the entire Merion debate has been to correct the date of Wilson's trip.    This is consistent with their three prong approach to my essay:  Deny the essay's accuracy, demean the author, and when those things don't work, pretend that you knew it all anyway.  

Problem is, this is utterly and demonstrably false.    TEPaul, Wayne, Mike, and apparently Merion had the history wrong on almost every count, from before the land was purchased, until after the course opened.    Whether we ever settle the question of M&W's exact contribution, we now have a much better and more detailed understanding of  every aspect of the early history of the East course.   I could go through each new parcel of evidence and analysis that my essay brought to light, but to do so would be to repeat the essay itself.

The first three (3)sections of my essay were somewhat introductory, covering the greatness of Merion East and particularly its rouing, briefly summarizing of the many contributions that Hugh I. Wilson made to golf and Merion, tracing largely accepted version of Merion's history during this time period, and summarizing the major points at which I offer an alternative historical account.  The next twenty (20) sections of my essay (4-23) provide a historical analysis of certain aspects of the early origins of Merion East.  While any historical analysis necessarily builds on existing historical accounts, every one of these twenty (20) sections also offers facts and analysis that have never before been disseminated, at least not publicly.

There are plenty of small details.  For instance, Merion legend has it that the old site was abandoned because of the advent of the Haskell ball.   My paper established that the reason given at the time (in multiple sources) was that the RR wanted more for the land than Merion was willing to pay.  There are larger details, such as the early routing by HH Barker, and the addition of the land behind the clubhouse per M&W's advice.  

And then there are details that completely turn Merion's legend on its head, such as the timing and importance of the NGLA meeting.   Wayne, TEPaul, Mike, and just about everyone thought that NGLA had nothing directly to do with planning the layout at Merion East.   As they understood it Macdonald just gave Wilson some information about all the great holes he should see.  In other words, CBM was nothing but a glorified travel agent for Wilson.  And because they were sure that Wilson's trip happened before Merion was designed, they were certain that the NGLA meeting must have happened even before that!  So while they may have had Hugh Wilson's 1916 chapter from the P&O book, they completely misunderstood it.

This (rather than the timing of the overseas trip) may be the most important mistake they made about Merion's early history.   As my paper explains, the NGLA meeting was about laying out Merion East, not planning a trip.  And it didn't occur sometime long before the planning, but occurred while Wilson was preparing to lay out the course.    He knew next to nothing about laying out a golf course, so he and his committee went to NGLA for help, and M&W not only taught them about the principles underlying the great golf holes, M&W also taught them how to apply these principles at Merion, on Merion's natural terrain.    

[My essay noted that the NGLA meeting had to have occurred in early 2008.   As I explained in my paper, Wilson had already been communicating with CBM before February 1, 1910.  Based on this, I suggested that the meeting could have occurred in January, or if not, then there was more communication between CBM and Wilson than had been previously known.   The latter turned out to be correct.]

In short, M&W helped them plan the layout.  We can argue about the extent of the help, but it no longer can be denied that M&W helped them plan the layout.  And this is a huge change from what had been admitted before by Merion.   And we now know that after helping them, M&W came back and approved the final layout plan.   M&W may have been more involved in Merion that CBM was with some of his other designs!

Here are a few things that my paper brought forward:  
-  The real reason Merion abandoned their old site.
-  Various details relating to land aquisitions.
- The involvement of the Haverford Development Company,  including the original 100 acre offer, the fact that they did not own all of the land eventually used for the golf course, etc.
- That HH Barker inspected the land and drew out a proposed layout.
- That Merion, through R Griscam, actively sought out Macdonald and Whigham for help regarding their golf course.
- That Merion appears to have aquired the Dallas Estate somewhat clandestinely.
- The the purchase may have been delayed while the Dallas Estate was being acquired.
- That Merion added of the land behind the clubhouse per M&W's advice.
- The key role played by Lloyd on both sides of the deal.

The list goes on, but you get the idea.   In addition to this, I explained a number of things directly to Wayne that were not covered in my essay, most notably a detailed description of how the land deals played out and of the nature of Lloyd's role.  Merion, or at least their acting assistant historian in charge of who knows what or whatever Wayne is, thought that Merion had purchased the land in 1909, along with just about all the other land from the golf course all the way to Lloyd's estate or thereabouts.   He was mistaken and I explained in great detail why.

TomM and I are still correcting Merion's record!   Merion, TEPaul, Wayne, etc.  claim that the Merion Golf Association was formed in 1909 to investigate the impact of the Haskell ball.    In fact, it had existed since the early days on the old course, and was the internal organization of all the golfers at Merion Cricket Club, and it eventually became MGC.

So for TEPaul to pretend that my essay contributed nothing but a new date for the trip is disingenuous, at best.   Just another attempt to bring me down without actually dealing with anything in my essay.

I cannot wait for their self-published dvd to come out.   Something tells me that their version of Merion East's history will look remarkably like mine as presented in my essay.  But of course they will claim they knew it all along.  

Pathetic.


_____________________________________

Jeff, my essay outlines a number of additional mistakes in Tolhurst's history book.  More are outlined above.   I don't know why you keep pretending there was only one mistake, or suggesting that we should assume the accuracy of the rest.   Sounds like TEPaul talking to me.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I don't even think the club history should play a part in the discussion.  Contempory docs should.  If it was wrong 100 times, it doesn't change earlier documents that we now have seen.  What part of that is hard to understand?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I never attempted to pass myself off as an expert on the history of Merion.

I think your essay served a valuable purpose because along with unearthing some very interesting facts, your subsequent speculations and conclusions were so over-reaching that it led to a flurry of related research that have given all of us a better understanding of events.

Believe it or not, I agree with a number of things you've listed above as some of the factual contributions you made in your essay, but even there you overreach and continue to use verbiage (i.e. "planned") that is not included in and not consistent with any of the source docs or early accounts.

[TEPaul]

Regarding reply #3620 there is nothing in that either that Merion's (MCC) record got wrong. Tolhurst's 1989 Merion history book may not have included some of that early detail because the history book was only 176 pages the vast majority of which was devoted to other aspects of Merion's history than architecture. In fact, only about 5 1/2 pages of that 1989 Tolhurst history book was devoted to this particular phase of Merion East's architectural history. That does not indicate what Tom MacWood said----eg there was some 'sin of ommission' just that not everything from Merion and MCC's records went into that history book.

Again, the point is the only thing that Tolhurst's history book (1989) got wrong was that 1910 trip abroad (and not 1912) and again that story did not even begin until about 60 years AFTER the creation of Merion East. In other words during the routing and design planning in 1911 everyone there at that time knew Wilson did not go abroad in 1910 but rather in 1912. The letter we have to Piper from Francis who was standing in for Wilson with coorespondence when Wilson was abroad said so, and as the Wilson report (found a year ago at MCC) clearly shows Wilson and his committee created numerous routing and design plans for Merion East.

So again, the only thing wrong in Merion's history or in the Tolhurst history book was a 1910 trip rather than the actual 1912 trip

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,  My essay contained no over-reaching, and there is no overreaching in my post above.   At the very least, M&W helped plan the lay-out of Merion East.   The evidence is overwhelming.  That you refuse to accept even this speaks to your inability to understand and accept the record.

___________________________________

I am not going to argue with TEPaul's misrepresentations about the extent of the inaccuracy in Tolhurst's history book, except to note that one need only look at the history and compare it to my essay (or even my post above) to see the absurdity of TEPaul's latest claim.

My concern is that TEPaul has been misrepresenting my essay and claiming that all I contributed was a date change.  That is beyond absurd, as my post above describes. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,  My essay contained no over-reaching, and there is no overreaching in my post above.   At the very least, M&W helped plan the lay-out of Merion East.   The evidence is overwhelming.  That you refuse to accept even this speaks to your inability to understand and accept the record.

David,

From an architectural perspective, Macdonald & Whigham offered much valuable advice and suggestions as to the Committee's plans for Merion East.   They also helped them select the best of the Committee's plans.

That is what ALL of the collected evidence shows and we now have much more of it than when you published your essay and that's all for the greater good.

Was Tom MacWood the real architect of your essay on Merion and you only the "constructor" because he offered valuable advice and suggestions?

Of course not.   You deserve full credit for pulling it all together, for doing the background work, for trial-and-error, for authorship, for ultimate decision-making, even if he offered greater expertise than you in certain areas.

And your contention that Hugh Wilson was not the primary architect of Merion was just as overreaching and fallacious as my rhetorical question.

As evidence of your over-reaching, I'd simply reiterate your thesis statement, which you now at least thankfully seem to have moved well away from as a given...

Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,  My essay contained no over-reaching, and there is no overreaching in my post above.   At the very least, M&W helped plan the lay-out of Merion East.   The evidence is overwhelming.  That you refuse to accept even this speaks to your inability to understand and accept the record.

David,

From an architectural perspective, Macdonald & Whigham offered much valuable advice and suggestions as to the Committee's plans for Merion East.   They also helped them select the best of the Committee's plans.

That is what ALL of the collected evidence shows and we now have much more of it than when you published your essay and that's all for the greater good.

Was Tom MacWood the real architect of your essay on Merion and you only the "constructor" because he offered valuable advice and suggestions?

Of course not.   You deserve full credit for pulling it all together, for doing the background work, for trial-and-error, for authorship, for ultimate decision-making, even if he offered greater expertise than you in certain areas.

And your contention that Hugh Wilson was not the primary architect of Merion was just as overreaching and fallacious as my rhetorical question.

As evidence of your over-reaching, I'd simply reiterate your thesis statement, which you now at least thankfully seem to have moved well away from as a given...

Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan.

Mike it is disingenuous to continually quote from the synopsis as opposed to the body of the essay itself.  A synopsis is not a "thesis statement." It is the condensed outline, with all the details and subtleties missing.    If you got someone to help you, you might be able to locate a "thesis statement" and if you do, you will find that I haven't moved far at all.   M&W were the creative driving forces behind the design.   Wilson may have been involved, but his main contribution was in laying out and constructing the course and then later modifying and finishing the course.  That is what the evidence indicates to me, at least so far.

If you dont see evidence that M&W helped plan the course by now, there is no use going further with you.  You are even more hopeless than I thought.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Apparently, we're all more hopeless than you thought.

I've yet to see a single person other than your "design associate" Tom MacWood offer that interpretation based on the evidence that's been presented over many years now.

While I won't call you hopeless, or engage in continued personal insults, I do have to admit finding a good deal of comfort in that fact and I can't help but feel that out there somewhere, Hugh Wilson is also feeling rather vindicated by our findings here.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and I truly think we've reached the end of productive discussion in the absence of additional evidence.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Here is what you wrote:

Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes.

For someone who took, for example, Francis words at face value, I think we can take your words at face value.  Perhaps the body of the work goes on to say that Wilson DID plan and concieve the holes (which, BTW, he largely did, either originally and certainly later) but how many people would be mislead if they read the synopsis and stopped, a la reading the damning headlines on page 1 and the retraction on page 21 several days later?

You said right up front that Wilson didn't design the course.  If that isn't your contention, then you wrote in error.  But it could be that this synopsis put the fire in the belly of the Merion crowd and started all this and now, no one will back away.

But, really, enough pissing and parsing!  I am with you that some valuble info came from your essay - even if TePaul claims to have known it, and a few around MCC knew it, the rest of gca.com didn't.  Even with a few flaws, I will give you that. I also agree that it would be really, really great to know exactly what happened on the NGLA visit and CBM's two trips to Merion.  I doubt we will ever know, but at least I know more than I did and find the whole thing fascinating for reasons unknown, having only been there twice.

Is there any way to end this fighting about fighting?

[TEPaul]

"I am not going to argue with TEPaul's misrepresentations about the extent of the inaccuracy in Tolhurst's history book, except to note that one need only look at the history and compare it to my essay (or even my post above) to see the absurdity of TEPaul's latest claim.

My concern is that TEPaul has been misrepresenting my essay and claiming that all I contributed was a date change.  That is beyond absurd, as my post above describes."


David Moriarty:

My goal, my only goal actually, in this last year was simply to try to convince as many people as I possibly could that your essay is incredibly fallacious and revisionist of the architectural history of that early phase of Merion East.

You can continue to use retorts like misrepresentation, disingenuous, or even absurd and pathetic but the point is I believe my goal has been achieved at this point as I don't think there is anyone left who endorses the accuracy of your essay other than you and Tom MacWood. Convincing either of you was never my goal or expectation and I don't think it is important.

Are we or Merion responsible to turn over to you material that we have that we used to form our "opinions" of the accurate history of Merion and to criticize your essay so that you can "vet" it?

No, I don't think so and I'm hoping Merion feels the same and will say so or at least for the purposes of this website that Ran Morrissett will say so.

Again, I, for one, have no problem at all with you or a Tom MacWood having whatever opinion of Merion's history you want to have but if you put it out there as an informative and historically accurate piece and its anything like what your essay says I just want to try to ensure that very few agree with it and I feel that has now been accomplished. Because of that I don't see there's much more for me to do or say on this thread or subject.

But thanks for beginning it because as a result of it I think there are some other and arguably far more important issues that will now be addressed by clubs and other entities and such.

[Tom MacWood]

"I am not going to argue with TEPaul's misrepresentations about the extent of the inaccuracy in Tolhurst's history book, except to note that one need only look at the history and compare it to my essay (or even my post above) to see the absurdity of TEPaul's latest claim.

My concern is that TEPaul has been misrepresenting my essay and claiming that all I contributed was a date change.  That is beyond absurd, as my post above describes."


David Moriarty:

My goal, my only goal actually, in this last year was simply to try to convince as many people as I possibly could that your essay is incredibly fallacious and revisionist of the architectural history of that early phase of Merion East.

You can continue to use retorts like misrepresentation, disingenuous, or even absurd and pathetic but the point is I believe my goal has been achieved at this point as I don't think there is anyone left who endorses the accuracy of your essay other than you and Tom MacWood. Convincing either of you was never my goal or expectation and I don't think it is important.

Are we or Merion responsible to turn over to you material that we have that we used to form our "opinions" of the accurate history of Merion and to criticize your essay so that you can "vet" it?

No, I don't think so and I'm hoping Merion feels the same and will say so or at least for the purposes of this website that Ran Morrissett will say so.

Again, I, for one, have no problem at all with you or a Tom MacWood having whatever opinion of Merion's history you want to have but if you put it out there as an informative and historically accurate piece and its anything like what your essay says I just want to try to ensure that very few agree with it and I feel that has now been accomplished. Because of that I don't see there's much more for me to do or say on this thread or subject.

But thanks for beginning it because as a result of it I think there are some other and arguably far more important issues that will now be addressed by clubs and other entities and such.

TEP
I was never quite sure what your goal was, but I knew it had nothing to do with finding the truth. Thanks for spelling it out.

[DMoriarty]

Well there you have it.   At least there was no pretense about TEPaul being at all concerned with what reallyhappened.  

__________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

There was no retraction on page 22.  It was and is the best explanation of what happened, based on the evidence I have seen.  But a synopsis is a very brief summary.  It does not contain the subtlety, details, and explanations of the body of the essay.  To focus on the synopsis and disregard the body is disingenuous at best.  If you ever find your "real historian" you should ask him.   But go ahead, and quote whatever you want however you want.   There is a long and detailed explanation that you are ignoring, but it doesn't surprise me that you are.  

I'd appreciate if you'd quit trying to blame the outrageous response of the Philadelphia "Possee" on me.  These jokers were livid before my essay even came out. They didn't wait to get to the synopsis.   And, Jeff, as for the people who quit reading after the synopsis, I don't give damn what they think of my Essay.

[TEPaul]

"Well there you have it.   At least there was no pretense about TEPaul being at all concerned with what really happened."  


"TEP
I was never quite sure what your goal was, but I knew it had nothing to do with finding the truth. Thanks for spelling it out."



David (and Tom):

You're welcome; I thought you knew that. You two have always maintained on here there was some "mystery" to who designed Merion East. I've never thought that, Merion has never thought that, and consequently I've never thought there was any truth to find in that regard, and either have they---it was all there at MCC all along and it was always reported that Wilson and his committee designed Merion East and West courses. Obviously MCC (Merion) or anyone else around at that time never questioned it as its own records from back in 1910 and 1911, particularly that Wilson report, are clear it was Wilson and his committee who laid out (routed and designed it before constructing it) Merion East. Apparently everyone back then knew that and there never has been any good reason to doubt it or question it. There never was any mystery about it.

What you certainly did find the truth on, however, and for which you should get full credit, was that error in the 1989 Tolhurst history book (and the previous Merion history book) that had Wilson going abroad in 1910 and not 1912---a story that cropped up some 60 years after the fact of that first phase of Merion East. You should notice in that recent Philadelphia Inquirer article (posted on this thread by Mike Malone) on John Capers and Merion's archives it was mentioned that Wilson went abroad in 1912 so that single error in Merion's history has now been corrected due to your passenger manifest searches. It is also interesting that there are now two other material items in Merion's archives that corroborate the fact Wilson went abroad in 1912.

[Mike_Cirba]

For what it's worth, I do very much hope that David and Tom and anyone else here interested DO get to see the MCC Minutes in full at some point before too long.

I say that even while feeling that while that would put the issue to rest for 98 pct. of us, I have little doubt based on the parsed interpretations to date that Tom and David would find some reason not to agree with the consensus opinion.

So be it and that's ok.  I'd just hate to see this situation result in some type of guarded control of club historical data, whether at Merion or anywhere else, nor do I think any interested research parties should be denied access if they are sincerely interested, even if that is certainly within the rights of any private club.

[TEPaul]

"But, really, enough pissing and parsing!  I am with you that some valuble info came from your essay - even if TePaul claims to have known it, and a few around MCC knew it, the rest of gca.com didn't."


Jeffrey:


What TEPaul knew or claims to have known or what Wayne Morrison knew at any particular time is not important to this subject that very much includes the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" and the architectural history of this first phase of Merion East that questions if Wilson and his committee routed and designed Merion East before it was built in the spring of 1911 and then contends and concludes that he and his committee did not route and design Merion East before it was constructed.

All that matters is what actually did happen in that regard back then, not what Wayne and I knew at any particular time even if we have suspected for years that was one of the reasons this entire subject began in the first place that included that essay.

[Mike_Cirba]

As regards the date of Wilson's trip abroad, that was indeed a very valuable find by David which I admittedly didn't believe at first but was later proven wrong when Joe found the Findlay article that made clear it was Wilson's first trip abroad in 1912.

One related area I don't think has been discussed enough is the whole question of how and why Merion might have been inspired to attempt a few template holes prior to Wilson's trip.

I'm not sure why that is an open question at this point, if it is.   In early March 1911, before the Merion Committee's golf course plans were finalized and approved, and before construction began, the Merion committee saw not only Macdonald's detailed sketches of great holes abroad, but they also saw his own American interpretations of them in person at NGLA, as well as heard explanations of their key principles from Mac and Whigham...

Who knows...perhaps the 3rd at Merion owes more in way of direct inspiration to the 4th at NGLA than the 15th at North Berwick?

I do also think David also desrves credit for helping all of us to gain a clearer, more nuanced and detailed understanding of what M&W actually provided in terms of valuable advice and suggestions as well as what Alan Wilson meant when he wrote that M&W came to Merion a second time "to consider and advise about our plans".   Some of that was admittedly due to subsequent research efforts by others, but as I've said prior, I think his essay was the impetus for a lot of folks to dig deeper and I do believe that has all been for the greater good of our mutual understanding of Merion East's early history.

[TEPaul]

"As regards the date of Wilson's trip abroad, that was indeed a very valuable find by David which I admittedly didn't believe at first but was later proven wrong when Joe found the Findlay article that made clear it was Wilson;s first trip abroad."


Mike:

For the interest and entertainment of the real golf architecture research buff, there is another bit of material evidence that corroborates the Wilson trip abroad in 1912 that is now part of the Merion archives along with that Findlay article that Joe Bausch found.

There's a pretty interesting backstory to that second item and more than a bit of irony to this entire Merion investigation! It is an April 11 letter to Russell Oakley from guess who?-------Richard Francis of all people, who was obviously standing in for Hugh Wilson as he makes what Francis describes as "a hurried trip abroad."

It is on the George A. Fuller Building Construction Company letterhead and it is signed "Very Truly Yours, Richard Francis, For the MCC Golf Association."

That letter was in the so-called "agronomy files" that are at the USGA Green Section.

When Wayne and I came across those so-called agronomy letters, maybe 5-6 years ago we were told by the USGA Green Section the entire voluminous file had just come in a few months before we walked into the USGA Green Section looking to do research on William Flynn. Apparently they'd been found in the attic of a Mid-Atlantic USGA regional agronomist where they may've been for decades.

Wayne and I spent most of a day in the USGA Green Section scanning through about 2,000 letters in those files basically looking for Flynn's name and any mention of him, and that is what we ended up copying that day and taking home with us. I still have those separate file folders with what we copied that day----maybe a hundred or so letters.

We did not copy that Francis letter to Oakley of April 11, 1912 because it didn't pertain to Flynn.

However, a little over a year ago I went back to the USGA Green Section to go through every single letter from the very first one from Wilson to Oakley (Feb. 1, 1911) up until Wilson's trip abroad just to see if Wilson even had the time opportunity to be abroad before that 1912 trip. Since his letters to Oakley from Philadelphia were on such a constant and regular stream I determined he had not time opportunity to be abroad before that 1912 trip and I said so on here and I also put on here the fact of that April 11, 1912 letter from Francis to Oakley corroborating that Wilson was abroad for some time period between March 1, 1911 and May 20, 1911 (the dates that bracket Hugh Wilson's letters from Philadelphia to Russell Oakley).

Unlike the Findlay article, that Francis letter to Oakley did not mention that the trip abroad that Wilson was on at the time was his first abroad or even why he went over there!

[Tom MacWood]

"Well there you have it.   At least there was no pretense about TEPaul being at all concerned with what really happened."  


"TEP
I was never quite sure what your goal was, but I knew it had nothing to do with finding the truth. Thanks for spelling it out."



David (and Tom):

You're welcome; I thought you knew that. You two have always maintained on here there was some "mystery" to who designed Merion East. I've never thought that, Merion has never thought that, and consequently I've never thought there was any truth to find in that regard, and either have they---it was all there at MCC all along and it was always reported that Wilson and his committee designed Merion East and West courses. Obviously MCC (Merion) or anyone else around at that time never questioned it as its own records from back in 1910 and 1911, particularly that Wilson report, are clear it was Wilson and his committee who laid out (routed and designed it before constructing it) Merion East. Apparently everyone back then knew that and there never has been any good reason to doubt it or question it. There never was any mystery about it.

What you certainly did find the truth on, however, and for which you should get full credit, was that error in the 1989 Tolhurst history book (and the previous Merion history book) that had Wilson going abroad in 1910 and not 1912---a story that cropped up some 60 years after the fact of that first phase of Merion East. You should notice in that recent Philadelphia Inquirer article (posted on this thread by Mike Malone) on John Capers and Merion's archives it was mentioned that Wilson went abroad in 1912 so that single error in Merion's history has now been corrected due to your passenger manifest searches. It is also interesting that there are now two other material items in Merion's archives that corroborate the fact Wilson went abroad in 1912.

TEP
You (and Wayne) have had along history of trying to protect these legends, and going to extraoridnary means to do so. I'm not sure if its some emotional attachment or an ego that can not bear seeing others making dicoveries on your turf. It goes back to my discovery of Crump's suicide and your irrational attempts to stop me from writing that essay. Another example was the exchange last year when I questioned the facts you presented in your Flynn essay (Waynes essay based on your book). I think it showed your general inclination is to rely upon the often told story as opposed to looking for the truth. Either that or you were guilty of very sloppy research, possibly a little of both. And now the thorough look into Merion's hsitory is the latest example along those lines.

It is interesting you bring up the two documents in Merion's archive that corroborate Wilson's trip abroad in 1912. One of those documents must be the two 1912 letters from the P&O collection that mention Wilson has gone to Europe. When you wrote your Merion history for your Flynn book, you had those letter, but yet you made the decision to burying that infomration and continue to tell the old legend of Wilson traveling to the UK in 1910 before returning to design the golf coursse.

Why did you choose to keep the info about the 1912 trip to yourself? And if the Wilson report is as conclusive as you say, how come you refuse to share the information with the group? Your tendecy in the past has been to post any information you believe will hurt David's essay.

[TEPaul]

"It is interesting you bring up the two documents in Merion's archive that corroborate Wilson's trip abroad in 1912. One of those documents must be the two 1912 letters from the P&O collection that mention Wilson has gone to Europe. When you wrote your Merion history for your Flynn book, you had those letter, but yet you made the decision to burying that infomration and continue to tell the old legend of Wilson traveling to the UK in 1910 before returning to design the golf coursse. Why did you choose to keep the info about the 1912 trip to yourself?"


Tom:

You mentioned this before on here as you just did above. I didn't keep that Francis letter to myself; I mentioned it on here within a day of finding it at the USGA Green Section last year. Perhaps you weren't able to read my post just above before your most recent one. My post just above yours this morning explains that Wayne and I did not have that Francis letter of April 11, 1912 to Russell Oakley until I went back up to the USGA Green Section a year ago and found it. Hope that helps you understand the research we did and what we were researching on at the time 5-6 years----eg FLYNN!!

Your last post is just another of many many examples of how easily you seem to get things mixed up about Merion and what Wayne and I were doing or not doing at any particular time.

You have always said that all we or Merion is trying to do here is protect a "legend" or a "Myth." You've said the very same things about us with Crump and Pine Valley and about me and Leeds and Myopia. Apparently this idea of yours led you to label us here "The Philadelphia Syndrome" that suggested we are conducting some kind of conspiracy here to protect the legends of our own local architects and to minimize the contributions of outside architects.

I think we have shown throughout all the years of you labelling us that way and suggesting such a thing that there is absolutely no factual or historically accurate reason or evidence that we have ever done such a thing. In your attempts to suggest other architects were largely responsible for the things attributed to the likes of Wilson, Crump and Leeds, the best you have done is to imply there is some article in Boston, that you constantly refused to produce that says Willie Campbell designed Myopia or that HH Barker must have stopped at Merion and designed the East course in a day in early Dec, 1912 simply because you found he took a train trip from New York to Georgia at that time.

Tom, I have no desire or interest in ever trying to convince you how foolish these things you say are----my only interest is that all others see how foolish the things you have said and say are and in that I feel, at this point, I have pretty much totally succeeded.

[TEPaul]

"And if the Wilson report is as conclusive as you say, how come you refuse to share the information with the group? Your tendecy in the past has been to post any information you believe will hurt David's essay."


Tom:

The real irony here is that I did and have shared that information with this group. Unfortunately, that information was immediately subjected to the most ridiculuous parsing of words and misinterpretations of what it actually says as is imaginable. That's not my doing---it's primarily yours and David Moriarty's. This response of your and his of "we" and "they" in that report making no sense at all is preposterous and then you go on to accuse me of doctoring and altering my transcriptions of those documents. I did nothing of the kind and I never have. Those accusations can't be anything other than some last ditch and really alarming effort on the part of you two to cling to some contention about Wilson and committee not actually routing and designing Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911 before one of their plans was submitted to the board, approved by the board and then built in 1911.

My only regret is that I posted too much of the actual information when I really didn't have the permission to do that from Wayne or Merion or MCC. That I very much regret and I apologize to Wayne, Merion and MCC for what I did. If I had it to do over again I would not do what I have done and subject Merion, their historians et al to this constant and ridiculuous nonsense you two have put that club and those people from it through over the last six and a half years.

Lastly, it's not my tendency to only post on here what hurts Moriarty's essay. The fact is the entire MCC record (board meeting minutes, Cuyler letters, Wilson report et al) hurts Moriarty's essay bigtime because those material assets found in the last year tell the accurate and correct story of what happened back then at MCC in 1910 and 1911 and they show very clearly how and why that essay is almost totally inaccurate.

In a nutshell, his conclusion is that Wilson and his committee did not route and design Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911 and that their only roll was to build or construct the course to someone else's plan. He suggested that plan was Macdonald's and you suggested it was HH Barker's. You both are entirely wrong about that and the MCC records that neither of you had or were even aware existed when you wrote and produced that essay show both those interpretations and conclusions to be categorically wrong and that in fact Wilson and his committee did route and design Merion East (and yes with some help and advice from M/W which was always acknowledged and reported) as Merion has always known and always reported.

He used the error of that 1910 trip abroad in the Tolhurst history books to open the door to his revisionist assumptions, interpretations and conclusion and we have shown how that incorrect story that first appeared over a half century after the fact is totally irrelevent to what actually happened at Merion East back then in the beginning!

Again, getting you and Moriarty to admit and acknowledge that is no longer my goal. My only goal is to try to get everyone else to see the truth of Merion's architectural history as well as what has happened here on this website!