[Mike_Cirba]

Fred Byrod is the person who told me via letter about 20 years back that Jeffersonville was originally designed by Donald Ross.

This was well before the township found out and proceeded to have Ron Prichard restore the golf course, which is a really good public option for anyone visiting Philly.

.

[JESII]

I guess you just didn't know Fred as well as I did, Sully. When he interviewed you in 1999 Fred was actually 108. I thought he seemed like a pretty young 108 compared to all the other 108 year old people I've known but in 1999 he was 108 nonetheless. I'll tell you something else interesting about Fred Byrod. Up until about 2002 when he was 111 he could actually outdrive ME! Do you believe that? Pretty amazing, huh?

Tom,

I have played with you...yes I can believe a 111 year old can outdrive you...the question is can he outdrive you today?

Do you think he knew Pat Mucci when they were kids together back in the 1890's?

[TEPaul]

"Do you think he knew Pat Mucci when they were kids together back in the 1890's?"



I do indeed. He actually mentioned him to me way before I ever met Pat. Fred said to me one time one of the most obnoxious kids he'd ever seen was this little Pattie Mucci from North Jersey. He said the little wise half-acre was the most argumentative motor-mouthed brat he had ever encountered and that he felt the only thing that could be done with him was to whip the piss out of him each and every day. I guess Fred forgot to tell Pat's parents that though.

I think Fred also said he thought the little no-count urchin may've stolen a bunch of golf balls out of his bag one time when he wasn't looking!

[TEPaul]

Joe:

Fred Byrod apparently joined the Inquirer in 1929 while a student at Temple U.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Please show us how you've come to the conclusion that M+W's visit to inspect the proposed site for a day in June 1910 was for the "preliminary routing" and please show us anywhere it specifically states that?

If maps, letters, and routings with golf course plans passed back and forth any time over the next nine months between Mac and the Merion Committee, why do you think not only have all traces of them vanished, but why do you think they weren't even mentioned in reference by anyone, ever, in any of the contemporaneous accounts or rememberances throughout the rest of eveyone involved's lives and beyond?

At least some legends tell of seeing the Holy Grail, even if it has not been found;

[Patrick_Mucci]

"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."

Mike, my thoughts on the above statement are as follows.

I think "they" had prepared several routings/designs.
I think "they" presented them to CBM.
I think CBM offered a critique on each one, pointing out the strenghts and weaknesses.
I think CBM offered alternative routings/designs.
As a result, I think they went back to Merion, armed with CBM's redrafting of their plans.
They benefited from having examined NGLA with CBM.
The benefited from listening to his on site commentary about NGLA and golf design, and how they might work out at Merion.

I think THAT meeting resulted in the end stage routing/design of Merion and I believe CBM's hand in the routing/design was heavy/substantive.

That's the way I read that passage.


I do very much appreciate you at least trying to intelligently discuss what is clearly evidence, much as others may claim it's been tampered with, or otherwise faulty.

I do think your responses deserve serious discussion so let me try to do that.

You said;

I think "they" had prepared several routings/designs.  
I agree that this is clear and I also would contend that because we know the same group went to NGLA "after" doing this, and "on our return" laid out five "different plans",


I don't know that it was the same participants that laid out the pre-NGLA trip plans, that went to NGLA, that subsequently crafted revised plans.
I think drawing that conclusion is a leap of faith

we know beyond any doubt that if the minutes are accurate that we're talking about the same group, or Committee.  


I'd have to see the supporting documentation before drawing that conclusion.

Further, since we know clearly from other sources who went to visit M&W at NGLA, we also know the Committee in question is Hugh Wilson's committee, would you agree?

I'm not so sure that you can claim it was Hugh Wilson's committee as opposed to individuals who were appointed to Hugh Wilson's committee.
I think you have to be careful when you make declarations based on incomplete evidence.

I think "they" presented them to CBM.
This could certainly be inferred, and it seems reasonable they would have done this.  
However, there is also no direct evidence to indicate this being so.    


You asked for my OPINION and I provided it.
There's also no evidence to indicate that it wasn't so.

For instance, they do not say "we presented our plans for the new golf course to Macdonald for his review", or anything of the sort.  
Instead, they seemed to be much more focused on what HE, Macdonald had been doing and how he had gone about building NGLA, rather than their own efforts to date.  

I don't think that you can conclude that.

They went over his plans ( I assume his plans at this point were related to his work in progress at NGLA,

I don't believe that either.  I think they probably went over CBM's plans for Merion, or both.

as he had only seen the Merion land one day 9 months prior and wrote a single-page report giving a bit of a wishy-washy recommendation that the land might be suitable for a first-class golf course) and and his sketches of holes abroad, and the next day toured the golf course at NGLA, which I'm sure was a very valuable and instructive use of their time.

Mike, you're returning to wishful thinking when formulating your conclusions again.
You're denying the probability that CBM had crafted plans or rough drafts and I don't think you can exclude that likelihood.

Hugh Wilson himself told us exactly what they did there; "...in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than in all of the years we had played.  Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish (bold(s) mine) with our natural conditions.   The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes.  Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings.   May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses."  

Mike, you're lobbying toward your preconceived, predisposed conclusions.

I've stated my opinion, as requested.

I'd like to see more research such that I can either modify my opinion to conform to the emerging facts or reinforce my opinion based on the emerging facts.

I think CBM offered a critique on each one, pointing out the strenghts and weaknesses.
I think CBM offered alternative routings/designs.
As a result, I think they went back to Merion, armed with CBM's redrafting of their plans.

While you make clear that this is your inference, I do think you are reading a lot into it without much in the way of evidence.  


There's not much in the way of evidence to refute my opinion.
Mike, you've done the same thing, over and over again.
You asked for my opinion.
I rendered it.
I stand by it until research produces more facts that will either support or refute my opinion.


It seems to me again that what is mentioned is what HE Macdonald had been doing that was the focus, not what the Merion group had done to date.   Given the force of Macdonald's personality, and the respect the Merion Committee had for his opiinion, I can easily see it being much of a one-way conversation, with short Merion questions resulting in long Macdonald answers.   I think the short passage here in the minutes is reflective of that dynamic.

Mike, I don't know about you, but, when I was diagnosed with cancer I sought out the most respected physicians, not novices.
I didn't tell them how to treat my cancer, I listened to their recommendations and suggested protocol/s for treating my cancer.
Then, I pursued the most aggressive path based on their professional advice.

Why do you assume that the men of Merion did otherwise ?

Would that be the most prudent course of action ?
 
They benefited from having examined NGLA with CBM.
The benefited from listening to his on site commentary about NGLA and golf design, and how they might work out at Merion.
Wholeheartedly agreed, and I do think Hugh Wilson makes that very clear in his own reminisces.   I think this meeting was somewhat of a turning point in the process, which is why they mentioned it even years later, and it helped them clearly.  

I think THAT meeting resulted in the end stage routing/design of Merion and I believe CBM's hand in the routing/design was heavy/substantive.  

Patrick, while I agree that this meeting had a big impact on the committee, I think it was in terms of clarifying some of their thought processes around their design, and perhaps giving birth to other flights of imagination.    We KNOW it was significant to the final design stage simply because they went back and "laid out five different plans" after the meeting.    I think ultimately the question that we will never answer and probably always debate will be one of percentages.

I think the percentages are immaterial, micro, if you will.
My OPINION is that the meeting PRODUCED the final general routing/design of Merion.
That it was the linch pin to the production of the golf course.  

I think it's good that we've finally reached a point where it's agreed by many here including you that all of this routing activitiy didn't happen prior to the end of 1910, although some rough or informal routing processses initiated by Merion may have preceeded 1911 (although no evidence of that exists).   I think that's progress.

Once again, I don't think that's a conclusion you can draw since we don't know the history of the routing from Barker to the five plans prior to the meeting, to the meeting, to the revised plans subsequent to the meeting, to what was built in the field.

I think it's good that we're now focusing more on the first months of 1911 in our collective search, because this is also clearly when things were determined and no matter how anyone wants to cast doubt on what the MCC Minutes actually say, they clearly do reflect the major design activity taking place in the first four months of 1911.

And, as I mentioned, because the details aren't recorded, unless further evidence surfaces, I think we'll always debate exact contributions that Macdonald was responsible for versus Wilson, and those who favor one side over the other will try to steer the argument in their preferred direction.    

From my perspective, in the final analysis, while I agree that Macdonald had a larger role than was previously known, not a single contemporaneous account of his contributions actually pulled that trigger and mentioned the "D", or the "R" words, instead simply saying he "advised" the process and offered "suggestions", however valuable.

Mike, you're lobbying again, and I don't agree with your conclusions.

Let's do more research FIRST, then refine our OPINIONS

To me, a man in charge does not "suggest" or "advise".    To me those two verbs clearly refer to someone who is outside the main ongoing process, and it's always been somewhat amazing to me that everyone at that time used nearly the exact same verbiage to describe what they did, whether it was Robert Lesley, Alan Wilson,  A.W. Tillinghast, or "Far and Sure".   None of them ever pulled the trigger and suggested that the routing or design was of Macdonald's authorship.

Neither does the word "approve" suggest someone who is an author, much like Shvas pointed out months back.   To me, it is very clear that they highly-valued Macdonald's opinion, and the fact that they asked him to come down and help them pick the best of their routings is proof-positive of that.    But the question remains, if Macdonald was the author of that plan, why would he need to come back to pick it?    Of course he wouldn't.

Finally Patrick, I know you're a man who believes in taking direct personal responsibitliy in any endeavor, amd that ultimately, the buck has to stop somewhere.   As Chairman of the committee in charge of the new golf course during this period, wouldn't Hugh Wilson ultimately be the one to get the credit or blame, no matter whose advice he took, or who he asked questions of, or how many ideas he solicitied and opinions he listened to?


Mike, you're lobbying again.

AND, Wilson was in charge of the CONSTRUCTION Committee.

I think we need to learn more before drawing finite conclusions.

Max Behr in 1914 wrote that Hugh Wilson was virtually dictatorial in the way he operated at Merion, much like Macdonald at NGLA and Leeds at Myopia.   Does that sound like a man to you who would have shirked direct personal responsibiilty and decision-making for what took place at Merion?

Thanks for listening, and thanks for trying to advance the dialogue.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Please show us how you've come to the conclusion that M+W's visit to inspect the proposed site for a day in June 1910 was for the "preliminary routing" and please show us anywhere it specifically states that?

Mike, did I tell you the one about the husband who went to the private investigator for proof that his wife was NOT cheating?    Well you are the husband.

There is ample evidence that M&W were involved with the routing during and after their June 1910 visit.  Remember, a routing had already been done by Barker when M&W were brought in to add their opinion.  In addition to inspecting the property and meeting with the site committee, M&W sent a letter which discussed the various advantageous features on the property, as well as its shortcomings and how to address them.  They even singled out a small section of specific property for Merion to add to the site, even though that section has not even been offered to HDC, and even though their are over 200 adjacent acres that were more easily and directly accessible.  The even provide a description of the lengths of holes they are contemplating, a list of hole lengths that bears close resemblance to what Merion ended up with.   Perhaps most importantly, they were there to figure out whether a first class course could be created on that land, and indicated that they could not know for certain without a contour map.  Why else would they need a contour map except to see whether the holes they envisioned would fit on the property?   And it is unreasonable to assume that Merion would have kept the contour map from M&W.    Plus, the Francis statement strongly suggested that there was at least a rough routing in place before November 1910, as does the little bit we have heard about the Cuyler letter, as does the specificity of the Boards November announcement.   The Board's next announcement said that experts were at work planning the course and that again points toward M&W and/or HHB.   The early Ag letters indicate that a course was already in place at the very beginning of Wilson's involvement, and that CBM was also involved at this time.  Lesley's report suggests that there was a course in place before the NGLA trip, yet Wilson's 1916 letter suggests that he "got a good start" with the layout at NGLA, suggesting he had not routed the existing course, but that someone else did.  And at NGLA, the looked at CBM's plans and there is a very good chance that this meant his plans for Merion. All of this and more strongly evidences that, beginning with their June site visit, M&W were involved with the preliminary routing.

Now you can and have gone to great lengths to dispute and nitpick every item, even going so far as to claim that Wilson was considered an expert at planning golf courses even though he admittedly was no such thing.  Yet taken together, Mike, this is pretty powerful evidence.  To not at least acknowledge the possibility that I have it right requires an affirmative act of intentional ignorance on your part, where you simply ignore or deny all facts that cut against you.

If maps, letters, and routings with golf course plans passed back and forth any time over the next nine months between Mac and the Merion Committee, why do you think not only have all traces of them vanished, but why do you think they weren't even mentioned in reference by anyone, ever, in any of the contemporaneous accounts or rememberances throughout the rest of eveyone involved's lives and beyond?

First, there is a very good chance that CBM's plans were mentioned.   While we haven't seen it, we've been told that Whigham and his committee looked at CBM's plans at NGLA.   Your explanation that this meant plans from overseas is unpersuasive because the information he obtained from overseas was reportedly mentioned separately.   Plus why would they refer to sketches from overseas as his "plans" when they weren't his plans but his drawings and measures of holes already in existence.

Second, this is just an old rehash of Wayne's argument that unless their was direct evidence of everything M&W did, we must assume they did nothing.  It was fallacious then and now, for the same reason.

In short, we cannot use the absence of evidence as proof of anything unless we would expect to find the supposedly missing evidence among within the sources we have.   There is no reason that any of the stuff you mention would be in any of our source resources.   We wouldn't expect it to be, so you cannot draw the kind of conclusions you draw from its absence.   From the sounds of it, the Minutes only contain transcriptions of letters that were submitted or sent to the Board of Governors.  CBM was dealing with the Site Committee, and there would have been little reason for the site committee to present these letters to the Board.   Sayres scrapbook contains his collection of information, and since he wasn't on the Site Committee there is no reason for the information to have shown up there, either.  Etc.  We don't have CBM's correspondence.  We don't have Site Committee records.  We don't have Construction Committee records.    We have nothing within which we should reasonably expect to find a CBM routing or plan.  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

If they didn't buy those three acres next to the clubhouse they wouldn't have been able to go out the back door without trespassing. 

Forrest Gump would have made the recommendation.

[JESII]

David,

If they didn't buy those three acres next to the clubhouse they wouldn't have been able to go out the back door without trespassing. 

Forrest Gump would have made the recommendation.

Mike,

That would imply that the house already on the property was flush against the boundary...I doubt this was the case...

[DMoriarty]

David,

If they didn't buy those three acres next to the clubhouse they wouldn't have been able to go out the back door without trespassing.  

Forrest Gump would have made the recommendation.

I guess I need an addition to one paragraph above . . .
 . . .
Now you can and have gone to great lengths to dispute and nitpick every item, even going so far as to claim that Wilson was considered an expert at planning golf courses even though he admittedly was no such thing.  Yet taken together, Mike, this is pretty powerful evidence.  To not at least acknowledge the possibility that I have it right requires an affirmative act of intentional ignorance on your part, where you simply ignore or deny all facts that cut against you, or where you resort to nonsensical absurdities in a disingenuous attempt to trivialize M&W's contributions.

[TEPaul]

In the long paragraph in Post #3789 that begins, "There is ample evidence" in fact there is no actual evidence at all to support a single one of the points made in that paragraph; every point is just speculation completely devoid of any actual factual evidence.

[TEPaul]

"First, there is a very good chance that CBM's plans were mentioned.   While we haven't seen it, we've been told that Whigham and his committee looked at CBM's plans at NGLA.   Your explanation that this meant plans from overseas is unpersuasive because the information he obtained from overseas was reportedly mentioned separately.   Plus why would they refer to sketches from overseas as his "plans" when they weren't his plans but his drawings and measures of holes already in existence."


What the Wilson Committee reported they went over at NGLA the first evening was Macdonald's plans for NGLA and the data he brought back from abroad:

"...They went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes that were copied after the famous ones abroad."

Clearly that did not mean they were working on Merion's routing and design plans at NGLA but looking over Macdonald's plans for NGLA and the data he brought back from abroad in preparation to create NGLA.

[Tom MacWood]

"First, there is a very good chance that CBM's plans were mentioned.   While we haven't seen it, we've been told that Whigham and his committee looked at CBM's plans at NGLA.   Your explanation that this meant plans from overseas is unpersuasive because the information he obtained from overseas was reportedly mentioned separately.   Plus why would they refer to sketches from overseas as his "plans" when they weren't his plans but his drawings and measures of holes already in existence."


What the Wilson Committee reported they went over at NGLA the first evening was Macdonald's plans for NGLA and the data he brought back from abroad:

"...They went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes that were copied after the famous ones abroad."

Clearly that did not mean they were working on Merion's routing and design plans at NGLA but looking over Macdonald's plans for NGLA and the data he brought back from abroad in preparation to create NGLA.

TEP
Nothing is clear in your excerpt. We have no idea what proceeded or followed your quote. What is your reason for not giving us the full report?

[DMoriarty]

In the long paragraph in Post #3789 that begins, "There is ample evidence" in fact there is no actual evidence at all to support a single one of the points made in that paragraph; every point is just speculation completely devoid of any actual factual evidence.

It is bad enough that TEPaul insists that we all believe his story without him offering any verifiable facts to back it up, but now he thinks he can simply DECLARE that in the  FACTS and ANALYSIS above, "every point is just speculation completely devoid of any factual evidence."

I've gone through every line, and every point is either a FACT or directly and logically flows from the FACTS.    Agree or don't, but there is NO "speculation completely devoid of any factual evidence."

This is really pretty ridiculous.  We can all see that evidence supports everything in their, directly or indirectly.  So how on earth could he say nothing in their was factual or supported by the facts??    

As usual, the truth is not important.  He just wants to convince you not to believe me.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

That would imply that the house already on the property was flush against the boundary...I doubt this was the case...

Jim,

While may statement was slightly hyperbolic, this was the view from the back porch once the land was acquired.

The property line ended right around the drop-off.

My lord, I can think of several reasons for recommending buying that land, where today an entry road runs through.   Why in heavens wouldn't you want to use that creek on your golf course, or have golfable land available for your routing out to the natural boundary, which is the rail tracks themselves, especially with the adjacency to the clubhouse?

[Mike_Cirba]

While not wanting to get into the whole thing about the MCC Minutes....personally I'd love to see them in their entirety and hope someday that can someday happen here, but we also certainly know from Hugh Wilson's account that they arrived in the evening and spent it going over sketches of famous holes abroad and then spent the next day checking out the holes at NGLA....

If the intent of the trip was to route and design Merion, then WTF were these guys doing wasting valuable time the first night looking at sketches from abroad, and then COMPLETELY WASTING the second day just getting the grand tour of Macdonald's work at NGLA?

Weren't they supposed to be struggling over a topo of Merion and trying to condense the requisit effort Macdonald and his committeee spent routing and planning NGLA over a period of about 3-5 months into a few hours for the Merion Committee to go back to Philadelphia and simply "construct" to the brilliance of their Osmotic Genius, based wholly on their remembrances of the land from seeing it during a part of a single day nine months prior?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

That would imply that the house already on the property was flush against the boundary...I doubt this was the case...

Jim,

While may statement was slightly hyperbolic, this was the view from the back porch once the land was acquired.

The property line ended right around the drop-off.

My lord, I can think of several reasons for recommending buying that land, where today an entry road runs through.   Why in heavens wouldn't you want to use that creek on your golf course, or have golfable land available for your routing out to the natural boundary, which is the rail tracks themselves, especially with the adjacency to the clubhouse?

First, Mike, I believe the property line was the creek, so there was no chance of walking off the back course and falling off the property.  

Second, what is your point?  Other than an attempt to minimize CBM's contributions?   Sure it seems obvious to use the property, which ought to beg the question of why it was CBM recommending it, instead of one of your "expert" course planners at Merion?   If Wilson was in charge of the routing then why is it that CBM is adding this piece of land that would obviously have major ramifications on the routing?   I mean look at that land.  It is obviously not land you add without some idea of what you are going to do with it.  

Third, check out the undulations on that very large green for a 125 yard hole, completely surrounded by trouble.    But why does that sound so familiar to me?  A SHORT HOLE of only 125-130  yards . . . completely surrounded by trouble . . . to a large undulating green, one terraced 3-5 feet above the surrounding land?   Nope, doesn't sound anything like a hole one might find on a course designed by CBM.    

[DMoriarty]

Wow, Mike, you are on a roll tonight, making my points for me faster than I can keep up.  

While not wanting to get into the whole thing about the MCC Minutes....personally I'd love to see them in their entirety and hope someday that can someday happen here, but we also certainly know from Hugh Wilson's account that they arrived in the evening and spent it going over sketches of famous holes abroad and then spent the next day checking out the holes at NGLA....
No. We. Don't.   We know they went over CBM's plans and the various data he had gathered.  Your conclusion is that this all referred to one thing, but that would have been redundant and it wouldn't have made sense for him to call sketches of other holes CBM's "plans."  Not even I credit CBM with planning the great holes overseas.

If the intent of the trip was to route and design Merion, then WTF were these guys doing wasting valuable time the first night looking at sketches from abroad, and then COMPLETELY WASTING the second day just getting the grand tour of Macdonald's work at NGLA?

Exactly.   And this should show you that your assumption is mistaken.  They were NOT wasting valuable time the first night because the weren't studying the "sketches of famous holes abroad" they were studying CBM's plans for Merion, and CBM was using the data compiled from the holes abroad to explain what should be done at Merion.  

And they were "not COMPLETELY WASTING the second day getting the grand tour of Macdonald's work at NGLA."  To the contrary, CBM was showing them what the holes they had discussed the night before -- the holes for Merion -- should look like and how they should be built.

In other words Mike, you have finally realized what I have been telling you all along. YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HAPPENED MAKES NO SENSE.  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A COMPLETE WASTE OF THEIR TIME.   IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED THE WAY YOU THINK IT DID.

What most likely happened is what is most obvious and makes the most sense given the totality of the circumstances.
1.  The first night they went over CBM's plans for Merion, and CBM explained to them how to fit these holes onto the natural terrain at Merion using his preliminary plans as well as the data he had brought back for Europe.  
2.  The next day they spent going over examples of the types of holes that CBM had advised them to build at Merion, showing them what they looked like and how they were built.
3.  Wilson and his committee returned back to Merion, rearranged the preliminary routing, and laid out a number of attempts at what CBM had advised.
4.  M&W returned to Merion shortly thereafter and went over the land again and studied the layouts, and decided upon which one worked best, and approved that one.
5.  The layout plan he chose was presented to the board as the plan approved by CBM because CBM was in charge of the plan.  
6.  The board approved it, and they got busy.  
 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Before you spend a whole lotta time writing up that argument, or what I see coming in Part Deux of your essay, let me just point out that virtually every remotely strategic course in the world could be rhetorically argued as some direct lineage of Macdonald's identification of the ideal holes in the world.

As Bill Coore states, paraphrased, there are only so many notes on the instrument.

Think about ANGC, for example.   If pressed, I'm sure I could find a template hole of Macdonald's to fit every single hole at ANGC 20 years later.   Just off the top of my head we have the Eden 4th, the Road 5th, the semi-redan 6th, the original "Home" 7th, the Alps 8th, the Leven 10th, the "Short" 12th, the cape 13th, and so on....

Or, better yet, in modern times, let's finish our round at TPC Ponte Vedra with the "Road" 16th, the '"Short" 17th, and the "Cape" 18th.

Should we credit the design of both of these courses to CB Macdonald?

Of course not.

We only do that when we find specific proof and direct evidence that someone has actually purposefully planned the holes on a specific site.

There is NO evidence that Macdonald ever did so at Merion, and no one who claims that he did.

The "absence of evidence being proof of nothing" has to be the most specious argument, and most egregious misrepresentation of actual factually-based scientific theory since the study of golf course archtectural history began in earnest rougly 30 years ago.   At it's core, it essentially argues that NOTHING that we know is meaningful, or definitive, or conclusive, but that we should simply wipe our minds free of logic, of knowledge, and of facts, because there exists some remote possibility, however remote, that somewhere, somehow, down the line, some additional evidence will surface that will contradict everything we've known prior.

It is the research equivalent of existentialism, where simply because one has conscious thought, and therefore proof of existence, the rest of the world is an open book, subject to individual interpretation and devoid of prior opinion and precedence.


***EDIT PRIOR POST***

Wow, David...I just read what you posted regarding what you think the MCC Minutes that Tom Paul just posted about the NGLA trip really mean.

No disrespect intended, but if you had a point #7 stating that they then got on a rocket ship to Mars and Macdonald was their captain it would have at least as much direct physical evidence as points 1 through 6.  

[DMoriarty]

Mike, you are off on a tangent and I'd like to get the bottom of a few things, before you completely move on:

1.  You argue that adding the land behind the clubhouse was obvious.  So why then wasn't it Hugh Wilson who was adding it?   If CBM's role was as you say it was then what the heck was he doing advising Merion to add this land to their golf course?   Do you really think it possible that he had no idea what he would do with it when he advised them (repeatedly) to add it?

2.  You seem to have finally realized that your understanding of the NGLA meetings -- first day a general discussion about general principles and the second day a grand tour of NGLA -- makes absolutely no sense given what else we know.     Isn't it possible that this is not what they were doing at all?  And that they were actually discussing how to lay out the course?    After all, even your bud Alan Wilson acknowledges that the NGLA meetings were about the layout of the East Course?

As for your tangents, I agree that NGLA had a tremendous influence on future courses and still does.   But based on photos and descriptions of the courses in Philadelphia prior to NGLA and Merion, these courses had little or nothing in common with CBM's approach to architecture, or the fundamental strategic principles he advocated.     

As for your examples, they are pretty silly.  Plus, did Augusta or Ponte Vedra base their choice of property largely on the advice of Macdonald and Whigham?  Did they consult M&W throughout the process?  Did the builders spend two days with M&W working on the layout?   Did M&W return to the site to choose the final routing?  Did Augusta or Ponte Vedra continue to consult with M&W even after the plan was finalized?  Did the builder of those courses write that M&W had taught him how to incorporate the underlying principles of the great holes into the ground at Merion?    If the answer is yes to these questions, then M&W ought to be credited. 

And Mike, I don't care about credit, but if you use your standard for credit then Hugh Wilson is out of the running.  I am aware of "no specific proof and direct evidence" that Hugh Wilson actually purposefully planned the holes at Merion."   Frankly a much better case can be made for M&W, but as I said I don't care about credit.

The "absence of evidence being proof of nothing" has to be the most specious argument, and most egregious misrepresentation of actual factually-based scientific theory since the study of golf course archtectural history began in earnest rougly 30 years ago.   At it's core, it essentially argues that NOTHING that we know is meaningful, or definitive, or conclusive, but that we should simply wipe our minds free of logic, of knowledge, and of facts, because there exists some remote possibility, however remote, that somewhere, somehow, down the line, some additional evidence will surface that will contradict everything we've known prior.

You've completely misunderstood my point, Mike.  Why am I not surprised?    It is not that complicated.  Let me give you an example of what I mean: 

You:   If CBM planned Merion, then we would have found his plan.  We have not found his plan, therefore CBM did not plan Merion.
Me:    Not so.   We would expect the CBM plan to be with the Site Committee or the Construction Committee documents, and we have not found those documents.  So it is no surprise we have not found the plan.   So your premise is a false premise.   

Besides, we've already been told that CBM's plan, the one that he approved, was submitted to Merion's Board of Governors.  When can we quit pretending he had no say in the planning? 

***EDIT PRIOR POST***

Wow, David...I just read what you posted regarding what you think the MCC Minutes that Tom Paul just posted about the NGLA trip really mean.

No disrespect intended, but if you had a point #7 stating that they then got on a rocket ship to Mars and Macdonald was their captain it would have at least as much direct physical evidence as points 1 through 6.  

Yet it makes more sense than your theory, which even you now admit MAKES NO SENSE.  And it is supported by more facts than your theory that Wilson did everything. 

[TEPaul]

OK, I give up. I’ve been hiding the truth of the routing and design of Merion East for over a year. The on-going Philadelphia Conspiracy as it pertains to the Legend and Myth of architect Hugh Irvine Wilson is hereby exposed. I suppose it always has been fairly obvious Wilson was far too much the novice and callow yute to have ever been in the main responsible for creating the routing and design of a masterpiece like Merion East.

Here is the remainder of the so-called Wilson Report to the Board meeting of 4/19/1911 that Misters MacWood and Moriarty have been demanding in the name of the commonly understood standard Rules of “American Civil Discourse.”


“On April 6, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigam came over and spent the morning on the ground, and after looking over the various plans and the ground itself, decided it was time for lunch. We took them down to Pat’s Cheesesteak and Fries joint in South Philly. Over lunch with our favorite plan spread before us that Mr. Francis came up with in the middle of the night that had a combined skating rink/swimming pool in the natural quarry on the 16th with an island green in the middle of the combined S.R./S.P, Mr. Whigam became ill when we explained to him what the ingredients were in his cheesesteak and he upchucked all over our favorite plan. Since our favorite plan appeared to be ruined (Mr. Francis actually claimed it might not be ruined and he might be able to fix it even though he did admit to the fact that it might smell too bad to present to the Board), and after Mr. Whigam excused himself, Mr. Macdonald allowed as his son-in-law never was worth a plugged nickel and Mr. Macdonald drew us up a routing and design on his napkin that he said he would approve of as containing the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world if MCC would claim he was in charge of not just our committee but MCC itself and that he was the driving force behind the new course. We agreed and the napkin is submitted herewith for your consideration and approval.” 



And THAT is the true and factual history of the routing and design of the world famous Merion East golf course. I’m so sorry I have withheld this important FACTUAL information for so long. I was afraid Misters MacWood and Moriarty might actually come here some day and actually do the necessary research and expose one of our great architectural legends themselves and claim victory over us pathetically fraudulent Philadelphia architectural researchers and analysts, so I decided I would just expose it myself and go out in flames as the one who actually possessed and revealed this important American architectural information that has been purposefully hidden from the public for almost a century.

The remainder of the 4/19/1911 board meeting minutes that resolved and approved the conspiracy to create the legend and myth of Hugh I. Wilson to follow.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I'm glad to see you add a little levity to the proceedings, the last few days you been acting like I had destroyed the reputation of Merion's respected architectural historian by analyzing the Tolhurst book, and that I was attacking the very foundation of every prestigious Club in North America.

By the way why are you refusing to share the entire April 1911 report with us - and only giving us bits and pieces?

[TEPaul]

"By the way why are you refusing to share the entire April 1911 report with us - and only giving us bits and pieces?"


Tom:

I'm glad you liked the levity and I'm sorry you thought I was so serious about what you've been saying about the Tolhurst book. If you could see me sitting here laughing about some of the things you say on here, including that, I doubt you would say I was so serious about it.

Why am I refusing to share the entire April 1911 report with you? I thought I made that abundantly clear on here. It must have been just another of my posts you failed to either read or understand properly. But if you choose to look back and read then I think it will be pretty clear to you.

What was it you said to me over the last year or so and again recently about that Boston article on Willie Campbell and Myopia?  

[TEPaul]

Guys, I've got to go out for the day to a funeral and while I'm out I'm going to be subjected to a total full-blown friend-oriented intervention from the newly formed GOLFCLUBATLAS.com Addicts Anonymous which is under the aegis of the Philadelphia Syndrome Society.

See you boys in the By and By or on the links somewhere!

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

I'm glad you liked the levity and I'm sorry you thought I was so serious about what you've been saying about the Tolhurst book. If you could see me sitting here laughing about some of the things you say on here, including that, I doubt you would say I was so serious about it.

Why am I refusing to share the entire April 1911 report with you? I thought I made that abundantly clear on here. It must have been just another of my posts you failed to either read or understand properly. But if you choose to look back and read then I think it will be pretty clear to you.

What was it you said to me over the last year or so and again recently about that Boston article on Willie Campbell and Myopia? 

TEP
If my Myopia/Campbell artilce is the issue I will gladly post it as a token of my good will. We can put the counterproductive bickering behind us and move forward in a more cooperative spirit.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()