"Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis

[DMoriarty]

Niall, they were never "engaged."  They were amateurs and they were just trying to help those who really thought they needed help.   

They went to NGLA in March 1911, at a crucial moment in the planning process when Wilson was anxious to get to preparing ground for the golf course.   The time had long passed for general and vague discussion of great holes.   The time had long passed for any general discussion.   They needed M&W's specific help in understanding what could be done at Merion, and how to do it.   

Keep in mind that according to reports at the time many of the holes at Merion were based on the great holes abroad (almost all the holes, by one report.)   Yet Wilson had never even seen these holes, and there is no indication that anyone on the committee knew a lick about them at all, much less in the kind of detail that would allow the committee to try to base their course on them!   

Yet you think that all M&W did was wax philosophically, giving general advice?  And based on this they returned to Merion and whipped out an incredible routing and 18 hole designs based on some rather subtle principles from holes that CBM had only described to them generally and that they had never seen?

Call be crazy, but it seems more likely that they had been trying to figure out how to fit what M&W had wanted on their land, and they went to the source for detailed help about where and why these holes should go, and how they should build them, and then they went back and came up with five attempts at carrying this out, and then M&W came down and chose the best one, maybe adjusting it further along the way.

_________________________________


As for whether or not it was noted in the MINUTES, the Minutes note that  M&W chose the land for the course, and that they determined the final layout plan.   

I have trouble imagining just how much more noted they could have been!

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,

I have no idea what you refer to in your post above to Henry.  Thirteen holes south of Ardmore?   You are confusing a number of different sources and facts here.    It is becoming very apparent that

1.  While you think you have a grasp of the facts you really have no clue.

2.  Your not quite as independent or unbiased as you would like us to believe. 

Mea Culpa, David

As I'm sure you know, I'm referring to the general routing of the land mostly to the south of Ardmore (i.e. today's 1-13), for which the general layout was seemingly fairly obvious from Day 1.  Whether Barker (or MacDonald or Wilson or whoever) was there on day 1 is a matter of conjecture.

Vis a vis facts, I love them but have never claimed to be in possession of any vis a vis Merion and its history.  The only fact I have in my possession is that I do not believe that you have (or have at least displayed) any significantly relelvant facts regarding Merion and its history, which is why I am so disappointed with all of these threads.  I have no bias except the truth.  Show me something that is both truthful and relevant to this discussion and I will take you more seriously than I have to date.

Good luck

Rich

[Ulrich Mayring]

The truth behind the Barker / CBM / Wilson complex is probably not even relevant, because the greatness of Merion is all Flynn.

Ulrich

[DMoriarty]

Mea Culpa, David

As I'm sure you know, I'm referring to the general routing of the land mostly to the south of Ardmore (i.e. today's 1-13), for which the general layout was seemingly fairly obvious from Day 1.  Whether Barker (or MacDonald or Wilson or whoever) was there on day 1 is a matter of conjecture.

As I am sure you don't know, this makes no sense whatsoever.

On "Day 1" a large chunk of the land (21 acres) south of Ardmore was not even being considered for the prospective golf course.   While you might think that the routing was obvious once this land was added, it surely was not made obvious until the land was added.  I originally thought that Barker had been involved BEFORE this land was added, but it is possible that the land was added because of Barker.   

-  It is not conjecture to say that, whenever "Day 1" was, Barker was there before anyone from Merion.   

-  It is not conjecture to say that Wilson was not present on "Day 1"

-  It is not conjecture to say that these 21 acres were included in the land that CBM considered when he inspected the property in June 1910.   

It sounds like you think that the 13 holes might have been routed BEFORE CBM saw the land?   By whom, if not Barker?   And what evidence supports this?

"The only fact I have in my possession is that I do not believe that you have (or have at least displayed) any significantly relelvant facts regarding Merion and its history . . ."

Aha.   I think I am beginning to understand our differences in approach.   Like TEPaul, you seem think that because you have a belief, this somehow makes it a fact.  In contrast, I prefer to base my beliefs on facts, and not visa versa.  While you believe I don't have any significantly relevant facts, I think you must have an unusual understanding of both significance and relevance.   

As for your general disappointment with the threads, what can I say except the vast majority of them are not my threads, or if they are the are taken in directions that are not all that interesting or relevant.   They disappoint me too, but some things are beyond my control.

[TEPaul]

"Mike Cirba and Andy,

TEPaul has vaguely alluded to this CBM letter a few times, although he did not mention the companion letter from Wilson to Oakley or grasp the significance of the letter as it's companion letter indicating that CBM and Wilson were communicating much more than he was letting on. "



This looks like another deflection on Moriarty's part unless something other than communications on architecture between Macdonald and Wilson is something you're interested in hearing about.

Are you?

If so I'd be glad to make those letters available to you or tell you where you might find them but I warn you they are not communications between Wilson and Macdonald on golf course architecture at all; they are only about agronomy. Unless you are interested in how much Oakley (and apparently Wilson too) disagreed with Macdonald (and Beale)  about the quantities of tons per acre of fertilizer (manure) to put on greens or turf, you may not be that interested in this single letter from Macdonald to Wilson.

In that single June 13, 1911 letter we have from Macdonald to Wilson, Charlie addresses him as "Mr. Wilson." Sounds like a whole lot of familiarity there, don't you think; like they'd been working closely together on an routing and design plan for Merion East for about a year?  

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba and Andy,

I am sure you realize that

1.  I described the letter because you asked me about it.

2.  I indicated that the letter was about Agronomy.

3.  I explained why I think the letter(s) were nonetheless significant to our discussion.

_________________


In the Ag Letters, Hugh Wilson used the formal prefix "Mr. ____________" when addressing Piper or Oakley.  This was true even after he had met with Oakley twice, communicated with him dozens of times, and even invited him to come stay at the club and even his home.  Obviously it would be a error to suggest that the inclusion of "Mr. _______" at address should be taken as a sign of formality or a lack of prior communications.   

Don't you think it would be disingenuous or perhaps dishonest for one who had seen hundred or thousands of such letters, all similarly addressed, to suggest that the use of "Mr. ___________" indicated unfamiliarity or lack of previous  communication?    Or would you think that such a person must just be very dense when interpreting this stuff?  It has to be one or the other.

[Rich Goodale]

Aha.   I think I am beginning to understand our differences in approach.   Like TEPaul, you seem think that because you have a belief, this somehow makes it a fact.  In contrast, I prefer to base my beliefs on facts, and not visa versa.  While you believe I don't have any significantly relevant facts, I think you must have an unusual understanding of both significance and relevance.   

No, "Aha," alas, Dave.  I have no beliefs to defend, just an interest in facts to find.  I find very few credible facts in your posts.  Sorry, but that's just the way I see it.  If you want to change my point of view, show me some facts that differ significantly from the default point of view.  Please esxcuse me if I don't reply to any further posts of yours unless they contain some significant facts.  I'm tired of empty rhetoric.

Rich

[Mike_Cirba]

Keep in mind that according to reports at the time many of the holes at Merion were based on the great holes abroad (almost all the holes, by one report.)   Yet Wilson had never even seen these holes, and there is no indication that anyone on the committee knew a lick about them at all, much less in the kind of detail that would allow the committee to try to base their course on them!   

David,

I've asked a number of times but I'll ask again.

Could you point us to the source of that statement...particularly the one from spring 1912 that you claim says almost all of the holes at Merion are based on great holes abroad?

Thanks.

[Dan Herrmann]

   designed 

[DMoriarty]

Dan Herrmann,

I took my young daughter to a Laker playoff game the other night, and at every stoppage she would hold up her homemade "Go Lakers Go" sign and give a yell for her home team.   While she had a great time and the Lakers won, I am pretty sure that her enthusiasm had little to do with the ultimate outcome.

You pop up once in a while to root for Hugh Wilson - this time you even made your own sign like my little girl - but I fail to see the point.    This is a discussion.  We don't needs fans, signs, or the wave.  It is great to root for your home team, but perhaps you could stay off the court so as not to disrupt the game.   

And please don't pretend neutrality when you are carrying around your homemade "Go Hugh Go" sign. 

Thanks.   


___________________

Mike I am pretty sure I have provided the sources on numerous occasions, plus cited them in my essay.  The primary article I mentioned was from the April 14, 1912 article int the Philadelphia Inquirer.    A September 15, 1912 article from the same paper noted that nearly every hole was patterned after some famous hole abroad.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

LOTS of golf committees from various clubs went out to see and visit NGLA.

What committees from what clubs went out to see and visit NGLA from 1907 to 1912 ?

From 1913 to 1925 ?

From 1925 to 1939 ?

Was he desiging courses for all of them ?

I'll be able to answer that question when you identify the clubs that sent committees to see and visit NGLA.

[DMoriarty]

More importantly, what courses did CBM go and visit?  Before they purchased their property?   Again to determine their final routing plan? 

Was he reportedly working closely with any other construction committees?

He went to Pine Valley, but according to Whigham they only followed a few of his suggestions.   Any others?

[TEPaul]

Dan Herrmann:

Wow, that last post of Moriarty's to you pretty much says it all, don't you think? Has this dude gone way beyond laughable or what? Who in Holy Hell does he think HE is? 

Oh HI, I'm David Moriarty from California. I'm on a website on the INTERNET; I don't know much about the history of the architecture of Merion but I really want to learn and I suspect your history has minimized C.B. Macdonald and glorified Hugh Wilson. I don't have much documentary material on your history but I wrote an essay on it anyway contending Macdonald had to have essentially routed and designed the East course or been the driving force behind the design of Merion (perhaps with HH Barker who Tom MacWood told me was the second best architect in America back then right behind Macdonald and who was there for a day once at the behest of the real estate developer who sold Merion the Ardmore land) because I think Wilson had to have been too much of a novice to have been capable of doing what everyone seems to have given him credit for. So, now that people are criticizing me for my essay, and I believe trashing my credibility and reputation, I demand your private material from you or any of your friends who might have it in the name of "civil discourse." If you or they give it to me hopefully I can learn enough to get it right by part IX or at least Part XIII.

[DMoriarty]

What's the matter Tom?  Afraid to play without your cheerleaders?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

A reason that the committee would meet Macdonald at NGLA is to OBSERVE the great holes at NGLA, the holes supposedly representing the best the UK had to offer.

If I was a committee member I'd like to see the work of the fellows who were helping me route and design my course, wouldn't you ?

Patrick

Fair point but would you not have a look at their work before you gave them the job ? ]

Niall,

I think you're looking at the issue in the context of 2009 instead of 100+ years earlier, circa 1906-1911.
In 1874 there wasn't a single 18 hole golf course in all of America

CBM was an Icon of American Golf, a larger than life figure.
His credentials were beyond impressive.
He was one of the best American golfers winning the first U.S.G.A. Amateur Championship.
He was intimately involved with the formation of the USGA.
He served as Vice President of the USGA.
The USGA put he and Laurence Curtis in charge of interpreting the rules
He had traveled extensively in the UK studying golf courses
He had previously designed the first 18 hole golf courses in America, at Belmont and Wheaton, IL, circa 1992/3.

So, to answer your question, his resume was both incredibly impressive and impeccable.

I think I'm right in saying Davids theory is that M&W were already engaged.

David is better equiped to explain his theory/ies

On the other hand perhaps Wilson and his committee were only going to NGLA to get some general advice on course design and construction.
To me that seems a more plausible explanation but I accept it does come down to how you interperet what was the reason for their visit.
Again the report in the Merion minutes suggests to me that they were going to find out how a course was designed and built.


I don't know the entirety of the reasons that the committee visited NGLA, but, that's not the linchpin of David's premise/s

If the land swap occured prior to Wilson coming on board and steering the committee, then I think you have to agree with David that the course had previously been routed by someone else.

Could that be Barker, M&W or the other committee members or a combination of all of them ?  
I don't think you can rule out any of the above, but, that's secondary to the issue of the timing of the land swap.

Hopefully, additional research will lead us to the point where VERIFIABLE FACTS and PRUDENT, NOT BIASED MINDS can draw reasonable conclusions.

[TEPaul]

"What's the matter Tom?  Afraid to play without your cheerleaders?"





You just said you refuse to converse with me. So what are you asking me questions for? 

Don't even consider it; there is no need at all to answer; somebody my actually realize you're trying to converse. 

[DMoriarty]

Not really trying to converse with you.  Just mocking you.   I'd expect you of people to understand this.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty, TEPaul  AND Mike Cirba,

Do you remember the scene in the "Godfather", the one where Sollozzo, after trying to kill Vito Corleone says to his son Michael, it wasn't personal, it was business.  I think Michael might have uttered the same phrase while trying to convince his brother, Sonny, that he, Michael is the right person to kill both Sollozzo and Cpt McCluskey.

Anyhow,

Will you guys stop trying to kill each other and get down to business ?

I know that you're both heavily invested in your positions, both mentally and emotionally and certainly, passionately.

But, the sniping is cluttering up the substance of the content.
Cease with the ambiant noise and focus on the core issues and maybe we'll learn more about the topic.

Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

 If you want to change my point of view, show me some facts that differ significantly from the default point of view.  Please esxcuse me if I don't reply to any further posts of yours unless they contain some significant facts.  I'm tired of empty rhetoric.

Rich,

Don't you think the discussion and discovery process would be sped up if TEPaul provided Bryan Izatt with the Metes and Bounds ?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I remain ready and willing to have a civil discussion within anyone, provided that

1) the conversation remains civil.
2) those involved back up their points with verifiable facts.  

But your friend is unable to abide by either of these points.  As for the documents, we all know he and Wayne have been lying about and manipulating the source material for years, yet they demand we trust them?  

As for civility, the drunken douche bag piece of shit actually went so far as to accuse me of being involved in a capital murder and of facing possible disbarment.   No retraction.  No apology.  No change in behavior.

As far as I am concerned there is no place for him on this website.  He needs to go.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Well, Patrick...I guess President Obama won't be sending you to the Middle East to broker a peace deal anytime soon. 

I agree with your sentiment however.

However, since that seems impossible, I vote for a Bryan Izatt/Tom Paul ONLY thread, with the only other participants being those who haven't shown clear bias prior and THEIR ONLY ROLE IS TO ASK QUESTIONS....

So, up front I propose we throw out me, you, David, Dan, Shivas, and let's leave it up to the others who are interested.

If any of the others makes an editorial statement or offers an unsolicited opinion, they get the boot.

What do you think?

[DMoriarty]

I hope Bryan tells him to shove his childish conditions right up his pompous ass, and tells him to come clean or get lost.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I'm glad to see that my attempt to reconcile the parties lasted so long

The accusations and reckless rhetoric don't further anyone's efforts.

As my father used to admonish me, "once the words pass your lips, you can never retract them, so measure them carefully/wisely"
That was before the internet and typing.

Mike, TEPaul is certainly NOT an impartial party to the discussion, hence your suggestion is a terrible one.
Bryan Izatt & Shivas or someone else would be a good team, but, if those with the information choose not to reveal it, what good are the moderators ?

At some point, intellectual honesty and scholarship HAVE to be an integral part, if not the linchpin, of the discussion.

TEPaul and his warcamp and David are the only ones that can bring about civility and the expeditious pursuit of the facts and truth.
Absent their willingness to do so, very little in the way of due diligence and discovery can take place.

One can only hope.

P.S.  I'm off to Damascus to try to solve easier problems

[Mike_Cirba]

*

[DMoriarty]

Frankly, I am shocked that anyone would expect me to be polite to this lowlife scumbag with what he has pulled over the years and particularly recently.