[DMoriarty]

. . . Not misrepresentations by Alan Wilson, of course.   He got some things wrong, but I have no doubt that he was intending to provide the true and accurate story as he understood it, and he provides some pretty interesting information.     I am referring to TEPaul's continued Merion misrepresentations. 

Mike Cirba posted the Alan Wilson statement today, but he got the statement from TePaul and Wayne and they have presented it this way for a couple of years now.  Here is an excerpt:

Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.

This is different than it was presented in  2006, but at some point these guys apparently decided a slightly different version might work better.  I happened to have copied the Alan Wilson statement the first time TEPaul and Wayne provided it.  If you cannot see the difference let me give you a hint . . .

[Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—]twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the Special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd, Dr. Henry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.

They want to pretend like the NGLA meeting was general and probably about Agronomy or general theory, or whatever, so they simply dropped the what might be the most important part of the Alan Wilson letter!

At NGLA they were discussing the lay-out of the East Course.   More specifically, M&W provided "advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course."   Their "advice and suggestions as to the layout of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.

And what of "CBM's plans?"  Either they were CBM's plans for "the layout of the East Course" or they were being used to explain M&W's ideas for "the lay-out of the East Course."  Same goes for looking at the information CBM gathered overseas.   Same goes for looking at the holes at Merion. 

So while Alan Wilson may have gotten the order slightly wrong, he confirmed that:

1.  M&W traveled to Merion to help choose Merion's land.
2.  M&W met with the Committee at NGLA and provided them with their advice and suggestions as to "the lay-out of Merion East."
3.  M&W's advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value.
4.  After already providing their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East, M&W returned to Merion to consider and advice about the plans the committee put together after the NGLA meeting. 
5.  Except for all of the above, the Committee was responsible for everything. 
6.  While the entire committee contributed, Hugh Wilson was the in the main responsible. 

I want to ask why TEPaul has for so long conveniently omitted the part about the lay-out of Merion East, but why bother.  The answer is obvious, isn't it? 

This is why we cannot rely on these guys to tell us what happened at Merion.  They hide or distort anything that they fear might undermine their story.  This is also why I will not take their word for it when they ask be to believe them about what the hidden documents really say.

- WHAT DID ALAN WILSON REALLY WRITE?   What else are these guys hiding or misrp?   
- And what of the rest of the records?  How many other references are there to M&W's involvement in planning the lay-out of Merion East?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

If once again you are only going to take a small portion of what Alan Wilson wrote and start yet another Merion thread, I feel compelled to copy a post I wrote tonight on another thread in response.

I would point out that my copy of the Alan Wilson letter is from a post by Tom Paul from some time back, so if there are discrepancies in the exact transcription of that letter, that's frankly between you and Tom.

However, before you talk about selective use of evidence, I think most here will find your purposeful omission of large sections of the Alan Wilson letter that give full credit to Hugh Wilson's Committee for the architecture of the golf course, repeatedly, and in a variety of areas to be a bit hypocritcal, at best.

With that being said, here is the Alan Wilson letter that I copied a few years back from a Tom Paul post, prefaced by my direct response to a similar post from you;


David,

You're reading into this what you want to hear.

After first graciously and gratefully noting CB Macdonald's "advise about our plans" (and we all know now exactly what that means, where Macdonald helped them select the best of the five plans the Merion Committee created for the golf course) and "their advice and suggestions as to the layout were of the greatest help and value" (and we also know from the nature of their limited correspondence that it was mostly of an agronomic and construction nature related to soils, grasses, etc.).

He then says, "except for this", which frankly sounds to be sincere, but limited, "the entire responsbility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the Special Construction Committee..."

He does not compare his brother against only the other committee members.   He does not exclude anyone from the comparison in the least.

Instead, he simply says that he was told by each of the other committee members that; "...they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture both of this and of the West course."

There is no exclusion of anyone in that comparsion, David.   

You would lead us to believe that this is the only mention of who did what from an architectural standpoint in the Alan Wilson letter, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, as you know.

There is much more to the Alan Wilson reminisce than what you mentioned, including making clear the intention to use NO professionals (which would throw Mr. Barker from the scene), but instead, why don't I just reproduce the entire thing and let people judge for themselves what he said instead of you telling us what it means.   You'll also note that once he begins talking about the wonderful features of the golf course there is no further mention of Macdonald, yet the Committee is credited time and again;

Also, please forgive the CAPS...I copied it from another post and the author was trying obviously to emphasize some points;


Mr. William R. Philler,
Haverford, Pa.

Dear Mr. Philler:-

      You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history, and I warned you that I did this sort of thing very badly. You insisted, however, so I have done the best I could and enclose the article herewith. If it is not what you want, please do not hesitate to destroy it and to ask someone else to write you something which will better suit your purpose.
      I am very glad you are writing the club history. It ought to be done because unless put on paper these things which are interesting in themselves are apt to be forgotten,-- and I do not know of anyone who would do the work so well as you.

                  With regards, I am,
                     Sincerely,
                        Alan D. Wilson



Merion’s East and West Golf Courses

   There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.

   The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.

   These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other. They imported bent seed directly from Germany when bent turf was a rarity and gave us not only bent greens and fairways and even bent in the rough and this seed only cost them 24 cents a pound, while it sells now for $2.25. They put in water systems for the greens and tees before artificial watering became a routine. They took charge of and supervised all the construction work as a result the two courses were built at the combined total cost of less than $75,000---something under $45,000 for the East and about $30,000 for the West, whereas it is not unusual nowadays for clubs to spend $150,000 or more in the building of one course of 18 holes.

   The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.

   We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.

   The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.

………..The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.

It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”

   Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.   

[Adam_Messix]

David--

The last sentence of your post is what is troubling.....

Alan Wilson stated that MacDonald and Whigham provided advice and suggestions as to "the lay-out of the East Course."  I read the original statement several years ago and took it at face value, they provided advice and suggestions.  This DOES NOT imply or state that the credit for the design of Merion goes to MacDonald and Whigham.  They provided help.  Wilson stated it as do several others.  This seems to be where the evidence that has been provided is pointing.  I think going beyond that would require making assumptions that would be a stretch.  

Bob Crosby was right in another thread, M & W's role in Merion has going from a 1 to a 2 or 3.  

It leads to an interesting question though, if MacDonald and Whigam were significant contributors to Merion, don't you think the club would have given them honorary memberships?  This seems to be a normal course of action for clubs because the rules of amateur status were so tight back then.  MacDonald got one at Shinnecock as an example.  

[Mike_Cirba]

It's probably also a good time to let Hugh Wilson speak for himself as to what happened during their visit to NGLA;

"We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all 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 with our natural conditions."

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

The point of my post was that TEPaul simply removed language he did not like from the Alan Wilson letter.  Not through sketchy interpretation like you do, by lying to us about what the documents actually say.  

I have assumed that this is TEPaul's doing, but now that you know about it, you really ought to change the quote above to reflect what was actually written, including the part about "the lay-out of Merion East."

__________________________

Adam,

What troubles me is that these guys just bastardize the source material to suit their purposes, yet they expect us to take their word for what the source material says, and will provide us no opportunity to verify it.    As far as we know, their could be plenty more in the records indicating that M&W were involved.  

How many times are these guys going to have to lie to us and mislead us until more posters call "Bullshit" on everything they tell us?  

As for the rest of your post, you seem to think that my concern is design attribution.  It is not.  My goal is to figure out what happened and it has nothing to do with convincing you of anything, nor am I at all concerned whether you are anyone else has yet been convinced.

That being said, since you would rate M&W's involvement in coming up with the initial hole concepts and routing, where would you rate Hugh Wilson involvement with the initial hole concepts and routing?   And more imporantly based on what verifiable evidence?  

As for honorary memberships, I have no idea whether Merion offered them or whether they would even have been accepted.  It is not as if these guys needed a membership at an inland course outside of Philadelphia.    Was William Flynn given an honorary membership?   If so, when?

[Adam_Messix]

There is a difference between Flynn and MacDonald.  Flynn was a professional architect who was paid for his work, MacDonald was an amateur in the strictest sense and would not take any money for his efforts. 

[DMoriarty]

Then I trust you will agree that there is no control group to test your speculation about what Merion would or wouldn't have done with regards to honorary memberships for those involved in the design.

As an aside, as much as CBM apparently disliked professionalism, he did make an exception for Raynor by recommending to the membership of NGLA that Raynor be given clubhouse privileges throughout his lifetime.

Have you considered my question about Wilson's involvement in the hole concepts and routing?  I am anxious to read facts that indicate that the concpets and placement of the original holes at Merion were Hugh Wilson's creations, especially for the Redan an Alps.

[TEPaul]

- WHAT DID ALAN WILSON REALLY WRITE?   Is there anything else these guys are lying about?   
- And what of the rest of the records?  How many other references are there to M&W's involvement in planning the lay-out of Merion East?"


Is there anything else these guys are LYING ABOUT???

David Moriarty:

In the last few days you have called me a pompous ass, a drunken douche bag, a scumbag, a piece of shit, and as far as I know those posts are still on this website and now you're accusing me and a friend of mine from Merion of LYING about what we have said regarding our opinions of the architectural records, articles, reports, meeting minutes we have and about history of Merion???

When I get back from Hawaii I am going to totally hammer you, you jerk! I'm going to personally take you down and make a public spectacle of you and an example of precisely why no one on a website like this should EVER act as you do and say the things you have to any club, member or friend of a club.

You've been emailing Merion and MCC asking for information?? I am going to show you what total lack of commonsense, total lack of courtesy to clubs like this and their friends which you have continously been exhibiting on here wroughts for people like you. I'm going to use every bit of influence I have to shut you out and frustrate any and every effort of yours. Is it because any of these clubs or any of us have anything to hide? Of course not. For my part it's because I don't like you at all and either to they and this is what you are about to learn; you really are and are being the biggest jerk imaginable on here. What you should've done if you were interested in Merion at all is come to the people who know it's history instead of threatening and insulting them and trying to prove them wrong about some detail to make yourself look competent on here! You should have gone to the club FIRST and definitely NOT AFTER they're aware of this charade you've been carrying on for a few years on here! What needs to happen on this website is for all viewers to see the public spectacle that should be and will be made of someone like you for what you have done and said on here, David Moriarty.

I don't know who in the hell you think you are or what you're trying to do on here to Merion or any of us here in Philadelphia but I will guarantee you it is no going to fly!

[DMoriarty]

From TEPaul's recent version of the Alan Wilson letter: 

They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value.

From TEPaul's version of the Alan Wilson from 2006, from posts which he has conveniently deleted (my underline):

They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.

Was he lying in 2006 or now?  I vote for then, which was before he realized the ramifications of this statement.

What does this document really say?   What do any of these documents say? 

Why is TEPaul making a mockery of Merion's history?  Why is Wayne enabling him?  For that matter why is Ran?

________________________________________________________________________


As for TEPaul's message quoted below, I view my communications with private golf clubs to be private, and whether or not they show me the same courtesy it would be disrespectful for me to discuss those communications on here.  And as far as I know, TEPaul is not a member of Merion, so I certainly will not discuss my communications with Merion with him.

- WHAT DID ALAN WILSON REALLY WRITE?   Is there anything else these guys are lying about?   
- And what of the rest of the records?  How many other references are there to M&W's involvement in planning the lay-out of Merion East?"


Is there anything else these guys are LYING ABOUT???

David Moriarty:

In the last few days you have called me a pompous ass, a drunken douche bag, a scumbag, a piece of shit, and as far as I know those posts are still on this website and now you're accusing me and a friend of mine from Merion of LYING about what we have said regarding our opinions of the architectural records, articles, reports, meeting minutes we have and about history of Merion???

When I get back from Hawaii I am going to totally hammer you, you jerk! I'm going to personally take you down and make a public spectacle of you and an example of precisely why no one on a website like this should EVER act as you do and say the things you have to any club, member or friend of a club.

You've been emailing Merion and MCC asking for information?? I am going to show you what total lack of commonsense, total lack of courtesy to clubs like this and their friends which you have continously been exhibiting on here wroughts for people like you. I'm going to use every bit of influence I have to shut you out and frustrate any and every effort of yours. Is it because any of these clubs or any of us have anything to hide? Of course not. For my part it's because I don't like you at all and either to they and this is what you are about to learn; you really are and are being the biggest jerk imaginable on here. What you should've done if you were interested in Merion at all is come to the people who know it's history instead of threatening and insulting them and trying to prove them wrong about some detail to make yourself look competent on here! You should have gone to the club FIRST and definitely NOT AFTER they're aware of this charade you've been carrying on for a few years on here! What needs to happen on this website is for all viewers to see the public spectacle that should be and will be made of someone like you for what you have done and said on here, David Moriarty.

I don't know who in the hell you think you are or what you're trying to do on here to Merion or any of us here in Philadelphia but I will guarantee you it is no going to fly!

   

[TEPaul]

I view my communications with private golf clubs to be private, and whether or not they show me the same courtesy it would be disrespectful for me to discuss those communications on here.  And as far as I know, you are not a member of Merion, so I certainly will not discuss my communications with Merion with you.



I am not a member of either MCC or Merion G.C. and I view your communications with either of them to not be private ON HERE because of what you've said about me and a friend of mine and member of Merion in relation to that club and what I have said about my opinion of what I have from those clubs that you may not.

In the last few days you've crossed the line David Moriarty and there is no going back now because no matter what you do or say from here on out I am going to make and example of you for what you have said and done on here heretofore. I encourage you to come here as you said you plan to. I encourage you to expend your time and money to try to do the research we have for years with a club like this which you have mocked us for not doing and questioned everything we have said and done.

So do it; I encourage you and let's just see what happens! This is going to be the real world now Moriarty! You really think you can say the things you have on here about some of the people you have and get away with it? Come here and I guarantee you that you finally will LEARN something about Merion. Isn't that what you said years ago you really wanted to do? 

[DMoriarty]

Isn't it odd how as TEPaul's posts become creepier and more threatening, he still hasn't even bothered to address his misrepresentation.    It is as if the problem with the lying is with the one who exposes it, as opposed to with the one who is himself lying.  Very strange world that this man must live in. Pitiful really.

Now does anyone out there think TEPaul actually plans on me learning anything, or is he trying to get something else across? 

I view my communications with private golf clubs to be private, and whether or not they show me the same courtesy it would be disrespectful for me to discuss those communications on here.  And as far as I know, you are not a member of Merion, so I certainly will not discuss my communications with Merion with you.



I am not a member of either MCC or Merion G.C. and I view your communications with either of them to not be private ON HERE because of what you've said about me and a friend of mine and member of Merion in relation to that club and what I have said about my opinion of what I have from those clubs that you may not.

In the last few days you've crossed the line David Moriarty and there is no going back now because no matter what you do or say from here on out I am going to make and example of you for what you have said and done on here heretofore. I encourage you to come here as you said you plan to. I encourage you to expend your time and money to try to do the research we have for years with a club like this which you have mocked us for not doing and questioned everything we have said and done.

So do it; I encourage you and let's just see what happens! This is going to be the real world now Moriarty! You really think you can say the things you have on here about some of the people you have and get away with it? Come here and I guarantee you that you finally will LEARN something about Merion. Isn't that what you said years ago you really wanted to do? 

[DMoriarty]

For the record, I see that TEPaul is back to sending me creepy, and threatening emails. Like this one he just sent.  Is this really appropriate?

There is nothing you do regarding Merion itself that is unknown to me. I strongly encourage you to come here as you said you planned to do. I'll guarantee you'll learn some things that are very important.

I wonder if Merion knows that someone at Merion (gee, I wonder who) immediately shares Merion's private business with TEPaul? 

Sort of classless don't you think?   When you guys have an issue at your clubs, do you immediately share that information with your drunken uncle for it to be posted on the internet.  Seems sort of classless to me.

[TEPaul]

"For the record, I see that TEPaul is back to sending me creepy, and threatening emails. Like this one he just sent.  Is this really appropriate?

There is nothing you do regarding Merion itself that is unknown to me. I strongly encourage you to come here as you said you planned to do. I'll guarantee you'll learn some things that are very important.

I wonder if Merion knows that Wayne or someone immediately shares Merion's business with TEPaul?"





For the record:

Tomorrow this post will be going by email to everyone I know at Merion and MCC that has any influence or interest in this particular subject!


And again, David Moriarty I strongly encourage you to come here as you said you planned to do. I guarantee you will learn some things that are very important!!

[DMoriarty]

What things?

[Kyle Harris]

What things?

Tom Paul's favorite Cabernet.

[Ross Tuddenham]

As a new member I am some what confused as to why Merion gets the most attention of any course discussed on here?

Just wondering why Merion is of such great importance compared to any other course?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

If someone purposefully omitted that phrase from the Alan Wilson account, that would be clearly wrong and very regrettable.

I hope it was a simple mistake.

On the other hand, I find the addition of the phrase to be somewhat obvious and a bit redundant; hasn't it been a given all along that Mac advised the Committee re: their efforts to lay out Merion East, from everything from strategic hole concepts to agronomy?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'd also add that the Wilson report talks a heckuva lot more about design attribution than just the brief snippet you've cited here, and I have to ask why you've seen fit to omit and ignore all of that information, both in your essay as well as in your ongoing references?

[TEPaul]

"On the other hand, I find the addition of the phrase to be somewhat obvious and a bit redundant;"

Somewhat obvious and a bit redundant?!? During MCC's three contacts with M/W over ten months in 1910 and 1911 was MCC doing anything else OTHER THAN Merion's EAST COURSE? Of course not

This highly incompetent essayist should have done HIS OWN research BEFORE he wrote that essay. We've told him that for over a year. Isn't it interesting how often he invariable blames everyone elsi for not doing it correctly FOR HIM?

[Phil_the_Author]

Regardless of the veracity of the facts presented, the purpose for this thread is to simply denigrate another member of GCA.com and I will be asking Ran to remove it.

David, Tom HAS spoken ill of you and been quite arrogant and insulting in many of his comments to you on the Merion threads, and frankly speaking, most others as well. But to post this for the sole purpose of name calling and near slander is vile.

Tom, as poorly thought out and as personally insulting as this thread is, you are not an innocent victim here. On too many threads in the past and as of late you have come out in a public vendetta with your own sets of insults and out right threats toward David.

Gentlemen, golf is a great game different from all others in that we honor the rules by policing ourselves. I'm calling you BOTH for this major infraction of etiquette toward one another. You are each acting like three year olds. The difference though in a three year olds behavior is that they don't know any better... the TWO of you DO!

This MUST STOP!

LEAVE EACH OTHER ALONE OR LEAVE THE DISCUSSION GROUP!  

[DMoriarty]

Kyle,

That was funny and you are no doubt correct.
______________________

Mike Cirba,

The addition of the phrase "as to the lay-out of Merion East" leaves no doubt that they were discussing how to lay-out Merion East!    It was not some general conversation about some vague theories, but how to apply the theories on the ground at Merion.  So we can finally move past this nonsense about teaching generalities and going over drawings without talking about how M&W thought they should apply at Merion. 

David,

I'd also add that the Wilson report talks a heckuva lot more about design attribution than just the brief snippet you've cited here, and I have to ask why you've seen fit to omit and ignore all of that information, both in your essay as well as in your ongoing references?

You have some nerve comparing my focus on a certain portion of this document with what appears to have been an intentional misrepresentation of the source material.   I have never and would never stoop so low.   Such behavior is despicable beyond description and entirely contrary to any and all efforts to get at the truth. 

The letter, or what we have been told is the letter, has been posted repeatedly.  I am focusing on the part of the letter dealing with M&W, because their contribution is clearly excepted and separate from the rest of what is discussed.   If you feel the need to bog down every conversation by reposting the entirety every time it comes up, that is up to you.   I think doing so is entirely unnecessary.  And, Mike, at the time of my essay the entirety of the letter was still being hidden by Wayne and Tom.  In fact I still have no reason to believe we have seen the entire and accurate letter. 

____________________________________

Phillip,

I understand what you are saying and have toned down my initial post quite a bit.   As far as I am concerned what I am saying is entirely accurate and supported by the record, but I don't want the shock value to interfere with the underlying and more important reasons for this thread.

1.  Putting this key phrase back into the Alan Wilson letter clarifies not only the letter, but what happened at Merion and NGLA.    Namely, it should leave no doubt about what was going on at NGLA.  These was not a general tutorial on the great holes, or agronomy, or construction.  M&W were teaching Wilson and his Committee how to lay-out Merion East! 

2.  For years now TEPaul and Wayne have asked us to rely on their representations about what Merion's records say about the origins of the East Course.   And for the last couple of years, they have been referring to UNVERIFIED source material to attack me and my theories.  In so doing they have placed their credibility and competence squarely at issue in this discussion.   Given that TEPaul is asking that we "take his word for it" that what he has been claiming is true,  I think we need to know that HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED.   

That being said,  I guess it doesn't matter whether he has been misrepresenting the source material because of dishonesty or because of incompetence.  The point is, he has a long history of misrepresenting the source material.  And we all need to be aware of that given that he still refuses to let us VERIFY the accuracy of his claims.

Ideally, there would be no need for this type of thread, because we could all look at the source material ourselves and draw our own conclusions.  But as long as TEPaul and Wayne continue to hide the source material from us,  I will continue to remind everyone why we must not trust a word they say.

As I have in the past, I suggest we put all of this behind us, and offer a simple suggestion as to how we do this:

1.   We all must back up our claims with VERIFIABLE facts.   If we cannot or will not, then we ought not make the claim.

2.  We don't have to like each other, but we ought to treat each other civilly. 

As soon as TEPaul and his pals want to start playing by these rules, we can get on to a productive conversation. 

I hope this clarifies the purpose of the thread.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

It is responses such as this one that are just as insidious as the out-and-out name calling:

As I have in the past, I suggest we put all of this behind us, and offer a simple suggestion as to how we do this:

1.   We all must back up our claims with VERIFIABLE facts.   If we cannot or will not, then we ought not make the claim.
2.  We don't have to like each other, but we ought to treat each other civilly. 

As soon as TEPaul and his pals want to start playing by these rules, we can get on to a productive conversation. 

Frankly, both you & Tom have been called out numerous times in the past by myself and others for the behavior of what you both post. For you to now, once again as you have on similar past occasions, state that "we ought to treat each other civilly" is disingenuous at the very least.

It is time for statements such as that to cease and for you to simply treat Tom civilly REGARDLESS of whether he treats you in that fashion or not. To follow it up by qualifying it with "As soon as TEPaul and his pals want to start playing by these rules..." calls into question the veracity of your previous statement about getting along civilly.

It really is time for both of you to start acting like the adults you are. Every one of us had a mother and/or father who at one time told us that "2 wrongs don't make a right."

It is time to show that you understand this. I encourage you to post comments that do exactly what you are demanding from everyone else... cite facts and/or side proofs and give interpretations of them... ONLY.

Consider how you can tell Mike Cirba, "You have some nerve comparing my focus on a certain portion of this document with what appears to have been an intentional misrepresentation of the source material.   I have never and would never stoop so low.   Such behavior is despicable beyond description and entirely contrary to any and all efforts to get at the truth..." and them DIRECTLY BELOW it state "we ought to treat each other civilly."

There is no way you can convince anyone that was a "civil" statement.

DISAGREE with him... do so STRONGLY when you are convinced that you have the proper understand of a point. Do NOT begin those statements with phrases such as "You have some nerve..."

You are a serious researcher and should be treated as such by all. In order to allow for this to happen it requires just one person to treat you in that manner... YOURSELF! You haven't been doing such a good job of that as of late.

[DMoriarty]

I understand what you are saying, and in normal circumstances I would agree 100%.   

But as far as I am concerned the accusations of misconduct that I have alleged against TEPaul are not at all uncivil.  At least no more so than your current accusations are against me.  You feel I have been uncivil and have stooped to TEPaul's level, and you have called me out for what you think is my breach of decorum.  Nothing uncivil about this kind of honesty.   I appreciate your opinion on the matter and altered some of the language in my post in response to it.

Similarly, I know that TEPaul has repeatedly misrepresented the source material and apparently even deleted relevant portions of source material in order to mislead us.  I have called him out for it.   Like you called me out.

And Phillip, it is despicable behavior.   You as a researcher know that.   I would never expect you would intentionally alter one of AWT's texts in order to make a point that the text did not support.  Such behavior is antithetical to the entire truth seeking process, and if you ever did that I would call you on it and in no uncertain terms.  I'd expect the same of you.   

Are such conversations comfortable?  Of course not.  But they are necessary.   We cannot tolerate intellectual dishonesty when it comes to the source material, yet we are constantly faced with TEPaul's intellectual dishonesty here.

Is it uncivil for me to truthfully and factually point this out?   I don't think so.   It is crucial that I do so.   

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I have never contended that M+W didn't provide advice and suggestions as to the layout of Merion East and that would include strategic principles, as Hugh Wilson told us, as well as agronomic and construction advice, as other correspondence indicates.

That's still not the same thing as routing and hole design, a distinction Alan Wilson clearly understands and differentiates, as he credits Mac with the "design" of NGLA yet limits his comments to "advice and suggestions" at Merion.

The Merion history has always acknowledged M+Ws advisory role;  what is your expectation of the club in this regard?

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You ask, "Is it uncivil for me to truthfully and factually point this out?   I don't think so.   It is crucial that I do so."

I agree.. it is important that you trumpet the truth, so to speak, but your good notes are constantly being surrounded by sharps and flats played as loud as possible. This detracts from and conceals every point that you are trying to make.

Tell the facts in suppost of the truth as you see it and defend them vigorously. Do NOT, and this is where you falter and detract, begin and use phrases such as "You have some nerve..." while doing so.

Consider, in these latest Merion threads I have taken Mike to task for once again stating as fact that Tilly was "Far and Sure." He wasn't and I have and can conclusively prove this. I called Mike out on this but did so in a fashion where he changed it to read that it was just his opinion and did so amiably. He STRONGLY disagrees with me on this as do I him. But at least we can be far more than civil and downright amiable about it.

Believe it or not that can actually happen with Tom Paul and others who've become emotionally invovled in these issues along with yourself.

It is not your statement of facts, but rather the manner in which you state them, and as Tom Paul as well, that I believe must change. THAT will be the way dor a civil discussion to take place on these issues.

If everyone efforts to be the "bigger man" all will be pleasantly surprised how grand the discussion may become. It won't cause any to admit their views are incorrect as to who, what, when, where, why and how Merion was originally designed, but at least it will allow for those positions to be said in a civil manner...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()