[TEPaul]

However, Sully, if what you're suggesting is going to happen and be done, I do not think it should be done on this particular thread which is obviously a re-run from 2009 that Tom MacWood brought back up recently to either make some point that is not well understood (such as how Tolhurst was wrong) or probably to divert attention from Moriarty's essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" (with which MacWood had a contrubuting and pre-submisson part) and what is wrong about it.

[JESII]

Tom,

They all blend together, regardless of the title...if you've got something to say, I would put it on here instead of thinking of some title that will become irrelevant by page 2.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
I don't doubt I discouraged him from sharing anything with you or Wayne based on my experiences with my Crump essay and the campaign you two went on to discredit before I had even presented it. Actually I don't recall mentioning anything about you two to him, but anyone observing GCA at the time would have known what your reaction would be."



MacWood:

At least let's note that it was you who brought up on here (ON HIS THREAD) the issue of your Crump essay! Are you at least willing and capable of admitting THAT, at THIS point? 

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
They all blend together, regardless of the title...if you've got something to say, I would put it on here instead of thinking of some title that will become irrelevant by page 2."


Sully:

Ok, no problem. However, I would not call them small points; I would rather call them larger points that I think are appropriate to drill into as you said:

My first two picks would be:

1. Why and how Moriaty assumed and tried to pass off his discovery that Wilson went abroad in 1912 and did not go abroad in 1910 and before the routing and desigining of Merion East began (even with the fact that Wilson called himself a novice) that THAT proved, as some FACTUAL given that Wilson (and his committee) could not possibly have routed and designed Merion East on their own or without someone else virtually doing it all for them.

2. This whole triangle subject of Richard Francis-----including that Nov 15, 1910 map plan and how he put Francis out there throughout the second half of 1910 (and even before the chairman of his committee, Hugh Wilson) with Lloyd as a contributor to a routing and design with Macdonald without a SINGLE SHRED of FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support that assumption, premise and claim other than that November 15, 1910 map which was  the very thing he was attempting to prove that Francis created that entire triangle for. What Moriarty did with that was to essentially USE his own ASSUMPTION as PROOF of or for the FACT that supported his PREMISE (assumption)! 

THAT is just about the precise definition of FALLACIOUS reasoning or just about the precise defintion of a FALLACY! 

[Mike Cirba]

The more I read it, the more I think Richard Francis's article from 1950 is the most valuable piece of evidence that exists, with the second piece being the related Nov 1910 Pugh and Hubbard Land Survey map.

I'll try to explain why tomorrow morning sometime, but I'll start with a few questions;

1) If a deceased legend like CB Macdonald had originally designed Merion, why wouldn't Francis even mention Macdonald in his essay about the origins of the East Course?   He was there through this whole period, and according to David's theory was actually working with Macdonald on the design and routing of the golf course (inexplicably, no other committee members were) sometime prior to November 15, 1910.

2) Francis tells us that at the time of his brainstorm, the land they ended up swapping back to HDC (in the form of "fine homes along Golf House Road"), did not fit in with any golf layouts (plural) under consideration.   We know after Wilson and Co. came back from NGLA they came up with "five different plans" in the time period of March/early April 1911.   We also know that Francis stated shortly after his brainstorm workmen were out blasting the top off the quarry to make way for the 16th green.   If the land plan and routing was finalized in November 1910 based on Francis's insight, then why were there still multiple plans for Macdonald to consider when he came to visit in November 1910 and why didn't construction of the course begin until April 1911?

3) Why on the November 1910 Land Plan are the 3 acres of leased land along the clubhouse not included shaded in green as "Merion Golf Course"?   If the routing was finalized at that time, isn't it more likely than not that the land would have been shaded as well?

[JESII]

Tom,

I doubt David sees the date of Wilson's trip as PROOF (he'll have to answer for himself) but all of the remembrances of his ability to create Merion East seemed immediately tied to learning about quality golf holes from abroad. The fact that he didn't gain his knowledge of the holes abroad prior to the intial design of Merion East doesn't preclude him (and his committee) from having done it, but I can certainly see why David would have thought this error was/is a major issue.


On point #2, I'll let David answer because you guys know my thoughts on this...I just can't see them buying that triangle without thinking they were going to put some golf up there...even though they had to later change the lines somewhat...

[TEPaul]

"The more I read it, the more I think Richard Francis's article from 1950 is the most valuable piece of evidence that exists, with the second piece being the related Nov 1910 Pugh and Hubbard Land Survey map."


Mike Cirba:

I don't think so. I think the most valuable piece of information that surfaced AFTER Moriarty's essay was that so-called "Wilson Report" that was submitted to the MCC board meeting of April 19, 1911 that explained what the Wilson Committee had actually done in the winter and early spring of 1911. Frankly that entire April 19, 1911 board meeting and its board meeting minutes were the most valuable piece of evidence that exists now to completely, factually and successfully refute Moriarty's essay and all its major premises and conclusiions. The fact is undeniable that he not only did not have that material and that information when he researched and wrote his essay and put it on here, he was not even remotely aware of any of it. Even HE cannot deny that and probably wouldn't-----but knowing Moriarty and MacWood as we do, it's hard to say WHAT they might try to deny, at this point!

And of course the additional point to that is that he did not find that material ultimately-----the hitorians of Merion did!

I think Peter Pallortta's good point in his post above should ALSO be brought forward in that last vein!

Of course we did not see Moriarty or MacWood even respond to that point of PeterP's. The reason is obvious! 

[Tom MacWood]

However, Sully, if what you're suggesting is going to happen and be done, I do not think it should be done on this particular thread which is obviously a re-run from 2009 that Tom MacWood brought back up recently to either make some point that is not well understood (such as how Tolhurst was wrong) or probably to divert attention from Moriarty's essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" (with which MacWood had a contrubuting and pre-submisson part) and what is wrong about it.

Although I'd like to take greater credit in reality I had very little to do with the essay. My contribution was some background information on HH Barker.

The only reason this thread was brought back was due TEP's statement about the Tolhurst's history. Tolhurst's was largely heisted (and not accurately) from Heilman's history, which was far superior. Tolhurst's history is a joke IMO. And neither history covers the creation of Merion as well as Moriarty's. His is a completely new take on what actually happened. It is amazing how a breakthrough essay like his has been treated by an outspoken few.

[TEPaul]

"The fact that he didn't gain his knowledge of the holes abroad prior to the intial design of Merion East doesn't preclude him (and his committee) from having done it, but I can certainly see why David would have thought this error was/is a major issue."


Sully:

So can I see why David Moriaty would have thought that error (the 1910 trip abroad) was/is a major issue in the history of Merion East if he did not have the additional information that was supplied to him later (see the following) but you would admit, wouldn't you, that when Moriarty researched and wrote his essay he had no idea of the existence of that so-called "Wilson Report" to the MCC board of April 19, 1911 or even any idea of the meeting miinutes of that MCC board meeting and the one that followed it in May, 1911 and WHAT they both said about what the Wilson Committee did in the winter and spring of 1911 and the actions the board took in April and May 1911 as a consequence of it?

[Mike Cirba]

On point #2, I'll let David answer because you guys know my thoughts on this...I just can't see them buying that triangle without thinking they were going to put some golf up there...even though they had to later change the lines somewhat...

Jim,

I agree...they bought the land up there for golf, but they didn't obtain it in a separate purchase or swap.   The Johnson Farm boundary that Lloyd already controlled extended all the way up beyond that Haverford College Boundary, and it was if memory serves about 105 yards wide by 265 yards long as indicated on that November 15, 1910 Land Plan, which is certainly large enough for some golf.

Recall that the curving road drawn on that map and it's sister curving road inside HDC Land were not built yet, and were simply a theoretical boundary on the only variable boundary on the property; the northwest border of the Johnson Farm adjoining other HDC holdings.

Still and all, I think they probably established some working boundaries along that line, probably just in the form of stakes, to indicate some 117 acres they had secured.   The problem is that they ended up needing 120, and I believe the reason for this was simply that they didn't at first realize how big an obstacle the quarry was going to be, and that they needed to create an alternate fairway around it, throwing off all their assumptions as far as necessary width for golf holes.

I'm speculating of course, but it seems to make sense.   Because of the quarry, the 15th hole got pushed well out beyond what they originally figured, and even the original location of the 15th tee was close to the road, just past the left side of the 14th green.   They needed to do that to accommodate the fact that the lengthy carry across the quarry on what had to be a daunting hickory-shafted hole of 430 yards was prohibitive to most members, and required the alternate.  

By way of comparison, the 4th hole at Cobb's Creek back then was a full carry 150 yards.   That used to be such a ball-buster of a carry for most golfers that play would back up there, sometimes for hours.   In the 1920's they even considered proposing new rules, such as if you didn't make the carry you'd just drop on the other side, and another suggestion was to skip the hole entirely!

I think that pushing out of the 15th at Merion much further left than they originally thought they needed meant that they had to get about 20-30 yards wider at the bottom of the triangle, so that they could also fit the 16th tee up there comfortably.  

Of course, I think they then simply worked "puts and gets" along the length of the original proposed boundary to push other things (like the 14th green) where they wanted, but at the end of the day ended up needing three more acres than they originally secured, along with the 3 acres of rented property for the 12th green/13th hole.


Tom Paul,

I would agree that the MCC Minutes as the primary source are the most valuable piece of information to date, but since we are only trying to discuss things in the public domain at present, as relates to David's essay points...

[JESII]

Tom,

I don't want to be in the position of answering for David because I disagree with most of his thesis, but in that section of time - March - April 1911 CB Macdonald was more involved than at any other time in the devlopement of Merion East.

Think about that.

I don't remember the specifics of the May board meeting, maybe you can remind me, but CBM was doing some level of teaching and advising in March and April.

[TEPaul]

"Although I'd like to take greater credit in reality I had very little to do with the essay. My contribution was some background information on HH Barker."


Tom MacWood:

Thanks for that information. It's appreciated and I suspect it is appreciated as much by Moriarty as it is by Merion and the rest of us here in Philadelphia who have a good understanding of the history of Merion.

The fact is that your contention (actually in the threads following the putting on this website of Moriarty's essay) that HH Barker probably routing Merion East was a far larger joke and laughing point than even Moriarty's essay that tried to make the point that Wilson and his committee could not have routed and designed Merion East but could only have been the constructors of it to someone else's plan (Moriarty's contention apparenty being Macdonald and Whigam) and yours apparently being HH. Barker.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
What is your thesis?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I don't want to be in the position of answering for David because I disagree with most of his thesis, but in that section of time - March - April 1911 CB Macdonald was more involved than at any other time in the devlopement of Merion East.

Think about that.

I don't remember the specifics of the May board meeting, maybe you can remind me, but CBM was doing some level of teaching and advising in March and April.

Jim,

Again, I agree.

In fact, it was more than that.

CB Mac was helping them to understand the type of holes to design that were consistent with the principles of the ideal holes abroad, as well as helping them to select their best routing of the "many" they started with, and the five they reconfigured after returning from NGLA.

This all happened in 1911, which is why I'm pushing to get the discussion to that point.  

Anything in 1910 was simply land acquisitions and PR posturing between Lloyd and HDC, along with getting expert advice that the land in question was acceptable for yielding a "first-class" golf course.

[TEPaul]

"I don't remember the specifics of the May board meeting, maybe you can remind me, but CBM was doing some level of teaching and advising in March and April."


Sully:

He was indeed (for 1 1/2 to 2 days in early March 1911 at NGLA and in one day on April 6, 1911 at Ardmore), even though what he told the Wilson Committee and or taught them (at NGLA or Ardmore) wasn't all that much like Moriarty claimed it was before he realized that the so-called "Wilson Committee Report" and that April 19, 1911 (and the May board meeting) actually EXISTED and WHAT it SAID!  

And I suppose it is REDUNDANT and irrelevant to remind you, AGAIN, at this point, that neither Moriarty nor MacWood found that Wilson Report and those particular board meeting minutes----the Merion historians FOUND them!

[JESII]

Jim
What is your thesis?

That CBM pointed a general direction around the proposed (and potential) property in June 1910 and the committee worked, on drawings and in the field, to come up with a final routing.

CBM's ideal hole lengths fit unbelievably well to Merion's product.

Once they formally acquired the property they were ready to begin work, including formation of the construction committee (which I believe were working informally for months).

I think they went to CBM with several variations on a constant theme...the same tract around the property, but different hole lengths.

In no scenario do I think they had done what is currently called "designing up"...with bunkers and other features/hazards by November 1910, and probably only a little of it by March 1911.

[TEPaul]

"That CBM pointed a general direction around the proposed (and potential) property in June 1910 and the committee worked, on drawings and in the field, to come up with a final routing."

Sully:

If that is your thesis, then perhaps I should ask you now what is it that leads you to believe that Macdonald/Whigam pointed Wilson or his future committee or Lloyd or anyone else involved with Merion in 1910 in any particular DIRECTION (to do a routing). WHAT possible FACT or even shred of a fact or evidence do you have to suggest such a thing, and particularly from Macdonald's letter to the MCC Search Committee that suggests he (or Whigam) did anything like that? I would remind you that Macdonald's letter is the only existing piece of factual evidence from anyone that suggests that Macdonald/Whigam had anything to do with Merion at Ardmore in 1910.

Perhaps Macdonald's actual letter should be put back on here so you could consider more carefully what it actually says. Perhaps you've forgotten what it actually says. And perhaps I should remind you AGAIN, that when Moriarty wrote his essay he had NO IDEA what the actual Macdonald letter said. All Moriarty had at that time was a July 1, 1910 MCC Search Comimittee report to the MCC board about Macdonald's visit and letter and what it said (he got that from his discovery at the Pennsylvania Historical Society of the so-called "Sayer's Report").

The actual letter from Macdonald to the MCC Search Committee was found by the historians of Merion Golf Club at Merion Cricket Club!  

Wayne Morrison put that Macdonald letter on this website. In retrospect, THAT may've been a mistake given the MO of Moriarty and MacWood on this website and particularly on the subject of Merion and Philadelphia!  

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I agree with quite a bit of your theory, but I'm not even sure the land M&W viewed in June 1910 was the same land they purchased.

For instance, the Dallas Estate was not under HDC control for another six months, and they also were probably considering Johnson Farm land well west of today's course as part of the parcel under consideration.

Frankly, from the tone of Mac's July 1910 letter, I think he could have cared less where they put the holes, do you?   And the fact that HH Barker came up with a routing on about 100 acres in the same time frame (if my failing memory serves) leads me to think the exact land they all considered isn't the same as what they came up with at the end of April 1911.

I think they went up to NGLA in March 1911, mostly to listen, because it seems at that point they had tried "many" layouts, none of which they felt comfortable with, and CBM showed them the ideal holes abroad as well as what he had done with NGLA, and I'm betting they got some better insight and they cajoled him to come back down and look at their revised plans, which he did on April 6th, 1911, and helped them select the best one.

The fact that he said the final seven holes would be as good as any "inland" course he'd ever seen was somewhat faint praise, and certainly he didn't see it in the same light as his NGLA, but probably felt satisfied and even validated that at least they were trying to follow his espoused "principles".

Let's not forget, however, that CBM would have viewed any inland course as inherently inferior to any seaside one, and that he searched long and far up and down the east coast before coming across his land for NGLA, which he thought comparable in many respects to the links land he loved.

[DMoriarty]

Jim
What is your thesis?

That CBM pointed a general direction around the proposed (and potential) property in June 1910 and the committee worked, on drawings and in the field, to come up with a final routing.

CBM's ideal hole lengths fit unbelievably well to Merion's product.

Once they formally acquired the property they were ready to begin work, including formation of the construction committee (which I believe were working informally for months).

I think they went to CBM with several variations on a constant theme...the same tract around the property, but different hole lengths.

In no scenario do I think they had done what is currently called "designing up"...with bunkers and other features/hazards by November 1910, and probably only a little of it by March 1911.

If that is your thesis then we are a lot closer than you think. 

[TEPaul]

"If that is your thesis then we are a lot closer than you think."


To me that sounds like a break-through, perhaps even the beginning of a discussion or whatever of Moriarty and MacWood's suppositions on the history of Merion.

But don't forget, Sully, you want to have a discussion on Merion with those two on your own and for your own reasons (at least that is what I thing I understood from our last phone conversation). If it works out somehow to your satisfaction the next question is will they be able to have the same kind of conversation someday and somehow with the people who matter most and that would be the people of Merion AND their friends?!?  

[TEPaul]

Moriarty:

How about it? Do you really want to talk about all those emails to MCC and Merion Golf Club from you and MacWood and whether you want to find out what my relationship is with either club and if they could or should be put on here?

Do you really want to know what it is that goes on here on the Main Line that you questioned in a post today as some kind "Main Line Way?"

Go for it, Moriarty, if you have the guts! 

[DMoriarty]

Moriarty:

How about it? Do you really want to talk about all those emails to MCC and Merion Golf Club from you and MacWood and whether you want to find out what my relationship is with either club and if they could or should be put on here?

Do you really want to know what it is that goes on here on the Main Line that you questioned in a post today as some kind "Main Line Way?"

Go for it, Moriarty, if you have the guts! 

What motivates someone to go online 1 a.m. and try and pick a fight?   The same thing that motivates someone to try and pick a fight in bar parking lot at 1 a.m?  That's my guess anyway.

As I recall, you are not a member of Merion, are you Tom?   Because your attempts to speak for Merion have got to be incredibly embarrassing to Merion. 

Why don't you speak for yourself, and let Merion speak for Merion? 

[TEPaul]

Moriarty:

With your last post why don't you just take me up on my suggestion to go with your threat,---and email, call or whatver, and get in touch with Merion and ask them anything you like about the way they are or they way they think or the way they deal with serious reseachers?

And while you're at it, why don't you ask them how they deal with their friends or even how they deal with ME?

Go ahead, Moriarty, email any of them about any of this and then get back to us on here. If you don't, I will.

Maybe one of these days you will begin to understand and appreciate what friends are all about!

CHRIST, to you and MacWood----since neither of you seem to understand or appreciate that concept, you probably think friends like Merion and me is some kind of a conspiracy!!!  

SO, what is it Moriarty? You aren't going to answer the questions of the likes of Cirba and Sullivan on here, are you?

And you aren't going to follow up on your threat on a post here today to email Merion about me or whatever are you, you little gutless, deceptive twerp?

You want to accuse me of lying on here and of being a liar as you have on this thread? Well, then, come on---show us all you aren't the gutless little twerp I think you are and email Merion what you said you would. And then, if you get lucky, why don't you tell us all what they said to and about you hopefully before I do! 

[DMoriarty]

Moriarty:

With your last post why don't you just take me up on my suggestion to go with your threat,---and email, call or whatver, and get in touch with Merion and ask them anything you like about the way they are or they way they think or the way they deal with serious reseachers?

And while you're at it, why don't you ask them how they deal with their friends or even how they deal with ME?

Go ahead, Moriarty, email any of them about any of this and then get back to us on here. If you don't, I will.

Maybe one of these days you will begin to understand and appreciate what friends are all about!

CHRIST, to you and MacWood----since neither of you seem to understand or appreciate that concept, you probably think friends like Merion and me is some kind of a conspiracy!!! 

I don't care who you know there, you are no friend of the Merion Golf Club.   Otherwise you wouldn't be embarrassing them by pretending to speak for them.   

[TEPaul]

"I don't care who you know there, you are no friend of the Merion Golf Club.   Otherwise you wouldn't be embarrassing them by pretending to speak for them."


Moriarty, I think it might be a whole lot more appropriate for Merion to tell you who's a friend of theirs rather than for some no-count piece of crap like you who they laugh at, to try tell them who embarrasses them.  

Are you going to write them the emails you threatened to on here or are you going to not dare to do that because you are the gutless nonentity you've shown yourself to be on here and you now know it, and you know we all know it?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()