[DMoriarty]

 
-  According to Alan Wilson, at the NGLA meetings CBM and Whigham were advising them and making suggestions "as to the layout of Merion East".  

Tom,

Is ths statement accurate?

Jim,  I hope you noticed that you never got a straight answer to a very straight forward question.  They can't answer because to answer would be admitting that there is much more than "a shred of evidence"  that Wilson and Co. went to NGLA to work on Merion East's layout plan with Macdonald and Whigham.

Of course it is an accurate statement:

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

But I really am enjoying watching the song and dance.  Imagine TEPaul arguing that Alan Wilson didn't know what he was talking about!  And apparently Mike seems to think that if a dog goes in the house and eats, then he must have eaten outside, and there is not a shred of evidence otherwise.    

_________________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

I am serious.   Set the record straight.   As you know, there are plenty of facts which support my claim that Wilson and Co. went to NGLA to work on the layout plan for Merion East.   Contrary to you bombastic assertion, I made up nothing and misrepresented nothing.   Your sleazy accusation is patently and provably false. You need to make amends and set the record straight.  

You also need to check the dates in your latest post for errors.  
_________________________________________________

Patrick,

I wouldn't waste your time going back through the threads.   These guys circle back around to everything again and again anyways so whatever they said will soon float to the top like . . . well you know.   And I can't remember the last time they came up with anything new that could actually be verified.  

Plus, there is plenty about these guys that you won't find in the threads.   But rather than me posting information and again being called a liar, why don't you have TEPaul fill us in on who they were?

[Tom MacWood]

Thank God none of our earliest courses were designed and developed by "expert" amateur golfers like Leeds, Travis, Fownes, Emmet, Tillinghast, Egan, Wilson, Crump, Whigham, Windeler, Smith, and/or Macdonald, particularly when they all had the compelling alternative of hiring an itinerant pro golfer to lay out 18 stakes in an afternoon for 25 bucks.  

Mike
Do you honestly believe Wilson's golfing record is comparable to these fellows? Travis, Fownes, Whigham, Egan, and Macdonald not only competed in the US  Am, they won it. Tillinghast, Crump and Smith were Lelsey Cup regulars from the very beginning. Leeds, Travis, Fownes, Emmet, Whigham, Windeler, Smith & Macdonald began their design adventures in the 1890s and/or early 1900s, which was a completely different architectural environment than 1910. Tillinghast's first design project was with someone who had designed and built at least three golf courses prior. Crump hired Colt, arguable the top architect in the world, to design his golf course. Egan's first design experience was assisting Tom Bendelow (by the way Egan's father was a nationally known horticulturist for whatever thats worth).

Apples and oranges, but I commend you on a good effort to elevate your man. Why would Merion select an unproven, inexperience insurance salesman to design their golf course when they had arguably the two top men in the country at their disposal?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Do you really need to go back to grammar school to understand that compound sentences are not co-dependent?  C'mon..

Now, if Wilson had said, "...as our guests WHERE their advices and suggestions..", then that's a horse of a different color.

You are also conveniently neglecting the adjining sentence where he specifically refers to where those good advice and suggestions took place;  when he came down to Merion in april 1911 and advised "as to OUR plans."

Now, do I think that they actually spent time on the layout when visiting NGLA?  I think they probably showed CBM some of what they'd come up with to date, and probably that led to asking him to come down later in the spring to look at things again before going to construction...that would make sense to me.

But, to suggest there is proof or solid evidence that they spent two days at NGLA working on the routing of Merion is completely contrary to what both Hugh Wilson and the MCC minutes tell us they spent their time doing and there is not a shred of evidence indicating otherwise.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

Nice try, but I won't let you get away with the reference "Tillinghast's first design project was with someone who had designed and built at least three golf courses prior..." You demand accuracy from Mike Cirba and that statement ascribing Shawnee as a JOINT project simply is NOT TRUE. Apply accuracy to yourself.

Check your email if you haven't...

[Dan Herrmann]

Mike - I went to Catholic school - should we diagram the sentences for everybody?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

This still going?

TMac,

You keep asking why MCC chose Wilson over some of the best amateurs of the day, when the question has been answered by the historical record.

They picked the best golfers at their own club.  These guys had good playing records, even if not nationally recognized ones to the degrees others had.  But once they decided to do it themselves, the picked THEIR best, and supplemented it with assistance from CBM to whatever degree anyone wants to believe (which differs here, of course)

To keep implying they would have done something else other than what the record shows demonstrates that you are not looking at history, you are looking at your own personal agenda, at least IMHO.  I mean really, can you point to some record or fact that suggests that MCC considered hiring Barker or any other gca before you waste bandwidth with that contention any more, just because YOU think they should have?  Thanks in advance.

[TEPaul]

"Jim,  I hope you noticed that you never got a straight answer to a very straight forward question.  They can't answer because to answer would be admitting that there is much more than "a shred of evidence"  that Wilson and Co. went to NGLA to work on Merion East's layout plan with Macdonald and Whigham.

Of course it is an accurate statement:

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

But I really am enjoying watching the song and dance.  Imagine TEPaul arguing that Alan Wilson didn't know what he was talking about!  And apparently Mike seems to think that if a dog goes in the house and eats, then he must have eaten outside, and there is not a shred of evidence otherwise."




Sully:

I have no reason at all to doubt Alan Wilson or his statement; ie "They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value."   

I merely noted above that Alan Wilson wrote that fifteen years after the March 1911 NGLA meeting and that Alan Wilson was not on the committee of his brother Hugh.

When these Merion threads about Moriarty’s essay began on this website, I felt and stated that in my opinion Alan Wilson’s report to Philler in 1926 was perhaps one of the very best sources of information about the designs of the East and West courses and who was responsible for those designs and architecture. I still very much believe that. I say that because Alan Wilson mentioned very clearly who was in the main responsible for the architecture of both courses and he even said that when he asked them every other member of Wilson’s committee back then confirmed that fact!

However, as to what exactly was done or discussed at NGLA, when I wrote what I mentioned above back in those threads on Merion in the back pages I was not aware at that time of what we now call The Wilson Committee Report to the MCC Board Meeting of April 19, 1911 that discusses in some detail what the Wilson Committee did in the winter and spring of 1911, and very much including in some detail what they did at the March 1911 visit to NGLA. I was not aware either at that time of the meeting minutes of that April 19, 1911 board meeting that discussed and voted on a land swap and an additional purchase of three acres, and I was not aware at that time of the actual date and particulars of Macdonald and Whigam’s return to Ardmore and the description in the April 1911 Wilson Report about what they did there that day in Ardmore (April 6, 1911).

But now I am aware of it all, and have been for over a year and a half because after Moriarty’s essay came out,  Wayne Morrison went to MCC (a few month later) and found all that old MCC administrative material that reflected in detail from the Wilson Committee itself what they did while at NGLA, and there is just no mention at all in any of it that they discussed the layout or plans for Merion East while at NGLA or that they brought their contour survey maps with thme that they had been working on previous to the March 1911 NGLA meeting with Macdonald and Whigam to NGLA.

I’m not saying they didn’t do that or that I know they didn’t do that; I am only saying that they did not mention that or record it in their report which seems pretty odd to me if that in fact is what they went to NGLA for and did while they were there!  But they did mention what they did do during that two day visit to NGLA----eg go over Macdonald’s plans for NGLA from abroad, that they went over the course itself (NGLA) the next day and in another correspondence (March 13, 1911 from Wilson to Oakley) that they discussed the subject of agronomy with Macdonald while there.

And I should add, when Moriarty wrote his essay he had no idea at all that the Wilson Committee Report to the MCC board meeting of April 19, 1911 or the board meeting minutes or any of the other supporting documentation of MCC from that time, including the actual letter from Macdonald to Lloyd in 1910 even existed and was reposited at Merion Cricket Club, and much less what any of it actually said!! And I note that report from the Wilson Committee itself was written and submitted to the MCC Board no more than five weeks after the visit to NGLA while Alan Wilson's report to Philler that only refers to that NGLA meeting was written fifteen years after the NGLA visit, and again that Hugh's brother Alan was never on that committee.

And frankly, when one reads what Alan Wilson said (quoted above) I'm not sure one should conclude that he was even referring to the NGLA visit when he mentioned they all discussed Merion East's plans. He may've been referring to that one day visit (April 6, 1911, about a month after the NGLA visit) when the Wilson Report (which again Moriarty never knew existed when he wrote his essay) to the April 19, 1911 MCC Board meeting specifically says they did discuss the Wilson Committee's five different plans for Merion East that THEY (the Wilson Committee of which clearly neither Macdonald nor Whigam were a part of)  had rearranged following the NGLA meeting, went over the ground and that Macdonald said if they approved the plan he and Whigam selected ('approved') that it would contain the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world.

If that doesn’t tell you something about the skewed and illogical statements Moriarty continues to make on this website and on this thread then I just can’t imagine what would. Actually, it may be appropriate, at this point over two years later, to just quote from Moriarty's actual essay on here on this specific issue and I very much doubt even the most casual observer of this subject could not help but recognize just how screwed up and fallacious his logic, reasoning and presentation of this subject really is, but in fairness to him obviously when he wrote it he had very much less material evidence to go on than we and Merion does now!

And again, if he cares to see it and review it he should make the appropriate arrangements with Merion as those who have access to it have always done on the past.

 

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

To what record are you referring?  

The Merion record shows that, when it came to figuring out whether they the land they were considering would produce a first class course, Merion turned to Macdonald and Whigham.

And when it came to planning the layout, the Merion record shows that Merion's Committee traveled to NGLA so that Macdonald and Whigham could explain to them how the course should be laid out on Merion's land.  

And when it came to finalizing the layout plan a few weeks after the NGLA trip, the Merion record shows that Merion again brought in Macdonald and Whigham to again go over the land, and that Macdonald and Whigham determined the final layout plan.

And when it came getting the Merion Board's final approval so they could begin construction, the Merion record shows that the final layout plan was presented to the Board as the plan chosen and approved by Macdonald and Whigham, and Hugh Wilson was not even mentioned.

Throughout the process, the Merion record shows that Hugh Wilson and Merion realized the great value of C.B. Macdonald's advice and they sought it out and followed it at every turn, from choosing the land to finalizing the routing.

So far as I know, that is what the Merion record shows.  

The only ones actually ignoring the record are those who still argue that these clubmen from Merion planned the layout without turning to CBM and Whigham at every turn!

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I don't disagree. Never have. Other than some inflection and nuance, I don't think the Philly boys really do either.  The record says what the record says, but it simply doesn't say every little detail of what was discussed.  But since you guys all like to argue, the debate continues over details we can never know and its a matter of interpretation.

But, the record shows they turned to their own in house committee, with advice and assistance of CBM.  While I think its ludicrous for TePaul to suggest they didn't talk about the Merion design, and we know that they wanted CBM's blessing on the final routing, I don't think your interpretation is 100% correct either.  For example, Francis tells us he provided routing ideas in the middle of the nigh, so we know the committee was at work without CBM at many points.  We also know that CBM picked among five routings, but didn't prepare them.

So, the MCC record is accurate - the committee did most of the work, but CBM advised and assisted in a substantial way.  Personally, I don't see the need to argue any more than that.  Again, you and TePaul, et al are arguing nuance about just how much credit CBM should get.  I know you are saying you just want to flesh out the truth, but if that were the case, you would be out looking for new documents, rather than repetitively posting the ones we already have to bash the rest of us over the head.  (you are not the only one!)

My point to TMac was that he keeps insisting they didn't select a committee first, because he doesn't think its logical that they wouldn't turn to a pro gca.  He keeps saying they ignored the best options, when the record says they didn't, by using CBM for a few solid days of advice.

[JESII]

Tom,

Your second sentence there is clearly intended to create doubt as to Allan Wilson's words because they were written 15 years later...

Throughout the Francis Swap debate you and Mike made it clear that you thought everything regarding Merions golf course planning happened in the late winter and spring of 1911 yet cling to the notion that their Committee visit to Southampton wouldn't have been architecture driven...I'm confused...why would these guys not bring all of their information and ask for all the help they could?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Your second sentence there is clearly intended to create doubt as to Allan Wilson's words because they were written 15 years later..."


Sully:

That Alan Wilson wrote that report to Philler fifteen years after the NGLA meeting is simply a fact, and his words in that report are a fact. I am not intending to create any doubt as to Alan Wilson's words, although I certainly do have some doubt as to your interpretation and apparently the interpretation of another on here as to what Alan Wilson's words actually mean or what Wilson said or meant to say with his words in that statement.

There's a big difference and I hope you recognize it. I hope you are not suggesting that your interpretation of what he meant is the only interpretation there can be given all the rest of the information on that NGLA meeting we now have. If that's what you're suggesting then I'm afraid you have become something like David Moriarty, and THAT is definitely not a good thing to be, Sully---at least not if you want to be a credible or even a passable GCA analyst and historian about the architectural history of a very important golf course and its primay architect at that time---Hugh I. Wilson.

And I also note as a fact that Moriarty's interpretation of the architectural history of Merion East of this time (1910-11) and its primary architect, has been discredited and found to be in the main both fallacious and incorrect on numerous points and issues in the opinions of just about everyone I'm aware of and that most certainly includes Merion GC and those from it responsible for its administration and the presentation of its history.

I say that and I mean it as my opinion, as I recognize after all this time on this website over this particular issue and subject (arguably about seven and a half years now), that there probably always will continue to be different interpretations of Merion's architectural history and its architect of this time.

However, I can see now, as I have been so involved in all this for so long, who it is who subscribes to various interpretations of that history and the details contained in it, and I can also say with what I believe to be assurance what Merion's interpretation IS of this time in Merion East's architectural history and the details of it and its architect----eg Hugh I. Wilson.

The LATTER is the interpretation and the presentation of Merion East's architectural history of this time and the details of it as well as its primary architect that I am interested in and always have been.  

[JESII]

Tom,

I think Allan Wilson was saying that the design of Merion East was a topic while the committee was in Southampton (not the only topic, but one of them).

You and Mike seem to be saying it was not simply because it was not spelled out in full detail.

It's incredibe to believe this entire committee, appointed to build Merion East, would go to the home of the guy they had previously brought in to approve the land they then bought, and later brought back in to select and approve a final routing and layout, during the very tight time frame they were doing all this work, and not talk significantly about the actual design.

What had CBM proven to know about grass at this point anyway?


I have huge disagreements with David about his theory, but certain things are beyond my comprehension on your side...

[TEPaul]

"Throughout the Francis Swap debate you and Mike made it clear that you thought everything regarding Merions golf course planning happened in the late winter and spring of 1911 yet cling to the notion that their Committee visit to Southampton wouldn't have been architecture driven...I'm confused...why would these guys not bring all of their information and ask for all the help they could?"


Sully:

I definitely never said the visit to NGLA had nothing to do with architecture (even if we certainly have found out with facts that it also had to do with agronomy).

But if you really do want my answer regarding why I think they did not mention that they brought plans for Merion East to NGLA I would be more than happy to give it to you?

Do you want my answer regarding why I think that? And if I give it to you and you don't agree can we just leave it at that?

[JESII]

Sure.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

You "don't disagree?"   Aren't you the one always harping on me about double negatives?    Do you mean you agree?  

As for your representation of what you think I have wrong, I do disagree.    I've always maintained that Francis was involved, and explicitly highlight his involvement and Lloyd's in my essay.   And of course Merion was involved when CBM wasn't around.  They laid the course out on the ground and built it, for goodness sakes.   But for these guys to continue to pretend that CBM didn't play a substantial role in the planning of the course is preposterous.  And you know it.  

[TEPaul]

"It's incredibe to believe this entire committee, appointed to build Merion East, would go to the home of the guy they had previously brought in to approve the land they then bought, and later brought back in to select and approve a final routing and layout, during the very tight time frame they were doing all this work, and not talk significantly about the actual design."


Sully:

I realize you think that's incredible to believe but I just do not share your opinion that it's incredible to believe that.

I think the history and the story of this time is basically just as simple and straight-forward as it has always been and been presented by Merion---eg MCC asked Macdonald and Whigam for their opinion of land they intended to buy and CBM and Whigam gave them their opinion which included the fact they felt the land had some good features that THEY (MCC) could use to create 18 classical holes and that they could tell them no more about it without a contour map. And they discussed in detail the subject of agronomy on that particular site. That was it!

About ten months later the only other thing that can be documented is that they went to visit CBM and Whigam at NGLA and they reported they were given an education in architecture via drawings and such of famous holes abroad that CBM brought back for NGLA, and then they studied NGLA itself. They also discussed agronomy during that visit.

About a month later the only other thing that can be documented is CBM and Whigam returned to Ardmore for one day and went over five plans THEY (the Wilson Committee) had rearranged and they selected one. That was it.

I think MCC asked for CBM's and Whigam's advice and help JUST for what is reflected above and that was it. They recorded it and that became a part of their history.

I do not see one single solitary piece of evidence from that time that they EVER actually ASKED Macdonald and Whigam to take the time to actually route and design Merion East, even though we surely do know that they eventually asked them both to review and comment on what THEY (the Wilson Committee of which CBM and Whigam were not a part) had done (April 6, 1911) and they reported to the board that CBM and Whigam had done that.

I think that was the extent of it and for that help and advice MCC thanked CBM and Whigam rather profusely (Lloyd offered a resolution to the board in 1910 thanking them for their day and Macdonald's letter).

I firmly believe that is what happened because if MCC actually HAD asked Macdonald and Whigam to route and design Merion East for them  and if they had done that I have absolutely NO DOUBT whatsoever, that men of the ilk who ran MCC back then would most certainly have recorded that and publicized it and that for all time to come it would have been considered and know that Macdonald and Whigam were the architects of record of Merion East!!!

But they never did record or say that. And now, we have two guys on here who are suggesting that what Merion did record and present was all some concerted act of fiction and fantasy, some concerted conspiracy actually amongst numerous people from MCC, to promote someone who was only involved in the building of the course and not the routing and design of its architecture.

THAT to me, Sully, is not just maddness it is actually funny! I have not the slightest inclination whatsoever that men like that would ever even contemplate doing such a thing much less actually try to do it.

THAT is really what all this endless garbage with MacWood and Moriarty is all about, and you, like everyone else on here, should just get back to that simple fact and recognize it!

Merion certainly does!

[JESII]

Tom,

I have never argued that Merion asked CBM to route or design Merion East. Can you acknowledge that? Why do you keep responding to me with that argument?

[Tom MacWood]

This still going?

TMac,

You keep asking why MCC chose Wilson over some of the best amateurs of the day, when the question has been answered by the historical record.

That is not what I said. I asked why they would chose an inexperienced untested insurance salesman over the two experts they had already engaged....it makes absolutely no sense.

What historical record are you referring to?

They weren't even amongst the best players in their city much less the nation. And speaking of the historical record there is no dispute Barker & CBM were both engaged...so I don't know what you are talking about. You can argue Haverford Development Co was not MCC, but for all practical purposes they were controlled by the same people, namely Lesley & Co.

[JESII]

Lesley controlled HDC?

[Tom MacWood]

David,

I don't disagree. Never have. Other than some inflection and nuance, I don't think the Philly boys really do either.  The record says what the record says, but it simply doesn't say every little detail of what was discussed.  But since you guys all like to argue, the debate continues over details we can never know and its a matter of interpretation.

But, the record shows they turned to their own in house committee, with advice and assistance of CBM.  While I think its ludicrous for TePaul to suggest they didn't talk about the Merion design, and we know that they wanted CBM's blessing on the final routing, I don't think your interpretation is 100% correct either.  For example, Francis tells us he provided routing ideas in the middle of the nigh, so we know the committee was at work without CBM at many points.  We also know that CBM picked among five routings, but didn't prepare them.

So, the MCC record is accurate - the committee did most of the work, but CBM advised and assisted in a substantial way.  Personally, I don't see the need to argue any more than that.  Again, you and TePaul, et al are arguing nuance about just how much credit CBM should get.  I know you are saying you just want to flesh out the truth, but if that were the case, you would be out looking for new documents, rather than repetitively posting the ones we already have to bash the rest of us over the head.  (you are not the only one!)

My point to TMac was that he keeps insisting they didn't select a committee first, because he doesn't think its logical that they wouldn't turn to a pro gca.  He keeps saying they ignored the best options, when the record says they didn't, by using CBM for a few solid days of advice.

The green committee, aka the construction committee, had nothing to do with layout of the course based on everything I've seen, including Hugh Wilson's own account and his numerous letters. Based on that info clearly the committee's role was construction and maintenance, which is not surprising, after all they were the green committee.  

As far as actual design activity is concerned, based on contemporaneous sources, we know Barker produced a routing; we know CBM requested a topo map; we know the course as built contained a number of CBM pet holes and features. Thats about all we know at this point.

[Tom MacWood]

Lesley controlled HDC?

I don't think there is any doubt Lloyd was the most influential person in that group (Lloyd & Co), and arguably the most influential person at Merion too.

[JESII]

Lesley controlled HDC?

I don't think there is any doubt Lesley was the most influential person in that group (Lesley & Co), and probably the most influential person at Merion too, not to mention the most influential person in Philadelphia golf on top of that.

Oh. Interesting. Are you thinking of Lesley or Lloyd?

[JESII]

Assuming it's Lloyd you're thinking of, why would it be made clear in their writing (remember, not much is crystal clear) that Connell brought in Barker? Were they lying to the membership?

[Tom MacWood]

Lloyd. I don't understand your question.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
The July report to the members said that Connell engaged Barker and Griscom engaged CBM. The July report to the members said that CBM sent his letter to an unnamed member of the committee - we now know that letter was addressed to Lloyd. You can speculate as to why his name was left off the report. Barker addressed his letter to Connell. From all the information I've been able to gather Connell did not even play the game. IMO it unlikely he initiated that contact on his own. And two later Philadelphia newspaper reports from November, announcing the project, would seem to confirm that. Both newspaper reports claimed CBM and Barker were engaged by Lloyd.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()