[Tom MacWood]

Olivia Newton John?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

You'll respond to "Olivia Newton-John" but you won't be a man of your own words?

[Mike Cirba]

About the dinner....the East course opened in the fall of 1912.   





About Merion and their attitude towards professionals;

[DMoriarty]

Dan Herrmann,

Did you not understand my questions?  Here they are again . . .   What is your purpose here?  What are you trying to accomplish?

You must have missed where I explained that I have no interest in your opinion of me or advice to me.   Your post confirms that you deserve neither my interest nor my respect.  For you to imply that your Philly friends have behaved as gentlemen and that they have merely been defending themselves is beyond the pale and doesn't deserve a response beyond this.

Come to think of it, don't bother answering the questions.  I could not care less.

[Mike Cirba]

If indeed "laying out" meant putting stakes in the ground to a routing plan created by someone else, how could one possibly spend long, painstaking hours in the process, for what seems like months on end?   With a surveyor like Francis, wouldn't this be something that could be done in an afternoon or two?

Further, why would Wilson need to "study" anything to accomplish this task?   Wouldn't he just put the sticks in the ground where he was told??

Further, what in the heck would be so special about the process that it would be singled out as a separate process as in "laying out and constructing", which is what everyone at the time said Hugh Wilson's committee did??

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
I wonder if Sayers was aware the course had already been staked out prior to the construction committee being formed. I also wonder what is definition of laid out would be.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the second excerpt. Wasn't Merion's first course designed by a professional?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Please provide at least a modicum of evidence that the course was staked out prior to the Construction Committee being formed.

Who staked it out and when?

[Tom MacWood]

Read Wilson's letters to P&O. It is obvious there was a golf course on the ground when Wilson first became involved...obviously a staked out golf course at that point. The most likely candidate is Barker, and it was probably done in November or December 1910.

What was your purpose in posting the second excerpt, wasn't Merion's first course laid out by a professional? Wasn't Flynn a professional?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

You are so good at DEMANDING that someone answer your questions, yet you continuously ignore and avoid those asked of you!

Once again, What are YOU DOING on this thread when YOU make statements such as your earlier one where you DEFINITIVELY stated that during his three week trip in December 1910 HH Barker during which time he spent a week in Atlanta playing golf he managed to also STAKE OUT, and please notice I am QUOTING YOU, "East Lake, Grove Park, Brookhaven, Druid Hills, and Merion"

I've asked you several times now for the proof that he staked out Merion during that time and you present NOTHING! That's a hell of a definitive claim you made yet you REFUSE to present any evidence. Why is that? Because there is none?

Now, on another thread, when someone made a statement of fact, I believe it was the Shawnee thread, without providing any proof, you called him a liar and demanded he stop posting unless he posted what he could not. Should you be now called a liar Tom the Mac because you refuse to post the evidence to this claim?

By the way, he finally posted the proof on the two threads that YOU brought back and/or started yet now you simply will not acknowledge that you were wrong on them.

You tell me it was during the three weeks in Decemebr and now you tell Mike it may have been in November. What made you change your mind OVERNIGHT? So Tom, why are you wasting OUR time?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I posted all those P+O letters on here and I don't even think David has the same interpretation that you do.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,  why would you post the exact same letter twice in two posts?  Does posting it twice make it doubly important?

I agree with everything in this letter, but disagree with your dubious attempt to present this letter of proof that Wilson (and his Committee) planned the layout without heavily relying upon the advise and suggestions of M&W as to the layout of Merion East.    In fact, it seems to me that this letter focuses on Wilson's contribution to laying out and constructing the course on the ground, and is not necessarily concerned with the planning process at all . . .

  ". . .  the great amount of work that has been put upon the present course by the Construction Committee . . . present Mr. H. I. Wilson with a suitable gift for his painstaking, diligent and efficient work in the construction of this beautiful course.
   Mr. Wilson has spent many hours of careful study, and has devoted every moment of his spare time in laying out and constructing this course."

You do realize, don't you, that H.P. Baily was not a member of the Site Committee or the Construction Committee or the board, don't you?     
-- Can you explain Mr. Baily's role in the planning of the course?   
-- Was he with Macdonald and Whigham when they inspected the property in June 1910?
-- Was he at NGLA with Wilson when CBM and Whigham were teaching Wilson what Wilson should do with the land Merion had purchased?
-- Was he present at Merion's site when CBM and Wilson returned to the site to again inspect the property and to determine the final layout plan?
-- Was he at Merion's Board meeting in April when the the final routing plan was submitted to the Board as the plan that had been determined and approved by CBM? 

What did H.P. Baily know about who came up with the hole concepts and placement at Merion East?   And how did he know it?

I have always argued that Hugh Wilson was the main person responsible for laying Merion out on the ground and constructing the course.    He certainly deserved that dinner and probably a lot more.     

But the issue at hand is whether or not CBM and HJW were the creative forces behind the hole concepts and placement at Merion East.   So far as I can tell, that letter has little or nothing to do with this.

Surely if Hugh Wilson came up with the hole concepts and routing then there must be more some explicit and contemporaneous mention of him in Merion's internal records.   You've seen those records . . .   

Are you aware of any mention of Hugh Wilson in Merion's internal records during the planning stage (from Summer of 1910 through mid-April of 1911?)

By the way, could you explain to us how you went about getting Merion Golf Club's and Merion Cricket Club's permission to review their internal records?    Who did you speak to at each club, and what were the conditions (if any) of your review?   

Thanks in advance for answering these questions.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Could you describe for us precisely what "laying out" the course would entail if 1) someone else had already routed the course and planned the holes, and 2)the tasks involved were different and separate from the  "construction" process?

Please describe for us what specific tasks Wilson did when you say he "laid out the course on the ground"?  What specific tasks were all those news accounts giving him credit for doing when they said he laid out the course?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I'd be glad to answer each your questions.   Right after you answer each of mine, above.  Thanks.

You will perhaps be glad to know that the remainder contains no questions. Rather, it addresses your understanding of the Ag Letters and your speculation about my understanding of the same.  If I were you, I wouldn't bother with it until you have had a chance to  answer my questions, above.  I just wanted to get it post before I accidentally delete it.

Thanks.

Tom,

I posted all those P+O letters on here and I don't even think David has the same interpretation that you do.

I could be mistaken but my recollection is that those letters were supplied by Tom MacWood and that Bryan Izatt posted them.  

 As for my interpretation of the letters, it may not be exactly the same as Tom MacWood's but it is much closer than yours.   Throughout the early letters there are plenty of references to "the Course" and visiting the course, and going over "the Course."  There are also other indications that the plan may have been already in place.

1.  Wilson sent a contour map of "the Course" at the beginning of February.   And I have trouble understanding what good this would have been without noting the location of the "fair greens" and "putting greens."  And when Wilson finally sent soil samples (and two grass samples) on March 16th, Oakley responded with a discussion of the treatment and grasses for the "fairgreens" and putting greens . . .

" . . . it would be impractical at this time of year to use manure on your fairgreens, but I would suggest you bear this in mind and apply it next fall if it can be secured. . . . The grasses to be used on your fair greens, I think, without question are redtop and Kentucky bluegrass.  The turf in section G is mostly redtop . . . after lime has been applied to the course blue grass should grow more satisfactorily.   A fine leafed bent grass, either creeping or Rhode Island bent, I feel certain will be most satisfactory for your putting greens . . .

I have difficulty understanding how Oakley could inform Wilson what to do on the fairgreens and putting greens if he had no idea where the fairgreens and putting greens were to be located.

2.   Also as TomM has noted, Wilson's March 27th letter indicates that during that week they would begin "to plow and do some rough work."  It seems unreasonable to think that they would begin to plow and do rough work on the course if it was not largely planned.  

I know that you've come up with the rather novel theory that they simply plowed every inch of the property (except for the grass they would try to use for three fairways as it existed) but Hugh Wilson's own account directly contradicts your theory.  

From his 1916 Article:

Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.. . .
    After completing the construction of the greens, and thoroughly harrowing and breaking up the soil on both fairways and greens, we allowed the weeds to germinate and harrowed them in about every three weeks. We sowed from September 1 to 15 and made a remarkably good catch, due to two things . . .
    . . . The fairway mixture on the first course consisted of equal parts by weight of Sheep,s Fescue, Red Fescue (Chewings, Fescue), Slender Fescue, Creeping Bent, and Rhode Island Bent. . . .

Note that there is nothing about plowing the entirety of the property or of preparing all of the soil and then choosing the fairways.  They prepared and seeded the fairways.    (I realize that in the Ag Letters Wilson discussed his plan to seed the rough with a much lighter concentration of seed, but one need not plow and prepare the soil before such a light concentration of seed. In fact it might have been counterproductive --as Oakley rightly notes it is much easier to thin grass than fill it in.)  

Wilson's writings (and Oakley's)  leave little doubt that they were preparing fairways and greens.  Some of the land on the edges of the fairways was likely seeded with rough.  But this would require knowing where the fairways were going to be, and it would have been a large waste of time and money to prepare and fertilize land that would would not be used as part of the fair green.  

[As an aside, note that Wilson's description above suggests that the greens were built before the ground was plowed.]

3 . Another extremely interesting sentence comes from near the close of Wilson's March 13, 1911 letter, which closely followed Wilson's visit to NGLA:

"I hope that you will come up soon and will have time to go out and see our new problem."

By now, Mike, you must realize that the "the problem" usually referred to the design of a golf hole and/or golf course.   For example, Robert Lesley used very similar language in a very interesting paragraph from his 1914 article, where he thanked those involved in the creation of Merion's courses . . .

     "So much for the history that led to this remarkable development in American golf.   And to the men who built the courses, to the men who subscribed to the stock, to the men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem, the Merion Cricket Club owes its sincere thanks, and Philadelphia golf as a whole is also indebted."

--  Note that he refers to "working out the problem."  So far as I can tell from reading quite a lot from this period, this phrase is used to describe the process of planning or designing the course and/or the details of he golf holes which make it interesting, as in working out the problem the golfer will face.  

--  Note also how Lesley divided the groups of men who indirectly he thanks:  1)  The men who built the courses; 2)  The men who subscribe the stock;  3)  The men who gave time and trouble to securing of the land and working out the problem.     The first group seems to be Wilson and his Crew.  The second those who came up with the money.  But the third is interesting.   So far as I know, the only ones involved in both figuring out the land and in working out the problem were Lloyd, Macdonald, and Whigham.  And of course Francis if my reading of his involvement is correct.   The only ones mentioned by name in the entire article were Wilson's committee and their advisors, Macdonald and Whigham.  

[Returning to the Ag Letters,  It has been claimed that the use of the lettering system for soil samples and for the two grass samples indicates that there was no routing at the time.  I disagree.   The letters seem to indicate different areas where certain soils and growth were present, and quite obviously at Merion single holes would very likely meander through different soils and turf types.  
-- For example the 10th or Alps hole started near the creek bed, crossed the creek, went up a hill, over a road, to a green location on higher ground.  To refer to the soil or turf on the 10th hole would be extremely imprecise on both counts, since there were different turf types - existing grass south of Ardmore (Sample G) and an old Corn field North of it - and very likely different soil conditions, as well.
-- Likewise, Wilson noted that the other grass sample ("Sample E") came from near a "little house" on the property.   Depending upon which "little house" he is referring to, even a relatively small area of this grass type might have been located upon parts of multiple holes, but it is unlikely that any single hole would have been made up of solely Sample "E" grass.

In short, it would have been a confusing mess to describe the grass types and soil conditions by hole, as opposed to by the section or location which best represented that particular condition.    Each hole might have had multiple soil types and different growths.]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Of course, we just have to accept David's definition of laying out, even if you have provided other examples of it being used to connote both design and measuring for construction.  Just like we have to accept Tom MacWood's take on newspaper accounts.  Its not that I can't see where they come up with their ideas and beliefs, but its clear that most of us aren't going to agree.

Once again, I say let this die a peaceful death until someone comes up with a new document that places Barker, CBM, or Wilson on the scene in some new way.

David,

Your last post has a lot of good stuff to chew on, even if I am not sure as much of it is as "obvious" or correct "as far as you (I) know".  But it is interesting and as with Tom M, I can see where you get your interpretation.  But, it is still your interpretation (as opposed to others) which is still the problem with this debate.

BTW, your previous post is a mere deflection tactic.  Bailey obviously is just representing the members who want to show appreciation for the finished product.  What he knew about the design is a complete non starter.  And if he is required to, I suppose we could ask why CBM,  Whigham, Barker and others aren't mentioned or invited?  Now, I understand it could be a private affair, but the fact is there are gaps in the record for your theory, too.  Such as no record of CBM being involved between one day in June 1910 before the land is purchased and March 1911,when he hosted the committee on an exploratory visit,  just as there is no real record of Wilson being involved.

So, we can argue interpretations all night.  (and have)  When do we tire of this?  I know you say that it will be when you get it right, but IMHO, none of us is any closer and with insults flying lately, we may be getting further away. I think we all understand each others positions, no?

Have a nice weekend, but we should all consider giving this a rest until some new info comes out.  

[Mike Cirba]

Good luck with this, David.

[TEPaul]

The reason Wilson could inform Oakley where soil samples were taken from was because the contour survey map he sent him was divided into lettered sections and the bags of turf were labeled from the appropriate lettered sections. If there had been a course drawn on that plan obviously they would have referred turf samples to hole numbers and not lettered sections.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Paul,

That's absurd nonsense.

Don't you see its obvious that Wilson was so incompetent that he didn't realize he could have just used hole numbers and didn't have to create a whole new classification system with letters on the "course" map? 

[DMoriarty]

Jeff, to address your overall point first, I agree that is all interpretation.  I've never said otherwise.  But that goes for all of us, not just me.  That is the nature of historical analysis or any kind of factual analysis.   Where I disagree, though, is with this notion that because it is all just interpretation it some pointless or a waste of time, or somehow less worthy than just listing facts. (my words not yours.)  That isn't the case at all.  

All conversations are to some degree about varying interpretations but not all interpretations are equal.  Some are more sound than others.  Sound historical interpretations are firmly rooted in the all the facts and the relevant circumstances of the time in question.   Other interpretations are more based on wishful thinking that an in-depth understanding of the historical record.   They are often based on misunderstandings and/or distortions of select portions of the historical records, or on generalities treated as if they were specific, or visa versa.   That is mostly what goes on here, and what I am trying to counteract.    

As for your suggestion that we should leave it be because it is all just interpretation, I again disagree.  While Mike is apprently refusing to even address my recent posts, I've learned a lot in going back over the Ag letters and Merion's internal record (more like the lack of a record) of Wilson's involvement.    And given that many of my posts have attempted to correct what I view as some sort of factual mis-undertanding,  then hopefully you have learned something as well.   It is certainly not as if we are all intimately familiar with or in agreement upon the facts.  Cirba won't even answer the simplest most straightforward questions dealing with the facts!

So turning to your comments on my post above, I don't think you should dismiss or downplay my interpretations as merely that.   Of course I think they are much more sound than any the others offered thus far.  

Take the Ag letters for example, does it look to you like they were preparing to seed fairways and greens, or the entire property?   From your reading of the source material and your knowledge (if any) of the way the term was used at the time, what was Hugh Wilson referring to when he asked Oakley to "go out and see our new problem?"  From your reading of the source material, who was Lesley most likely referring to as "the men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem?"   If one interprets these things based on the record and not one's preferential answers, I think the answers are illuminating.  

Mike,

Of course, we just have to accept David's definition of laying out, even if you have provided other examples of it being used to connote both design and measuring for construction.  Just like we have to accept Tom MacWood's take on newspaper accounts.  Its not that I can't see where they come up with their ideas and beliefs, but its clear that most of us aren't going to agree.

You don't have to accept my definition at all.  In fact I suspect from your posts that you don't understand my definition so I can't imagine why you would accept it.   While I don't recall any that Mike has come up with, I agree that there are examples were one designs a course at the same time one lays the course out on the ground.  The "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon" legend, for example.   But planning a layout and laying a course out on the ground were often separate tasks as well.  Take Columbia Country Club for example, where Barker planned the layout in 1909, but the course was not laid out until 1910.  Or York Road in Philadelphia in 1910, where the plan for the layout was determined by a contest, and someone else laid the course out upon the ground.  

That said, we don't even have to get into the various uses in the case of Merion, BECAUSE MERION'S BOARD TELL US HOW THEY USED THE TERM.  I don't think that is what happened at Merion.   At Merion the course was to be laid out on the ground according to plan.   In other words, the plan came first, and then the course was laid out on the ground according to plan.   At least according to Merion's Board.  From what we have been told of the minutes:
CBM said that if Merion would lay it out according to the plan which M&W had approved then the 'last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world.'   That is EXACTLY the way my IMO described the process:   Merion, particularly Hugh Wilson and his Committee "laid the course out on the ground and built it according to plan."  

Besides, I don't recall many Circa 1910 examples where laying out a course referred to planning it on paper, though.  Can you refresh my memory as to these examples?    Because while you guys spend a lot of time mocking my understanding of "to lay out" I don't recall you guys coming up with anything else based in the usage at the time.

You don't seriously think that Wilson was out there in the February snow trudging around with stakes, planning the course while he laid it out, do you?  

BTW, your previous post is a mere deflection tactic.  Bailey obviously is just representing the members who want to show appreciation for the finished product.  What he knew about the design is a complete non starter.  And if he is required to, I suppose we could ask why CBM,  Whigham, Barker and others aren't mentioned or invited?  Now, I understand it could be a private affair . . .

Is it possible that you don't understand the nature of this letter?   I recall earlier that you suggested it came from Merion's Minutes.  I forgot to correct this at the time, but this letter DID NOT come from Merion's minutes or other official Merion records.  It is not even on Merion's stationary.   I don't know what you mean by "private affair" but this surely wasn't an official Merion Banquet. The Secretary of the Club (Sayres) is NOT the one doing the inviting, but is rather being invited.  The letter was part of the Sayres' Scrapbooks.  (Mr. Sayres just happened to be the club secretary, and thank goodness he kept an extensive scrapbook!)  Mr. Baily is collecting the subscription, not Merion Cricket Club.

Given the nature of this letter, I hardly think my post is a "deflection tactic."  Mike has offered up the Baily letter to suggest that Hugh Wilson planned Merion without leaning heavily on CBM.   I have never seen anything suggesting that Mr. Baily had any reason to know the details of what Hugh Wilson did at Merion.  Have you?   The letter itself suggests he knew in the most general terms, but on what basis could we possibly conclude he knew more? In other words, we know he was thankful for Hugh Wilson's hard work, and we know he was involved in planning a dinner to thank him, but I don't see how that gets us to any closer to understanding the respective roles of CBM and Wilson in the PLANNING of Merion East.   That is the issue isn't it?

If so, then Mr. Baily's level of knowledge is far from being a "non-starter."  It is crucial whether the letter has any probative value to the key issue.   If Mr. Barker didn't know anything about who did what during the planning stage, then I don't think we ought to turn to him to tell us who did what during the planning stage.  This seems fairly simple to me.  

But then maybe I am missing something, and  I am willing to learn if I am.  
-- What is the basis for any interpretation that his letter means more?  
-- What is the factual basis for believing that Mr. Baily has anything relevant to tell us about Wilson's involvement in the planning stage (before Wilson began laying the course out on the ground and constructing the course?)

You mention that we could ask why M&W aren't mentioned or invited?  That is a fine question so far as I am concerned.  
First, we don't know they weren't invited.  We know Sayres was invited, but don't have the invitation list.  At least I don't.  Do you?  
Second, as to why they weren't mentioned, keep in mind that about everyone involved or who otherwise had reason to know what what was ongoing mentioned M&W's involvement in the planning of the layout. Yet Mike's star witness, Mr. Baily of 32 So. 15th Street, Philadelphia is mum when it comes to them.    
 -- One interpretation is that about everyone in a position to know - Hugh Wilson, Alan Wilson, Robert Lesley, H.J. Whigham, Lloyd, Findlay (who had spoken to Wilson,) Tillinghast (who had spoken to CBM) - was only pretending that CBM and HJW had contributed and deserved acknowledgement, and that only brave Mr. Baily spoke truth by refusing acknowledge them.      
 -- Another interpretation, and one which in my opinion is a bit more sound, is that Mr. Baily most likely had no idea of the details of the pre-construction planning of Merion East.  After all, the planning occurred before much of anything was done at Merion, and happened among a relatively small group of people.  He likely knew what the vast majority of Merion's very large membership knew: Hugh Wilson was the person in the main at Merion. He had done (or at least directed) the lion's share of the work on the ground at Merion East, and was doing it again at Merion West (which was seeded the Spring of  1913.)

Anyway, that this my interpretation of that letter, based on what I know thus far.  Are there relevant facts about this letter that I am ignoring?  That I am not adequately considering?  That I am distorting?  Is it a more sound interpretation that this letter establishes that Wilson was the one who planned Merion East? If so, what are these facts?

You claim that "the fact is there are gaps in the record for your theory, too."

Not sure what you mean.  The land was not purchased until late December or early January 1911.  There is no indication that Wilson did anything until February 1, 1911 and he couldn't have done much on the anyway because there was still snow on the ground until late February 1911.  Wilson and Committee traveled to NGLA in early March 1911 and M&W traveled back to Merion less than a month later.   So what are these gaps exactly?   What important happened without CBM's involvement, and when?  

Such as no record of CBM being involved between one day in June 1910 before the land is purchased and March 1911,when he hosted the committee on an exploratory visit,  just as there is no real record of Wilson being involved.

You are mistaken. The very first evidence of Wilson's involvement - his February 1, 1911 letter - indicates that he had already been in touch with CBM, and that he realized the value of CBM's good advice.  And he was obviously following that advice.   We don't know yet the extent of CBM's contact with Merion before Wilson was even involved, but CBM was already involved at the first indication of Wilson's involvement.  

Have a nice weekend, but we should all consider giving this a rest until some new info comes out.  

Again Jeff, I don't mean to be insulting, but no one is keeping you here.  As for me, I will probably be involved so long as people are trashing my position without basis and drawing extremely suspect conclusions from sketchy, distorted, and/or unverified information.   While I am sure it has been unintentional, you've done that.   Surely I have to, and am willing to revise anything if I have an it is brought to my intention.  

The way I look it, so long as we are discussing the facts and trying to make sense of them, I've got nothing to lose.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Tom Macwood is of the belief that Barker "staked out" the course at Merion sometime in the first three & a half weeks of december 1910. He stated this quite clearly in the last page or so.

Questions then, do you agree with this? If Yes why if No why?

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul was nice enough to provide us a counter-interpretation to mine, so that we can compare . . .

The reason Wilson could inform Oakley where soil samples were taken from was because the contour survey map he sent him was divided into lettered sections and the bags of turf were labeled from the appropriate lettered sections. If there had been a course drawn on that plan obviously they would have referred turf samples to hole numbers and not lettered sections.

First, for clarities sake, I assume he is referring the second blueprint and to soil samples as well as turf samples.  (There were only two turf samples, one each from Section G and E.)

Second, note that TEPaul states, as if it were fact, "If there had been a course drawn on that plan obviously they would have referred turf samples to hole numbers and not lettered sections."  Of course that isn't fact, but his interpretation.

Third, while I understand the logic --if one had hole numbers why not use them? But I don't think the logic is entirely sound.  The problem is that the location of the holes wouldn't necessarily have any correlation to the different soil types and conditions or the natural ground cover.  How would one identify the soil conditions on a golf hole that passed over three distinct soil conditions and two differen types of ground cover?   Sample 10.A(1), Sample 10.A.(2),Sample 10B(1), Sample 10.B.(2) and Sample 10C(1) and Sample 10C(2)?   That would get a bit confusing over 18 holes, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it make much more sense to section off the course by soil types and ground cover rather than by hole location?  

TEPaul often writes about all the time he has spent on site during construction, and he knocks me for having spent little if any such time (as if he would know.)   But I've spent enough time on golf courses at various stages of development and existence (and on tractors and related equipment) to know that oftentimes soil conditions vary greatly over a short distance, and from one part of a golf hole to another.  

You design courses.   Do you occasionally route a golf hole over more than one soil condition?

Fourth,  Tom's interpretation ignores other factors (discussed above) that may indicate that the course was already planned.  For two examples, the reference to coming to see "our new problem" and the repeated reference to preparing the fairways and greens.  

In sum, TEPaul's interpretation could be correct, but I think a more sound interpretation is that marking off the various soil conditions and ground coverage wouldn't necessarily follow the hole boundaries anyway.  

_________________________________________

Although Mike Cirba's last two posts contribute absolutely nothing to the conversation, they are interesting nonetheless.

In the hopes of getting at least some agreement as to at least part of the record, I asked him a to confirm a number of facts that he ought to be able to confirm.  Rather than answering, his response was to pretend to withdraw from the conversation:

Good luck with this, David.

But in usual Mike fashion, he wasn't gone for long . . .

Tom Paul,

That's absurd nonsense.

Don't you see its obvious that Wilson was so incompetent that he didn't realize he could have just used hole numbers and didn't have to create a whole new classification system with letters on the "course" map?  

My interpretation of these posts is that Mike has much less interest in the facts than he does in attempting to mock me and the entire pursuit.   While I am sure it is easier than dealing with the facts I don't find this particularly productive.  But again perhaps I missed something. Perhaps there is a more sound interpretation?
-- Can you think of any reason why Mike has declined to answer my questions?
-- Can you think of any productive purpose to his latest posts?

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

"Can you think of any reason why Mike has declined to answer my questions?"

Might the answer be the same reason you have declined to answer Mine?:

"Tom Macwood is of the belief that Barker "staked out" the course at Merion sometime in the first three & a half weeks of december 1910. He stated this quite clearly in the last page or so. Questions then, do you agree with this? If Yes why if No why?"

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I had a week vacation and simply decided that I really don't want ti waste any more of my life arguing with you and Tom about this.  

Carry on.

[Tom MacWood]

-- Can you think of any reason why Mike has declined to answer my questions?
-- Can you think of any productive purpose to his latest posts?

Because he has thrown in the towel. If you remove emotion from the equation and really look at the evidence logically you are forced to conclude the oft told creation story is bogus. I believe he has finally come to that realization, and to continue would be a waste of time. I'm still waiting for my question to be answered although admittedly its more of a rhetorical question at this point:

Why would Merion CC and/or Haverford Development choose an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman to design their golf course, especially when they had arguably the two top men in the country at their disposal.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

You and David are both delusional if you really believe that, sad to say.

There is no point continuing to argue the same evidence with you guys and its now clear neither of you are seeking any new evidence...I'm the only one who has presented anything new for years now.

You guys made your case and guess what?  No one bought it.

If you ever find any other evidence let me know and I'd be happy to discuss...right now this is simply a huge waste of time and energy and neither you or David would accept the truth if I posted a signed Hugh Wilsaon routing map!

That's ok...believe what you want to believe and continue to press on but I rest comfortably knowing that no one in the industry has bought your wildly specious theories and the further we go and as new evidence has come to light since David's essay it all reinforces Wilson's primary role as the architect of Merion.

You should consider more useful purposes for your time too, Tom...you are a hell of a researcher.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
I'm trying to figure out what new evidence you referring to.

* Articles confirming Wilson travelled overseas after the course was laid out not before
* The P&O letters that confirm there was a golf course on the ground prior to Wilson's involvement
* TEP deliberately misquoting internal MCC documents to leave an erroneous impression regarding M&W's participation
* An article stating Barker was engaged to design the course
* The state of golf architecture in America in 1910

Why would Merion CC and/or Haverford Development choose an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman to design their golf course, especially when they had arguably the two top men in the country at their disposal?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()