Not to bring up a sore subject, but,

[JESII]

The material evidence from Merion doesn't mention any date on that contour map Tom. It could be July just as easy as January other than the fact that the January one is probably about the 5th iteration.


Phil and Mike,

I'm not arguing for CBM and certainly not for Barker either. I think the committee routed the golf course (roughly) in the late summer/fall of 1910 in order to figure out what land to buy. CBM's July 1910 letter was very clearly "hands-off", so I don't think he was around other than probably making general routing suggestions in June.

Mike has painted a picture of a committee lost arriving in Southampton, having an epiphany totally unrelated to anything CBM might have said, and going home and designing 5 stand alone routings for CBM to later review. I doubt it. I think their work time in January and February 1911 was more or less fidgeting around with hole lengths and green sites within a pretty specific track around the property...not working through several distinct golf course routings.

That property can allow alot of that.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I never said they were lost before going to Southampton.   I think they were probably excitedly working at this stuff night and day, trying to figure out what holes might be on the property and how they fit together and were likely like kids in a candy store, but also probably with some ideas that were either impractical or just not very good golf.   They were learning, as well.

What I did say is that you couldn't visit NGLA in 1911 without being completely impressed with the art of the possible.   We also know that whatever happened at NGLA it helped them narrow down their thinking to 5 possible plans.

If anything, I think the NGLA visit may have inspired them to do something bolder than their original thinking, but that's pure supposition.

[JESII]

A month or two ago, while arguing against a 1910 Francis Swap, you speculated just how little they had figured out prior to going up there...go look in your archives.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I think it was a process and I think the minutes seem to indicate that the NGLA visit helped them sharpen their focus.

The one thing I'll never comprehend, however, is how Wilson and crew could have ever seen the alps hole there, and later the original at Prestwick, and even remotely think he had the land for one on the 10th at Merion...that's just crazy talk, frankly.

[JESII]

Yeah...I don't know anything about the templates so cannot really comment beyond speculation and you know I don't want to do that...

I don't think M&W routed the course, but I can't see how the story you and Tom read in the Wilson report can mean anything other than giving them significant credit in that process. The way you two paint it does in fact seem like they were dancing to his command.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I really don't see how you can say that.  I think it's clear they valued his opinion and sought his good advice as possibly the most experience man in America at that time in these matters, but I don't see how that leads to your claim that CBM was either calling the shots or otherwise directing their activities...I think that's a gargantuan leap unsupported by the facts.

On the other hand, if in 1911 I was trying to get the board to approve our plans for a new golf course that included a cost overrun of 10 pct. for three additional unanticipated acres, and the great CB Macdonald had said it would yield the best seven finishing holes of any inland course he'd ever seen in his travels, you'd better bet I'd put that in muy report to the board!

[JESII]

I don't think that's what happened Mike, it's what I see in your interpretation of events.

[TEPaul]

"I don't think M&W routed the course, but I can't see how the story you and Tom read in the Wilson report can mean anything other than giving them significant credit in that process. The way you two paint it does in fact seem like they were dancing to his command."


Sully:

You just don't seem to get my drift on that and I thought I explained that to you on our telephone conversation on my way to Boston.

Looking at the timeline and looking at the time spent and the chronology of MCC with Macdonald I just don't think they had the chutzpah to have asked him to do more than they reported he did do which to them was something they really thanked him for. I think their record shows they got him to give them about four days maximum over nearly a year and they sure did record all of those four days and show their appreciation to him for just that.

And on the flipside, back in those days had they actually asked him to route and design a golf course for them their is no possible way those men of MCC would not have admitted it and glorified in it----eg the fact that Macdonald had designed their golf course for them and that all they needed to do was to hire a well known and experienced construction foreman like Frederick Pickering to build it for them to Macdonald's plan. If that were the case the Wilson Committee frankly would not reailly have been necessary.

But that was not what they asked him to do and that wasn't the way it happened, IN MY OPINION. I think all they asked him to do was look at their land and give them his opinion of its possibilities. That he did and his letter reflected it. The rest of his letter reflects his advice to go about it as he had at NGLA with an amateur committee and an engineer surveyor as Raynor has been to him at NGLA. That they found in Richard Francis who just happened to be a member.

And the rest is American history!

It is called the age or the significant "American Amateur/sportsman architect," an era and time Moriarty and MacWood unfortunately do not seem to understand and appreciate as their "schtick" is that is isn't even possible they could've done it or been capable of it. What they just don't understand is those people felt (perhaps knew) they were what David Halberstam called some years later 'the Best and the Brightest' and the reason was they were all well educated----read classically educated!!

[JESII]

I must be a really shitty typer if you guys think I'm arguing that CBM routed and designed the golf course.

[TEPaul]

Sully:


NO COMMENT!

[JESII]

Holy Crap!

If that goes un-edited I'll be impressed.

[TEPaul]

"I don't think M&W routed the course, but I can't see how the story you and Tom read in the Wilson report can mean anything other than giving them significant credit in that process."



Why do you keep saying that to us? THEY DID give him significant credit in the process and we (at least Wayne and I) have both found and reported the MCC records that gave both CBM and Whigam significant credit in that process.

So I fail to see what your issue is unless you completely fail to understand how both they and we did that. But we sure do know they didn't even mention anyone else in THEIR process and that sure does include the likes of HH Barker!

That is not our speculation---THAT is the MCC recorded administrative record!

[JESII]

I'm not debating what's in the minutes, I'm debating your interpretation of the minutes.

As conscise as possible, my disagreement with your (and Mike's) interpretation is that the Merion committee spent 8 weeks working on the plan for Merion East and committed three or four full days in that short time to CBM's direct teachings and took the plan he selected from 5 distinct plans to the Board for approval.

My disagreements are:

-That they spent a hell of alot more than 8 weeks in the planning.
-And that by the period between the NGLA visit and CBM's Ardmore visit the plans were hardly distinct.

I'm sure there's more, but I forget...

[TEPaul]

Ii'm not debating what's in the minutes, I'm debating your interpretation of the minutes."


Sully:

I think you need to give this a rest. I'm going to Florida for five days and I'll be back next week. Come over and see me then and I'll show you everything I have on my computer. It should take maybe 2-3 full days conservatively to read and analyze.

I offer the same to MacWood and Moriarty but why do I know they will not take me up on it any more than they will agree to follow the process Merion asked them to follow which is no different than anyone else?!?

The fact is that those two dickheads don't want to do the work or the research themselves-----all they want to do is continue to browbeat us who are aware of the information for not giving it to them without them having to do what we've had to do all these years.

What an intellectually bankrupt duo of researcher, analyst, historians those two dudes are. Did I mention their arrogance for expecting to be treated differently from the rest of us? 

[Tom MacWood]

Who on this thread has done any independent research on Merion...because I don't see anything new?

[JESII]

Was that independent research since this thread has begun? Or was it which people on this thread have done independent research? Or somehting else altogether?

[JESII]

Tom,

I'll be happy to read what you have. We've spoken about alot of it and when we speak in person you're not nearly as emphatic that the only way this could have happened is the story you tell on here. Just last week you agreed it was possible (although not likely) that MCC had a contour map produced in the summer of 1910 and if so, why wouldn't they send it to CBM.

I agree that there is plenty to be determined, and I'm happy to rest until something new comes up. You'll notice it's never me that starts these threads...but I do enjoy participating when they do pop up.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
I'm just curious what research have you, or anyone, conducted?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I'm curious about your question...how does anyone's participation or not in personal research about Merion affect their ability ti interpret and/or comment on the resarched evidence that HAS been presented to date?

[Tom MacWood]

Because it was one thing to be a interpreter and another to be a searcher. And then you have the defenders who are neither searchers or interpreters. IMO there aren't a enough open minded searchers looking at this topic.

[Phil_the_Author]

So Tom the Mac,

Since you seem to be claiming to be a "searcher" before you ask others to state the research they might have done, it is only fiar to ask you to outline what you have done. For example, have YOU gone to Merion to examine the archives? I know I have. Have you spoken to Merion's historian(s) about what is contained within their records and minutes? I know I have. I also know that others on here have because I BELIEVE them when they've told me so. By the way, since I'm quite certain that you'll maintain that I am "bluffing" (code word for lying) by my statement, ask Joe Bausch as he was there with me... Of course you will probably say that he is just "bluffing" also (code word lying).

So Tom, BEFORE you become critical of the researches that others on here have done, which by your statement that there aren't "enough open minded searchers looking at this topic" which really means that they don't agree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the events, it is only fair that you put up first...

[TEPaul]

"Who on this thread has done any independent research on Merion...because I don't see anything new?"


MacWood:

The "independent" research I've done on Merion and the people involved with it someone like you would not only not understand they would never imagine it and the trick and deal is that it's not even found on the INTERNET or in newspapers, magazines and books but even that, particularly THAT, I doubt you would even or ever understand.

Researching and analyzing the history of Merion you have never come close to me and you never will.

But you can always continue to flatter yourself and I'm quite sure you will but the ultimate analysis will be who will most listen to----you or me?  

We will see, won't we? Would you agree with that, at least?  

[Tom MacWood]

I'm just asking what is your level of interest, are you a searcher, interpreter, or defender?

[Phil_the_Author]

"I'm just asking what is your level of interest, are you a searcher, interpreter, or defender?"

No Tom, that is exactly what you are NOT doing. If you were, you wouldn't have stated, "IMO there aren't a enough open minded searchers looking at this topic." That statement can only mean that you've already judged those on here for what you've decided they are.

I am a searcher. will you accept that because I say it?

Once again you've also ignored the question that was asked of you:

"So Tom, BEFORE you become critical of the researches that others on here have done, which by your statement that there aren't "enough open minded searchers looking at this topic" which really means that they don't agree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the events, it is only fair that you put up first..." SO once again Tom, I've already stated some of what I've done to prove that I am a "searcher" so why won't you do so?

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author
I wasn't refer to you. I had no idea you were even interested in the subject.