[Tom MacWood]

Please elaborate.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike,

Tell me something...why is it impossible that a topo map was sent to CBM during the late summer or fall...or even early winter of 1910?


Jim,

Nothing is impossible, but given that there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that they did so, would you rather hear my primary reason why I think it didn't happen, or my Top 10 reasons?

[TEPaul]

"No, not necessarily, but neither does the Wilson theory."


Tom MacWood:

What exactly is 'the Wilson theory?'
 
 

[JESII]

Tom,

Do you think your Barker theory has enough meat to sway anyone?

No, not necessarily, but neither does the Wilson theory.

How about Wilson and Committee, including significant assitance from Macdonald and Wigham?

What I have learned since this topic came on my radar with David's essay a couple years ago is that Wilson did not design Merion himself.

The word 'significant' in my sentence above is obviously the key...I think M&W probably had a good deal to do with the original routing and hole designs but that the committee tasked appointed by Merion did the vast majority of on-site work.


Question for you: Do you think it's likely that Lloyd brought in Barker (via Connell and HDC) and M&W independent of one another and then, based on their one day visits, chose to deal with M&W and dusted Barker cold in the summer of 1910?

[TEPaul]

"What I have learned since this topic came on my radar with David's essay a couple years ago is that Wilson did not design Merion himself."


Jim:

Do you believe that Alan Wilson was wrong when he wrote to Philler in 1926 that every member of Hugh Wilson's committee (Lloyd, Griscom, Francis and Toulmin) mentioned to him that 'in the main Hugh Wilson was the architect of the East and West courses?'

[JESII]

No, but I think it's significant that CBM was needed to select the routing and that Francis seems to have made a most important contribution to it. Do these two facts reduce Wilson's role from MY original view being (admittedly ignorant) that Wilson routed and designed the course in the traditional sense of basically doing, or being responsible for, all the work.

[TEPaul]

"No, but I think it's significant that CBM was needed to select the routing and that Francis seems to have made a most important contribution to it. Do these two facts reduce Wilson's role from MY original view being (admittedly ignorant) that Wilson routed and designed the course in the traditional sense of basically doing, or being responsible for, all the work."


Jim:


I don't believe anyone from Merion, at any time, and certainly not back then in the teens and 1920s denied that Wilson worked with a committee in creating Merion East and West or that C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam helped and advised them a few times (a day in June 1910, two days at NGLA in early March 1911 and a day on April 6, 1911) in that project. Those are the facts and the only facts ever recorded!

Nevertheless, Alan Wilson did write Philler in 1926 (when asked by Philler) that the committee, to a man, told him that 'in the main Hugh Wilson was the architect of the East and West courses' and Alan Wilson also mentioned that Macdonald and Whigam did help and advise them.

Therefore, Hugh Wilson was given attribution as the architect of Merion East and West.

Consequently, I do not see that there has ever been any actual and factual information that has emerged since that should persuade or encourage Merion to consider changing the story of their architectural attribution with the possible exception of William Flynn's significant contributions to the changes in those golf courses later.

It seems the only thing that needs changing with Merion's architectural history is that story about Wilson going abroad in 1910 and for seven months. But since that story did not even begin until the late 1980s it has no historical or factual bearing at all regarding what actually happened in 1910 and 1911 with Wilson and his committee and the routing and designing of the East course at that time.

Those are the actual  facts; the rest is nothing more than various degrees of speculation which apparently belongs on the likes of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and with some of its imaginatively argumentative contributors, and definitely not in the actual and factual architectural history of Merion.

There is no evidence at all that Macdonald or Whigam had anything to do with the routing and design of Merion East other than approving one of five plans that were done when they reviewed them all on April 6, 1911. As for Barker, he did do a sketch for the residential developer (HDC's Edward Connell) in June 1910 but there is no factual evidence at all that MCC ever considered that Barker sketch in what they did with Merion East.

If Merion GC decides to write and record a more comprehensive account of this time I believe they will simply go with the actual and factual evidence of that time that they have and are aware of and not get into the kind of speculation that goes on with people on this website-----viz this particular thread, and a number of others like it in the last seven and a half years on this website.

[JESII]

Tom,

I'm neither defending nor hoping to rewrite Merion's history, just trying to learn it.


Now, isn't the fact that the committee needed them to select and approve THE ROUTING significant?

[TEPaul]

"Now, isn't the fact that the committee needed them to select and approve THE ROUTING significant?"


I don't know it's a fact that the committee needed them to select and approve the routing but it is a fact that they asked Macdonald and Whigam to returrn to Ardmore on April 6, 1911 and review the five plans the committee had done and it is a fact that Macdonald and Whigam selected one and called the last seven holes of it the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world.

It is also a fact that the committee had laid out many courses on the ground, gone to NGLA, returned and rearranged the course into five different plans.

I would say that the fact that they asked Macdonald and Whigam to return on April 6, 1911 indicates part of the reason why MCC  and Merion's history books always stated that Macdonald and Whigam offered MCC and the Wilson Committee their help and advice.

But other than that I see no reason to doubt what Alan Wilson reported to Philler in 1926-----eg each member of the Wilson Committee mentioned that 'in the main Hugh Wilson was the architect of the East and West courses.'

I believe that is why he has always been called the architect of the East and West courses in those early years, and now given all the supporting facts we have indicating that, I see no reason at all to doubt that and I don't believe Merion GC does either.

But yes, I think it is significant that they asked Macdonald and Whigam to review their plans and I think it is signficant that MCC approved and built one of the plans the Wilson Committee had done and that Macdonald and Whigam approved of. I think that was part of the reason MCC always thanked Macdonald and Whigam for their help and advice with the East course.

I do not, however, think that indicates that Macdonald routed and designed the East course or was the driving force behind it, and I certainly do not think Wilson and his committee merely built and constructed the course to someone else's plan. I think primarily Hugh Wilson was the architect with his committee of four other Merion members, as Merion has always recorded it and reported it.

In short, I do not think there are any "Missing Faces" in the recorded architectural history of Merion East and West with the possible exception of Frederick Pickering who was the East's and West's courses original construction foreman and a very good one at that!

[Mike Cirba]

Jim.

If I "approve" a routing, have I authored it?

Seriously, look up the definition of approved; you might be surprised, especially when you consider that CBM had no official standing with the club.

ap·prove  (-prv)
v. ap·proved, ap·prov·ing, ap·proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.

CBM provided valuable advice and suggestions, and advised as to "our plans" as Alan Wilson told us a long time ago, and as supported by Hugh Wilson's account, Tillinghast's account, Hugh Wilson's account, "Far and Sure"'s account, and the MCC Minutes account.   Richard Francis doesn't mention CBM at all in his account, but simply talks about the routing and construction and hole detailing work done by the Merion Committee.

Being approving of something does not indicate personal authorship; in fact, quite the opposite as clearly spelled out in the Minutes.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

PS...I've been trying to get you here for months if not years, but would you now also conclude and agree based on the totality of evidence that the course was not routed, and thus the Francis Land Swap could not have occurred, prior to Nov 15, 1910?

That land plan simply indicates a proposed boundary in the form of a gently curving road between real estate and golf concerns, up the length of the Johnson Farm land, with an identical doppelganger aesthetically-pleasing road drawn through the interior of the housing component.

[Mike Cirba]

Because we've talked quite a bit recently about the whole question of whether amateur architects were still used on new course projects by clubs seeking great courses by 1910, perhaps these articles by Tillinghast from early 1913 will shed some light on the subject, at least as far as the prevailing thinking in the Philadelphia region at the time.

I put them originally on the Shawnee thread, where another local amateur, AW Tillinghast, was asked in 1909 to design that course, but they probably belong more appropriately here, as David suggested;

David,

No need to discuss Merion.   It's your basic misunderstanding of the terminology of the time period, your lack of substantive supporting evidence to bolster your positions, and your twisting of words and facts that is at issue here.

But since you mentioned Merion, I'll mention that your theory rests on a number of faulty assumptions, with one big one being the name of Hugh Wilson's Committee, the "Construction Committee".   In your paper you argue that it was called that because it had no design role, but simply was charged with building the course to others' specifications.

Here's two articles about Pine Valley written by Tillinghast early in 1913 months before Harry Colt arrived.

Note the name of the Committee in the bottom article.   It's clear that 1) Crump and his committee were designing and building the course and 2) the overwhelming use of amateur architects made up of top local players around Philadelphia to design and develop courses continued almost unabated up until WWI, at Merion, Pine Valley, Philadelphia Cricket, Philadelphia Country Club, Huntingdon Valley, LuLu, North Hills, and a number of others.


January 12, 1913




March 23, 1913



   

[TEPaul]

Michael:

Quit worrying about David Moriarty's opinions on what some of the terms used in those days meant to those of that age. There is a ton of evidence all over the place what those terms meant with various projects and logically what they did not mean or couldn't mean, such as we "laid out AND constructed" (a course). I'm quite sure those men understood what REDUNDANCY meant just as well as we do! 

David Moriarty is never going to concede these points or acknowledge them so stop wasting your time with him. At this point I'm aware of very few who care what he says on here or what he thinks. This endless Merion/Wilson/Macdonald thing is apparently the only way he can continue to get any attention at all. Without it he essentially has nothing.

Stop wasting your time trying to convince him about anything to do with those subjects. No matter what you say or produce it ain't gonna happen.

By the way, how did you like Myopia?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
It is my impression that Wilson role was primarily construction. That is the impression he leaves in his numerous letters to P&O, and in his own account in Piper's book. Therefore you must read Bailey's letter in that context. It makes no sense that MCC (or Haverfrod) would turn to a an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman for the design of their high profile golf course.

IMO the turning point with Wilson occurred after his trip abroad, that is when he began exerting his design influence at Merion, and that is when his design career began.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Tom,

Agreed...I was more talking to Jim Sullivan and anyone else out there who might not have as much understanding of the times, or only a passing interest, and consider therefore that David and Tom MacWood's theories actually may have some historical basis.  

As far as Myopia...My oh My!!  

After driving through the low-key entrance past the polo fields and the hounds quarters, and then figuring out where to park the car, and then where the pro shop was, and then being welcomed by Billy and staff, and then being directed to the driving range where you have to stop hitting if someone is playing 17, and meeting the really good kid who played with me and who whaled the ball but still got caught in some of Leeds' snares, and then trying to figure out what to do on the first hole, and then seeing architecture that was at least a decade ahead of its time, and then seeing about 12 riders in full regalia riding up between 7 & 8 on horseback behind about 20 sniffing beagles,  and getting up and down from the front bunker on #9, and having a whole whale of a blast walking up and down those hills and dales in 20-25 mph winds and light mist, and being the first of only 3 groups on the course that day...it was an absolutely transporting experience!  

I went from there and played George Wright Muni in the afternoon.   Not sure that's a tandem of courses ever played on the same day prior.  

Also, snuck in a round the next morning at The Country Club.   I was the only one to play that day, teeing off at 7:45 in a driving rain and finishing two hours later, walking with a caddie.   Since I was soaked to the bone, I went back out to walk the other holes I hadn't played during my routing, and had a terrific time and I'm very glad I made the trip.   Did the Lesley Cup matches take place?

Then drove down to catch the Long Island ferry for 36 holes the following day, thankfully played in mostly sunshine with very stiff winds.   It was an amazing week.

Tom MacWood,

P&O asked Wilson to write a chapter on agronomy.   Are you shocked that's what Wilson wrote about?

His letters to P&O were to seek agronomic advice.   Are you shocked that's what Wilson wrote them about?

I know you can't believe that Philadelphia would turn to an Insurance Man, or even a Hotelier, or even a no-account rascal like Tillinghast but I'd believe you'd be better served trying to really understand proven history, especially about things that don't maybe make sense to your modern sensibilities, than trying to turn things inside out in some misbegotten attempt to disprove it.

[TEPaul]

"I know you can't believe that Philadelphia would turn to an Insurance Man, or even a Hotelier, or even a no-account rascal like Tillinghast but I'd believe you'd be better served trying to really understand proven history, especially about things that don't maybe make sense to your modern sensibilities, than trying to turn things inside out in some misbegotten attempt to disprove it."



Michael:

I think that short paragraph sums up as well as one could aske what Tom MacWood has been doing on this website with those subjects for about eight years now.

[Dan Herrmann]

David M and Tom MacWood,
In general, is your thesis summarized as "the person responsible for the routing is deemed to be the designer of the course"?

[DMoriarty]

David,

I think you'll agree I've tried to be open and honest with both sides of this debate while disagreeing with some of each.

I do agree, and whether we are ultimately in agreement with these issues, thanks for giving my perspective a fair shake.  I don't think I ever truly appreciated how rare it is for people to think for themselves in adverse situations, but my experience here has given me new found appreciation for anyone who is willing to resist going along with the heavy hand of conventional wisdom, especially when that heavy hand is so close to home. Plus, while I may be wrong, I sense that you would prefer it if it turned out that Hugh Wilson had planned everything.  Having "an open mind" is easy when the facts fall our way, but less so when they don't fall as we would like.

Imagine how productive these conversations could have been in others had adopted your approach instead of endlessly playing along with TEPaul's self-described "Philadelphia Posse" and Cirba's various witch hunts.

This has been asked several times through the years but I don't remember your answer. If CBM had developed the plan that was approved, why would he need to select and approve it? Wouldn't he have owned it?

I'm not exactly sure I understand the question, but I will try to answer.  Given the timing of the events and the various comments of those involved (such as Wilson's, Oakley's, and CBM's comments, as evidenced in the Ag letters) I think it is a big mistake to treat Wilson's NGLA trip and M&W's return trip to Merion as unrelated events.  My understanding is that both the NGLA meeting and the return trip were focused on coming up with a workable layout plan for Merion's golf course.   As I understand it . . .

1.  They were working on the plan for the lay out at the NGLA meeting.
2.  Wilson then returned to Merion, "rearranged the course" and came up with five alternatives based on what they had worked on at NGLA.
3.  Soon thereafter M&W returned to Merion review the various alternatives on site and to decide upon and "approve" the final plan.

In other words, each was a stage in the process of coming up with a plan for a first class golf course.  By determining the plan, and by approving the plan as final, CBM was acknowledging that, after all this, Merion now had such a plan.  

To put it another way, things weren't yet set in stone when Wilson left NGLA.  Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Merion to trouble M&W to return to Merion, again go over the site and to decide upon the final layout plan .  Likewise, had Merion not wanted M&W to be involved in the planning process, there would have been no reason for Merion to trouble M&W to return to Merion, again go over the site and to decide upon the final layout plan.

Think about it . . . If this was a purely inside job, then why did Wilson go to NGLA in the spring of 1910, and why did Merion burden M&W with a return trip to Merion so shortly thereafter?  If Wilson didn't want M&W involved in the planning, then why have M&W determine the final layout plan?  Let's see . . .  At NGLA Merion didn't want M&W involved in the planning, yet Merion were planning on bringing M&W back to Merion "in a couple of weeks" so M&W could again go over the land, review the alternatives, and choose and finalize the layout plan?   Isn't that more than a bit incongruous?

Also, while Tom and Mike can play with the meaning of "approve" all they like, they both know that CBM's role was hardly passive or unimportant:  
1.  TEPaul has long ago acknowledged that the final plan as determined by CBM may not have even been one of the five alternatives he reviewed.  It could have been a hybrid and/or it could contained additions and/or changes not contemplated in any of the alternatives he reviewed.   The Minutes suggest that such a change was not just a hypothetical possibility:   In order to accomplish laying out the course according to the plan determined by M&W "it will be necessary to acquire three additional acres."  
2.  Even in the best case scenario for Tom and Mike, M&W still played an active role in the design process.   Even if there were five completely different and entirely unique routing possibilities (highly unlikely,) and even if it M&W had absolutely no input into any of the design ideas up to this point (even more unlikely,) it was still M&W who determined the final plan from these different options. That in and of itself establishes that M&W not only actively participated in the design process, M&W had final say!

Now what was the question?   Seriously, I think what it comes down to as viewing the planning as a process, one that was progressing toward a FINAL decision and approval.

[TEPaul]

I actually do not disagree with much of anything in the previous post after the second quotation. However, that is a long, long way from concluding that C.B. Macdonald routed and designed Merion East or was the driving force behind that design.

And I support that by the belief that I certainly do believe MCC did have a good deal of respect at that time for Macdonald and Whigam and therefore had Macdonald and Whigam been the routers and designers of Merion East or the driving force behind it I have no doubt at all that MCC and Merion would have always recorded that fact and would have always publicized that fact and that from that point on Merion East would have been attributed to them architecturally. But that was never the case and the reason why is pretty obvious as well as being supported by the contemporaneous records of MCC.

Methinks the endless conspiracy theories that MacWood and Moriarty have promoted about Merion and Philadelphians and Philadelphia clubs to promote their own and minimized the contributions of outsiders has come back to haunt them, their logic, their reasoning, their credibility and their contentions and their conclusions about Macdonald and Merion!  

Oh that's right, MacWood doesn't think Macdonald designed Merion, he think Barker did it after hoping off a train from New York to Georgia! Anybody but Wilson is their philosophy I guess.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I'd agree.  I don't see too much I disagree with in what David wrote although I didn't really see myself as much of a witch-hunter previously, but whatever.

I also have to say that David's tone is otherwise refreshingly reasonable.  I'm not sure if he is trying to simply schmooze Sully, or is perhaps actually willing to drop the "smarter-than-thou" persona in favor of a more accommodating, conversational tone.

Perhaps he's as tired of the acrimony as we are but I guess we'll see.

[Tom MacWood]

Oh that's right, MacWood doesn't think Macdonald designed Merion, he think Barker did it after hoping off a train from New York to Georgia! Anybody but Wilson is their philosophy I guess.

TEP
David and I often agree, but we also often disagree. We are independent thinkers, unlike you and your mindless puppy dogs. Its pretty amazing with all the new information discovered over the last year or two your (you and your sycophants') position or understanding never evolves. It is bizarre.

[DMoriarty]

Mike and TEPaul,

My substance and tone are the same as always.   My intent has always been to treat everyone with at least the respect they are due, and while I may occasionally fall short with others, I have remained true to my intentions with the two of you and with Wayne, too.

______________________________________________

Turning again to what happened at Merion.

I see TEPaul and Mike are still going on and on about how they would have us believe that those at Merion might have used various words and phrases such as construction committee, to lay out, advisor, and advice and suggestion.  Whether by mockery and misrepresentation or insults and indignation, these guys just can't stop trying to twist these words and phrases to their advantage.

But so far as I am concerned the time for such discussions has long passed.  Their opinion, interpretation, argument, or whatever is all beside the point.  So is mine.   All that matters is what those at Merion thought, and how they used the terms and phrases.  And there is no need to argue because we KNOW (and have long known) what those at Merion though and how they used these terms and phrases!  For example, with regard to the verb "to lay out" . . .

Merion's minutes confirm that, regarding Merion East, planning the course and laying out the course were NOT synonomous.   First Merion East was planned, and then Merion East was laid out on the ground according to that plan.  

Sorry for the Muccian emphasis, but these two and many others seem to have missed this amongst all the distractions.  In fact, it is so important it is worth mentioning again, so we are all on the same page . . . FIRST MERION EAST WAS PLANNED, AND THEN MERION EAST WAS LAID OUT ACCORDING TO THAT PLAN.

To be more specific, while Wilson and his committee were involved in the planning process, MACDONALD AND WHIGHAM DETERMINED AND FINALIZED THAT PLAN, AND NOTED THAT IF MERION WOULD LAY IT OUT ACCORDING TO THE PLAN that M&W had approved, Merion would have a First Class golf course.

Despite Mike Cirba's rants, this a not a "wildly specious theory."  Despite TEPaul's promise to follow me "around from thread to thread and point out to anyone on or observing this website just what an intellectually bankrupt fraud [I really am], this is not intellectually bankrupt fraudulence on my part.   

It is not only from my IMO, it is confirmed in Merion's Minutes.   From the latest statement of the ever evolving minutes (emphasis added) . . .

"On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world."

So, the Merion's Minutes confirm one of the most controversial and hotly disputed portions of my IMO.   "Wilson and his Construction Committee . . . laid the course out on the ground and built it according to plan."

[DMoriarty]

...

[DMoriarty]

David M and Tom MacWood,
In general, is your thesis summarized as "the person responsible for the routing is deemed to be the designer of the course"?

I can't speak for Tom MacWood, but I answer No.  I have never been concerned with who is "deemed the designer of the course," I don't know or care what that means.  I've addressed this issue in the past, and it is all available for you or anyone else to review.

____________________________________________________
Kelly Blake Moran,

I am here because I am interested in it, especially the revolution/evolution in early American design.  I view Merion as very important in this regard, but not for the reasons usually discussed.    That said, I'd just as soon not deal with certain of these "gentlemen" at all, but for many years now my honesty, integrity, ability, and the quality of research and analysis has been constantly and unfairly maligned, and I am very interested in setting the record straight.

Also, TEPaul and Wayne are playing games with Merion's records, and have been hiding important facts.  I intend to make this an issue until they come clean, and/or until I can find a way to otherwise complete my research and finish my project.    In this regard, when they try to use Merion's records for their rhetorical advantage they often let things slip that they don't really understand, and sometimes that is very helpful.  It is a pretty tedious way to get information, but right now it is about the only avenue open to me.

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: Dan Herrmann on Today at 02:45:27 AM
David M and Tom MacWood,
In general, is your thesis summarized as "the person responsible for the routing is deemed to be the designer of the course"?


I can't speak for Tom MacWood, but I answer No.  I have never been concerned with who is "deemed the designer of the course," I don't know or care what that means.  I've addressed this issue in the past, and it is all available for you or anyone else to review."



Dan:

There's your answer from Moriarty, just as confusing and inscrutable as his answers generally are to fairly straight-forward questions!  

His answer seems to be the person responsible for the routing is not deemed to be the designer of the course  ------even though I suspect he will find a way to claim he was misunderstood or insulted somehow by my response and my reading of his answer!

It makes one wonder who he thinks should be deemed the designer of a golf course, don't you think?  

And then after he says no, he goes on to say he is not concerned with who is "deemed to be the designer of the course."

Following that he says he has already addressed this issue in the past and it is all available for you or anyone else to review. But yet he doesn't bother to make it available to you or anyone else or even bother to mention where it's available, does he?

This is the type of deceptive, circuitous contributor we should not want on this website because he is a thorough and on-going waste of our time, effort and interest; would you agree?    

I'm quite certain he will probably take this too as some insult to his reputation and integrity! Truly amazing really.

Perhaps the time has come to take what he said in his IMO and quote it on here piecemeal to actually look at what he said in it about who he thinks routed and designed Merion East and who should be deemed its designer, or more appropriately, WHO SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED ITS DESIGNER!  

Perhaps the time has come for us to quote piecemeal the mistakes he made in that IMO piece that have since being proven either highly speculative or just plain wrong by the good and indepth research at Merion and particularly MCC by the likes of Wayne Morrison who has unfortunately long since departed due to the charade these two have conducted and been allowed to conduct on here with the subject of the architectural history of Merion.

Perhaps the time has come for Ran Morrissett to just remove that incredibly shoddy essay or else demand that its author take the time and make the effort to actually research the appropriate material at Merion and MCC in person, which he should have done the first time around, and try to get it right the next time. That piece has become an embarrassing black mark on this website and by association on all good researchers, analysts and writers who populate and frequent this website with their content, research and opinions.

These two have insulted a lot of people and rather than admit it and apologize or at least remove what they have said they both continue to try to weasel out of it or rationalize it away somehow. They've called people on here liars and drunks and creeps; they've accused some of altering original club material or hiding it; one has called the long-time Merion historian 'the poster boy of unethical archivists' which seems to me to be the most inappropriate of all as he does not even participate on this website.

Merion deserves better than this, as does golf architecture's history and this website as well!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()