[DMoriarty]

More pointless hyperbole by Mike Cirba, who obviously doesn't think my last point spoke for itself, or he would have let it.

Let me clarify.  I think Hugh Wilson was there.  But I have my doubts about the rest of the Construction Committee, except for perhaps H.G. Lloyd who I believe was also on the Golf Committee.  

Can Mike say for certain that all of the Construction Committee was there?   He cannot put anyone there except for Wilson. But Lesley seems to have been there as well and his report reads as if the Golf Committee was there.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Another snippet, but do you find it odd that Alan Wilson would refer to his brother as "Mr. Wilson?"  Remind me of the date of this Alan Wilson transcript?  Was the last part ghosted? It just seems odd, but then, he did revere his brother and possibly was trying to write an objective piece.  Either that, or the last part wasn't really his words.


Just wondering.

As to David characterizing our (my) recent posts as misrepresentation, well I stand by them.  We still have many seemingly easy to understand documents, or the possibilities that many of them are simply wrong (albeit, some are and/or are confusing)

And without going into his post in detail again, he says its unreasonable for us to conclude that it wasn't an ongoing process.  I don't think either of us has concluded that at all!  Of course they brought back what they learned at the National and used it in their five plans.  I agree and who could think otherwise.

I just wonder why he keeps saying we don't think that is the case?  Either he simply likes to disagree, even when we agree, or he has a way different thought process - perhaps more black and white - than we do.

I will say again that I doubt the Barker routing came up at all at NGLA.  I will also say again that there is virtually no chance Leslie wrote that report.  It was written in the first person by Wilson (most likely) and read by Leslie in the second person.  If he reads it verbatim, of course it sounds like its in the first person.

But overall, no one is saying they didn't learn a lot from the NGLA trip, and yet, it appears that David isn't quite satisfied with most of us agreeing with him.  I am trying to understand that portion of his argument.

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW, While MCC's records don't specifically point to Hugh Wilson and design, they don't point to CBM either! Nor Barker, other than to say THEY sure as hell didn't hire him.  And, they somehow managed to lose the routing he did (although they lost their own, too)

As to the distinction between course vs courses, after all, there always was just one course to discuss.  Talking about five courses is odd verbiage by todays standards, but I don't think its anything other than a minor miscue.  But, I will say that this is a case of my interpretation vs David's, so there should be no ill will in any legitimate grey areas.

But I think he misrepresents us guessing at what happened.  We believe all the records predominantly point to the committee routing the golf course with CBM's input over 3 days (after land bought, 4 total)  Not sure why a simple read of the offical record would be called guessing?  It seems to me as if David and Tom are the ones trying to cherry pick through inconsistencies to prove something else.  Maybe its not right, but usually the champ (the existing record of events in this case) gets the benefit of the doubt.  The record is the record.  The majority of the record points to a committee design.

David is trying to challenge it.  I do think he has a slightly higher burden of proof, which I don't think has been met, as everyone knows.  Not enough documents point to CBM routing it, routing it in 1910, or many of the other things David has proposed, at least not at this time.  At the moment, the value in his essay has been all the research and greater understanding of history it spawned, but it is not so far a game changer as to the basic history.

[DMoriarty]

What nonsense.

Where in Merion's records does it say that Wilson had anything to do with the planning?

CBM is in the records throughout the process.  Merion's records say that CBM and HJW approved the final layout plan!

[DMoriarty]

And Jeff, what I said above is what I have always said.  If you guys agree with it then why the hell the witch hunt for the past several years?  Why the endless self-serving and insulting posts pronouncing me a fraud and my essay an absolute failure?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I can only speak for myself, but the only issue I had was all the stuff about CBM doing the routing nearly by himself in an earlier time frame.

If (for now and barring more documents becoming available) we agree the routing was done at NGLA and beyond, and that CBM was invaluble in ways we can't quite measure and detail out, then I am all for a Mary Tyler Moore style group hug!

[DMoriarty]

David,

I can only speak for myself, but the only issue I had was all the stuff about CBM doing the routing nearly by himself in an earlier time frame.

Here you go again misrepresenting what I said.  You just cannot seem to stop yourself!  

"All the stuff?"   All what stuff?   Most of your argument has to to with the timing of the routing, and I stand by my theories on that whether it was CBM who did the early routing or not!    

And I never claimed CBM did a routing nearly by himself in an earlier time frame.   My theory was that Merion started with Barker's routing, that CBM may have changed it (the extent to which we do not know) and Francis and Lloyd changed it further. All before Nov. 15, 1910.     You agree that they were likely working off of Barker's routing early on, so what is your problem?  

As usual, you just make shit up about my position to make yours sound more reasonable.  My argument is much more nuanced that you realize or give credit.

If (for now and barring more documents becoming available) we agree the routing was done at NGLA and beyond, and that CBM was invaluble in ways we can't quite measure and detail out, then I am all for a Mary Tyler Moore style group hug!

No thanks.  You cannot negotiate what really happened, but then that is obviously not what this is about for you!

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

In the posts above you discuss what they obviously learned and brought back from the NGLA meeting.  It doesnn't seem that position is consistent with you believing CBM routed it in 1910.  When I say an earlier time frame, I mean the recorded time frame of March-April 1911 as IN THE RECORDS rather than pre-nov 1910.

You make crap up just to argue. 

[DMoriarty]

If it doesn't seem consistent it is because you don't understand it at either end.  

I don't make up crap to argue.   Look at your record.  You make more misstatements and mistakes in a single day than I made in my entire essay.  You change the words of MY QUOTES to try and make your point.  Yet you say I am making crap up to argue?

Barker routed it originally.  
CBM worked off of that routing, and made changes the extent of which we don't know.  
Lloyd and Francis made changes (the swap) allowing the basic routing to fit.  
Wilson went to NGLA for more help on the plan.
Merion took what they learned at NGLA with the Francis swap routing settled, and tried a number of alternatives.
CBM/HJW came back and went over everything again and chose the final layout plan.
Merion built the course according to that plan.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

The fact that three years in, you still have to parse it out and explain it because of its intracasies is proof enough for me that its mostly Moose Farts. (thanks to Jay Flemma for that discrptive term)

We aren't dumb.  We just have trouble understanding that it was routed in 1910 and 1911.  If you say it was some kind of collaborative effort in those three 1911 days (perhaps more if records show) we can agree. If you are trying to say it was routed in 1910, we don't.

I can understand the idea that it was roughly routed based on the June 1910 meeting, but I just don't see it that way.  The prime drivers of the Nov parcel were using the land south of Ardmore, and meeting the 120 acre limit north of Ardmore while getting a development road through there.  You say they might have gone west, but not do so and go over 120 acres for the basic plan.

Its not that I don't understand how you intuit your triangle theory either.  It's just that my read of actual club documents and knowledge of land planning suggests its more likely that the routing was done after the land was purchased.  But, I agree it was a long process of refinement, as I explained to Jim once.  I just don't see that it had to be routing before then for erasons I explaine.

Got to go.  We should let this drop though, as its clear we will never agree.

  

[Mike Cirba]

David mistakes the humble, team-oriented understatement of Wilson's Committee report as lack of evidence of his involvement.   Further, his supposed "single effort" timeline is full of gross assumptions, none of which has a shred of physical or anecdotal evidence to support it.

We also have absolutely no idea what specific land of HDC's  Barker was looking at or even CBM in June 1910 as the Dallas Estate wasn't under the control of HDC for another five months.

Jeff,

Alan Wilson wrote that in 1926.   It was not ghosted but was included in a letter to a Mr. William Philler who was going to write a history of Merion and asked Alan Wilson for his remembrances.    

Here it is in entirety;

Mr. William R. Philler,
Haverford, Pa.

Dear Mr. Philler:-

      You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history, and I warned you that I did this sort of thing very badly. You insisted, however, so I have done the best I could and enclose the article herewith. If it is not what you want, please do not hesitate to destroy it and to ask someone else to write you something which will better suit your purpose.

      I am very glad you are writing the club history. It ought to be done because unless put on paper these things which are interesting in themselves are apt to be forgotten,-- and I do not know of anyone who would do the work so well as you.

                  With regards, I am,
                     Sincerely,
                        Alan D. Wilson



Merion’s East and West Golf Courses

   There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. 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. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.

   The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.

   These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other. They imported bent seed directly from Germany when bent turf was a rarity and gave us not only bent greens and fairways and even bent in the rough and this seed only cost them 24 cents a pound, while it sells now for $2.25. They put in water systems for the greens and tees before artificial watering became a routine. They took charge of and supervised all the construction work as a result the two courses were built at the combined total cost of less than $75,000---something under $45,000 for the East and about $30,000 for the West, whereas it is not unusual nowadays for clubs to spend $150,000 or more in the building of one course of 18 holes.

   The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.

   We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.

   The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.

………..The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.

It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”

   Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.  



[caps for emphasis mine)

Expect a barrage against Alan Wilson's credibility to follow....

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,  Of course it is simple for you. You just misread it to suit your needs, change a word here or there, and volla! you have your answer.   At least that is what you have done repeatedly.

I won't comment on whether or not you are dumb, but your approach here is definitely not geared toward getting to the truth.  Call it a difference in methodology if you like.  

________________________

For Mike Cirba, "humble" and "understatement" is code for when the facts don't support his position but he will carry on anyway.  But if fits with their overall approach, overstate what Wilson did, understate what CBM did.  

And in a typical botched job, he claims to be posting the complete Alan Wilson letter "in its entirety" yet there are ellipses indicating an omission three paragraphs from the bottom.    And how would he know if that is the complete letter?   Does he have a copy?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

So, what's your next essay?

Mr. Pot Meets Kettle?

[Mike Cirba]

Oh wait...damn, foiled again.

Here's the paragraph I purposefully omitted;

"Of course, I'm only being a shill for my departed brother Hugh, who really was a dunderhead that never showed up for work at our Insurance firm and who had an unnatural fixation with grass and construction techniques.   Everyone knows that the genius of HH Barker is really responsible for our golf course but we'd like to fool all future generations.   You see, Mr. Barker happened to be traveling on a train from Atlanta when he came near the Ardmore Station and saw a bunch of our members walking around dazed and confused, not sure what they were seeing exactly on the farm field we thought might make a good golf course."

"Within an hour, Mr. Barker had traversed the property, instructing our members to drive stakes into the ground.   At first, we were perplexed and somewhat offended, but after a bit we began to see the wisdom of his ways.   In particular, my brother Hugh seemed to take great delight in swinging the big sledgehammer, as did Mr. Lloyd, who almost swung with sadistic pleasure.   When it was said and done, we had indeed "laid out" the course, which as mentioned, we're hoping to capitalize on in the future."

"Barker's work was so wonderful, indeed, that when our friend Charles Macdonald returned in April and saw where we had driven the stakes into the ground (actually, by that time, we had so much fun as manly men driving stakes into the ground that we tried it ourselves five more times using different color stakes) under Mr. Barker's instruction that he shouted, "MY GoD  MAN...where is that Barker..he's a friggin' GENIUS!", and immediately sent Mr. Whigham back to England with the express instruction, "BRING BACK BARKER!"

"Of course, by that time Barker was pretty pissed that he hadn't been given the proper acclaim, and in form of the future American actor Ed Norton, completely disavowed our project at that point.    That indeed made it easier for Macdonald to take some credit for himself, but in years later I heard rumors that he was often found muttering into the night, "what i'd give for 1/10th of the design talent of that friggin' Barker!".

"So, given that confusion already reigns around these little known facts, I am instructing future generations of the club to DELETE these particular paragraphs, and hopefully burn all copies.   It will be our little patrician secret, and I will heretofore refer to anyone let into our little secret club as the "Philadelphia Mafia."

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,   No.  I don't think I've ever sneakily added or subtracted words to your quotes or anyone else's quotes.  I wouldn't do that because in my mind that sort of thing is incredibly unethical.   I don't intentionally misrepresent the source material or other people's quotes to make petty points.  That's your bailiwick.

I have ve explained my methodology.  You don't understand it and think it it something other than historical analysis, but that is your problem.

I am still waiting for you to explain your methodology.  I still don't understand where you get off adding and removing words from my quotes or from the source material?   You've mentioned that you believed that this is what you thought it meant, but surely you understand that you cannot change the source material or my quotes to fit with your desired interpretation don't you?  

So again, Jeff, why do you add and/or subtract key words when presenting my quotes and the source material?    What kind of methodology allows for such things?  And how is such methodology geared toward getting to the truth?
______________________________________

And still more nonsense from Mike Cirba.  Gee, what a surprise!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Where did you find the Wilson letter to Philler ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

....................................  

Also Bryan, with respect, I don't consider you a neutral reader.  I don't believe in such things.  Your subjectivities and biases are different than mine or Mike's, but that doesn't make you neutral.   You try to keep your subjectivities and biases in check, but then so do I.  I don't think your interpretations are any more plausible than mine just because you consider yourself "neutral."  I feel that I am neutral in that I don't feel I have a bias - an unfair prejudice - against either your analyses or those of Mike/Jeff.  I don't consider that I am on your side or theirs - hence neutral.  As for my subjectivities, I'm not even sure what that means in this context.

1.  We agree that Lesley was reporting on behalf of the Golf Committee.  My understanding was that he was the chair of that Committee.  However, I do not believe that Hugh Wilson was part of the Golf Committee in the spring of 1911 or before.   I could be misremembering or mistaken, but I do not think that Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee and Merion's Golf Committee were the same thing.   I think their only overlap was H.G. Lloyd.  I think there were two committees.  According to Allan Wilson: "When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site"  Wilson also states that "the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman."  I think it likely that the "Golf Committee" and the "Construction Committee" were one and the same.  It seems unlikely to me that the Special Committee on New Golf Grounds, of which Lesley was chair, would still be involved in March.  Their work was already done.  They had identified the Ardmore property.  

    -  You say you see no evidence of who wrote it, but there is strong evidence of who wrote it!  It is written in first person!   First person is a strong indicator that the person delivering the report is the person who wrote the report!  That is the way our language works.   I have written plenty of things which were ultimately delivered by another, but I have never had anyone ever report on my experiences in first person, as if they were their own!  On this point we'll disagree.  The report was written in the first person plural since it was a Committee report.  Lesley presented the Committee's report.  Lesley was not part of that Committee.  I think it likely that he merely presented it.  In doing that, I don't think he would change the wording.  I think his audience would know that he wasn't including himself in the "we" and "our".

    -  But let's just stick to where we agree.  Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee.  So then, who was it that went to NGLA?   The Golf Committee?  Or the Construction Committee?  As above, I think it likely that they were one and the same.    Or some combination?   Judging by the first person nature of his description of what went on at NGLA, Wilson seems to have been there.  But by the same logic, Lesley seems to have been there as well.  As above, I think you are reading too much into the fact that Lesley was presenting the Committee's report.  The first person plural wording likely refers to the collective Committee, of which Lesley was not a part.  I think in this case he was just the messenger.  
    -  And if Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee, then who at Merion was in charge of getting the course planned?  Wilson's sub-committee, or Lesley's Golf Committee? Maybe I've forgotten other references to the Golf Committee.  Can you point to other documents that mention it and its membership and function.  So far, we seem pretty confident there was a Golf Grounds Committee and a Construction Committee.  Was there a third Committee - a Golf Committee?

    -   It matters to this discussion because it is not entirely clear that Wilson's Construction Committee had anything to do with the planning even after they were appointed.   Based on what we have been told, MERION'S 1910-1911 RECORDS NEVER MENTION WILSON OR HIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAVING ANYTHING TO DO THE DESIGN.  So, if Wilson's Construction Committee was not one and the same as the "Golf Committee", then who and what was the Golf Committee?  Another unknown?

2.   As for the "many different courses" we have some agreement.    To answer your questions about whether I am just speculating and inferring:  We know of the Barker rough routing.  CBM/HJW suggested that Merion add the land near the clubhouse.   Francis tells that with the swap he changed the routing and that Lloyd approved it. To be semantic, I don't think that Francis said that he personally "changed the routing".  He had the idea of the swap which enabled fitting in the remaining 5 holes.  Whoever individually or collectively decided on how to route those five holes on the land, including the triangle is, I think, unknown.  

3.   You accuse me of dissecting the text regarding the statement that they "rearranged the course."  I don't get this.  All the other interpretations just ignore or read this part as meaningless.   When Lesley reported on many different courses, you agree he was likely discussing routings.  Yet here when he wrote of rearranging the course, he is no longer speaking of routings?   I don't get that at all.   And I don't think it makes sense for them to say the rearranged the course (singular) if then the also came up with five different routings.   Taken as a totality, it seems that they rearranged the course, and that there were five different iterations or variances of this course. Again, I think the singular "course" refers to the overall concept of a course that would result from all this planning and constructing - Merion East.  It doesn't really matter if you get what I'm saying if in the end we agree that coming out of this process there were five plans or routings or variations.  I think iterations is the wrong word.

4.  As for the five different plans, I think it unreasonable for Mike et. al  to conclude that CBM was NOT involved in the creation of those five plans. I thought they agreed that CBM/HJW had input to the plans at the NGLA meeting, but they can agree or disagree with that.  I think it likely that he gave them ideas at least at the meeting.  And IMO the most reasonable way to read the Lesley Golf Committee report is to read all this as a continuation of the same process -- they went to him for direction; he gave them direction, either with options or leaving for them some things to figure out; they returned and tried to impliment what he had told them; You state the part I've highlighted in red as if it is fact.  Where have you seen that they went to him for "direction"? Or that he gave them "direction"? Or, that they tried to impliment (sic) what he told them?  Did you intend to put "likely" or "probably" in front of these statements?     he came back to check on them and made the final decision.    Not unlike todays architect might direct his associates.  

    I don't know for sure and I don't think I ever claimed I did, but that I do think that this is the most reasonable and most plausible explanation.  If Merion wasn't trying to implement what they had learned from CBM then why have him return to go over it again and make the final decision?  I think it quite likely that they were trying to develop a design that incorporated the principles of good design that he had passed on to them.  As to whether he provided them specific routing recommendations on their property or designed specific holes for the property - that, I think is unknown.  Why ask him to return and choose a routing from among the five - one plausible/possible reason is that he had been most helpful looking at the land and offering advice at NGLA and it's always good to get third party opinions about your plans when your not sure what you're doing.  

5.  And that is what I think you are missing. I readily admit we don't know exactly what happened.    I am trying to figure out what is most likely given everything we know.  I'm not missing it.  I understand your approach.  The only real reservation I have with your approach is that you tend to take what you think is the "most likely" conclusion and subsequently state it as conclusive and then be surprised and distressed that the others don't agree with you.  I'm sure you've heard of the "fog of war".  The concept could apply to history as well.  The history of Merion in some respects is still foggy despite all the research and analysis by the regular found ins here.  In that fog, you, Mike, Jeff, and even Tom should accept that your individual "reasonable factual analyses" might not always align.  In my opinion, there is reasonable doubt about everybody's conclusions on the points of disagreement.  Their approach seems to be that if I cannot prove to an absolutely certainty what exactly happened, then we have to accept what they guess happened. What is your objective in this multi-year effort?  I ask in all sincerity.  If you are trying to change Merion's official history, then trying to get agreement from Tom, Jeff and Mike seems like a waste of time.  Sell it directly to Merion.  If you're trying to get the three of them to agree with your conclusions then you have to deal with what it will take to get them to agree.  If you are trying to persuade the larger population of gca.com then you should conduct some kind of poll to see if anyone is interested and is convinced or not.   That is not the way these things work. I'm not sure what to make of this statement.  How are "these things" supposed to work?  What are these things?  Look again at the Bin Laden thread.  Do you see a variety of opinions?  Do you see anyone being moved off their position by logical arguments?  That is how these things work.  The question is, which makes more sense? With all due respect, that probably isn't the question.  The question is what happened back then around the specifics of the initial design.  You've said from time to time that we don't know.  Your opponents don't seem to seem to to want to accept what makes more sense to you in the same way that you don't want to accept what makes more sense to them.  I believe its called an impasse.  Absent new information the impasse will not be resolved either way despite however many words and logical arguments are put forward.  Whatever disagreements you have with my understanding, there are tenfold problems and shortcomings with theirs.  In your opinion, but not in theirs.  
  
What is more likely?  
       -That whoever went to NGLA sat their with ears in fingers  (now that's an interesting anatomical construct to consider  ) not learning anything, then miraculously came up with five  wholly distinct routings that had nothing to do with what they learned at NGLA,  and then CBM/HJW just happened to show up, saying "Wow, that never occurred to me, but if you do it your course will be great," and they ignored this, too, yet just happened to like the same version without considering his opinion and they went with that?
       -Or that they went to NGLA for direction for what to do, and CBM gave him that direction, and they took his advice to heart and returned home to try and implement that advice, but they still weren't sure, so they brought him back again to go over everything again and make the final decision?  

It seems a pretty obvious choice to me. It is to you, but not to them.  

6.  You state that the only remaining issue "is focused on your assertion that Merion couldn't have come 'up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's both right before and right after!'"
     I disagree.   I think you are falling into the exact same thing I discuss immediately above.    You seem to think the standard for them is one of mere possibility but the standard for me is one of absolute irrefutable proof.  I think you missed my point.  It's not about irrefutable proof.

Do you understand what I am getting at here?  It is a question of methodology and standards of proof.  You seem to have a double standard here.   They have proven little or nothing, and it seems from my perspective that my theory is by far the most plausible and reasonable.   Yet you say that my theory must fail unless I prove that Merion couldn't have come up with on their own?      I don't get it?  Since when is that the standard?  Again, I think you misinterpret what I am saying.  I am not on their side.  I don't have a different burden of proof for you than I have for them.  I've been challenging Mike for years now on those areas that I care to address with him.  If I could offer one suggestion to you, it would be that you always insert the word probably or likely when your analysis leads you to a conclusion.  The problem I have with both sides of this battle are statements that are written like fact, but are really logical inferences.  As to whether you feel your conclusions are the most plausible and reasonable, I can only say that I'd be surprised if you didn't feel that.  You shouldn't be surprised if others don't agree with you though and think that something else is more plausible and reasonable.  You've been at this for a couple of years at least.  You proven some points and they have accepted them.  Other points they don't accept, and it appears they never will based on a plausible and reasonable arguments approach.  For you and them,  I am reminded of an old saying - Only a fool does the same thing the same way and expects a different result.

Why is mere possibility good enough for their theory?     Why is absolute irrefutable proof the standard for me? I never said that, and I am not a surrogate for them.  I question their stuff the same as I question some of yours.

Or maybe I have it wrong?  What exactly is your methodology here, Bryan? I hadn't thought of it as a methodology.  I try to listen to the positions and do as you do - apply reasonable logical analysis based on the facts we know.  But, I recognize that I'm not going to win the hearts and minds of any of you with conclusions based on a balance of probabilities. All of you (with the exception of Jim) are too entrenched.  I expect I won't be conclusively drawn to one side or the other until there is some new information that "proves" a point.



________________________________

I almost forgot.  I don't know who drew up the five plans or when they were drawn up.  Given the totality of the Lesley report, it seems that one of two things are most likely:
1.The five variations were conceived at NGLA and then tried out at Merion.
2.The five variations were a product of some ambiguity, confusion, or lack of clarity in the single course they had come up with at NGLA.  OK, thanks.  It doesn't seem "most" likely to me, but I doubt that I could persuade you otherwise.

On a broader level, what change to the Merion history would you like to see based on all this analysis and debate?  If you had a free hand, what sentence or two or paragraph would you add.  What key parts of the history would you change.  Just curious. It seems to me that there is agreement on many points, but I am losing sight of what remains in dispute.  I'm not talking about details, such as the date of the land swap, but rather higher level stuff - the attribution of the original design for instance.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Thanks again for bringing some objectivity and sanity into this thread.   We don't always agree with the evidence and what it means but I have no doubt that you're unbiased against anyone's opinion here.

I would contest one of your points, though.   I do think Jim Sullivan is entrenched into a position, or belief, and frankly the fact that Jim is still struggling with this is the only reason I've chosen to participate in this again.

In my opinion, Jim can't get over the fact that guys like these (and CBM) would secure a certain undetermined acreage out of a bigger tract of land without having first routed the golf course.

I can see why he thinks that's ultimately a bad idea for them, but perhaps we only differ by degrees.

I contend instead that they looked at the property at a macro level....does it have enough acreage...are there natural features that can be used for golf...is it too flat and/or hilly, in total or in stretches....does it have access to transportation....are there existing structures that could be utilized for a clubhouse...does it have utilities....is there access to water and is there too much or too little of that available....and most importantly at that time, soil quality.

Once they were satisfied that all of those qualities could be met, they moved to secure, and I don't find it any surprise at all that both NGLA and Merion secured "UNDETERMINED" plots of land...a total acreage at a fixed price, for sure, but with the final boundaries to be determined.

I think the historical record for both courses then clearly shows that both Macdonald at NGLA and the Committee (with CBM's advice and suggestions) at Merion spent the next several months working out the exact holes, routing, and boundary lines.

If anything has been proven on this thread, I'd venture to say that this has.

Both efforts were a reaction against the courses that had been built prior in this country, most of which were routed in a day or two by a professional from abroad or a local committee.   No one knew that a quality course REQUIRED more than that!

That's why it's absolutey preposterous to think that CBM would lay out any course in a day...I think if someone suggested that to him there might be fisticuffs!   

So, although I see Jim's point, I do think it's something he can't get over, and I do think the contemporaneous evidence all flies in the face of his belief that these guys first routed the course and then secured the land.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

Where did you find the Wilson letter to Philler ?


Patrick,

That's a transcribed version sent to me long ago by Tom Paul.   I did add a phrase to mine that he had inadvertently neglected to type when he typed the lengthy letter.

All,

Incidentally, for ANYONE who wants to see the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in person, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you make the trip to the Merion Archives where you can view them firsthand.

Scanned copies of originals are there for your own purview, research, and understanding.   Please avail yourselves of the opportunity if your are interested in the topic, and while you're there, soak in the glorious history and ambiance of this great club and course.

If travel is a problem, I'd also recommend the Morrison/Paul book, "The Nature Faker" the describes all of the courses William Flynn was involved with (including a very comprehensive Merion history that shows the evolution of every hole on the course as well as copies the documents in question) in a very factual manner.   The book is a virtual treasure trove of original materials.   

[JESII]

Mike,

Anybody that's come this far in these threads that hasn't formed an opinion of what MAY HAVE happened is of a different mindset than I. To say I'm entrenched is merely an over-reaction, a defensive reaction, to my criticism of you when you say some piece of information "PROVES" something else. It sounds like Bryan is similarly motivated by both sides making procimations of proof with evidence that comes far short of proof.

I have an opinion, sure, but it's not so entrenched that I can't take the time to consider anyone else's.



Bryan,

A day or so ago you and Mike were discussing the last measurement on the July deed and it's 76 yard straight shot up to College Ave. The immediate prior measurement was a 62 yard curving stretch (Tom Paul sent an email about this, not sure if you were copied) and that this was proof that the total length from College Ave was 138 yards and not the 120 we've been assuming. My question from the deeds is two-fold; does the Eastern portion of that 62 yard stretch track the western part with the same 3.667 yard width? Or does it continue straight South which would obviously add to the width of the top of the triangle well North of the 16th tee? Second, how many yards does that arching 62 yard stretch of road cover in a straight line continuing down to the 16th tee?

Hope those were clear and if you don't have time to look and figure it out, no sweat.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Now you're not only being stubborn and entrenched but you're disingenuous, as well.   

Agreed with your questions to Bryan...I asked something similar the other day and also shared offline to him the email we received.

 

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Looking at it, I'm betting that the property line continues straight south at the point GHR starts to curve but also then extends west to the middle of GHR.

The red line I drew is 130 yards end to end. It certainly seems simpler for them to have just purchased all of it (including the yellow triangle created when the road was dramatically re-routed to the east in what I believe was the Francis land swap)  rather than to leave that little piece of yellow corner next to Haverford College "unpurchased" in the deal...

I mean, what are you going to do with it, sell it back to HDC?    

Why do you think that Pugh & Hubbard wouldn't have reflected such a significant change between the real estate and golf components on their Land Plan if that change too place prior to November 1910?   I mean, shoot, Jim...at 130 yards of difference they could have put today's 13th hole in there!

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  as neutrality goes, I know what you mean.  My only point is that your neutrality does not give you any special insight into the matter.   What you "think" isn't necessarily any more sound than what I think.  It all depends upon our respective familiarity with and understanding of the source material and of course the quality of your analysis.   I am pretty comfortable with my analytical abilities, as I am sure you are with yours. 

The reason I mention this is because I thought we were going to have a conversation about my methodology, and whether I had support for my conclusions.   That you think something different happened really is of little matter to me.   I respect your opinion more than some others here, but I don't automatically cede to any upper hand as analysis goes, and while your opinion is worth consideration, but far from dispositive.  And so far as I can tell, it has no more of a sound basis than mine, and perhaps less so.

Your point-by-point disagreements are odd given that you criticized me for piggy-backing my conclusions upon my previous conclusions.  Aren't you doing that exact thing, only moreso?  And even about matters where not even I have drawn a definite conclusion?  Take the issue of the Lesley report and who went to NGLA.  I don't know who went to NGLA, but you seem to think you do!  I know you can't possibly think your opinion on this is "fact," many of your assumptions are built to get to this one, and more are built on its back.  And I am not sure your assumptions are the best ones given what we know. 

1.  Your support for your opinions seems to be the Alan Wilson letter, written over 10 years after the fact, by a person who has never been linked to any of the events in question, who is admittedly relying on on second hand accounts for at least some of what he is writing, and whose description contains mistakes.  And he was the brother of the recently deceased Hugh Wilson and is making the case for Hugh Wilson's place in Merion's history.  So far as I can tell, Wilson is trying to piece it together much like we are, but doesn't quite have it right.    So your reliance on him for details is shaky at best. 

2.  You think there were two committees, the Golf Committee and what Alan Wilson calls the "'Special Committee on New Golf Grounds.'"   I'd say there are least two committees and possibly three, but on what basis do you think there were only two?  Aren't there mentions of a Golf Committee, what we have called the Site Committee, and the Construction Committee?   

3.  You "think it likely that the 'Golf Committee' and the 'Construction Committee' were one and the same." Really? What is your basis for so concluding?    Because I think this unlikely. It seems more likely to me that there were either three committee or the Golf Committee and the Site Committee were one and the same.  For one thing, Lesley was the chair of the Site Committee and I believe he was also the chair of the Golf Committee.   Yet he was not even on the Construction Committee, was he?   Why would he be reporting for a Committee on which he was not even a member?

4.  "It seems unlikely to [you] that the Special Committee on New Golf Grounds, of which Lesley was chair, would still be involved in March.  Their work was already done.  They had identified the Ardmore property." Yet Lesley is the one reporting to the board in March, which makes this quite an assumption on your part.   What makes you think their "work" was only limited to identifying the property?  According to Merion's Board their job was to secure the property and according to Mike et al. the final boundaries weren't even yet established.   Also, as I explain immediately above, I find it more likely that the Golf Committee and the Site Committee were one and the same than the Golf Committee and the Construction Committee.  Golf and Site both were chaired by Lesley and reported to directly to Merion's Board.  I thought the Construction Committee was a sub-committee reporting to either the Golf or Site Committee (if there were two.) 

5.  Then you address who gave the report and in so doing you roll all your previous assumptions into your conclusion that while Lesley was giving the report, "Lesley was not part of that Committee." This makes no sense to me.  He was not part of the Construction Committee but I believe he was the CHAIR OF THE GOLF COMMITTEE and reporting for the GOLF COMMITTEE.  I see no justification for treating the Golf Committee and the Construction Committee as the same.  What facts support this?  And even if Lesley was not on the Golf Committee (I think he was the Chair) what would he have been doing giving a report for the GOLF COMMITTEE?  That makes no sense to me at all.  Did they just pull him out of the clubhouse? 
     Now it is possible that Lesley is reporting on the activities of a sub-committee and I think the Construction Committee was a sub-committee, but that is not what the report says. If this was the case, then it would have been easy enough for him or the minutes to say so.  And Lesley was an intelligent and articulate man.  I don't think it reasonable to speculate that he would give a report in first person if he was not the author.   

6.  You then build the remainder of your opinions on these various opinions above. 
-  You don't have to consider who actually went to NGLA because of your opinion that the Construction Committee and the Golf Committee were one and the same.   
-  Same goes with who was designing the course.   (Although given that you tended to agree with me that the "different routings" may have included early routings, this is potentially inconsistent.   The Construction Committee reportedly didn't come into existence until 1911, so how could they have been coming up with different routings before then?)

7. Then ask if there was a third committee called the Golf Committee.  So far as I can tell the Golf Committee was the committee in charge of golf and was one of the committees appointed by the Board of Governors. My understanding is that some Committees appointed by the Board were internal Board Committees consisting entirely of Board Members such as the Executive Committee, Finance Committee, etc., and then there were main committees appointed by the Board consisting of members from within and without the Board such as the House Committee, the Golf Committee, the Cricket Committee, etc.   These committees could create sub-committees and I believe that the Construction Committee was such a committee.    The main question to me was whether the committee appointed by the board to secure the land was actually (or became) the Golf Committee or whether there was a Golf Committee and a Site Committee both reporting directly to the board.   Either way, Lesley was on both those committees but NOT THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.

8.  Your reading of what was meant by them having rearranged the course is another assumption on your part.  I don't see the support for thinking this refers to a generic course as in Merion golf course, especially after you generally agreed that they were likely using "course" to mean routing earlier in the same report.  And under your reading what was rearranged if not the routing?   They didn't move the location did they?

9.  I don't agree that there were five different and distinct routings.  I think at this time they had one "course" and the plans were variations within that frame work.   I think your theory only works if you read away them rearranging the course, and I am not willing to do that.

10.  Throughout your last two posts you consistently give Mike and Jeff way too much credit for agreeing with me when they have not.   Rather than go through it, I'll ask you the same question I asked Jeff.  If they agree with me, then why the multi-year witch hunt and the seemingly never ending attempts to undermine my essay and my credibility?

11.  Your next point is rather odd. You accuse me of stating "as if fact" the following:    They went to him for direction; he gave them direction, either with options or leaving for them some things to figure out; they returned and tried to impliment what he had told them.  In so doing you simply ignore my words above and below this section!
-  Immediately before this I had written, "And IMO the most reasonable way to read the Lesley Golf Committee report is to read all this as a continuation of the same process --"   
-  Immediately after this I wrote, "I don't know for sure and I don't think I ever claimed I did, but that I do think that this is the most reasonable and most plausible explanation." 
-  So I have no idea what you are talking about when you claim that I stated this "as if fact."   How many more qualifiers do I have to attach before it is clear that this is my opinion?    I would have thought the "IMO" would have given it away, or the fact that I say "I don't know for sure" and have never said I did.   Or the fact that I said it is "the most reasonable."   
-  Finding the "most reasonable interpretation" is a far cry from stating something as absolute fact, isn't it? 

In this regard, I think you drastically overstate my penchant for stating opinions as fact.  No doubt I have done this in the heat of the battle, but I don't think it is nearly as prevalent as you make it out to be. 

More than that, I think you are reading to find me doing this whether I am or not. Look at this example!  How many more disclaimers could I have included before you understood that this was my opinion based on, as you would say, a balancing of probabilities?

12.  You then pronounce my opinion above as "unknown" as if the standard was whether I had proven it as "fact."   That isn't the standard and I didn't state it as fact.   The standard for me is what is most likely.  What you call a balancing of probabilities.  And here is where I think you have a double standard.
-  If my opinion is "unknown" then everything you "think" above is unknown.   You think it, but that doesn't make it so.  You could be wrong on a lot of it, and I think you are wrong on some of it.  But should we throw it out because it is unknown?    Or should we try to figure out whether it is the best explanation out there?   
-  I assume the latter, and that is all I am asking for here.   We don't know exactly what happened, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to determine what is the best, most reasonable explanation of what happened.   
-  Of if we are only dealing in absolute facts, then lets throw out all the babies with the bath water.  Throw out everything where anyone is trying to draw any sort of reasonable conclusion based on an imperfect factual record.  Because as it is, they and you seem to want to dismiss my reasonable conclusions outright as "unknown" but you don't seem to be doing the same with your own, whether as reasonable or not.

That is why I am claiming a double standard.   It is not as if you and they are dismissing all theories as "unknown."  You are only dismissing my theory as "unknown."  You are quite comfortable with the backdrop of your own "unknowns" that you use to fill in the story --that Wilson wrote the Lesley report, for example.   Generally standard seems it be that unless it is absolutely proven and known what CBM was doing every step of the way, then we must conclude that Wilson was responsible for everything we don't know.   I think that is an unreasonable analysis at this point.  There are many more unknowns about Wilson's involvement than CBM's.   

So I ask you again, Bryan, to reconsider your methodology here.   Because sometimes you seem to be doing a balance of probabilities standard, especially when it comes to your own theories.  But at other times you seem to be using some absolute proof standard, as in the case where you dismiss my theory as "unknown."   

[Mike Cirba]

Robert Lesley was an officer of the club and would have been at the Board Meeting no matter what month of the year it was.

Besides, why create confusion about Lesley's role when Mr.  Lesley clearly told us who designed Merion, as well, as did AW Tillinghast who was there and saw the plans prior to construction and personally spoke about the project with CBM.

Golf Illustrated  – July 20, 1934 – A.W. Tillinghast

“There was peculiar pleasure in revisiting Merion after an interval of years for I have known the course since its birth.  Yet, with it all, there was keen regret that my old friend Hugh Wilson had not lived to see such scenes as the National Open unfolded over the fine course that he loved so much.  It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”

[DMoriarty]

Patrick.

You asked Mike where he got that Alan Wilson letter, and he answered . . .

That's a transcribed version sent to me long ago by Tom Paul.   I did add a phrase to mine that he had inadvertently neglected to type when he typed the lengthy letter.

What he  neglected to mention is that the portion TEPaul and/or Wayne "inadvertently neglected to type" just may have been the most important phrase in the entire letter.  Here it is, in bolds . . .

". . . their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value."

So they just happened to "inadvertantly neglect[] to type" the portion of the letter making clear that their CBM and HJW were helping them with the lay-out of Merion East.  Just like TEPaul just happened to inadvertently provide us with a phony S. Dacre Bush quote in the Myopia discussion?  Or how he inadvertently misrepresented what he had seen in the Myopia archives?  Or how he inadvertently posted various versions of the Lesley report?

Their inadvertance seems to be remarkably precise and always focused on improving their argument!  
_____________________________________


On a related note, Mike tells us yet again that we should all run out and purchase the Flynn Faker pdf.   I didn't know Ran's website was a place to constantly shill the commercial projects of members, much less non-members.    The pdf only contains transcripts, and as Mike's post just discussed evidences, the Faker authors have been known to leave out a few key words here and there.  Not only that, but most of the documents they transcribe were discussed in my essay and transcribed by me here years ago and for free.  In fact I sent many of them to Wayne at his request.   Now they are for sale in his pdf?  Go figure?  

 
In the same post, Mike Cirba offers the following invitation to all of us regarding Merion's Archives:  

Incidentally, for ANYONE who wants to see the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in person, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you make the trip to the Merion Archives where you can view them firsthand.

Scanned copies of originals are there for your own purview, research, and understanding.   Please avail yourselves of the opportunity if your are interested in the topic, and while you're there, soak in the glorious history and ambiance of this great club and course.

Congratulations to Mike Cirba on joining Merion.   Nice to see his loyalty has finally paid off.  And to rise so quickly through the ranks there that you are comfortable speaking on Merion's behalf and offering up their Archives for our review!    Quite impressive!

Or, if Mike isn't a member of Merion, then where does he get off telling us what we can view at Merion's archives?  What is the basis of his invitation and your description of what is available.  Because I suspect that unless Merion has changed their policy in the past few months, his claims are INACCURATE AND MISLEADING.   As of a few months ago many of Merion's records - including most of those at issue here - were entirely unavailable for review.

Mike Cirba, who is your source?   And where do you get off speaking for Merion?  

_________________________________

Mike, you state Lesley was "an officer of the club."  What office?   Was he on the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors?  Was he a Governor?  Do you deny he was Chairman of the Golf Committee?  
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()