[DMoriarty]

I sense that you feel victimized by what you feel is a burden of proof I am imposing on you.  I am not a lawyer, so I'm not even sure what burden of proof means to you.  I do recall a good book by that name of some years ago.  But, to clarify again, I am NOT trying to figure out "which among the various theories is most reasonable and is most likely to have happened".  What's the point in doing that?  The most reasonable and most likely may not be the truth.  Is it not better to continue pursuing more of the truth of what actually happened that to surmise what happened through inference and interpretation?  In the meantime, the analysis of the information we do have is enlightening and entertaining.  Debating is fun on its own merits, as long as it doesn't get too emotional.

Victimized?  I don't think so.   I am asking you to give some consideration to your own methods and standards, because when it comes to methods and standards you seem to be all over the place, and it makes it difficult to have a productive conversation.  If you are not trying to figure out what is most reasonable and most likely, then why are you speculating and surmising and inferring and interpreting?   Does saying it is "enlightening and entertaining" somehow free you from any standards or consistent methodology?

I guess my ideals are rather Socratic in that I think that while figuring out the absolute truth may be impossible, a reasoned debate ought to help us at least move in the right direction.  So I don't get why you keep challenging me to state my points as absolute certainties.  I don't see this as productive or reasonable within the context of the conversation.   I know my points are not absolute certainties, which is why I am engaging in debate about them.    So then the question becomes which among the various claims make most sense, and how do those claims match up with the facts as we know them.  

How can you productively participate if you aren't trying to figure out what is most reasonable and most likely?  You seem to be of the notion that if we cannot come up with absolute certainties then one theory is as good as any other, but I disagree with this.   This has been Mike's approach for years, where he comes up with a theory, no matter how outlandish, and sticks with it no matter what as if it has equal merit with all the rest.  All this does is stall and derail productive conversation, which may serve his purpose but doesn't serve mine.  
________________________________________________________________

Niall wrote:

Many thanks for the timeline comments about Sayers arrival etc. See my comments to Bryan above. I was vaguely aware that the course was routed and largely built before Sayers arrival but was under the impression that various tweaking went on over the years and therefore what was built first off was subject to (continual ?) change that others apart from CBM might have played a part in.

The course certainly evolved over the years, but this conversation (or at least my part in it) has generally focused on the initial creation of the course.   And before Merion even opened - before Wilson had returned from his trip abroad - it was already being reported that most of the holes were modeled after the great holes abroad.   Think about that.   They were modeling their course on holes that Wilson had never even seen.  Based on what?    With regard to the initial creation of the course there is little mystery as to from where these ideas came.  Hugh Wilson told us they came from CBM. Lesley confirmed this, as did Alan Wilson and others.  

So when they told us from where the ideas came, why would we not listen to them?    Why would we try to hypothesize from where else they might have gotten their ideas?   Is it possible they could have figured it all out without CBM?  Very unlikely but also irrelevant, because they told us they were listening to CBM!  

David - interesting you mention the HJW's Scribner article which I managed to track down just this morning. A very interesting read and one comment he makes that I think worth mentioning is his comment that on every hole at NGLA you can see the entire ground up to the green from where you stand on the tee. I assume therefore he includes the Redan in this comment. I've never been to either Merion or NGLA but interested to hear from you or others as to whether this general rule holds true. From my half a dozen plays of the original Redan at North Berwick, the last a couple of weeks ago, I certainly don't remember it being anything like HJW describes for NGLA.

I don't think that exactly what he said.  I believe he said nearly every hole commands a view of the entire hole from the tee.   There are some blind shots at NGLA where the strategy of the hole dictates a blind shot (the Sahara, Alps, and Punchbowl for example)  but for the most part I found the visibility to be pretty good. As for the Redan (or any other hole) CBM and HJW were not designing exact copies but rather were incorporating the basic strategic concepts as they fit with the landscape.  From the 1914 article CBM and HJW wrote for Golf Illustrated:

   The principle of the Redan can be used wherever a long narrow tableland can be found or made. Curiously enough the Redan existed at the National long before the links was thought of. It is a perfectly natural hole. The essential part, the tilted tableland was almost exactly like the North Berwick original. All that had to be done was to dig the banker in the face, and place the tee properly. . .
   There are several Redans to be found nowadays on American courses. There is a simplified Redan at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket Club (the green being approached from the left hand end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about level with the green is much higher. A beautiful short hole with the Redan principle will be found on the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course.

As you can see by the description of the various examples (including Merion) they were not looking for exact copies.

Here is a photo from the tee of the hole from the same article:

___________________________________________

Jeff Brauer,  You aren't emotional about Hugh Wilson but you certainly are about me, Tom MacWood, and your pal TEPaul.  And you are increasingly emotional about CBM.   I came across some of your messages and comments from early on in this debate before you started running with TEPaul. That Jeff Brauer didn't agree much with this Jeff Brauer, but then he didn't personalize this stuff as much either.  Of course you think it was the evidence that changed your mind, but your behavior on this issue and others suggests it is more about loyalty than anything else.

[Adam_Messix]

I guess this leads to another question....

If CBM was significantly involved in the design part of the East Course at Merion, why didn't they bring him back to lay out the West?  Even more pertinent, given that CBM was already sending design requests of him to Seth Raynor, wouldn't this have been a great opening for Raynor, especially early in his career?

These questions may have been answered somewhere along the line, but it's difficult to wade through all of the land swaps, Cuyler letters, Dallas estates, multiple newspaper articles that don't always to agree with each other; etc. 

From reading David Moriarty's response to my earlier question, leaving Merion out of the discussion, it appears as if Raynor was involved in every MacDonald project post NGLA, am I reading that correctly? 

[Mike Cirba]

Adam,

Yes, you've read it correctly.   EVERY course designed by CBM starting with NGLA in 1906 used Seth Raynor as some combination of co-designer, and/or onsite shaper and constructor.

Also, your question will get some ridiculously contrived answer.   One could also ask why Merion didn't bring back the supposed father of their course when they revamped it significantly for the 1916 US Amateur, or again in 1924 when they significantly changed the routing.

The answer is simple.   Macdonald was not the designer, router, or architect.   He advised during a few short moments during the course creation and from the advice I've seen, it was primarily about agronomic concerns as well as sharing the principles of great holes abroad, the brunt of it taking place seated at his home course at NGLA.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Your characterization of me is about as appropriate without meeting me as your characterization of Merion's history without ever having been there, or to their archives.  Both make big leaps of faith not based on fact.

BTW, thank you for clearly articulating in post 2148 what I have been hinting at for years - basically that post clarifies in a better way than I could that this whole silly debate has been driven mostly by your ego and arrogance, together with all too little ability to admit you might be wrong.  Simply put, you believe you are smarter than almost everyone (combined) for the last 100 years who was involved or interested in Merion.

Where I have taken offense, its at being called dumb (basically) and disingenuous to further your agenda.  Basically, being here for fun and interest, I have never, ever considered lying or twisting to make a point, nor can I concieve of an advantage in doing so.  And, as far as analyticals, I did go back to your essay and basically find it had very little back up documentation, except the mythical stuff where you claim "Ran ate your homework."  It was all extrapolation, which when you do it is reasonable, and when anyone who disagrees with you is "just makig sh*t up."

As I said once, my Dad always told me that if the whole world disagrees with you, you are probably ought to question if you are wrong.  You are in a postion of being the Lone Ranger of Merion history, but not ready to consider that maybe those hundreds of astute people could have known what they were writing about.

While there are dramatic examples of my dads advice being wrong, and you probably think this is one shining case, I think further historical review of your opinion vs all the opinions you said were written wrong by participants and contemporaries or interpreted wrong subsequently by everyone will determine you have basically zero chance of being right.  Of course, that is just a theory I am putting forth and you are free to disagree, having already crafted your own theories on the matter. 

As to being offended or emotional about/by Patrick, I will say that I sort of agree with your "Socratic Method" analogy.  For most of us, we seemed to be narrowing the discussion down a bit.  I think most agreed that by modern standards CBM may deserve more credit, even if still called an advisor (but I would have no problem is some elevated him to co-designer status) and you backed of the certainty of your timeline which was a point of contention.

To my way of thinking, Patrick sort of jumped in and set the discussion back, but that is the nature of a discussion board.

Cheers.

[Mike Cirba]

I have nothing left to add here to what's been said, but received this from TePaul in a group email and I think it really punctuates what Jeff just wrote.   

I guess at the end of the day I'm glad I started this thread because it has certainly been illuminating.

Hopefully we can now all lay this whole divisive matter to rest and may it rest with the fishes;


The Big Lie

"Wilson designed the West course and significantly redesigned the East course; Wilson was in charge of construction of both courses. What big lie?"
 

Tom MacWood:
 
The big lie that Jeff Brauer is referring to is the presentation and perception put forward by MCC and Merion GC that Hugh Wilson was in the main responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses, that he should be considered the designer and architect of Merion East and West. As the chairman of the committee that was charged by the club to create the East and West courses that seems to be the story that has always been presented by MCC and Merion.
 
Of course Wilson was in charge of the construction of both courses.
 
But the story that he was only in charge of the construction of the East course and not its routing and design is a theory and scenario that has not ever been found in the administrative records of those clubs or anywhere else at any time and right from the very beginning. It is a theory and story that was first floated in April, 2008 in the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" that you and Pat Mucci still appear to endorse.
 
That Wilson was the designer and architect of the East and West courses was the perception from the very beginning by the club, by its administration, by the press back then and by numerous fellow architects and friends back then that Hugh Wilson was the one who was "in the main responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses"----all of it----every phase of it----that included routing (laying out routings and design plans previous to construction) and the construction and agronomic development phases. But of course right from the very beginning and always afterwards in any comprehensive account put out by the club it was also mentioned that Macdonald and Whigam lent their advice and assistance three times for a total of fours days over ten months between June 1910 and April, 6, 1911.
 
Therefore, the "Big Lie" Jeff Brauer refers to is the idea that MCC and Merion had always tried to create the perception that Hugh Wilson was in charge of all of it even from the very beginning when in fact that may not have been the case in 1910 and 1911----as an example, that it was someone else such as Barker or Macdonald that MCC put in charge and recorded was in charge of the routing and design plans for the East course that would then be turned over to Wilson and his committee to simply construct that routing and design plan of the East Course.
 
THAT is what Moriarty tried to suggest and conclude in his essay "The Missing Faces of Merion."
 
And NOW, as of yesterday, Moriarty has summarized his belief and conclusion that the records of MCC, administrative and otherwise from back then and the very beginning, actually DO SAY that Macdonald was in charge and was the one responsible for the design of the East Course, if only one understands how to read them correctly!
 
And Moriarty went on to say yesterday (clearly unbelievably) that for many years everyone, including the club, competent historians et al seem to have misread and/or misunderstood what those records do say! And that it was never known until Moriarty himself pointed all this out in 2008 and yesterday, 98 to 101 years after the fact   that everyone had either misread those records or misunderstood what those back then wrote or said about them that the truth of who the designer of Merion East was----FINALLY EMERGED!
 
I'm sorry, but if you cannot even begin to suspect how preposterous and comical this all sounds from Moriarty, I doubt there is much hope for you as a golf architecture historian and analyst.
 
It after this you still have to ask what the "Big Lie" means, and if after this if you still do not understand what Jeff Brauer meant by the "Big Lie" I suppose you never will.
 
 

[DMoriarty]

Adam,   

I don't think there is any reasonable question as to whether CBM was significantly involved in Merion's design.  By now that is well documented.  The only remaining questions involve some of the details and the exact extent of the involvement.

We haven't gotten into too much discussion about what happened at the West.  I assume it was designed by Wilson but could not tell you whether or not he consulted with CBM or Raynor during the process.  I think George Bahto suspected that Raynor was at the West at some point, but I know nothing of it.

At any rate, by this time Wilson had studied with CBM, built the East Course based on the plan CBM had chosen, and gone abroad to study the courses in Europe (commenting that they confirmed what CBM had taught him.) So he was much better equipped to try and design a course than before.  Still, while the West is a lovely member course, not many would put in in the same category as the East.  One could just as easily flip your inquiry; if Wilson was responsible for both, then how come they weren't of more comparable quality? The same could be asked of Seaview . . . I haven't played Seaview but I don't think it was ever thought to be among the elite courses like Merion or NGLA.   So why the drop-off?

As for Raynor, George Bahto wrote that he wasn't planning on a career as a course designer, but CBM brought him into the project at Piping Rock on Long Island.  So at the time CBM and HJW were helping plan Merion, it is not at all clear that Raynor was looking to make a career of  traveling around the country building courses.  My guess is that while CBM was willing to help Merion plan their course, he was not interested in building a course in Philadelphia. If I recall correctly, Merion did hire the same construction company as NGLA had used. I don't know that anyone can say for certain if Raynor ever had anything to with any of it or not, nor do I think his lack of involvement says much about the level of CBM's involvement. CBM wasn't in charge of building Merion, so what would have been Raynor's role?  

I know Patrick has speculated about contact Raynor may have had with Francis given their similar backgrounds, but while it is interesting to consider I have always avoided this avenue as too speculative. 

__________________________________

Jeff Brauer.  I stand by my post, and note that it is appropriate that your response is more about your personal feelings than it is about substance.

You are wrong when you say that the whole world disagrees with me.   You'd be surprised who agrees with me.  Others are smart enough to keep their heads down and not face the wrath of the small band of Philly Psychos.

You are also wrong when you say I have never been to Merion.   Besides, much of the material about the creation of the course in the Faker .pdf came from me first.  The Faker authors have spent plenty of time at Merion yet they still thought CBM was nothing but a glorified travel agent to Wilson, and had failed to understand much of this early history.   So perhaps being there isn't the end-all-be-all they make it out to be. 

And, Jeff, whether you like or not there is a talent to this sort of thing, just like there is a talent to playing golf or designing courses.  Some are better at this than others, and my record on this stuff is pretty damn solid.  I'd put my analytical abilities up against the lot of you any day.
__________________________________

Mike Cirba.  It is my understanding from Ran that TEPaul is not a member of this discussion board and is not supposed to be posting here.   You have no business posting his rants for him.

I'll no more read his ridiculous rants here than in his never-ending emails.   The guy has obviously got some problems and you shouldn't be enabling him. 

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

Why do you think I am or would be emotional about Hugh Wilson? I'm not, and your postulation that I am (as a Chicagoan/Texan) is as ridiculous as your HHBarker designed Merion theory.

Referring to one of many misattributions during that era as 'The Big Lie' shows how hypersensitive and emotional those defending it have become. For whatever reason you have thrown your lot in with the usual suspects from that region and have caught whatever they have. Referring to the misattribution as a 'big lie' almost makes it sound as if there was some kind of organized conspiracy, which is ridiculous and illogical. These misattributions are quite common for a number of reasons, not including organized conspiracy.

[Tom MacWood]

I guess this leads to another question....

If CBM was significantly involved in the design part of the East Course at Merion, why didn't they bring him back to lay out the West?  Even more pertinent, given that CBM was already sending design requests of him to Seth Raynor, wouldn't this have been a great opening for Raynor, especially early in his career?

These questions may have been answered somewhere along the line, but it's difficult to wade through all of the land swaps, Cuyler letters, Dallas estates, multiple newspaper articles that don't always to agree with each other; etc.  

From reading David Moriarty's response to my earlier question, leaving Merion out of the discussion, it appears as if Raynor was involved in every MacDonald project post NGLA, am I reading that correctly?  

I don't believe Raynor was involved at Merion, East Lake or Greenwich with CBM, all around the same period. And I don't believe CBM was involved Fairfield, Westhampton or the mystery course in Maine (among others) with Raynor.

CBM did not design many 36 hole complex for understandable reasons considering of the nature of his courses. An 18 hole course made up of the standard prototypes is good, 36 holes may be overkill. To my knowledge Yale was the only 36-hole project he designed, and the second 18 was never built.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Now I know that TEPaul and Wayno are frothing at the mouth as they read this, and typing as fast as their little fingers will go, but, none of this discussion would have occured if we really knew the details, specific details. of who did what and when.   You don't know who crafted the plans.  Was it one committee member ? three ? CBM ?  Whigham ?  All of them, none of them ?

So, reasonable men can speculate with regard to the missing details.

Why not ?

So, you agree that we don't know the "details, specific details. of who did what and when".  

Bryan, I've stated that from the begining.
The historical difference in my opinion versus that of others is that the "others' have been trying to ram down our throats the notion that Wilson/Committe did everything.

We simply don't know "who did what and when", which inherently leads to speculation.

You are free to speculate, to put forth your theory and to disagree with the speculation and theories of others.

If, through the presentation of facts or reason, a theory can be either reinforced or debunked, that's part of the debating process.

I put forth a theory.  Y0u don't have to accept it and if you can disprove it, all the better, as that process distills or filters out the weaker theories allowing anyone to focus on the stronger theories.

I think I postulated a reasonable scenario which caused the Philly Phanatics to go apoplectic.

I"m entitled to my opinion, as you are yours.

I'm under no obligation to submit my theory to TEPaul and Wayne Morrisson for their approval prior to presenting my theory on GCA.com.
They LEFT GCA.com.
Their imperialistic attitude has taken on comedic proportions.
The volume of emails I receive from them has become intrusive and burdensome.
But, through it all, I continue to like TEPaul and Wayno.
I have lots of friends who are deranged, misguided and/or disoriented and I count TEPaul and Wayno amongst them.

It's obvious that we disagree on this subject, but, I'm entitled to my opinion, as they are theres.



I think as I parse through David's theories and postings that he would agree too.  I agree.  Do you suppose if Mike and Jeff and the peanut gallery agreed, that we could all agree that we are just all speculating, looking for what seems to each of us to be the most likely scenario?


Bryan, the only two objecting to what you suggest, seem to be TEPaul and Wayno.
I've never presented my theory as fact.  I've speculated under what I would consider the prudent man rule.

In any case, let the speculating and the debate continue.


Agreed.

But, I'd like to add that I think we've come to a far greater understanding of the early history of Merion and NGLA through these threads.
I've enjoyed them, despite some acrimony, and I've learned a great deal from them.

So, as you stated above, let the speculating and the debate continue.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

Yes, you've read it correctly.   EVERY course designed by CBM starting with NGLA in 1906 used Seth Raynor as some combination of co-designer, and/or onsite shaper and constructor.

That's a misleading, catch-all, multiple combination statement.  Why don't you list the courses where Raynor did the design work, or where he was the co-designer and not the engineer, or person in charge of construction.

Also, your question will get some ridiculously contrived answer.   One could also ask why Merion didn't bring back the supposed father of their course when they revamped it significantly for the 1916 US Amateur, or again in 1924 when they significantly changed the routing.

Probably for the same reason that Piping Rock wouldn't bring him back.
It has nothing to do with original design credit, it has to do with club politics.

The answer is simple.   Macdonald was not the designer, router, or architect.  

You don't know that, that's just wishful thinking and/or speculation on your part.

He advised during a few short moments during the course creation and from the advice I've seen, it was primarily about agronomic concerns as well as sharing the principles of great holes abroad, the brunt of it taking place seated at his home course at NGLA.

You don't know that either, that's just speculation on your part.

Bryan, this is exactly what I was referencing.

Mike continually speculates and postures that his speculation/s are fact, when nothing could be further from the truth, and that's what I object to and push back on.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David/Patrick,

Many thanks for the timeline comments about Sayers arrival etc. See my comments to Bryan above. I was vaguely aware that the course was routed and largely built before Sayers arrival but was under the impression that various tweaking went on over the years and therefore what was built first off was subject to (continual ?) change that others apart from CBM might have played a part in.

David - interesting you mention the HJW's Scribner article which I managed to track down just this morning. A very interesting read and one comment he makes that I think worth mentioning is his comment that on every hole at NGLA you can see the entire ground up to the green from where you stand on the tee.

I assume therefore he includes the Redan in this comment. I've never been to either Merion or NGLA but interested to hear from you or others as to whether this general rule holds true.

Niall, I'm really puzzled by the comment because it's so far removed from being accurate.
You lose tee to green visuals, partial or complete, on holes # 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 18.
In addition, there are parts of the fairway that get hidden from the tee on # 14 and # 15.
So, the statement is beyond wild.  However, the inverse seems to be true, so maybe someone misunderstood or incorrectly edited the statement.

From my half a dozen plays of the original Redan at North Berwick, the last a couple of weeks ago, I certainly don't remember it being anything like HJW describes for NGLA.

Patrick - re routing. A good number of years ago when I flirted with getting into gca I did a course along with seven others. During the course we did a number of routing exercises, some from plans only, others with plans and access to walk the site. Most of the sites chosen had severe restraints for obvious reasons. Each exercise was done over a couple of days. From that I can assure you that coming up with a basic routing or several based on roughly the same idea wasn't that difficult. What was interesting was that others in the group would have a completely different take and would route the course in the totally opposite direction say. So very quickly you would have 8 routings.

Now I imagine the exact sort of thing would happen with the Merion Committee in that they each would do there own routing and then discuss the respective merits, refining them, and then choosing what they considered the best to show to CBM for comment. The question however, as I stated before, was whether they were any good, and whether the one chosen had any alterations made by CBM.

Niall, I think we tend to forget that this took place over 100 years ago, in 1910.
I don't know what aspect of modern technology aided you, aerials, topos, etc.., but, in 1910, GCA was in its infancy with not a lot of local product to study and learn from.  In addition, none of these men were golf course architects.  None were schooled in GCA.  None had studied GCA.
And, Merion to me, seems to have enough quirk in the site configuration as to cause one pause in terms of producing and exceptional routing.

The use of crossovers seems to tell me that routing was a difficult process, in part solved by employing crossovers.

I would agree that many could route a course in short order.
Let me rephrase that.  I think all but Mike Cirba woud agree that many could route a course in short order.
But, could they solve the idiosyncracies that a site might present.  And, as you say, could they produce a routing where the quality of the routing and individual hole designs presented a superior course by almost any standard ?

I'll tell you what else bothers me about this project.

When you take a novice, or a group of novices, and you charge them with the responsibilty of designing a terrific golf course for the club and their fellow members, there's a tremendous amount of pressure that comes with that task.

None of those guys could have been very confident.
They were totally inexperienced in this endeavor and had to be very concerned about the daunting task in front of them.

So, who would you lean on ?

The architect deemed to be the most skilled and competent in all of America ?

Years ago, when Arther Goldberg, CEO of Bally's/Hilton fired Rees Jones when AG was going to renovate ACCC, he turned to the Head Pro, Billy Ziobro, and said, can you take care of this project.  Billy said:  "Yes, on one condition, that you keep the "suits" away from me and that I have continuous and direct access to you"  AG said "Go ahead, but, I'll just tell you one thing. you'd better not F__k it up"
Billy was pleased to be in charge, but nervous as hell about the task he had just committed to.
So, what did he do ?  He went out and hired Tom Doak and let Tom Doak, a pre-eminent architect in America, do what he does best, design a golf course.  So, put yourself in the shoes of these five novices.  Consider the task at hand in 1910 and then tell me if you wouldn't retain CBM and listen to every word he spoke.

I've been through this process.
The responsibilty is awesome/burdensome.
You immediately realize what Donald Rumsfeld stated.
"There are things you know, and there are things you don't know" and for the things you don't know, you sure as hell better get/hire/retain the best experts in the field to handle the things YOU don't know.

Hope that helps.  

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I know you'll be shocked by this, but, I agree with David regarding your posting of statements sent to you by TEPaul

TEPaul left this site.
I've asked him to return, publically and privately.

But, until he does, I think you should refrain from posting statements that he's sent to you for the express purpose of posting on this website.

It makes you look like a lackey, and as I stated previously, there's no ability to engage in dialogue.
Being a surrogate isn't in your best interest.

So, again, I'll suggest that you end the practice.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

When you, David, and MacWood stop mentioning Tom Paul and Wayne Morrision in every other post, then I'll stop posting what they write.

You guys can write your absurd, revisionist, historically-inaccurate theories all you wish, but when you attack others personally, as you've all done here for the past year to me and others, it's time to put up or shut up.

Obviously, none of you have anything factual to put up and instead are left to your own twisted logic, bastardization of standard language and terminology, and contrived, tortured reasoning.

On this issue, I'm pretty confident that i speak for the vast majority here when I say I think you should all shut up.

I'm pretty confident they think we all should, frankly.   Personally, I'd be very happy to stop spending my time correcting your collective agenda-driven distortions of the truth and defending myself and others against your personal attacks that you resort to in lieu of producing actual facts and evidence.

[Niall C]

Patrick

Thanks for your comments. Re HJW's Scribner article, I may have misread or mis-stated what he said but I don't think so. Haven't had a chance to check but will do and will send you a copy. Its a very interesting read (and well written) which explains the strategies of the various template holes. It is entirely possible that he qualified his statement in a way which I don't recall.

The other aspect to it is how to you define blindness. For me because you can't see every inch of a hole or indeed a green, doesn't make it blind. I think if you can get an idea of the lay of the land for what is concealed then it isn't entirely blind. That said I think HJW was quite explicit in what he said but again speaking from memory.

Re routing a course, I note what you say and if you have actually been responsible for designing/constructing a course then you are way ahead of me. Anything I did was sadly only an academic exercise. In terms of what we used, from my dodgy memory all we used OS plans (1:5000 ?) with 5m (?) contour lines and a scale rule, nothing more than that really. Of course we could use Google Earth but it was really just an aide memoire to recall what the vegetation was like in various parts of the site. The Merion gang wouldn't have had that but then they would have been on site so wouldn't need it. Again we routed some fairly restrictive sites and came up with a variety of solutions, some of which worked better than others, but the point is that its not rocket science. These were educated men with an interest in golf course design, they would have read all the articles about ideal hole lengths, the ideal holes even, and would have been more than equipped to give it a go.

I've no doubt CBM could offer some practical tips but I'm kind of struggling to imagine him riding roughshod over there ideas (my words). As you say also, this was a hundred years ago. How much earth were they shifting ? How sophisticated was the drainage ? Did they not do a lot of the bunkering after the course was built as was the fashion of the time ? In summary, how big an engineering project was this compared to modern course building, do you really think they couldn't have done it ?

Also wiith regards to getting assistance, I thought that is what they did by going to Oakley and Piper for agronomy advice ?

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

When you, David, and MacWood stop mentioning Tom Paul and Wayne Morrision in every other post, then I'll stop posting what they write.
I'll stop mentioning them when they stop sending me dozens of emails every week, sometimes ten a day.

They can't have it both ways.

They can't send me emails, and have you, like a shill, post for them on GCA.com and not expect a reply.

Yet, you, like a "bought" man, you continue to post their messages.
Do you think that by posting their "messages' you weren't going to get responses that mentioned them ?
The didn't post anonymously through you, you cited them as the authors, so why on earth would you demand that David, Tom and I cease mentioning them by name.  You can't be that obtuse.... can you ?

How is it that two guys who claim that they don't tune in to Golfclubatlas.com, email me 30 seconds after I make a post on GCA.com ?
How is it that I'm inundated by inane, rambling emails from them ?
And, you know I'm telling the truth because you've been copied on many of them.  Not all of them, but, many of them.

So, if you want to continue to be a lackey, a shill

You guys can write your absurd, revisionist, historically-inaccurate theories all you wish, but when you attack others personally, as you've all done here for the past year to me and others, it's time to put up or shut up.

Several things need correcting.
First, you were the one who accused David and I of lying.
Subsequent to that, I stated that you were being disingenuous.
That wasn't a personal attack, it was a statement of fact.

As to the personal attacks, TEPaul and David engaged in those.  On numerous occassions, on this site and in IM's and emails to both parties I asked them to cease and desist with their personal vendetta.  Evidently, They couldn't, hence, I believe that Ran put them in the penalty box and suspended them temporarily.
Then, they came back on the site, but, again couldn't conduct themselves properly, so I think that again, Ran removed them temporarily, resulting in TEPaul withdrawing completely.  So, if you're going to lecture anyone, make sure that you do so to all parties, including yourself.

Obviously, none of you have anything factual to put up and instead are left to your own twisted logic, bastardization of standard language and terminology, and contrived, tortured reasoning.

I think my reasoning has been reasonably sound.
You seem to be the one making blanket declarations that lack substance.

On this issue, I'm pretty confident that i speak for the vast majority here when I say I think you should all shut up.

Once again you're wrong.
You don't speak for anyone other than the Merionettes.
I've gotten a good number of IM's and emails from participants and lurkers supporting the quest for information and understanding on NGLA and Merion.

Last I looked, you're not the moderator on this site.
On both NGLA and Merion you've attempted, time and time again, to present your theories, which you purport as fact, while at the same time attempting to stifle debate and silence any and all opposition through your absurd attempt at censureship.

Now, are these the marching orders you've been given by the Merionettes, or did you come up with this latest attempt at cutting off the discussion on your own ?

I'm pretty confident they think we all should, frankly.   Personally, I'd be very happy to stop spending my time correcting your collective agenda-driven distortions of the truth and defending myself and others against your personal attacks that you resort to in lieu of producing actual facts and evidence.

Would you be so kind as to point out, just two incidents where you've corrected any of my statements ?
Just two will do for now.

You post speculations and present them as if they're facts.

You're guilty of the very issues you're complaining about.

Let me ask you, is it unreasonable to postulate that Merion and CBM spoke on the phone over the roughly two years they were involved in a major Joint venture project ?   YES or NO ?

Wayne, Bryan and I have all indicated that much is unknown.
Yet, you continually declare that it's "case closed" that there's nothing more to discuss.
But, no one other than the Merionettes seems to agree with you.

It's almost as if you're afraid that any additional probing may lead to a discovery that doesn't jive with your adamant position.

Me, I'd like to see if more can be uncovered.

I think someone may be researching to see if AT&T kept LD records dating back to the early part of 20th century.
Does any of the Merion stationery or Merion records contain the Club, club officers and Committee member's phone numbers circa 1910-1912 ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The other aspect to it is how to you define blindness. For me because you can't see every inch of a hole or indeed a green, doesn't make it blind. I think if you can get an idea of the lay of the land for what is concealed then it isn't entirely blind. That said I think HJW was quite explicit in what he said but again speaking from memory.

Niall, there's a good degree of varying blindness at NGLA on almost every hole.
# 6 and # 13 may be the only holes were it's not normally in evidence.

Re routing a course, I note what you say and if you have actually been responsible for designing/constructing a course then you are way ahead of me. Anything I did was sadly only an academic exercise. In terms of what we used, from my dodgy memory all we used OS plans (1:5000 ?) with 5m (?) contour lines and a scale rule, nothing more than that really.

Of course we could use Google Earth but it was really just an aide memoire to recall what the vegetation was like in various parts of the site. The Merion gang wouldn't have had that but then they would have been on site so wouldn't need it.

Again we routed some fairly restrictive sites and came up with a variety of solutions, some of which worked better than others, but the point is that its not rocket science. These were educated men with an interest in golf course design, they would have read all the articles about ideal hole lengths, the ideal holes even, and would have been more than equipped to give it a go.

Niall,

As to routings, anyone can sink a 4 foot putt in a casual setting, but, if you'll lose the U.S. or British Open if you miss, or you'll lose 10,000 if you miss, that putt brings with it untold pressure, so, as an exercise with no consequences for screwing up, anyone can route a golf course, but, when you're doing it for real, and the product is permanent, the pressure is enormous for member-novices.

I've no doubt CBM could offer some practical tips but I'm kind of struggling to imagine him riding roughshod over there ideas (my words). As you say also, this was a hundred years ago. How much earth were they shifting ? How sophisticated was the drainage ? Did they not do a lot of the bunkering after the course was built as was the fashion of the time ? In summary, how big an engineering project was this compared to modern course building, do you really think they couldn't have done it ?

Niall, "riding roughshod" is a poor choice of words, one that predisposes the reader.
But, pretend for a second that you were charged with designing a course, and Tom Doak was selected as the consulting architect.
Are you going to ignore his advice ?  Fight with him on the routing ?  Disagree with him on the individual hole designs ?
Contest his placement of features ?

I wouldn't think so, but, as the Professional, the expert, you're going to listen to Tom Doak, especially if you and your committee, individually and collectively have zero experience in this area, yet you have the enormous responsibility of producing a quality product for your club.

Why would you expect any less from Merion and it's committee members and Charles Blair Macdonald ?

Also wiith regards to getting assistance, I thought that is what they did by going to Oakley and Piper for agronomy advice ?
I don't think you can compare agronomic advice with architectural advice, they're far removed from one another in terms of disciplines.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

I agree with most of what Patrick wrote, but will add the following.

Shortly after TEPaul supposedly left the site, I made a concerted effort to only discuss him when he was injected into the conversation by you, Brauer, or someone else. But through his emails and corresponding posts, it quickly became obvious that he was not gone at all, he was monitoring the posts constantly, harassing me and insulting me regularly, and was still participating on an almost daily basis through you and Jeff Brauer.  It is unreasonable to expect us not to comment when he continues to participate through his lackeys and continues to harass us via private email.   He obviously has some serious problems and is so delusional he thinks he can control this conversation from afar by trying to censor me while posting through you guys.  But we aren't idiots and neither is Ran.

Also, as laughable as it may be, TEPaul and Wayne have held themselves out as experts on on various gca topics by "publishing" their pathetic Faker Flynn pdf.   If they are going to pretend that they are "published" authors because Wayne dumped the contents of his hard-drive onto a cd, then they should expect their views to be dissected and discussed. The treatment they have received so far has been respectful and muted compared to the garbage you guys have written about my IMO.  

Lastly, you and TEPaul have a lot of nerve demanding my silence.  I certainly wasn't accorded any such treatment during my long absences from the website.  In fact you guys continued to blast me and my work while I was gone, and I was really gone, not monitoring the site and posting though various shills.

The reality is TEPaul is far from gone.  We should be so lucky.   If he ever manages to pull himself away here, then he won't be worth discussing.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I don't believe I have ever posted two words from TePaul here. In general, I agree with Patrick that doing so is not quite right, AND that the private email threads are pretty ridiculous, too. I have deleted all of them immediately after a quick and not so thorough read.

And once again, whatever I write is purely my opinion, which sometimes mirrors Mike's or TePaul's but not always.  I am smart enough to think and type for myself.  If you want nerve, how about you criticizing my last post for lack of substance and then bothering to respond with your post above?  Or espousing that others hold them selves out as experts because of what they pubish, when you did the same with the "Missing Faces of Merion?"  Or arguing with me or even Mike when we post something that agrees with you about 90%, just to argue?  How much agreement do you want, 110%? Or do you just want to be crowned the King of gca history? (insert smiley)

I agree with you we should ignore those emails on this thread.  Or just end it completely in both emails and cyberspace, at least until there is something new to discuss.  We are ALL being quite silly. Cheers.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Your memory is failing here.

I never said you and David were lying through your teeth until after BOTH of you, first he, and then YOU, in your posts 161 and 163, called me first "disengenous", and then "intellectually dishonest".

I'm not going to bother going back and figuring out which post of David's he said that in first....for over a year now he hasn't let a single post of his go without a personal insult so it gets difficult to keep track.  (EDIT - Actually, he first said it in post his #68 and henceforth)

Now you can attach whatever euphemisms you like, but Jeff was right in pointing out that you both were calling me a liar.

So please drop the feigned innocence here...it doesn't wash and it's not the truth.   At least I have the decency to blame it on your faulty memory of the subject.

As I said, I have no problem with either you or David or MacWood or anyone continuing to speculate pointlessly on this subject until the cows come home.   Without any evidence of any of it I doubt it will have much effect on anyone except perhaps to take up more of Ran's bandwidth and depending on the mood, I may decide to post to correct your collective misinterpretations of facts and/or mis-characterization of evidence, but honestly  I've grown pretty bored at this point of continuing to kick this dead horse.

You may think there are unanswered questions, but this has been the biggest to do about nada since Christopher Cross.   Without any factual evidence, a tale was spun from shreds of cheesecloth, and it's not only wafer thin but falling apart like a wet cracker.   So, speculate about all these supposed continual communications all you like but ask yourself why the Wilson Brothers and Merion ONLY saw fit to mention CBM's initial visit to see the property in June 1910, the committee's overnight stay in early March 1911, and CBM's one-day visit to Merion on April 7th, 1911 where he helped the committee pick the best of their five routings.

It's simply because that's all there is and there ain't no more.   But, as I said, don't let me stop you because as your collective theories go further afield into literally thin air without any factual or evidential support, the absurdity of the case you're all trying to present becomes more self-evidently wrong.

But, the personal attacks need to stop, and from around post 160 you were questioning my "sources", so give that a break too.   I speak for myself, except in those few cases where I've posted for someone else, and clearly indicated that I did so.  

So does Jeff....it's just more games by you and David trying to deflect from the fact that neither of you has any actual evidence to defend your ridiculous theories.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I indicated that I'll no longer respond to the voluminous number of emails I've receive and continue tp receive (as many ad five just this morning by 10:30)

Mike's decision to post for TEPaul  is just another case of poor judgement on his part.

My objection to having someone who left the site post through others is that it's wrong in principle and violates Ran's decision
If Ran removes someone and another participant continues to post for that person it's wrong on several levels.
1.   It ignores Ran's decision
2.   It undermines his authority.
3.   It allows the banned or resigned person to continue to post without any accountability and responsibility.

To insure that there's no misunderstanding this has NOTHING to do with any given subject, not Merion, not NGLA, not drainage and not any architect, it's strictly a matter of principle, and not topic or poster oriented.

Personally, I'm very fond of TEPaul, we've been friends for about ten years and have enjoyed our time together on GCA.com, over the phone, at dinner, at GCA.com events and on the golf course.  I've tried repeatedly, privately and publicly, to convince him to return, but alas, to no avail.

What Mike Cirba doesn't understand is that if he continues to post for TEPaul, there's NO incentive for TEPaul to return to GCA.com.

So there are a number of reasons as to why Mike should discontinue this practice

The question is, will he figure it out before Ran figures it out for him.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I've no doubt CBM could offer some practical tips but I'm kind of struggling to imagine him riding roughshod over there ideas (my words). As you say also, this was a hundred years ago. How much earth were they shifting ? How sophisticated was the drainage ? Did they not do a lot of the bunkering after the course was built as was the fashion of the time ? In summary, how big an engineering project was this compared to modern course building, do you really think they couldn't have done it ?

Niall, "riding roughshod" is a poor choice of words, one that predisposes the reader.
But, pretend for a second that you were charged with designing a course, and Tom Doak was selected as the consulting architect.
Are you going to ignore his advice ?  Fight with him on the routing ?  Disagree with him on the individual hole designs ?
Contest his placement of features ?

I wouldn't think so, but, as the Professional, the expert, you're going to listen to Tom Doak, especially if you and your committee, individually and collectively have zero experience in this area, yet you have the enormous responsibility of producing a quality product for your club.

Why would you expect any less from Merion and it's committee members and Charles Blair Macdonald ?

In your analogy you are retaining Tom Doak as a "consulting architect".  In Merion's case we don't know that CBM was retained (or selected) as a consulting architect.  The record seems to indicate that they asked for advice and that they took at least some of his advice - like buying land by the clubhouse or contacting Piper and Oakley, etc.  What we don't know is whether he offered any specific advice on the routing or individual hole designs in that routing.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

In an attempt to get back to factual matters - or even speculation on the subject - do you have, or can you get any information on the Committee structure and their mandates at MCC in the 1910 - 1912 timeframe.  I am still perplexed as to who the "Golf Committee" was and what their role was.  There was a Committee that was tasked with finding the land for the golf course, and there was the construction committee, but was there another committee that was tasked with the design that fit in between the committee that found the land and the construction committee that built the course? 

Or, anyone else who has any insight on this could respond.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

You point/question is one of form versus substance.

The form is almost irrelevant, irrespective of whether he was called an "advisor" , "consultant"  or "non-member committeeman" his role and activity level didn't change.

In my analogy, Tom Doak's title is irrelevant.

What is relevant is his value as an expert.

And that was CBM's value, that of the expert amongst a group of total novices.

I have always been troubled by the name of Wilson's committee.

Since some are clinging to semantics in terms of CBM's title, they must also cling to the semantics in terms of the "construction" committee.

One has to know that these were educated men, clearly aware of the definition of the words "construction", "design" and "golf" .

Yet, they chose Wilson to head up the "construction" committee.

I understand Francis's appointment to any design or construction committee, his area of expertise was vital to both.

Nowhere does the record identify any specific design work done by Wilson, either on the general routing or on the design of individual holes.
But, the record is clear that Wilson was appointed Chairman of the "CONSTRUCTION" Committee.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I'm again disappointed, if not really surprised anymore that you can't just man up and admit you were wrong.

You and David both called me disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and a bunch of other euphemisms for liar for weeks before I said you were both lying through your teeth.

But for days now you're going around telling anyone who will listen both here and in private emails that I said you guys were lying first.

Then, when I prove you were WRONG in your contention, you simply choose to ignore it instead of acknowledging your mistake, whether it was intentional or not.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and chose to say you must have forgotten.   

Rather than admit that you chose that tone here very early on this thread, you continue to play as if you're some innocent broker of good will and diplomacy when you have an agenda as obvious as the day is long.

Sad, to see how the mighty have fallen.

Have a good Memorial Day anyway, Patrick.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I'm again disappointed, if not really surprised anymore that you can't just man up and admit you were wrong.

There's a reason for that.
I wasn't wrong.
You were being "intellectually dishonest", "disingenuous" and you "lied".

If you commit those transgressions are w e to sit back and accept them as "The Gospel", as you would like ?
Or do we have an obligation to challenge the false statements you've made ?

When you're "intellectually dishonest", "disingenuous" and lie, there's an obligation to identify and challenge your misrepresentations,  which is what I did.  That's not a personal attack.  That's simply an attempt to correct misinformation that's been deliberately presented as fact.

No one can deliberately misrepresent the facts and take offense when they are challenged, which is what you've done, over and over again.

Evidently, we don't debate and abide by the same standards or code of ethics.

Whenever you declared that I was lying, I asked you to cite, with specificity, where I lied.

In each and every case you failed to provide the supporting citation.

When party "A" makes misrepresentations and or false statements, or claims of "fact" that don't exist, every participant on this site who is aware
of the breach has an obligation to "call it out".

As to personal attacks, what TEPaul and David engaged in are personal attacks.

They were vile, venomous exchanges and I tried on several occasions  to get them to cease and desist.

But, they wouldn't, so Ran threw them off the site.

If I lie, call me on it

If I engage in vile personal attacks like TE and David did, I expect to be thrown off the site.

But, don't admonish me for pointing out when you're "intellectually dishonest", "disingenuous" or "lying".

You knowingly shaded the truth on more than a few occasions.

You've declared as fact, unfounded positions.

As I've stated, if I engage in similar conduct I expect you and others to call me to task on it.

Lastly,stop trying to stifle continued discussion on this and other topics

And please, comet your senses and stop your role as a surrogate, a conduit.  I know it will be a difficult to cease that function, but it's in everyone's best interest.

Have a great Memorial Day weekend while it lasts

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()