[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.] But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
             - Alex Findlay, 1912, on Merion's Alps Hole & other holes at Merion.

Your new tag line more likely should, in the context of the paragraph, be read to mean many other CBM Alps holes.  There is no mention of other template holes in the paragraph or article.  That paragraph seems to be exclusively about Findlay's advice, prior to Wilson's trip, to look at the Alps hole at Prestwick, and Wilson reporting back that the Alps at Merion (which he may have designed based on advice from CBM) was lacking compared to the original.  But, that there were many other good CBM Alps holes.

[Bryan Izatt]

To try to take this thread off on another tangent that is less repetitive and unenlightening, could you learned folks weigh in on CBM and what are the essential contributions to golf course architecture that lead to his being anointed the Father of American golf.  The World Golf Hall of Fame profile summarizes his contributions to golf as:

"Championship golfer. Golf course architect. Organizer. Bigger-than-life character. Esteemed author."

Focusing in on the architect part, what exactly did he bring to the table.  Was it just the use of templates of ideal golf holes from Scotland?  Or the idea that the principles of these holes should be incorporated in all holes built in America?  It has been argued interminably here as to whether his fingerprints are all over all the fine golf courses in America that followed NGLA.  Regardless of whether everybody can see those fingerprints, what lasting characteristics of course architecture that he created made their way into the courses that followed?  I'm not trying to make a point here, or win an argument, but I would like to better understand what it is that he brought to golf course architecture.  I understand that the preceding courses in America were considered to be crap compared to the old links courses of Scotland, but building a course that was considered (or advertised) to be ideal because it emulated existing Scottish links doesn't seem like that large a leap.

 

[Jim Nugent]

David,

Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.] But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
             - Alex Findlay, 1912, on Merion's Alps Hole & other holes at Merion.

Your new tag line more likely should, in the context of the paragraph, be read to mean many other CBM Alps holes.  There is no mention of other template holes in the paragraph or article.  That paragraph seems to be exclusively about Findlay's advice, prior to Wilson's trip, to look at the Alps hole at Prestwick, and Wilson reporting back that the Alps at Merion (which he may have designed based on advice from CBM) was lacking compared to the original.  But, that there were many other good CBM Alps holes.

Bryan, problem is, to my knowledge CBM had only built one Alps at that time.  NGLA's.  So what are the many other CBM Alps holes he could be referring to?  Seems to me he is referring to other holes at Merion. 

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

So are we saying that due to the orientation of the photograph, that November 1910 Land Plan may be unmeasurable, and may actually measure exactly 117 acres as reported if we had the original scaled drawing?   Thanks.

Bryan and Jim,

I'm not sure we know how many Alps holes CBM had been responsible for at that point?   Are there any Alps holes at any of his versions of Chicago GC?   One was under construction at Piping Rock at the time, which Findlay may have seen (seems the guy was everywhere), and a 1905 article I have mentions that CBM had been called in as a "friendly advisor" (sound familiar?) whenever an important course was being built in the east.

So I don't think we really know, at least from Findlay's perspective, how many Alps holes he may have considered to be generated by CBM at the time.

Patrick,

Again, here's the Francis article.   Your efforts to make him sound like a doddering old fool ring hollow.   He remembers very precise detail and is accurate in his recollections.

Besides, exactly what other documents besides Whigham's Eulogy has anyone presented as evidence to the contrary?   Anything?

Also, although David claims he's made his views clear, I know you know that he's dodging your questions, I know you know he's been all over the map and anything but straightforward and expect you to be fair and equitable in calling him out.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim Nugent doesn't seem to grasp that, where possible, interpretations ought NOT make a liar and/or an fool out of the speaker. When a certain interpretation renders the work absurd, nonsensical, and self-contradictory on its face like in the case of Jim's reading here, then it is likely a failure of interpretation by the reader.

Some other possibilities:  1) Whigham was confused.  Not the first time that has happened in a man nearly 70, recalling events that took place 29 years earlier;  2) Whigham was exaggerating.  He took CBM's important but advisory role at Merion, and inflated it into the preeminent one, where Macdonald designed the holes and routed the course, and Wilson mostly carried out his marching orders.  Exaggerations are not unheard of in eulogies, especially involving someone you idolize.  See if you can guess who these eulogies, written by admirers, are talking about...

1.  "(he) was a warrior for humankind and a preacher of the gospel of justice for all nations"

2.  "through his deep humanity, by his wise understanding, he leaves us a rich and monumental heritage....He has pointed the way to peace - to friendly co-existence - to the exchange of mutual scientific and cultural contributions - to the end of war and destruction."

The first was for Adolf Hitler, the second for Josef Stalin.  

The source of any document must be considered.  I'm imagining how the eulogy for David might read, 40 or more years from now, as written by Tom MacWood:  "He rewrote Merion history, tearing down phony walls the entrenched establishment and good ole boys network erected, paving the way to a new understanding of one of the world's hallowed courses."  

Now I'm imagining another eulogy for David, written by Tom Paul:  "The !X%@*?! needed his #!X@-ing brain examined.  Maybe medical science can finally put the damn thing to good use."  

Who would be right?  

Jim
There is plenty of evidence CBM was involved at Merion, and so was Whigham. Its not like this is second hand information, or second hand knowledge. He was there.

The more likely possibility is your confusion, or wishful thinking. At the time Whigham wrote that bio he had been a journalist since 1896, and for the majority of the years as an editor. I would suggest he was not prone to errors or exaggeration. And apparently you found nothing in that fairly long biographical piece in error or exaggerated, otherwise you would have brought it to our attention. Based on the last few lines of your post you seem to be grasping for straws, and seem a bit desperate. While I enjoy your fantasizing about future events, for the sake of this historical discussion I think it would be best if we try to stick with the facts.

I'll ask you again is this the part you were referring to when you said Whigham described how Raynor and CBM worked together, and specified Merion?  

"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."

[Tom MacWood]

To try to take this thread off on another tangent that is less repetitive and unenlightening, could you learned folks weigh in on CBM and what are the essential contributions to golf course architecture that lead to his being anointed the Father of American golf.  The World Golf Hall of Fame profile summarizes his contributions to golf as:

"Championship golfer. Golf course architect. Organizer. Bigger-than-life character. Esteemed author."

Focusing in on the architect part, what exactly did he bring to the table.  Was it just the use of templates of ideal golf holes from Scotland?  Or the idea that the principles of these holes should be incorporated in all holes built in America?  It has been argued interminably here as to whether his fingerprints are all over all the fine golf courses in America that followed NGLA.  Regardless of whether everybody can see those fingerprints, what lasting characteristics of course architecture that he created made their way into the courses that followed?  I'm not trying to make a point here, or win an argument, but I would like to better understand what it is that he brought to golf course architecture.  I understand that the preceding courses in America were considered to be crap compared to the old links courses of Scotland, but building a course that was considered (or advertised) to be ideal because it emulated existing Scottish links doesn't seem like that large a leap.

Bryan
I'm confused. Is the history of golf architecture a new interest for you?

[Tom MacWood]

I'm not sure we know how many Alps holes CBM had been responsible for at that point?   Are there any Alps holes at any of his versions of Chicago GC?   One was under construction at Piping Rock at the time, which Findlay may have seen (seems the guy was everywhere), and a 1905 article I have mentions that CBM had been called in as a "friendly advisor" (sound familiar?) whenever an important course was being built in the east.

So I don't think we really know, at least from Findlay's perspective, how many Alps holes he may have considered to be generated by CBM at the time.

The NGLA was Macdonald's first template course so no need to look back to the 1890s. CBM's first four designs all had Alps - NGLA, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow and Merion. I'm not sure about St. Louis or Old White.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I'm glad you finally went on record with what you believe here in terms of Barker being responsible for Merion, with touches afterwards by CBM and Whigham.   At least you have the courage of your convictions...we may disagree but at least we all know where you stand.

I wish your buddy would do the same but that would prevent him from taking more varied and unnatural positions than the Kama Sutra, as has been his forte.

In any case, so much for Patrick's theory that we're merely all off by a matter of a few degrees.    

Personally, I'm quite comfortable with the record as it has always been presented...the course was designed (as was the routing) by Hugh Wilson and Committee with valuable advice and suggestions from CBM and Whigham and believe the VAST preponderance of evidence clearly supports that.   I also believe the vast majority of onlookers here believe that to be the case, as well.

As far as Alps holes, holes called Alps had been built in this country as far back as 1898 at least with Ardsley.

CBM had been fascinated with the Ideal holes going back to the very early 1900's and I have no reason to think he wouldn't have suggested them on courses where he advised.

Also, recall that most Alps holes did not feature a large, blind hill approach, but instead usually the green just beyond a rise with a fronting cross-bunker and mound behind.   If you don't believe me, read George Bahto's interview here, or better yet, read Robert Lesley's description of the principles of an Alps hole at the time.

How many of those type of holes do you think there were between 1890-1910?

[Tom MacWood]

Courage of my convictions? I've been putting forth that theory for a couple of years now, and I don't recall you ever commending me. What gives?

As far David is concerned he wrote a lengthy well researched essay. My percentages based on my long standing theory hardly compares, and obviously you have nothing to hang your hat on as far as an essay, or even a well-reasoned theory is concerned, so I don't know where you get off being critical of others.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.] But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
             - Alex Findlay, 1912, on Merion's Alps Hole & other holes at Merion.

Your new tag line more likely should, in the context of the paragraph, be read to mean many other CBM Alps holes.  There is no mention of other template holes in the paragraph or article.  That paragraph seems to be exclusively about Findlay's advice, prior to Wilson's trip, to look at the Alps hole at Prestwick, and Wilson reporting back that the Alps at Merion (which he may have designed based on advice from CBM) was lacking compared to the original.  But, that there were many other good CBM Alps holes.

Bryan, problem is, to my knowledge CBM had only built one Alps at that time.  NGLA's.  So what are the many other CBM Alps holes he could be referring to?  Seems to me he is referring to other holes at Merion. 
Jim,

I'd agree.
In 1910-11 what other good "alps" holes were completed by CBM ?

As to your multiple choice on Whigham's eulogy, you left off an option.
3.  His statement was accurate.

The combination of

Whigham's eulogy
Findley's declaration
Other credits
The template holes

All seem to point to CBM' s role having been much greater than he was previously given credit for

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

So, you believe that right after Findlay wrote;

I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of the new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it his final touches in the late fall.   It will then be time to reveal to the world it's features, etc."

and then said, after a discussion comparing the Alps at Prestwick to what seems to be a sorry version Wilson is building..

"But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."

he was talking about other holes at Merion?

Interesting.

Besides, if Findlay really thought that Merion was laid out by CBM, wouldn't he have mentioned that in his Opening Day article instead of citing the work of Wilson and Committee (comparing it to Leeds work at Myopia) as well as Fred Pickering's construction success?


Tom MacWood,

I commended you on your ability and willingness to answer a direct question with a direct answer.

Of course, I don't agree with you...frankly, I believe you are the only person on the planet who believes that creation story, but so be it.

I'm sure we could argue about it for the next hundred years and barring new evidence, we wouldn't change each others minds.

[DMoriarty]

Jim Nugent,  Regarding the Whigham remembrance you seem to have tried to switch horses midstream.  We were talking specifically about your conclusion that "Macdonald-Raynor" courses definitely meant courses by CBM and SR working together, and couldn't possibly have meant courses by CBM and/or SR.  That was obviously to what the portion you quoted referred.   Yet you have twisted that and are now talking about something completely different.

Meanwhile my point remains unaddressed and unscathed. Read in context, "Macdonald-Raynor courses" must have referred to courses by one or both of them, otherwise the passage is absurd, nonsensical, and self-contradictory.

As for the rest of your post, nothing can be gained here by discussing Hitler, Stalin, or TEPaul.
___________________________________________________________________________

Bryan,  

Findlay's statement is not all that difficult to understand, especially in context.  The paragraph was about Merion.  Findlay essentially opined that while Merion's alps hole sucked, many of the other of Merion's holes, as laid out by CBM, were quite good.

[Mike Cirba]

If you guys want to discuss the meaning of the Findlay comment, or David wants to use a completely out-of-context snippet as his new tagline to drive his agenda, have at it.

There already was a 19-page thread on the subject, so you can read multiple interpretations by lots of folks there if you're so inclined;

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39341.0.html

Personally, I believe that Findlay was referring to holes and courses laid out for Wilson to see in his overseas visit by CBM.   For some reason he seems to think based on his description that the Alps hole is really not well suited to the inland Merion landscape (duh!), mentioning that "famous old spot", but then says "others as laid out by CBM are really great, and launches into a list of them.

However, it is anything but clear and various interpretations could easily apply.

Nevertheless, I find it incomprehensible that Findlay would not have mentioned that CBM designed the course in his Opening Day article if he really believed that to be true.  

[DMoriarty]

If you guys want to discuss the meaning of the Findlay comment, or David wants to use a completely out-of-context snippet as his new tagline to drive his agenda, have at it.

Mike is scouring the countryside from the mid-1890's speculating about super-secret Alps holes scattering the landscape, even throwing in unrelated holes designed by Willie Dunn 15 years before, yet I am the one who is reading it completely out of context?  Interesting.

1.  The context of the passage was a discussion about Merion's golf course. Findlay and Wilson had just been over it.  
2.  The context of the sentence in question was again Merion's golf course, particularly Merion's 10th,  and generally the others.
3.  To read the sentence as an aside about CBM makes no sense in the context of a passage about Merion's god course..   Why discuss CBM at all if Wilson was responsible?   Why blame CBM if it wasn't his hole?   And why praise him if the others weren't his either?
4.  I would be surprised if Findlay had even seen NGLA at that point.

All this speculation by Cirba and others is grasping at straws, again.   It is historical analysis by plausible deniability.  They ignore the most reasonable reading and try to come up with any other possibility, no matter how unlikely or attenuated, and then treat that alternate as if it must be the only reading.

[Bryan Izatt]

To try to take this thread off on another tangent that is less repetitive and unenlightening, could you learned folks weigh in on CBM and what are the essential contributions to golf course architecture that lead to his being anointed the Father of American golf.  The World Golf Hall of Fame profile summarizes his contributions to golf as:

"Championship golfer. Golf course architect. Organizer. Bigger-than-life character. Esteemed author."

Focusing in on the architect part, what exactly did he bring to the table.  Was it just the use of templates of ideal golf holes from Scotland?  Or the idea that the principles of these holes should be incorporated in all holes built in America?  It has been argued interminably here as to whether his fingerprints are all over all the fine golf courses in America that followed NGLA.  Regardless of whether everybody can see those fingerprints, what lasting characteristics of course architecture that he created made their way into the courses that followed?  I'm not trying to make a point here, or win an argument, but I would like to better understand what it is that he brought to golf course architecture.  I understand that the preceding courses in America were considered to be crap compared to the old links courses of Scotland, but building a course that was considered (or advertised) to be ideal because it emulated existing Scottish links doesn't seem like that large a leap.

Bryan
I'm confused. Is the history of golf architecture a new interest for you?

Tom,

Sarcasm is not an appealing characteristic. 

[Mike Cirba]

David,

The context and focus of the article was about Wilson's trip abroad, not the Merion Golf course..

In the very first paragraph Findlay tell us the course is so immature that he's not even prepared yet to discuss "the possibilities" of the new course.   That is very clear.

Findlay tells us he "visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent to the making of good golf holes."

Findlay then relates that prior to Wilson's trip he had advised him to take special notice of the Alps at Prestwick, as Wilson "really imagined" he had one going on his course but clearly Findlay disagreed and was making clear that it had missed the mark, likely because the original hole requires an approach over a large blind sandhill, not a feature found often in farmland Pennsylvania.

On Wilson's return, now he agreed that "it will take a lot of making", to equal that "famous old spot".

But others, which I read as other courses/holes abroad as laid out by CBM (for Wilson during his visit to NGLA) are really great, and then begins listing which ones Wilson liked, as well....Prestwick Troon, Formby, Hoylake, etc., but was disappointed in St. Andrews, which Findlay agreed with.

The rest of the article goes on to compare Wilson's approach to visit courses abroad with Leeds at Myopia and CBM at National.

I don't see at all how the focus of the article is the Merion golf course.   He barely mentions it, and then only to say that he isn't ready to pass judgement yet.

Does anyone else think the focus of the article was about the Merion Golf Course??

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

So are we saying that due to the orientation of the photograph, that November 1910 Land Plan may be unmeasurable, and may actually measure exactly 117 acres as reported if we had the original scaled drawing?   Thanks.

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

Mike,

It's not the orientation.  It is skewed.  David has a better version that is less skewed.  In any event, there is no doubt a margin of error in measuring the acreage from that map.  I don't think it is 7 acres, though.  Therefore, I do not think that that map portrays 117 acres.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

If Pugh and Hubbard measured 117 acres without considering the additional acreage of the road(s), might it have been 117 acres?

Would you see that within the margin of error due to the skewed perspective of the photo of the map?

[DMoriarty]

I see that while I was typing my last post Mike went back and significantly edited his previous post.   In so doing, he provides another perfect example of his problematic methodology he and the Merionettes commonly employ.   All they are out to do is some up with any alternative to the most reasonable reading of the passage, no matter how attenuated that reading may be.    

If you don't believe me just look at how Mike made an about face on what the passage meant, hopping from one extremely unlikely reading to another.   Mike had been arguing that the passage referred to other unidentified Alps holes CBM might designed or suggested over the years.   Now, he apparently realizes that this makes no sense, but instead of going with the reasonable interpretation he throws out a rather absurd reading which again relegates CBM to his role of travel agent.

"Personally, I believe that Findlay was referring to holes and courses laid out for Wilson to see in his overseas visit by CBM.   For some reason he seems to think based on his description that the Alps hole is really not well suited to the inland Merion landscape (duh!), mentioning that "famous old spot", but then says "others as laid out by CBM are really great, and launches into a list of them."

So "laid out" means planning Wilson's trip for him?   Again with the CBM as travel agent theory?   Absurd, even for Mike.  It goes to show how desperate he and the Merionettes are to convolute the record. But that is their approach.  They think that if they can come up with any other conclusion, no matter how attenuated, convoluted, and absurd, then their conclusion offsets the more reasonable reading.   It doesn't work that way.

It is not that complicated.  Read it without the clause mentioning CBM if it makes it easier, because the sentence still makes sense without it. Merion's 10th hole isn't good. "But many of the others [] are really great."   "The others" are the other golf holes at Merion.   One is bad, BUT many of the others are good.
____________________________________________

Mike's REAL PROBLEM with the passage is that he disagrees with the ramifications if one reasonably interprets the the passage to mean what it says.   That CBM laid out the holes at Merion.   Mike just cannot believe that CBM designed the course, therefore Findlay must have meant something else.   His desired conclusion shapes his interpretation every time.  
_________________________________________________

Mike makes a big deal out of the fact that Findlay did not mention CBM in a later writeup. He fails to mention that, in that article, Findlay completely avoided the topic of who was responsible for the design of the course or even who "laid out" the course.   He compared the construction committee to Leeds, noting that both had built the finest courses in their respective states, and then went on to effusively praise his business partner, Pickering, as Findlay was wont to do, calling Merion his "latest creation" and noting:
"He had has much of his own way in the planting of the right seed and in the general makeup of the course, and to him we owe thanks for one of the prettiest golf courses in America."

Mike and the Merionettes have tried to read this last bit as some sort of statement as involving Pickering in the planning process but that is stretching beyond all plausibility and typical of their Anyone-But-CBM approach to interpretation.   There is nothing in Merion's records indicating Pickerings involvement in the design, and we know from Merion's records and Wilson's letters that the plan was approved by CBM then Merion's Board before Pickering even became involved.  While Findlay was certainly putting a broad spin on it, he seems to have been talking about agronomic issues --growing grass, and aesthetic stylings --making it one of the prettiest courses in America.

None of this contradicts what Findlay had written about CBM before.

________________________________________________________________

Now I see Mike is pretending that the Findlay passage wasn't about Merion's golf course at all, but was rather about "Wilson's trip abroad."  Pretty strange interpretation given that Wilson's trip abroad was supposed to be about bettering Merion's golf course.

Anyway, Findlay does eventually regress into to a discussion of the trip abroad, and throws in many of his own opinions about the courses over there, but much of the passage, including the specific discussion of Merion's 10th hole and general discussion of the others,  was squarely about Merion.

The first part is all about Merion East.  
- Wilson and Findlay had just spent time "wandering over the new Merion Golf Course."  
- Wilson has spent so much of his time working on the course.  
- Wilson wants to make the the new course the best in Pennsylvania.
- Findlay is not yet read to judge the course because it is still growing in and Pickering has yet to add the final touches.
- The new course will be ready to reveal all in the fall.
- Wilson had just returned from studying courses abroad abroad where he gathered data on how to make good golf holes, and Findlay had advised him what to look at before the trip
- Merion's Alps hole didn't stack up to the original, but the other holes, as laid out by CBM, were really great.

After this, the article goes into the details of the trip, with lots of Findlay's opinions scattered about.

[DMoriarty]

-Findlay wrote that CBM laid out the holes at Merion.
-Whigham wrote that Merion was a CBM course.
-Lesley wrote that CBM and HJW advised Merion's Committee as to how to lay the course out on the ground.
-Hugh Wilson praised CBM and HJW for, among other things, teaching the committee how to incorporate the fundamental principles into Merion's natural setting.
-Alan Wilson wrote that CBM and HJW were advising the committee as to the layout of the course, and their advice was of the greatest help and value.
-Tillinghast's source of information about planning was CBM and he and others noted that CBM and HJW were advising Merion as to the plan.
-Merion's board minutes acknowledge that "the Committee" went to NGLA for help with the plans and then had CBM and HJW follow up with a return visit to Merion to reinspect the land, go over several options, and decide upon the final routing plan.
-Merion's board was presented the plan which had been approved by CBM and HJW and voted to lay out the course according to that plan.  
-Merion tried to build course where many of the holes were clearly based upon CBM's understanding of the principles underlying the great holes abroad.  

I don't understand why this is even an argument.    Sure we can debate when certain things happened, or debate exact percentages, but the evidence of CBM's extensive involvement in and influence over the design process is overwhelming. 

Why are Cirba and the Merionettes continuing to pretend that Merion East was not a CBM course at its bones?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Where did Lesley write that CBM advised the Committee as to how to lay the course upon the ground?

[DMoriarty]

David,

Where did Lesley write that CBM advised the Committee as to how to lay the course upon the ground?

He wrote that the course was laid out upon the ground by the committee who had CBM and HJW as advisors. About what do you suppose they were advising the committee who laid the course out upon the ground?  Hair products?  

"The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman, R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham."
______________________________________________________

By the way, like Findlay, Lesley wrote he wasn't going to discuss the courses in detail, right before he began discussing golf holes:  "No detailed description is intended to be given of the two courses, as it would only becloud the reader's mind."  Come to think of it, didn't Far and Sure write something similar in the same article where he discussed a number of the holes?  By Cirbaian logic, shouldn't we conclude that any such discussion of the holes must have been about something else, probably holes abroad, or plans for travel, or about anything but the golf holes which were obviously discussed?

  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

So, they advised the Merion Committee.

Is this something new?  

I'm pretty sure everyone here has agreed that they gave valuable "advice and suggestions" to the Merion Committee?    Why are you still arguing that point?  

I think we've heard the same words from Lesley, the Wilson Brothers, Tillinghast, "Far and Sure"...really everyone except Richard Francis.

If you believe CBM and Whighm routed the golf course, then show us some indication or evidence of how they did that before November 15th, 1910, because you also have argued that the golf course was routed at that point as evidenced by the November 1910 Land Plan.

Why do you keep stooping to personal insults?   Is that in lieu of providing any physical or factual evidence?

If you now agree that the golf course was not routed by November 15, 1910 then let's have that discussion, ok?

Because as long as you keep telling us that the course was routed before then I'm going to keep asking for your physical evidence of CBM's invovlement, of which there is precisely NONE, and you know that.   I can say that confidently because the Merion Minutes tell us precisely when the routing was done, and it wasn't until the spring of 1911.

You've just created a trap for yourself, because if you admit the course wasn't routed before November 1910, you can't by implication exclude Hugh Wilson and his Committee from the routing and design process, and what would be the point of that?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, I was answering your question. I had listed some of the overwhelming evidence of CBM's extensive involvement in and influence over the design process at Merion East.   You asked me a question about one item and I answered it.  

The rest is just your lame attempt to change the subject.  
___________________________________________

Here again is the list.

-Findlay wrote that CBM laid out the holes at Merion.
-Whigham wrote that Merion was a CBM course.
-Lesley wrote that CBM and HJW advised Merion's Committee as to how to lay the course out on the ground.
-Hugh Wilson praised CBM and HJW for, among other things, teaching the committee how to incorporate the fundamental principles into Merion's natural setting.
-Alan Wilson wrote that CBM and HJW were advising the committee as to the layout of the course, and their advice was of the greatest help and value.
-Tillinghast's source of information about planning was CBM and he and others noted that CBM and HJW were advising Merion as to the plan.
-Merion's board minutes acknowledge that "the Committee" went to NGLA for help with the plans and then had CBM and HJW follow up with a return visit to Merion to reinspect the land, go over several options, and decide upon the final routing plan.
-Merion's board was presented the plan which had been approved by CBM and HJW and voted to lay out the course according to that plan.  
-Merion tried to build course where many of the holes were clearly based upon CBM's understanding of the principles underlying the great holes abroad.

The evidence of CBM's extensive involvement in and influence over the design process is overwhelming.

Why are Cirba and the Merionettes continuing to pretend that Merion East was not a CBM course at its bones?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

How do you reconcile the fact that according to you, CBM and HJW advised the committee, and subsequently, a good number of Macdonald template holes are incorporated into the routing and design ?

Was that a coincidence ?

Or, is cause and effect in play ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()