The devil made me do it

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,  

I hope you take the time to review my post above the ridiculous drivel you Joe Bausch chose to post on behalf of this lurker.    He obviously has his own issues and isn't interested in anything resembling reasonable discussion and I have no idea why you guys choose to pollute the website with his nonsense.

[Dan Herrmann]

Posted for Mike Cirba:
---------------------------------------
All,
 
It's amazing how life often comes full circle.   Here we see the same person who used to complain to anyone who would listen that others were withholding evidence preventing him from completing his self-acclaimed,  important "work", now arrogantly tells us that he's had the article that Joe Bausch posted in his possession for some years yet never saw fit to share it with anyone here on GCA.
 
It's quite obvious why.
 
It's a great article in a number of ways, not the least of which credits Hugh Wilson as the man primarily responsible for the design of BOTH courses at Merion, listing his internal and external "assistants" in a national, Chicago-based publication in 1916.   Kelly may believe it's a second hand article, but the fact is that Wililam Evans was a Philadelphia golfwriter and insder for many years and a friend of Robert Lesley (Lesley had been the editor of the Public Ledger which Evans wrote for).
 
The article also mentions, among other things, the fact that the 17th green had been "materially improved" in the year prior to the tournament, it mentions that the "Green Committee" reported to Lesley's "Golf Committee", as has been maintained here in the past. 
 
David tried to confuse that fact, noting that Evans mentioned both Hugh Wilson and Winthrop Sargent in that regard, but there's a good reason why.   Winthrop Sargent was Green Chairman continuously from November 1914 until at least 1923, and Hugh Wilson was Green Chairman for "many years", or "seven years",  or "a number of years" prior, depending on which account is read.
 
David, of course, will fight this reality tooth and nail, because unless he can somehow maintain that Hugh Wilson suddenly dropped from the sky into Merion in January 1911 to be given primary responsibility for "laying the course on the ground" (whatever that means), his contention that the course was routed in 1910 prior to Wilson's official involvement turns into the Hindenburg.
 
Jeff Brauer provided a sterling list of reasons that David's theory doesn't hold water, and why all the evidence, including the infamous "Land Plan" with its 95 yard wide by 300+ long "triangle" points clearly to a spring 1911 routing, but frankly, it really doesn't matter any longer when it was routed as Evans also wrote in 1916 that Wilson had been the Green Chairman for "many years" prior to then.  JE Ford told us that Wilson's term in that role before his voluntary retirement in November 1914 was "seven years".   Robert Lesley told us in 1934 that the reason for the excellence of Merion's courses was due to the fact that "during the period from 1909 to the present day Merion's Green Committee has been kept almost intact from its origin up to today and only five Chairmen of the Green Committee have had charge of the work and development of the courses, thus insuring a consistent, systematic, and wise development.  These Chairmen were; Hugh I. Wilson, Winthrop Sargent and John R. Maxwell, who are now deceased, and Arnold Gerstell and Philip C. Staples."
 
As mentioned, Sargent served from November 1914 until at least 1923, Maxwell took over in 1925 (after Hugh Wilson's death, and Gerstell and Staples followed him into the 1930s, in Lesley's chronological listing of Green Chairmen.   
 
As regards the working inter-relationship of Wilson and Sargent in 1916 and ongoing, in April 23, 1916 the “Philadelphia Inquirer” reported; “Nearly every hole on the course has been stiffened so that in another month or two it will resemble a really excellent championship course. Hugh Wilson is the course architect and Winthrop Sargent is the chairman of the Green Committee.  These two men have given a lot of time and attention to the changes and improvements."
 
Despite the now moot point as to the timing of the routing, I'd like to add a few more thoughts beyond what Jeff outlined as to why I believe it was spring of 1911 vs 1910.
 
First, I have no idea what a "rough routing" is.   Either the golf holes have been identified in a contiguous, connected way or they haven't been.   Francis tells us that the first 13 were fairly easy, but fitting the last five in the then-agreed upon land was a problem.   In the end, Merion not only swapped land to make that happen but also needed to purchase an additional three acres.   That clearly took place after Merion owned the land in December of 1910.
 
But it also begs the question of why bring CBM down in April 1911 in the first place.   If he wasn't there to help them validate the plan Francis's brainstorm facilitated before going to the Board for more money that month, then what was the purpose?   If some routing was already done nearly six months prior, and people were blasting rock on land they didn't even own, then what would be the point of bringing CBM back down?
 
Later articles by JE Ford tell us that other land south of the property (which they eventually purchased in 1922) was wanted originally by Wilson and his committee that today makes up the 11th green and 12th tee, but they weren't able to acquire it at the time.   The actual land purchase from HDC to Lloyd didn't happen until December 1910, when he grabbed the entire 160 acres of the Johnson Farm.   If the course was routed prior to then, why didn't he just pick up the 117, or even 120 acres of the pre-routed golf course?  We know why.  Merion's Counsel, Mr. Cuyler, had advised in late 1910 that Lloyd should take title to the whole shebang because the boundaries of the golf course had not yet been determined.
 
In November 1912 after Merion East opened, the burgeoning golf membership required the club to look into purchasing additional land for another golf course, Merion West.   The following entry from the MCC Minutes gives us some sense into their thinking, and explains why they wouldn't be blowing things up on property they didn't even own yet prior to November 1910.   
 
We have gone very fully into the question of the possibility of acquiring land available
for the purpose in the vicinity of the present golf links, and find that there is plenty of
land to be had. It will, of course, be appreciated that it was inadvisable to conduct our
inquiries in such a way as to show that the Club was seeking additional property,
which would cause a raising of prices. Through discreet inquiries, however, we have
obtained approximate prices at which different tracts can be purchased, which are
sufficiently accurate to enable us to make a fair estimate of the cost of the acquisition.
 
Finally, to my friend Bill Brightly.   The Merion course that opened in 1912 bore only faint resemblance to the course that exists today.   Five holes have been completely re-routed, a dozen have had their greens rebuilt, and countless strategies have been created through the additon of bunkers, of which very few existed originally.   That course evolution is chornologically detailed in my IMO piece on this site.   I also plan to update the article with some of these recent findings in the near term.   Thanks.
 
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/cirba-mike-who-was-hugh-wilson/
 

[DMoriarty]

First, Bryan,  I think you may have posted this on the wrong thread.   It probably belongs on the Clarification thread.

Second, When you say "minor nit pick" you aren't kidding.  We don't have the exact date that Macdonald and Whigham became involved, but we know they went over the land within a few weeks of the time Barker went over the land and came up with his proposed layout.  I'd say that qualifies as "from the very beginning" but you can feel free to disagree.  

Third, As for your attempts to make a case defend Wayne Morrison, I disagree.   I've dealt enough with Wayne, Tom Paul, and Mr. Capers to have a very good idea of where Mr. Capers gets his information, and I trust that Mr. Capers was honestly just passing along the information he was given.   If Mr. Capers said that Wayne figured it all out, then that is because he was told by Wayne and/or Tom Paul that Wayne figured it all out.  In short, Wayne and Tom Paul have once again made fools of Merion.  

Also, you seem to have forgotten that in the Merion Clarification thread that TEPaul actually had the nerve to claim that the article was correct and that it really was he and Wayne who had figured it all out!  I produced his own past posts directly refuting this, and I believe you posted an old post as well.  He/they are simply telling tall tales once again in a pathetic effort to save face.  

But let's assume you are correct, and that Mr. Capers wrote those things without any reasonable basis in fact.  Don't you think it is on Merion to correct the error and set things straight?  Surely a Club of that stature shouldn't be taking credit for a dead man's hard work in a national golf magazine!

[Dan Herrmann]

David, you'll be happy to know that I'll refrain from any comments on Merion's history that you're involved with.  Adios.

[DMoriarty]

I do wish you'd answer my unanswered questions before you go.  But if not, then good luck to you. 

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba

I have found by experience that when Tom MacWood and I have shared our research, you and your friends see fit to claim credit for yourselves, and that makes me less inclined to come forward with every new article or source I locate. Besides, I am not withholding dispositive information as to the main questions at issue, but I'll be damned if I am going to share everything so that you guys can pretend you knew it all along.   There is NOTHING in this article that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum.  I am very surprised you guys had never seen it, as it is right on the internet!

That said, I've got plenty of other source material on Merion that I have yet shared, and much of it is much more interesting that this rehash 1916 article.   Maybe I'll get around to posting some else of what I know if once I get a look at the Silverman book or perhaps even before.  But Tom MacWood and I already provided the basis for huge rewrites of large sections of "The Nature Faker" without ever getting credit (although they still go most of it wrong) and much in your own IMO relies directly on my work (that is the parts that are actually accurate.)  And look how Merion and Morrison and you and Tom Paul are clamoring to take credit for even the refutation of the Wilson Legend.

Frankly it gets a bit old.  
=================================================

As for Mike's Wilson as Chair of the Green Committee in 1906 theory, he is once again playing fast and loose with the facts.  

1.  Evans didn't say Wilson was Chair of the Green Committee "prior" to Sargent. Mike is just pretending that this is the case to try and bolder his attenuate theory.  
2.  On multiple occasions, Evans indicated that in both Sargent and Wilson were in charge of the Green Committee at the same time, and this directly undermines Mike's theory.
3.  Kelly is absolutely correct.  This article is "second hand" and obviously derivative.   Evans wasn't there.  That is unless Mike claiming that Evans was out there in the field with Macdonald and Whigham in June 1910 and at NGLA in March of 1911 and again in the field with Macdonald and Whigham in April 1911.

This is about the 317th time that Mike thinks he has finally found his smoking gun. In fact he seems to think he's found his smoking gun with each article that surfaces.  But there is absolutely nothing new in the article.  It is all derivative of other articles which have been discussed to death  If anything it shows that even five years after their involvement, Macdonald and Whigham were still considered important enough in the design process to be worthy of mention.

[DMoriarty]

Mike also fancies he's found a gem where Evans wrote that the 17th green had been "materially improved."   What Mike neglects to mention if that the material improvement was to the agronomic conditions of the green.  As Evans himself noted in another article, the problem with the green was that Wilson could not get the grass to grow.  In his 1916 Chapter, Wilson described rebuilding three greens to improve the drainage and this was apparently one of them.  

But Mike isn't concerned with the green surface, so he ignores all this and instead pretends that the real change was the addition of a giant "Valley of Sin" swale short of the green.  Never mind that there is no evidence of this. He thinks that because Evans discusses agronomic improvements over the course of a few articles, that this must mean that Wilson was out there with a backhoe excavating the giant swale and low area that defines much of the bottom of the old quarry!   Ridiculous.  

Here is a pic of the hole in 1930, from the Hagley archives. Does it look like that ditch was added sometime after the hole was created? 

Does it remind anyone of any particular feature sometimes associated with 220 yard holes designed by CB Macdonald?  



This photo ought to give some understanding of why it is so important for Mike to pretend that it must have been Hugh Wilson and not quarrymen who excavated this giant ditch across the bottom of the quarry!   But it is just wishful thinking on Mike's part.

[Terry Lavin]

The Speculation Brothers (Rank and Idle) are still at work.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff Brauer, 

You really seem to be caught up on the issue of the timing of the land swap, and I am not sure sure why.  I think it happened one way and you another, and it is very unlikely that there is any room for agreement.  So what is the point of the endless back and forth on the issue?  Besides, at the end of the day the swap is little more than interesting minutia, and the timing of the swap has little or no bearing on whether or not Macdonald and Whigham were the driving creative forces behind the layout plan at Merion East.

As for the more general the issue of type of things that would have been happening in 1910 and 1911, there is quite a lot about which we agree.   So much so that I am at a loss as to why you are still arguing about the swap and about some of the other details.    AS YOU DESCRIBE CBM's INVOLVEMENT, it is impossible to see him as anything but a major contributor (if not the major contributor) the the design of the course. 

David,

A few things.

For the record, it was Joe B and other who have posted for Mike Cirba and TePaul.  I was asked once by TePaul to post, but declined.  I am really trying to stay out of that argument.

As to the disagreements you list above, well, I am a bit confused.  We both have said we "want to find out what happened" and I still do. 

As far as I can tell, your argument has morphed over time a bit to the point where CBM was in fact very valuable to Merion, and most agree and that his work in determining the shape of the land (no matter how far we each might speculate it went into routing) was instrumental in shaping Merion.  Add in cost estimates, direction on agronomy, not to mention it is clear they went to NGLA with the ideas of copying great holes abroad just as he did.  So in general, he did shape and largely inspire the process at Merion, no matter how much or little he was involved day to day. 

This debate has highlighted what had been lost to Merion's history somewhat over the years.  No one debates that basic point and I think everyone always has agreed, but it seems like you want them to agree even harder, if that is possible! 

On the land swap, we can agree to disagree, but I don't see the land swap as minutiae to understanding what happened.  The timing of that was the central premise of you IMO piece and the centerpiece of your argument that Wilson wasn't involved at all in the routing.  It still IMO, tells us that the Merion committee did most of the heavy lifting, putting in many hours, pencil to paper, figuring out the problems, etc. and using the knowledge of CBM as a safety net as well as guide.  That is what the record says.   

And, that clearly does matter to the folks at Merion both then and now.  Its pretty clear that from the start, that being mostly a homemade course was in their story, and I think it is mostly true, and not just legend.  You didn't think that was right and set out to set the record straight, which you partially did.   

There is much information in your essay, research and opinions that may be correct.  For instance, I agree with you that we don't know that Wilson wasn't the real prime mover in the routing.  We know the entire committee worked on it, and the whole committee went to NGLA, so no distinction there towards Wilson.  Francis did the last 7, and took it to Lloyd, perhaps for a few different reasons, but he took it to him.  It really does seem as if Wilson's rep came from the hard work in the construction phase, and later improvements, as you have always contended based on the record. And, I believe that kind of nuance, beyond the oft told story, is valuable to history now. 

All that said, there are parts of your IMO that are more durable than others.  IMHO, in theorizing about the land swap and CBM working all through 1910, I think it's pretty clear that you over shot the mark, based on little more than speculation and extension.   I don't think that should be considered part of the Merion story, because it just cannot be proven, and seems unlikely to be true.

I don't think the 1911 time line minimizes CBM's contribution to Merion, nor do I think Wilson's reputation suffers at all if it turns out the committee routed Merion, or even if most of the ideas actually came from CBM at that NGLA meeting.  That it got so personal among many over the years turned it into an "either or" situation between the two men, (and two factions of the present) and it really doesn't have to be.  And it creates an odd situation where you can be so right on many things, and yet, the focus is always on what might be wrong.  I feel your pain, but perhaps that is just human nature.

As always, just MHO, but we have certainly devoted enough time to this to have thrashed it all out.

PS- not sure what you are driving at re: the photo of the 17th.  That valley looks like it is well in front of the green, not part of it as the typical CBM Biarritz swale would be.  Please explain your POV.  As to that valley, it looks to me like it was the exit road for trucks/wagons from the Quarry.  At least, I have seen similar from other quarries I have worked around.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

If we look back a dozen years, I think we'd all admit that far more is known about Merion today, than 12 years ago.

That the "discovery" process uncovered new information and debunked flawed information.

If the discovery process is frozen, as of today, nothing new will be learned about Merion in the next dozen years.

Is that what you want ?
Is that what any club would want ?

Or would you prefer that some of the unanswered mysteries are solved, such that twelve years from now, it can be claimed that much more is known about Merion than was known in 2013 ?

While mysteries remain, I don't think the quest for information should ever be suspended, discouraged or prevented.
Quite frankly I have to wonder why some people want to stop any and all further research.
Is it because of "pride of authorship"  ?

Could it be that a select body of self appointed researchers want to be the sole discoverers of anything new that pertains to Merion ?
That they want to "chase off" anyone skilled in research who could make new discoveries ?

When Tom MacWood and David Moriarty initially suggested that CBM had a significant influence on the design of Merion, I argued stridently against them, but, as they revealed more and more reliable information, I found myself open to their premise.
I found myself hard pressed to deny them their legitimate discoveries.

Why are you and the "Merionettes" so intent on "closing the case" on Merion ?

Why do you want to stifle additional research on Merion ?

I would think that you would welcome new information that sheds light on some of the missing information, some of the remaining open mysteries.  Instead, it seems as though you want to "close the case" and turn out the lights. 

WHY ?

What are you afraid of ?

[Mike Sweeney]

If we look back a dozen years, I think we'd all admit that far more is known about Merion today, than 12 years ago.

That the "discovery" process uncovered new information and debunked flawed information.

If the discovery process is frozen, as of today, nothing new will be learned about Merion in the next dozen years.

Is that what you want ?
Is that what any club would want ?

Or would you prefer that some of the unanswered mysteries are solved, such that twelve years from now, it can be claimed that much more is known about Merion than was known in 2013 ?

Patrick,

The twelve or so years of Merion discoveries and debates are an interesting case study for ALL research and the power of the internet. The unique thing about the Merion debates is nobody made any real money off of it.

During this period, the key ingredient to the puzzle/controversy was the new ability to share information 24/7/365. There was a unique rivalry created to one up the other person at the beginning from an individual perspective, and then the collaborating teams were formed. Those teams rivaled each other and then became more careful when presenting new information.

It was a completely flawed process because there were no formal rules for the most part. 

Reality is the intensity of the fight over the next twelve years is unlikely to last or produce any significant new information. The original  intensity of the battle caused people to find new information in order to "win" the battle.

The likely next step in this process would be the "institutionalization" of the discovery process, and the institutionalization of the "publishing" process. This is a closed forum controlled by the owner(s), so it would have to be driven by Ran.

I have not spoken to or seen Ran for a few years now, but the "end" of the Merion debates would provide an inflection point for:

1. Institutionalizing research, rules making and design ideas around golf, with GCA.com as a "Thought Leader" or

2. Allowing GCA.com to continue at the fringes of golf's traditional institutions (USGA, R&A, traditional clubs....) and act as a cattle prod nudging them along into the next evolution of golf.

I have just finished the college tour season with my son who is a rising senior in high school. Technology has obviously been embraced by all colleges but there is still a large variety of ways to present the modern day college library. How do you present it?

Similar questions relate here to GCA.com.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

While you are correct that my last post was intended to ease me out of the discussion (and perhaps put others out of their misery) ending this rehash is not the same as stifling discussion or limiting research.  Nor are you correct that I am afraid of something.  Broadly hinting that I have sinister motives - or worse yet, that Merion does - isn't right, IMHO.

I look forward to seeing any new research anyone comes up with.  It would seem, as a practical matter, that it not come from existing participants since any new info seems to just be automatically put into the false category by one side or the other.

But, if you like, you can start the new round by providing all those phone records you purport exist to back up your contention that Philly and CBM were burning up the long distance lines in 1910.  That would be a real addition to the historical record if you could pull it off and actually find that kind of thing!

[JC Jones]

It was a completely flawed process because there were no formal rules for the most part. 

I'm not sure this is an accurate statement.  This is similar to the complaints the "institution" people make about open-source/crowd-source.

The likely next step in this process would be the "institutionalization" of the discovery process, and the institutionalization of the "publishing" process. This is a closed forum controlled by the owner(s), so it would have to be driven by Ran.

I have not spoken to or seen Ran for a few years now, but the "end" of the Merion debates would provide an inflection point for:

1. Institutionalizing research, rules making and design ideas around golf, with GCA.com as a "Thought Leader" or

2. Allowing GCA.com to continue at the fringes of golf's traditional institutions (USGA, R&A, traditional clubs....) and act as a cattle prod nudging them along into the next evolution of golf.

Again, institutionalization comes with its own problems.  Primarily, the creation of "rules of the game" is exactly why the institutions you mentioned are not capable of doing to the type of research and producing in the same manner these rogue researchers (Moriarty, MacWood, Morrison, Paul, etc.) were able to do, (indirectly and without intent) crowd-sourcing Merion's architectural history vis-a-vis this open forum.

Sometimes the old folks like yourself   need to embrace the less institutionalized and more collaborative new world where rules can be obstacles for innovation.

[Terry Lavin]

To call this interpolation of randomly sourced arcana "history" is an abuse of the word, if not the intent of the participants. The back-and-forth exchange of speculation and ad hominem attacks reminds me of the Saturday Night Live parody of Point Counterpoint. Problem is, these guys are serious when they hurl their version of "Jane, you ignorant slut" barbs at each other. It's one thing to work as an obsessed hobbyist club historian, it's quite another to resort to juvenile broadsides and name-calling. None of this cheapens the activity, since it's not that valuable, but it does a disservice to the site, its moderators and the other participants. Go get something published, maybe an e-pamphlet. I'm sure hundreds would spend $1.99 to read the end product.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Terry,

LOL.  I think I actually typed out the "ignorant slut" to someone on an old thread.  At other times, I felt the closest SNL comparison was the old game show skit where the answers were to match what a typical high school senior knew, rather than answering the truth......

[JC Jones]

It is no doubt this process is/was imperfect.  Nonetheless, it yielded more than a traditional "rules based" process ever could.  Firstly, a rules based institutional process is hindered by a single bias and while each party doing research has bias, it is more fruitful when there are more biases present.

[Mike Sweeney]

It is no doubt this process is/was imperfect.  Nonetheless, it yielded more than a traditional "rules based" process ever could.  Firstly, a rules based institutional process is hindered by a single bias and while each party doing research has bias, it is more fruitful when there are more biases present.

JC,

While this is my typical opening for a cheap shot at you, I am genuinely interested in your answer. How do you as a law professor wrap your hands around this in the rules based (see USGA or Supreme Court - same thing) legal world?

[JC Jones]

Well, Mike, I look at it from multiple perspectives.

1.  As an academic who (fortunately) is not under pressures to obtain funding for my research, I am able to do my research without having to serve a financial master.  This is very beneficial as I am critical/skeptical of funding based research.  It is of no surprise that the results of funding based research usually yield results beneficial to the benefactor.  I view research that is organized (read: funded) by an institution, or otherwise institutionalized, to have many of the same issues as funding based research.  Ultimately, the institution as a bias or a goal in mind and results can/are skewed to suit the bias/goal.  It is seen any time you have competing or conflicting organizations looking at the same thing.  You see this often in politically oriented think tanks doing research.

Now, where this is positive is when you have multiple biases doing research on the same issue and the sum is usually positive.  Where this situation is different, however, is when only the club or only the USGA is allowed to have the research being done.  That is why, in this case, I feel an ultimate benefit was produced because of the competing biases having the ability to do research and have a voice (albeit to this small group of people).

Lastly on this point, and somewhat to Terry's point, the notion that this sort of petty arguing and banter is non-existent in more formal or institutionalized research is a false one.  Academics, think tanks, etc. engage in this sort of behavior all of the time.  Sure, it may seem more professional because it is published or it may seem less juvenile but that is not the case.  You can look back to the political "pamphlets" of Thomas Paine all the way to professor's blog networks (think GCA.com for professors of particular fields) of today where this morning I read two law professors calling each other liars.  I think this new electronic forum certainly distributes the bickering better than other fora, but I believe it to exist everywhere research and opinion are done.

2.  As a lawyer and legal academic and overall cynic  , I've never been one to blindly adopt a rules based system for the sake of it being a rules based system.  Some rules further positive results, some rules inhibit positive results.  In fact, what many legal academics do is research and analyze legal rules to determine whether the inhibited results juice is worth the inhibiting rules squeeze.  Those who have acquiesced (and/or benefit) from the rules based system are typically the ones most eager to hold on to, or defend it.

[Mike Sweeney]

JC,

Thanks for your well thought out reply. I agree with just about everything you said.

When I presented my two options above, the concept was that GCA.com could become an "insider", or even create a new insider profile in golf. That comes with a cost as you acknowledge.

Ran has positioned himself and his website in a nice niche. Not sure that he should change, but I think he has the opportunity to change it, if he wants.

[Bill Brightly]

It is interesting that Judge Lavin has entered the fray, because as I have been reading all the recent Merion threads, I find myself feeling like a juror. (I read almost none of the first Merion Thread because I would have been jumping in on page 28 when I joined GCA eight years ago.)

From my seat, it seems perfectly clear that Moriarty has proven what I see as his main point:  While Wilson deserves overall architectural credit, Macdonald's role was far greater than previously acknowledged.

I think that is important, and I give him credit for sticking with this and precisely answering each of the arguments raised by the other side.


The side of me that has a sick sense of humor envisions a different type of GCA event: Moriarty, etal. vs the Merionettes, the Honorable T. Lavin presiding. In terms of controlling the courtroom, I bet this would be one of Terry's most difficult cases.

[Sven Nilsen]

Bill:

My guess is that the right honorable gentleman from Chicago would have to recuse himself from the case due to an inherent regional bias relating to the roots of one of the key players. 

Having lived in Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, one would be hard pressed to find three greater abodes of staunch homerism.   Which brings us back to Kelly's point about "motivation."

Sven

[Terry Lavin]

Virtually everything said on this subject for the past YEARS is in the domain of opinion, not fact.  Were this a trial, as has been playfully suggested, the objection "asked and answered" or "cumulative" would have been granted 1,000 times BEFORE the championship commenced this year.  The fact that these arguments keep being rephrased, repeated and regurgitated is just a joke.  

It's well past time for a "Merionatorium" on this site.  

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba:  (His last post on this matter)
---------------
Bill Brightly,
 
Is that what you see as David's main point?   Sheesh...if that's it we could have wrapped it up about 5 years ago!   
 
Of course, Merion might not necessarily agree that CBM wasn't acknowledged because their records going way back acknowledge CBM's role from multiple sources including Board Minutes, accounts by Hugh Wilson, Alan Wilson, Robert Lesley, and various club history books over the years.   But, I do think it's a fair point to consider that perhaps in modern times CBM's role has been a bit under the radar.
 
But unless I missed something, I think David's main point is still to be found in the Synopsis of his "In My Opinion" piece, which reads; (italics mine)
 
"Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course.   Immediately thereafter, the Construction Committee departed for NGLA so that Macdonald and Whigham could teach them how to build the golf holes at Merion East."
 
This theory was predicated on the premise that Hugh Wilson had no official administrative role or responsibility for golf courses within the club prior to the formation of the Construction Committee in January 1911 and that a final routing for the golf course had been completed before then, both assumptions that as Jeff Brauer notes, are tenuous at best and demonstrably false at worst.   That's also being very kind.
 
Much of his original theory was based on assumptions he simply misinterpreted (i.e. Macdonald's July 1910 letter, the November Land Plan) or without proper context of additional information unearthed later, and now David is now left trying to convince the uninitiated and those with only a passing interest with items like his aerial photo of the 17th from 1930 above.   Of course, what he fails to tell the reader is that none of the bunkers in that photo existed when the course first opened, nor does he tell the reader that the green in question was rebuilt and "materially improved" with bunkers added according to multiple sources in the 1915/16 timeframe for the 1916 US Amateur.
 
If David no longer agrees with the original premise of his IMO article, as you seem to believe, he should at least update it in the interest of historical accuracy based on all of the direct contradictory information that has been unearthed since he wrote it.   However, as of yesterday, he suddenly claims to have more "source material" to prove his points, but perhaps like HJ Whigham, he's waiting for all of us to die off first.   
 
Seriously, if there is more actual physical evidence in his possession than just posting silly aerials of Merion in 1930 and saying "doesn't this look like a CBM hole?", I do wish he'd produce it someday.   If CBM routed Merion, then CBM routed Merion.   
 
However, given the facts that have been unearthed to date, that doesn't seem possible to me, or to most observers, and you know why?
 
Because even one of "Mucci's Morons" would know that one cannot "approve", much less "approve of" their own work.   
 
And CBM was no Moron, despite what David and Patrick would have us believe. 
 
Good seeing you the other day,
Mike
 

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I apologize for writing that you were posting for TEPaul.  I realized my error and edited my post, but not before you and others had read the post.  My mistake and I am sorry for it.  I appreciate you trying to stay out of that spat. I have no interest in engaging with TEPaul directly or indirectly.

Beyond this point, your last post is an odd one to me. I provided you a long list of points where we mostly agree, and points where you seem have essentially conceded the bulk of my argument, and yet you ignore all this and immediately return to the swap issue and continue to flog it mercilessly.

You write that my "argument has morphed over time."  While my "argument" has morphed as new information has become available, my central thesis has remained essentially unchanged throughout.

I recently read a cheesy (but relevant) who-done-it? mystery where the protagonist sleuth confesses that once he's he's figured something out in his mind he forges ahead without ever divulging his reasons, because as the case unfolds and new facts become available, his reasoning is bound to evolve even though his ultimate conclusion rarely does.  Something similar has happened here, only I have been upfront with my reasoning from the very beginning.  Nonetheless, as new facts come forward, I am able to make my case more directly and cleanly without reliance on the evidence that I first used to support my conclusion.

And the reality is that, given what we presently know, the timing of the swap is just not that important to understanding what generally happened at Merion.  It was important at the time of my IMO because I did not yet have all of Merion's golf related Minutes from the time period. Now that I have those Minutes, I can make my case more directly and cleanly using the Minutes themselves. Understanding the swap helped me make sense of what happened based on the information I had then, but now I can make sense of what happened with better, more direct information, and whether or not we get into the swap at all.  In short it has become an unresolvable distraction.

I think I am correct about the timing. You disagree.  Whichever of us is correct, it ought to be fairly obvious to reasonable minds that Macdonald and Whigham played a major role in the initial design of the course regardless of the timing of the swap.
================================================


I see Mike Cirba has yet another offering from afar.

He apparently quit reading my IMO after the synopsis, and never bothered to actually look into the substance of the work. This might help explain why he has never come close to understanding my argument.   Had Mike continued reading, he might have noticed that my IMO makes clear that Wilson and others at Merion were involved in the planning, right along with Macdonald and Whigham.

[Bill Brightly]

From Mike Cirba:  (His last post on this matter)
---------------
Bill Brightly,
 
Is that what you see as David's main point?   Sheesh...if that's it we could have wrapped it up about 5 years ago!    
 
Of course, Merion might not necessarily agree that CBM wasn't acknowledged because their records going way back acknowledge CBM's role from multiple sources including Board Minutes, accounts by Hugh Wilson, Alan Wilson, Robert Lesley, and various club history books over the years.   But, I do think it's a fair point to consider that perhaps in modern times CBM's role has been a bit under the radar.
 
Mike, I do think it is a pretty important point. Let's say that we were watching the US Open, and the announcer described the third hole hole as a Hugh Wilson's version of a Redan hole suggested (routed) by Macdonald. No one can PROVE that this discussion took place between Macdonald and Wilson, but I think any serious student of gca KNOWS it took place. And similar discussions undoubtedly took place in designing other holes, especially how to fit the holes into the land, and what parcels of land neededto be acquired.So yes, Macdonald's role has been "under the radar" and I think David did an amzing job bringing that role to light