Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike_Cirba on April 09, 2008, 10:35:46 AM
-
Before we get off into another lengthy exercise of parsing words, trying to determine the meaning of "laid out" "constructed" "responsible for", "built" and host of other meaningless semantic dances, I thought it best to put together some of the words of the historic timeframe, as they were written.
It should be noted that speculation about the identify of "Joe Bunker" took place here recently, with everyone from Tillinghast to Wiliam Poultney Smith listed as possibilities, but it's clear from his volumnious writings for that paper that he had incredible insight into the dealings of the men of the Philadelphia School of Architecture and was clearly writing from the "inside".
It should also be noted that the writer William Evans was the head of the Green Committee at Country Club of Lansdowne, on the GAP Committee, a friend of Robert Lesley, Clarence Geist, Ellis Gimbel, Hugh Wilson, Tillinghast, and all the other major players of the time. He was another insider's insider.
I'm also thinking that we're being asked to believe that because a ship's manifest for Hugh Wilson's legendary pre-1912 trip cannot be found online 100 years later, that it didn't happen.
Interestingly, neither does George Crump's trip in 1910, although we're told that was due to a mispelling.
We're still waiting to hear why none of the 800+ "H. Wilson"'s who travelled from Britain between 1908 and 1912 are the correct one.
In that light of speculation, let me present the rest in their own words, as they were written back then;
Philly Inquirer – 9/15/12 – “Clubs & Clubmen” column
“Mr. Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the new course and helped largely in the planning of the holes.”
Philadelphia Public Ledger – 10/12/13 – William Evans
“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course. Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect. Those who have visited the new course have commented warmly on its construction.”
Philadelphia Public Ledger – 11/1/14 - William Evans
“Then comes Hugh I. Wilson of Merion, whose word ought to count for a great deal, for he laid out both the Merion courses and the Seaview links. He has this to say.. "
Philly Inquirer 12/06/14 – Joe Bunker
“Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned. He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “
Philly Inquirer 1/24/15 – Joe Bunker
“Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses…have laid out the golf course in Cobb’s Creek Park.”
Philadelphia Public Ledger – 1/31/15 – William Evans
“A Committee made up of Hugh Wilson, the man responsible for the two Merion and new Seaview courses…will aid the park engineers in laying out the course (at Cobb’s Creek)”.
Philly Inquirer 4/23/16 – Joe Bunker
“Nearly every hole on the course (Merion East) has been stiffened (for the US Am) 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 chairman of the Green Committee. These two men have given a lot of time and attention to the changes and improvements. Before anything was done to the course originally, Mr. Wilson visited every golf course of any note not only in Great Britain, but in this country as well, with the result that Merion’s East Course is the last word in golf course architecture. It has been improved each year until not it is almost perfect from a golf standpoint.
Philly Inquirer 1/14/17 – Billy Bunker
“Hugh Wilson built both the Merion courses and the course at Seaview.”
Philly Inquirer 1/28/17 – Billy Bunker
“Both the Merion Cricket Club courses were built under the direction of Hugh Wilson who also laid out the Seaview course.”
Philly Inquirer 4/22/17 – Billy Bunker
“An expert like Hugh Wilson, who built the two fine courses at Merion believes every club would have better putting greens if not for the craze for lightning-fast greens.
USGA Greens Section report – February 1925 (after Wilson’s death)
“The mature results of his studies in golf architecture are embodied in the East Course at Merion, which was remodeled under his direction in 1923-24. It is safe to say this his course displays in a superb way all the best ideas in recent golf course architecture along the lines of its American development. For a long time to come the East course will be a mecca to all serious students of golf architecture.”
George Thomas – Year unknown (quoted by Geoff Shackelford)
“I always considered Hugh Wilson of Merion, Pennsylvania as one of the best of our golf architects, professional or amateur (note the early need for distinction). He taught me many things at Merion and the Philadelphia Municipal (Cobb’s Creek) and when I was building my first California courses, he kindly advised me by letter when I wrote him concerning them.”
Geoff Shackelford – “The Captain”
“Thomas spent considerable time studying Hugh Wilson’s work during the construction of Merion Cricket Club’s East Course in 1912, its West Course in 1914, and at a municipal course in Philadelphia, now Cobb’s Creek.”
Golf Illustrated – July 20, 1934 – A.W. Tillinghast (a man who had been there since the beginning and witnessed the creation of Merion first-hand)
“There was peculiar pleasure in revisiting Merion after an interval of years for I have known the course since its birth. Yet, with it all, there was keen regret that my old friend Hugh Wilson had not lived to see such scenes as the National Open unfolded over the fine course that he loved so much. It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”
I would assure everyone that the context of each of the quoted articles is wholly consistent with the theme and message being presented here.
If anyone wants to see any of the articles in their entirety, I'm sure Joe Bausch can make that happen.
Thanks, and my apologies to this board for getting upset about being asked to continually question what "is" is, and told that blue is green.
We're once again being asked to believe that men like Evans and Tillinghast and Smith who knew Wilson personally and were there at the inception had no idea what was going on, or that Hugh Wilson personally did nothing to disavow these rumors of both his golf architectural studies, his voyages, his knowledge, or his architectural achievements so as to be an implicit liar by omission.
That's serious stuff, so if that's the charges, and if that's what you claim to have evidence of counselor, then please put them out there.
This cat and mouse game of "I'm not ready yet" doesn't wash at all.
-
Is is is, but blue is only half of green.
With regard to the Evans quote from 10/12/13:
"“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course. Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect. Those who have visited the new course have commented warmly on its construction.”
To which course are they referring in the last sentence?
-
Seaview.
-
In fact, the following sentence and next paragraph make very clear that the writer is talking about Seaview.
This is the article in its entirety, but the germane paragraphs are the final two of the right-hand column.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2099/2332385884_251f8a6d9f_o.jpg)
-
(http://summersoccer.com/images/Wilson.jpg)
-
Is is is, but blue is only half of green.
With regard to the Evans quote from 10/12/13:
"“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course. Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect. Those who have visited the new course have commented warmly on its construction.”
To which course are they referring in the last sentence?
David,
Did you cut and paste the quoted passage? Or did you type it out? This is a question I would appreciate a serious answer to.
-
Can't you guys just keep all of your bickering in 1 thread?
-
Jim,
Cut and paste from Mike Cirba's quote. May I ask why you ask?
Ryan,
I'd prefer if we got it down to zero threads.
-
“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course. Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect. Those who have visited the new course have commented warmly on its construction.”
Is is is, but blue is only half of green.
With regard to the Evans quote from 10/12/13:
"“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course. Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect. Those who have visited the new course have commented warmly on its construction.”
To which course are they referring in the last sentence?
Because in your quote "at Merion" was left out.
The specific words "new course" were written twice; once in referrence to Seaview as Mike answered, but the first "new course" was tagged to Merion in Mike's quote but was left out of yours. It looked to me like you were trying to bait him into answering Seaview for a question that could have addressed Merion for your later advantage...
Tell me, in a cut and paste, how are two words in the middle of the passage left out?
-
Jim,
Cut and paste from Mike Cirba's quote. May I ask why you ask?
Ryan,
I'd prefer if we got it down to zero threads.
HAHAHA! good answer. Hey, didn't you almost kill me on the LA freeways a little of a year ago.
-
Ryan, it is hard to tell. I almost kill hundreds of people on the L.A. freeways every day.
Jim,
Frankly I couldn't tell you. Maybe you should ask Mike, since he edited his post over an hour after I posted my question.
The reason I asked the question is that it is ambiguous, especially when Mike leaves out the next sentence, which notes that the new course will open on May 30. Merion West opened on May 30.
So that sentence and the next could apply either to Merion West or Seaview. But definitely not Merion East.
When did Seaview open??
-
Agreed about the lack of clarity in the sentence, but remember, the East course would have been viewed as THE NEW COURSE to the Merion membership when it was built. They moved, as a membership, from somewhere else to the Ardmore site...correct?
-
Shivas,
As to Crump and travel research, I did come across a note in the Philadelphia Inquirer stating that George A. Crump and Joseph A. Baker did travel to Europe on Hamburg-American Line in 1910.
The ship, in this time frame, would have stopped in Southhampton. This was not in the Sports section per se, and was listed near the Sport section.
The various ship lines and schedules were listed on the same page. Many days listed some of the travelers and some did not list anyone. I presume only the social elite and such would merit being listed in the newspaper.
Of course, travels were listed in the social section as well.
Well, anyway, the note about Crump and Baker was printed in the newspaper, spelled correctly, etc. It just listed their names with no article or description of the travel. It just listed their names, along with many other names.
Would imagine that Hugh Wilson would have made the ‘social' cut and would have been listed. The purpose of my review was to somehow find Wilson's name listed through newspaper accounts, and I stumbled across this single line about Crump.
-
Yes, but by this point there was a new kid in town, even if not yet open. The course was built, seeded, and had been the talk of the town for quite some time. An exclusive of the routing had even been printed some time before. These golf columnists certainly did not wait to talk about a course until it was open, and they did not wait with Merion West. To think the author is talking about the East course is too much of a stretch for me, at least until we have some hard evidence that the trip took place before Wilson built the East course in spring of 1911.
-
re-reading the magazing clip, neither of you have it worded correctly, but you were clear in you first post that you were asking about "the last sentence" of the quote.
What are the opening dates, if you don't mind, of both Merion courses and Seaview?
-
Sorry...I was away from the computer.
David did nothing nefarious as far as the "at Merion".
I hand typed the quotes from articles this morning and accidentally omitted that. I went in and corrected it after I re-read the news article when I posted it.
As far as the west course being the talk of the town prior to opening, that may be the most creative description I have ever heard for attempting to explain away an obvious fact.
Yes, it was talked about and written about, essentially saying that because the NEW East course had proven so successful, and Merion got so many more rounds than they anticipated, the club had to put a limit on membership...and oh, by the way, they also had to buy another piece of property a mile away and are going to build another course.
There isn't the slightest chance in Hades that William Evans was talking about the West course here. Absolutely none.
-
Jim,
I thought I had the whole article from Joe's site, but found it got chopped. Essentially starting at the bottom of the left hand column where it starts to mention Clarence Geist thru the rest is ALL talking about Seaview, except for the note that Wilson...oh yes...also designed that fabulous NEW course at Merion that opened last year that everyone's talking about, that was being hailed as Philadelphia's first real Championship Course, and which had caused a burgeoning membership.
He was not talking about a site where grass had yet to grow.
The West course opened in May of 1914. Seaview, despite the ambitious plans of Geist, ran into some construction difficulties in filling the swampy parts of the property, and had a soft opening in November before opening for a winter tournament in January 1915 with Jerry Travers and some other notables playing. If you need more exact dates I can get them.
-
Yes, but by this point there was a new kid in town, even if not yet open. The course was built, seeded, and had been the talk of the town for quite some time. An exclusive of the routing had even been printed some time before. These golf columnists certainly did not wait to talk about a course until it was open, and they did not wait with Merion West. To think the author is talking about the East course is too much of a stretch for me, at least until we have some hard evidence that the trip took place before Wilson built the East course in spring of 1911.
David,
If this is a cornerstone tenet to what you're planning to present, you might want to rethink things.
Later...I'm off to play golf ;D
-
Michael Moore,
Absolutely hysterical! Thanks for adding some much needed levity. ;D
Joe Bausch,
Can you put up that article in its entirety.
The fact that William Evans is clearly discussing Seaview opening on May 30th will become crystalline for everyone, but it's difficult for those who don't know Merion West very well to discern that fact with the article cut where it is.
As it is, the fact that the article goes into great detail to describe the palatial, imposing clubhouse and amenities that Clarence Geist was building at Seaview and then says the new course and clubhouse would open May 30.
David seems to think that he means Merion West.
Do you think he's seen the Merion West 2X4 clubhouse? ;) Better yet, do you have any pictures of it, or couldn't you fit its immensity into one frame? ;D
Thanks!
Shivas,
On the site that Tom MacWood and David are using, Tom told me that the manifest had been entered as George R. Crump instead of George A. Crump so it wasn't found on the search. That site is ancestry.com
I used the site Rich Goodale mentioned called findyourpast.com and it's not as persnickety about middle initials. In fact, if I enter George Crump, or any other name, it will find anything it thinks is even close, including all middle initials, middle names, etc.
It didn't find George Crump's return visit either, but it did find 800+ H. Wilson's coming back from England between 1908-1912.
At about $7 a lookup, I stopped at $100.
Perhaps Michael Moore could use his imaginative talents with a dollop of CGI and dup about 800 Hugh Wilsons all invading the US shores at once, if the topic isn't humorous enough. ;)
-
Mike,
For $100 I'll photoshop you whatever ship manifest you'd like to see for Hugh... ;D
-
Before I put this to bed for the night, I also want to question the previous contention that "Far and Sure" who wrote for the American Golfer during this period was Walter Travis.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that it was Tillinghast. No, I'd bet more than that.
If one examines what "Far and Sure" wrote about Merion in October 1912, and then again in January 1913, it starts to come together when you realize it's Tillinghast, especially when he states that "Mr Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer" in his 1/13 article, it's clear that he's talking about Summer, 1911 or prior, and that his article was written prior to January but published after the year ended.
To gain that understanding, it's important to read what he wrote 3 months prior when he wrote that "The new eighteen hole course at the Merion Cricket Club, which has been under construction for more than a year was thrown open to members of the club on Saturday, Sept. 14.", and then later states, "The new course...was constructed under the direction of Messrs. Hugh I. Wilson..."
-
I am not sure who Far and Sure is. I thought I knew at one point, but now I cant remember why I thought what I thought.
As for the rest of your post, I have completely failed to follow your logic.
. . . when he states that "Mr Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer" in his 1/13 article, it's clear that he's talking about Summer, 1911 or prior, and that his article was written prior to January but published after the year ended.
Creative interpretation, but as clear as mud.
In the winter of 1912-1913, "last summer" meant summer of 1911 or prior??
It is now spring of 2008, so "last autumn" must mean the autumn of 2006?? Or prior??
It is April now, does "last month" mean February, or perhaps even January or last December? Wait a minute . . . I've confused myself . . . "last December" would have to be December of 2006, then, wouldn't it?
Is last week really two weeks ago, or maybe three or four??
Further, I understand why you'd like to add the "or prior"-- Hugh Wilson was busy constructing the course in the Spring and Summer of 1911. But just throwing it in makes no sense.
To gain that understanding, it's important to read what he wrote 3 months prior when he wrote that "The new eighteen hole course at the Merion Cricket Club, which has been under construction for more than a year was thrown open to members of the club on Saturday, Sept. 14.", and then later states, "The new course...was constructed under the direction of Messrs. Hugh I. Wilson..."
Hugh Wilson directed the construction. Isn't that what one would expect of the chair of the construction committee?
It must just be me, but your reasoning completely eludes me.
-
Interestingly, neither does George Crump's trip in 1910, although we're told that was due to a mispelling.
This question has been gnawing at me:
How was Crump misspelled? Was it as simple as "Krump" or "Crumph" "Krumph"? Or was it glaring?
The reason I ask is that there's butchery (which would hurt the credibility of a record) and there's simple, understandable error (which would not).
Mike: how was it spelled? I've combed these theads and haven't seen that piece of info, so I just thought I'd come out and ask...
Don't lose any sleep over this. Crump returned with Baker on Dec. 3 on the Caronia, from Liverpool As has been the case with every otherwise verifiable trip of which I am aware, the manifest has been digitized and is locatable.
-
Joe Bausch,
Can you put up that article in its entirety.
The fact that William Evans is clearly discussing Seaview opening on May 30th will become crystalline for everyone, but it's difficult for those who don't know Merion West very well to discern that fact with the article cut where it is.
As it is, the fact that the article goes into great detail to describe the palatial, imposing clubhouse and amenities that Clarence Geist was building at Seaview and then says the new course and clubhouse would open May 30.
David seems to think that he means Merion West.
I think this is the 3rd time now I've posted the entire article. I have NO IDEA how David can be misinterpreting what Evans has written.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2404/2331557533_35e0cf9b65_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2099/2332385884_251f8a6d9f_o.jpg)
-
Joe:
Evans could not have been referring to Merion West or East in that article as the West has never had a clubhouse and the East course always used the old farmhouse. So the new clubhouse and course referred to would have to be Seaview's.
-
Tom,
I think the issue is with the Hugh Wilson introduction in the last two paragraphs. Which course is the first "new course" in that section?
-
Sully:
It is my distinct impression that the "new" Merion course Evans is referring to is the East. When this article was written the West course was in the beginning of its approximately nine month "grow in" period. Furthermore, we know very well who Clarence Geist was and I very much doubt he asked Wilson to design Seaview for him on the strength the West course which at that point had seen no play and wouldn't until May of 1914. It was the East course that made Wilson's reputation and I don't think there has ever been any doubt about that.
-
Tom,
I think the issue is with the Hugh Wilson introduction in the last two paragraphs. Which course is the first "new course" in that section?
Jim,
Could you describe the palatial clubhouse of the Merion West course in detail? I believe it was built to house 40 cars. AND...it was scheduled to open on May 30th of the next year, along with the course!!! ;)
Sorry, i'll stop being a pr*ck but some of this gets ridiculous.
The William Evans article is from October 12, 1913. It was likely based on info he received in September and possibly even wrote it in late September, but even if October, no matter.
Just one year prior in mid-September 1912 the NEW East course at Merion had opened. Since the inception of the club, everyone in the Philadelphia area who Evans was writing for knew that the membership had played at another site on an old, now outmoded (Haskell ball) course for 16 years, or roughly as long as golf existed in Philadelphia!
The NEW East course was immediately hailed, rounds at Merion went through the roof, the press and local golfers rejoiced that Philly finally had something that could become a much needed "Championship course". There are a ton of articles at the time citing the need for one.
The East course becomes so popular that it's now overcrowded, and a limit is put on the membership, but demand remains strong.
The club scrambles and finds a piece of land a mile up the road, and hurriedly begins plans to build another 18 holes. The West course is mentioned in the press, but not as the new darling of the fickle Philly community, but in reference to the overcrowding caused by the popularity of the NEW East course.
The West course would open for play a full NINE months after this article was written, and at this stage had no bunkers and no grass.
And yes, sometimes they did write about courses before they opened, but not much about the course itself.
As you can see from this very article, the thrust was about this palatial clubhouse, and new CLUB that Geist was building...not much about the course at all except to say in faint praise that comments have been "warm".
And that was the usual thing...the only course to get a GREAT deal of hype, because it was unique right from the start and involved so many of the heavy hitters and press right from the start was Pine Valley.
The others...mostly mentioned in passing.
-
And Jim...
Not to belabor this, but even if we take the fantastical stretch of imagination to believe that Evans was talking about the West course as the "new" course, let's remember that it's now 1913 as he's writing.
He says, very clearly, "..some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed.." to describe the timeframe of Wilson's trip to study the great courses.
He didn't say this year, he didn't say last year, he didn't even say two years ago...
"Some years ago" minimally means at least two, and very possibly more.
William Evans knew Hugh Wilson and Robert Lesley very, very well. He was not some schmo reporter from the outside...he was a major member of GAP.
Perhaps he was temporarily delusional from taking that Turkish Bath in the Merion West clubhouse. ;D
-
. . . when he states that "Mr Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer" in his 1/13 article, it's clear that he's talking about Summer, 1911 or prior, and that his article was written prior to January but published after the year ended.
Creative interpretation, but as clear as mud.
In the winter of 1912-1913, "last summer" meant summer of 1911 or prior??
David,
The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind.
Look at the pictures accompanying the article.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1913/ag93m.pdf
-
David,
George Crump's 1910 trip does not come up in any fashion on the "Findyourpast.com" site, mispelling or no.
This is the site with the manifests of every ship leaving Great Britain.
This is the same site where 800 "H. Wilson"s are found between 1908-12.
I believe that if you as a legal professional look at these manifests for proof of anything you'll be astounded at their lack of consistency, completeness, readability, and very likely, accuracy. If memory serves, they were compiled as hundreds of people were boarding a ship, sometimes quite hurriedly I'd imagine, by a clerk level person of the shipping company. I'm sure they didn't like the bureaucratic requirement of logging everyone very much...thank God they didn't have to go thru our airport security process!
I can't imagine you standing in court with one in hand as evidence and feeling very confident. ;)
-
MikeC:
If William Evans was actually on the board of GAP that makes him an insider beyond question. It's important to make the distinction between someone who just belonged to a club that was a member of GAP and someone on the board of GAP.
-
MikeC:
If William Evans was actually on the board of GAP that makes him an insider beyond question. It's important to make the distinction between someone who just belonged to a club that was a member of GAP and someone on the board of GAP.
Tom,
He was one of two GAP reps from Lansdowne where he was chairman of the Green Committee. He was at the annual GAP meetings and we have a pic of him there.
-
As to who "Far and Sure" was, I can't remember where I read it recently (but it's probably in some article in a file here in my office), it seems for those who wrote for American Golfer regionally, it was Walter Travis (The Editor) who assigned the regional reporters the psuedonyms they used.
-
Tom,
That's William Evans in the third row, seven men to the right of Hugh Wilson and just behind Robert Lesley's left shoulder.
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/GAP_Jan31_1915_PublicLedger.jpg)
Oh yeah..that's also Clarence Geist down to his left a few folks. ;)
And Tillinghast over there to his right...and Ellis Gimbel...Winthrop Sargent (chairman of Green Committee at Merion)
Oh yes...he was an insider's insider!!
-
MikeC:
If William Evans was actually on the board of GAP that makes him an insider beyond question. It's important to make the distinction between someone who just belonged to a club that was a member of GAP and someone on the board of GAP.
Tom,
He was one of two GAP reps from Lansdowne where he was chairman of the Green Committee. He was at the annual GAP meetings and we have a pic of him there.
Ah, phooey, we know these Philly guys are capable of fabricating stuff. Hell, Cirba probably photoshopped in Evans in that one great picture we found while going through the GAP achives. ;D
-
Crump's 1910 departure wasn't in the manifests but it was in the newspaper.
A little more microfilm 'readin' versus a data base search engine would probably find Hugh Wilson's trip mentioned in the newspaper. Just like Crump's.
-
JohnS:
This Wilson trip or trips abroad really is fasinating me, not so much as to what it might mean about who really did design Merion but simply due to the fact that one really does wonder where and how and why the ages old historical record is how it is.
Here are a few of the interesting items that could use some investigation as to when or if they occurred.
1. Why Wilson's trip in preparation for the creation of Merion has been reported (in relatively recent Merion history books) as taking place in 1910 and for seven months
2. This story about him coming home with all kinds of drawings and plans and surveyor's maps he collected abroad.
3. The exact date or even the year he and perhaps members of his committee visited Macdonald for that well known two day "study" session at NGLA.
4. The significance of when the Merion Committee to design the course was formed as well as the meanings from that so-called 1910 Annual Report of Merion.
There is an historic oddity that still fascinates and that is for many years the story was extant at Merion or in its history writing that on returning from his 1910 trip abroad in preparation to do Merion Wilson almost sailed on the Titanic. For some years now we and Merion have been aware that that was impossible as The Titanic went down in 1912. His now documented 1912 trip explains the origins of that Titanic story because he really did almost sail on The Titanic in 1912!
Also, Mike Cirba's recent find of a Hugh Wilson and wife and children and servants from Southampton to Buenos Aires despite the inconsistencies on the ship manifest on nationalities should probably not be dismissed as easily as it has been. It is not inconceivable that on a seven month trip abroad with wife and family Wilson may've gone to Buenos Aires and then returned home from there. It is an undeniable historic fact that many of the people from that time of his type were world travelers so obviously they did make trips of that type, not to mention that Wilson's business was maritime ship insurance which is just another reason that traveling abroad by ship is something that was probaby not a rare occurrence in his professional life.
-
A few questions for everyone who is still holding on to this notion of two trips:
1. Is there a single iota of evidence (hard fact or not) that Wilson took TWO trips to study?
2. Is there a even a single contemporaneous reference to a Wilson study trip written BEFORE his 1912 trip?
Any golf gossip or society articles? Any club reports? Any statements by H. Wilson or his brother? Any post card? Anything?
Remember, you guys didnt even hatch the two trip supposition until AFTER I verified the 1912 Hugh I. Wilson trip.
Anyone??
_______________________
Mike Cirba,
You keep bringing up these shipping manifests. Presumably, your logic is as follows:
1. You have done what you feel is an extensive search on a single British Website and you failed to locate any travel manifests indicating that Hugh I. Wilson or George A. Crump traveled in the relevant time period.
2. You therefore conclude that currently existing shipping manifests are astoundingly incomplete, inconsistent, unreadable and inaccurate.
With all due respect, a better conclusion is that your research is thus far incomplete or flawed.
According a shipping manifest filed pursuant to an act of the U.S. Congress, Crump and Baker departed from Liverpool for NYC in December of 1910.
According to another manifest filed pursuant to an act of the U.S. Congress, Wilson returned from France in May of 1912.
I've said this before but it is worth repeating, So far, for every otherwise verifiable trip to the United States of which I am aware, every single manifest has been found by me or someone else.
I can't vouch that the manifest records in the United States are 100% complete, or that they are 100% accurate, but they are absolutely incredible in their scope and accuracy.
To assume a trip took place because of an oft repeated legend or simply because you and other really, really hope it happened does not cut it.
And Mike, I didn't realize you were that old, but your memory[??] is not serving you well here. Record keeping was not casually or inconsistently done on these ships, but was much more arduous that you imagine, at least on our side of the pond. Current immigration issues pale in comparison to the ones that existed around 1910, and they were very careful about the process. Shipping manifests were kept and filed pursuant to an Act of Congress. Compared to Ellis Island, our current domestic airport security checkpoints were likely a breeze.
WHERE ARE THE HARD FACTS INDICATING THAT A TRIP TOOK PLACE BEFORE 1912?
So far I have seen none.
________________________
As for this business of the article 10/1913 article, please read what I write, not what Mike Cirba thinks I think.
I wrote that the two sentences in question were ambiguous. I brought it up because Mike Cirba included one of those sentences in his list of items supporting a conclusion about the EAST Course. The two sentences in question definitely DO NOT REFER TO MERION EAST.
________________________
Joe Bausch writes: "I have NO IDEA how David can be misinterpreting what Evans has written."
Really Joe? NO IDEA? I am surprised if this is the case.
By this point Merion West had been built, had been growing in for five months, and had been gossiped about in the Philadelphia newspapers. Wouldn't have virtually everyone following golf in Philadelphia been well aware of its existence by this point?
Yet you do not think that my reading has any support whatsoever? The article is not at all open to the interpretation I have given it. Even though we know he took the 1912 trip at least a year and one half before the article was written? Even though no hard facts exist indicating an earlier trip?
-
David,
The trip Wilson took sometime between January and April 1912 was clearly not the trip to study golf courses that these writers mentioned. Maritime Insurance matters was his profession, and I'm quite sure that after taking an earlier lengthy voyage, having spent the past year on building the course, and getting it ready for seeding in the fall he would have been behind in business matters.
It would make no sense for it to be for any number of reasons, not the least of which is can you imagine a bleaker time of year to go study golf courses in Great Britain?
Or a more dangerous time of year to travel for recreational purposes?!?!
The written accounts say he spent the summer months, not the winter.
I'm also sure it was "downtime" in the construction of Merion East as it was also the middle of WINTER in Philadelphia during those months. I'm quite sure that work progressed as normal in Philly here...probably into December, but generally, after living here for 20+ years, January, February, and March get pretty ugly weather-wise.
I'm quite sure the course got seeded in the fall, and everyone was waiting for spring to continue the work.
I could go back and address each of your questions one more time, including the absolutely ridiculous one that Evan's is talking about Merion West, but instead I'll willl say this;
The only reason that Tom MacWood found the Crump manifest in the 1910 article is simply because he had a travelling companion who was found...not because somehow, miraculously, Crump turned up on a search engine. If Crump had travelled alone neither you or Tom would have EVER found that record.
If it's that touchy, or that faulty, then we surely cannot judge our inability to find a Hugh Wilson manifest as remotely near sufficient burden of proof. How do we know he's not one of the 800+ "H. Wilson's" leaving England between 1908 and 1912?
If your entire theory rests on the hypothesis that Wilson didn't sail before 1912, as I was afraid that it might, and you have to rely on us believing that William Evans was talking about the Merion West course in his 1913 article, or that "some years ago before Merion was constructed" actually means less than a year ago (you claim that Merion West was constructed in spring 1913...you can't have it both ways), then I think the other "new evidence" you say you have had better be really, REALLY good. ;)
You might need actual video footage at this stage. ;D
-
If you think business matters weren't playing on his mind at that time, consider how crazed it must have been when he finally did get the course opened in the fall of 1912 and then by the spring they asked him to do it all again, this time in under a year!
At the same time, he was doing design work for Ellis Gimbel at Philmont, he was designing and building Seaview with Clarence Geist...Robert Lesley asked for another course at Merion..Lesley put him on a GAP committee charged with trompsing around Fairmount Park in Philly and recommendnig sites for a public golf course..he was SWAMPED BY THESE INDUSTRY CAPTAINS BECAUSE HE WAS THE LOCAL EXPERT WHO HAD GONE OVERSEAS TO STUDY GOLF COURSES!!!!!
He was also neglecting business and it was weighing on him.
I didn't add the last sentence of his resignation article, but to give everyone some idea of what was going on with this guy at the time, let me spell it out here;
Philly Inquirer 12/06/14 – Joe Bunker
“Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned. He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. Pressure of business compels him to give up the chairmanship.“
-
"He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country."
MikeC:
Since I really don't get the relevance of this trip argument and never have I never paid that much attention to the exact wording of what Billy Bunker reported there in that 1914 article.
Given how much more relied on newspaper reporting was back then for information than it may be today, it seems to me if The Philadelphia Inquirer mentioned Wilson went abroad before the first course was built and Wilson or anyone connectd to Merion read that knowing that was not the case they definitely would've asked the Inquirer to print a correction.
God knows Tillie got flagged on something he wrote about Pine Valley for a lot less than that.
-
Mike Cirba,
I believe it is May 1912, not April.
We know it is clear to you. And that my version does not make sense to you. And that you are sure of everything you write. And that you interpret everything to support your version, even it means reading something as simple as "last summer" as really meaning two summers ago, or even longer.
These are all your opinion. You have yours and I have mine. What I would like to see are your facts. Not interpretation, speculation, conjecture, or legend, BUT HARD FACTS.
As far as I can tell you have absolutely NO HARD FACTS. NONE.
As for the Manifests. You are probably wrong about how MacWood found the Crump manifest and definitely wrong about how I found it. But even you had been correct, my point stands. MacWood found it. I found it. Your inability to find it notwithstanding, the historical record is accessible with a little digging and some creative research.
As for your usual implication about how high the bar is for me and how I am relying so much on these records, we've all heard it before. I am sure that some of you would not be convinced by video.
But Mike, this reentry into the manifest issue is your doing, not mine. I wish you hadn't opened up the can again, but you did. And since you did, why not offer me HARD FACTS supporting your post hoc "two trips" theory?
What
tha. . . when the Merion Committee to design the course was formed . . .
A Committee to design the course?? Do tell. I am aware of the Site Committee and the Construction Committee but not the Design Committee.
I know you must be referring to the latter committee, but I dont want Joe or others to suffer any more misperceptions of what we know and what we don't know.
Unless you have evidence otherwise, The relevant sources establish that Hugh Wilson chaired the "Construction Committee" and was charged with constructing the course.
There is an historic oddity that still fascinates and that is for many years the story was extant at Merion or in its history writing that on returning from his 1910 trip abroad in preparation to do Merion Wilson almost sailed on the Titanic. For some years now we and Merion have been aware that that was impossible as The Titanic went down in 1912. His now documented 1912 trip explains the origins of that Titanic story because he really did almost sail on The Titanic in 1912!
Also, Mike Cirba's recent find of a Hugh Wilson and wife and children and servants from Southampton to Buenos Aires despite the inconsistencies on the ship manifest on nationalities should probably not be dismissed as easily as it has been. It is not inconceivable that on a seven month trip abroad with wife and family Wilson may've gone to Buenos Aires and then returned home from there. It is an undeniable historic fact that many of the people from that time of his type were world travelers so obviously they did make trips of that type, not to mention that Wilson's business was maritime ship insurance which is just another reason that traveling abroad by ship is something that was probaby not a rare occurrence in his professional life.
[/quote]
-
Tom,
All of these stories were in the press both extemporaneous to events, as well as through his all too short lifetime.
Hugh Wilson would have had to have been both a liar and a fraud if he really didn't design both courses at Merion and go to study the great courses in Great Britain AND the US before designing the first one as was reported.
-
MikeC:
One thing I have never known is when this seven months abroad was first reported no matter what year it took place. His 1912 trip could not have been more than three months tops and possibly a lot less than that.
The other thing I find hard to believe is why Wilson would've done all those drawings abroad in preparation to build Merion East if he did that in 1912 after the course was constructed and in its year long grow-in phase.
I also don't know how far back the reports go of those drawings and plans of his from abroad which are clearly lost now probably in a clubhouse flood.
-
The only reason that Tom MacWood found the Crump manifest in the 1910 article is simply because he had a travelling companion who was found...not because somehow, miraculously, Crump turned up on a search engine. If Crump had travelled alone neither you or Tom would have EVER found that record.
Mike,
I don't know why you write this because anyone can go on ancestry.com (I used the Ancestry Library Edition) and search the manifests for George Crump arriving sometime between 1909 and 1911. And in 30 seconds you get this:
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b279/dkelly1770/crump1910.jpg)
-
David,
I say that because I searched for him on the site Rich Goodale recommended that has all the return trips from Great Britain and it wasn't available.
I also say that because when I asked Tom MacWood about not being able to find Crump's visit he replied that he used Ancestry.com but also had to dig hard there,
"Mike,
>>He is listed as George R. Crump. These lists are mostly hand written
>> so
>> with literally millions of records to transcribe you are going have
>> minor mistakes here and there (thats also true with the census records
>> and I don't see anyone questioning their creditability) . Because
>> there
>> are occasional errors I find that it is wise to alternate how one
>> searches for a person, not only alternating the spelling of the name
>> or
>> middle initial, but also searching by spouse or sibling or traveling
>> companion."
I hope he doesn't mind my quoting him here, but yes, there are issues with the ability to scan handwritten, inconsistent, and incomplete logs 100 years later.
The fact that one didn't even need to have their first name listed seems to me to be a HUGE problem in determining data validity.
No one has yet answered why it couldn't be one of the 800+ "H. Wilson"'s who came from Great Britain from 1908-1912?
-
I hope he doesn't mind my quoting him here, but yes, there are issues with the ability to scan handwritten, inconsistent, and incomplete logs 100 years later.
The fact that one didn't even need to have their first name listed seems to me to be a HUGE problem in determining data validity.
No one has yet answered why it couldn't be one of the 800+ "H. Wilson"'s who came from Great Britain from 1908-1912?
You seem to read every small hurdle as a HUGE problem rendering successful research impossible. In reality, as MacWood's private message to you exemplifies, it usually just takes time, effort, creativity, and an understanding of the limitations and attributes of the various sources. Every source has limitations, but that doesnt mean we should all just throw up our hands and claim that it is impossible to know.
Take your 800+ H. Wilson's you keep citing, as if it were some extraordinarily large number. It isn't. In fact in the time you have spent on gca.com today, I'll bet you could have looked at each and every manifest for all 800 names. Of course you wouldn't have to do this, as you can throw out the vast majority easily enough.
Of the 800+ many are women. Some are Henry or Herbert. Some are not traveling to America. Some are not United States citizens. Some are traveling at times when we know Wilson was in the U.S. Some are traveling with family members and domestic staff that do not match Hugh Wilson's. Some are too young. Some are too old. Some are Pipe Fitters. Some are Teachers. Some are Doctors. Some live outside of the Philadelphia area. Almost all are a combination of many of these things.
Take Scottish Hugh Wilson traveling to South America from England with the wrong servants and too many daughters. This the best alternate Hugh Wilson you could come up with? That alone tells me that your stack of 800+ H. Wilson's is not nearly as full of potential matches as you imply.
But I already knew that, because I have done the research. And I have one match. Hugh I. Wilson of Philadelphia, aged 32, from France in May 1912.
Is it possible that someone will eventually find HARD FACTS supporting a notion of a second trip?? Anything is possible, and I could very well have missed something somewhere. But until hard evidence is found, this supposition of a second trip is frivolous, at best.
Without hard evidence there is nothing left to talk about. Just wishful thinking.
-
Shivas said:
"If we're going to focus on anything, we ought to focus on the silly, thoughtless hyperbole in the last half of that sentence: "before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country."
Really? In the US? Even back then, that was a decent-sized list. Interlachen? Chicago Golf? Essex? Pinehurst? Brookline? He was all these places? I'm surprised he had time to get to Britain at all!
You can't believe what you read in newspapers."
Shivas:
As to which 'big" courses this website might conclude Wilson thought he needed to visit in this country back then should we consider what you think they were or what someone relevant to Wilson back then thought they were? ;)
Consider this:
Who was Wilson's original mentor on architecture? Who did Wilson give plenty of credit to for initially teaching him the 'construction principles' of golf architecture?
Well, we know that was C.B. Macdonald (and Whigam) during that two day visit to NGLA. We know that because Wilson wrote that in his 1916 report on the creation of Merion.
And we also know that Macdonald felt that before NGLA there were only three good courses in America. We know that because Macdonald tells us that in his own book. He listed them as Chicago G.C. (is that any surprise since Macdonald did it ;) ), GCGC and Myopia.
So if Macdonald felt those three were the only good ones and he told that to Wilson at NGLA during that two day visit I hardly think it's a stretch that Wilson either knew those ones or could look at them pretty easily before building Merion or going to Europe. ;)
-
I also pasted this on the other trhead:
David,
I, too, welcome you back.
I agree with your ascertion that Mike C.'s research of passenger manifests has been a limited one, but just because yours has encompassed a greater range and more and larger lists in no way should be taken to mean that it has been either complete or even close to it.
For example, in the original Merion thread from way back when, I challenged you on this very point and gave the example of Tilly's travels to Scotland. I once again did a search of the ancestry.com records (this is the one that you use) and under the name Albert Tillinghast there are only 2 records of ocverseas travel. 1 to Scotland and 1 coming back from Mexico in November of 1933.
We have known for quite sometime that tilly went to Scotland in 1895, 1898 & 1901, yet the manifests on ancestry.com appear incomplete. In addition, just this past Saturday I found a mention of an earlier trip to Scotland, written by Tilly in the American Golfer, thattook place between 1888 to 1892.
No mention of this one either.
I don't see how relience on the ship manifests records, at least at this point, can do anything other than show occasions WHEN a trip occurred. I fail to see how they can be used to prove that something that has been at least hinted at DIDN'T.
Please let me know if I am simply not searching ancestry.com properly. I looked under New York & Boston passenger lists (by the way guys there are a number of possible Hugh Wilsons leaving from Boston in the latter part of the first decade that might fit him traveling) and even passport requests.
By the way, I knew of Tilly's 1933 mexico trip but never knew he went by boat! I wouldn't have found that without today's search and so must credit you for that as it fills in a very important piece of timeline in something I am currently researching.
-
Phillip,
I hope we don't have to go through all this again . . . . My recollection without researching again is that the legal recordkeeping requirement was significantly stiffened by congressional act in 1907. Before that, I dont recall. Your trips are all much earlier than that. Except for last one which you found. The records seem to be incredibly complete during the time period in question.
It is always difficult to offer proof of a negative, Plus he absence of ANY HARD FACTS is much better proof , than is blind hope that he took an earlier trip.
As an aside, with just a quick glance I find three trips, but I really dont want to mix Tilly in Wilson here.
-
David,
Could none of the 800+ "H. Wilson"'s who came back from England between 1908 & 1912 be Hugh? Maybe? Maybe not?
Look David...several days ago I asked you very kindly to please come forward with any new information that you've alluded to. As a researcher, I'm keenly interested, but I didn't want to have the same interpretive battles all over again over records that you think are 100% accurate and I believe are significantly incomplete, as well as wording of articles and timeframes.
However, we're back at square one, you've added absolutely nothing new (even though I KNOW you have stuff that you're holding in an attempt to make fools of some of us) and I for one don't have either the time or the temperament for the game.
And yes, I do know it's a setup, designed to embarrass Tom and Wayne, revenge for past grievances, and probably to get me too at this point. Nice that you have time for such pettiness. ::) Frankly, I had thought much more highly of you, even after all that past contentiousness we've had. You know, I feared this was your plan from the start, but then I thought to myself..."nah...he's not that kind of a guy" :-\
I was wrong.
Sadly, the ironic truth is that even if you manage to make Wayne and Tom and me look woefully misinformed, now everyone knows that this was your covert intention all along, and it sure doesn't show much respect for your larger audience on GCA to have dragged everyone interested in the very worthwhile topic through this cheap charade. :-[
So David, if you have information, which I also know that you do, I would suggest this;
Put it all together for everyone's dissemination...write a "In My Opinion" piece for Ran...send it to a golf journal and get it published. If it adds to the history and understanding of Merion, that's great. If you show that our understanding is wrong, I'm fine with that. If it shows that Fred Pickering designed Merion, or Walter Travis, or CB Macdonald, or Mickey Mouse, that's ok too. I don't have sacred cows...just object to tearing down idols without 100% proof.
As I mentioned in our email thread, I do believe that we're just beginning to work through all of the histories, especially of that very early period of American golf and I find that fascinating. I had hoped we could collaborate more cooperatively, but you decided to come back here with a vengeful agenda, and I guess I fell for it.
Shame on me. Congratulations are in order, I guess. Nice job.
I'm done here with you. The game's up. The scoreboard shows 0 to 0. We all lose.
p.s. I promised Tom MacWood that I would post the rest of what he wrote to me about the manifests he found on Ancestry.com
Here it is;
"Mike,
>>He is listed as George R. Crump. These lists are mostly hand written
>> so
>> with literally millions of records to transcribe you are going have
>> minor mistakes here and there (thats also true with the census records
>> and I don't see anyone questioning their creditability) . Because
>> there
>> are occasional errors I find that it is wise to alternate how one
>> searches for a person, not only alternating the spelling of the name
>> or
>> middle initial, but also searching by spouse or sibling or traveling
>> companion."
Like a lot of research it can be quite tedious and time
>> consuming but as you and Joe B know all the hours spent are often
>> rewarded.
>>
>> I've been searching these records for a couple of years I will tell
>> you
>> they are a remarkable resource. I have been able to track down the
>> movements of every important golf architecture figure in the last 100+
>> years, not only confirming what was already known but also discovering
>> some surprising new stuff (like the fact that Herbert Fowler came to
>> the US in 1913). From my point of view your attempt to discredit this
>> tool is clearly misinformed.
>>
>> TM
Sayonara, Dude...
-
David,
Could none of the 800+ "H. Wilson"'s who came back from England between 1908 & 1912 be Hugh? Maybe? Maybe not?
Of the 831 that come up under an H Wilson only 13 are listed as Hugh Wilson 17 are listed as "H Wilson." So we've gone from 831 to 30. Throw out females and birthdays that arent even close and you've only got a few to actually look at. Of those, none of them fit criteria I am concerned with, but you may want to pay the money to take a further look. Personally, I dont like the site; not as much information and very expensive. Also, the British did not have nearly the motivation to keep track of who was leaving as the US did of who was arriving.
Look David...several days ago I asked you very kindly to please come forward with any new information that you've alluded to. As a researcher, I'm keenly interested, but I didn't want to have the same interpretive battles all over again over records that you think are 100% accurate and I believe are significantly incomplete, as well as wording of articles and timeframes.
However, we're back at square one, you've added absolutely nothing new (even though I KNOW you have stuff that you're holding in an attempt to make fools of some of us) and I for one don't have either the time or the temperament for the game.
And yes, I do know it's a setup, designed to embarrass Tom and Wayne, revenge for past grievances, and probably to get me too at this point. Nice that you have time for such pettiness. ::) Frankly, I had thought much more highly of you, even after all that past contentiousness we've had. You know, I feared this was your plan from the start, but then I thought to myself..."nah...he's not that kind of a guy" :-\
I was wrong.
Sadly, the ironic truth is that even if you manage to make Wayne and Tom and me look woefully misinformed, now everyone knows that this was your covert intention all along, and it sure doesn't show much respect for your larger audience on GCA to have dragged everyone interested in the very worthwhile topic through this cheap charade. :-[
So David, if you have information, which I also know that you do, I would suggest this;
Put it all together for everyone's dissemination...write a "In My Opinion" piece for Ran...send it to a golf journal and get it published. If it adds to the history and understanding of Merion, that's great. If you show that our understanding is wrong, I'm fine with that. If it shows that Fred Pickering designed Merion, or Walter Travis, or CB Macdonald, or Mickey Mouse, that's ok too. I don't have sacred cows...just object to tearing down idols without 100% proof.
As I mentioned in our email thread, I do believe that we're just beginning to work through all of the histories, especially of that very early period of American golf and I find that fascinating. I had hoped we could collaborate more cooperatively, but you decided to come back here with a vengeful agenda, and I guess I fell for it.
Shame on me. Congratulations are in order, I guess. Nice job.
I'm done here with you. The game's up. The scoreboard shows 0 to 0. We all lose.
Mike, I have no idea what has gotten into you. I have done nothing to you or anyone else that justifies this garbage. Your behavior has become downright bizarre.
I had no idea that my decency and worth as a as a human being would be judged based on my prolificity.
Absolutely ridiculous.
-
The Boys from Philly have a theory to present. It's also a theory of what David Moriarty may have some new evidence about with Merion even if at this point we have no idea at all what that might be or what he might have because he hasn't produced anything new even in theory that might explain some of the seeming inconsistencies we've been aware of for years that may be part of the Merion record.
My theory is that this whole connection with Macdonald and Merion's new course may've developed perhaps around the Lesley Cup in 1909 which was at Huntingdon Valley in Philadelphia. If Macdonald and/or Whigam played in it (we'll check that) some of the Merion players like Lesley and Griscom (or even Perrin) may've talked to Macdonald and/or Whigam about their plan to move from their Bryn Mawr course. I've playing in the Lesley Cup for about ten years and I know that very few players from any team play all the matches all the days so maybe some Merion guys like Griscom and Lesley who were obviously aware of what Macdonald had been doing for a few years at NGLA (although the course was a year or two from opening) got him to come over to the Ardmore land they were looking at and check it out.
Macdonald may've said that it looked OK and the Merion guys may've said they would like to basically do what he'd been doing at NGLA with a group of amateur sportsmen Merion members building the course and asked him to talk to the people from Merion they'd use (the to-be-formed Merion Construction Committee with Wilson leading it).
Macdonald might have said to get them to come to NGLA and meet with him and go over what he had and study the way he'd been doing NGLA.
Here's where I think this theory gets really interesting and could explain the truth about some of the apparent riddles and inconsistencies in the Merion history books we've been aware of for years:
Macdonald may've told the Merion guys to get a topo done of the Ardmore land and bring it up to NGLA for a visit.
Wilson may've done that with a few of the committee members in late 1910 or early 1911 (January and no later for a reason I'll give later). They may've gone over MACDONALD's template hole sketches from abroad that he had from as early as 1904 for NGLA and talked about how to fit some or all of them onto the Merion property using its natural features and construct some of their basic prinicples onto Merion's land. This could've been an attempt at a basic template hole routing scheme for Merion on the Merion topo Wilson brought with him to NGLA.
Macdonald may've even let Wilson bring his template hole sketches from abroad for NGLA back to Merion so the committee could study how to use them and their principles on the Ardmore land. Maybe what Merion has always thought were Wilson's sketches and plans and survey maps that he made while abroad were just Macdonald's for NGLA that Wilson borrowed and brought back from NGLA and New York, not GB.
If that's true then it would explain the question and riddle of why would Wilson bother to go abroad and do sketches for Merion East in 1912 if the course was already constructed and into its grow in phase at that time which lasted almost a year?
Maybe what the later Merion history writers got mixed up on was what they reported much later as a Wilson trip abroad in 1910 was really just the Wilson visit to NGLA. And that would also explain the sketches and drawing that Wilson apparently used----eg they were not some he made abroad because he hadn't been there yet for Merion but they were Macdonald's for NGLA. Maybe it was even Macdonald's NGLA sketches that were lost in a Merion clubhouse flood which has been reported for years as how the Wilson sketches from abroad were lost.
This would also explain the inconsistency of Merion's later history writers thinking Wilson had sketches from abroad in 1910 and that he nearly went down in the Titanic on the way home. The Titanic would not go down until two years later in April of 1912. And we know that Wilson narrowly escaped coming home on the Titanic in his documented 1912 trip abroad.
We also thought Wilson in his report in 1916 of the creation of Merion got the date wrong when he said 1911 when we thoughh he must have meant 1910 (because of the long told Merion history books mention of a 1910 trip abroad). He may not have made a mistake in the date and if it was accurate he did say he studied great courses abroad 'LATER' (after 1911) which would obviously mean the 1912 trip.
There are a few more little inconsistencies in the Merion history books that this particular theory would really explain.
And lastly, much of the foregoing seems all the more plausible looking at Wilson's FIRST letter to Piper of the US Dept of Agriculture on Feb 1, 1911 when he introduces himself and tells Piper Macdonald asked him to get in touch to talk about agronomic.
The fact is Macdonald had had at least one massive agronomic grow-in failure at NGLA and he turned to Piper at the US Dept of Agriculture for advice.
The interesting thing about that first letter to Piper is Wilson says he has a topo of Merion he wants to show him so Piper can identify areas from it to take soil samples to send to DC for analysis. This letter is the first of approximately 1,500 generated in the next fourteen years (the first of the so-called Wilsons/Piper and Oakley "agronomy" letters.
We have no idea at this point if this basic theory which really would explain some of the little inconsistencies we've been aware of for years in Merion's record are even remotely in the same ballpark of what David Moriarty thinks he's come up with but we want to put this new theory of ours on record right now and state we will be looking into the credibilty and accuracy of any and all of it.
Maybe it's nothing and maybe it's something and maybe Wilson did go abroad for Merion only once in 1912. If that's true, this theory would explain almost everything, it seems to me. If he did go abroad in 1910 as the Merion history books have always explained then that's cool too and this particular theory would essentially be back out the window. ;)
The other thing I'd like to say is if this theory does turn out to be true and these are the real facts involved in all of this it does very much support what we have claimed all along about the architectural history record of early Merion and that is that the two reports done in 1916 by Hugh Wilson and in 1926 by Alan Wilson that we've always relied on are true and accurate and that both of them give all the credit due Macdonald, both when and why, for his contribution to Merion at Ardmore.
-
Shivas,
Can you say, "blame the liberal media"? ;)
Hyperbole was not beyond these guys, certainly, but there is also a ton of good information in the old newspaper accounts.
However, they weren't reporting politics, or life and death shaking world events...they were reporting on a game that was supposed to be fun recreation, much as many here seem to think they had their priorities askew. ;D
Tom Paul,
I think that your theory is a very interesting possibility that does seem to fill in the historical gaps and explain some of the inconsistencies in the early reporting on Merion East.
However, I still don't know what that has to do with the course that's on the ground today, or even the course that was on the ground in 1916?
It seems to me that any early fascination with creating template holes, or copies of those abroad was really very quickly found to be wanting and almost immediately revised, for whatever reasons those on the ground found that necessary and desirable.
-
"So, as a point of fact, did Wilson visit Chicago Golf Club? Myopia? Garden City?"
Shivas:
As those were the three that Macdonald later claimed were the only good ones in America before NGLA and he was Wilson's initial architecture mentor and it was claimed that Wilson had studied the best here before building Merion I would assume he saw those.
Frankly, from the photographs we've seen of Macdonald's 1895 Chicago Golf Club, if Wilson had seen that one I doubt he would've kept Macdonald as a mentor! ;)
As for GCGC, since Wilson was a very fine player (the captain of the Princeton golf team) to assume he knew GCGC which isn't far from Philly or Princeton is completely logical.
As for Myopia, I believe it has always been the home course of the Havard golf team and Herbert Leeds was connected to Harvard. If Harvard played Princeton at home one could conclude the Princeton captain would know Myopia.
-
Maybe what the later Merion history writers got mixed up on was what they reported much later as a Wilson trip abroad in 1910 was really just the Wilson visit to NGLA
Tom, interesting. If I have followed correctly, Mike laid out a fair number of newspaper articles that all made a point of saying Wilson went to GB and made his sketches before work began, and added that Wilson would have corrected the record if that was not the case. Your theory would therefore fly in the face of those newspaper articles?
-
Tom,
I guess one of the questions that jumps out at me from your theory is why Wilson wouldn't have disputed any of the local press reporting, although in retrospect, perhaps none of it jumped out at him as wholly inaccruate because they were written after May 1912? :-X
-
"However, I still don't know what that has to do with the course that's on the ground today, or even the course that was on the ground in 1916?"
Mike:
Don't worry about that you don't need to know all the details of that architectural phase and the next one and later. That phase is what noone knows as well as Wayne including the latter phase in the 1920s and later.
What we have pretty much been concentrating on with David Moriarty's threads and implications is the initial architectural phase of Merion East (1912-1915).
I can absolutely guarantee you that Macdonald and Whigam had virtually nothing to do with the 1916 phase and the phase in the 1920s. Those ones were definitely Hugh Wilson and Flynn and then Flynn when Wilson died in 1925 and we have all Flynn's plans and hole drawings in real detail and that's what went on the ground.
How different those phases were style-wise is much of Wayne's ongoing point about how different Merion was style-wise after 1916 and on from the National School's style of architecture.
-
We're once again being asked to believe that men like Evans and Tillinghast and Smith who knew Wilson personally and were there at the inception had no idea what was going on, or that Hugh Wilson personally did nothing to disavow these rumors of both his golf architectural studies, his voyages, his knowledge, or his architectural achievements so as to be an implicit liar by omission
Mike, you said the above yesterday, and nothing's really changed since then other than Tom's new theory. No reason for you to get weak-kneed now about it (..'although in retrospect, perhaps none of it jumped out at him as wholly inaccruate because they were written after May 1912?')
While I am afraid I put much less stock in the accuracy of those articles then you, there is something to your general sentiment.
-
Tom,
I guess one of the questions that jumps out at me from your theory is why Wilson wouldn't have disputed any of the local press reporting, although in retrospect, perhaps none of it jumped out at him as wholly inaccruate because they were written after May 1912? ;D
Mike:
Dispute what? I still can't figure out when those stories of him going to Europe before the East got build first started. I guess we could try to run any of them back as far as possible to find out, like the seven months (somebody may've said "several" months and at some point it turned into "seven" months). As for his doing drawings himself abroad for Merion East I can't figure out how early that story started.
Maybe, one of the reasons he wrote his creation report in 1916 and Alan wrote his in 1926 was to keep setting the record straight. However, with Alan's report it really does sound like Hugh went abroad before 1911.
Maybe, he did do that and it's just a matter of noone at this point has found proof of it.
This theory we just presented is intended to explain why it might be plausible that 1912 was his first trip and that the Wilsons' reports really are as accurate as we always thought they were regarding the creation of Merion and that they gave Macdonald all the credit he was due and both when and why.
It's just a theory and a seemingly pretty interesting one, in my opinion. Maybe it is one similar to something that David Moriarty was working on but the fact is to date he hasn't offered any part of it yet. Maybe it's the same and we will all be in agreement on the architectural attribution of Merion from now on or maybe he has something entirely different to offer and far more interesting.
Who knows, but it would be nice if he'd offer something new since that's what he's been implying he would do for about a week or more.
-
Maybe what the later Merion history writers got mixed up on was what they reported much later as a Wilson trip abroad in 1910 was really just the Wilson visit to NGLA
Tom, interesting. If I have followed correctly, Mike laid out a fair number of newspaper articles that all made a point of saying Wilson went to GB and made his sketches before work began, and added that Wilson would have corrected the record if that was not the case. Your theory would therefore fly in the face of those newspaper articles?
Maybe anything to the East of the Delaware was "abroad" for Philadelpians.....?
-
Along the lines of throwing out alternate theories and chronologies, as TEP does in reply #57, did it ever occur to you guys that Wilson's, MacDonald, and various founding members of these clubs, didn't really care what inaccuracies were reported, nor how the legend and lore of the founding of these clubs got jumbled up. That all they really wanted to do was play golf at their new wonderful course; and who did what, wasn't all that relavant to them?
To take a modern analogy of the vision, developement and who should get credit, etc., think about the modern day masterpiece, Sand Hills.
Whose idea was it anyway, Ron Whitten's? Could you make a case that in the 1980s, Ron was writing and thinking about a sand hills golf course and DY got the idea from Ron? That Dye passed on it, but was instrumental in the siting of the SHGC (lord help us if someone ever comes up with the manifest from Greyhound bus lines, or a airport landing record from North Platte, or Mullen motel bill that shows Dye and Whitten went there and stayed there in 1986! ::) ;) ;D ) --- just kidding... no such exists that we know of...
But, I hope you see my point. What if the constellation map was more Dick, Dan and Dave's work than Bill and Ben's. (again, don't get any panties in a wad, I'm only trying to through out the idea of how things or perceptions could get jumbled and become a different circumstance than how something actually got accomplished)
What if certain aspects of the legend and lore of the founding of SHGC are accepted as conventional wisdom, and the founder DY, don't really care what the legends and lore spinners say, as it really just isn't all that big of a deal to him, and the only thing that counts is servicing the fairly obscure or reclusive national members, keeping up the facility, etc. What if all the little on-going discussions of folks like us (wanna bees, guests, fanatics for GCA who might get to play there a time or two in your life) , and who might perpetuate certain misinformed realities of how it actually was, just are ignored in their inaccuracies and allowed to go with what they blather; and who in the founding circles really cares, except to say that there exists this really great golf course, and what is important is that it exists for the members?
Is it in any way possible that misperceptions about the founding of Merion weren't corrected, because no one was all that concerned with them at the time?
-
"Maybe what the later Merion history writers got mixed up on was what they reported much later as a Wilson trip abroad in 1910 was really just the Wilson visit to NGLA
Tom, interesting. If I have followed correctly, Mike laid out a fair number of newspaper articles that all made a point of saying Wilson went to GB and made his sketches before work began, and added that Wilson would have corrected the record if that was not the case. Your theory would therefore fly in the face of those newspaper articles?"
AHughes:
What I've never been able to establish (I don't think anyone has yet) is how far back reporting, newspaper or otherwise, such as Wilson UNQUESTIONALBLY went abroad BEFORE Merion East went into construction in the spring of 1911 WENT, OR how far back this story goes that Wilson brought his own sketches and drawings back from abroad WENT.
If both of those stories went all the way back to the time Wilson was alive, and stated that unquestionably, then, yes, I think he and the rest would have attempted to correct them as not being accurate.
The first time I see those things mentioned as apparent fact is in some of the more recent Merion history books.
I think this theory of ours explains why there was no need for him to correct those stories if they DID NOT unquestionably go back as far as being contemporaneous with him.
I don't even know how to check that other than to attempt to check anything and everything to see if those stories appear somewhere during his lifetime perhaps. My sense is they didn't, my sense is they came in later interpretations but simply by the misunderstanding of some old facts and times and places.
I really don't want to see these Merion threads turn into some tit-for-tat accusations amongst researchers today, as all researchers and history writers of any time are only as good as their theories and how well they can support them with whatever documentation is available and logical or plausible or of course provable.
Even the very best researchers are prone to mistakes for all kinds of innocent reasons and I hope this doesn't turn into just that subject.
To me the larger point and really THE only point here is did the Wilsons in their two reports accruately portray the architectural credit due Macdonald/Whigam for what they really did do for Merion at Ardmore?
I, for one, think they did no matter when Wilson went abroad or whether he did drawings himself over there or just used Macdonald's that he did years before for NGLA.
-
"Along the lines of throwing out alternate theories and chronologies, as TEP does in reply #57, did it ever occur to you guys that Wilson's, MacDonald, and various founding members of these clubs, didn't really care what inaccuracies were reported, nor how the legend and lore of the founding of these clubs got jumbled up. That all they really wanted to do was play golf at their new wonderful course; and who did what, wasn't all that relavant to them?"
RJ;
I don't really believe that. I think those people back then did care about the inaccuracy of these kinds of things if it was obvious to them. I say that because we do have some interesting examples of them asking for corrections of reported facts surrounding golf courses and getting those kinds of correction in the press.
The most obvious of them I'm aware of is Pine Valley's president, Howard Perrin, asking Tillinghast to correct a story of Eugene Grace anonymously gifting Pine Valley at a particular time. Tillie apologized and complied in spades!
-
Andy,
Nope, I'm not going soft on this. If Wilson knew what was being reported locally in the press for all those years and it was in fact an inaccurate fabrication of either his voyages, timelines, involvement, knowledge, or work, then in fact he was lying by omission. I'm just suggesting that Tom Paul's theory may have given him a bit more leeway in how we originally interpreted those articles, and how Wilson might have during his time.
RJ,
I really can't agree with that knowing the depth of golf-related incestuousness going on around here during that time. The writers were in fact their friends and golf companions...guys like Evans, Tillinghast, WP Smith...were not only the players but also the golf writers for the local rags.
They were all very attuned to what each other was doing, where each other were going, and what was hot, what was not, and were about as closeknit a group of collaborators and even conspirators as one can imagine.
It was quite remarkable, really.
-
Tom Paul,
While I have no idea of how or when the "sketches" story began, or even that calculation that he was there for six or seven months.
However, I do think these three accounts are very important here;
Philadelphia Public Ledger – 10/12/13 – William Evans
“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course. Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect.
Philly Inquirer 12/06/14 – Joe Bunker
“Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned. He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “
Philly Inquirer 4/23/16 – Joe Bunker
“Nearly every hole on the course (Merion East) has been stiffened (for the US Am) 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 chairman of the Green Committee. These two men have given a lot of time and attention to the changes and improvements. Before anything was done to the course originally, Mr. Wilson visited every golf course of any note not only in Great Britain, but in this country as well, with the result that Merion’s East Course is the last word in golf course architecture. It has been improved each year until not it is almost perfect from a golf standpoint.
We all know now who William Evans was and how connected he was.
After having gone through a number of years of volumnious articles by Joe Bunker, we first thought that it was Tillinghast (as did Philip Young at first, but then reconsidered and now believes it was not) given his depth of "insider" knowledge about all things Philadelphia golf, and incredibly about the daily most mundane activities going on at Pine Valley.
Right now our best guess is that it was William Poultney Smith, because we came across an article where Tillinghast mentioned the WP Smith wrote the first critical articles about golf and golf courses in Philadelphia.
In any case, both of these writers unquestionably knew Hugh Wilson on a personal basis, and their writings were in prominent papers, and I have no doubt in my mind that Wilson was aware that these things had been written about him.
-
MikeC:
I'm definitely not saying Wilson could not have gone abroad in 1910 as the two Tolhurst history books report he did. All I'm saying is if the 1912 trip was the only trip he made abroad this theory I've suggested would very easily explain how some of the facts reported about Wilson later like his drawings from abroad he brought back for the ORIGINAL construction of Merion East were a misinterpretation.
I do not necessarily subscribe to the theory of some on here that if some people on here can't find him on ship manifests before 1912 he could not have gone over there in 1910.
I think one place we may look next to possibly shed some light on his trip or trips abroad is that Merion 1910 annual report where Tolhurst claims this idea of forming a construction committee and sending him abroad was mentioned.
Some clubs have their annual meetings around the end of Jan or beginning of Feb. where they offer the report of the previous year so maybe it meant the committee was formed and the decision was made in early January to send him abroad at some point.
This would square with Wilson's own 1916 report in which he mentioned 1911 (we've thought for some years he got the date wrong and meant 1910) and that he saw courses abroad 'later'.
Wilson did get one date wrong in his report. He may've typoed the wrong year in something he mentioned about the West course.
-
"Is it in any way possible that misperceptions about the founding of Merion weren't corrected, because no one was all that concerned with them at the time?"
RJ:
I think definitely. While I doubt any of them back then would've put up with some flagrant inaccuracy in reporting, I think if any of them back then could see the importance some of us lunatics today on here assign to the meaning of things reported and the meaning of the words and terms used back then they would absolutely shake their heads in amazement or just flat-ass fall over laughing! ;)
-
Is it possible that the problem lay not in the reporting but in the interpretation of it?
For example, in each of the three quotes, and in fact in all of the cited references used in these discussions, the interpretation of the e.g. phrase "before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country..." has been taken to mean that Wilson made a SPECIFIC trip for that SPECIFIC purpose.
Might it rather not be that Wilson had made a number of trips around the U.S. and abroad where he visited and played courses, becoming enamored with their design principles? Frankly, isn't this what all of us on here do?
I am wondering about this because of the dual reference to visiting courses in this country. This is something that we know that he defitinitely did during the first decade of the 20th century as a competitor in tournaments of a local and national nature and even as a member in team competitions representing Philadelphia.
We can document with absolute certainty that Tilly never went back to Scotland after 1901 and yet he took great pride with features done in imitation of the great courses of Scotland in his first creation at Shawnee, and that opened for play 10 years later in 1911. He even went so far as to claim priority for using the "Mid-Surrey" scheme of mounding there before anyone else in America did.
Might Hugh Wilson have been a man whose secret desire was to be a golf course architect rather than a maritime insurance executive? He didn't stop with the design of Merion, but these thread's have also mentioned several other courses that were done by him. I ask this question because it would also explain his making sketches of holes on many courses that he visited, or are we saying that he took up drawing and sketching just for the purpose of studying golf courses in order to design Merion? Rather, isn't it far more likely that he had been drawing for a number of years?
Finally, once again consider something I mentioned the other day. It is very difficult to find mentions of Wilson COMPETING in tournaments after 1908 or so. WHY?
Could it be that before this he was too involved with the game, being indulged and supported in this by his family, and then was pressured to finally concentrate on the insurance business?
That scenario would also explain many things such as why shipping manifests have not been found for him as maybe he went overseas in 1902 or 04 or 06... David Moriarity himself, in repsonse to my questioning about not being able to find Tilly's records, said that in the early years the records are incomplete and that only AFTER an act of congress in 1907 were specific and actual records of all manifests maintained.
This interpretive supposition could be way, way wrong as well... but it does make sense and answers questions
-
Tom,
No...I understand that your theory doesn't discount that Wilson may have gone over prior to 1912.
I'm just pointing out some of the extemporaneous sources who claimed he did go overseas on an extended visit prior to building the first course and that these men definitely knew Wilson personally.
Philip,
I think that's an interesting hypothesis.
When I saw that response to you saying that after Congress passed an act in 1907 things got tighter and presumably more accurate with manifests my initial thought was, "what if his trip overseas happened before then and wasn't really directly associated with the new property of Merion whatsoever?"
What if he just loved to play golf and see cool courses, much like Tillinghast and Crump? He went to Princeton, he had some serious connections...heck, even the wife of a former President of the US was at his wedding.
Revisionist history might try to tie it all in a neat package as all directed towards educating himself to design Merion, but it could have been just that he got the golf-course education in his years in college at Princeton and in his 20s and early 30s through his Maritime Insurance business, and then he designed Merion. No connection between the two whatsoever, except his visit to Charlie and the discussion of the great holes that possibly they both had seen at that point.
Interesting..
-
Phil/Tom
One more thought...
Do any of the accounts of Wilson visiting with Macdonald mention specifically that Wilson had never been overseas prior or seen the courses in person?
Wasn't the value the actual sketches, and discussion about the principles?
What if they had BOTH seen and played these courses prior, much like Noel Freeman visiting with George Bahto, and then comparing notes about Deal and Royal St. George's?
-
"I'm just pointing out some of the extemporaneous sources...."
MikeC:
God-dang-it to hell, will you please quit saying that? You've been doing it for a week now!
Guys like Dan Kelly and Shivas and maybe even David Moriarty are such sticklers for words and precise meaning they will positively freak out over your gross INEXACTITUDE!
It's contemporaneous, not extemporaneous!! Unless, of course, these reporters you've been quoting were just spouting off in print the first damn thing that came into their heads. ;)
Have you not seen the first paragraph of Wilson's 1916 report where he talks about the visit to NGLA? If not, I'll post it on here. I posted it a year ago on some of those Merion threads, along with the pertinent parts of Alan Wilson's 1926 report.
Or better yet why don't you scan the appropriate parts in here, Wayne? Isn't that what a pissboy is supposed to do?
-
Tom,
Can you extemporaneously post the damn thing on here already! Time's a wastin', man.
-
"Tom,
Can you extemporaneously post the damn thing on here already! Time's a wastin', man."
Definitely not! I have far more important things to do like watch the Masters.
-
Geez, I gotta believe a clever fellow who has a way with words, and a knowledge of drama, could take these "Merion dialogues" and refine them down into a screen play for a movie. All we need is a smoking revolver, a femme fatale, and a director. ::) ;D 8)
-
RJ,
Just picture Tom Paul in a long, blonde wig standing there holding a smoking gun with a smile on his face as he looks down on David who had, until a moment before, been sitting in the chair marked "Director."
The last line might be, "I told that pissboy Wayne that if you want something done right you just gotta do it yourself..."
Fade to black...
-
"Do any of the accounts of Wilson visiting with Macdonald mention specifically that Wilson had never been overseas prior or seen the courses in person?"
No, none I've seen say anything like that.
"Wasn't the value the actual sketches, and discussion about the principles?"
Here's what Wilson said about the sketches et al in his 1916 report:
"We spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow near the National course and in one night absorbed more ideas in Golf Course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations on the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day, we spent going over the course and studying different holes. Every good course that I saw later (apparently he meant "later" than the 'early 1911' that he mentioned the formation of the Construction Committee in the beginning of this paragraph----(words in parentheses mine)) in England and Scotland, confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teaching."
Hugh Wilson, 1916
"What if they had BOTH seen and played these courses prior, much like Noel Freeman visiting with George Bahto, and then comparing notes about Deal and Royal St. George's?"
Anything's possible, but there's nothing written from him like that I'm aware of.
-
"Just picture Tom Paul in a long, blonde wig standing there holding a smoking gun with a smile on his face as he looks down on David who had, until a moment before, been sitting in the chair marked "Director."
The last line might be, "I told that pissboy Wayne that if you want something done right you just gotta do it yourself..."
Fade to black..."
Phillip:
For saying something that incendiary on one of these high-charged Merion threads your options should be:
1. Racked
2. Tarred and Feathered
3. To have your fingernails pulled out
You make the choice!
I did see David on here earlier today and I did consider shooting him with a blonde wig on but he must have looked at all the ramifications of this new theory and decided to skip the Hell off of here and and go have a serious pow-wow with his new material that's been promised for about a week. ;)
-
Tom,
What would it do to our story if Hugh Wilson returned from overseas in September 1911?
-
"Tom,
What would it do to our story if Hugh Wilson returned from overseas in September 1911?"
MikeC:
Oh, not much really except probably have him miss the entire original routing, design and construction phase of Merion East!
But I don't see that as a real big deal as the rest of the committee with Flynn and maybe Toomey and Pickering and Valentine routed, designed and constructed the course in that time frame while Hugh stayed in touch with them from some of the famous holes abroad by Skype video phone.
-
I did see David on here earlier today and I did consider shooting him with a blonde wig on but he must have looked at all the ramifications of this new theory and decided to skip the Hell off of here and and go have a serious pow-wow with his new material that's been promised for about a week. ;)
First Tom, I didn't promise you anything. I know Patrick intimated that something was on its way, but I speak for myself.
As for your "new" theory, I've barely skimmed it. A lot of "maybes" and speculation jumped out at me, and I am more interested in focusing on fact, for the time being.
I wonder though, after years of vigorously (an understatement) opposing all else who pointed out the inconsistencies and gaps in Merion's legends, why the change of heart now? Oh well, better late than never I guess.
Good Luck.
-
"As for your "new" theory, I've barely skimmed it. A lot of "maybes" and speculation jumped out at me, and I am more interested in focusing on fact, for the time being."
You should probably do a bit more than just skim it. Seriously considering all the interconnected ramifications of this theory might help you understand it better, and also what really happened here with Wilson and the committee with the original routing, design and construction of Merion East. Isn't that what we're concentrating on here to find out? Or are you trying to maintain, once again, that if Wilson did not go abroad before 1912 that proves that there was no way that Wilson and his committee could've done what they said in their reports about the creation of Merion and them doing it and particularly what they said was the essential extent of Macdonald's part in helping them, particularly at NGLA during those two days? Are you still implying that Macdonald had to do more than anyone has given him credit for including the Wilsons themselves?
"I wonder though, after years of vigorously (an understatement) opposing all else who pointed out the inconsistencies and gaps in Merion's legends, why the change of heart now? Oh well, better late than never I guess."
We have known about apparent inconsistencies in the timing of Wilson's trip abroad for years and have pointed it out before such as how there was what Tolhurst called the romantic notion for so long that Wilson almost went down in the Titanic on his trip abroad in 1910 since the Titanic didn't sink until April 1912. We know now that was not a romantic notion because you proved via a ship manifest that he did almost go down on the Titanic. So what did you prove? You certainly proved what was believed to be a romantic notion of Wilson almost sailing on the Titanic was true and not a romantic notion.
But what does that mean as far as who did the routing and design and construction of the golf course? That's what we want to know and you should too.
The point of my theory is it doesn't really matter when he went abroad, particularly if he used Macdonald’s 1904 sketches and drawings and survey maps from abroad instead of making his own over there that may've been pretty similar anyway if he followed a recommended itinerary of Macdonald's over there. If they were sketching many of the same holes the sketches couldn't have been radically different with two guys looking at the same holes and drawing them.
My theory would also quite easily explain why some story may've begun at some point later that got into Tolhurst's histories that Wilson brought back sketches and drawings and surveyor's maps that he did abroad when all he may've done was bring Macdonald's back from NGLA to Merion with him.
But this does not answer why Tolhurst wrote in Merion's 1989 history that Wilson went abroad in 1910. We don't know why he wrote that other than he said the Merion 1910 annual report seemed to indicate that. Have you seen that annual report?
Well, we haven't either and we've been looking for it since before we knew you. Apparently, Tolhurst must have seen something in the late 1980s that led him to that conclusion but neither Merion Golf Club seems to have it now nor Merion Cricket Club but we will keep looking? Will you come over here and look for it? Probably not.
It seems all you will do is keep maintaining that Wilson could not have been abroad before 1912 because you can't find a ship manifest for that. That to us is just not conclusive proof at all even if you keep trying to insinuate it is.
But THE real point here is not just additional research but whether the reports by Hugh and Alan Wilson are an accurate portrayal of how Merion East was originally built, who did it, and what Macdonald was responsible for. We believe those reports are accurate and we will continue to until someone can produce factual evidence that they aren't.
Can you do that? If you can we haven't seen your evidence yet! It's as simple as that at this point.
-
“First Tom, I didn't promise you anything. I know Patrick intimated that something was on its way, but I speak for myself.”
David:
Really? Then what was the meaning of the following you put on that email chain of Pat Mucci’s just before you came back on this site?”
"Is gca.com ready for open and frank discussion about the World's great courses? After having been encouraged by a poster for whom I have great respect, I’ve been reconsidering TEPaul’s kind invitation asking a few of us to return to gca.com. I remain concerned that, despite good intentions, the site may still remain hostile toward certain ideas that run contrary to the accepted wisdom of the golfing Establishment, particularly in and around Philadelphia.
What if I come back and pick up where I left off with my series of threads on the early history of the great Merion East course? Is the website ready and willing to enter into a frank discussion about Merion, or for that matter, about Pine Valley, NGLA, Garden City, or any other of the World’s truly important courses?
By way of example, what if I post that Merion East came into being as an enticement to attract buyers to a real estate development.
. . Or that Merion chose the precise property based largely on what Macdonald and Whigham thought could be done with the site.
. . Or that the routing plan for Merion East was in place before the parcel was secured, long before Merion even appointed Hugh Wilson and his construction committee to build the course.
. . Or that, reportedly, nearly every hole on the East Course was patterned after famous holes abroad.
. . Or that the revised 10th hole was not the only hole at Merion East where the yardage was significantly overstated; the total yardage at the early Merion East was off by hundreds of yards, probably due to faulty measuring methodology.
While any such posts—or posts that go much further—would be accompanied by significant factual support, I would welcome any challenges, corrections, and discussion, so long as civilized, reasonable, and aimed at a furtherance of understanding of gca.
What say you? Is gca.com a place for open and frank discussion of the world’s great golf courses, or not?
[Patrick’s mailing list looks like a pretty good representation of long time gca.com posters, and he gave me permission to address the questions to you all. Many of you know me, and some of you don’t. Regardless I’d appreciate any and all comments and concerns.]
Thanks.
David"
-
Dear David (and Pat Mucci),
WE'RE WAITING!.... [for your new data; which I think you have but I have no idea why you aren't presenting it other than you two guys are programmed much differently than me]
Sincerely,
Judge Elihu Smails
----------------------------
-
Tom & Joe,
Don't waste your breath or your fingertips.
David has something, but that's not the point.
The point is exactly what he alludes to in his "change of heart" message.
It's not about the information.
It's about the petty, vindictive game of gotcha to Wayne, Tom Paul, and by now, me, I'm quite sure.
Thank God at least his role in this embarrassment is on full public display. It's just a shame that the others who are feeding David and aiding and abetting this waste of time aren't quite as transparent. They should be ashamed of themselves.
-
Now, now Mikey, don't go there or you will be accused of acting like this guy TEPaul and his pissboy sidekick from Merion and all those other Philadelphians who've been accused of minimizing outside architects to unfairly promote local ones.
For my part, if this discussion on Merion's original phase architecture and perhaps the record of it from the Wilsons' reports and how they treat Macdonald's part in Merion at Ardmore, is going to continue at all I think we need to hear from David Moriarty along about now regarding any new info he has or else have him state what his purpose is this time to discuss the architectural record of Merion. If he doesn't want to do either of those I guess there's no more to discuss with him on the first phase Merion architectural record.
Does anyone else have anything of interest they'd like to discuss about Merion's first architectural phase (app 1911 to 1915-6)?
If he just wants to talk about some inconsistencies in the Merion history books (1989 and 2005) of Tolhurst from that Merion first phase architecture I don't see the relevance of that as we've been aware of a couple of those inconsistencies from Tolhurst for years and they are probably quite explainable (see my posts of today) as well as unimportant regarding architectural attribution.
If he thinks his single trip suggestion has some architectural attribution interest to discuss he should say what he thinks that interest is. I don't think it matters at all if Wilson made his own drawings abroad from some of the courses and holes Macdonald may've told him to visit before beginning Merion or if he simply used Macdonald's that he collected abroad around 1904 or even just used some of the ideas and principles he and some members of his committee discussed with Macdonald in that two day visit to NGLA they all mentioned so prominently and then just came back to Philadelphia and set to work themselves applying them at Merion from the spring of 1911 to September 1911 when they grassed the course and let it grown in for a year before opening for play in September 1912.
-
Tom,
Would you like to hear an alternative theory of what happened at Merion between 1910 and 1912 opening?
It's spurred by an odd manifest I saw earlier today, combined with some of your theory about Macdonald's maps and plans, etc. that you posted this morning. In the interest of time, perhaps I'll just copy and paste, and if anyone has questions, I'll elaborate over the weekend;
Here goes.
Gentlemen,
I wholly agree with Wayne's perspective, although we probably differ slightly on the % basis of credit we give to Wilson and Flynn, respectively, but the difference is trifling.
I also agree that David's methods are egregious, his data suspect, and his conclusions biased, but there is a serious question here that still begs explanation, and it is something I find fascinating, apart from the person who brought it to our collective attention.
In that light, as I re-examine the evidence, I am becoming more and more convinced that Wilson's trip overseas was during the summer of 1911, not 1910.
For years, we have discounted 1911 because we are thinking in modern terms of how courses today are routed, built, and seeded, and then left to grow.
I don't think that's what happened to Merion East, whatsoever,.
Joe's research yesterday brought us the Tillinghast article from April 1911, in which he talks about the possible difficulties of building a great inland course in Philadelphia from an agronomic standpoint, discusses his belief that it's indeed possible to build a championship course in Philly, and says the plans he's seen for the new Merion course are reason for optimism.
That tells us that by this time...spring 1911, there was at least some type of rough routing, or perhaps a general plan for construction, and this is where I think Tom Paul's theory becomes important. I do believe that by this point Macdonald, et.al. were involved. In fact, when "Far and Sure" (who I'm virtually certain was Tillinghast) wrote an article for American Golfer magazine after playing Merion for the first time in the fall of 1912 (see the January 1913 article and the pictures I sent...there are still full complements of leaves on the trees when he played there in 1912 and penned the article (TIllinghast LOVED photography and took all his own pics), but it didn't get published til January 1913), said, "Two years ago, Mr. Charles Macdonald, who has been of great assistance in an advisory way, told me Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen, but every new course is 'one of the best in the country' and one must see to believe after trying it out. ".
By that timeline, Macdonald would have told Tillinghast this in the fall of 1910, which is consistent with the timeframe for Macdonald's reported involvement. We know that in November, 1910, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on the coming new course for Merion and the land sale to Horatio Lloyd that made it possible. The article went on to say, "Before the purchase of the ground, Mr. Lloyd had it examined by Charles B. Macdonald, H.J. Whigham, and H.H. Barker, the well-known golf players, all of whom have pronounced that the ground can be transformed into a golf course the equal of Myopia, Boston, or Garden City, Long Island. Work will be commenced at once, a clubhouse will be erected, and no expense will be spared by the Merion Cricket Club in the construction of this course, while every endeavor will be made to have this the leading championship course of America."
So, it is now autumn 1912, a full two years after Macdonald proclaimed its future greatness, and the course has just now opened. "Far and Sure" (Tillinghast) goes to play the course with Howard Perrin and Hugh WIlloughby. What does he find? Is it "PineValleyian" in its obvious greatness and incredible scope and attention to detail? Even of the NGLA-variety? Apparently, not exactly. Here's what he has to say.
"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee, headed by Hugh I. Wilson. Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer (recall this was almost certainly written right after playing in the fall 1912, so he would have been talking about summer, 1911), searching for ideas, many of which have been used.
This is to me extremely, extremely important. Let's for a moment re-examine the contemporaneous reports in the newspapers in the next few years;
Philadelphia Public Ledger – 10/12/13 – William Evans
“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course. Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect.
Philly Inquirer 12/06/14 – Joe Bunker
“Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned. He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “
Philly Inquirer 4/23/16 – Joe Bunker
“Nearly every hole on the course (Merion East) has been stiffened (for the US Am) 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 chairman of the Green Committee. These two men have given a lot of time and attention to the changes and improvements. Before anything was done to the course originally, Mr. Wilson visited every golf course of any note not only in Great Britain, but in this country as well, with the result that Merion’s East Course is the last word in golf course architecture. It has been improved each year until not it is almost perfect from a golf standpoint.
Check out the wording..."Before anything was done to the course originally"..."before the course was BUILT", "before the new course at Merion was CONSTRUCTED".
I'm beginning to believe that the wording meant that some type of rough outline for the course existed in very primitive, sketched out and cleared form, probably by sometime summer 1911, and possibly from a topo map provided by Macdonald as per Tom Paul's theory.
I just don't think it makes any sense that Wilson went overseas in the winter of 1912 as Moriarty believes, but instead for an extended period in the summer of 1911 as the "American Golfer" article and all the men who knew Hugh Wilson exactly said and reported at the time.
In the October, 1912 article of American Golfer, right after playing there for the first time, "Far and Sure" reports on the opening of Merion East on Sept. 14th, 1912, and states "The new eighteen hole course of the Merion Cricket Club, which has been under construction for more than a year was thrown open to members..."
That exact line tells us that the course was actually under construction in the period between September 1911 (and some brief period prior), and September 1912. This would fit EXACTLY with the timeline of the manifest showing Wilson returning in Sept 1912, AFTER a basic plan was possibly produced by Macdonald on topo in late 1910, early 1911, and if the accounts of his time overseas are correct, it would have placed Wilson in Europe during the period of April or May 1912, returning in September...full of ideas and sketches of how to actually implement "the right principles of holes that formed the famous courses abroad and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."
-
Mike,
I must respectfully disagree with you. Not in your supposition about the Merion timeline and Wilson's trip, but in your belief that "Far and Sure" was Tilly. He wasn't. The only things he authored for the American Golfer all bore the nome-de-whatever "Hazard."
Also, in the specifics of the January 1913 article you mention, "Far and Sure" begins by relating an adventure on (ironically enough) an ocean voyage a number of years before to America from what appears to be the U.K.
In it he mentions severe problems to the extent that he refered to the ocean liner as being "crippled," and making little headway under sail. Also, he writes that "we had lost our bearings and a fog that could almost be cut with a knife..." surrounded them. He stated that they finally reached the harbor of St. John's in Newfoundland where they were able to make repairs.
This never happened to Tilly. We know this for a variety of reasons. First, Tilly never went overseas alone, always taking his family (1890-1? with parents, 1895, '98 & 01 with wife and daughter and parents) with him. Not only does the writer not mention family as Tilly did in almost every article of the many he wrote about his trips to the U.K. but, more importantly, his family is unaware of this as ever having happened.
The article is also complimentary of Macdonald. In 1938 when C.B. died, Tilly wrote an obituary about him in the Pacific Coast Golfer Magazine in which he mentions how he had a fundamental difference with "Charley" in his design philosophy and belief in the over-riding importance of using templates rather than letting the terrain dictate the design. He said that he was especially vociferous about this in his early years as a designer.
In later years when he wrote in Golf Illustrated, a series of articles appeared under the column titled "Our Green Committee." These were comments and answers to submitted questions and were answered by the "Editor." There were, however, a number of occasions where part of these articles and even some intheir entirety were authored by Tilly. But this was for a different magazine and more than a few years later.
Now this has no effect whatsoever on your hypothesis regarding Merion's creation, but "Far and Sure" was Travis and not Tilly.
-
Hi Phil,
I understand your contention about "Far and Sure", but it does seem very odd to me that after the article on Merion, there is an article on the "Mid-Surrey" mounding at Shawnee, complete with pics, as well as an article on Olde York Road CC, which Tilly was just about to start work at.
I'm not sure who else in the world at that time would have been familiar with those details?
Also, as much as Tillinghast had serious differences with Macdonald as they went along, in 1910 I can't imagine anyone having much in the way of difficulty with Macdonald from a golf architecture standpoint, as his NGLA was being hailed, rightly so, as the best course in America. Besides, I'm not sure what exactly the article says that is so incredibly complimentary of Macdonald...it almost takes him to task for saying that Merion will be the best new inland course in America, saying essentially...yeah, yeah...that's what everyone says.
I believe that it was only later, when architecture became a bit more sophisticated and refined, due to the influence of men like Tillinghast, Wilson, Flynn, et.al., that the large dichotomy between the more forced, templated style of Macdonald and the more natual style of the others led to a breach in their respective opinions of each other's work.
I truly do not believe Walter Travis had the type of insider knowledge of Philly golf in 1912 - 1913, when he was mostly a competitor, that was required to write the "Far and Sure" articles.
I'd be interested in anything else you might have to dissuade my opinion. ;)
-
TEPaul:
Again, if there is anything new factually, I'd love to hear about it. But otherwise I'll continue to focus on other matters.
As for what you interpret as a "promise" from me, it wasn't. Rather it was an honest expression of my concern that you and other Philadelphians were too close to the Merion subject to have frank yet civilized discussion about it. Given what has happened since my return, my concerns were merited.
As for the list of possible topics I might address, they will be addressed when they are ready and when I have time to address them. I have many other things going on and am trying to put together something coherent as fast as I can.
-
Mike,
Let's address one point at a time:
You wrote, "I understand your contention about "Far and Sure", but it does seem very odd to me that after the article on Merion, there is an article on the "Mid-Surrey" mounding at Shawnee, complete with pics, as well as an article on Olde York Road CC, which Tilly was just about to start work at... I'm not sure who else in the world at that time would have been familiar with those details?"
Actually, quite a number of people would have been, starting with his Editor, Walter Travis. In speaking of the photographs of the Mid-Surrey mounding the same article mentions, "The plan of this hole was sketched in the last issue of the American Golfer..." It was in the column titled "Middle Atlantic States" and is authored by Hazard, NOT Far and Sure [December 1912]. "Hazard" was the regular columnist responsible for the "Eastern Pennsylvania Notes" but would sometimes pen "Middle Atlantic States" instead. In those issues there weren't "Eastern Pennsylvania Notes."
In addition, the same article states about Old York, "The Old York Road Country Club are preparing to bunker their course. For the PAST TWO YEARS they have been patiently trying it out and very properly permitting the hazards to appear with time..."
Tilly had already begun working there and many knew of what was being done.
You also wrote, "Also, as much as Tillinghast had serious differences with Macdonald as they went along, in 1910 I can't imagine anyone having much in the way of difficulty with Macdonald from a golf architecture standpoint, as his NGLA was being hailed, rightly so, as the best course in America. Besides, I'm not sure what exactly the article says that is so incredibly complimentary of Macdonald...it almost takes him to task for saying that Merion will be the best new inland course in America, saying essentially...yeah, yeah...that's what everyone says..."
I disagree with this conclusion. Tilly had an immense ego and believed quite strongly that his philosophies of design were most correct. Remember, he had been competing against CB in matches for a good number of years even before he began designing courses. They knew each other well and, I am certain, probably discussed design ideas on many an occasion.
Remember, too, that NGLA was featured in many consecutive issues of AG in discussing it's design and these included photographs of the hole models. Tilly would have been having animated discussions of this design style then with both CB & others for several years PRIOR to the writing of the "Far and Sure" article in question. Again, and I'll have to look up what he wrote in his article about Macdonald's death and send it to you, but he specifically mentioned his differences of opinions in design philosophy that he argued with him about for many, many years going all the way back to his start as a designer.
Now as for what "Far and Sure" wrote as being complimentary of CB, consider, "Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald who had been of GREAT ASSISTANCE..."
Another point, "Far and Sure" mentions that it was "Not until a month ago did I find the opportunity to see it..." yet he also states that it was "two years ago..." that CB told him about it.
Is it reasonable that Tilly would have seen the course for the very first time just one month before? If the article was written in October of 1912 (as seems a reasonable guestimate), that would mean that tilly would have first stepped onto the course in September of 1912, yet hadn't he written of its design and construction as one having seen it well before this?
That alone proves that "Far and Sure" could not be Tilly.
Finally, once again return to what was written in the very first paragraph of the article about the problems on his earlier sea voyage. That never happened to Tilly according to any relatives or information that can be found on the ships he sailed on (I've begun checking and will continue doing so).
-
"TEPaul:
Again, if there is anything new factually, I'd love to hear about it. But otherwise I'll continue to focus on other matters."
David:
Something new factually? I thought that's what you said you had. ;) But if you're talking about us just supplying you with more factual information I'm not sure what you mean by that. Would you call this statement from Hugh Wilson's 1916 report on the creation of Merion something factual you haven't been aware of? Do you even have that report of Wilson's?
"Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens, and fifteen fairways. Three fairways were in old pasture turf. These will be mentioned later. We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenskeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had largely been farm land."
Since the "our" or "we" he constantly refers to in his report and numerous letters was what he described in the beginning of his report as the Merion Construction Committee it would seem this is fairly factual. Were you aware of those remarks and if so do you find something incorrect of inconsistent about them?
"As for what you interpret as a "promise" from me, it wasn't. Rather it was an honest expression of my concern that you and other Philadelphians were too close to the Merion subject to have frank yet civilized discussion about it. Given what has happened since my return, my concerns were merited."
I don't believe I said anything about you promising something new but I did produce on this thread in post #89 rather extensive remarks to that effect from you. What happened to that?
You think we are 'too close' to the Merion subject to have a frank discussion? That, for sure, is some pretty interesting logic. ;) Well, perhaps you should spend about seven years and a couple of thousand hours on the research of Merion as Wayne has before you begin to try to have a civilized and intelligent discussion about it. Weren't you the one talking about researching and digging for historical information? What do you think we've been doing with Merion for about the last seven years?
Again, if you have anything that casts doubt on the reports of the Wilsons of how Merion was routed, designed and constructed you should produce it or I can't see what it is you'd like to discuss or can discuss.
-
Phil,
Just a quick thought this morning. When "Far and Sure" said that Macdonald "had been of great assistance in an advisory way", wasn't he just parroting what the Merion Committee said and likely told him? According to the WIlson brothers' reports, Macdonald was indeed of great assistance to their efforts, as they both outlined in writing. I don't think this was refective on complimenting Macdonald's design style, but simply his cooperation and acting as an educational resource.
I'm not sure when Tillinghast first played Merion. I know Joe has been going through his Public Ledger articles and his first mention of the course was in April 1911, when he says he saw some plans.
We know the course didn't actually open until 16-17 months later, so depending on what his workload and other endeavors was like during that time, it may be that he didn't actually get back there and play it until it opened in the fall of 1912.
That doesn't seem to be very far-fetched to me. Still, I would not question that you know Tillinghast's writing far better than I do. If nothing else this would be another voice crediting the course work to Hugh WIlson at that time.
Phil...can you tell me the date of the "American Cricketer" article where TIllinghast reviews Merion?
Here is what I have about it from Jim Finegan's book;
"Tillinghast reviewed the new course at length in the American Cricketer and was generally appreciative of its merits;
"...16th, 17th, 12th, and 3rd are the best holes. The old quarry, which is traversed by the last three holes is a wonderfully effective natural hazard an makes these holes a fine finish...The yawning quarry makes the 17th look fearsome enough but the terror is more imaginary than real. The 16th is a corker..It is a real gem...If your drive is a good one, before you stretches the old quarry, its cliff-like sides frowning forbiddingly. Just beyond, and sparkling like an emerald, is the green, calling for a shot that is brave and true. It seems almost like a coy but flirtatious maiden with mocking eyes flashing at you from over her fan, and as you measure the distance between, you are fired with the ambition to show off a bit..."
"No one will ever play Merion without taking away the member of No. 16..." (and then goes on to describe the 3rd, 7th, and 13th - my words)
Then Finegan writes;
"Summing up, Tillinghast pointed out that comparatively few bunkers were yet in place, then concluded on a somewhat muted note: "I believe that Merion will have a real championship course, and Philadelphia has been crying out for one for many years. The construction committee, headed by Hugh I. Wilson, has been thorough in its methods and deserves the congratulations of all golfers.""
"One aspect of the new course may have dampened the enthusiasm of some observers. Holes 10, 11, and 12 all played across Ardmore Avenue."
I'm now more curious than ever to find the date of that article, because much like "Far and Sure" he seems to be describing a course that is still in very primitive stages as far as actual features like bunkering.
Thanks for your feedback!
-
Actually, as I go back to the American Golfer article by "Far and Sure" and compare it against the American Cricketer article by Tillinghast, it's interesting how they both used very fanciful, almost mythologic language to describe it;
"The old quarry, which is traversed by the last three holes is a wonderfully effective natural hazard an makes these holes a fine finish...The yawning quarry makes the 17th look fearsome enough but the terror is more imaginary than real. The 16th is a corker..It is a real gem...If your drive is a good one, before you stretches the old quarry, its cliff-like sides frowning forbiddingly. Just beyond, and sparkling like an emerald, is the green, calling for a shot that is brave and true. It seems almost like a coy but flirtatious maiden with mocking eyes flashing at you from over her fan, and as you measure the distance between, you are fired with the ambition to show off a bit..." - AW Tillinghast in American Golfer
"A number of years ago your correspondent (is it strange that Travis would have thought of himself as a "Correspondent" to American golfer when it was his mag?) was a passenger on a crippled ocean liner and for nearly a week we had been making but little headway under sail. For several days we had lost our bearings and a fog that could almost be cut with a knife had settled on us. At last it lifted and we found that we were quite close to the Newfoundland coast, and we finally made the harbor of St. Johns for repairs. I shall never forget that harbor. Rocks, gray and forbidding, on each side came down to the beating surf, but between them in the distance nestled the little port in the green lap of the Newfoundland hills. When for the first time I saw the sixteenth green on the new Merion course, a brilliant patch of color just beyond the opening in the dark walls of the old quarry hole, like a flash my thoughts flew back over twenty years and once again I was standing by the rail, joyfully regarding the welcome haven of St. Johns." - "Far and Sure" - American Cricketer
-
Phil:
Do you think Travis and Macdonald were speaking to one another when Travis was the editor of American Golfer? They did have a pretty serious disagreement and falling out over that Schnectedy putter controversy that even the President of the United States got into commenting on. And of course Macdonald let him go from his original position of collaboratting on the design of NGLA.
-
Mike:
Email David Moriarty and ask him to prove which ship that was and when it sailed that was crippled for a time. With his faith in the accuracy of shipping records finding out which ship Far and Sure was on should be a snap for him and then we can cross check known crossings for Travis or Tillie or other likely suspects and figure out exactly who this Far and Sure really was. Apparently David has nothing new on Merion at this time so this could be a good new assignment for him. ;)
-
Tom,
If he wants to contribute to our collective discussion/search, he's more than welcome. Contrary to his opinion, he's always been welcome. He just doesn't want to hear challenges or other interpretations that differ from his own and now he's playing a game to try and make us look foolish. Let's continue to be productive here and not get into that, difficult as that may be.
Some interesting things about Tillinghast and Travis in relation to the "Far and Sure" and the review of Merion in American Golfer. The writer mentions that the stranding of the Ocean liner took place 20 years ago, or roughly in 1892.
Walter Travis was born in 1862, so he would have been old enough, and he emigrated to the US in 1884, at roughly 22 years of age.
I'm not sure what sea route he would have taken from Austrailia...whether it would have crossed Newfoundland, or how much sea travel Travis did at that time. The only other thing we know for certain in this time frame is that he didn't pick up a club until the age of 35, in October 1896, so he wouldn't have travelled overseas to play golf.
Does anyone know what he did for a living in those years, or how much he might have travelled abroad in the 1892 timeframe?
In the case of Tillinghast, he was born in 1874, and we do know he travelled overseas a bit, to Scotland and England primarily. In 1892 he would have been a young man of 18 years old. Phil...are there any accounts of him travelling to Scotland around that timeframe?
I'm not trying to challenge...just trying to understand better who "Far and Sure" was for sure.
-
"I'm not sure what sea route he would have taken from Austrailia...whether it would have crossed Newfoundland, or how much sea travel Travis did at that time."
MikeC:
Crossed Newfoundland on the way from Australia?? Are you kidding me? That's not a crippled ship, that's a captain who needs a bigtime course in Navigation 101 in how to steer a ship!!!
From Australia to over here by ship they probably would've gone around the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn or whatever that thing is called at the bottom of A-Freak-a. I guess the captain of that ship could've tried to take the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean. I don't see why he should've worried about the fact that it hadn't been built yet. Walter wasn't a very big guy but that shouldn't be much of a problem for a future championship golfer to drag a fair sized ship across the Suez. Basically, if you haven't portaged about a 250 foot ship across a 100 mile desert you just aren't a man yet.
Back in those days there was basically no way to get from Australia to over here. I thought you knew that.
-
I recently unearthed from microfilm a series of articles in the 1911 Philadelphia Public Ledger by ADub. What follows is the "maiden article" as he calls it, which was his first in a Philly newspaper. It is at the end where he talks a bit about Merion. The date of this is April 30, 1911:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2059/2407852194_87a6338e63_o.jpg)
-
Joe:
That article is pretty significant as Tillie mentions in April of 1911 that he had seen enough of the "plans" of Merion.....
What plans? At that point Hugh Wilson tells us in his report they were just beginning to construct Merion East. So, I wonder who drew plans or was he using sketches and drawings of holes he got from abroad or perhaps Macdonald's that were used at NGLA? Or had the Merion Committee begun to come up with their own East course plans and drawings?
We do know from the recollections of Richard Francis, the member of the Merion Construction Committee who was a construction engineer and surveyor that in the routing and design of the course he was constantly going over 'plans and drawings';
Listen to Francis's recollections of this time;
"Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made one important contribution to the layout of the course."
What does that sound like to you as far as what the Merion Committee,Francis and Wilson were doing at that time? I sure know what it sounds like to me!
I wonder if David Moriarty thinks those kinds of remarks are just making crap up or lying to promote themselves and exaggerate what they did regarding the original architectural creation of Merion East.
-
Tom,
It's also interesting that he mentions that Committee and plans in conjunction with each other, as if almost synonymous.
Perhaps Shivas is right...personally, I don't know or care with DM thinks. He's welcome to contribute to what I think has been an interesting, productive discussion with both many facts and various hypothesis presented, but otherwise, let's just let him decide for himself if he wants to produce his "new information" and move on.
He's had enough time to produce a number of lengthy, lengthy posts on several threads so he's certainly had time to write what he's uncovered about Merion, if anything.
The longer this goes, the more transparent are his motives.
-
"TEPaul:
Again, if there is anything new factually, I'd love to hear about it. But otherwise I'll continue to focus on other matters."
David:
Something new factually? I thought that's what you said you had. ;) But if you're talking about us just supplying you with more factual information I'm not sure what you mean by that. Would you call this statement from Hugh Wilson's 1916 report on the creation of Merion something factual you haven't been aware of? Do you even have that report of Wilson's?
"Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens, and fifteen fairways. Three fairways were in old pasture turf. These will be mentioned later. We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenskeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had largely been farm land."
Since the "our" or "we" he constantly refers to in his report and numerous letters was what he described in the beginning of his report as the Merion Construction Committee it would seem this is fairly factual. Were you aware of those remarks and if so do you find something incorrect of inconsistent about them?
"As for what you interpret as a "promise" from me, it wasn't. Rather it was an honest expression of my concern that you and other Philadelphians were too close to the Merion subject to have frank yet civilized discussion about it. Given what has happened since my return, my concerns were merited."
I don't believe I said anything about you promising something new but I did produce on this thread in post #89 rather extensive remarks to that effect from you. What happened to that?
You think we are 'too close' to the Merion subject to have a frank discussion? That, for sure, is some pretty interesting logic. ;) Well, perhaps you should spend about seven years and a couple of thousand hours on the research of Merion as Wayne has before you begin to try to have a civilized and intelligent discussion about it. Weren't you the one talking about researching and digging for historical information? What do you think we've been doing with Merion for about the last seven years?
Again, if you have anything that casts doubt on the reports of the Wilsons of how Merion was routed, designed and constructed you should produce it or I can't see what it is you'd like to discuss or can discuss.
TEPaul, I said new information. Surely the 1916 Wilson essay has been discussed to death on these threads over the years.
-
Thanks for posting the article Joe. I don't have digital access to the Ledger articles so I only have a select few of them.
If my memory serves me correctly, Hazard (Tillinghast) published a May 1911 article where he discusses Macdonald and Whigham's recent site visit to Merion and their comments on the course.
-
Remember, gentleman, close friends and colleagues, that you are all parsing and dissecting the words of what essentially amounts to a 19xx Golf Gossip column.
We can practice such parsing by going into a hair salon at 10AM this upcoming Tuesday and attempting to dissect the meaning of the ladies' conversation under the perm driers...
::)
-
"TEPaul, I said new information. Surely the 1916 Wilson essay has been discussed to death on these threads over the years."
David:
You have got to understand at some point that there just may not be any new information available on something like Merion's history, at least to the extent of some relevance to the who, when and why of its architectural history---and I guess depending somewhat on what your definition of "NEW" information is.
You've also got to understand at some point that a guy like Wayne Morrison really has spent about seven years and thousands of hours trying to run down any information at all, new, old or current to reinterpret, about the history of the architecture of Merion. I doubt anyone else has ever even tried to do that with Merion. I think what you need to start to at least sense here is the kinds of things you seem to be both saying and implying are pretty insulting to him and what he's done. If you can't even sense that then a fair number of us think you are pretty blind.
We have looked for years for any information we can find anywhere that may have some bearing on the clearest understanding possible of what happened back then and why and by whom.
We think we have found that but apparently you don't. So if you want "new" information at this point why don't you try to find something yourself that really does have some relevance to what happened back then in those ways? For about a week now we thought you said you had.
If you just want to have a full-blown discussion of a reinterpretation of the things we believe about the history of Merion's architecture then give us something, or anything at all, any reason at all why you think that is important to do because we just can't see the point of it. We believe we know the when, why and by whom of Merion's architectural history.
-
The funny thing is that if David does have "new information", which I already KNOW that he does, he acts like we should be giving him credit, yet I also know that someone fed it to him.
Kyle,
You've alluded to this throughout the Cobb's Creek thread and now here. On the former, we've gone to the Park archives, all the Philadelphia museums, to the GAP Headquarters and archives, gone through newspaper accounts from 1895 through the 50s, spoken to others, SHARED our information right up front so that it could undergo peer review....and we also have day jobs.
Is there a research method you think is right under our noses that we're missing out on? We're certainly all ears.
-
The funny thing is that if David does have "new information", which I already KNOW that he does, he acts like we should be giving him credit, yet I also know that someone fed it to him.
Kyle,
You've alluded to this throughout the Cobb's Creek thread and now here. On the former, we've gone to the Park archives, all the Philadelphia museums, to the GAP Headquarters and archives, gone through newspaper accounts from 1895 through the 50s, spoken to others, SHARED our information right up front so that it could undergo peer review....and we also have day jobs.
Is there a research method you think is right under our noses that we're missing out on? We're certainly all ears.
Peer review without rehashing old arguments.
Research without a slant one way or the other. It is possible for both sides of the Moriarty v. Philadelphia argument to be right in some ways.
How many iterations of conclusions have been debased on the Cobb's thread with further research? The language in this thread and others tends to the definitive and not the speculative.
Are you not a bit out of your league by doing things like speculating what ship captains did in the 1910s? Is it really no different than flying from Philadelphia to Cleveland by way of Chicago?
-
Kyle,
Perhaps I should get into your league and listen as you tell us all what ship captains did in 1910? ;)
Perhaps I should try not to be offended by your remarkably condescending tone, especially for someone who has not contributed any research on either thread.
-
I mean no great offense by saying this, but I wonder if the actual publication or revelation that David claims to have could possibly top the drama and anxiety of the run up to the grand unveiling?
It seems to me that any 'significant' info or material would almost have to be first hand, authentic writings or drawings by Hugh or one of the lead players in the founding of Merion, to equate with the drama that is associated with this 'controversy'. Joe's posted Tillie article stating "I have seen enough of the plans..." is interesting and insightful. But, at this point, as a follower of this epic saga of GCA.com, I think I'd almost have to see a photo of Hugh hisownself, holding a routing plan with a copy of a newspaper dated pre 1911 or so, or sitting on a jackass with a pan scraper and a dated newspaper to become giddy at a "new revelation". Or, the same circumstances with CB holding the plans or sitting on a mule... ::) ;) :D
-
Mike,
My research contributions have no bearing on the validity of anything I say.
That being said...
Occam's Razor should be the rule, not the exception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor
The problem is that each and every revelation brings about new conclusions, which goes against everything I've ever learned about research. Get the big picture and all the facts straight, and then draw inference and conclusion. To use a project management term, a good portion of the research-conclusion circles shown on this thread show some scope creep.
I have no idea what ship captains did back in the day, nor do I care to know. It seems perfectly reasonable that one would layover in Newfoundland on the way from Australia. Let parsimony rule the day and the answer will come. It is my opinion that the very fact that some statement like that would come under such scrutiny is symptomatic that you all may be reading into this a bit much. I mean no offense by it.
I could just pull a Tommy and say, "GIVE IT A FUCKING REST." ;)
-
On the former, we've gone to the Park archives, all the Philadelphia museums, to the GAP Headquarters and archives, gone through newspaper accounts from 1895 through the 50s, spoken to others, SHARED our information right up front so that it could undergo peer review....and we also have day jobs.
Is there a research method you think is right under our noses that we're missing out on? We're certainly all ears.
Mike, I may also come off as a bit condescending, but I'm only trying to have a bit of fun, inject some levity to the tension of the Moriarty VS Phillie guys case. So please excuse if you think that. But, to be honest, I have suggested (I think on the original threads of a year ago, and the PV threads) that 'other' public records, might be helpful. And, did anyone ever try to find if any private records of Wilson or Crump's personal financial expenditures are available and accessible, such as bank drafts to indicate a destination like England, etc. to try to place him in a location at a certain date?
What, if any, permitting and zoning authority did Merion require in those days. Didn't they have committees of local government issuing permits or licenses or other documentation that would or could reveal meeting minutes and dates if they issued such permits? I believe you fellows and others have already looked at the R.E. deeds and conveyences for the land, but were there other authorizations to construct things, related requirements? Did anyone actually sit down with a county clerk, or whoever archives for lical government, and would know if any other documents are stored somewhere? Same with successor banks who Wilson may have used, and if so, what would their policy be if records exist, regarding privacy VS historical inquiry this long after the events...?
-
To me one of the most interesting things, as well as perhaps annoying things, about these Merion threads with a guy like David Moriarty taking part on them is that with probably any other golf course in the world if it's club's archives contained a document like Alan Wilson's (Hugh's brother), written in 1926 at the request of Mr William Philler who intended to record the history of the course and club to date it would probably be taken as gospel and a most fortunate thing for a club to have in its possession explaining in quite a bit of detail the way the course was created and by whom.
I have Alan Wilson's report on this entire subject right here including his letter to Mr Philler discussing his Philler's history book project and his request of Alan Wilson. Why did Philler ask Alan Wilson to write this report? It's obvious---who else was closer to the action all along the way, every step of it, than Alan Wilson?
Most on here may not know much about Alan Wilson but he was surely no slouch, he was a founding member of Pine Valley (serving as part of one of its construction committees), a prominent member of Merion, GAP, a member of the Green Section of the USGA as well as a board member of the USGA. He was Hugh's partner in business and he was considered to be one of the best experts in America, along with Hugh, on American agronomics of that time.
But yet, for some reason, when some of it was put on here a year ago to explain the facts of the history of Merion's early architecture what he wrote was either ignored by the likes of Moriarty or just dismissed as something that probably inaccurately promoted his brother or of inaccurately promoting or glorfying the work of the Merion Committee which was charged with creating both Merion East and West or else had almost every word picked apart and analyzed on here to the extent it was considered meaningless.
Why did that happen? How can that kind of thing happen on these Merion threads? Why did the participants on this website allow that to happen or accept so easily that it did? Is it because someone like David Moriarty decides to classify it as not "fact" and therefore automatically call it and its accuracy totally into question? If that's what's happened here that too is outrageous, in my opinion. Again, it isn't that often a club even has something like this Alan Wilson document, or one from a man that close to the entire evolution and history of a course.
In my opinion, that is really pretty outrageous and it's also very insulting to a club who accepted his report and with numerous members who had been there through the whole thing and to a man with an impecciblle reputation and unquestionable character.
For the reasons given above I don't know that Alan Wilson's entire report ever has been put on here. I would be willing to put the seven page report on here but not if it's going to get the kind of blaise or insulting treatment again Moriarty and perhaps some others gave it a year ago.
It's an important and fairly comprehensive document on this very subject that is these Merion threads. Is it really any wonder that these threads go nowhere productive when something this significant to the history of a course is given this kind of outrageous treatment?
Wilson's document was essentially dismissed and perhaps almost forgotten in the course of these threads. It's almost as if most everyone just assumed he had to have been lying or jading the truth somehow to promote his brother or the club at the expense of someone like Macdonald who didn't live in Philadelphia.
This was an honorable man and the treatment of his document recording the history of Merion on here is just outrageous. In my opinion, those on here who treat Alan Wilson, or Hugh Wilson and their documents on the creation of Merion as Moriarty has do not deserve it----they tear it apart and make insinuations about his purpose in writing it simply to defend their highly suspect agendas which seem to have little to do with seeking the truth about the architectural creation and evolution of Merion.
-
Tom Paul,
Not to mention that Hugh Wilson would have to have been a pretty pathetic liar if all that was published in his lifetime about him being the architect of both courses at Merion was untrue and he didn't publicly refute it. From everything I've learned about him, he most assuredly did not seem that type at all.
Phil,
From what I've learned today, it does appear that either Walter Travis or AW Tillinghast could have been on that ship off the coast of Newfoundland so I've proven nothing new about the identity of "Far and Sure" through that means. ;)
Kyle,
I left you a voice message. There is more to the story.
RJ,
Your humor is always appreciated! ;D
-
It isn't David's information or even his conclusions that I find unpalatable at this juncture, but his motivation and methods. I could care less if he proves Hubert Humphrey designed Merion if that's what the facts actually show.
But, about what he's trying to do here...let's just say I've been tipped off to the "game" by someone who had a conscious and moral objection to what was transpiring.
There are a number of GCA people who "know what he's got", and it's become sort of a big game of cat and mouse and he's purposefully drawing it out to try and bait certain people to publicly embarrass them. It's pathetic really.
I just have a huge sentimental, emotional, and intellectual interest in the history of golf in Philadelphia and if someone has light to shed, even if it means sacred cows get skewered, that's all better for our mutual understanding.
What I object to, and why I'm personally calling David on the carpet here is someone TRIFLING with that subject, and using it for their own personally vindictive, revengeful agenda.
-
For what it's worth, when I was tipped off the other day, I sent a note to the moderators asking them to delete the related thread I had started on Ship Manifests.
I did not want to be associated with this.
I tried to delete it myself but the new software doesn't seem to permit it. When days went by and the thread remained and festered, I tried a new tack.
In an effort to turn this whole fiasco into something productive, I started this new thread just with facts...written accounts of the time...thought it might be productive to see what the timelines and journals evidenced and where they led, hoping that perhaps David would join in and contribute any new information he may have come across, or that someone sent to him.
It's what we did pretty effectively and very collaboratively in the Cobb's Creek thread the just unleashed a wealth of neat, fun historical information that none of us had any idea existed.
That could have been the case here, as well, unfortunately.
-
Mike Cirba,
Someone tipped you off to my "game?" This person is either mistaken or he is playing you.
The "game" I see being played is the effort by you and others to attack my character and credibility, both on and off the site.
For those of you receiving messages about my supposedly evil intentions, all I ask is that you read what I write, regardless of what these guys are saying I am up to.
-
David Schmidt,
Are you sure it was the horse's mouth and not some other orifice?
-
Wayne, That would depend on whether he was talking to me or you.
-
David Moriarty,
You are absolutely right!
-
Hey Guys, enough pissing back and forth at each other. If you don't want to speak to someone just don't respond. If you think they are full of crap just disprove them
This thread has had a number of interesting questions and answers leading off to surprising directions, but it is really degenerating now.
Bring it to an end...
-
Shivas,
You can believe what you like. I know better and any doubt I had was reconfirmed today. I'm sorry you think it's personal or because someone is actually upset that David (or someone providing David with research material) has come up with something about Merion that wasn't found prior. If he has, more power to him. There is certainly enough unknown about that timeframe that I find personally fascinating and I've encouraged his research at every turn, as well as MacWood's. I just didn't jump to the same conclusions always, but respected their interest and energies. This, however, is different and I know it, and David knows it, no matter what he tells you.
I used to like David personally, and played golf with him on a number of occasions. I just don't appreciate his methods.
'Nuff said on that topic.
Phil,
You're right...I think there are a number of really interesting questions on the table here and I'm hoping that something productive can still come from this thread.
I've said my piece and unless someone wants a fuller explanation of why I said what I did, or has other issue with me, I'm back to finding out more about Merion.
-
Kyle,
I think Occam's Razor theory is for tired minds searching for simplistic, one-dimensional answers.
Give me Chaos Theory any day. ;)
I don't think on this thread, and certainly not the Cobb's Creek thread does every new revelation lead to new conclusions as you believe. Instead, I think every new revelation leads to one or more new hypotheses, which are then boiled down and dissected in the way only we GCA nerds are capable of. ;D
Occam's Razor theory seeks to find a single answer.
Chaos Theory, much like the origins of Cobb's Creek, and likely Merion East as well, recognizes that there are multiple truths, most often intersecting and overlapping, but also sometimes diametrically oppositional yet both true nonetheless.
It's like your mother used to tell you....too many cooks spoil the broth, and oh, by the way...many hands make light work. ;D
-
Shivas,
I agree. Let's all move on.
If someone pulls a later, "I gotcha" move, let's agree to blast the shit out of them though.
-
Occam's Razor is dull and Chaos Theory has too many notches on it's blade, that is why I prefer to shave with the truth, whatever it may be. Simple or complex, brilliantly obvious or nearly impossible to explain, the truth is... the truth.
Shivas, "I just want the vitriol flushed, period..." I thought that's what I said... I guess I should have used Occam's on it... ;D
-
Phil,
Now we're getting somewhere.
Besides, I think that hack Macdonald came up with that two-dimensional, staid, boring, outmoded, geometric Occam's Razor theory anyway!
;D
-
Actually...
Before I go to bed, I'd just like to say this, and I can't imagine anyone in Philadelphia or elsewhere who wouldn't have just cause to feel the same way.
If we find that Charley Macdonald had more to do with the origins of Merion, what a wonderful thing that would be!
He was clearly the father of American Golf, much more so than John Reid at St. Andrews, and even if he was a cantankerous son of a bitch, he was also a visionary, a leader, and a great architect, even to those of us who might prefer a more natural looking style.
I'm a HUGE fan of NGLA, of Mid Ocean, of Fisher's Island (ok, that's Raynor ;)), and Yale (ok, that's probably mostly Raynor too ;)), and even though we split hairs here about the good, the better, and the best, there is no question that the man was a GIANT.
If he was involved in a greater capacity at Merion than previously believed in the earliest stages of the new course, that is cause for rejoicing.
In no way would this information diminish the course in any way, or Hugh Wilson's work in any way, or William Flynn's....in fact, it would actually have the opposite effect, because of the incredible evolution that the course underwent in the first 20 or so years of its history.
It could fairly be said that what happened during that time at Merion became the standard for every single inland course built in the United States during the next 50 years.
So if David, or anyone else, has information that proves a greater role for Macdonald, or Whigham, or Barker, or Travis, than anyone has previously learned, or discovered, isn't that a net add?
I think the truth is that the truth is probably larger than any of us every realized.
My gut feeling is that exactly like the Cobb's Creek thread that's been recently unearthed, the truth is that the addition of Ab Smith, and George Crump, and George Klauder, and J. Franklin Meehan, and Walter Travis to the story of Cobb's Creek has in NO way diminished the wonderful work and contributions of Hugh Wilson to that course in the least.
In fact, what we found out is that Hugh Wilson's involvement in Cobb's Creek was much greater than any of us really believed initially, but that there was also plenty of additional credit to go around.
If that's the case with Merion, as I suspect that it is, then let's get on with the story, because if GCA has any real-world worth, and much like the examples of Cobb's Creek, and Pine Valley prove, we're all a hell of a lot better off collaborating than competing.
Peace,
Mike
-
Shivas,
You are correct. I should not lash back at these guys no matter what there behavior, even if I my response was made in jest.
_______________________
Wayne
I apologize for responding in kind to your comment. I'll try not to let it happen again.
________________________
Mike Cirba,
Please stop spreading false rumors about my intentions and the originality of my research. Thanks.
-
David,
I'll be happy to move on cooperatively. You know what I know so I'll be happy to not mention it again, provided we all stay on the up and up.
I trust you'll have something exciting for us to read before too long. If there are items that you need that you can't find from California that might be available here, (such as news articles on particular days,etc.) as you alluded to earlier, please let us know and we'll see what we can get for you.
-
Phil Young,
What was the date of the American Cricketer article where Tillinghast reviews the new course at Merion? Also, does the article mention when he played it?
Thanks!
-
MikeC and others:
Your post #133 is interesting but it sure makes me realize this kind of thread or investigation or discussion or whatever it is should pretty much step back at this point and review not only where it wants to go from here but where it's been.
If we're all interested in the architectural evolution of Merion East from 1916 on, I really don't think that's something that needs to be looked into here. Wayne and I and Merion can pretty much guarantee you what the exact details of that are and who was responsible. The reason I say that is we and Merion have the plans and drawings for that phase and later phases and no one can miss that's what went on the ground. Those are the "Facts" and they are unimpeachable if anyone compares those plans and drawings with the actual course. And we can pretty much guarantee you via a number of cross-referenced sources that Macdonald didn't have anything to do with the courses at that time and probably had about zero desire to have anything to do with the courses at that time and later. From those "agronomy" letters we can virtually prove that.
So, it seems that the phase we need to concentrate on is the original construction of Merion East in 1911, particularly between the spring of 1911 and around September of 1911, as well as a number of interesting events that may've preceded that time. Despite what Tillinghast said in some article in late 1912 or early 1913 that the course was "under construction" for about a year, the east course was in a basic "growing in" phase between around Sept-Oct 1911 and Sept. 1912. On that we have massive amounts of detailed specifics from Hugh Wilson. Most all of this is what we've referred to as the "agronomy" letters. This does not mean they could not have been designing or even constructing a few things in that timeframe but for reasons that should be completely obvious to everyone on here that would be something that would be quite minimal at that time and we can prove that via those "agronomy" letters which essentially track events on the course almost weekly.
But the thing that really continues to fascinate me if any of these people on here want to call themselves intelligent researchers is that perhaps no one other than a couple is even aware of or has ever seen or seriously considered two historical items from Merion---the reports of Hugh and Alan Wilson, and in my opinion, particularly Alan Wilson's.
Whenever even a few parts of them have been offered on here they've been either overlooked or dimissed for reasons that are seemingly either agenda-driven or just flat disingenuous.
If particularly Alan Wilson's report is seriously considered as to what it says and who it mentions in the context of this investigation on these threads and someone on this website like a Moriarty or a MacWood or anyone else is trying to imply that there are some "facts" out there somewhere which will significantly alter those stories and reports of what the Wilsons, particularly Alan Wilson said and certainly about Macdonald and Whigam and their part in the actual routing and design and construction of Merion East but also what he said in that vein about H. Wilson and the Construction Committee, that would essentially make a liar out of Wilson and obviously a number of other people around Merion at that time. And even worse, and more outrageous, it would make liars out of them IN THEIR OWN TIME!
We don't feel something like that is possible and we certainly don't think it's a reasonable or logical thing to assume or conclude.
But apparently Moriarty does!
He's calling on us to produce "facts" and not "speculation?"
But what has he done? What "facts" has he produced? He's produced a ship manifest from 1912 that seems quite sure to be a H. Wilson trip abroad. One item that lends credence to that is the age old "romantic" story surrounding Merion for decades that Wilson almost went down on the Titanic.
But what "Fact" has Moriarty produced that leads anyone to assume that the reports on the creation of Merion East from both Wilsons are in any way wrong or inaccurate as to who they said did Merion East as well as Macdonald's part in it?
He has not produced a single "fact" that would lead anyone to assume that and if he's trying to imply that if Wilson even made a single trip abroad in 1912 instead of another one in 1910 (as was seemignly reported) that that somehow means Macdonald/Whigam's part in the creation of Merion East was significantly more important than the Wilsons reported it was then I would suggest that it is the likes of Moriarty who is "speculating" in a truly unsupportable and unnecessary and even disingenuous way.
If anyone who has participated in these Merion threads wants to call themselves a good researcher or analyst and they have not seen those reports, particularly Alan Wilson's, or have either neglected them or worse yet dimissed them and what they say for some reason, then I would say they are decidedly NOT good researchers and good analysts and that their endeavors on this basic subject is unnecessary and will be fruitless!
-
Tom,
The interesting thing to me about the 1912 Ship Manifest that David produced supposedly showing Hugh I. Wilson coming from Cherbourg in 1912 is that a married man with two young children would be listed as "Single", and that a Merion man would come home to New York City when Philadelphia was a busy passenger ship port at the time, and why the "I" in the name seems very unclear, and very open to interpretation, much like the mispelling of the middle initial in George Crump's middle name that led to not being able to find his 1910 voyage.
I've now gone through enough of these logs to have a good famiilarity with how they work.
I'll produce something here very shortly to show some of the problems with using them to verify truth and FACTS.
-
MikeC:
Once again---eg one more time, I think all of you guys are putting way too much importance on these trips abroad and the search for them. Why is that? And if so, how does it have real relevance? Is it because Moriarty and some others have essentially convinced this site that we should all just assume that has some real relevance to who created Merion East and Macdonald/Whigam's reported part in it? I think Moriarty should at least state that or restate it here and now if that's what he thinks. Anything much less than that at this point really is sort of just playing games here.
The real point here is did Wilson and his committee actually create the East course to the extent that has been reported in those documents (the two Wilson reports) and/or do they somehow minimize to some significant extent what Macdonald/Whigam's part in the creation really was?
In my opinion, that is the central question here and THAT---eg that Macdonald/Whigam's contribution had somehow been significantly minimized----seems to be what Moriarty (and even MacWood) were trying to imply last year with this ship manifest search and newspaper reports or even the reinterpretation of some statements from back then and such.
Is that what Moriarty is still trying to imply or produce new information to prove? And if not, what is the point of these threads? If we all accept the basic accuracy of the facts contained in the Wilson reports, particularly Alan's, then it would seem we are all pretty much on the same page as to who created Merion East and how.
It really is about time on here for Moriarty to quit skirting or avoiding this specific issue and to deal with it directly right now! What facts is he looking for and does he have any idea at all what he may think they might mean? If he doesn't it seems to me he's sort of reseaching in something of a vacuum.
When I research I'm generally looking to prove or disprove something fairly specific.
I don't mind running down all kinds of roads of analysis but at least do it with some relevant goal in mind! ;)
-
Tom,
I think the point I'm trying to make is that we keep getting asked to produce "Facts", and not supposition, when it seems to me that we're the only ones producing Facts! ;)
For instance, somehow, through some strange GCA alchemy, it's now believed as "Fact" that the 1912 manifest that David produced last year showing that a 32 year old Hugh Wilson leaving from Cherbourg, France in May of that year is indeed Hugh Irvine Wilson of Merion fame.
I think that's positivism at best, absolutely wrong at worst, and in any case, certainly something much less than "Fact".
I say that because I've spent the past couple of days looking at manifests from both Ancestry.com and the other one Rich Goodale sent to me and these things are egregiously prone to errors and vagaries of various handwriting styles, have tons of incompletions, cross-outs, permit abbreviations in many cases, and I'm hoping that whatever David is coming forth with still isn't using this sole manifest as some type of factual proof that Wilson never was in Europe prior to 1912, or even that the 1912 trip was indeed Hugh Wilson of Merion.
Here is the manifest in question;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2154/2410618028_ccba6d142a_b.jpg)
Because of the limitations of size here, I'd ask anyone interested to right click on the image, and save it to their computer, and then blow it up using some Imaging Software like Microsoft Office Picture Manager, or Paint, or whatever you're used to using.
The first thing that becomes really questionable is the supposed letter "I".
Check it out closely and see if you could tell us that without question, that this is the letter I. Does it look like something is crossed out below that?
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't testify that it's an "I" under oath in court! ;)
But, let's go on the supposition that it is indeed an I, and that there is 32 year old Hugh I. Wilson who is a US Citizen listed on the manifest.
Hugh Irvine Wilson was born on November 18, 1879 at Trenton, NJ, the son of William Potter Wilson and Ellen Dickson Wilson. On October 16, 1905 at Philadelphia,PA Wilson married Mary Warren. It was one of the social events of the year with Mrs. Grover Cleveland attending the wedding. The Wilson’s had two daughters, Louise, born October 25, 1906 and Nancy, born September 6, 1910. Sadly, Nancy died not six years later on July 18, 1916.
So, in May of 1912, Hugh Wilson would have been married for going on seven years, and would have had a 5 1/2 year old daughter named Louise, and a 1 1/2 year old daughter named Nancy.
Listing "Married or Single" on a manifest presumably gave the Shipping company something to go on in the event of a disaster, and an inkling whether there were direct survivors back home.
I cannot imagine a man like Hugh Wilson listing himself as Single at that juncture in his life, or allowing the shipping company to list him as such.
Do we all still think this stands as a FACT, that this is Hugh I. Wilson from Philadelphia (don't be fooled because the ship is named "Philadelphia"...it sailed into New York City, from France) who designed Merion?
I'll produce another curious manifest shortly.
-
When you blow up the line where the middle initial is listed, you see that something is indeed written underneath. My best guess is a "T", but then there is something else written sort of diagonally up along the line that is pretty indistinguishable.
However, it's like the purser just decided to cross the whole darn thing out.
How would he have done it?
Oh...perhaps like this;
http://www.reallygoodstuff.com/pdfs/147779.pdf
-
But, let's take the wild leap of faith and say that the strange scribble over another character is indeed an I, and that somehow the married Hugh Wilson with two young children shows up on his only trip overseas as a wild and single crazy American swinger....
let's pretend for a moment that this is indeed FACT, not supposition, as David claims.
Then what to make of this manifest at the end of summer, 1911, coming from Glasgow, Scotland to New York City?
Before someone says that's a "J" and not an "I", I'd ask you to look down below lower on the manifest and see the way the writer makes his capital J's, with the bottom part extending way down below the line, such as "Jean Tosh".
Interestingly, this Hugh Wilson would fit exactly with the accounts and timelines of "Far and Sure" in American Golfer.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/2410057089_29982b7179_b.jpg)
From my perspective, this manifest is easily the more representative of FACT than the one from France, simply because although it is vague and open to interpretive spelling like the other, it does not include any information which is simply 100% FACTually incorrect, such as the FACT that Hugh Wilson is listed as "Single".
It also fits the timelines of American Golfer and the fact that Travis, or Tillinghast, or whomever "Far and Sure" was, said Wilson went overseas in the summer...not in the spring.
-
Mike:
I'm sure there are enough people in this world who are really interested in the reliability of ship manifests; I just don't happen to be one of them, at least not on this Merion subject unless someone can tell me what relevance it has to whether or not those Wilson reports on the creation of Merion are correct and accurate.
David Moriarty has been asked this continuously and he continues to avoid it. Believe me, I just don't think it's hard to imagine why.
-
Tom,
I wonder what David thinks is the reason that the Hugh Wilson leaving from Cherbourg, France in May of 1912 is "Single" when the Hugh Wilson who designed Merion was married for seven years with two young children?
In some ways, if Wilson was a frequent overseas traveller I could see him almost letting them get by with that mistake.
On the other hand, as David is contending, if 1912 was the first time he travelled a transatlantic ocean liner, just 3 weeks after the TITANIC went down, and he was travelling without his wife and five and one year old daughters, I'm thinking he'd make pretty damn sure he had his affairs in order before he got on that freaking boat!!! :o :o ;D
If memory serves, thoughout all of the previous threads, THIS manifest, which requires the height of willing suspension of disbelief, is the ONLY supposed NEW FACT that David has presented to date.
No wonder we're all flustered and frustrated by his antics! ::)
-
Before someone says that's a "J" and not an "I", I'd ask you to look down below lower on the manifest and see the way the writer makes his capital J's, with the bottom part extending way down below the line, such as "Jean Tosh".
FWIW, I as an observer to this shipwreck also don't think that the manifest is much "proof" of anything. I tend to agree with Mike about the vaguaries of the May 1912 Cherbourge inconsistencies. I do think Mike uses the wrong example of what other letter the "I" could be as a "J" citing Jean Tosh. That letter used with that Hugh Wilson in the Sept 1912 manifest is clearly a "D" as evidenced by the name above Wilson, line 3 "Dorothy" someoneorother...
If David has something spectacular, I hope it is something much more compelling than these ship manifests, like I was trying to suggest over and over (other serious governmental or authentic/formal records).
I can still think of scenarios where there are elements to support that both a more heavy CB/Whigham (or whomever) and Wilson were serendipitously cooperative and this golf course design/construction project with Wilson getting the lion's share of the credit and was of no great concern or controversy to any of them, at the time...
-
Dumb question, but does Alien Passengers mean they weren't citizens of the United States already?
-
David,
I'll be happy to move on cooperatively. You know what I know so I'll be happy to not mention it again, provided we all stay on the up and up.RJD
Mike, I don't know what you think you know. You think you know my intentions and that I am shilling for some secret information provider, but you are wrong on both counts, so you dont really know much at all.
As far as cooperatively, your tone in the other threads is far from cooperative.
The fact that there is a "confidentiality agreement" of sorts is probably the most absurd thing I've ever read on GolfClubAtlas.
Patrick, no offense to you...I know you're just trying to do the right thing and honor a secret promise on a subject you have interest in, but you're a stand-up guy and I find this "let's keep it from everyone til we're ready to spring it and make certain people look speculative and foolish" to be almost the height of infantilism. ::)
I do hope fair-minded people on GCA can see this for what it is, without having to have been privy to the trail of behind the scenes private email, plotting, and intrigue. >:(
What David is failing to realize however is that the world of GCA.com is amazingly small and interconnected.
So your efforts at peace and cooperation lasted about 6 or 7 hours, and you are back into the attacks on my character. And yet I am the one with a vendetta. Interesting.
Your source is either wrong or you taken something way out of context. Stop stop trying to impugn my reputation based on either your faulty conclusion or a mistaken source, or both.
______________________
Dick:
There are no vagaries. You are looking at the wrong manifest. "Hugh D. Wilson" is listed in the 1911 manifest, and Mike apparently thinks that this Hugh D. Wilson may be his man. The 1911 manifest lists "Hugh I. Wilson."
Mike Cirba,
I thought that during the first two weeks of September 1911 Hugh I. Wilson was in Merion seeding the East course.
As for the Hugh I. Wilson traveling in 1912, it sure looks like an "I." to me. Your theory that Hugh I. Wilson, traveling alone, would have made darn sure that he was listed as married, is just the kind of unsupported and unsupportable conjecture that fails to advance the discussion one bit.
New York was apparently the port of choice for many Philadelphans. Merion's Griscom family usually traveled into New York, sometimes from Cherbourg. Not surprisingly, the Hugh I Wilson traveling in 1912 was traveling on one of their ships.
_________________
Kyle, generally that is what Alien means, but I believe these manifests were required to list all passengers, even US Citizens.
-
"I thought that during the first two weeks of September 1911 Hugh I. Wilson was in Merion seeding the East course."
David:
I'm quite sure we can determine that with 100% certainty. Do you have any idea how? ;)
-
David,
The "vagaries" that Dick are talking about include the fact that something is writtin under the supposed "I", then written over. Is that an I or a deletion edit mark? It's very, very difficult to tell.
Other than his age listed as 32, do we know ANYTHING at all about this person who you believe is now PROVEN as FACT to be Hugh Wilson of Merion?
Where is he from?
Is he married? This says NO, but Wilson was married with 2 very young children.
Does he say what he does for a living?
Does it offer ANYTHING, ANYTHING at ALL in the way of FACT????
The Griscom's owned plenty of ships...that was their business! The fact that this passenger was on one of them is about the same odds of me flying US Air out of Philadephia over Delta.
Yes, this scribbled entry, with something crossed out and written over, with HALF OF THE FACTUAL INFORMATION presented being DEAD WRONG is being presented to us as EVIDENCE.
David, you'd be laughed out of court if this is the foundation of your case!
I'm really surprised that Patrick didn't take you through the drill if this is what you're presenting.
So, I just did it for him.
This evidence is clearly inadmissable, and indicative of absolutely nothing at all about the defendant, Hugh Wilson.
You'd better have a more relevant Exhibit B, counselor. ;D
David,
I'll take you at your word that your intentions here are as pure as the driven snow, so I'll do my best to keep it on the up and up, as well. If I was misinformed, I sincerely apologize.
I do still reserve the right to vigorously debate this issue, but I'll try to keep it to a cooperative, collegial spirit. And, if you need other material that isn't available to you in CA, I would do my best to find it for you.
Mike
-
David,
Tom Paul thinks I'm nuts too, but the more evidence I read, the more I'm thinking that perhaps Wilson's trip too place during the summer of 1911.
I say that for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the "Far and Sure" accounts in American Golfer, but also because of what I learned about course building at the time during my research on Cobb's Creek.
Construction on CC started in April 1912, and the Committee had hoped to be able to open all 18 holes by September of that year! :o We also know that Merion West was conceptualized, constructed, and opened in under a year!
Evidently, grow-in took longer than expected at Merion East...probably some of the same type of agronomic problems these guys were all trying to solve through those letters, and that seem to have occurred at Pine Valley, NGLA, Merion, and Cobb's Creek.
But the actual course "building"...that was a relatively quick process, because in the case of Cobb's Creek, not much in the way of unnatural features, mass earthmoving, or bunkering was done up front. That was left for a later phase. Such seems to have been the case at Merion East, as well. I'm of the belief that what was done in this initial phase was just sketching out and clearing the raw routing, tilling the soil perhaps, and constructing very basic features like greens and tees.
We know from "Far and Sure" that when the new Merion course opened in the fall of 1912, there was little in the way of bunkering, and "most of the holes were but rough drafts of the problems being determined by Hugh Wilson and Committee" (paraphrased...don't have the exact quote in front of me).
So, we now know from the Tillinghast article that a "plan" for the course was in place by spring of 1911, "building" supposedly took place pretty quickly, and I'm beginning to think once that was done, perhaps in the May/June timeframe is when Wilson went overseas.
Back at the ranch, you had Francis who was a surveyor, and more importantly, you had Fred Pickering onsite to keep the work going. In fact, much like Joe Burbeck, Pickering's work in "constructing" the course led to at least one newspaper crediting him with "laying out" Merion when the course opened. It may have been this absence with Hugh Wilson out of town that led to that perception.
Pickering by this time had been responsible for the construction of a number of highly regarded courses in Massachusetts, including Wollaston, Woodlands (working with Alex Findlay), and a few others, and after Merion, went to Seaview to work with Hugh Wilson on that project as well, and later did the construciton of Pittsburgh Field Club. He was experienced and capable.
The 1911 trip overseas is pure speculation on my part David, but it does seem to match what I understand about how construction happened back then.
I'm hoping that a trip to the USGA in the near future will determine when he was in Philadephia or not after February, 1911. Unfortunately, those Piper/Oakley letters don't go back before then so we'd have no way proving that he was overseas if it were 1909 or 1910.
-
Mike,
A
I disagree with your interpretation the manifests and the conclusions you draw for those interpretations, for reasons stated. Absent further discovery, no need for either of us to belabor the point further.
David,
I'll take you at your word that your intentions here are as pure as the driven snow, so I'll do my best to keep it on the up and up, as well. If I was misinformed, I sincerely apologize.
I do still reserve the right to vigorously debate this issue, but I'll try to keep it to a cooperative, collegial spirit. And, if you need other material that isn't available to you in CA, I would do my best to find it for you.
Vigorously debate the issue? I welcome that. Let's do it now. But what you have done so far is slur, defamation, and unsupported innuendo.
-
David,
Please see above...I added to my post.
I'd simply point out that you can't get around the fact that the manifest is wrong. There is no room for interpretation.
-
Mike, the manifest lists him as single and he was traveling alone. Otherwise the match is extremely accurate. But if you would rather throw it out and go with Hugh D. Wilson, traveling in September 1911 and before, go for it!
Here is an honest question: If the Hugh I. Wilson manifest you are railing against had as its travel date 1910, instead of 1912, would you still want to dismiss it outright?
-
David,
You are being selective in your requirement for accuracy.
Maybe everybody is.
-
David,
Honestly, if the year was 1910, and I were going to present that as him, I would have about a 50% comfort level based on the fact that he was listed as Single", as well as the fact that the letter that might be an "I" is written over the top of something else.
That would be just based on the document alone.
Other considerations, which I'll try to outline shortly, would reduce that probability in my mind.
-
I'm not saying at this point whether I think that 1912 manifest is our boy or not. I'll just not familiar enough with ship manifests yet to reach any conclusion at this time. However, it is very fascinating.
I'm not sure how easily or willing people were to blow up that section and look at the handwriting, etc. I've done that below:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/2410057161_4ebc272db5_o.jpg)
-
Hugh Irvine Wilson was born on November 18, 1879 at Trenton, NJ, the son of William Potter Wilson and Ellen Dickson Wilson. On October 16, 1905 at Philadelphia,PA Wilson married Mary Warren. It was one of the social events of the year with Mrs. Grover Cleveland attending the wedding. The Wilson’s had two daughters, Louise, born October 25, 1906 and Nancy, born September 6, 1910. Sadly, Nancy died not six years later on July 18, 1916.
David,
This is more of a stream of consciousness than anything thought through (so please take it for what it's worth), but a couple of things seem to me to make it unlikely that Wilson travelled in 1910 or spring 1912, or that he travelled alone, or that he sailed commercial.
Hugh Wilson was a Princeton grad, a competitive golfer, and well connected to the highest levels of American and Philadelphia Society.
His livelihood was selling Maritime Insurance, yet other than the 1912 manifest you produced, there is not one single other time in any manifest prior or after that shows him coming back to the US from overseas via a commercial vessel. That to me seems very, very odd.
The membership of Merion was old Philadelphia money...men of wealth and power who had virtually unlimited means collectively.
In approximately July of 1909, the club, concerned that their old course is outmoded by the new Haskell ball, and desiring a golf course worthy of their lineage, and wanting to own rather than lease their course (as they had been doing), begin to search for properties and identify land near Haverford College, but the land deal takes some time. During this time they bring down Charles Macdonald, H.H. Whigham, and H.H. Barker to advise them whether the plot they have their eye on is suitable for the purpose, and they evidently confirm that it is. In fact, they say it can be as good as Myopia or Garden City.
In mid-November 1910 it is reported that the club has worked out a deal as part of a larger real estate transaction involving 130 acres bought by the club, and 220 acres bought by a land development company, evidently brought in my the members as a "sweetener" to the deal. The development company's intent is to divide the 220 acres into plots of 10 acres each, on some of which they planned to construct houses and sell them for between 35,000 and $100,000 each. Others would be sold to private individuals wishing to build their own homes.
So, knowing that the property wasn't obtained until November, 1910, it seems less likely to me that Wilson would have been sent overseas that prior summer, but it's still possible.
Still, let's see what we know if that were the case;
You have perhaps the world's richest membership, and they decide that favorite son, Princeton grad, and competitive golfer Hugh Wilson should go to study the best courses in Europe. They decide that talks with Charlie Mac and Whigham have been progressing well about the suitability of the property, so what would they do?
Would they send him solo for 6-7 months, while his wife is back here pregnant? She delivered in September!
Would they have sent him solo at all, or would such a membership send his whole family for an extended stay/vacation?? Given travel in summer, might they not have put them on a private vessel, much like today's private planes?
However, I think it's more likely that he went in 1911, after his child was born and would have then been about 9 months old. That makes it slightly more likely that they would have sent him then, but I'd still contend that if Merion was going to send their golden boy to Europe for 6-7 months, or really anything more than a couple of weeks, they almost definitely would have sent his family along with him, probably in somewhat luxurious quarters.
The semi-humorous thing about the viability of the property is that the 125 acres in question really weren't unique or any better than the other million or so acres in the rolling outskirts of undeveloped suburban PHiladelphia at that time...in fact, being intersected by a public road, being no more than a mid-length par four wide at its widest point, and having a big freaking quarry taking up the northeast quadrant of the property would NOT have been thought of as advantages. One member complained that it was going to take $25,000 to fill in the damn thing! ;)
It wasn't until Richard Francis had his flash of genius about aquiring some additional acreage that permitted the 16th hole to be some time later that the whole question of what to do with the quarry was worked out.
Another aside..."Far and Sure", as well as other accounts of the time had Wilson going during the summer, with at least one account saying he was sent particularly because of his health problems. I doubt that spending the cold, windy rainy spring months in Great Britain as the 1912 manifest suggests would have been very good tonic for what ailed him.
Based on the manifest alone, my comfort level would be 50%.
Based on the other timelines I'm aware of, it would be significantly less.
-
I also find it interesting that "Far and Sure", commenting on the course after it opened in Sept. 1912 states that "many of the pits and traps remain to be built."
He also states, "Ever since golf has been introduced in Phil. the city has been in need of a course such as Merion has produced or should I say, is producing, for the work is still in its early stages."
Also, "Everything indicated careful, intelligent preparation and painstaking development."
Also, "It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committeee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. WIlson."
-
The Haverford Development Company purchased the land including the property currently owned by Merion Golf Club in June 1909.
-
MikeC:
Interesting post there and I'm glad it's a stream of consciousness instead of a number of hours of research.
With some of the ancillary details we know of or are aware of or can have fairly easy access to, we (Wayne and me) could vet a bunch of the things you mentioned there and either create some interest in a line of inquiry or just shut down some others of those lines of inquiry with 100% certainty.
Obviously those 123 agonomy letters we did NOT copy from 1911 could put Wilson in Philadelphia right through 1911.
-
TEPaul,
Not sure it is here or elsewhere, but you keep mentioning my ignorance of the Hugh Wilson Essay and the 1916 Alan Wilson letter. I assure you I am aware of them and will address them in my In My Opinion piece. We've discussed them to death in the past, so I'd just as soon address them soon enough.
-
Just another small point... have you all agreed that the person that originally entered Hugh Wilson on line 1 is not the same person that overwrote the suspected "I"? From the manner of the construction of the overwritten "I", it would point to the "Inspector PF Morrison" siged on below and the way he made the "I" in the abbrev., "Insp."
-
"TEPaul,
Not sure it is here or elsewhere, but you keep mentioning my ignorance of the Hugh Wilson Essay and the 1916 Alan Wilson letter. I assure you I am aware of them and will address them in my In My Opinion piece. We've discussed them to death in the past, so I'd just as soon address them soon enough."
David:
I don't believe I said anything about your ignorance of the Hugh Wilson report in 1916 or the Alan Wilson report in 1926, I only said I didn't believe you'd ever seen either one in its entirety. I believe very few people have seen them for the simple reason they may've been buried in some attic somewhere for the last 80 years or so.
I did say that when a few parts of them were mentioned on these threads you seemed to either dismiss their relevance or simply not respond when we mentioned them and their relevance. Somebody on here dismissed the relevance of Alan simply because he was Hugh's brother. I can't remember if that was you or someone else on here.
I was only offering to make them available on here in their entirety. Actually with Hugh Wilson's report that isn't necessary because only the first paragraph is relevant to the subject here but Alan's report is relevant to the subject at hand almost in its entirety, in my opinion.
But if you or anyone else thinks they can do some cogent and credible work on this subject without ever analyzing particularly Alan's report in its entirety that's fine by me. I would certainly never try to do that without it and I never have. Nor has Wayne. In our opinion, it is one of the most important and seminal pieces of historic material we're aware of on the 1910-1915 time frame of Merion's creation.
-
Tom Paul,
The Hugh Wilson essay is printed in one of the seminal works on Agronomy and even available online, so I dont think I need it.
As for the Alan Wilson letter, I have the two paragraphs you thought relevant enough to post in the past. If there is more that you have withheld but now want to post,that'd be great, but I'll probably look at it later, because I am trying not to delay the In My Opinion any further.
As for the letter's importance, I am sure lots of information will come out shortly that will contradict my essay, but then that is what critical review is supposed to be about.
-
Mike Cirba: you're suggesting that the members of Merion would have put a pregnant woman on a ship?
As an alternative to having her stay at home while her hubby galavants around Europe for 6-7 months, absolutely!
You might as well ask if you'd send a pregnant woman on a cruise today.
Of course, If you read carefully what I wrote, I state that it's more likely they were sent in 1911, not 1910, but that's PURE, unadultered speculation....
...kinda like your Hugh Wilson talks to Purser Morrison scenario. ;)
Of course, if he did talk to the Purser to correct him, and the Titanic had just gone down 3 weeks ago, he might also mention that he indeed HAS A WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERS BACK HOME!!!!! ;D
Dick,
We may be about to disagree on the HUGEST piece of minutiae this site has ever seen , but I don't see the similarity in those two characters at all! The I on Inspector is quite well formed, and sweeps all the way up and through and beyond.
I would think someone with that type of flourish in their style would have at least brought the ending point somewhere within a few microbes of the other line, instead of cutting off abruptly.
And both of you..
Do you really think that T underneath looks so egregious that Wilson would have spotted that error over Married vs Single as he's boarding 50,000 tons of suddenly sinkable steel on his supposed maiden overseas voyage!!?!?!? :o :o :o ::) ;D
-
I also find it interesting that "Far and Sure", commenting on the course after it opened in Sept. 1912 states that "many of the pits and traps remain to be built."
He also states, "Ever since golf has been introduced in Phil. the city has been in need of a course such as Merion has produced or should I say, is producing, for the work is still in its early stages."
Also, "Everything indicated careful, intelligent preparation and painstaking development."
Also, "It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committeee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. WIlson."
Some more from "Far and Sure" in American Golfer, who played the golf course right after it opened;
"I had heard much of the plans and reports of the progressing work, but not until a month ago did I find the opportunity of seeing it. Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way, told me that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen..."
"Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used."
"However, I think that the very best holes at Merion are those which are original, without any attempt to closely follow anything but the obvious."
"Merion is a real course in the making - there is no doubt about that and with a continuance of the intelligent handling which is evinced by its present condition, the club and the city will have every reason to be proud."
I find the seemingly unfinished state of the course in September 1912 upon opening very curious.
When was the last known visit of CB Macdonald to Ardmore??
Also, I'm hoping someone can produce the American Cricketer review of the course that Tillinghast did, or at least provide us with the date of publication or any dates/timelines that Tilly refers to in the article.
-
Mike Cirba said:
“I'd simply point out that you can't get around the fact that the manifest is wrong. There is no room for interpretation.”
David Moriarty responded:
“Mike, the manifest lists him as single and he was traveling alone.
David:
As you know I have always thought this manifest debate is fairly irrelevant but Mike Cirba is right above. Wilson may’ve been traveling alone but the manifest is still wrong. The category on the manifest sheet is not about whether he was traveling alone, that category asks if the passenger is married or single not whether he is traveling alone or not. It really isn’t a matter of what a hypothetical manifest in 1909 or 1910 might say, it’s only a matter of the fact that this one is wrong in that way, and that proves the information in those manifests is not completely reliable even if that really was our Man Hugh Wilson coming home from Cherbourg on May 1, 1912.
-
Tom,
I let that one slide because David's answer is clearly disengenous on the face of it.
He's seen enough manifests by now to know that if he was travelling with his family or not that the box should and would still be checked off as "Married", and if his wife and children were passengers they would also be listed on the manifest, with his wife listed as "Married" and his daughters listed as "Single".
Is David telling us that if swinging single Dev Emmett were travelling alone he'd list "Single", but if he were travelling with a Young Teddy Roosevelt he'd be listed as "Married"? ;D
David knows this to be true if he's examined these manifests in any detail at all. I'm not sure why he's taking such an obviously inaccurate position when he knows the exact opposite to be true.
Perhaps he wrote it under Sniper Fire in a hurry to get off the tarmac.
Sorry...man...I just can't help myself these days. ::) ;D
-
I've been going through some other "Far and Sure" articles, and I'm certain that whoever it is, it isn't Travis and he is a Philadelphian. With no disrespect intended to Phil, I am not saying it's Tillinghast, but it might be someone like William Poultney Smith, or even William Evans. Once again, his knowledge of "inside" Philadelphia golf world is way too intimate to be a travelling, tournament golfer like Travis was at the time.
Witness the following comment from the May 1912 issue of American Golfer;
"After one of the most unprofitable - from a golfer's point of view - winter, Philadelphia extended a warm greeting to spring. It has been years since the links of the Quaker City have been so unplayable as the period from Christmas until the latter part of March...One thing that will be noted by visitors from other cities whether thay play over such excellent eighteen hole courses as Huntingdon Valley and the PHiladelphia Cricket Clubs as representing the larger organizations or the two dozen or more courses of nine holes and that is the growing tendency to improve in a more scientific manner the courses around Philadelphia...Time was when the green committee built courses on a broad principle of the greatest good to the greatest number and as the greatest number in every golfing organiztion is the dub or indifferent player, the really good player suffered..."
""At any event, the golfing renaissance in Philadelphia has actually begun and before many years we shall have courses which are a credit to us and not a mark of good natured chaffing of others who know what constitutes a good course."
Beyond that clear homerism, he does seem to write a tremendous amount concerning courses where Tillinghast was employed, but that may be attributed to friendship among Philadelphia golf cognescenti. Perhaps he was part of the earlier Philadelphia Triumvirate. ;)
Also...Dick and Shivas...I keep looking at that thing and it may be the weirdest freaking "I" I've ever seen, if that's what it's spose'd to be. If you would, go back and look at the pen stroke of Purser Morrison, and it's smooth, and even graceful, with nice rounded edges, and a seemingly full intent on penmanship completion..
This one looks like it was entered by the cave man in the Geico commercials. Can you say, "stay within the lines"? ;)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/2410057161_4ebc272db5_o.jpg)
And, as far as the Married versus Single issue, check out the entry just below the one in question where a "Mary Duffy", age 31, has her 3 year old daughter travelling with her. THe mother is listed as Married, and the daughter as Single.
If David's explanation were correct, they'd both be listed as Married.
-
The Hugh Wilson essay was not published in its entirety in the Piper and Oakley book, Turf for Golf Courses. The manuscript we have contains additional passages.
We also have the original Alan Wilson manuscript with revisions that many have not seen by many.
-
CSI Phillie...
I think the overwritten "I" is an I and made by Morrison, and it may be part of an overall notation he was making associated with the other overwitten on a slant, that looks like something smudged followed by what looks like "CN" and then "Dany of 2/7" or "Daug. of 2/7" and then they are all checked off, and then why are there overwritten letters of "B" or "C" over the nationality column? Probably none of that means anything relevant. But, if you are going to be a forensic document examiner, you gotta get some competent help... (not me) ::) ;) ;D
You also have to go to other near pages of that manifest and find similar letters written in other entries, and compare the original initial, to determine if it was a "T", "F", "I" or "J".
So far, IMHO, none of the theories, on the meaning of these manifests or the true indicated identity of the entries on these manifest would be allowed in court. They are all tainted, and vague, without expert analysis of a handwritting expert.
-
"Tom,
I let that one slide because David's answer is clearly disengenous on the face of it."
MikeyC:
I wouldn't say he was disingenuous exactly. But you sort of put it in the context of evidence being offered in a court of law as being seemingly reliable or irrefutable by him.
If that were the case, you, assuming you were the opposing counselor, shoulda, coulda, sort of woulda slammed him right then and there in front of the judge and jury.
You ain't no lawyer, are you MikeyC?
Well, don't answer that as you've already be denigrated enough on here but I'll tell you right now you ain't a bad one if you wanted to be one! ;)
Hey Mikey, do you think they have a Rule 6-7 penatly (Slow Play) in court? If they did I think poor David or maybe both of them have probably seen some over-night jail time for slowing down the courtroom process. ;)
-
Tom,
Nope, not a lawyer. I'm just a poor small-town boy clinging to my God and guns and Cabernet. ;)
But, yes, this thread is taking on that courtroom type of drama, don't you think?
O.J. Simpson didn't have as much legal help as Charley Macdonald is getting with first David, and now Shivas piling on. I feel like poor Marcia Clark, but the bottom line is this;
If the manifest don't fit, you must aquit! ;D
We even have law enforcement on the stand (Dick Daley), and if Patrick jumps in, can I call him a hostile witness?! ;)
-
"... and if Patrick jumps in, can I call him a hostile witness?! ;)
No, I don't think so. I don't think the New Jersey police and court system who are the ones mostly exposed to him look at Patrick as a hostile witness so much as just a legitimate bother. The reason for that is they understand he just talks too damn much and his theories of whether or not he was speeding or whatever are bizarre in the extreme. Patrick basically gave new meaning to the use of the gavel in the New Jersey court system. Most of us don't have much experience with judges in a courtroom but I believe it can be pretty amazing how dictatorial and energetic they can get in there with witnesses. Patrick has probably heard more "GET THE F...OUT OF MY COURTROOM" than any other man in America!
-
Of course Tom, since we Philadelphians are being lumped together, I'm starting to wonder if there isn't such a thing as a "California Conspiracy".
Recalling the OJ Simpson trial makes me wonder about the nature of facts and evidence in California, and what it takes to convince a jury on the left coast.
But here in the cradle of liberty, we take a different, more stringent and probably more accurate threshold on the burden of proof.
Playing fast and loose with Manifests seems to be contagious out there. Earlier in the thread, my friend David Kelly produced the following manifest which purports to show George A. Crump's trip to Europe in 1910.
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b279/dkelly1770/crump1910.jpg)
I'm sure everyone here took a quick perusal and nodded their heads...yep, that's it.
However, take a closer look. The "George A. Crump" listed on that manifest is 50 years old, and a citizen of her Majesty, the queen!! :o ::)
Oops...I guess the inability of anyone to find the right Crump manifest means that George Crump never went overseas in 1910 either. ;D
-
Top of the Morning to you, David.
My, you're up early this fine morning! Would-ya be working on your "White Paper" per chance?
-
"Rcalling the OJ Simpson trial makes me wonder about the nature of facts and evidence in California, and what it takes to convince a jury on the left coast.
But here in the cradle of liberty, we take a different, more stringent and more accurate viewpoint."
Interesting point and comparison there MikeyC; From what I recall of "justice" and things like evidence and facts in California, it really isn't a matter of the reliablity of evidence and facts or even justice out there---it's more a matter of the art of "jury picking". ;)
I hope David doesn't take that personally too as that really would be a stretch.
In 1910 Crump was about 37 years old but he always looked pretty old for his age. ;)
What is the date on that ship manifest?
"In 1910 we made a three months trip to Europe, playing on various golf courses---Walton Heath, Sunningdale, Turnberry, Prestwick, Hoylake (where he played with John Ball, champion of England---who beat him two and one) and St Andrews (where I bought my first golf clubs). I bought a corduroy bag and five clubs for about $15.00 and then we went to Cirgere in Dover, where there are three golf courses, and he played fifty four holes in one day. From there we went to Carlsbad, Luzerne, Nice and the Cagres Club. Rome and Paris completed our trip to Europe and we returned home."
Joe Baker, the man who went abroad with Crump in 1910
-
MikeyC:
These ship manifest listings that've been found seem to be getting so screwed up with other fairly well documented facts about these people do you think there is any possibility the likes of Wilson and Crump and Baker and the like were really a bunch of undercover terrorists working with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda or something who were trying to cover their whereabouts and their tracks to give the Feds the slip?
Hell, they all knew Tillinghast damn well, he was from Philadelphia and we sure do know he got interested in some pretty heavy explosives. I would submit Alpine as evidence of that.
I think I should also submit as evidence that both Macdonald and Wilson apparently started collaborating with the US Government via the US Dept of Agriculture and started fooling around with some pretty suspicious material like nitrates of this and that and fish emulsions and whatnot at Merion East which became something of an early OJT agronomic laboratory.
But it sounds to me like this could've been some kind of massive conspiracy and maybe the US Government was in on it too.
We've got to hand it to David Moriarty for inspiring all this. He inspired some of the world's best golf architecture researchers and it looks like we might uncover some world-wide conspiracy about a hundred years ago out of Philadelphia!
-
Mike Cirba:
I've got to tell you this research is starting to make me a little nervous. This may actually connect somehow to the Da Vinci Codes, The Knights Templar, that weird couple of thousand year old Masonic group and maybe even the truth about Jesus Christ hisself and some nefarious goings-ons with the Catholic Church through the centuries. Those people make me nervous particularly now that they're getting accused of pedophilia and such.
Do you think we need bodyguards and this point, Mikey, before we stumble onto some motherlode and need to make the case that Merion's architectural attribution should lead directly to Christ and Christianity somehow?
-
Tom,
Quit filling up this thread with your idle speculation, or I'm going to tell you what my seer told me about the Hugh Wilson drawings and sketches and send you on a mission;
Hint: She said it's in the basement.....of the Alamo!!! :o ;)
The George A Crump 1910 manifest cannot be found.
The Hugh I? Wilson 1912 manifest is WRONG.
Phil has pointed out any number of Tillinghast overseas visits he has documented that can't be found.
I'm not seeing where these are a good source of information, frankly.
-
"BTW, Mike, I'm not piling on. I'm being fair and impartial in all of this. If you read back through the 30 page Merion thread, you'll find plenty of places where I state - quite overtly, as a matter of fact - that the weight of evidence is clearly against DaveM on a number of points and that, thus, I was disinclined to agree with him as to those points."
Shiv:
Even though you think the weight of evidence in this particularly ship manifest on Hugh I. Wilson is against David Moriarty, I feel pretty certain that it was him on that manifest. Have any of you sleuths picked up yet why that might be? ;)
-
Mike.
Why do you keep saying the Crump manifest cannot be found? It can be, and has been. Just not by you. Seems more an indictment of your research than of the source.
The Hugh I Wilson manifest is not "WRONG," whatever that means. It is just not an absolutely perfect match. It is still an excellent match though, especially when compared to Scottish Hugh Wilson traveling from England to Argentina with the wrong family and staff.
As for Tillinghast, I explained that already, and provided Phil with one of the manifests he was missing.
-
My lord, you guys are funny sometimes. ;)
First we're saying that it might be a "S" and not an "M" because his passport preceeded him getting married.
Of course, at the time Hugh Wilson had been married for SEVEN years.
Also, this was THREE WEEKS AFTER THE TITANIC WENT DOWN. I'd imagine he'd want any survivors notified in the event of disaster and would have taken pains to ensure his stuff was in order because if this was his first time across the pond, as David contends, I'd imagine he was scared SH*TLESS!!! :o ;D
And the funniest thing of all about his passport being older than seven years?
Can I have the Number ONE answer please?? ;D
DING DING DING!!!
You're also arguing that this was his first time overseas!! ;)
David Moriarty,
I love your courtroom semantics.
The manifest isn't WRONG, or incorrect.
It's just not a "absolutely perfect match".
Of the millions of people who sailed on ships across the sea between 1910 and 1912, you find someone who is "not an absolutely perfect match" for a guy who was well-to-do, well-connected, in Maritime Insurance, and it's the ONLY record you've found that MIGHT be our Hugh Wilson.
But yet, you expect us to accept this as PROOF.
You refuted my Hugh Wilson from 1910 because the "I", looked like a "D", although Tom Paul thought it looked like a "J".
Yet, are you now telling us that George Crump's manifest from 1910 has been found...oh...except for one little detail... :o :-\ :-[
THEY SPELLED HIS MIDDLE INITIAL WRONG!!! ;D
You guys are KILLING ME!!!
You can't have it both ways...
You can't say that George R. Crump returning from Europe in 1910 is a clear mispelling while...
The Hugh D or Hugh J Wilson returning from Europe in 1910 is the wrong guy.
;D
-
"Tom, actually, I think it's with him. I think this is Hugh I. Wilson of Philly who went to Europe in 1912. The write-over of the T vs the I is a common thing and the "S" vs. "M" doesn't phase me at all because it doesn't really go to the accuracy of the manifests for their intended purpose. The whole notion of having "s" vs "m" on there wasn't even necessary at all. And it seems to me that an "error" on something that was irrelevent in the first place is no reason to throw out the evidence. They try this crap in court all the time. Ask Dick Daley. Smart-ass defendants walk into court all the time and try to get tickets thrown out because the cop forgot to dot an "i" on a ticket or didn't fill in "am" or "pm" on the time of the ticket or transposed a number on the defendant's address or whatever....it never works unless it goes to proof of the charge..."
Shivas:
Hand-writing analysis and some analysis of old type is not what I had in mind. There really is a sort of corroborating story out there that would probably lead any jury or any reasonable person to assume or even conclude that the Wilson on that 1912 manifest is Merion's Wilson. It's odd you, and perhaps others, don't seem to pick up on what that is. This is why one needs to always look at Merion's history in its totality and not just fixate on individual little items in a vacuum.
-
Tom,
Are you talking about the Titanic rumors?
I'm not saying that it might not be Hugh Wilson, but it might not be and it's anything but conclusive. I struggle to make that out as an "I" and then the whole married vs single explanations I've heard make no sense to me.
The funny thing is that David has completely discounted the 1910 Manifest I produced earlier showing a Hugh Wilson with a funky handwriting for a middle initial that you thought might be a J and RJ Daley thought might be a D, yet he accepts the finding of the George R. Crump 1910 Manifest as the clear creator of Pine Valley, and someone obviously just mispelled the middle initial. ;D
-
Also Tom...
The Hugh Wilson on the 1910 manifest was at least returning from Glasgow, a city in a country that actually HAS GOLF COURSES!! :D
-
I think it's clear that we have a problem, Houston... :o ;)
"Mike,
>>He is listed as George R. Crump. These lists are mostly hand written
>> so
>> with literally millions of records to transcribe you are going have
>> minor mistakes here and there (thats also true with the census records
>> and I don't see anyone questioning their creditability) . Because
>> there
>> are occasional errors I find that it is wise to alternate how one
>> searches for a person, not only alternating the spelling of the name
>> or
>> middle initial, but also searching by spouse or sibling or traveling
>> companion."
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/2410057089_29982b7179_b.jpg)
Your Honor...I move for a mistrial!! ;D
-
"The funny thing is that David has completely discounted the 1910 Manifest I produced earlier showing a Hugh Wilson with a funky handwriting for a middle initial that you thought might be a J and RJ Daley thought might be a D, yet he accepts the finding of the George R. Crump 1910 Manifest as the clear creator of Pine Valley, and someone obviously just mispelled the middle initial. :)
MikeC, David and Shivas:
In my opinion, the issue and interest here is not over your disputations on handwriting analysis and type-writer analysis on those ship manifests. I suppose that has some interest in a debate over just the accuracy of ship manifests but this that we are dealling with here on Merion is much more than just that. Essentially you guys are arguing in a ship manifest vacuum. ;)
The thing that somewhat corroborates Hugh Wilson being on that May 1, 1912 ship from Cherbourg is the fact that there has always been that story around Merion that he almost sailed on the Titanic! Logically if Wilson had NOT been on that ship how in the world can you account for the fact that a golf club in Philadelphia generated that story??
Do you really think a golf club would even think of such a thing if Wilson had been in Philadelpia throughout 1912 and obviously most everyone knew that? Or alternatively do you think no one at Merion knew where the hell he was in 1912 and they fixated on contemporaneous ship manifests as you guys are wondering where in the hell he was? :)
As for that being Crump on the ship from Liverpool how do you explain the fact I just posted the recollection of the man who traveled abroad with Crump and he said they ended their trip abroad in Paris?
Does it seem logical to assume that two men who end their trip abroad in Paris would then go to Liverpool England to return home?? ;)
Furthermore, Pine Valley has a postcard from Crump to his brother-in-law from England dated Dec. 1, 1910. Doesn't that ship manifest that lists a George Crump say he sailed from Liverpool on Dec 1, 1910? ( I think I asked if that manifest says that ship sailed Dec 1, 1910 but I didn't get an answer). If so, do you think George was dumb enough that he thought his postcard would beat him home on a ship faster than the one he was on? ;)
If any of you are going to consider facts surrounding PV or Merion do not just consider things like ship manifests only. All that's doing is considering ship manifests in a vacuum. If you're considering PV or Merion consider them in their totality of evidence that includes some seemingly irreffutable material evidence that puts these men in other places and at other times than indicated by those ship manifests! Well, Crump anyway. As for Wilson being the guy on that May 1, 1912 ship because of the reasons I just gave above it does seem extremely likely to me anyway.
But what that does not mean to me is that he could not have been over there before and it does not mean to me that that was his only trip abroad for Merion or otherwise, and I think anyone who says they can prove otherwise is full of it.
-
Tom,
You're misunderstanding the paper trail.
The George A. Crump manifest above posted by David Kelly was an honest mistake by him, because in his zeal to prove me wrong he failed to look at it and see that the guy on the manifest was 50 years old and a British citizen!
So, that one is wrong.
So, where is the George A. Crump manifest.
Well, it can't be found. Well, at least not quite.
I quoted above from what Tom MacWood told me about how he found it, and it says a lot to me about the vagaries of these things.
He said, essentially;
"Mike,
>>He is listed as George R. Crump. These lists are mostly hand written
>> so
>> with literally millions of records to transcribe you are going have
>> minor mistakes here and there (thats also true with the census records
>> and I don't see anyone questioning their creditability) . Because
>> there
>> are occasional errors I find that it is wise to alternate how one
>> searches for a person, not only alternating the spelling of the name
>> or
>> middle initial, but also searching by spouse or sibling or traveling
>> companion."
So, Tom...
My point is now that it's impossible for David to tell us that he's found the George Crump 1910 manifest when it's the wrong middle name yet discount the Hugh Wilson manifest from 1910 when it's possibly the wrong middle name, as well.
Keep up with me now, Tom. Or I may have to ask the judge to recuse you. ;)
Essentially, Tom M. found the manifest because he knew the name of Crump's travelling companion. If Crump sailed alone, it would NEVER be found...or, if it was, it would have the EXACT SAME credibility as my Hugh Wilson 1910 manifest above....Mine even sailed from Scotland! ;D
Or, like the 800 H. Wilson's sailing from England between 1908-1912, it would have been a needle in a research hell haystack.
-
"You refuted my Hugh Wilson from 1910 because the "I", looked like a "D", although Tom Paul thought it looked like a "J"."
Did I say that? I don't think so but if asked I plead the Fifth, Your Honor.
I have no idea why I would say that because I've never had much interest in these ship manifest other than to tell Moriarty for the last year or so that it makes no difference, in my opinion, when Wilson traveled abroad. All I stood by was the accuracy of those Wilson reports on the creation of Merion East and I still do until their accuracy is proven lacking! ;)
Good Lord, there're a lot of guys on here putting words in others mouths, and for what?
-
MikeC:
I have not really followed these ship manifest arguments because accurate or not I just do not see what relevance they conclusively have to the larger issue of who created Merion East or Pine Valley.
This thread is not about ship manifests, it's about Merion.
And so, I haven't followed the Crump trip or who was right or wrong or why.
But I will tell you this, if the ship manifest from Liverpool that lists a fellow named Crump on it ALSO lists a Joseph Baker traveling with him I would virtually stake my life on the fact that is our George Crump of Pine Valley.
-
TEPaul,
You probably do not recall but it was in part Merion's Titanic story that motivated me to try and track down the Wilson trip manifest in the first place. Thanks for the reminder.
For what it is worth, I do not remember the exact length of delay, but from past research I think the "SS Philadelphia" was delayed for repairs in Southampton for some time, so it may well have been that Wilson was supposed to travel very close to the same time as the Titanic, and from the same Port [?]. While purely speculative, I guess it is possible that he tried to score a seat on the Titanic when the Philadelphia broke down. Or maybe he was supposed to be on the Titanic and decided to stay longer to investigate the bents of Le Touquet.
_____________________
Mike Cirba,
I mean no offense, but your own comments continue to cast doubt on your willingness and/or ability to successfully conduct historical research.
Take the Crump manifest. You dismiss the usefulness of the shipping manifests because [you think] others only found the Crump manifest by using an extraneous fact (the name of his travel companion) To the contrary, the Crump manifest is a perfect example of just how useful the shipping manifests can be, provided that the researcher employs a little creativity combined with a willingness and ability to place the records in the proper context.
The Crump manifest has more problems than almost any manifest page I have seen, yet two posters were still ultimately able to locate it, and by different paths (I for one did not locate it using his travel companion but by other means.) To my mind, this is testament to the value of a source, that while not perfect, is incredibly useful.
Or take the Wilson manifest page. As TEPaul has just reminded me, I first searched for the Wilson manifest page in part because I had a hint about the context -- the Titanic story. (Actually I had a number of other hints as well, but the Titanic story is a good example.)
The problem with your methodology (or lack thereof) is that when it suits you you demand perfection regardless of context. And when it suits you you will accept anything regardless of context (Like the English Hugh Wilson traveling to Argentina.)
Also, Mike you come up with some pretty creative speculation (to put it nicely) but then fail to conduct even the most basic inquiry as to whether the speculation holds up. Take your "next of kin notification" theory about the supposed importance of the M or S designation. You haven't even bothered to notice that the "married or single" designation is left blank for Americans on many if not most of the forms both before and after the Titanic disaster. You also have no idea whether the designation was required for Americans or even whether Wilson would ever have known about the mistake. Yet you feel justified in throwing out a manifest that, when put in proper context, appears to be an otherwise excellent match.
Or take any other of your stretched speculation for further examples.
Like the "traveling with family on a long relaxing vacation to Argentina via Scotland" speculation . . .
or the "no Americans listed on the trip so this English Hugh Wilson must really be American" speculation . . .
or the "even though every other "D" looks just like this, this on could be an 'I'" speculation
. . . or the "Wilson on a boat while Merion was being seeded speculation . . ."
Without proper research it is all just blind speculation and is of little if any use whatsoever.
Oh yeah, you don't understand at all my previous comments about the M or S designation, but I am too tired and busy to spell it out for you.
-
Mike,
One more thing along the same lines as above,
I just noticed that you dismiss the Crump manifest because of the age is exactly 10 yrs off, and because, according to you, this George Crump is a British Citizen.
[Of course the manifest says that he is a US Citizen of British descent, but I am sure you will dismiss that too as just my interpretation.]
Let me add to the reasons you might further want to dismiss the manifest page.
1. That may not be an "A." Blindly search it and you better be looking for "George R. Crump."
2. For Baker, he is listed George too, because Joseph is crossed out and George was written in.
George Baker traveling with George R. Crump.
Yet three of us found it, probably by three different paths. And because of what else I know, I am certain that this is the correct manifest. Without a doubt.
Welcome to the world of historical research.
-
I think GOLFCLUBATLASERs who have been reading this thread would undertand when I ask----what really is the purpose of this endless ship manifest argument when it comes to the creation of Merion, how it happened, who did it, and most certainly Macdonald's part in it at any point or any time?
Is it only about David Moriarty trying to shake the basic credibility of the "Philadelphians" (the "Triumverate")?
Is it really about The "Philadephians" (the Triumverate) trying to shake the basic credibility of David Moriarty?
Mike Cirba:
Do you think it makes a difference when Wilson went over there as far as who did Merion East and the accuracy of those Wilson reports?
David Moriarty:
Do you think it makes a difference when Wilson went over there as far as who did Merion East and those Wilson reports?
-
"Yet three of us found it, probably by three different paths. And because of what else I know, I am certain that this is the correct manifest. Without a doubt.
Welcome to the world of historical research."
You know, approximately 30 pages of a thread (this one) and many more hundreds and hundreds of hours spent on other threads, really isn't about finding out about the real history and truth about architecture or any particular golf course.
It's really all about the last few posts on here which speak pretty plainly that-----
I'M A BETTER RESEARCHER THAN YOU ARE!
There's no question of it, and even if we are adults perhaps with an odd passion, we aren't much different than a bunch of immature children.
What is this, Tuesday? I can't wait for Saturday morning so I can watch a bunch of cartoons!
-
TEPaul,
I cant speak for you, but for me it is about 1) the process and 2) about finding the truth.
My last post was meant to continue the one before and to drive home the point that Mike is approaching his research in a manner that I believe is counterproductive the process and finding the truth.
I am as tired of these manifest threads as you and probably view them as even less important that you do. My participation in this one has been largely in response to Mike's endless (and in my opinion pointless) exploration of the manifests.
I just have trouble sitting on my hands when Mike misleads about the topic.
___________________
Mike, sorry if my above posts sound harsh, but I just really want to move beyond this and get some real work done. On second thought, that is no excuse because I ought to be able to do that regardless of what you do.
-
David,
How many times have you been challenged on this and other threads to produce the "new information" that you seem to hint at having yet claim to either not or be unable to produce? I am certain from your perspective it is far too many.
Yet, while being critical of conclusions drawn by Mike Cirba, you make the seemingly innocuous statement, "And because of what else I know, I am certain that this is the correct manifest..."
Isn't that statement at the very heart of all of the criticism's and questioning that have been raised against your conclusions and person?
David, WHAT do you KNOW that apparently NO ONE ELSE does? WHY not SHARE it? WHY CRITICIZE another who is making an honest effort to understand if you can, by simply SHARING what you have, clear up all of this wasted effort and debate?
To me it appears that not doing so is purposefully inflamatory to what has evolved on these threads.
Wouldn't it be in everyone's interests, including your own to share, at least a litlle bit of "what you know?" Even include a brief explanation that it is part of a larger piece that you are preparing for publication that is not ready for sharing in its entirety but should be ready by such-and-such date. Wouldn't that greatly help toward bringing an end to all of the immaturity that has become every Merion discussion?
I recently took Tom Paul to task on one of the threads for what he said and how, and I think this statement of yours also clearly needs some explaining.
You mentioned on a another thread that you weren't quite sure why you came back on GCA.com. Well I certainly hope it was to share knowledge and learning... and I believe you have a major opportunity at this moment, based upon that statement, to do so.
-
David,
I can't imagine why anyone finds you pompous, arrogant, condescending, and uncooperative.
You callously and belittlingly dismiss any hypothetetical alternative that doesn't suit your purposes yet you excuse huge holes and major factual errors in your own materials as just indisputable evidence of your own superior excellence as a researcher to have actually found these erroneous materials in the first place. You're pretty funny. ::)
Is it any wonder all of us are having trouble following your circuitous, unwieldly logic and don't jump off the cliff with you to the same dubious conclusions.
The bottom line, David, is that you accept a George Crump manifest from 1910 as accurate yet dismiss a Hugh Wilson manifest from 1910 when they each have the exact same error...a misformed or mispelled middle initial.
You cannot have it both ways and you cannot viably use the 1912 trip as the foundation of your theory whether that was actually THE Hugh Wilson or not because you cannot show that he didn't travel before then.
I truly hope you have more corraborating evidence that someday we might be privileged to see.
Until then....
-
Hugh Wilson had reservations on the Titanic for his 1912 return trip, but was detained and missed the boat.
-
Hugh Wilson had reservations on the Titanic for his 1912 return trip, but was detained and missed the boat.
Wow. Every once in a while missing the boat is a good thing!
-
You are right about that, Joe. By the way, in the letter from Wilson's daughter, Louise Wilson Russell (b. 1906), she attributes only two other courses outside of Merion, "...Seaview at Absecon, N.J. and a public course somewhere around Philadelphia/ I don't know whether either are good courses. I am the family renegade-not a gofer (sic)."
Wilson's daughter went on to say that Wilson "...was born on Locust or Spruce Street in West Philadelphia-he never saw Scotland courses until he went there to study the golf courses."
There is a discrepancy here, as other reports indicated that he was born in Trenton, NJ. I'm sure some of the super sleuths on here can figure out the real place of birth.
-
Is it not possible that Hugh Wilson sneaked onto the Titantic (a la Leonardo di Caprio), but in drag (a la Kate Winslet), saved himself by chucking a baby out of a lifeboat and then taking its place and lived on for another 60 years in England under the name of Alister Mackenzie? That would explain the trip to Argentina........
-
Richard:
I've already been there and completely analyzed and vetted that theory. It's not only possible but extremely likely that Leonardo Di Caprio was actually traveling aboard the Titanic under the name Hugh I. Wilson of Philadelphia and Merion.
I mean, seriously, can you imagine the explaining poor Hugh would have to do if Mrs Wilson found THAT ship manifest? Even if he could easily explain to her that he'd been with her in Philadelphia all through 1912 I don't know how he could explain that he really wasn't boinking Kate Winslet on the Titanic!
But all that is small potatoes to me. I just want to find that approxmately 1 million and 1 carat blue diamond that Kate Winslet's character threw over board around 1999.
Are you a good swimmer Richard the Magnificent? If not, I'll ask my pissboy Morrison to do it.
-
Richard:
I've already been there and completely analyzed and vetted that theory. It's not only possible but extremely likely that Leonardo Di Caprio was actually traveling aboard the Titanic under the name Hugh I. Wilson of Philadelphia and Merion.
I mean, seriously, can you imagine the explaining poor Hugh would have to do if Mrs Wilson found THAT ship manifest? Even if he could easily explain to her that he'd been with her in Philadelphia all through 1912 I don't know how he could explain that he really wasn't boinking Kate Winslet on the Titanic!
But all that is small potatoes to me. I just want to find that approxmately 1 million and 1 carat blue diamond that Kate Winslet's character threw over board around 1999.
Are you a good swimmer Richard the Magnificent? If not, I'll ask my pissboy Morrison to do it.
I'm a damn fine swimmer, Tom, but from my point of view, Wayne is more expendable than I am, so give him the gig, with my compliments.
-
Wayne,
That's wild. I can't imagine that wouldn't have been a life-altering event, for better or worse, going forward through life knowing that you were supposed to be on THAT ship! :o
If nothing else, I'd imagine that you'd either feel pre-destined for some greater purpose, or just the luckiest bloke on the planet, or perhaps be weighted with some type of guilt, albeit hardly justifiable. Actually, you might feel all three at various times.
Wow..
I do wonder though, if any of your information indicates whether he went to Europe prior to this 1912 voyage?
-
Rich:
I think you're right, Wayne is the man for the job. I believe he almost made the Olympics in swimming but at this point that probably isn't neceassry. All he'll need to do is just let the air out and he should sink to a depth of about a mile and a half in no time.
-
Mike:
I thought you knew that Wilson was booked on the Titanic or nearly. That's obviously why that story has been around Merion so long.
I ran into a guy the other day who was booked on that plane out of Boston that was the first to hit the Trade Towers. The reason he switched was some real dumb luck to say the least. He seemed sort of matter of fact about the thing when he was telling it.
-
. . .
The bottom line, David, is that you accept a George Crump manifest from 1910 as accurate yet dismiss a Hugh Wilson manifest from 1910 when they each have the exact same error...a misformed or mispelled middle initial.
You cannot have it both ways and you cannot viably use the 1912 trip as the foundation of your theory whether that was actually THE Hugh Wilson or not because you cannot show that he didn't travel before then.. . .
Again Mike, you make my point for me. I can have it both ways, because I do not insist on ignoring the context. In proper context, one is a great match and one is a poor match. Because of what else WE BOTH know.
___________________
Phillip, Perhaps I wasnt clear enough and I apologize if not, but when I wrote "because of what else I know" I guess I should have said"because I AM WILLING TO CONSIDER what else WE know." I thought I had made that clear, but apparently not.
It is about knowing the context and considering it in relation to the source material. You do the same thing with your Tillie research, by considering your knowledge about other relatives, the tire company business, etc.
To clarify: I KNOW NO MORE THAN MIKE DOES ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF CRUMP AND BARKER's TRIP, and probably less. I AM NOT HIDING OR WITHHOLDING INFORMATION.
The difference is, I use what WE know (the other reports of the trip, the timing, the traveling companion, Barker's age, etc.) to put the manifests in context. Mike doesnt.
-
David,
I'm not trying to PROVE anything. I'm not the one who is coming up with a new theory and trying to support it.
I'm just saying that you can't PROVE that Hugh Wilson did not travel to Europe prior to 1912.
You are discounting a manifest from 1910 with his name on it because the middle initial is vague, yet cite George Crump's 1910 manifest as gospel where evidently they not only spelled his middle initial incorrectly, but also his travelling companions first name.
And yes, you evidently have dug deeper into the manifests than I have. I confess that I've probably spent a total now of about 5 hours digging into the sites that were provided a few days ago by Tom MacWood and Rich Goodale. I've seen enough to tell me what I need to know, which is that they are inconsistent, error-prone (or error laden, not sure which describes it better), subject to the vagaries of handwriting interpretation, marked up by cross-outs and insertions, and generally are pretty horrific as a record on which to build a foundationally sustainable case.
There is also the possibility of Hugh Wilson sailing via private vessel, given his connections. One of Tom Paul's relatives had a boat at the time that was over 300 feet long, and which could travel the world. If you'd like, I could probably get a picture of it here.
So, before you build your whole case again on an assumption that Wilson never went to Europe prior to this visit in 1912 (which we know was no more than 2 months or so), I'm just saying that you haven't PROVEN a thing...yet.
You see, I still have an open mind and am quite willing to to be PROVEN wrong.
-
Again as merely an observer to this saga... I really was hoping that David was going to 'eventually' write up something substantive and well beyond this match game of manifests. As these threads are distilling down, and in my mind the rhetoric is becoming more backpeddling than illuminating, such as:
To clarify: I KNOW NO MORE THAN MIKE DOES ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF CRUMP AND BARKER's TRIP, and probably less. I AM NOT HIDING OR WITHHOLDING INFORMATION.
The difference is, I use what WE know (the other reports of the trip, the timing, the traveling companion, Barker's age, etc.) to put the manifests in context. Mike doesnt.
Where is the beef? I must say, trips to G.B to study, no matter when they occurred doesn't cut it for me. Trips and the design process could be going on at the same time. Routings done earlier with anyone, including MacDonald's, preliminary grubbing, shaping etc. could have been started, and altered during and after any possible trips. More than one thing could be happening at the same time. Wire cablegrams could have been sent during trips informing of progress. Decisions on-the-fly could have been made often.
At this point, the only real descriptions of substance about who has the lion's share of the credit for Merion anyone I can imagine would put real credence in, are the writings of the era that have been shared, over and over and parsed and nit-picked.
More than one thing can happen in GCA and the process at the same time, including the designer's travels and other activities while staying in touch. They may have not had the Internet, but they did have cable's for communication.
David, you've built up so much drama in all this, and wound Mike up so tight, I think as an observer, I'd need to see a photo of CB standing next to Ardmore ave, waving his walking stick at laborers driving mule driven scraping pans, to believe anything...is different than our historical understandings heretofore ::) ;) ;D
-
Dick,
Where's Michael Moore with Photoshop when we need him most? ;)
I'm picturing CB Maconald, with his adoring sidekick Smithers....er...um...I mean Whigham staring lovingly at his great, imposing physical form, with Charlie looking snootily askance at the Italian laborers eating cheesesteaks while they build a monumentally elevated platform green for the Alps 10th hole. ;D
Tom Paul,
I knew that there was a rumor that Wilson narrowly missed a fateful Titanic voyage, but I did not know that he actually had a ticket and was inadvertedly detained.
I don't recall that ever being brought to light before.
-
Dick,
Please let me clarify a few things.
1. This thread is Mike Cirba's baby, not mine. My role has been to try and correct his false and misleading statements and suppositions.
2. Likewise, while he may not think so, it is Mike's theory we are discussing, not mine. Mike really wants Hugh I Wilson to have traveled abroad before 1912, but there is little evidence -- and no hard facts -- that support his wish.
3. Mike thinks I need to prove that Wilson did not travel abroad before 1912, but Mike is again mistaken. While there is no solid factual basis that such a trip took place, it really isn't important to me or my research one way or another.
David, you've built up so much drama in all this, and wound Mike up so tight, I think as an observer, I'd need to see a photo of CB standing next to Ardmore ave, waving his walking stick at laborers driving mule driven scraping pans, to believe anything...is different than our historical understandings heretofore
I've built up drama on the site? I dont think so. Mike is wound up, but that is his doing, not mine. In a conversation off the site with a number of past and current posters, I listed out five topics I was considering discussing on the site. This wasn't a promise or hype, but a discussion about whether the site was ready to maturely and civilly discuss the topics. Nonetheless, I initiated a discussion of one of the five, and will address the rest when they are ready.
NONE OF THOSE TOPICS INVOLVED HUGH WILSON'S EUROPEAN VACATION. That wild goose chase is all Mike's, and none mine.
Look Dick, I am frustrated too. There is hype, but not by me. Mostly there has been lots of preemptive posts trying to guess at or get at my IMO. I am just trying to be a regular old participant on the site until my other stuff is ready to go. Is that really so unreasonable?
Ultimately, after all this, my essay is bound to be disappointing. Look at your post above -- you've set out an unreasonable standard on which I'll be judged based on what you perceive as hype, but the hype you perceive is nothing but Mike Cirba's misguided attempt to prove me wrong before he even knows what I am going to say.
Personally, I wish everyone would just leave it be until I get a finished and formatted version to ran, then they can have at it.
________________________
David,
I'm not trying to PROVE anything. I'm not the one who is coming up with a new theory and trying to support it.
What exactly am I trying to prove? What new theory am I trying to support? Do tell.
I'm just saying that you can't PROVE that Hugh Wilson did not travel to Europe prior to 1912.
Where did I say I wanted to or needed to prove this?
You are discounting a manifest from 1910 with his name on it because the middle initial is vague, yet cite George Crump's 1910 manifest as gospel where evidently they not only spelled his middle initial incorrectly, but also his travelling companions first name.
No, I discount the 1910 manifest because the middle initial is not "vague," it is just like every other "D" in that manifest. More importantly, I would dismiss it if it was ambiguous,because in early September 1911 Wilson was seeding Merion East, not floating the seven seas.
I accept the Crump because of everything else we know.
So, before you build your whole case again on an assumption that Wilson never went to Europe prior to this visit in 1912 (which we know was no more than 2 months or so), I'm just saying that you haven't PROVEN a thing...yet.
You see, I still have an open mind and am quite willing to to be PROVEN wrong.
Again Mike, don't you think you ought to wait for the IMO before you bother trying to refute it with a bunch of irrelevancies from the shipping manifests? You'll have ample opportunity then I assure you.
-
It looks like some of the Wilson trip speculation can wind down. Wilson couldn't have gone abroad in 1911 because there are dated letters from him from Philadelphia every month of that year. The odd thing is his trip in 1912. It sounds to me like he went abroad very quickly, perhaps on business. There is a letter from Wilson to Russell Oakley (agrostologist US Dept of Agriculture) dated March 1,1912 from Philadelphia. The next letter in the file from Merion is from Richard Francis for the M.C.C. Golf Association responding to an Oakley letter of April 10 that contained some agronomy reports. Francis' letter to Oakley is dated April 11 and explains he is answering for Wilson who 'is making a hurried trip to Europe....' It appears that Russel Oakley who at that point had over a hundred letter correspondence with Hugh Wilson was not aware of this trip abroad. When H. Wilson writes Oakley again on May 21, 1912 he mentions he was abroad but he says nothing about studying architecture, he only mentions he just returned from abroad.
If Wilson was booked home on the Titanic it looks like his stay abroad was originally scheduled to be a matter of weeks at most. More that two months would've been impossible so the six or seven months reported trip is either a fabrication or it would've had to have been before 1911.
If Wilson really did spend many months abroad for Merion (various statements have suggested six or seven months) it appears he must have gone in 1910 as at least one history book states.
I only looked through the files from 1911 to 1914 today but from what we copied from the agronomy files a few years ago I don't think there was ever a letter writing gap from outside Philadelphia that long.
There is also the story in at least one history book that Wilson brought back sketches and drawings and surveyor's map from abroad so he must have brought them back in 1910 or else borrowed Macdonald's sketches and drawings and surveyor's maps done for NGLA and brought them back from New York, not abroad.
The only other possible explanation I can think of is when Wilson said in his 1916 report on the creation of Merion ".....so early in 1911, the club appointed a committee....", he may've mistakenly said 1911 when he meant 1910. Later in that report he said: "Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland..."
If this pretty quick trip in 1912 was not the time he studied courses in England and Scotland there must've been another time because he said himself he studied courses in England and Scotland.
His brother Alan's report on the creation of Merion says; "The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links of Scotland and England."
The Tolhurst history book of 1989 alludes to the Merion 1910 Annual Report that informed the membership of the appointment of the committee and seemingly a trip abroad if Alan's 'as a first step' is accurate to 1910. If that 1910 annual report was on a calender year basis it would almost have to only encompass 1910.
So, as of now the facts are either:
1. Wilson studied architecture in England and Scotland in what was referred to as "a hurried trip abroad" between maybe the middle of March at most and the end of April 1912.
2. He went abroad to study architecture in England and Scotland in 1910.
-
Tom,
That about sums it up correctly.
David,
I'm not ignoring you by not responding. I'm just trying to give you the breathing room you seem to be asking for.
-
Shivas:
Regarding your assumptions in post #220, they pretty much show me you're apparently only capable of looking at Wilson and his time through the lens of your own time and eyes, and not through the lens and time of the era we're considering here. What Wilson may've done by spending 6-7 months abroad may seem like an odd and long thing to do for you or for any of us today but it actually wasn't unusual in those days and I would have no problem at all sighting all kinds of examples of people like Wilson doing exactly that, spending very long periods of time abroad, particularly through the middle of any year. The other thing you seem to automatically assume for some odd reason was that studying golf architecture must have been the ONLY thing he did over there. Is there any particular reason you just make some automatic assumption like that?
I think both Wayne and I can also most certainly prove one thing to you about Hugh Wilson and that is the man was most definitely no slow learner or dawdler! It is definitely clear from his hundreds and hundreds of "agronomy" letters over fourteen years that what Wilson was trying to do and wanted to do he pretty much wanted to get it done yesterday rather than tomorrow! ;)
The other thing that is virtually impossible to miss from his correspondences is he definitely was one of those types of people who was intensely curious about all kinds of things.
-
"Thus, thanks to Mike Cirba's research, he has convinced me that the only logical conclusion is that Hugh Wilson was a complete and total idiot. ;D
Shivas:
Perhaps before you run that kind of conclusion out here, even in jest ;), what you might try to do first is give it a shot to see if you could ever remotely produce, as Hugh Wilson produced, a golf course anywhere near as good as Merion was and is. ;)
-
Shivas,
You'd better eat your Crunch Berries and watch the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers now, because after the baseless deductions you just blessed us with this morning you're definitely being sent to bed without any supper...much less TV. ;)
You seem to be thinking that Wilson just hopped in a car and drove to Sunningdale, and then the next day popped up to Carnoustie, and then over to Prestwick, and then back down to Walton Heath. Perhaps he took his private plane? ;D
Aren't the keywords here "Studied", and "sketched"?
There is no question he could have spent at least a month or so just going around the Heathlands. David even seems to think he went to France to "study the bents of Le Touquet", which because I don't know what that means may have taken a year's study in and of itself. ;)
Then up to Scotland...or the courses around Liverpool...down to Sandwich.
Accounts stated that he visited "every big course overseas and in the US", so if it took Tom Doak 10 years to do that in the latter half of the 20th century, it doesn't seem a stretch at all to think it took WIlson at least 6-7 months to do that in those days, especially given transportation issues.
-
Does anyone think that Wilson not only studied some of the great courses, but played in some of the local matches and tournaments. In going over "The Scrapbook of Old Tom Morris" one sees many tournament and competition results posted in the new articles of the time. Has anyone explored that avenue? Wouldn't it be keen if one could find an article covering the results of competitors in a tournament, and Hugh Wilson came in win place or show!!! :D ;D 8)
Truly, that wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe he wasn't just sketching all the time. How could a real golfer not play all those great courses. Also, many clubs had a guest book; did they not?
I think we on GCA.com should take up a collection and in the same manner Merion reportedly sent Hugh, we should send Cirba, Paul, and Moriarty on a tour to scour the old papers and guest books, and to be economical, make them share the same rooming accomodations. 6 months ought to do it! ;D :o 8)
-
I know, Shivas, so was mine. ;)
-
Yeah, that post #223 was ROTFLOL ...a real gut-buster! ;)
Roflcopters
Lawlerskates
n00bs... ::)
-
.
There is also the possibility of Hugh Wilson sailing via private vessel, given his connections. One of Tom Paul's relatives had a boat at the time that was over 300 feet long, and which could travel the world. If you'd like, I could probably get a picture of it here.
Mike,
Presenting the remote possibility that HIW sailed on a private vessel doesn't offer a scintilla of evidence that he did. It's certainly unlikely that he crossed the North Atlantic on a private vessel in the winter months.
I don't think David's under the obligation to prove that HIW didn't go to the UK prior to 1912. I believe that the golf world is obligated to prove that he did.
Why, for all that's been written, wasn't the voyage documented in terms of time, place and the name of the vessel ? Why wasn't there a diary or log of which courses he visited in the UK ? Why wasn't there an expression of gratitude toward the owners/friends if he sailed on a private yacht ?
Tying events to time lines may be the key, and I would think that David would pursue that method.[/color]
So, before you build your whole case again on an assumption that Wilson never went to Europe prior to this visit in 1912 (which we know was no more than 2 months or so), I'm just saying that you haven't PROVEN a thing...yet.
Again, I don't think David has to prove that he didn't.
I think the golfing world has to prove that he did.
Surely, IF he went to the UK prior to 1912, he must have visited select individuals, specific courses, towns, hotels, etc., etc.. Yet, not one iota of evidence has been presented that would substantiate the alleged trip.
It's like the police asking a suspect where he was during a specific time frame, and neither the suspect nor any of his supporters can place him where it's alleged he was.
You tell me, would the authorities buy that flimsy of an alibi ?[/color]
You see, I still have an open mind and am quite willing to to be PROVEN wrong.
Proven wrong ?
What evidence have you produced that supports and substantiates HIW visiting the UK prior to 1912 ?
To date, there's NOTHING, no log, no diary, no receipts, no letters, no mention of friends or acquaintances abroad, NOTHING.
An open mind, in the face of ZERO evidence that HIW was abroad prior to 1912 would question the veracity of that claim, rather than questioning someone who feels that there's NO evidence to support the claim that HIW was in the UK prior to 1912.
The burden of proof ISN'T on David to prove he wasn't in the UK prior to 1912.
The burden of proof IS on those who claim he was.
Bring forth the evidence that supports the claim.
To date, no evidence, verifiable by third parties, has been presented.
There's another factor that you're ignoring, and that's the culture of a club that seeks to deify individuals associated with the club.
A while ago, I was with a widely respected figure in golf.
We were at a club that engaged in what I've refered to in the above sentence. On the ride home, I turned to him and stated that the object of the club's adulation would be embarrassed by the pomp and circumstance, if he was present. The individual to whom I was speaking concurred and went on to give his thoughts on the subject, and the perpetuation of the "icon".
Like kids nearing the age of doubt around Christmas time, we want to believe certain things, but, as adults, we're obligated to question vague references, research the issues and present the cold hard facts as best we can.
To date, no cold hard, documented facts have been presented that offer evidence that HIW visited the UK prior to 1912.
Rather than question David's motives and leanings, you should be looking for cold hard facts that support your view. The finding of which, would of course, undermine his view. ;D[/color]
-
"Yeah, that post #223 was ROTFLOL ...a real gut-buster! ;D"
Shivas:
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that you take some of your opinions too seriously that you cloak in humor! ;)
-
PatM said:
"I don't think David's under the obligation to prove that HIW didn't go to the UK prior to 1912. I believe that the golf world is obligated to prove that he did."
Pat:
On the contrary, I think David Moriarty does have an obligation to prove that HIW didn't go to the UK prior to 1912 if, on the one hand, he is implying that, and on the other hand, he's suggesting or even implying that if he did not go to the UK it has any meaning at all as to Merion's historical accounts as to who created Merion and how. But for all I know, at this point, he may not be suggesting or implying any such thing. I did appear to some of us, however, that he was suggesting or implying something like that in the past. At least, he seemed to be suggesting a year or so ago that Macdonald's part in the creation of Merion was somehow minimized. But perhaps he's no longer suggesting or implying that.
"Why, for all that's been written, wasn't the voyage documented in terms of time, place and the name of the vessel ? Why wasn't there a diary or log of which courses he visited in the UK ? Why wasn't there an expression of gratitude toward the owners/friends if he sailed on a private yacht?"
Perhaps it was documented in terms of time, place and the name of the vessel once. But that was many decades ago, Patrick, and I think you probably know as well as we do that with most of these clubs we discuss on here, including Merion, that for all kinds of unfortunate reasons much of that raw documentary evidence has been lost or destroyed in various ways and for various reasons. Look at what's been apparently lost in that vein with NGLA or almost any other club or architect we're aware of that long ago.
-
Patrick:
Regarding the rest of your post #231 what is it exactly that David Moriarty is questioning? I guess we will have to wait and see on that if he in fact is now questioning anything about Merion's history.
In the meantime I guess some of us are speculating on what he may question or claim. Maybe we shouldn't do that but we do, we have and we are.
If he's questioning if a trip to the UK by HIW prior to 1912 can be proven, then that's fine. It may never be provable the way he thinks "provable" should occur with these kinds of course histories. But if it isn't provable what are we to infer that means and what else is he suggesting? Is he suggesting that Wilson and his committee could not or did not do what Merion and its history books and available material at Merion has claimed they did? Is it that Moriarty is still suggesting or implying Macdonald should get more credit for the architecture of Merion than he's ever been given by Merion?
If all Moriarty is doing is pointing out that the club cannot document and prove ALL of what took place there and with the participants given credit for creating the course, well that is definitely true of any club of that age. That's completely obvious to anyone who has ever tried to do architectural research on any club of that age. I really don't think any of us need a David Moriarty or anyone else to point that out to us. We who do this kind of indepth research have been aware of that kind of unfortunate fact of life and research as long as we've been doing it.
-
Patrick:
What we do have regarding the early architectural history of Merion is a report on what was done and how it was done and by whom. Like anything else with a club of that age it does not go into who did every single detail some on here may be demanding to know about, but what other club of that age has anything tht HAS EVER gone into that kind of documentary detail?
What we do have from Merion in that vein is particularly the report done on the creation of Merion by Hugh Wilson's brother, Alan in 1926 (according to him he wrote it for the first Merion history writer, William Philler).
You and David Moriarty may not be as aware of it as we are but Alan Wilson was there every step of the way as he was with the creation of Pine Valley. He wasn't on the Merion Construction Committee but he was the brother of the man who ran it and he was in business with him and obviously saw him and everything he was doing through this entire time perhaps more than anyone else would or could.
Now, if David Moriarty or anyone else simply wants to base his analysis and reinvestigation on the details of the creation of Merion and who was involved in it, including Macdonald and Whigam, by FIRST SUGGESTING OR IMPLYING that Alan Wilson and his report on the creation of Merion must have been biased or wrong in some way that effects or influences who is given credit and how in that report, then I can certainly tell you none of us here buy that line of reasoning and basis for analysis at all.
If he or anyone else is going to try to just slough off that report or dismiss the value of it or simply ignore it by suggesting that Alan was Hugh's brother or a member of Merion and for that reason or those reasons his report is necessarily suspect, then, again, we simply don't buy that at all and that will probably be our final word on this discussion. If he can give us some good and concrete reasons WHY anyone should consider what Alan said to be suspect for some reason then we would be willing to consider it. To date he has given no good reason other than to make unsupportable inferences that he was Hugh's brother or whatever. Until he can give some supportable reason to suspect the accuracy of Alan Wilson's report we see no reason not to accept the accuracy of it and we think Merion should too.
We stand by that report and also Hugh Wilson's to the extent it deals with architecture (the vast majority of Hugh's report was written only to chronicle the history of the AGRONOMY of Merion).
Nobody has given us any good reason not to stand by that report. To attempt to cast it and Merion's history into the context of some court of law "proof" test is really not appropriate or necessary in our opinion. No club and course of that age can stand up to that kind of scrutiny nor should one have to for obvious reasons---eg it was a long time ago and not everything has ever been retained with any club of that age.
With the "proof" modus operandi David Moriarty who I guess is a lawyer, is trying to overlay on this discussion was applied to any course or club it could call into question the accuracy of almost anything to do with architecture and who did it.
For our part, we do not see the necessity of this with Merion, particularly given the luck of having Alan Wilson's report, or any other club or course. What is the point really?
Again, for my part, for someone to make the case David Moriarty may be trying to make with Merion he must first cogently discredit the accuracy of AW's report and I don't think he will or can do that.
For Christ Sake, he hasn't even seen Alan Wilson's report in it entirety and it doesn't take a research rocket scientist to figure out what that means! ;)
-
Before we get off into another lengthy exercise of parsing words, trying to determine the meaning of "laid out" "constructed" "responsible for", "built" and host of other meaningless semantic dances, I thought it best to put together some of the words of the historic timeframe, as they were written.
It should be noted that speculation about the identify of "Joe Bunker" took place here recently, with everyone from Tillinghast to Wiliam Poultney Smith listed as possibilities, but it's clear from his volumnious writings for that paper that he had incredible insight into the dealings of the men of the Philadelphia School of Architecture and was clearly writing from the "inside".
It should also be noted that the writer William Evans was the head of the Green Committee at Country Club of Lansdowne, on the GAP Committee, a friend of Robert Lesley, Clarence Geist, Ellis Gimbel, Hugh Wilson, Tillinghast, and all the other major players of the time. He was another insider's insider.
I'm also thinking that we're being asked to believe that because a ship's manifest for Hugh Wilson's legendary pre-1912 trip cannot be found online 100 years later, that it didn't happen.
Interestingly, neither does George Crump's trip in 1910, although we're told that was due to a mispelling.
We're still waiting to hear why none of the 800+ "H. Wilson"'s who travelled from Britain between 1908 and 1912 are the correct one.
In that light of speculation, let me present the rest in their own words, as they were written back then;
Philly Inquirer – 9/15/12 – “Clubs & Clubmen” column
“Mr. Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the new course and helped largely in the planning of the holes.”
Philadelphia Public Ledger – 10/12/13 – William Evans
“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course. Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect. Those who have visited the new course have commented warmly on its construction.”
Philadelphia Public Ledger – 11/1/14 - William Evans
“Then comes Hugh I. Wilson of Merion, whose word ought to count for a great deal, for he laid out both the Merion courses and the Seaview links. He has this to say.. "
Philly Inquirer 12/06/14 – Joe Bunker
“Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned. He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “
Philly Inquirer 1/24/15 – Joe Bunker
“Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses…have laid out the golf course in Cobb’s Creek Park.”
Philadelphia Public Ledger – 1/31/15 – William Evans
“A Committee made up of Hugh Wilson, the man responsible for the two Merion and new Seaview courses…will aid the park engineers in laying out the course (at Cobb’s Creek)”.
Philly Inquirer 4/23/16 – Joe Bunker
“Nearly every hole on the course (Merion East) has been stiffened (for the US Am) 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 chairman of the Green Committee. These two men have given a lot of time and attention to the changes and improvements. Before anything was done to the course originally, Mr. Wilson visited every golf course of any note not only in Great Britain, but in this country as well, with the result that Merion’s East Course is the last word in golf course architecture. It has been improved each year until not it is almost perfect from a golf standpoint.
Philly Inquirer 1/14/17 – Billy Bunker
“Hugh Wilson built both the Merion courses and the course at Seaview.”
Philly Inquirer 1/28/17 – Billy Bunker
“Both the Merion Cricket Club courses were built under the direction of Hugh Wilson who also laid out the Seaview course.”
Philly Inquirer 4/22/17 – Billy Bunker
“An expert like Hugh Wilson, who built the two fine courses at Merion believes every club would have better putting greens if not for the craze for lightning-fast greens.
USGA Greens Section report – February 1925 (after Wilson’s death)
“The mature results of his studies in golf architecture are embodied in the East Course at Merion, which was remodeled under his direction in 1923-24. It is safe to say this his course displays in a superb way all the best ideas in recent golf course architecture along the lines of its American development. For a long time to come the East course will be a mecca to all serious students of golf architecture.”
George Thomas – Year unknown (quoted by Geoff Shackelford)
“I always considered Hugh Wilson of Merion, Pennsylvania as one of the best of our golf architects, professional or amateur (note the early need for distinction). He taught me many things at Merion and the Philadelphia Municipal (Cobb’s Creek) and when I was building my first California courses, he kindly advised me by letter when I wrote him concerning them.”
Geoff Shackelford – “The Captain”
“Thomas spent considerable time studying Hugh Wilson’s work during the construction of Merion Cricket Club’s East Course in 1912, its West Course in 1914, and at a municipal course in Philadelphia, now Cobb’s Creek.”
Golf Illustrated – July 20, 1934 – A.W. Tillinghast (a man who had been there since the beginning and witnessed the creation of Merion first-hand)
“There was peculiar pleasure in revisiting Merion after an interval of years for I have known the course since its birth. Yet, with it all, there was keen regret that my old friend Hugh Wilson had not lived to see such scenes as the National Open unfolded over the fine course that he loved so much. It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”
I would assure everyone that the context of each of the quoted articles is wholly consistent with the theme and message being presented here.
If anyone wants to see any of the articles in their entirety, I'm sure Joe Bausch can make that happen.
We're once again being asked to believe that men like Evans and Tillinghast and Smith who knew Wilson personally and were there at the inception had no idea what was going on, or that Hugh Wilson personally did nothing to disavow these rumors of both his golf architectural studies, his voyages, his knowledge, or his architectural achievements so as to be an implicit liar by omission.
That's serious stuff, so if that's the charges, and if that's what you claim to have evidence of counselor, then please put them out there.
Patrick/Dave,
All of these contemporaneous accounts are MORE than enough PROOF, up to and until indisputable evidence to the contrary is presented and proven to be true and conclusive.
How do you know the 1910 Manifest isn't him? You accept that George R. Crump is correct.
A piece of paper detailing a private vessel voyage from 1910, if such a thing even existed, isn't available to us online and yet you're ready to call all of these men liars posthumously?
That's a bit odd, don't you think?
-
"I think it's important to distinguish articles of faith from fact."
Shivas:
The fact remains using this modus operandi of "proof" David Moriarty, Pat and apparently you are, any of us could do the very same thing and probably to a much greater degree with any course or any architect in American history even remotely of the age of Merion.
I don't think this website and this thread's discussion participants should forget that or lose sight of that undeniable fact and if you don't know what I mean or we mean by that we would be glad to give you a laundry list of examples that would be miles long! ;)
For instance, how do you know, and how can you prove (the way some of you seem to be requiring "proof" with Merion ;) ) that anything C.B. Macdonald wrote about NGLA or any course he was involved with or Flynn wrote or Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Hunter or Ross wrote about any course or project with which they ever had to do is in way any more accurate or "Provable" than what Hugh Wilson and his brother Alan wrote about Merion? ;)
-
Here we go again.
What does built mean? Construct? Laid Out?
What does BEFORE mean?
I'm sure these men, ALL of whom KNEW Wilson personally, and were THERE, are better witnesses than this agenda driven timeline.
-
If Hugh Wilson did not go to the UK to study golf courses prior to the start of design and construction of Merion's 1912 course now known as the East, what exactly should we infer from that? Some of us are cautious about reading too much into such a revelation if it should prove true, although I do not think it can be as will be discussed below.
One idea, seemingly supported by David Moriarty and Pat Mucci, is that it would indicate Hugh Wilson must have had less to do with the initial design of Merion's 1912 course. Not only that, but a further conclusion put forth is that CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham must have had a greater role since they had recent experience with NGLA. There was a third man who visited with Macdonald and Whigham, was it Baker? I haven't seen his name mentioned in proposed attribution, I'm not sure why--probably because it isn't as good a story.
But what of the committee and Pickering that were there everyday working on the project. Why don't they consider a greater role for Pickering? For that matter, they don't consider Francis's reported role and the reminiscences of Hugh and Alan Wilson along with a wealth of contemporary newspaper accounts crediting Wilson and remarking about his trip to the UK before construction.
The written word is found independently in numerous sources that he did go before the start of construction. If someone counters that documentation, the burden of proof is theirs. It is nearly impossible to do so. If those that claim there is no solid evidence to prove Wilson traveling to study golf courses took place before 1912 wish to stake such a claim, they can only look for evidence that he did go prior to 1912. The one thing that can be proved is the null hypothesis that Wilson did not go to the UK prior to 1912. Only by proving the null hypothesis is wrong, that is finding information that he did go earlier, can you conclude anything. You cannot prove a negative.
Many of us believe that so far, the balance of evidence is towards Wilson going to the UK before construction. Is it conclusive? No, not yet. But frankly, there hasn't been a concerted effort to prove the notion either. That is the duty of those wishing to disprove the correct null hypothesis in this case.
Again, even if an exhaustive search proves fruitless, that doesn't mean he did not go earlier. If the doubt of his travels prior to construction become greater, that still doesn't result in a significant conclusion about design attribution without additional evidence. I suppose that is what David thinks he's found and what will be disseminated to us in time.
-
"The Bottom-Bottom Line: Thus, your question was just a big, fat redder-than-red red herring. ;D"
It is nothing of the kind Shivas. It is about as appropriate an analogy as is possible to produce regarding these Merion threads and any other golf course of that age in American history.
I think the time has come and is well gone when people like you can come up with the kind of tortured logic you often do and have anyone on here accept it with any kind of seriousness.
An example of that was your truly hilarious parsing of sentences and the words used in them by Hugh and Alan Wilson to try to "prove" what was meant by such as "we" and then "our".
Do you really expect anyone to take that seriously when you've never even seen the reports those men wrote in their entirety? ;)
-
Mike Cirba,
Some of your quotes contradict one another, and ONE is especially telling in that it differentiates between constructing a golf course and "laying it out" (read designing), and, it's your source.
In an earlier post it appeared that quote after quote was piggybacked on an earlier, quote, which, if it's proven to be incorrect, would make all subsequent quotes tumble like a house of cards in a tornado.
TEPaul,
I don't want to get ahead of David, and therefore, won't address your post,
But, you continue to speculate as to the subject of his premise.
Stop conjecturing.
In addition, to present Alan Wilson's report, as if it's infallible, or to assume that no liberties or embellishment exists within it, is naive.
Let David present his premise, then let's examine it.
-
"TEPaul,
I don't want to get ahead of David, and therefore, won't address your post,
But, you continue to speculate as to the subject of his premise.
Stop conjecturing."
Patrick:
I should and I will even if there is absolutely no harm in speculating what he may say. If we are completely wrong about what we think he plans to write, then so be it, we will just deal with what he does write when he produces it.
"In addition, to present Alan Wilson's report, as if it's infallible, or to assume that no liberties or embellishment exists within it, is naive."
Patrick:
At this point, I don't think any of us want to play the kind of word games and the kind of games of argumentation with you that you constantly play on this website, and for what really?
We have never presented Alan Wilson's report as INFALLIBLE. None of us ever said anything about the fact that we consider it to be infallible. So, one certainly does need to ask you, at this point, why you say that? The time for you or Moriarty or MacWood or anyone else to keep misquoting us and misconstruing things we have ever said is past now.
We look at Alan Wilson's report as one of the best and most accurate chronicles of how a course of that age was created and by whom then any document of its kind involving a golf course of that age. If you know of a better one for another golf course of that age then show me what it is.
You seem to suggest we're naive? Naive for what reason exactly? Would it be that you think we're naive for not immediately suspecting and concluding that Alan Wilson was some kind of a liar, for being some kind of a purposeful distorter of the truth for some reason such as to glorify his dead brother and his committee at the expense of some other participant such as Macdonald?
I would suggest to you that if he did that when he wrote that report and he was to any significant degree inaccurate or incorrect there were a ton of people around and reading that report who had been a direct part of that entire process that most definitely would've wondered why he did something like that and obviously would have corrected him.
For you or Moriarty or MacWood or anyone else to suggest otherwise would be without any question at all the same thing as you all implying and suggesting that there had been and perhaps continuous to be some kind of massive conspiracy in this town to purposefully hide the truth for some ulterior motive.
I can tell you that some have implied that about Merion as well as some other courses around here including Pine Valley. MacWood did that. It seems Moriarty did that and now you seem to be doing that. This isn't some fanciful notion or defensive notion on my part as the threads on this website very much are the evidence that they did imply that on a number of occassions.
While that may've been a result of the heat of argumentation I can tell you with assurance suggestions like that are truly bullshit and they are that to such an extent it isn't necessary for any of us to even continue to respond to them.
No, Patrick, we do not claim any of those reports are infallible. The reason we support their accuracy is because every other bit of information we've had basically corroborates them and also we have never seen anything at all in them to lead us to believe we should do otherwise than to consider them accurate.
If someone else has something that shows they are inaccurate, in any way, then let them produce it and we'd be happy to consider what it means. To date, noone has ever done that and we seriously doubt anyone ever will be able to do that.
-
I can not believe that the debaters of the historical record of Wilson's movements keep fishing in the same old fished out waters.
No matter what side of the debate you gents are on, the arguement keeps circling back upon itself with the same known cites. To date, the version told by the traditionalists (if I may call them that) who use all the contemporaneous to the times, and recent reflections of the founding of Merion, are the debaters in the lead, IMHO.
All, are waiting, now with a bar of proof set quite high, for David to reveal what else he has that throws a chink in the armour or the traditionalists views on HIW, and Merion's creation.
If I see another manifest, I think I'm going to puke.
Answer me these small questions:
Was HIW an ardent and competitive or active amatuer golfer during these times?
Was he known to play and compete in various tournaments or golf outtings of the day?
Did any of the clubs where he might compete keep records of entrants, and scoring?
If HIW travelled to study the courses of GB, is it possible if not probable that he would also play, and compete if there were some tournament action going on?
Has anyone bothered to look for guest book sign-ins (if they possibly exist).
I have seen even in the scrap book of Old Tom Morris, where tournaments recorded players from the U.S. who competed, where they were from and what their score results were. It seems to me likely the Scots or Brits would have recorded in their papers if a guy like HIW was in a local tournament, or even if he socially visited the club. It seemed they did for others.
Debaters, and masterdebaters, please fish in new documentary waters for your proofs. This other stuff has gotten way past its expiration date.
-
If Hugh Wilson did not go to the UK to study golf courses prior to the start of design and construction of Merion's 1912 course now known as the East, what exactly should we infer from that? Some of us are cautious about reading too much into such a revelation if it should prove true, although I do not think it can be as will be discussed below.
One idea, seemingly supported by David Moriarty and Pat Mucci, is that it would indicate Hugh Wilson must have had less to do with the initial design of Merion's 1912 course. Not only that, but a further conclusion put forth is that CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham must have had a greater role since they had recent experience with NGLA. There was a third man who visited with Macdonald and Whigham, was it Baker? I haven't seen his name mentioned in proposed attribution, I'm not sure why--probably because it isn't as good a story.
But what of the committee and Pickering that were there everyday working on the project. Why don't they consider a greater role for Pickering? For that matter, they don't consider Francis's reported role and the reminiscences of Hugh and Alan Wilson along with a wealth of contemporary newspaper accounts crediting Wilson and remarking about his trip to the UK before construction.
The written word is found independently in numerous sources that he did go before the start of construction. If someone counters that documentation, the burden of proof is theirs. It is nearly impossible to do so. If those that claim there is no solid evidence to prove Wilson traveling to study golf courses took place before 1912 wish to stake such a claim, they can only look for evidence that he did go prior to 1912. The one thing that can be proved is the null hypothesis that Wilson did not go to the UK prior to 1912. Only by proving the null hypothesis is wrong, that is finding information that he did go earlier, can you conclude anything. You cannot prove a negative.
Many of us believe that so far, the balance of evidence is towards Wilson going to the UK before construction. Is it conclusive? No, not yet. But frankly, there hasn't been a concerted effort to prove the notion either. That is the duty of those wishing to disprove the correct null hypothesis in this case.
Again, even if an exhaustive search proves fruitless, that doesn't mean he did not go earlier. If the doubt of his travels prior to construction become greater, that still doesn't result in a significant conclusion about design attribution without additional evidence. I suppose that is what David thinks he's found and what will be disseminated to us in time.
Wayne
That's absolutely correct, and sums up everything very well.
The funny, if irritating part of this, is that guys like Shivas and Patrick are all too accepting of information on a manifest that is clearly wrong (like wrong first names, wrong middle initials, wrong marital status) when it suits their purposes, yet neither of them are willing to consider the obvious implications of their willful leaps of logic, and that is;
If Hugh Wilson travelled alone to Europe in 1910, and the shipping company similarly made a mistake with his middle initial, as they did with Crump in 1910, or as they did with Crump's travelling companions first name, or as they did with WIlson's marital status in 1912,
then we would NEVER be able to produce the proof they are supposedly looking for.
If Hugh Wilson travelled with his family on a private vessel before 1912, with friends like former Presidents and Captains of Industr, or travelled alone on a similar vessel
Then we would NEVER be able to produce the proof they are supposedly looking for.
It makes you wonder how much, if any, work they have done to actually find proof of Wilson travelling before 1912. Or, would they rather try to bolster a negative argument by making the specious and wholly inconclusive argument that unless we find it, it doesn't exist. ::)
-
Shivas,
Are you talking about the unmarried Hugh Wilson listed on that May 1912 manifest, or the one from Merion who was in Philadelphia in March of that year who was married with two young daughters?
Are you somehow trying to refute contemporaneous accounts, and yes, I used that word again knowing you object, but this isn't men who were trying to tell the story years later who weren't there in the first place, or didn't know Hugh WIlson, or Chaz Macdonald, or HJ Whigham
...these were men who were there through the whole thing who then wrote down what happened RIGHT AFTER IT WAS A HUGE SUCCESS and they gave credit where it was due.
Men like Tillinghast, and possibly Travis, and William Evans, and Alan Wilson.
But, yes...it was all a conspiracy, designed to minimize the role of Charles Macdonald, who knew so much on his own about architecture prior to Devereux Emmett hand-holding, sketching, going overseas, and helping him EVERY STEP of the way through the design and creation of NGLA that he single-handedly designed that wonderful, visionary piece of architectural work known as the first Chicago Golf Club. ::) ;) ;D
-
And Shivas, in light of that architectural masterpiece, the fact that Merion has OB on both sides should prove beyond any doubt that it clearly wasn't Charles Macdonald who did the routing! ;D
-
I went back through that old original thread of Tom MacWood's today, and I think it's getting very interesting to view the timelines, particularly around the two Macdonald visits.
In November 14th of 1910 The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Merion had purchased the 130 or so acres in question on which to build a new course, and another 220 acres were purchased by a land development company to build large lots/houses to sweeten the deal.
The article also mentions that Mr. Horatio Lloyd, prior to the purchase of the ground, had the property examined by CB Macdonald, HJ Whigham, and HH Barker, the "well-known golf players", "all of whom have pronounced that the ground can be transformed into a golf course the equal of Myopia, Boston, or Garden City, Long Island." It's interesting that there is no mention of NGLA, and it's also very clear that there is nothing concrete about what is to be built but very vague platitudes at this juncture.
For instance, the article goes on to say, "work will be commenced at once (in December??)...and no effort or expense will be spared by the Merion Cricket Club in the construction of this course, while ever effort will be made to have this the leading championship course in America."
It is also interesting that the article mentions that the sellers received information "about sixteen months ago (July/Aug 1909) that the Merion Cricket Club desired to procure a permanent golf course"..on larger grounds than what they had been leasing.
In December of 1910, Tillinghast, writing as "Hazard" in American Golfer mentioned, "Mr. R.E. Griscom (later a member of the Hugh Wilson-led Construction Committee - comment mine), had as his guests Mr. C.B. Macdonald and Mr. H.J. Whigham, who have been so prominent in the building of the National Golf Links, at Shinnecock. Both men pronounced the new land to be admirably suited to the requirements of the game of today."
So, by the end of 1910, we now know exactly what Macdonald and Whigham had done to date. They visited, and they pronounced, in very, very, very general terms.
The humorous thing is that the land the Merion course is on is certainly no better than any of thousands of acres of surrounding Philly countryside, particularly at that time. It also had MAJOR disadvantages. It was oddly L-shaped, it had heavy clay soil, it wasn't wider at any point than a medium length par four, it was intersected right through the middle by a public road, and it had a big ugly quarry up in the northeast quadrant. You have to wonder what these guys were smoking, or whether they had simply paid lip service. One can easily imagine both men walking away snickering to themselves, "oh yes...this should any moment supplant NGLA as the finest championship course in America!" ;)
more to follow...
-
It is now April, 1911, and it has been a long, very harsh winter since the purchase of the new Merion property.
Tillinghast, reporting in the May issue of American Golfer, states;
"The lingering of winter in the lap of spring has seriously interfered with the opening of courses, none of which have been really fit during the month of March, and indeed the middle of April finds them all very backward.
So, we now can very reasonably assume that nothing much in the way of construction at Merion was able to take place between November 1910 and what is now the middle of April, as Tillinghast writes.
Yet, in the same issue, Tillinghast reports;
"The new course at Merion is nearing completion in the planning."
So, we can now surmise with conviction that what was meant by the contention that work would begin immediately (as reported locally in the Philly Inquirer, mid November of 1910) is that the initial work involved the planning, or the laying out of the golf course!", as is the logical first step on virtually every golf course project before and since.
Who would have done this important work at that time? Were Macdonald and Whigham or Barker onsite through this long winter working through how to route the golf course?
Were they the ones working with maps, and surveyors sketches, or doing surveys or topographical mapping?
Again, in the same article, Tillinghast really provides us with the answer;
"During the month (April, 1912), Mr. Charles B. Macdonald and Mr. H.J. Whigham, who have been aiding the Committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as greatly pleased over the prospects. Mr. Macdonald said in his opinion seven of the holes equalled any in this country, and as our first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction."
It is fundamentally critical to read this account in the proper context, and I believe that to do otherwise is responsible for much of the confusion that has occurred on these threads.
First of all, as of this juncture, there was simply NO GOLF COURSE for them to look at, as construction had yet to begin!! ;D The fact that Tillinghast says Macdonald is pleased at the prospects tells us clearly that there was nothing yet there to see on the ground...only future plans.
What Macdonald and Whigham DID view during that time, and for what seems to be the very FIRST time, were THE PLANS that had been created over the long winter by the Committee, and they viewed those plans in the context of being there on the ground and seeing what the Committee has envisioned and drawn up.
After doing so, they once again Pronounced, that "seven of the holes will be the equal of any in this country..."...blah, blah, blah.
Of course, this was pure hyperbole, and based strictly on looking at plans and comparing them visually to the ground on which they YET were to be built, starting that spring, and continuing until the opening of the course a full 17 months later.
more to come...
-
"All they do is recite what's already known: that Wilson went to Europe before 9/15/12, the date of the first such hearsay reporting."
Shivas:
None of us now need to depend on some newspaper accounts that Wilson went abroad in 1912 sometime before 9/15/12. Perhaps you missed it but the other day I produced proof from Wilson as well as his commttee member Francis that Wilson took a 'hurred trip abroad at some point between his last letter from Philadelphia on March 1, 1912 to Russell Oakley in Washington D.C His next letter to Russell Oakley was on May 21, 1912. That does not mean that was the extent of time he was abroad it only shows the time-frame he was not writing letters to Russell Oakley from Philadelphia. He may've gone in April for all those letters show and he probably came back from Cherbourg on that ship we have the manifest from on May 1, 1912. We don't even know that he went to GB during that trip. The fact he returned from Cherbourg France may indicate he was only on the Continent. Furthermore we don't even know from those "agronomy" letters that he went over there for architecture or for Merion. He may've gone for business or some other reason.
-
RJ Daley said:
"I can not believe that the debaters of the historical record of Wilson's movements keep fishing in the same old fished out waters.
No matter what side of the debate you gents are on, the arguement keeps circling back upon itself with the same known cites. To date, the version told by the traditionalists (if I may call them that) who use all the contemporaneous to the times, and recent reflections of the founding of Merion, are the debaters in the lead, IMHO."
RJ:
As I said to you when you expressed that same sentiment about a week or more ago---I could not agree with you more about your perplexity on how these debaters are continuously looking at trips and ship's manifests---eg what you called 'the same old waters.'
As much as both sides have been asked what they think that actually means about who did what at Merion (certainly as refected by the two Wilson reports which logically would be the best and most direct source of information) they continuously neglect to say.
I should also ask along about now if anyone----eg either side, will be disappointed to eventually learn that the thing that very likely concerned all those men back then including Macdonald with his NGLA and Wilson with his Merion and even Macdonald with his advice and counsel to Merion was probably vastly more on the subject of AGRONOMY and not as much as every one seems to expect on the subject of ARCHITECTURE! ;)
When everyone finally learns what clearly seems to be the truth about that aspect it really will be pretty ironic, don't you think? ;)
-
There is no evidence that has ever been presented to suggest that Macdonald or Whigham or Barker ever came back after these two visits. The only other reference to Macdonald in the Merion history is the mention of Wilson and the Committee going out to Long Island to see NGLA for two days and talk about architecture, but accounts of that visit place it in 1910.
As far as any additional evidence of their involvement, none has been presented to date.
The two visits of Macdonald and Whigham to Merion, now seen in their proper historical context, should provide very clear and concise understanding of what exactly they did, and more importantly, what they didn't do.
Given Macdonald's standing in the game, as the first US Champion, and as the "builder" of NGLA, it was such a major event when he came to visit a course that it was reported in the local press, as well as the major golf publications. He was a celebrity, and he both blessed the land that the committee had been looking at for 16 months and he blessed the plans once they were determined.
All of this is completely consistent with ALL of the reporting of the time, including the Alan Wilson report, which mentions the two visits by Macdonald, and all the other gracious accounts from Lesley and "Far and Sure" mentioning that Charlie had been a big help in "advising the Committee", but we now know that this entailed 1) Blessing the site prior to purchase and 2) Reviewing the layout plans of the Committee prior to construction in April and 3) Entertaining Wilson and the Committee for 2 days at NGLA .
It is also completely consisent with the timelines as addressed in the Merion history books and the accounts of what took place when.
In his account of the history of Merion, Desmond Tolhurst wrote;
"In 1909, the golfers of the Club formed the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association to examine the problem presented by the new ball. (this is consistent with the Philly Inquirer article about "16 months", prior to Nov 1910) The Association eventually decided to aquire an L-shaped, 120-acre tract....on both sides of Ardmore Avenue."
"It also appointed a committee to lay out the new course. The chairman was Hugh Wilson, who was to be the course architect."
"The following year, the Committee sent Wilson to Britain to study the best courses over there. After seven months abroad, playing coures and studying their design, he returned with a pile of notes, supplemented by surveyor's maps of great holes and his own sketches."
"Construction of the new course began in 1911. (Spring, as shown above) On September 12, 1912, the old Haverford course was closed and on September 14, the new East course and clubhouse opened to members."
After re-reading this it occurs to me that it is likely that the "surveyors maps of great holes" (interestingly CONTRASTED with the disclaimer "and his own sketches") were those drawn by Devereux Emmett, and it is likely that he did indeed bring these back from his visit to Macdonald at NGLA. However, this account seems to make very, very clear that he brought back MUCH more than just the Emmett drawings...he brought back his own notes and his own sketches. It seems that the writer is clearly stressing the difference here.
But, that is not all...far from it.
The Merion Cricket Golf Club Association Committee that was formed in 1909 with the express purpose of finding a site on which to build a new course was led by Radman Griscom, as mentioned above but also included...Alan Wilson and Hugh Wilson. BOTH men were there right from the beginning, and part of the VERY Committee that tasked Hugh Wilson to go overseas for the purpose of studying golf courses in 1910.
When industry titans like Radman Griscom and Robert Lesley asked you to do something, the right response was "how soon?".
Once the land was procured, this SAME Association (that along with the Wilson Brothers, Griscom, and Lesley also included Charlton Yarnall and Walter Stephenson) next appointed a committee to lay out the new course. It appointed Hugh Wilson as Committee Chairman.
Tom Paul mentioned earlier how Committee member and Enginner Richard Francis's account of the origins of Merion talked about spending countless hours and days ploughing over maps and painstaking, fastidious surveying.
It is now clear that this all began during that long winter, as did the "planning", or laying out of the holes.
From a story by Gary Galyean that ran in the 2005 US Amateur program;
"From the beginning, the L-shape of the Ardmore property presented some routing problems. Late one night, Mr. Wilson's fellow committeeman Richard Francis found a solution for adding the East course's last five holes. Mr. Francis later recalled, in 1950, the land exchange that produced America's most important series of closing holes."
""I was looking at a map of the property one night when I had an idea. Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr. Lloyd on the telephone, found he had gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him. The idea was this: The Club had some property west of the present course, which did not fit in at all with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some use?""
""Mr. Lloyd agreed. The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long - the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee. Within a day or two, the quarryman had his drills up where the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so that the green could be built as it is today.""
"Construction began in the early spring of 1911."
It is clear from Mr. Francis's direct, first-hand account as a member of Hugh Wilson's Committee charged with laying out and building the Merion course that the time he spent with surveyors maps, and drawings, and all the rest happened AFTER the property was first purchased in late 1910, and BEFORE the construction started in the spring of 1911.
Charley Macdonald's visits to bless the property as suitable for golf in the fall of 1910, and his subsequent visit AFTER the plans were clearly finished in April of 1911 are the only accounts of his involvement with Merion.
Is it any wonder that during the rest of his own lifetime, as Merion went on to become one of the top courses in the country and host of US Amateur tournaments he uttered not a single word complaining that he wasn't given proper credit?
It makes one wonder why some suddenly feel the need to try and advance the idea that he was slighted in his own time, and beyond. He was anything but a wallflower, so it seems obvious that had any such improper neglect or ignoring of his real contributions to the creation of Merion had actually occured, the world would have certainly heard about it, loud and clear.
-
At this juncture, and with the understanding of those timelines, I think it's important to go back and re-visit the writings of "Far and Sure" in American Golfer that I mentioned earlier.
I had speculated that perhaps "Far and Sure" was Tillinghast, but Phil Young strongly disagreed and mentioned that he thought it was Walter Travis. I'm still very uncertain who it was and might examine that further if need be. However, let's look again at what he wrote.
In the October 1912 edition of "American Golfer" he states;
"The new eighteen hole course of the Merion Cricket Club, which has been under construction for more than a year was thrown open to members of the club on Saturday, Sept. 14..."
"The new course...was constructed under the direction of Messrs. Hugh I. Wilson, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Griscom, R.S. Francis, and H. Toulmin...."
"Some of the famous holes abroad have been reproduced and the course abounds in water and road hazards, although many of the pits and traps remain to be built."
Then, in the January 1913 edition of the same magazine, "Far and Sure" attempts a fuller review of what he's seen at Merion. Interestingly, the pictures accompanying the article show the trees are completely full of leaves. Anyone familiar with weather patterns in Philadelphia would recognize that this means that "Far and Sure" had played the course sometime between when the course opened in mid-September 1912 and the end of October, and likely would have written the article at that time, which then made it into the mid-winter issue in January.
It is somewhat astounding at how unfinished the course still appears at this juncture, but that seems also confirmed by an American Cricketer account by Tillinghast around the same time (has anyone found that one yet??) where he is supposed to (according to an account of the article by Jim Finegan) have pointed out that comparatively few bunkers were yet in place. Tillinghast apparently ended the article by writing;
"I believe that Merion will have (emphasis mine) a real championship course, and Philadelphia has been crying out for one for many years. The construction committee, headed by Hugh I. Wilson, has been thorough in its methods and deserves the congratulations of all golfers."
Whoever, he was, "Far and Sure" seemed to have much the same impression as Tillinghast on the unfinished state of Merion upon opening. He wrote;
"Ever since golf was introduced in Philadelphia, the city has been in great need of a course such as Merion has produced, or, I should say, is producing, for the work is still in it's early stages.
It is important to note that it is now a FULL SEVENTEEN MONTHS since Macdonald stepped on the property to see the layout plans that the Committee devised and the course is still far from finished.
Far and Sure still notes Macdonald's contributions, if for no other reason than they seem to be personal friends, or at least golf aquaintances;
"I had heard much of the plans and reports of the progressing work, but not until a month ago did I find the opportunity of seeing it. Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way (interesting to note the way he words that compliment almost exactly like Robert Lesley and Alan Wilson) told me that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen, but every new course is "one of the best in the country" and one must see to believe after trying it out."
So, what do we know about "Far and Sure" at this point?
We know he knows Charles Macdonald enough to have conversed with him about golf.
We know he had heard much of the plans and reports of the progressing work at Merion.
We also know that he was NEVER there during the design and construction phases of the golf course, and that this was his initial visit to the property.
Despite the somewhat early stages of course development, "Far and Sure" continues;
"Everything indicated careful, intelligent preparation and painstaking development."
"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson."
So, despite a few folks here recently seeming to want to split infinitives again about the meaning of "Construction Committee", Far and Sure points out very clearly that this group is tasked with the DESIGN of the course, and creating the internal strategies and problems, and what's more, they are the ones who "conceived" of the holes and their challenges.
Far and Sure continues;
"Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used."
Let's examine this statement for a moment. Far and Sure doesn't seem to be quite an insider on the players at Merion proper. At the time he played Merion for the first time and wrote this the leaves were still on the trees, and it was very likely to have been mid-September, or actually STILL summer of 1912. We also know from what Tom Paul found about the dates and postmarks of the Hugh Wilson letters to Piper/Oakley that he could NOT have gone to Europe in the summer of 1911, as I had speculated earlier. So, what does this leave us with?
1) Not being an expert on what took place at Merion prior to his visit, he could have made a mistake and not known it was actually TWO summers prior in 1910.
2) He could have been refering to the trip that David speculates was made in the spring of 1912, which we now know, if it took place, happened sometime after early March 1912 and ended May 1st. We also know that on that voyage, Wilson reportedly had a ticket for the Titanic, which went down on April 15th, but that he got somehow delayed. Does anyone really believe that this trip, that might have been as short as a few weeks, was the one that the Merion committee sent him on to study all the great courses abroad, not only those in Scotland and England, but also according to David, France as well? That seems to me to be preposterous. Besides, if this was the trip that Far and Sure was talking about I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have said "summer" if the trip happened in the frigid March/April timeframe.
3) He could have been wrong and Wilson never went overseas to study golf courses. That seems unlikely given all of the accounts including this one, but it makes absolutely no sense that the Committee would not have sent him prior to March/April 1912, and then only for a few weeks, and after the course had been laid out, as has been offered as the new version of the truth. If Wilson never travelled before that short trip in 1912, as has been contended, then it's just as likely he never went at all.
In any case, "Far and Sure" does seem to have learned a bit on his visit about what Wilson and his Committee have been striving for on various holes. He goes on;
"For example, an attempt to reproduce the Eden green at St. Andrews has been made at the fifteenth and, in my opinion, it has resulted in one of the few failures...."
"Many of the imported ideas of hazard formation are good, and the grassy hollows of Mid-Surrey have been well introduced. On some of the sand mounds I noticed the growing of something which looked suspiciously like the bents of Le Touquet." ;D
"However, I think that the very best holes at Merion are those which are original, without any attempt to closely follow anything but the obvious."
The full American Golfer article, including the pictures that show the time of year from the leaves on the trees and the clothing of the golfers can be found at the following link;
Please judge for yourselves
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1913/ag93m.pdf
-
Mike Cirba said:
"They visited, and they pronounced, in very, very, very general terms.
Shivas responded:
"See, Mike, when you draw conclusions like that, I really have to wonder about your logic. Two guys wrote two things that indicate two things that CMB and his buddies did, and you conclude that that's all they did.
Mike went to church this morning. Mike went to the grocery store this afternoon. Therefore, that's all Mike did today."
Shivas:
There's another off-the-wall analogy on your part that's not applicable to the subject at hand here.
Let's say C.B. Macdonald spent a day or even two here in Nov. 1910 and again in April 1911. Hugh and Alan Wilson probably did neglect to report ALL that C.B did that day and they probably neglected to report it on purpose such as "Charlie got a handful of hookers on Wednesday night and perhaps again on Thursday night and it seemed he got pretty well drunk with them and pretty well laid too."
Again, nice analogy counselor!
"Objection, your Honor, Shivas' analogy completely lacks relevance to the case---eg Macdonald's part in Merion."
Judge: "Objection sustained!"
:P ;)
-
MikeC:
I agree with you---I think "Far and Sure" is Tillinghast.
-
David,
Your missing the timeline.
Wilson went abroad in 1910, before the property was purchased and work was to begin.
The rest of what you wrote is simply trying to mislead the audience and blow smoke.
You are holding a pair of threes. ;)
-
"Tom, once again you miss the point. ;D"
Shivas:
Perhaps I did miss your point. It's not hard to do as it is often either irrelevant or inapplicable to the subject of the discussions of some of these threads. ;)
Again, one point you made will always amuse me. It was the one you informed us with your sentence parsing skills that H. Wilson was referring to the Merion Committee when he used the word "we" and yet he wasn't referring to the committee when he used the word "our". ??? ::)
That's a pretty neat trick of yours, Shivas, considering you've never read Hugh Wilson's report. :o
Let me ask you something Shiv. Is it something one learns in law school that if and when you say something in court and it's clear that noone, including the judge and jury believes a word of it that one should just stick to one's guns anyway? Perhaps they teach you that so it can go into the court record and at some point down the line you can just take it out of context and pertend that you actually made some relevant point.
-
"Yet another fallacious conclusion. I'd be writing the exact same thing if it was just you and me talking. Thus, your conclusion that I'm trying to mislead is false. Of course, even if it weren't, it's faulty because you don't have a basis for drawing it. ;D"
MikeC:
Do you believe that last statement?!? What a bunch of garbage. Do some of these lawyers think people actually believe what they're saying simply because they're talking? :P
You know what we ought to do with Shivas, MikeC? We should take him to see Barry B. Barry wouldn't just throw him out of his office, he'd probably throw him out of the window of his 10th floor office!
-
Shivas,
So the architect, who was on the committee, was sent to Europe in 1910, before the land was purchased. Thus, he was unable to see the land before he started learning over there. All because two titans of industry, not to be denied, decided to send their chosen architect to Europe before he saw the land they wanted him to build on?
And this makes sense to you? ;)
And this architect, on the committee, didn't say "hey guys, don't you think it'd be a good idea if you're going to double-task me, that I see the land we're going to build on first, before I go, so I know what'll work on our land?"
That last bit is the worst line of reasoning I have read on these 95 pages of Merion threads...I am impressed.
-
"So the architect, who was on the committee, was sent to Europe in 1910, before the land was purchased. Thus, he was unable to see the land before he started learning over there. All because two titans of industry, not to be denied, decided to send their chosen architect to Europe before he saw the land they wanted him to build on?"
Shivas:
Look, if you're going to try to discuss this subject seriously at least try to learn some of the facts surrounding Merion instead of just playing word and logic games with some of us. The land that Merion sits on and more was purchased in June 1909. The Merion Cricket Club Golf Association purchased a part of it in late 1910. Believe me, Hugh Wilson and his committee of Merion members knew that land for well over a year before since the people who purchased it were all his clubmates.
-
"That last bit is the worst line of reasoning I have read on these 95 pages of Merion threads...I am impressed."
Sully:
It's not just the worst line of reasoning, it's just another example by Shivas, that like a number of people on these Merion threads, basically they don't know shit about the details of the entire history of Merion and they probably never will.
But yet, for some odd reason, they think it's appropriate that they reinterpret it to set its historical record straight. ::)
-
"Yeah, it's a neat trick. Learned it from priests and nuns a long, long time ago. At "our" school, "we" worked on this stuff all the time."
Well, thank God Hugh Wilson didn't learn your 'neat trick'. Apparently they didn't teach it when he went to Princeton! ;)
Furthermore, maybe now is not the best time to brag about things like the "neat tricks" you learned from a bunch of priests and nuns a long, long time ago since most of their charges seem to be saying too many of them were a bunch of cruel perverts.
Shivas, I hate to say this about what you say on here most of the time but the more you talk on here the more you prove the adage----"if you give him enough rope he will hang himself everytime."
-
Jeez Guys, is this matter so pressing that you can't wait to tear down my IMO until I actually post it?
How can any of you expect to keep an open-mind when you are already refuting and discounting an essay you have never seen?
____________________
Dick the Decider,
I am losing before I say anything? I thought that only happened with my wife!
________________________
Mike,
I guess you figure I have had enough space?
Sheesh.
-
"Jeez Guys, is this matter so pressing that you can't wait to tear down my IMO until I actually post it?
How can any of you expect to keep an open-mind when you are already refuting and discounting an essay you have never seen?"
David:
Don't worry about it. You should actually be thanking us for all this. It's obviously continuing to supply you with information you may never have known and you can actually use it to tailor your assumptions and conclusions accordingly in your IMO piece.
Just look at all this as a form of something like legal "discovery".
;)
-
RJ Daley,
Don't worry about that, it's being taken care of.
That's one of the things delaying the presentation.
Fact checking.
David Moriarty must be chuckling at all the speculation and pursuit of false leads.
Mike Cirba,
Why are you blindly accepting reports that conflict with themselves ?
Shivas,
All will be explained in good time.
I'm as surprised by the illogical thought patterns and conclusions as you are.
TEPaul, Mike Cirba and others.
You're like the three blind men examining the elephant.
One has hold of his tusk and decrees that an elephant is a mollusk.
The other has hold of his ear and decrees that an elephant is a large leaf like plant.
The third has hold of it's trunk and decrees that an elephant is a serpent.
Individually, and COLLECTIVELY, they haven't got a clue as to what constitutes an elephant.
And, so it is with those attempting to decree what David Moriarty will present.
And, the funny thing is... not only are they decreeing what he will present, they're offering refutations of a premise not yet presented.
This is very funny.
-
Mike (& others),
Regarding the identity of "Far and Sure" and whether he was Tilly, in the June 1911 issue of the American Golfer, the column "Eastern Pennsylvania Notes" is authored by "Far and Sure" and 5 pages later the column "Middle Atlantic Notes" is authored by "Hazard."
If Tilly had written both he would have had both columns together rather than separate...
-
MikeC:
You know what we ought to do with Shivas, MikeC? We should take him to see Barry B. Barry wouldn't just throw him out of his office, he'd probably throw him out of the window of his 10th floor office!
Tom,
This is amusing to say the least. ;D
I put together a thread, which really attempts to timeline exactly what is known to date, based on all of the historical accounts that have surfaced, and I somehow manage to bring first Shivas, and then David, and finally Patrick out of the woodwork in a panic.
I think they doth protest too much! ;)
Either that or I've hit very close to the mark. ;D
The funny thing is, that they claim that this is somehow put out there to refute David's new evidence and theories when he has yet to present either.
I think the only mention of David in what I wrote tonight is saying that I believe he is claiming that Hugh Wilson's only visit to Europe happened in 1912, and that he went to France during that time, as well, and I'm suggesting that trip based on what else we know seems to be a preposterously short amount of time to visit, play, and study all the great courses of Europe!
David,
This was neither an incivil attack on you, or your theories, as they have yet to be presented.
It was an attempt to look at the timeline based on what we've learned since we last debated these points, what's been uncovered by guys like Joe Bausch during that period, and see how it all fits together.
You may very well have some new evidence that would cause me to reconsider, or even reject what I've just put together here. As I mentioned earlier, I'm open to that possibility and look forward to seeing what you have new to offer.
However, based on what we know to date, it seems that it's less of a "puzzle" than an open-and-shut case.
The jury is still awaiting the prosecution's case, however...
-
Patrick:
Don't worry about elephants and tusks and such and all the speculation. I have the distinct feeling when this "white paper" finally does come out the Philly contingent won't need to say much more than "The Defense Rests!" :(
-
I have to put my faith in the articles/report written at the time. I figure anything else is self-defeating. If I'm not to accept at face value what the newpaper boys were writing in the early 1910s and what Alan Wilson wrote in 1916, what AM I to accept? If any ONE contemporaneous document is deemed suspect, aren't ALL documents similarly suspect (ship manifests included)? And if not, aren't we're just playing a speculative game of character analysis - this man's word is IN and that man's word is OUT because we say so, or because we think to know better. I'd even buy into that (a little) if I thought we were wise enough to judge. But I just don't think we're any smarter or more sophisticated or more honest than those who came before us.
Peter
-
I have to put my faith in the articles/report written at the time. I figure anything else is self-defeating. If I'm not to accept at face value what the newpaper boys were writing in the early 1910s and what Alan Wilson wrote in 1916, what AM I to accept? If any ONE contemporaneous document is deemed suspect, aren't ALL documents similarly suspect (ship manifests included)? If not, aren't we're playing a speculative game of character analysis - this man's word is IN and that man's word is OUT because we say so, or because we know better. I'd even buy into that (a little) if I thought we were wise enough to judge. But I just don't think we're any smarter or more sophisticated or more honest than those who came before us.
Peter
Peter,
You are most perceptive.
Fellows like Shivas and David who create doubt and confusion for a living (sorry fellas, but that's part of your jobs) would have us believe that all of the locals who knew Hugh Wilson and the committee, all the other golfers in the region, all the other golfers in the country, friends, and families, were somehow in some giant conspiracy to debunk the public and minimize the role that Charles Macdonald had in the creation of Merion. They are telling us that accounts of men like Tillinghast, and William Evans...guys who were there and knew all these players personally, were somehow confused, or worse yet, slanted. They are telling us that Hugh Wilson himself was not a man of honor and achievement, as has been the record for the past 100 years, but was instead a liar and a scoundrel, who saw glowing reports of the glories of his work in his own lifetime which he knew to be untrue, yet took no steps to counter them or correct the record.
When you think about it, the allusion of what's been presented so far is beyond reasonable or even silly-putty-stretched credulity. It's as if the Warren Commission asked us to believe that the Mafia, CIA, Soviet Union, Marilyn Monroe, and the Louisiana underworld all conspired together to off JFK. Worse yet, unlike the JFK conspiratorialists, they are asking us to believe all this happened with Oswald, Ruby, and JFK still all alive for the next 15 years!
Even Oliver Stone wouldn't try to sell us that one. ;D
-
God-damnit to HELL!!
I just got an advance copy of David Moriarty's "White Paper", and we all really have been speculating up the wrong flagpole here.
Moriarty's God-damned "White Paper" takes the side of Joshua Crane in a massive REINTERPRETATION of the great "Behr/Mackenzie/B Jones vs Crane debate---AKA the Great "Penal vs Strategic" debate! His "White Paper" doesn't have a damn thing to do with Merion or Macdonald or Whigam or trips or ship manifests or any of that.
CROSBY, did YOU and SHACKELFORD have something to do with this?? I think the fact you've had absolutely nothing at all to say on these threads in the last year or so CONCLUSIVELY PROVES you have had EVERYTHING to say about this Moriarty "White Paper."
It's either that or David Moriarty is going to try to prove that Arts and Crafts furniture-maker GUSTAV STICKLEY really should be considered the "Step-Father" of the Golden Age of Golf Course Architecture! On the other hand, he may argue that ALBERT STICKLEY is the evil STEP-CHILD of the Golden Age of GCA.
-
"They are telling us that Hugh Wilson himself was not a man of honor and achievement, as has been the record for the past 100 years, but was instead a liar and a scoundrel, who saw glowing reports of the glories of his work in his own lifetime which he knew to be untrue, yet took no steps to counter them or correct the record."
Now wait a minute Mike, don't go too damn far here in defending Hugh Wilson. I mean seriously, we do know something negative about him that they don't really know or can prove like we can and that is, of course, Hugh's illegitimate black grandchild, Huge "Puffy" Wilson, that loveable drug-dealing pimp from the North Philly 'hood! :o
-
David, maybe you ought to consider allowing a jury to form, or at least have a panel and you and Cirba and Paul can strike, to get to 12 angry men' who will then read your IMO, when it finally is presented. I'm not the decider, just the guy trying to get you all to reach for something else as your evidence, rather than the same line of questioning.
Did anyone check with Stuart Bendelow for any mentions by Tom Bendelow in his quarterly magazine, "Spaulding's Golf Guide" which he editted and wrote about on-going golf affairs from ~1907-1917? Maybe he has something to say on the subject.
Maybe HIW got a parking ticket on his Stanley Steamer in New York in sumer of 1910, and like the the 44 cal killer Birkowitz, you can fix him at a specific time and place to prove or disprove one side or the other?
BTW TEPaul
Let me ask you something Shiv. Is it something one learns in law school that if and when you say something in court and it's clear that noone, including the judge and jury believes a word of it that one should just stick to one's guns anyway? Perhaps they teach you that so it can go into the court record and at some point down the line you can just take it out of context and pertend that you actually made some relevant point.
It has been a while since I read it, and I don't have the book anymore to look it up, but I'm pretty sure Lawyer/Author Gerry Spence recommended just exactly that tactic in his book on how to argue and win, everytime!
-
I have to put my faith in the articles/report written at the time. I figure anything else is self-defeating. If I'm not to accept at face value what the newpaper boys were writing in the early 1910s and what Alan Wilson wrote in 1916, what AM I to accept?
Peter, that's part of the problem.
If one reporter got the facts wrong in his article, but subsequent reporters use that article as the gospel, aren't ALL articles perpetuating the mistake
erroneous.
So, whom do you trust for reliably reporting the facts ?
I believe that David will address that when he posts his premise.[/color]
If any ONE contemporaneous document is deemed suspect, aren't ALL documents similarly suspect (ship manifests included)?
NO, a manifest, an official document is NOT to be confused with a reporter writing an article or opinion piec e. Surely you understand the difference.
[/color]
And if not, aren't we're just playing a speculative game of character analysis - this man's word is IN and that man's word is OUT because we say so, or because we think to know better.
NO.
There are ways to verify the veracity of some statements.
I believe David's premise will address those issues.[/color]
I'd even buy into that (a little) if I thought we were wise enough to judge. But I just don't think we're any smarter or more sophisticated or more honest than those who came before us.
That's not the issue.
The issue lies in documentation, not opinions or newspaper reporting
[/color]
-
Mike Cirba & TEPaul,
It's fairly clear to me that you can't wait to pounce on David's IMO piece, for the express purpose of demolishing it.
Ask yourself, is that an honest academic approach ?
Why not wait until he publishes his IMO, then examine it with an UNBIASED eye, acknowledging those things that are factual, prudent or reasonable, and questioning those things that you feel are ...... .?
-
Patrick,
Have you looked at those manifests?
To say they are incomplete, error-prone, subject to handwriting vagaries and interpretation, inconsistent, and crossed out, written over, and omitting private travel just begins to hint at their problems as documentation on which to build an argument.
If David's new theory is based on real evidence, then it should hold water, and stay afloat despite our counters, so to speak. ;)
These manifests are dead weight.
-
Mike,
They're more accurate than newspaper accounts.
But, that doesn't address the massive amount of missing information about Wilson's alleged trip abroad.
Where did he sail from, when, on what vessel ?
Where did he sail to ?
Where did stay, and most importantly, which courses did he visit ?
One would think, with the significance of Merion in American Golf, that those missing bits of information would have been revealed over the last 100 years.
As to the sketches, one has to wonder if they were CBM's sketches.
If they were HIW's, shouldn't there be a connection between their origins and their "as builts" ?
It's important to seperate fact from fiction.
I think some of David's efforts might shed some light on some new facts.
As for me, I believe that Wilson built/constructed Merion
-
Pat,
You wrote, "Mike, They're more accurate than newspaper accounts..."
And there is my problem. How can you make a general statement such as that, especially after you have taken to task others for general statements.
They are NOT more accurate than newspaper accounts. Neither can it be said that newspaper accounts are more accurate than ship manifests. If you had stated that SOME are more accurate than newspaper accounts and that I believe this is one of the cases, then I would not only not object but support your privilege to believe it.
I, too, am waiting patiently on the IMO piece that David is working on. If nothing else, these discussions and controversies have made it certain to be the most widely read of any of them in the history of GCA.com...
-
"As for me, I believe that Wilson built/constructed Merion"
To be more specific, I think Pickering oversaw the building/construction of Merion under the Merion committee chaired by Hugh Wilson. The real question is, built/constructed according to whose plans? I suppose, if these endless threads have any purpose, some new evidence is going to be presented that allegedly will alter our notions of that. Bring it on. If there is truth to it, it is worth knowing no matter what traditions are upset by it.
Honestly, if hole drawings in Macdonald's hand shows that all the original holes were designed by CBM, that would be fascinating and welcome knowledge. We're not trying to protect myths and legends. Though I doubt that is going to happen. But if it did, so what? Philadelphians aren't going to be crying in the streets about it. Most of our differences have been rooted in different analytical results and not, as some would believe, due to a Philadelphia Syndrome to protect our heroes. If new information is found and passes scrutiny, it will be seen for what it is, important information on the founding of one of the most significant golf courses in the world. But it is also a course that was dramatically altered from the start. The original golf course was at best a transition course that still clung to many older design styles than natural ones. Is this due to the preference of the Merion committee, Macdonald's influence, Pickering's experience or other factors? That will be difficult to answer. But perhaps David has found something that will help bridge the knowledge gap. We'll see one of these days.
Again, whatever accounted for the initial design iteration, it was soon abandoned for a new and improved look and design including the iconic bunkering we are familiar with. I for one imagine that the rejection was mostly due to the collaborations between Wilson and Flynn and later the work of Flynn upon Wilson's early passing. The rejection of past efforts is an important story in the design evolution of Merion, which took its course over a period of some 22 years and then some.
Pat,
You say there is a massive amount of missing material relating to the earliest activities associated with the development of Merion. What makes you think clubs of that era routinely retained such information? What sort of information exists documenting the travels and studies of Crump and Macdonald or anyone else of that era? It has nothing to do with the current significance of Merion, Pine Valley or NGLA. Or even the earliest views of these and other courses. The architecture was never seriously documented anywhere nor were the architects, either professional or amateur.
If you are wondering about the sketches being Wilson or Macdonald, it stands to reason you are also questioning every detail ever presented regarding the development of Merion and everywhere else.
What do we know about who did what and when about Myopia Hunt? About NGLA? About Chicago GC? About Shinnecock? About St. Andrews GC? Will you next question everything about everything? If so, you and your cohorts have an awful lot of work to do. You'd better get a move on ;)
"NO, a manifest, an official document is NOT to be confused with a reporter writing an article or opinion piec e. Surely you understand the difference."
We know they are different, Pat. However, they can both be right at times and they can both be wrong at times. Are you saying just because one is an "official document" that it has to be entirely accurate?
-
Pat,
You wrote, "Mike, They're more accurate than newspaper accounts..."
And there is my problem. How can you make a general statement such as that, especially after you have taken to task others for general statements.
How can I make that statement ?
Easily.
Ship manifests were legal documents, maintained by an independent, source, the ship/shipping company, and presented to the immigration officer at the point of entry into the United States.
They represent a systemic written record of passenger traffic across the oceans.
Newspaper articles bear no similar responsibilty in terms of reporting accurate facts.[/color]
They are NOT more accurate than newspaper accounts. Neither can it be said that newspaper accounts are more accurate than ship manifests. If you had stated that SOME are more accurate than newspaper accounts and that I believe this is one of the cases, then I would not only not object but support your privilege to believe it.
Of course they're more accurate, they're official documents, not someone's opinion.
I believe that ship manifests were far more accurate than newspaper accounts, especially post 1900.
Ship manifests were official documents, maintained by the ship/shipping company and presented to the immigration officer at the port of entry to the United States. The served an official purpose and a good degree of accountability.
Newspaper articles bear no equivilant degree of accountability.[/color]
I, too, am waiting patiently on the IMO piece that David is working on. If nothing else, these discussions and controversies have made it certain to be the most widely read of any of them in the history of GCA.com...
-
But Patrick...official documents or not...the sad truth is that they weren't any more accurate.
If you call what's happening today on the Mexican border as a completely accurate accounting of immigration flow, or believe Hillary Clinton when she claims that she's surprised and astounded that the campaign has become so negative, then you would call the shipping manifest of the early 1900's as complete and valid and worthy of our consideration for presenting a thesis of purported historical fact.
-
But Patrick...official documents or not...the sad truth is that they weren't any more accurate.
Sure they were, unless you never heard of "yellow" journalism.[/color]
If you call what's happening today on the Mexican border as a completely accurate accounting of immigration flow, or believe Hillary Clinton when she claims that she's surprised and astounded that the campaign has become so negative, then you would call the shipping manifest of the early 1900's as complete and valid and worthy of our consideration for presenting a thesis of purported historical fact.
Mike, those are bad examples, and you can't compare them to ship manifests.
Ship manifests were maintained by a party with no agenda.
And, it's not like individuals could swim the Atlantic.
They had to sail on ships, and the structure of that transportation system was one of accomodations linked to accountability.
With voyages taking several days, if not more than a week, passengers had to PAY for their space, be housed, fed, etc., etc.. Thus, the list of passengers, their passenger status, (first class versus other classes) had to be accounted for, and, those accounting ledgers had to be turned over to the immigration official at the point of entry.
So, let's not view ship manifests from a predisposed perspective that furthers your position on Wilson. Look at them as a structured procedure, one that was systemically applied to account for all passengers on all ships coming to the U.S. [/color]
-
But Patrick...that's the problem. When I try to view them in the way that you present they don't come close to passing the "sniff" test of accuracy.
Let me give you an example.
Let's say you came back from a trip to Italy in October 1910.
What am I to make of a manifest reading that might say;
Name: P L Mucci
Occupation: Unknown
Citizen: United States
Birthdate: Approximately 1880 (oopss..crossed out...indecipherable)
Destination: New York
Ship: Leap of Faith II
Marital Status: Single
?
Because, that's what we see over and over again.
The records are incomplete and faulty and if you spent a few hours examining them in any detail I'm confident that you would be the first person on this website to call their credibility into question.
-
Mike,
If you look at the manifests for the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth in 1952, you'll see that they're pretty accurate when it comes to guys named Mucci.
I never stated that Manifests were infallible, but, to dismiss them in their entirety is unreasonable.
-
Pat,
Green ink or not, you are still incorrect. Simply because something is an official document doesn't make the information contained within it correct. Being correct does.
Consider, Mike has already cited several of these "official documents" that were incorrect on their face. Being "official didn't make them correct.
It is the same for newspaper accounts. I can show you an account in an Atlanta paper in 1928 that states that Tilly designed and built Olympia Fields. What makes that statement incorrect isn't that it is found in a newspaper column but rather that it is incorrect on its face.
That was the point I was trying to make and I think it is a simple one.
You stated, "Of course they're more accurate, they're official documents, not someone's opinion." Incorrect information on an "official document" doesn't make it correct.
"I believe that ship manifests were far more accurate than newspaper accounts, especially post 1900." I completely agree with this statement. That is definitely something that YOU believe. Unfortunately your belief in the premise neither makes it more or less correct.
"Ship manifests were official documents, maintained by the ship/shipping company and presented to the immigration officer at the port of entry to the United States. The served an official purpose and a good degree of accountability." Today in the mail I received a book that i had ordered on-line. I opened the package eagerly and really enjoyed the dust jacket of my new treasure. The only problem was that the book inside the dust jacket was the wrong one! Just because a document serves an "official purpose" and is "maintained" by an officer who has a "good degree of accountability" doesn't mean that mistakes don't happen.
"Newspaper articles bear no equivilant degree of accountability..." Evidently you've never heard of court cases whereby newspapers have been successfully sued for poor reporting and slanderous articles.
Pat, my entire point is that generalities, even well-meant ones, in a case that has developed and devolved as this issue most definitely has, creates more problems in both the short and long run. All they do is cause arguing over side points.
You have consistantly written that everyone wait on David to present his research in the manner and dorum that he chooses. I completely agree with this. I think it is time that these threads cease and desist until he does. That will allow rhetoric and tempers to calm down on all sides...
-
Phil,
"Dewey defeats Truman"
Logs and manifests represent an independent, structured attempt to record and account for the facts.
Articles written in newspapers don't have the same structure or purpose.
Articles filter information, both correct and incorrect, and present it as the author intends.
That kind of manipulation DOESN'T exist with logs and manifests, hence, I stand by my statement.
I think this is especiallly true circa 1910 when few events were actually witnessed by the person writing the article.
How would a reporter, especially one reasonably removed from an event, know what actually took place ?
Word of mouth would seem to be a logical explanation.
Whereas, ship's logs and manifests were a long time maritime practice absent a bias in presenting the data.
For comparison sake, you may want to read the New York Times this weekend, and then try getting on an airplane with someone else's ticket or ID.
Let me know the incident rate with respect to inaccuracies on both endeavors ;D
-
Phil,
"Dewey defeats Truman"
Logs and manifests represent an independent, structured attempt to record and account for the facts.
Articles written in newspapers don't have the same structure or purpose.
Articles filter information, both correct and incorrect, and present it as the author intends.
That kind of manipulation DOESN'T exist with logs and manifests, hence, I stand by my statement.
For comparison sake, you may want to read the New York Times this weekend, and then try getting on an airplane with someone else's ticket or ID.
Let me know the incident rate with respect to inaccuracies on both endeavors ;D
Patrick,
I believe Phil's point is that if information is wrong, incomplete, missing, or misleading, it's wrong, incomplete, missing, or misleading no matter what media it is presented on.
We know the manifests are all of the above. Let's get past it.
-
Mike,
It's a question of reliability.
Some seem to place a high degree of accuracy in newspaper articles, deeming them infallible.
I don't accept that premise.
Others seem to infer that ship manifests should be dismissed as records since some of them contained errors.
I don't accept that premise either.
The ship manifest is a matter of record, wherein a good degree of accountability went along with it. So much so that the record was turned over to an agent of the Government of the United States, for official purposes.
A newspaper article ......... ?
-
Patrick,
Today, they are much more reliable.
But back in the day, it seems one could give a last name, first initial (sometimes, not even that), country of origin, marital status and nothing else and hop aboard.
-
Pat,
In general, newspaper accounts have a standard of reliability that satisfies most readers. However, there have always been and will continue to be errors in reporting...of all kinds and not just in newspapers but in other documents both official and otherwise.
The golf articles in early Philadelphia papers were written by men who had more than a passing interest in the subject. We know that Tillinghast, Dey, Evans and others wrote regular columns on the golf happenings in the district. Don't you think there is an increased reliability in their accounts as they were in the small inner circles of golf in Philadelphia? That is of course unless you subscribe to the notion that the world was being misled by a bunch of rogue Quakers ;) Sometimes pseudonyms were used by those deeply involved in the processes. I believe their columns should be considered as reliable as those with a bona fide byline.
Clearly though, the most reliable writings remain those of Hugh Wilson and Alan Wilson. They, along with Robert Lesley and the committee were there everyday and heavily involved in all activities.
Did turn of the century government workers performing menial repetitious tasks achieve 6 Sigma levels of efficiency? You would have us believe they do.
-
I'm with Shivas on this one with regard to the records.
I posted my take on these newspaper articles on another thread but it is more appropriate here.
With newspaper accounts generally, I don't put a lot of faith in them unless:
1. I can independently verify the accuracy of the sources.
2. The reporters have first hand information and are expert enough to accurately convey that information.
This is especially true for social or gossip columns like the golf ones, which are usually just full of the views of whoever has the columnists ear. What is usually happening is someone gave the columnist some information, and the columnist spruces it up and runs it, but sometimes even then the columnist gets it wrong.
Also the articles are incredibly parasitic. The other papers borrow the information and use it as their own.
An example from memory, so don't quote me:
One reviewer referred one or two of Merion's holes as something like "plain two shot holes." Later, when the course opened, another paper ostensibly reviewed the course and commented that the golfer had to play over a plain. Like a "Plain Hole" was a type of hole requiring play over a plain. Had the course opened in a different time, I wouldn't have been surprised to see the next paper write that the hole was only reachable only by plane.
The point is you have to put the article in context and understand the nature of the source material.
-
Yes counselor, but would they prove that someone did not take a trip?
-
Patrick,
Have you looked at those manifests?
To say they are incomplete, error-prone, subject to handwriting vagaries and interpretation, inconsistent, and crossed out, written over, and omitting private travel just begins to hint at their problems as documentation on which to build an argument.
If David's new theory is based on real evidence, then it should hold water, and stay afloat despite our counters, so to speak. ;)
These manifests are dead weight.
Mike, you keep harping on those manifests being crap, but I'm here to tell you that in any criminal court in the country (I use criminal court because it's got the most exacting standards for evidence in existence, all designed to protect a defendant that is presumed innocent), those logs - being contemporaneous records made in the ordinary course of business - would be admissible as evidence to show when someone took a trip. Most all of the subsequent reporters' accounts, being hearsay drivel ;), would not -- unless, of course, the author was still alive. ;D ???
Dems da facts....
Ah, but Shivas, the goal here is to discover the truth or the best approximation we can come up with. A lawyer's job is to represent their client - the truth may or may not come out. The evidence should be examined for what it is and what it is not. Context and extraneous evidence helps make sense of it all. If there are mistakes/omissions/deletion in the official record, it doesn't matter if that the record is meant to be accurate. If it ain't accurate then doubt is raised.
Ciao
-
Shivas and DavidM:
I hear exactly what you say about evidence and such, particularly in a court of law.
But what we have before us here for discussion is not some case about the degrees of reliablity of newspaper accounts or ship manifests in and of themselves.
Whether you guys want to admit it or not all these threads are really about the accuracy of the architectural record of Merion's courses, not about just manifests and newspaper accounts.
You guys just keep avoiding that or just sloughing it off or dismissing it. Why are you doing that? Where do you think you're going here by constantly talking about manifest and newspapers? What's the real point here?
Get back to the subject even if it's in the context of newspapers and ship manifests. The question is do you believe that just because a ship manifest has not turned up yet for a Wilson trip abroad before 1912 that can then conclusively determine that he could not have made a trip previous to 1912 for Merion? Just do us all a favor and answer that with a yes or no, at least to start with. :o
And furthermore, get back to the point that if he did not go previous to 1912 should that make some relevant difference as to what the Merion reports of the Wilson gave as to who created Merion, when and how? Just answer that yes or no and at least we can get back on track with the real subject of these threads.
That is the point of all this, isn't it?
-
This has nothing to do with the lawyer's job. We're talking about the judge's job in terms of the rules of evidence. If anything, the rules of evidence are designed to prevent questionable evidence from being admitted into a case, so as not to sway the court (ie, judge and jury) from reaching truth. The rules of evidence are all about protecting truth from basically bullshit evidence being admitted.
Shivas
Rules of evidence? Judges? This is meant to be a cooperative not adversarial endeavor. Unfortunately, this concept got lost somewhere in the translation. All the evidence should be presented. The judges are each and every reader. I am happy to read any researcher's conclusions, but to draw my own conclusions I need the evidence.
Ciao
-
Truly, that wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe he wasn't just sketching all the time. How could a real golfer not play all those great courses. Also, many clubs had a guest book; did they not?
I think we on GCA.com should take up a collection and in the same manner Merion reportedly sent Hugh, we should send Cirba, Paul, and Moriarty on a tour to scour the old papers and guest books, and to be economical, make them share the same rooming accomodations. 6 months ought to do it! ;D :o 8)
A quick e-mail to The Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers netted me this info:
"Dear Mr Stephenson,
Thank you for your enquiry and yes visitors are asked to sign a book
prior to playing the course. However the ledgers are not kept any
longer than 5 years. As a consequence we won't have any records of
early 1900's unless the person you're trying to trace came with a Member
and didn't play golf. There is another book kept in the clubhouse for
such a purpose and goes back to 1901."
Another query regarding a Hugh Wilson from Philadelphia got me this:
"I’ve had a look at the book and there are a few Wilsons there but none from Philadelphia. Wilson is a Scottish name and most of them are from Scotland with one from London but none of them have the first name of Hugh. All the entries date from 1920 until 1901. As I explained this is the book that was signed by members who had guests who did not play the course.
Perhaps your Wilson originally came from Scotland – if you have any more info I’m happy to have another look for you."
So somewhat of a dead end when it comes to Muirfield. I guess my point is we don't need to spends thousands of dollars sending the 3 amigos to Scotland. Just give them $19.99 each for an internet account.
I've sent e-mails to Prestwick and North Berwick. I'll let you know what I find...or don't find.
I just fail to see how this info fits into the big picture?
-
Paul,
I think that's a really neat idea.
I would think Muirfield might not have been as highly regarded in 1910 as it is today, however.
If I were to look, I'd start with Stoke Poges and Walton Heath. Perhaps Sunningdale, as well, although I think someone is looking into that and they don't have an archivist.
Thanks for the update!
-
Fellows,
I've come to wholly reconsider my position. More later... ;D
-
Paul, thank you. I think it is wonderful you made this effort. It is a good start, IMHO. I must say, as to you wondering how this fits into the big picture, that it would be significant to fix Mr Hugh Wilson at any of these historic locales, at any time, no matter what the date or place. If the date fits most comfortably with those that believe HIW did in deed go and spend time studying these course as a precursor to then applying his new studies to Merion, that is great. If it shows that HIW spent time at courses that are somewhat escew of the dates hoped for, it still means he was there. The only downside, is if we find NO evidence that HIW was anywhere in GB and Scotland, ever.... Then we are back to square one, with no proof he was there, and nothing to totally refute that he was not.
I really think the other types of supporting documents as supporting evidence to fix HIW's attendence at critical times, hasn't even been scratched.
One side note about all this; we and most specifically the contestants in this controversy have elevated the whereabouts of HIW, and chronicalling his movements and activities to create or oversee the creation of Merion golf course to almost the status of researching an historical review of the circumstances that influenced a President. I would think that 99.9% of the population out there might find this whole laborious process and calling these questions as.... odd.
Yes, we old obscure GCA afficianados would like to know the true origins of these stories. But, it really should never have risen to the level of emotion that has been displayed. Humor, collegeal friendly competitions over sources and theories, and collaborative effort should have been made use of in these inquiries and debates. But, the emotional aspects were really unnecessary, IMHO. Efforts such as Paul has just made are really the way to go, I believe.
-
"The only downside, is if we find NO evidence that HIW was anywhere in GB and Scotland, ever.... Then we are back to square one, with no proof he was there, and nothing to totally refute that he was not."
RJ:
That's fine by me, and I'm sure it's fine with the Philadelphians or anyone else who are searching for evidence of Wilson abroad studying architecture for Merion.
But before these discussions keep going too far I sure would like everybody seriously discussing this subject to agree in some way what constitutes ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE that Hugh Wilson was abroad studying architecture for Merion.
Ship manifests and such are fine as a search source of evidence he was abroad studying architecture but a ship manifest merely proves he went abroad and not what he did abroad such as studying architecture.
Logs from golf clubs abroad that put Wilson at those golf courses are much more indicative of what he was doing abroard than ship manifests certainly.
But other pieces of evidence that have been introduced long ago that are really supportable evidence are the reports of Alan Wilson that states Hugh went abroad to study architecture and Hugh Wilson's OWN report stating he went to Scotland and England to study architecture. However, neither report is crystal clear as to when he did that. Alan's mentions he went abroad 'as a first step' and Hugh's report merely says 'later' following the making of a particular point (the visit to NGLA).But both reports state he DID go abroad to study architecture and Hugh's says Scotland and England.
I don't know about you but if anyone seriously discussing this subject is NOT willing to take the word of Alan and certainly Hugh himself as ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE that he DID go abroad to study architecture, I, for one, am no longer willing to take part in these discussion on Wilson and Merion.
Both those reports were made completely public and if anyone actually thinks that reports like that could be made public to an entire membership of hundreds of people and others from the town that knew Wilson and Merion and be a total fabrication then I think this discussion has been reduced to the totally ABSURD!
In my opinion, that best evidence we have in these threads that Wilson actually did, At SOME POINT, go abroad to study architecture for Merion comes from Hugh Wilson HIMSELF!
-
RJ:
Another piece of evidence that has been offered on here long ago but not much considered is a letter from Harry Colt to Hugh Wilson in 1923.
In that letter Colt is asking Wilson to please send him a copy of the USGA Green Section Bulletin (or the Bulletin for the percusor to the USGA Green Section).
In that letter Colt mentions that they haven't seen one another in so long he hopes he remembers him and he also mentions that he has moved his residence and that he believes Hugh would very much enjoy the land around his new residence (or something like as much as his former residence). We will make the exact wording of that letter available in a little while.
As far as I'm concerned that also is practically irrefutable evidence that Hugh Wilson WAS in Europe studying architecture AT SOME POINT. The obvious implication is why in the world would Colt be mentioning his residences to Wilson if he HAD NEVER SEEN the first one???
Furthermore, even if it's a long shot simply because Colt probably was in England between about March 5 and about May 16 1912 when we know that Hugh Wilson WAS abroad----IF in fact, someone could conclusively prove that COLT WAS NOT in England or Scotland between those dates, then, in my opinion, THAT would conclusively PROVE that Hugh Wilson was abroad studying architecture at ANOTHER time than 1912.
The only possible time to conclude he could have been abroad studying architecture for Merion due to all the timelining of the agronomy letters for practically the rest of Wilson's life would essentially be 1910!
-
Received word from North Berwick.
They donated most of their minutae and guest books to The National Library in 1997.
A quick search shows that there is quite a lot of information that can be easily accessed and looked through, if you live in Edinburgh. Looks like the 3 amigos trip is on again. Incidentally if you look there is no Visitor's Guest Book for the years 1905-1951. Someone doesn't want this to be easily resolved. There is an Attendants' Guest Book covering the years in question but I'm not sure what information that provides.
The link to the inventories is here: http://www.nls.uk/catalogues/online/cnmi/inventories/acc11578.pdf
The person at Muirfield let me know that there are no entries at all for 1910. The only Americans she found from 1901 to 1920 were 3 people playing in The Amatuer Championship:
There are 3 gentlemen signed in twice on 26 and 29th May 1909 for the The Amateur Golf Championship
J D Pelton / W Watson and E C Carter all from New York and signed in by W Herbert Fowler ( wonder who they were)
Me too. I'm pretty sure who W Herbert Fowler was, but I wonder if W Watson wasn't William Watson of Olympia Fields fame.
TEPaul,
I am willing to take Wilson at his word. I just enjoy the research. Besides, I have no real interest in this debate and will simply report what I find, even if it's nothing.
-
Received word back from the Archivist at Prestwick:
Re your email requesting information on Hugh Wilson, I have checked back our “Strangers” book for 1910 to 1912 when he was in the UK, and there is no entry for him.
He could possibly have walked the course without playing.
Sorry I can’t be of more help.
Regards
Still waiting on R&A who I don't think will respond, but I didn't think I'd get anything from Prestwick by now either.
-
I'm working on Sunningdale, a very likely candidate. In fact, I'll be there in about a month as well as a few other courses where I wlll investigate their guest books, but I'm really there to play and study the courses.
-
For the sake of future reasearch Wayne, please sign their Guest Book ;D
-
For future researchers as yet unborn, I usually sign in with an alias. Moe Howard is the one I use the most ;)
-
For future researchers as yet unborn, I usually sign in with an alias. Moe Howard is the one I use the most ;)
Funny, I usually use Larry Fine. I hope Mark is okay with that. ;)