Philip:

Let's just say, I'm not sure whether it's that I don't understand where you're coming from on some of the things you say and ask about this subject, or whether I just don't see the point of some of the things you say and ask about this subject but whichever it is I see no reason not to mention what i think about where you're coming from.

Happy New Year

Tom,

You stated, "Let's just say, I'm not sure whether it's that I don't understand where you're coming from on some of the things you say and ask about this subject, or whether I just don't see the point of some of the things you say and ask about this subject but whichever it is I see no reason not to mention what i think about where you're coming from."

I can totally appreciate and understand that, so in the spirit of the discussion, I'd like to take a moment to explain it succinctly in hopes that I might end your confusion.

Before this thread began, on the several other Merion threads the trip that Hugh Wilson took to GB & I to study the courses in preparation for the work at Merion has been definitively stated as having occurred in 1910. In fact, in an earlier comment of mine where I made a typo and stated the date as 1911, you properly took me to task for the misinformation and I acknowledged the mistake.

So then, on post #9, Dave wrote, "TEPaul, Thank you for reminding me... I agree that this answers one of my questions:  Hugh Wilson went overseas after he and the committee visited CBM at NGLA... That being said, we still have the question of just when this trip took place.  I have been trying to put together a timeline, and it is raising some questions.  Is there any solid proof that Wilson went overseas in 1910?"

You immediately responded, "Is there any solid proof Wilson went to GB in 1910? What kind of proof are you looking for? What we have is Hugh Wilson's own report..." Obviously you consider this a set-in-stone date.

Dave then comments in post #13 how, "My hypotheses and speculation are not based on some preconceived target, but are guided by what I hope is a rigorous analysis of the facts..."

Dave then stated in post #18, "What am I talking about?  I am pretty certain that Wilson traveled overseas not in 1910, but in late 1911 or early 1912, at departed Europe for New York in May, 1912….  If I am correct about Wilson traveling overseas after Merion was initially laid out and seeded, then much of the conventional wisdom about the origins of the original Merion tumbles like a house of cards.  If this is the same 32 year old Hugh I. Wilson, then . . .

- Wilson must have taken his overseas trip [/b]sometime after the committee finished seeding the course in September 1912.[/b]  [Or there were multiple trips, but I have seen nothing factual indicating two trips, or that he traveled overseas before he went to NGLA.  As TEPaul points out, Wilson says he "later" saw the great holes in England and Ireland.]

- Wilson had not yet travelled overseas when he and the committee layed out the course (with the advice and suggestions of M&W) in the spring of 1911."

Now, since David had stated that, "My hypotheses and speculation are not based on some preconceived target, but are guided by what I hope is a rigorous analysis of the facts..." and then stated that, "if I am correct about Wilson traveling overseas after Merion was initially laid out and seeded, then much of the conventional wisdom about the origins of the original Merion tumbles like a house of cards...", I chose to take him to task for furnishing NO PROOF WHATSOEVER in making this statement.

Dave responded in post #21, "Oh yeah, I almost forgot.  The proof . . ." It was only then that he posted the copies of the manifests.

In post #25 he stated, "I think I mentioned this possibility in my post above.  The most compelling evidence that he went to look at courses in 1912 (and not 1910) is Wilson's own report.  As TEPaul points out, he said that the British and Irish courses he saw later,  after the NGLA trip..."

Tom, that was just on the FIRST page of this thread. From there he has continuously maintained that he believes there was a SINGULAR trip and you have maintained that Wilson took a trip in 1910.

Dave bases his argument on the 1912 trip manifest and his conclusions of what was written by others, many of which others have used (including me) in their opinions.

Because Dave himself states that he wants his hypotheses debated and considered through, "a rigorous analysis of the facts..." I challenged him to prove that the Hugh I. Wilson mentioned in the manifest was in fact THE Hugh I. Wilson of Merion fame. I further stated that until he could or would do this, that he was incorrect to state it as fact as he had constantly done.

For whatever reasons, Dave had not answered this question or supplied proof for quite a while until he finally apologized for not addressing it and did so. He admitted that he couldn't prove it as fact but that he believed it to be one.

That is why in his timeline, he CORRECTLY stated that "A Hugh I. Wilson traveled..."

So Tom, all I did was hold Dave to the standards that he claimed to be setting for himself. The reason for this, and Dave is free to share my IM's with all if he sees fit, was because I recognized that he wants to publish this hypothesis as fact (he mentioned publishing earlier as well), and so I stated to him that I wasn't "breaking his balls" but that if he did publish he could expect a lot of flack from many quarters, all demanding absolute proof for his "facts" to back up the complete revision of how the Merion Golf Club came into existence. I believe that it is better for him and the subject that his "facts" be completely scrutinized here. It is VERY hard to call back published words if his hypothesis turns out to lack merit. On the other hand, if he turns out to be correct and has discovered what all others have missed, what better "Peer Review" could he go through than from this distinguished body?

Does it make more sense now?
 
 

"That being said, there are also multiple reports that M&W were important advisors.  If H.Wilson really was a novice who had not yet studied gca, then it is much easier to understand why HWilson was so grateful to Macdonald for his help, and why even Alan Wilson recognized that M&W's advice and suggestions were "of the greatest help and value."

David:

I understand all that. As I've said many times we have always been aware of all those newspaper reports and such mentioning that M&W advised Merion.

But we are the ones who supplied these threads with the reports from the Wilsons, particularly Hugh and in our opinion and as I've also said many times one needs to look very carefully at what Hugh Wilson said in that report ABOUT what it was that constituted that "advice" from M&W. He mentions very specifically what it was he helped him with in Southampton but he mentions nothing else about what he did for him or them at Merion itself. I find that pretty indicative. I see no reason at all that Wilson would not have also mentioned in that report what it was that M&W did while at Merion had it been of significance to them or the course in either or both of those two visited that were made to Merion by M&W.

I very much doubt anyone was trying to minimize credit to Macdonald. Personally, I very much doubt that Macdonald would've even gotten particularly involved. Why would he, particularly if he could see that the responsibility to layout, design and built the golf course rested with Wilson and his committee.

When it comes to the subject of being a novice, I feel all of us on here need to understand a whole lot better that regardless of what we think today a number of those men back then really did start out some of those remarkable projects with no prior experience but they just did them anyway.

THAT is precisely what we need to look at and not just assume they couldn't have done them or that they must've had significant help from others.

THIS is the fascination of that time to me. They just did those projects in a very different way then we are used to today.

To me, this is what understanding the evolution of golf architecture in America is all about David.

Tom,

Isn't that really what's at issue here all along?  

I'm not sure what additional credit David thinks M&W aren't getting, but I think you summarized the distinction we're making very nicely.   We know that Wilson talked about all of the strategic, philosophical hole concepts that Macdonald taught him and noted that carefully and credited Macdonald fully.   Beyond that, we don't know what Macdonald did there, if much of anything.  

In any case, his involvement was quite short-lived, as I noted above.  

Again, it's not that any of us are disputing that Macdonald & Whigham provided WIlson and the Committee with advice that was valuable, but we also don't know much beyond sharing hole concepts that he was responsible for.

Given that he did two site visits in two years, given that Macdonald himself never stated much about his involvement, given that Merion didn't ask for his continued assistance (or perhaps they asked and didn't receive it?), given that the course had none of the hallmarks (hole templates) that were the trademark of Macdonald's design career (as well as his disciples), given that much more work took place at Merion during the next 10 years and beyond, including a second course immediately following the first without any involvement by M&W, it's hard to imagine that there is some giant contribution that M&W made to the creation of the Merion East course that is going unnoticed, either by history, or by us.

Thanks for summarizing it so nicely.   Perhaps we can put this matter to bed, because I think your post said it all.

Tom,

Thanks for the response... I know that Wilson's crossing the Atlantic on a private yacht is not something that I would ever have given thought to. It is a VERY valid point, especially after the statement that you made in the beginning of the post:

"Yes it does but I was aware of all that. I doubt David Moriarty is maintaining that the person on the 1912 manifest is incontroveribly the very same Hugh I. Wilson of Merion."

The point is that David IS MAINTAINING THAT VERY POINT and more!

Note his response to me when he was finally able to respond to my persistently asking:

"I cannot say with absolute certainty that it was our Hugh I. Wilson, and probably never will be able to.  Nonetheless, it is an excellent match: Same exact age, same exact name, same exact citizenship, traveling at about the same time as Travis described.  And so far no record of Wilson anywhere else during this time period.  Plus, this is the only one during the relevant time period who who even closely fits the match.  If it is not him, then I'd be compelled to argue that maybe Hugh I Wilson did not go overseas at all."

He'd be compelled to argue that if there were no 1912 trip then Wilson "did not go overseas at all!?!"

It is for that type of statement that I demand complete accuracy. I am glad that he admits he can't prove that it is THE Wilson... I would also love to see his argument that Wilson NEVER went overseas despite the numerous witnesses to that fact.

Tom Paul,

Are you suggesting that if Wilson was going overseas for 7 months to look at golf courses he might indulge in the luxury of a long, slow yacht ride, but if he were looking for a quickie in Paris while waiting for grass to grow back home he'd probably ride commercial?  

"Tom Paul,
Are you suggesting that if Wilson was going overseas for 7 months to look at golf courses he might indulge in the luxury of a long, slow yacht ride, but if he were looking for a quickie in Paris while waiting for grass to grow back home he'd probably ride commercial?"

MikeC:

Don't talk to me about quickies in Paris---it's sort of poignant to me. I hesitate to say this, but what the heck, it was so long ago and all the players are long gone now so--so what?

Back in the 1920s my grandfather, that questionable character by the name of Anthony John Drexel Paul decided with a bunch of his cronies (from Merion of all things) that they would take a trip to France, to Paris to see the sights or whatever.

Old AJDP was apparently a remarkably disingenuous old coot but his wife, my grandmother, was as sharp as a box of razor sharp tacks. Nobody ever outfoxed her from the sound of it, not even close--not dubious financial advisors or philandering husbands or anyone.

So, she suspected what old AJDP and his philandering cronies were up to on this trip to Paris so at the last minute she arranged for my sixteen year old father to go with them (obviously as her spy).

Well, my poor Dad, what a position he was in---he was her spy and the old coots figured that out in a Philadelphia second. They were miserable to him the whole time as they had to constantly avoid him over there as they "quickied" all over Paris.

Only problem was, since poor Dad as a young sixteen year old on his own in Paris he fell pray to some quickies himself and what happened to him?

You guessed it--he contracted the CLAP.

The poor guy, all he could do is turn to his father for help and his father told him he shouldn't have come over there anyway and he could figure his problem out for himself.

Unfortunately that unfortunate series of circumstances resulting in my Dad basically hating his father for the remainder of his life.  

Shivas:

I wouldn't say we just skimmed them looking for a capital "F" but we didn't exactly read carefully all of them that we could see had nothing to do with Flynn or Wilson or even Flynn's part in Merion. Don't forget we labeled them the "agronomy" letters because that's what they are. They are about 14 years of correspondence and around 2,000 letters on worms and diseases and amonium sulfate and drainage and Brown Spot and really sexy stuff like that. If you're an insomniac we'll send you some.

But through all those years and all kinds of events over that time there are plenty of descriptions and references of all kinds of interesting things, including how they formed the USGA Green Section.

To me one of the most interesting things about those letters is the occasional mention of the apparent mood of Macdonald as time went on and that's why I started that other thread. Macdonald was definitely not an easy guy to deal with, that's for sure, particularly as the years went by.

And that's why I don't exactly see him rushing down to Philadelphia to gratuitously help out Merion. He really wasn't like that. It's not hard to see that if you read about him in depth. Don't forget, Macdonald was not a professional architect, he was a Wall Street stockbroker, and he never got paid for anything he did in the realm of golf or architecture. He was a real stickler about "amateurism" in architecture, at least as far as he was concerned. In the projects he really was involved with it seems like it was done his way or he wouldn't be part of it.

Even if Merion asked him to do their whole project for them I seriously doubt he would've considered that. Don't forget too in 1911 he had a ton of his own problems to deal with at NGLA. It wouldn't be until two years later that he got involved in another project--Piping Rock---the golf club I grew up at.

"With all due respect, Tom, we disagree on whether anyone has tried to minimize Macdonald’s involvement.  Macdonald’s level of involvement has been at issue over all these threads.  Even in this thread, Mike Cirba has claimed that, “If anything I'd strongly suggest that CBM's contribution has been overrated, due largely to Wilson's very humble and gratuitous nature in publicly and hyperbolically (is that a word? ) telling everyone what a big help Charley and Whigham were!”  In the last thread he described M&W’s role “as quite negligible and consultative only in a very broad, limited sense.”  

At the very least, we disagree on how the acknowledgements of M&W should be understood.  For example, I disagree with your point above when “I very much doubt that Macdonald would have even gotten involved particularly involved.”  I am saying this not to reopen or rehash the debate, or to offer a specific challenge; we have covered this issues ad nauseam before.  Rather, just pointing out that this issue of Macdonald’s involvement is definitely not clear cut, and that we have differed and do differ."

David:

We certainly do disagree on all of that and I see nothing presented that will change that. If anyone on here seems to feel there may be something to your "hypotheses" it seems to be those on here who admit they know very little about the history of Merion anyway.

Logically, Mike Cirba's feeling makes a lot of sense given all the evidence available. There are numerous reasons why Merion would overplay Macdonald's involvement in the project rather than underplay it.

Furthermore, it basically makes no sense that Hugh Wilson would've mentioned basically nothing about Macdonald's involvement with the project once it got underway seeing as what he said about Macdonald's help before they got underway.

You just seem to want to overlook the logic of what that means and obviously I can understand why you would---eg it weakens this "hypothesis" of yours that Macdonald's part in Merion has been minimized.

You appear to be the only one who thinks that and since you apparently want to continue to think that I don't see what more there is to discuss.

But if there turns out to be some relevent information in those remaining agronomy letters, information on either argument, we will post it.  

Quote from: Mike Cirba on January 05, 2007, 12:26:11 PM

David,

In light of all the circumstantial evidence, I'd stand by my speculations about the extent of Macdonald's precise involvement in the layout and details of the course at Merion that you cited abpve, because they are just that given the lack of further hard evidence to either support or refute them.

It simply doesn't make sense to me that a leading player disappears from the project in mid-stream, if that's what he ever was.  

We know he provided great conceptual help, strategic help, and continued advice for a year or so.   We know he made two site visits in two years.   I acknowledge all of that.

I still think that all of the circumstantial evidence I cited above indicates that if it's a piece of the puzzle, it's a relatively small one given all of the other work going on at Merion in that timeframe.

That's fine, Mike.   Think what you want.  Just so you understand that you and I do actually disagree about Macdonald's level of involvement.  

Perhaps now you can finally quit trying to say and imply that there is no real disagreement as to this issue.

David,

Is it any wonder that you piss people off?   Does every one of your posts need to include a smartass comment?   Oh, that's right, I forgot about the ones where you play the poor, defenseless victim who is only out for the facts without any agenda.  

I swear that if I stated I agreed with everything you've said about Merion for the past nearly two months now, you'd still find something to argue about!

I stated at least a month ago now that I think we are differing by degrees, and that still holds.   You think Macdonald deserves some additional credit that history neglected to provide him and I think the historical record as to his input feels about right.   I've seen nothing to change my opinion, and you evidently haven't either.

So, let's both get over ourselves and quit wasting Ran's space in a war of attrition.

"I agree.  But others have repeatedly pointed to the overseas trip as the single most important factor which preparing Wilson for his task.  I am not one of those people."

Good. Neither am I.

Whatever prepared him for his task or even if, as he clearly said, he and his committee started out unprepared for the task and even unaware of that they may've been unprepared, the point is that he and they did it anyway.

What does all this really mean, David?

What do the histories of the likes of Leeds's Myopia, Emmet's GCGC, Fownes's Oakmont, Macdonald's NGLA, Wilson's Merion, Crump's Pine Valley really mean?

Isn't it obvious?

It means that a far more controversial assumption than yours here that amateur architects who may even start out novices but are willing to put the time and energies into projects like those mentioned cannot and are not capable of doing things like that is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

They both could do it and did do it and in most cases with a lot less help than we today seem always constrained to feel the need to have to assign to them.

This is not a popular belief and it is getting less so as time goes by. And why wouldn't it be so? This is something professional golf archtiects must bank on for obvious reasons----eg that they are the only ones who can layout, design and build great golf courses.

But they can never avoid the historical fact of Leeds, Emmet, Fownes, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump et al, who created those life-project courses that are some of the greatest in the world, and that all of them started out novices but pervailed anyway. And no one can prove that they had all this help that people like you feel constrained to assign to them for the simple reason the historical records of their projects speak for themselves.  

The fact is even novices who dedicate themselves to projects like these ones both can and did create courses and architecture that may be just as good or perhaps even better than those of professional architects.

They obviously had talents that in the beginnings they may not have been aware of but the thing that is the common thread is they all had the dedication and the time with those projects that is so rare at any time in golf architecture's history and evolution.

David:

I think we have all come to the point where we understand that we very much disagree on almost all of this and there really isn't much else to say about it. Not until something new perhaps comes up.

I don't think any of us need to carry this on debating about whether or not you have been misrepresented. If after all this time and material you feel your representation of whatever it is you're trying to say has been globally misrepresented then that doesn't say much for the way you represent yourself or your ideas and beliefs.

That plaintive response that noone understands me or what I'm trying to say is generally the best indication of a failed and unsupportable "hypothesis".

Let's get onto some other subject than Merion. You should close down this thread yourself.

"As for the Titanic speculation it was TEPaul's, not mine.  I asked him where he heard it, but he has not answered."

Philip;

I did answer that on here a number of times. It is not my speculation that Wilson almost went down on the Titanic or even that he was on the Titanic. That rumor has been around the history of Merion since well before I was born.

It is basically no fun, basically no good, to try to explain every single detail of the history of a golf course to people who start out discussing and arguing about the details of the history of a golf course without first being really familiar with the course and its history. I'm not saying those course histories are always complete accurate but at least we are familiar with all the details of what those histories ARE!

This is no different than that incredible Aronomink restoration project discussion with Tom MacWood. I had to explain every detail of everything to do with it to him first just so he could disagree with practically every thing I was saying.

It's just incredible. It's ridiculous.

If anyone is going to get into arguing in this kind of detail then the very first thing they should consider doing is the research on these club histories that some of us have done. This is the only way one can ever be on an equal footing in these kinds of discussions. If they fail to do that first these threads inevitably devolve into all these ridiculous questions and claims of misrepresentation and such.