[Andy Hughes]

Of course they were substantially influenced by Macdonald.  That's a given and a historical fact.  Hugh Wilson, Alan Wilson, and Robert Lesley all mentioned this.

Substantially influenced in what way exactly?  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm sorry I'm annoying to you.  You are annoying me, as well, if that's any consolation.  

When I say that Wilson and the Committee were substantially influenced by Macdonald and Whigham, I'm saying that M&W taught them a considerable amount about strategic hole concepts and what made the great holes overseas great.  He definitely was instrumental in telling Wilson which courses to see in GB, and I have no doubt whatsoever that M&W's input was critically important in getting the Merion project off on the right footing.

   He showed them examples that he tried to emulate at NGLA, he discussed into the night, and I'm sure he also probably made some valuable suggestions during his 2 site visits to Merion, although I've seen nothing that really suggests that Macdonald did the routing, designed the particular holes, or any features on any of the holes, and the fact that the holes don't bear his trademarks, the fact that Macdonald never claimed any credit, the fact that full credit for those things at Merion were given by various extemporaneous sources to Hugh Wilson and a ton of other circumstantial evidence leads me to believe that Macdonald's  actual "design" input was limited, beyond that initial education and some meaningful suggestions while visiting.
 
I think Macdonald was a short-term mentor who helped get the project off on the right footing in a very educational and theoretical manner.   I'm sure he also offered some practical, on-the-ground suggestions, as well, and whether they were acted on by the committee in any respect I don't know.   Probably some yes, some no.

Where I think we veer off from each other David is that while I give Macdonald all the credit I just listed above, I can't make the leap into any type of design credit, even as a footnote, because there is just isn't any evidence to support that.

If you agree that Macdonald wasn't the designer, and that Hugh Wilson was, as you said, then I frankly don't know what we're arguing about?

[Phil McDade]

I started out with the premise that Macdonald substantially influenced Wilson, the committee, and the creation of Merion, and every step of the way, the case has gotten much stronger.  The only thing surprising to me is just how strong the case has become.  

David,

Of course they were substantially influenced by Macdonald.   That's a given and a historical fact.   Hugh Wilson, Alan Wilson, and Robert Lesley all mentioned this.

The question we've been debating is HOW MUCH.  

You seem to think the evidence points that it's greater than previously believed.   I don't.

The Committee visited with M&W at NGLA for an overnight stay.

Macdonald visited the property AFTER it had been purchased by Merion and pronounced it pretty cool for golf.

Macdonald visited the property once after the plans had been established and said that 7 holes were the equal of any in the country.

Then, nada.   Not a word, act, gesture, hint, notion, idea during the next 13 years until WIlson's death.

What's surprising to me is that he gets much mention at all, and I think that it's because he was the most famous man in American golf at the time, a true celebrity, and because adding him as a notable "advisor" gave the project instant cache and notoriety.

In thinking about it, is it possible as was advanced earlier that Wilson travelled by private yacht (a sailboat) from Southampton, NY to Europe after visiting with Macdonald?

I ask that because of this account by Jim Finegan;

Before sailing, Wilson made it a point to visit Charles Macdonald at Southampton, where the National was under construction. Macdonald was able to advise the young pilgrim on the courses that were, if you will, "required reading," and to suggest the aspects of those renowned eighteens that should particularly be noted.

Hugh Wilson spent some seven months abroad. For the most part it was the shrines of Scotland and England he was playing and studying, though on occasion he visited less well-known courses, including some of the inland ones near London, such as Stoke Poges and Swinley Forest. After all, the new Merion course he was charged with laying out would scarcely be seaside.

He returned full of information—and not simply in his head. He had made copious notes, drawn sketches of exceptional holes, and managed to get his hands on a number of surveyors’ course maps highlighting singular features. He was now reasonably well equipped to tackle what for many would have been—or at least should have been—a daunting task.

Wilson was never bent on slavishly duplicating famous holes. True enough, he was inspired by what he had seen and experienced abroad—the splendid 3rd at Merion harks back to North Berwick’s 15th, and the forepart of the green of the equally splendid 17th does call up the Valley of Sin at St. Andrews’ 18th—but anyone who looks for full-fledged copies of renowned Scottish or English holes is bound to be disappointed. Wilson was out to build the best possible parkland course, with the beauty and playability implicit in the term, and at the same time to imbue it with a sweep and naturalness suggestive of the great models—many of them seaside—he had studied. Consistently strong shot values, good balance and variety, honest resistance to low scoring, an overall design that would both challenge and charm—these were the qualities he sought for Merion.

Has anyone asked Mr. Finegan the source of his article?

Parts of Finegan's account -- the parts about the Redan and Valley of Sin -- read eerily similar to Merion's club history posted on its website:

"In 1910, the committee to lay out the new course decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for Merion.  He spent about seven months abroad, playing and studying courses and sketching the features that struck him most favorably.  One mystery which still surrounds Wilson's trip to Britain is the origin of the wicker flagsticks, and it is still part of Merion's mystique.   The layout that Wilson fashioned at Merion was masterly.  He fitted the holes onto the land as compactly as a jigsaw puzzle.  As a result, players only had to step a few yards from each green to the next tee.  The trip to the Old Country had certainly paid off.

Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England. The 3rd hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (the Redan) and the 17th, with its swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrew's 18th hole.

On September 12, 1912, the old course at Haverford was closed, and on the 14th, the new course and the clubhouse were opened to members.  A report of the opening said the course was 'among experts, considered the finest inland links in the country'.  This was an assessment that has been echoed down through the years."

Anyone know who wrote Merion's website history? Where does Finegan's account come from -- his book?

Mike, my perhaps tangental point, and one raised by Andy Hughes, I believe, is this: Regardless of the amount of influence CBM and others had on Wilson and the Merion committee on the initial routing of the East Course, doesn't the suggestion/evidence -- conceded by some here -- that Wilson may not have traveled to the UK before 1912 raise some questions about the club's "established history?" After all, this isn't an ordinary club, or course, and not an ordinary effort by Wilson and the committee. Their efforts resulted nearly immediately in a world-class course, as attested by others here on the thread and the US Am being awarded to it soon after its opening.

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 07:32:35am
"You also note that Hugh Wilson would not have described himself as a novice had he "already spent a number of months in GB studying golf courses and their architecture in preperation to build Merion East.”

David Moriarty:

Would you mind showing me where I 'noted' that?
 
Post 4."

David Moriarty:

That's not what I said in post #4. What I said in post #4 is Wilson probably would not have described himself as a novice if he had been to GB BEFORE he first went to see Macdonald at NGLA with or without his committee. That is not to imply that he may not have gone to GB after seeing Macdonald at NGLA and before building the golf course in the spring and summer of 1911.

[TEPaul]

By the way, Wayne went to the county Court House and to the Recorder of Deeds and discovered that Merion Cricket Club bought the land on Ardmore Ave that was to become Merion East not towards the end of 1910 (approximately the time Macdonald is said to have first visited the site) but in June of 1909.

That would appear to throw everything back over a year. Maybe Wilson went to see Macdonald as early as 1909. And it would certainly appear if the end of 1910 was the first time Macdonald came to Philadelphia to look at the site which has been reported on here a few times that he certainly didn't have any oversight as to whether the site was acceptable for a golf course.

Furthermore, if Wilson had gone to see Macdonald at NGLA a lot early (perhaps in 1909) he most certainly would've had plenty of time to go to GB before beginning to build the golf course in the spring and summer of 1911.

This could also make that report more clear that when Wilson visited Macdonald in Southampton NGLA was still being constructed.

[TEPaul]

There is also a mention in one of the Merion history books that the membership was informed of the Construction Committee at the annual meeting of 1910. Eventually, one of us will go over there to try to determine if that meant for the year 1910 or perhaps at the annual meeting in 1910 for the year 1909.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, as for what you and others have said, it is throughout threads for the past three or four years, and it was throughout the recent thread, much of which has been deleted.  

I do understand that CBM may not have been too keen on getting too involved with the day-to-day creation of Merion.  Nonetheless, M&W were involved, visiting at least twice, and hosting the committee at NGLA.  Who knows, maybe Merion did ask M&W to design the course, and their response was that they would give whatever advice and suggestions they could, but would not directly oversee the project on a day-to-day basis."

David Moriarty:

None of us have ever said that M&W were NOT involved nor have we ever NOT acknowledged that they visited Merion twice and that Wilson and his committee visited them at NLGA.

I really don't understand why you continue to imply that we've ever denied any of that or said anything at all to imply that we deny that. We have been aware of all those facts a whole lot longer than you have---many years longer in fact.

I really don't think you even have a point on these threads any longer. All you seem to be doing now is putting words into the mouths of people who never said them. And for what?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I questioned the degree to which M&R were "involved'

I questioned it because absolutely no record exists with respect to any feature, hole or routing specific information detailing their "involvement".  And, given CBM's prominence at the time, I can't imagine that he or anyone else would ignore not getting credit for something he did.

Absent specifics, any reference to his involvement seems more along the lines of social and/or political compliments and courteous behavior.

Although, Whigham's pronouncement that M&R designed Merion is startling and causes one to question how much of the written word can be believed.

[TEPaul]

“TEPaul,
I know what you said in post 4.  In fact I quoted you directly above.”

David Moriarty:

I don’t believe you do understand what I said in post #4. Here is what you said above;


“TEPaul,
I am surprised that you are now challenging the reasonableness of the theory that H. Wilson’s first trip to golf overseas was in 1912. Early in this thread (before I posted the manifests) you concluded that Hugh Wilson’s own statement “proves he went to GB AFTER meeting with M&W at National with his committee (or members of his committee.) (my bolds)
You also note that Hugh Wilson would not have described himself as a novice had he "already spent a number of months in GB studying golf courses and their architecture in preperation to build Merion East.”
What has caused you to change your tune on this particular issue?”

David Moriarty:

Nothing has made me change my tune and I haven’t done that. I have always felt that Wilson went to GB to study architecture after meeting with Macdonald at NGLA. The questions here are both when he went to see Macdonald at NGLA and when he first went to GB to study architecture. As I said on the first post on this thread that is something we have never known, that is something I don’t believe Merion has ever known and I don’t believe any of us know that now.

On the other hand, you seem to have virtually concluded that his first trip to GB was in 1912. I am not willing to conclude that at this point. You seem to have concluded that Ancestry.com is infallible or that your search of it is infallible about proving that Wilson could not possibly have gone to GB after meeting with Macdonald at NGLA and the beginning of the creation of Merion East in 1911.

You asked me earlier what it would take to convince me that Ancestry.com’s manifest lists proves that Wilson could not have gone to GB after meeting with Macdonald at NGLA and before the beginning of the creation of Merion East in 1911 if his name does not appear in those manifest lists between say 1909 and spring 1911 or if you have not found his name on those manifest lists during that period. I told you I don’t really know what would convince me of that. I mentioned it’s certainly possible that he could’ve traveled by private yacht as Horace Hutchinson may’ve done in 1910 on Lord Brassey’s yacht that was in America then. You appear to have totally avoided that possibility and have totally avoided the fact it was even mentioned on here. I wonder why.

So let’s look at those Ancestry.com manifest lists. There are a few people who I know where over here from England in 1910 and at least one from here I know was in GB in 1910 or 1911. Let’s see if you can find them on those manifests. Let’s see if you can find when Crump left the US and returned. I could search Ancestry.com myself but you are the one who seems to be suggesting that’s it’s virtually infallible or that your search of it is virtually infallible so let’s see you search it for various names. My mention of Lord Brassey’s yacht (or a private yacht such as the Cadwaladers of Philadelphia's Flying Cloud) is simply that even if it may be unlikely that he and Hutchinson crossed the Atlantic on it, it certainly is possible. One thing we do know is it got over here somehow.

As far as Wilson possibly going to GB before meeting with Macdonald at NGLA that has nothing to do with whether he went over there to study architecture or whether he WASN”T a novice when he first went to see Macdonald at NGLA, but it may have a lot to do with how reliable these manifests are on Ancestry.com.. I merely asked how reasonable it is to conclude that a fairly sophisticated American golfer had never been to GB before his 32nd year for that reason alone----eg those ship’s manifests. Not to mention the fact some on here are now assuming that Wilson may never have even been to GB before 1912 because you seem to be concluding that yourself. Do you really think that’s a reasonable conclusion to draw at this point?

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

I think we do know that a few dates in the report of Hugh Wilson in 1915-16 were wrong. For instance, there's no way Merion West could've gone into construction in 1912 as he said it did in his report for the simple reason the land hadn't been bought by Merion until the fall of 1912. We know he meant the course went into construction in 1913 not 1912.

And isn't it interesting that you did not even acknowledge that now we have established that the land in Ardmore which was to become Merion East was bought in June of 1909 instead of in 1910 as we all have assumed it was. Some on here, perhaps yourself, have suggested that Macdonald may've come here to Philadelphia to approve the site for a golf course. Can we now establish Macdonald came here for that purpose in 1909 rather than in the end of 1910?

It would seem that could push this entire scenario of Merion East back to a year before. But yet you don't even acknowledge that discovery. I wonder why?

[TEPaul]

"Or statements like Wayne’s (and TEPaul’s) where he insisted that there is no information indicating M&W’s involvement beyond their preparation of Wilson for his trip overseas.  Or statements like TEPauls where he repeatedly insisted that almost every bit of credit need stay with those who were in Philadelphia throughout the process."

David Moriarty:

And I still contend that as I do know that Wilson, his Merion Committee, Pickering, Flynn and Valentine were working on laying out, designing and constructing the golf course every day between the spring of 1911 and Sept of 1911. I don't believe there has ever been any question of that. And what about Macdonald? How often can anyone, including yourself, put him here in Philadelpha during that period? Perhaps once in the beginning and for how long? Perhaps a day? If you don't understand the significance of that then I doubt you ever will understand the creation of Merion East.

"But if you now agree with me that Macdonald and Whigham did have a significant influence on the initial creation of Merion East, including not just the preparation for the overseas trip, but also regarding the actual creation of the course, then we no longer have much to argue about."

I doubt anyone is going to agree with you on that or that it can be proven that Macdonald and Whigam had a significant influence on the initial creation of Merion East for the simple reason it appears they weren't even here then with the exception of one visit before the course went into construction. I think Hugh Wilson's report is pretty indicative about what he felt Macdonald offered both he and his committee and that was something he quite comprehensively mentioned in his report. It was what they learned from him during that visit to NGLA. Again, if you can't understand the significance of that I doubt you ever will understand the creation of Merion East and who it was who was here to lay it out and build it. Wilson was pretty clear in that report he wrote in 1915-16 that that was 'Our problem'.

Again, if Macdonald and Whigam were here in Philadelphia to significantly influence them on how to do that I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why both Alan and particularly Hugh Wilson would not have at least MENTIONED that too.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

As for the rest of your hysterical post, I'll propose a deal with you right here on the DG since you've refused to do it on the IM where it belongs so the rest of the people on here DON'T have to see this garbage.

Wayne and I feel you have fabricated facts about Merion and I feel you have put words in my mouth I absolutely never said obviously for the purpose of just furthering some unsupportable point or hypothesis of yours or to simply do anything you possibly can to prove us wrong about something or anything. It's all on here for all to read. You can deny it but that doesn't mean it's not the case.

However, I will certainly agree to remove any posts on here where I called you a liar for what you said about my remarks and statements on here about Merion's creation that I never said. What you said is just totally untrue. It's as simple as that, there's no denying it and you can't. For that you need to agree to remove that hysterical post of yours above while I remove any posts on here calling you a  .

I agree, I don't think anyone on here wants to see this kind of garbage between us so let's see where you're coming from on this. Where I'm coming from is I think we need to agree to both remove it.

If you refuse to agree to remove it, well, what then can anyone really say or think?

If you refuse I would be glad to call Ran about this. I already spoke with him last week about it.

A post like this one belongs on the IM, not on here, but you refused to use the IM insisting that you want any communication between us on here. I think it's very unfortunate to do it that way but that was totally your call, not mine. In my opinion, the IM is there for a purpose and this DG is not supposed to serve the same purpose as the IM. It's too bad you've refused to understand or appreciate that.

[Dan Boerger]

Just a thought ...

In the Frick Institute in NYC hangs a painting called the "Polish Rider". It's a painting that is forever under a cloud of controversy since it's not clear whether Rembrandt, one of his students, or a combination thereof painted it. Now there hasn't been a brush stoke put to the canvas in 400 odd years, but it's value, to many, a collector has varied wildly.

If you're a golfer with even the least bit of interest in GCA and you play Merion, you'll know very quickly that you're at a special place. How it came to be can (and obviously is!) be debated, but that will never diminish the end result to me.  

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Good thought and very interesting analogy.

I don't think anyone on any of these Merion threads is questioning the quality of Merion East as a course and as architecture.

What's being questioned is some of the accepted facts about its initial creation.

To me that's a good thing as some on here, such as Shivas has expressed privately to me.

We have found things via these threads that we never knew---eg the 1912 trip to GB by Wilson. Has that been proven to be the only trip to GB by Wilson or the first one at this point? Not to me it hasn't. But I have no problem at all seeing the investigation of that go on.

But does it really matter and who does it matter to? Probably just to people like us on here. I'm from this town and I have to know at least a hundred members of Merion and a pretty good number of them are rolling their eyes at these threads.

Sure, they're probably pretty interested to see that a few things may not have been known for a good long time or that a few dates on reports appear to be off by a year or whatever but to them it doesn't change the true and accurate record of Merion East regarding who it was that created the golf course.

David Moriarty's positon on here seems to be something like a courtroom prosecutor who tries to impress a jury that if he can just establish that a defense witness is mistaken on one single thing then that ought to call into question their entire credibility or their entire testimony on everything.

I just don't look at it that way, certainly not with Merion East.

It may never be known exactly what the significance of those few days of involvement with M&W was but one has to remember we are just not dealing with the creation of Merion East and who did it in a total vacuum in which this question of the significance of M&W's involvement or advice is the only thing being considered.

The point is it is just undeniable who was here every day laying out, designing and building the golf course. That is just something that is not up for discussion and debate, in my opinion, no matter how much the likes of the MacWoods and Moriartys want to make it look like it is or should be.

People like a Tom MacWood or David Moriarty who hardly know the golf course might suggest that if a date is proven wrong that then means that now noone knows who designed the golf course. Tom MacWood actually said that on here and it seems like Moriarty tried to imply the same thing. That is just patently preposterous, in my opinion. That is nothing more than specious reasoning at its most egregious.

Of course we know who laid out and built the golf course. We may not have a total laundry list of who was responsible for every single detail of every single thing to do with the golf course for the simple reason no one ever kept records like that. They didn't do that back then and they don't do it now. No club or project will probably ever do that. Does that then mean we have no idea who laid out, designed and built golf courses? Of course not.

This entire discussion seems to have come down to the exact definition of a few words---eg "advice", "involvement" and particularly the qualifer "significant".

This seems to be all that Moriarty has left to talk about.

On the other hand we have Wilson's brother in a report for a club history book mentioning that in the main Hugh Wilson was the architect of the course and the entire committee confirmed that to him. We have Hugh Wilson himself explaining what their problem and project was and who was responsible for it and who did it. He didn't say that before the fact, before anything happened, he said that four years after the fact!

We have literally scores of others who were there then who have said the same thing about the same people who did it.

For all these reasons, I really question whether this discussion needs to go on and if so for what purpose?

Is all we are left with now to discuss simply the meaning of the words "advice", "involvement" and the qualifer "significant"?

If so I suggest we turn to the words again of those two who were as close to that project back then as anyone----The Wilsons!

I think their words in those two reports pretty much speak for themselves as to who it was who SIGNIFICANTLY contributed to the laying out, design, and construction of Merion East. It was Wilson and his committee with Pickering, Flynn and Valentine who worked for them then every day. That is what they've said. If it was not them, if it was Macdonald who significantly contributed other than what they BOTH said about him and his contribution with them at NGLA I just see NO REASON at all why they would not have said so!

If a David Moriarty wants to kept these threads going in an intelligent and productive way he needs to address that question seriously and objectively and honestly and he needs to address it NOW!

[Mike_Cirba]

But if you now agree with me that Macdonald and Whigham did have a significant influence on the initial creation of Merion East, including not just the preparation for the overseas trip, but also regarding the actual creation of the course (bold mine), then we no longer have much to argue about.  

Where I think we veer off from each other David is that while I give Macdonald all the credit I just listed above, I can't make the leap into any type of design credit, even as a footnote, because there is just isn't any evidence to support that.

Actually Mike, we do not veer from each other on this point at all.  I don’t make a leap to design credit.  I never have.  My record is clear on this.   So stop misrepresenting my position.

David,

The reason I'm "misrepresenting" your position, as you say, is simply because I do not see how you're drawing a distinction between "significant influence on the creation of Merion East...regarding the actual creation of the course" and "design credit".  

And yes, that is where we veer off...sharply.   I do not see a single site visit where he pronounced an already purchased, L-shaped, narrow, clay-based, piece of land intersected by a public throughway as somehow more wonderful for golf than any of the other 100,000 acres of farmland surrounding Philadelphia as significantly influential on the actual creation of the course.  

I'm sure he made wonderful suggestions, David.   I'm sure he gave valuable advice.  Perhaps he should have cautioned them to avoid having three holes cross a public thoroughfare in retrospect, but it would have been tough to accommodate 18 holes without that compromise.  

But, David...we still don't know what if anything he advised, and what we do know is that the course as designed and built included none of his design trademarks that he and his disciples basically patented for the next 20 or so years.

I do not see any evidence in this or any of the other Merion threads indicating that CBM had a "significant influence" regarding the actual design and creation of the course at Merion East.

Perhaps you should define "significant", because I tend to think of that in terms of doing the routing, creating hole strategies, adding man-made features, etc.  

If your definition holds that bar much lower than mine does, then perhaps we do agree.  

[Dan Boerger]

Tom - Make no mistake about it ...I'm really impressed, overwhelmed in fact, at the level of research (I should probably state scholorship) I've witnessed in these threads. I'll never play Merion again and not think about what's been posted here. -Dan

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan and TEPaul,

Noone is contesting the merits of Merion from an architectural or golf perspective.

David's quest seems to be to establish Merion's roots, its history, its pedigree,

[TEPaul]

"Tom - Make no mistake about it ...I'm really impressed, overwhelmed in fact, at the level of research (I should probably state scholorship) I've witnessed in these threads. I'll never play Merion again and not think about what's been posted here. -Dan"

Dan:

I agree with you. That part is pretty awesome. Unfortunately there is about ten times too much "residual noise" on these Merion threards, obviously including from me.

But I wouldn't be doing any of that and Wayne Morrison who knows as much or more at this point about Merion's architectural creation than anyone in the world today would still be on these threads if it were not for this David Moriarty arguing with every single thing we say on here. Most of this research has come from us anyway. He contributed this manifest thing and the 1912 Wilson trip but that's about it.

His only point and one he just incessantly argues on here is that none of us agree with him on the meaning of "significant" relating to the reports of advice and involvement from M&W.

That single thing is what's creating about ten times too much "residual noise" on these Merion threads. If he would simply stop that crap these threads could be really productive and about twenty times shorter.

[TEPaul]

"David's quest seems to be to establish Merion's roots, its history, its pedigree,"

Pat:

It sure does seem like that. But we don't need him to establish Merion's roots, its history and its pedigree architecturally. We know what its roots, its history and its pedigree are and we know who the architect of that course was.

What we don't know is the precise meaning the words "advice" and "involvement" from M&W.

How important in the broad scheme of the creation of Merion East between spring 1911 and Sept 1911 is it to know that anyway, given all the other avaiable evidence of what Wilson, his committee, Pickering, Flynn and Valentine obviously did there every day during that time? Just the mere fact of perhaps one or two days vs six or seven months every day has to have meaning and SIGNIFICANCE and frankly a lot of meaning and significance, in my book. How some of these people on here can't seem to understand that is pretty much beyond me. Of course if someone found a routing drawing from Macdonald or hole drawings from him I would most definitely very much change my opinion on that.

It seems to me the Wilsons were pretty clear on that point of exactly what Macdonald did for them but obviously David Moriarty doesn't think so. I, on the other hand, can just see no reason at all to assume they were NOT pretty clear on that point of M&W's advice and involvement. It's not as if they never mentioned it, and to me that's a lot of point of his involvement. Just look at what they did mention and why and don't start assuming all these hairbrained reasons why they may not have mentioned something if he had more significant involvement than they already did mention.

[Bryan Izatt]

It seems after these hundreds of posts that it comes down to both sides agreeing to the basic facts, but slanging each other over the "significance" of M&W's contribution.  Neither side seems to be able to agree to the facts without then interpreting the facts to demonstrate a significant or insignificant role.  From a neutral corner, here, I don't think there is enough information to determine a "significant" role.  For discussion purposes, here is the definition of significance:

sig·nif·i·cant

adjective
Definition:
 
1. meaningful: having or expressing a meaning

2. communicating secret meaning: having a hidden or implied meaning

3. momentous and influential: having a major or important effect

4. substantial: relatively large in amount

5. statistics, occurring not merely by chance: relating to the occurrence of events or outcomes that are too closely linked statistically to be mere chance

David,

Seems to me that definitions 1, 2, and 5 above aren't what you have in mind.  Agree?  That leaves 3 and 4.  Number 4 seems not to be the case.  Various people have argued that the number of days M&W spent advising is small relative to the total days involved in the building process.  Agree?  That leaves #4.  Based on the information available do you believe that M&W's contribution was momentus and influential?  Or are we to now debate what would constitute momentus and influential?

Both sides agree on the basic facts.  Can we not finish the vitriolic parts of these threads off by agreeing that the two sides have different interpretations of what significant means.  Or are we to suffer more pages of name calling.

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks, Bryan...I think that's very helpful.

I'd just like to add;

Adj. 1. momentous - of very great significance; "deciding to drop the atom bomb was a very big decision"; "a momentous event"

In this case, I'd define a "significant" role as relates to the creation of the golf course at Merion East in terms of actually doing the routing, creating hole strategies, adding man-made features, etc.

So, when David says, "Macdonald and Whigham did have a significant influence on the initial creation of Merion East, including not just the preparation for the overseas trip, but also regarding the actual creation of the course", then I would ask that he be just as precise as I am in citing actual, concrete tasks that make up his definition of the term "significant" as relates to the "actual creation of the course."

[TEPaul]

Now we may debate what "significant", "substantial" and "momentus" may precisely mean??

These threads have become ridiculous.

Last night I posted that Wayne went to the Recorder of Deeds at Merion's county courthouse and discovered the property was bought by Merion over a year earlier than anyone heretofore knew. Can you imagine what that may mean about when Wilson may've visited NGLA?

David Moriarty read that post and just avoided that subject altogether!! What does that tell you about where he's coming from on these threads??

He argues endlessly over only trivialities that suit his hypotheses and completely avoids everything else of importance that doesn't support it.

Go ahead, argue with him for another ten pages about what the precise definition of "significant" is and then "substantial" and "momentus" for another ten pages.

This man is not looking for the truth about Merion at all. He wouldn't even recognize it after it's been put right under his nose for about 40 pages. All he wants to do is to continue to argue with people who understand and know Merion a lot better than he ever will, and who have also supplied him with about 90% of the little he does know about it.

And don't be looking for some list of who did what at Merion because you will never find it. That kind of thing was probably never recorded back then as it isn't today.

Frankly, we are pretty lucky to have such a report from the man who was the architect of Merion and another one from his brother. On most courses of that era we don't have such a thing.

Oh sorry, David Moriarty doesn't even have those reports does he?? And why doesn't he? Oh yeah, I forgot, he claims that's all my fault because I put the relevent parts of it on here and then decided to delete all my posts on the other thread after he acted like a total jerk driving away the guy who knows a hundred times more about the history of Merion than he will ever know.

Maybe he should've thought a bit more about copying something relevent to this thread and reposting that like those reports instead of just copying and reposting things I said to him he thinks are insulting.

I suggest you all begin to pay a whole lot more attention to what the Wilsons particularly said---who would have known about the creation of Merion better than they would----and a whole lot less attention to what the meaning of "advice", "involvement and "significant" means to this guy David Moriarty.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Despite all of the acrimony, posturing, and silly suppositions on this (and the other) Merion thread, I do think some interesting historical tidbits have been unearthed, such as the latest find by Wayne you mentioned.

On the other hand, it's been like searching for a gold nugget in a pile of manure.

[JESII]

Last night I posted that Wayne went to the Recorder of Deeds at Merion's county courthouse and discovered the property was bought by Merion over a year earlier than anyone heretofore knew. Can you imagine what that may mean about when Wilson may've visited NGLA?

Tom,

What does it mean?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Well, for starters some on here like Moriarty have suggested on these threads that perhaps Macdonald had site oversight over where Merion East was to build their course.

As I've said numerous times we have never known exactly when Merion bought the site or when Wilson went to NGLA or when he went to GB.

Most on here, including us have been assuming the site was bought in 1910, perhaps in the end of 1910 if Macdonald was supposed to advise on the site and perhaps some kind of oversight on whether it was suitable or not.

Do you really think he had that kind of oversight or involvement or advice if he didn't see the site for a year and a half after the club bought it???

And if they bought it in 1909 how do we even know that Wilson didn't go see him in 1909? That sure does jibe with that newspaper report that NGLA was still under construction when Wilson visited it.

And how do we even know that if Wilson went to NGLA in 1909 or 1910 he didn't go to GB right after that in 1909 or 1910? Has David Moriarty proven that Wilson didn't go to GB before the course's 1911 beginning just because he's said on here he thinks this Ancestry.com or his research of it is infallible??

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()