[TEPaul]

"Everything he knows about CBM that he learned from "Scotland's Gift" he owes to ME.  

Patrick:

I would certainly agree with that. It was a most generous thing you did to give me such a beautiful book and I've probably read it more than any other in my architecture library.

You certainly are a BigMacophile. But it will always be my lot to explain to you how Macdonald or anything else in history should be properly and accurately viewed today.  

There is no doubt in my mind that if you had the opportunity to meet Macdonald after making some suggestion that his gate should be moved to make room for another 50-60 yards on his 18th hole a massive rumble would instantly break out and he would get the better of you.

The only man allowed to move those gates was C.B. himself and that was only after crashing into them as he was departing NGLA on the way to his house. Probably totally soused, I might add.

Hey Pat, you know these ridiculous HUMMERS that some of America's bigshots are driving around today? Do you realize how wide those things are? Can you imagine trying to get one of those things in or out of Macdonald's gate? I think you'd have to have someone with you to get out and guide you it would be so close on either side.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

No, Macdonald had an invitational for a bunch of good players in July 1910. Max Behr was there and wrote about it. He said it didn't matter if the course wasn't finished and the agronomy was terrible because they could all see anyway that the golf course was going to be a great one.

[Mike_Cirba]

While I would agree that Macdonald wasn't really viewed as an architect in 1910-11, I do find trouble believing that by 1925, Alan Wilson wouldn't have viewed Macdonald as an "architect", when he said "no architect was used".

By that point, virtually all of Macdonald's seminal works had been completed, he was still tied heavily (in name at least) into Raynor's work, and he hadn't been much of a player for the past decade or so.

Instead, I interpret Alan Wilson's words to mean, WE (the Committee) did it, not Macdonald.   I think he makes that distinction pretty darn clear, and purposefully so.

[TEPaul]

"While I would agree that Macdonald wasn't really viewed as an architect in 1910-11, I do find trouble believing that by 1925, Alan Wilson wouldn't have viewed Macdonald as an "architect", when he said "no architect was used"."

MikeC:

You don't understand. The point is that even if Alan Wilson wrote that report in 1926 he was writing about the creation of Merion in 1911 and about C.B. Macdonald in 1911 (Alan Wilson was very prominently there then even though he was not a member of the Construction Committee)---not about C.B. Macdonald in 1926.

Of course it would be interesting too to see what either Hugh or Alan would have written about the creation of Merion East if they had written about it contemporaneously in 1911, but the point is, to me, anyway, that they wrote about it as well as they did after the fact, and in both cases some years after the fact.

Just think what that means----eg that they were in a position in time to not just recall where they were and what they were thinking back then in 1910 and 1911 but more importantly where the ensuing years had taken them all.

On of the most valuable lessons and mindsets anyone can ever have in golf architecture is in the saying; "Always remember to know what you don't know".

That is often not easy to do or even possible to do in the beginning or until the ensuing years give you the perspective to understand how far you have come and how little you once knew.

To me that's the real value of those two Wilson reports. And not just that, I think it shows a particular time so well and the way it really happened back then which is so vastly different from today. The point is that even if they were novices they really did produce something pretty phenomenal anyway on their own.

Merion is a great golf course and probably always has been even in the beginning but the real wonderment is in who did it and where they really were in the evolution of golf architecture in America.

I believe that there is too great an inclination for some on here to just assume and then proclaim that men like Hugh Wilson, George Crump, W.C. Fownes, Herbert Leeds et al could not possibly have done what they purportedly did way back then without some real significant on site help from some architect far more knowledgeable than them.

To me this is just distorting history and it's also failing to recognize one of the most important and fascinating aspects of that time---eg they really did do it themselves even if they later understood just how much the novice they once were when they began.

I think the truth about Macdonald and Merion is exactly as Hugh Wilson wrote it----"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of C.B. Macdonald and H.J Whigam".

Wilson does not mention Macdonald or Whigam again much at all after they began the course in the spring of 1911.

He does mention that they were given a good start in that visit to NGLA and then they went back to Philadelphia and for all intents and purposes they just did it themselves as has always been the history of the creation of the courses of Merion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Understood.   I just think it would be difficult for Alan Wilson to divorce what he had experienced knowing of all the courses built by Macdonald in the previous 15 years from his comments.  By 1925, virtually everyone in golf (including AW's presumed audience) was well aware of Macdonald's reputation as a course architect.

But no matter...that isn't really the issue at this point.

Here's where I think we stand.   After 3 months of this, I'm waiting for David Moriarty to give a simple yes or no answer to Chris Brauner's following question.

Wilson and his committee designed and built the East Course at Merion, the committee was advised by Macdonald and Whigham, and though the advice may have been valuable, it did not warrant design credit.

Yay or Nay...it's that simple.

Let's hear it David, so perhaps we can wrap this up!  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
"Understood.  I just think it would be difficult for Alan Wilson to divorce what he had experienced knowing of all the courses built by Macdonald in the previous 15 years from his comments.  By 1925, virtually everyone in golf (including AW's presumed audience) was well aware of Macdonald's reputation as a course architect."

Mike:

The fact that Wilson did say what he did about Macdonald in 1910-11 in that report 15 years later just totally underscores what they did feel about him in 1910-11, don't you think? It was probably pretty poignant for Wilson to write that in 1926 seeing that he knew how far Macdonald had come too from that early time.


"Let's hear it David, so perhaps we can wrap this up!   "

What makes you think he wants to wrap up these Merion threads? I'll give you odds he will never just say yay or nay to Chris Brauner's question. That would be far too simple. And then there wouldn't be anything left to discuss or argue about.

[Mike_Cirba]

What makes you think he wants to wrap up these Merion threads? I'll give you odds he will never just say yay or nay to Chris Brauner's question. That would be far too simple. And then there wouldn't be anything left to discuss or argue about.

Tom,

It's really a very simple question with only two possible answers.

Either David believes that Macdonald deserves full or partial design credit for Merion or he does not.

It's about as straightforward as you can get and there is really no room for fudging or waffling, is there?  

The only two possible answers are YES or NO.  

All that being said, I'm willing to lay 100 to 1 odds that the answer we get is longer than 2 or 3 letters.  

[TEPaul]

"All that being said, I'm willing to lay 100 to 1 odds that the answer we get is longer than 2 or 3 letters.  

Do you think so? But you just said there are only two possible answers--yay or nay or yes or no.

I'll lay 1000 to 1 odds that David will not only not anwer Chris's question in 2 or 3 letters but that he will also say NAY to your statement there are only two possible answers not longer than 2 or 3 letters.

Did you hear the one about Alice Longworth, that asp-tongued Washingtonian (TR's daughter who thought President Calvin Coolidge was the most boring lunkhead imaginable) going around making a bunch of bets at a White House function that she could get Coolidge to say more than two words?

So after she made all the bets she goes up to Coolidge and tells him she made a bet she could get him to say more than two words and he just looks at her and says; "You lose", and walks away.

Alice Longworth was also the one who said: "If you don't have something nice to say about someone, come right over here and sit next to me, honey."

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'm sure I already know David's answer, and in the spirit of clarity and decisiveness (re: vague obfuscation) he will state boldly;

WE DON'T KNOW YET.

At which point I will chuckle knowingly and leave this thread to the ages.  

[TEPaul]

Mike:

If David ever uses the word "we" on this thread, I just hope he can be as indicative of who he's referring to as Hugh Wilson was when he used "we" in his 1915 report regarding who laid out and built Merion East.  

[TEPaul]

"Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham . . . twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the Special Construction Committee . . . ."

David Moriarty:

Why don't you included what Alan Wilson said after the .....??, that is if you have that part. I think it puts this issue in a much clearer context and perspective.

Also, as far as I can tell you got all your Alan Wilson quotes from me on this or the other threads. I should post more of what he said about Wilson and the "Special Construction Committee" and the course in other parts of his report.

And there most certainly is a strong implication from the Alan Wilson report that Hugh Wilson went to GB in 1910;

"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England."

Does that really sound to you as if he was saying or implying that Hugh Wilson went two years later?  

Matter of fact, if there is no other evidence of Hugh Wilson going to GB in 1910 I would wager this report of Alan WIlson is precisely where the belief in the history books that he did go over there in 1910 came from, and probably from that very quotation above.

[TEPaul]

"These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great and good luck--probably both--for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what seems a ridiculously low price (about $700 and acre). The Construction Committee laid out and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar."
Alan Wilson report to William R. Philler on the creation of the Merion courses.

As he has done on the other threads David Moriarty will probably view the above as the account of a man with a poor memory or one who is only out to promote the memory of his recently deceased brother.  

I guess I would too if I felt I must defend my "hypothesis" that Macdonald was short-changed in the amount of credit he deserves against all accounts to the contrary.

[TEPaul]

"The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it a really exacting test of golf for the best of players."
Alan Wilson


"We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr Alison (see below as to identity W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, the fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth."  
Alan Wilson

"The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East Course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called "Charm" which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not."
Alan Wilson

"The East Course is recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National Championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exactlng a test should that ever be deemed desirable. We certainly owe a great debt of gratitude to these two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgement and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion"
Alan Wilson

The Committee, the Committee, the Committee......  


It's pretty hard to try to continue to deny who it really was that did the laying out, design and construction of Merion East and West from all that, don't you think, David? But somehow it will not surprise me if you continue to try to find some other ways and other arguments to minimize and discount its real meaning!

[Mike_Cirba]

_________________________
 

Here's where I think we stand.   After 3 months of this, I'm waiting for David Moriarty to give a simple yes or no answer to Chris Brauner's following question.

Wilson and his committee designed and built the East Course at Merion, the committee was advised by Macdonald and Whigham, and though the advice may have been valuable, it did not warrant design credit.

Yay or Nay...it's that simple.
 

Yay.

Excellent, David.   Then I think we are in full agreement.

Hugh Wilson is the architect of Merion, CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham advised the Committee, and the world continues spinning on its axis.

What is it we disagreed about again?  

Tom Paul,

Does Alan Wilson say who designed and built Merion?  

[john_stiles]

While a solid Hugh Wilson fan on the basis of the early writings mentioned, and arguments presented,  it is interesting to read how recognized CBM apparently was.

Whether he was called an architect or not by ‘others’,  he was building golf courses and by 1911 was well along the way to build Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow, having ‘essentially’ completed NGLA by 1910 or so.  

C.B. Macdonald and his ideas of building the ideal golf course were even well known to the public by "March 1910" by sports page accounts I have seen in Philadelphia newspaper.

[Mike_Cirba]

While a solid Hugh Wilson fan on the basis of the early writings mentioned, and arguments presented,  it is interesting to read how recognized CBM apparently was.

Whether he was called an architect or not by ‘others’,  he was building golf courses and by 1911 was well along the way to build Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow, having ‘essentially’ completed NGLA by 1910 or so.  

C.B. Macdonald and his ideas of building the ideal golf course were even well known to the public by "March 1910" by sports page accounts I have seen in Philadelphia newspaper.

John Stiles,

Would you agree with me that it would be very strange for Alan Wilson in 1925 to not consider CB Macdonald an "architect"?

What's your take on what he wrote when he said that Merion did not use an architect.   Do you think he was specifically saying that Macdonald didn't design the course, or do you think he wouldn't have considered Macdonald an architect, even by that date?

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul, I think I understand your reasoning regarding the omission of specific details about Macdonald in the H. Wilson report:  You believe that Wilson would have written about Macdonald’s involvement had Macdonald been at all involved in the actual lay out of the course.  

Yet you have written many times that H. Wilson was apparently silent about all of the specific details of the design process and does not describe anyone’s specific role or contribution in the design process and construction.  Plus, you have put great faith in Alan Wilson’s recollection, and he wrote that they were talking about "the lay out of the course" both at NGLA and in Haverford.  

Given that Hugh Wilson never described the details of the design process or of anyone else’s specific involvement in the design process, why would you expect that he would have described the specific details of Macdonald’s involvement in the design process?"

David Moriarty:

You THINK you understand my reasoning about the omission of specific details about Macdonald in the H. Wilson report?

No, David, with all due respect, apparently you don't understand it at all.

I have explained on here a number of times that there is virtually no golf course anywhere about which the architect or anyone else for that matter EVER explained in specific detail who did what and where and wrote that down anywhere for the ages to review it. Do you even understand a little bit what i mean by that or what it means? Even a little bit?? If you don't understand what I'm saying then just tell this site what and where that golf course or courses is where the architect or anyone else kept a specific list of who did what and where. I doubt that has EVER happened in golf architecture, so why in the world would you even mention such a thing??

OK, if you are still with me so far, then why do you keep bringing up that it doesn't matter if Wilson didn't mention Macdonald since he didn't mention anyone else in the context of someone or other doing every single specific thing on the course?

The totally obvious point you seem to have completely missed for months now is that both Hugh and particularly Alan Wilson explained in general terms over and over and over again who it was who was COMPREHENSIVELY responsible for laying out, designing and building the golf course.

In those explanations it was always the Committee, the Committee, the Committee, "We" and "OUR" that always referred to THE COMMITTEE and never to C.B Macdonald and W.H. Whigam. Both Hugh and Alan Wilson did say that M&W advised, and I think we now know they probably did that on three occassions only. We've always known that, it was most certainly not you who informed us of that, and we have never mimimized or discounted what that means.

But, on the other hand, we have these reports from the men directly involved every day that mention over and over WHO IT ACTUALLY WAS that layed out, designed and built the golf course and at no time do any of them include Macdonald and Whigam in that stage of it.

My point is that if Macdonald and Whigam had been involved in that part of Merion's creation as the Committee was, I see no reason at all why both of the Wilsons would NOT have MENTIONED THAT in their reports. What reason do you see now, that they never mentioned M&W in that stage but CONSTANTLY mentioned the Committee? We are not talking about "advice" here at this stage---both we and they were talking about ACTUALLY laying out, designing and building those golf courses.

Or perhaps you've been missing that rather important distinction too for the last several months.

You're damn right these reports are incredibly important to understanding the creation of Merion. In what they wrote do you think they were mistaken, do you think they had poor memories, or that they were trying to credit only themselves at Macdonald's expense? Come on David, try to get real here if it is the truth you're really after!

Are you understanding this better now? Because if, at this point, you aren't, I think it is patently clear to everyone who is reading these threads that you just don't want to know the truth of the creation of the Merion courses or else you find it practically impossible to admit it.

[Mike_Cirba]

In those explanations it was always the Committee, the Committee, the Committee, "We" and "OUR" that always referred to THE COMMITTEE and never to C.B Macdonald and W.H. Whigam. Both Hugh and Alan Wilson did say that M&W advised, and I think we now know they probably did that on three occassions only. We've always know that and we have never mimimized or discounted what that means. But, on the other hand we have these reports from the men directly involved every day that mention over and over WHO IT ACTUALLY WAS that layed out, designed and built the golf course and at no time do any of them include Macdonald and Whigam in that.

My point is that if Macdonald and Whigam had been involved in that part of Merion's creation as the Committee was I see no reason at all why both of the Wilsons would have MENTIONED THAT in their reports. What reason do you see now? That they were mistaken, that they had poor memories that they were trying to credit themselves at Macdonald's expense? Come on David, try to get real here if it is the truth you're after!

Tom,

Not only did the Wilson Bros. make perfectly clear who laid out, designed, routed, created features, and did the construction of the Merion East course, but so did Tillinghast, Max Behr, and contemporaneous news accounts.

And now, finally, if I read David correctly, David Moriarty is saying it as well.  

The only one who didn't seem to get it was Smither....er..ah...Whigham.  I think we can very reasonably assume that he was so distraught at the death of CB Macdonald that he got a little carried away at the funeral.  

[TEPaul]

"What's your take on what he wrote when he said that Merion did not use an architect.  Do you think he was specifically saying that Macdonald didn't design the course, or do you think he wouldn't have considered Macdonald an architect, even by that date?"

Mike:

Just read the words. There's no reason to speculate here. Alan Wilson in the same paragraph says that Merion used no architect at all, then he mentions the help the Committee got from Macdonald and Whigam who he referred to as those two kindly gentlemen who were US Amateur champions and "SPORTSMEN" who had built the National links at Southampton.

Don't you think with all that in one paragraph if Alan Wilson meant to call Macdonald an architect he would have??

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike:

Just read the words. There's no reason to speculate here. Alan Wilson in the same paragraph says that Merion used no architect at all, then he mentions the help the Committee got from Macdonald and Whigam who he referred to as those two kindly gentlemen who were US Amateur champions and "SPORTSMEN" who had built the National links at Southampton.

Don't you think with all that in one paragraph if Alan Wilson meant to call Macdonald an architect he would have??

Tom,

Yes, I know all of that, but I think that Alan Wilson had to be very cognitive that he was writing for an audience, most of whom it could be reasonably assumed thought of Macdonald first and foremost as the architect of NGLA, Sleepy Hollow, Greenbrier White, Piping Rock, Mid Ocean, et.al. by that point in time.

I think what he was doing was giving M&W their just due by saying that they were of great assistance and provided valuable advisement, but also drawing the clear distinction in that same paragraph that the actual architecting (layout, routing, feature placement, & construction) of Merion was "homegrown", not using an architect (like Macdonald) at all, and then in the next paragraph specifically identifying his brother Hugh as the one all of the men of the Committee pointed to as the actual designer.  

[TEPaul]

"The only one who didn't seem to get it was Smither....er..ah...Whigham.  I think we can very reasonably assume that he was so distraught at the death of CB Macdonald that he got a little carried away at the funeral."  

Mike:

I've heard for some years that Whigam mentioned in a eulogy that Macdonald was the architect of Merion. George Bahto also told Wayne and I that Raynor was the architect of Merion West. When we asked George why he said that he replied because Whigam mentioned that in a eulogy to Raynor at his funeral and that Whigam was a most honest man.

But just consider this for a minute Mike, because this is the way rumors start and become half-truths or accepted truth---eg what did Whigam ACTUALLY say in that eulogy at Raynor's funeral and in that eulogy at Macdonald's funeral?

Did he actually say Macdonald was the architect of Merion East and that Raynor was the architect of Merion West or did he simply say what everyone has always known that they "advised" them and somebody just misconstrued that to mean he said they were the architects of both of the Merion courses?

I bet Whigam never did say that they were the architects of both Merion courses. I bet that just got misconstrued as so much else seems to in these kinds of things.

On the other hand, maybe someone actually has those eulogies of Whigam and can produce them to show us he actually said that, which frankly I would find truly surprising.

Regarding Alan Wilson and his report, again don't just make assumptions. He did not exactly write that report to be published per se as far as we can tell. He wrote that report at the request of a man by the name of William H. Philler, who asked Alan to write it for the first history of Merion that Philler was planning on writing. That report apparently went to Philler and not to be published in some magazine or something. Did you notice in one of those quotes from Alan Wilson I just posted above that in parentheses there was the note next to Alison's name "see below as to identity W.R.P"?

That was William R. Philler. He wrote that on Alan Wilson's report.

Mike:

I do not agree with you above that Alan Wilson thought of Macdonald as an architect and meant to say in his report that although he was an architect he just wasn't involved in any way and that the courses were "HOMEMADE". I think that Alan Wilson intended to not call Macdonald an architect (not back then anyway) and that's precisely why he referred to him as a "sportsman" rather than an "architect".

I believe quite strongly that back at that time the designation "architect" connoted professionalism to some of those men and that was just about the last thing they wanted to be thought of as.

[TEPaul]

By the way, MikeC, you should know that back at that time there was a whole lot of stuff coming down particularly within the Rules of Golf in the USGA about amateur status and professionalism in a number of things and very much covering architecture.

Macdonald was very much the USGA Rules Committee guy back then and he was pretty adamant about what constituted professionalism. The Americans had gotten really stringent at that time (more stringent than on the other side) and a lot was coming down. They questioned Travis's amateur status, they questioned Quimet's and they removed Tillinghast's.

It wasn't until 1920 the USGA established what has been called the "architect" rule in their "Amateur Status" Rules finally exempting all professional architects from having their profession threaten their amateur status.

Times have changed bigtime from then obviously as today, for the first time in the USGA's history a professional architect sits on the USGA's Executive board----Steve Smyers.

Mike, I see that David Moriarty has said Yay to Chris Brauner's question. After all this time it was just that simple!  

My give and take with David is contained in post #629 in which I simply said I do not agree with him at all regarding something I think is most fundamental to this entire issue.

So we understand we just don't agree, that I think he's wrong and he thinks I'm wrong. That's fine and I'll also go with his response to Chris Brauner's question, and so I feel these Merion threads and David Moriarty's "hypotheses" about Merion are finally over.

[Eric Franzen]

From the movie "This is Spinal Tap":

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

A clip of this scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjhh--4Yff4

[Phil_the_Author]

Two small points...

Somewhere earlier on this or the other thread (I believe it was this one) someone asked if the reason that Merion was moving its club to a new location was because their lease was running out and they were being forced to do this. I believe I have found the answer to that.

In the January 1919 issue of The American Golfer, Tilly wrote that, "Some ten years ago some of the clubs had their courses close to the city were warned that it would be best for them to purchase land a little more remote from town streets... Merion was forced to give up its course and move farther away..."

It sounds like expansion caused a zoning-type issue for them.

Secondly, a question for David Moriarity. I believe it is one that has yet to be addressed. Based upon what you stated, "Too many who were there place the credit with Wilson and the Committee for me to even entertain a contrary conclusion..." do you believe there is any individual or individuals associated with the committee who deserve MORE credit than others for the design of Merion?

[TEPaul]

"It was the Committee that laid out and costructed the course, Tom, but they laid it out with a heck of a lot of guidance from Macdonald and Whigham."

David:

I would agree with that and just let it go at that.

As to what M&W actually contributed to the layout, design and construction of the East course we will probably never know. I put a good deal of value in what Hugh Wilson said about the advice they got at NGLA but I also put a lot of value in the fact he never mentioned anything they did in Philadelphia. And for that reason it doesn't sound like much to me.

I tend to value this kind of thing this way---it's sort of like 3-4 days of involvement before the course went into construction vs over six months of daily laying out, design and construction by the Committee and those on their crew.

You can imagine what that means any way you want to but I tend to value that kind of thing the way I've seen it done myself and heard it was done on other courses in the past. And I think that's precisely why Hugh Wilson didn't mention anything regarding M&W in Philadelphia, even in a general sense as he did about the Committee.

By the way, you are just overlooking the obvious again in some of what you state. I see you're back to the belief that Macdonald had some kind of site selection oversight. I would  doubt that since Merion bought that land about a year and a half before Macdonald came down there to look at it. I seriously doubt the club would've sold it and gone looking for more land if Macdonald didn't like it. But you can feel free to dream on about that too----at this point I doubt that matters to anyone anymore.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()