[JESII]

Tom and Wayne,

What good does it do anyone to let false speculation go through and eventually become an article of sorts.

You two need to be on here in this discussion because you are best able to confirm or refute the ideas tossed around not just by David, but by many of us.

In a conversation where the absence of disproof (is that a word?) creates proof, your abilities to disprove are much needed. I can only ask David to clarify and support his logical leaps, nothing more.

[TEPaul]

I just read the last 2/3 to 3/4 of David Moriarty's last post above.

That post just may be the most hilarious post in the history of this site for mindbendingly excessive arguing over just about nothing.

Ran, you've got to put that one in the Hall of Fame on this site---or the Hall of Shame.

I'll nominate it and others can second and third and fourth it.  

David, come on pal, give it and yourself a rest. There's nobody on here or out there who would ever buy the things you're saying now.

I know nobody wants to be mean about it---I don't want to be mean anymore either and I don't plan to be but I gotta tell you that you are really beginning to seriously embarrass yourelf across the Internet.

Give it a rest---please---before you lose all credibilty.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Ordinarily Wayne and I would be glad to do that and you know we have and will continue to, but not for David Moriarty anymore. I don't think anyone has yet figured out what he's really trying to do or prove on here or what he's even asking and we need to go through that for about 35 pages on this basic subject on Merion???

I'm sorrry, we'd be glad to do it for anyone else on here but not that guy, not any more. It's a total waste of time. As you said he will argue with every single fact and piece of documentary info offered him. Who needs that? Really?

I think you had it a while ago--he's just trying anything he can think of to try to embarrass us by proving us wrong even if it is on the smallest point imaginable. Maybe he thinks he has some sort of moral obligation to avenge Tom MacWood on here. Wayne ran out of patience with all that about a week ago and I ran out of patience a couple of hours ago.

The rest of you guys just tell him what you think. You don't need Wayne and I and any of our information on Merion or the Wilsons anymore to do that.

[TEPaul]

"Also Tom, I am not sure that A. Wilson is the best source for this information.  For one, he was not on either committee.  For two, his brother has unfortunately and prematurely passed on not long before he is writing his report, and he is quite obviously advocating for his brother to receive much of the credit.  

For example, the point of the paragraph above seems to be to distinguish Wilson's contribution from the rest of the committee's.  In this regard, it is important that A. Wilson mentions his brother went to Europe to study, and that he continued to evolve the plan when he got back.

Everything he says may well be true, but because he is talking about his recently deceased brother, I think we have to take what he says with a grain of salt, at least until we have corroborating information.:

David:

I'll make a deal with you. You write your article on Merion and whatever your hypotheses are or may be and publish it on here! Then, and only at that point will Wayne and I offer anything else including more corroborating information to support what our opinions have been on this entire issue of the creation of Merion. I have very little doubt we will find more and probably very soon. That of course does not diminish the persuasiveness of what we've already produced on here that seemingly every reasonable mind on here appears to understand. But if we do find some other even more compelling info and soon we will not offer any of it until you write your article about these hypotheses of yours and publish it in the "In My Opinion" section. That is if Ran will accept it which may be doubtful.

At that point we may be happy to counterpoint your article of "hypotheses". But not until.  

[TEPaul]

RJ:

Your post is interesting and asks some pretty good questions about what the first intentions were of some of those people we call the famous "amateur" architects, the "One Trick Pony" architects when they first got into those projects that made them and their courses famous.

There's just no question about it RJ, none. All we have to do is read their words later and look carefully at both the lives of those men and the histories and evolutions of those handful or two or remarkable courses they did, particularly in those very early years of American architecture.

What were the common themes in every single one of them?

1. Initial inexperience
2. The desire and the ability to go abroad and study what was there that was respected (Exactly where they went is another story unto itself, in my opinion, particularly the early heathlands for those building inland courses over here in that very early era).
3. A virtual never ending fixation on all the details of their projects which in every case took the rest of their lives and in a few more than one might expect actually appear to have literally taken their lives.

In basic chronological order---Leeds, Emmet, Macdonald, Travis, Fownes, Wilson, Crump, and even the ultra professional, Donald Ross.

What was the common theme that made their Myopia, GCGC, NGLA, Oakmont, Merion, Pine Valley, Pinehurst #2. so world famous?

The common theme was that every single one of them never stopped fixatedly working on their beloved projects their ENTIRE LIVES. Who else did that? Who else? No one!

Did any of them know they were going to do that when they first got into those projects or golf architecture? Not a single one of them ever said they knew that in the beginning or ever saw it coming.

Hugh Wilson's remark on that subject:

"Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realised one-half the things we did not know.".

And that remark was written only four years after it all began. But he never stopped with Merion East and would continue working on it diligently for the next ten years until his death at 45.

The thing most everyone on here seems not to realize or appreciate well enough about those early architects like those ones I mentioned of that early era is the thing that kept most every single one of those guys going and going and going day after day in that early era really wasn't as much their architecture as it was their agronomy.

For us that subject and issue clearly isn't as interesting and sexy as architecture but to those guys back then there was not other way around it. We need to understand that better about those guys back then or we never will really understand them and what consumed them most all the time.

We just don't understand the way that really was back then we are so used to what we see and know today.

It was a wholly different world from anything any of us can relate to today. Sure they could study and experiment with the latest architectural styles but they basically didn't know how to establish turf. No one over here in that early time around the beginning of the teens really did.

Who could they turn to over here? There wasn't anybody. The first of them turned to the US Dept of Agriculture!!

Are you kidding me?? Those guys, Piper and Oakley, when first asked about golf agronomy didn't know a damn thing about golf agronomy but they sure did know how to make things grow. They were botanists and they knew how to make things grow and analyze diseases and such. Is it any wonder Piper became the first Chairman of the USGA's green section and Oakley the Vice Chairman?

You guys may not know this but those early guys like Wilson, Harban et al just about got Piper and Oakley to convince President Woodrow Wilson that the United States of America's Dept of Agriculture needed to take the lead and total responsibility for American golf agronomy. That almost happened!!

"As one greenkeeper puts it, it is easy to grow grass but very difficult to get turf"
Hugh Wilson, in his 1915 report about the creation of Merion

"It will be one of the greatest courses if they can get the grass to grow."
Macdonald on first looking at Pine Valley

"Constant experimentation with with bermudagrass---at one point Ross claimed that the best ground for a test plot was the front lawn of the Holly Inn---finally yielded acceptable results in 1935."
Klein's Ross book

"Just another truckload of manure, thanks".
George Crump when asked what he really wanted for Christmas.

Did any of those guys know what they were getting into and where the journey would take them and what it was going to be all about when they first got into those projects that would virtually consume them for the rest of their lives?

Not on their Lifes!!

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, your last post is the most informative of the lot to me, standing by and enjoying the repartee between you and David (two well spoken and crafty debaters)  

I had the opportunity several years ago to spend a few days looking through the old magazine archives at the UofW Ag school library at Babcock hall, of the precursor to "Golf Course Management Magazine".  I think it was 'American Greenskeeper' or some such, it has been many years... Those articles started in the 20s if I remember correctly.  I do remember and marvelled at the focus and knowledge that the early practitioners had on turf management techniques.   It was obvious that they were clever and although some of their practices and applications fly in the face of known turf science today, much of it was dead on accurate in cultivation and nutrient and chem applications to control various stuff.  (some of that stuff has been long banned)  

But, I get your drift in comments above.  

I just think that on the issue of their expectations that they would have plenty of work left after they got their courses open for play, it was the conventional wisdom that they would be married to the courses and the design evolutions, because it seems every other example of course built then demonstrated that much redesign and remodel work was required after the course got some playing experience.

Let's face it, those early pioneers married to their course and constantly tweaking their babies is no different than modern day architects like Dye constantly tinkering.  Dye, like those early gents is fascinated and studious of turf as well.  After all, that is the skin and beauty that shows off their course, besides the surface to play upon for the functionality of the design.  It stands to reason that anyone married to a course they participated in building, must care deeply about the turf and maintenance meld.

But, back to the debate... I think one could develope a very entertaining storyline from this thread for a drama-comedy like, "Boston Legal".    

[TEPaul]

"Tom, your last post is the most informative of the lot to me,"

RJ:

Basically there is just so much of that kind of information to be gotten into on here but the problem is it only lasts a fleeting moment, always drowned out by "the noise" of excuriating argumentation and hair-splitting. As JESII said about Moriarty on some post above he seems totally incapable of accepting a thing anyone says. It seems he just has to argue about everything.

David Moriarty, a good debater???

You're kidding me, right?

If that guy was in a classic debate the judges would throw him out the door on a Rule 6-7 disqualification in the first ten minutes.  

[TEPaul]

"But, I get your drift in comments above"

RJ:

Agronomic understanding and application advanced by leaps and bounds during the 1920s compared to the state of the science a mere 10-15 years previous, which was virtual nil.

You may've gotten an inkling of this by now but perhaps more than any other "layman" in American golf at that time, the man who may've been as responsible for starting that process off in an organizational sense was none other than Merion's Hugh Wilson!!

And I think this kind of subject even if not directly architecture is pretty fascinating. I think it's a lot more fascinating than debating for ten pages the signfiance of a ship's manifest from 1912, that's for damn sure.

[RJ_Daley]

Just to keep the record straight, I do in deed enjoy David's abilities to pose his hypothesis.  Maybe I've watched a few too many trials, but it seems to me that he is holding his own.  Remember, I'm one of those sitting in the jury box who comes ignorant of the subject, and all he has to do is place an element of doubt for me to acquit!  

[TEPaul]

On the other hand, RJ, I think there is a question on here that has heretofore being totally ignored which is a travesty. The answer to this question I believe just has to be universally sought and found.

And of course that is---just when and where DID MRS COLT AND MRS WILSON GET TOGETHER? Did Harry bring Mrs Colt to America or did Hugh bring Mrs Wilson to Great Britain? This question is most important for a full understanding of the history and evolution of American architecture anyway but it certainly is necessary to know if Wilson took one trip or two between 1910 and 1912. After-all that ship's manifest states he was traveling single home for Europe.

I just don't see how the subject of golf architecture can continue on into the future before that question is answered to an extent that no one in the future could ever say again that the answer to that question is "less than compelling".  

[JESII]

RJ

If innocent until proven guilty is the modus operendi, then Dm need to prove "guilty" the notion that CBM deserves some quantifiable degree of credit for what was Merion.

Has he proved to you that Wilson was not the "sifter" of information?

[TEPaul]

"Remember, I'm one of those sitting in the jury box who comes ignorant of the subject, and all he has to do is place an element of doubt for me to acquit!"

RJ:

Just remember that I'm stipulating here and now that you said that and not I.

Furthermore, do I need to get the judge to remind you that no one involved in the creation of Merion East or even here today has been accused of any crime?

But that's just my sense of the proceedings. Perhaps you should address the question to Moriarty or MacWood.

MacWood seems to be something of a recent "cold case" but after-all Ivory Towers in Ohio aren't that hard to locate.

Frankly RJ, a man I'd just love to see come on here and put a stop to all this one way or the other is Geoff Shackelford. In my opinion, there isn't much more of a reasonable mind on these kinds of questions and answers and not a single one of us produces the kind of "on the money" research and the ultra logical deductions that he does and has on these kinds of subjects.

The problem with threads like this and the state of this website now is a guy like that wouldn't touch it with a twenty foot pool anymore.

[Lou_Duran]

This whole thing is confusing to me.  I haven't played Merion, but does the course resemble anything previously done by Macdonald?  What about the course points to someone besides Wilson doing the design work?

The last two responses are also perplexing.  On another thread, Nicklaus's abilities as a designer are questioned because one hole at the recently opened Dismal River is already being altered, and some of his other courses have undergone revision.  Yet, if I am reading this thread correctly, making adjustments over a lifetime by the classical era architects is portrayed if not as a virtue, certainly as an an acceptable practice.

The underlying suggestion in the other thread (started by Matt Ward, but not made by him), incorrect in my estimation, is that somehow designing in the office leads to more errors in the field.  Yet, with the exception of Ross, the early designers did much of their work in the field and they still felt compelled to make significant changes.  In the modern era, Pete Dye has worked extensively in the field and probably few courses have been altered more by their original architects than Crooked Stick.

BTW, at this point of time, why does it matter if Wilson got some design input from Macdonald?  Does it somehow diminish Merion as a golf club or Wilson's standing?  Outside of here and some of the members at Merion, who knows who H. Wilson is and who cares?

I am just curious.  I didn't follow the first one, but I find this thread and the efforts put forth by the protagonists fascinating.  It reminds me a bit of what Brad Klein once said about a favorite sport in academia- fighting to the death over the most trivial of issues.



       

[RJ_Daley]

Sully and Tom, with all due respect, I think the comparable scenario is more like a civil case.  Perhaps a slander or plagerism - infringement of some sort of design attribution, whereby Hugh Wilson and his progeny are claiming loss of said attribution and reputation due to the inference that the design was not all his idea.  Of course in the instant case, Dr. Moriarity is both the defendant or co-defendant with Tom Mac Wood (if you fellows' suspcious nature is understood) and representative at law before the bar.  If David is to defend against a claim of slander, plagerism, or libel for posting a false "hypothesis" that Hugh I. Wilson was NOT the sole force and creator of Merion, then I think he is going to have the case thrown out on all kinds of grounds, including I don't think you can be sued for stating "hypothesis", and he has offered enough (even from the Wilson writings) to believe that HIW "sifted" previously gained knowledge of CB and others who had more knowledge of the whole subject of design and construction.  Sully, I don't think we are talking about an M.O., we are talking about a "standard of proof" and an element of doubt.  That isn't too high of a burden for David to meet, it seems to me.

[TEPaul]

"This whole thing is confusing to me.  I haven't played Merion, but does the course resemble anything previously done by Macdonald?  What about the course points to someone besides Wilson doing the design work?"

Lou:

That basic question was one of the primary ones on here that I'd doubt even Moriarty or MacWood, the only apparent proponents that somehow and for some odd reason feel that  Macdonald and Whigam have not gotten their just due and deserved credit at Merion or by Merion or from some of us from Philadelphia, would agree with.

Anyone who thinks Merion East's architecture looks even remotely like anything that C.B Macdonald or Seth Raynor EVER did in their entire careers is frankly just blind.

However, in fairness  to them and their argument there isn't much question that that original "so-called" Alps green on #10 Merion did look a lot like what many to most of us would say was the look of Macdonald/Raynor. That green was as unlike anything any of us know of the style of Merion as night is to day.

And frankly, this was one of the original questions and a very good one indeed. Did a green and a look like that mean that Macdonald did have an involvement architecturally in the initial stage of Merion?

But the more interesting question was why was any vestige of that look and style so totally removed from Merion East so soon?

That fascinating question, if it is a valid one, was totally lost in all this argumentative "noise" on these threads.

[RJ_Daley]

Lou, I agree with you, and it is confusing to me too.  I certainly don't have a dog in the fight.  I guess I just can't refrain from watching "Boston Legal" and train wrecks in slow motion...  

[David Stamm]

" Frankly RJ, a man I'd just love to see come on here and put a stop to all this one way or the other is Geoff Shackelford. In my opinion, there isn't much more of a reasonable mind on these kinds of questions and answers and not a single one of us produces the kind of "on the money" research and the ultra logical deductions that he does and has on these kinds of subjects.

 

Tom, ain't that the truth! I wish Geoff would visit the site more. This may sound a little strange, but the man is one of my GCA hero's.

[RJ_Daley]

Well Tom, isn't it possible that HIW was more intent on gaining the knowledge that others like CB had about construction techniques and agronomy than strategy and course feature style?  Can't (or didn't) a fellow like Doak learn plenty of construction related technique and wisdom from a guy like Dye while apprenticing in his organization, and not be in the least compelled or likely to copy the actual design style, or strategic philosophies of the mentor?  Same with Coore...  I see no reason whatsoever that a gentleman like Wilson (who had no previous experience and only the dream and a mission of building a golf course and club) must also reproduce the actual design style, playing features, and look like a copycat.  We all have our own creative ideas, but a base of knowledge, particularly in GCA, a base in construction technique, and agronomy, is fundamental and should be learned by all that want to get into the field... don't you think?  

[Dan Kelly]

I am just curious.  I didn't follow the first one, but I find this thread and the efforts put forth by the protagonists fascinating.  It reminds me a bit of what Brad Klein once said about a favorite sport in academia- fighting to the death over the most trivial of issues.

Lou -- See the thread titled "How Many Golf-Course Architects Can Fit on the Head of a Pin?" Dan

[TEPaul]

Wait a minute RJ, Moriarty and MacWood are not the "defendants" here. They would be more in the form of the plaintiffs here. They are the only ones who seem to be maintaining that for some reason they have grounds to claim that M&W were wronged attribution or design credit-wise in some sort of odd civil suit here. The defendants here are more in the form of Wayne Morrison and me. It is for them to prove their claim, not us. Our position is accepted fact and history. To say that we are bringing a civil claim here against Moriarty's preposterous "hypotheses" (pretty fair second half alliteration there ) is all wet. All we're doing is defending recorded history with it's fairly provable informational facts.

And you were a policeman RJ??? Shit man, I would've just paid you on the street. No way I would want to go into court against someone who doesn't even know the philosophical difference between the plaintiff and the defendant.  

Now, I'll tell you right now, I ain't no lawyer and if RJ, Dan Kelly, SPDB, certainly Shivas, and even David Moriarty or any of the other legal minds on here want to tell me I'm all wet in what I just said here, then fine, I'll accept it without a peep and just reach for a large towel.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, ain't that the truth! I wish Geoff would visit the site more. This may sound a little strange, but the man is one of my GCA hero's."

Well, don't get your hopes up. I talk to him every now and again and if I mentioned something like this I could pretty much "hear" his eyes roll.  

[Lou_Duran]

Dan,

Thanks for the reference.  A bit scary to think that SPDB and I could be thinking similarly about anything.  You do pose a very good question, and I await with great anticipation to Dr. Childs' scientifically derived answer.  No doubt he has already made proposals to secure the requisite government funding of this most important research.

[RJ_Daley]

   Tom, all I did was arrest them, collect the evidence, and let some guys much smarter than me argue about what it all meant.  But, aren't you suggesting that Moriarity (in cahutz with Mac Wood) are somehow hell bent to besmirch the reputation and design credit of HIW?  Who is defending what?  To whom do we file a motion to discover?  

As side bar, I once had a well known criminal defense attorney ask me a pretty loaded question, that I guess I had a pretty crafty answer, because upon him asking and me answering, HE OBJECTED!  They all had a laugh on him for objecting to his own question...  Guys like Casey Stengel and Yogi have a great time on the stand, because their answers are so good, no one can believe it...

[TEPaul]

"Well Tom, isn't it possible that HIW was more intent on gaining the knowledge that others like CB had about construction techniques and agronomy than strategy and course feature style?  Can't (or didn't) a fellow like Doak learn plenty of construction related technique and wisdom from a guy like Dye while apprenticing in his organization, and not be in the least compelled or likely to copy the actual design style, or strategic philosophies of the mentor?  Same with Coore...  I see no reason whatsoever that a gentleman like Wilson (who had no previous experience and only the dream and a mission of building a golf course and club) must also reproduce the actual design style, playing features, and look like a copycat.  We all have our own creative ideas, but a base of knowledge, particularly in GCA, a base in construction technique, and agronomy, is fundamental and should be learned by all that want to get into the field... don't you think?    

RJ:

I'd like to see you just keep talking on that subject. It's good what you said there. Just keep talking----let it out Brother.

[TEPaul]

"To whom do we file a motion to discover?"

You're asking me about the technicalities of DISCOVERY RJ? Ask somebody who's fresh out of law school like SPDB about the exact technical definition of Discovery, as it has to be fresh in his mind.

I thought the idea behind "discovery' was that it went both ways so there couldn't be any real thunderbolt surprises in court---no Perry Mason shocker finales, as it were.

I don't know what Discovery is really all about. All I know is if anone on here, like Moriarty, tries to inflict the principles of legal Discovery on us, Wayne and I are going to laugh at them. We've already stipulated that we aren't going to share any testimony, witnesses, evidence, information or anything else with Moriarty or his fellow travelors.

Let the cadger produce his best stuff in the trial and during his summation and then Wayno and I are going to come down on him and bury the little tadpol with a ton of information and evidence that he's never seen or heard before that will crush his case (hypotheses) in a ton of Ardmore bricks, mortar, sand, firm and fast turf or whatever.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()