[T_MacWood]

Wayne
From the excerpts I have read of some of your early drafts on the history of Merion (in your Flynn book) you did not mention the Alps, Redan, Eden, Valley of Sin, Principle's Nose, etc (although you did mention the Mid-Surrey mounding at the 9th)...is that still the case (that those features aren't mentioned) and if that is still the case, why did you chose not to mention them?

[DMoriarty]

Moriarty you argumentative little twit, how about measuring the distance Jones's drives went in 1930s with a couple of sophisticated rangefinders? If we can agree where he teed off from on those holes why would you have a problem with determing as 'verifiable fact' the distance he hit those drives that way? Don't you think it would be a bit more reliable measuring a drive on the ground than via Google Earth or the USGS?  

No I dont think it will be more reliable. If done honestly and correctly I think it will  produce the same result I came up with on Google, or one extremely close to it.  But, nonetheless, knock yourself out with your range finder . . . perhaps then we will get confirmation that my yardage quote was accurate.   Or, if you guys dont get a number you like, why dont you get an extremely accurate gps unit and figure it out that way?  Or if you still get the yardages I posted, get a surveyor.  I hear the USGS has some good ones so you might want to try there.  

Actually it doesnt matter to me one way or another.  Given your and Mr. Morrison's unwillingness to even admit that my posts have reported the accurate google measure, I somehow doubt we will ever hear the results if they don't comport to what you have already said.  

An aside:  Why do you put a winking face after all your posts?  You arent kidding when you call me a twit, are you?  Do you think that the Winker addition excuses or lessens your boorish behavior?  For example, hypothetically, if I were to refer to another poster as a a pompous boob but follow it by a   , would that make my behavior any less obnoxious or rude?  And would it matter if the person in question really is a pompous boob?  Verifiably, a pompous boob?
____________________________

Questions for both TEPaul and Wayne Morrison:

Is this really the research methodology used to research your book?   If you two cannot even accept and admit that you were wrong about something as mundane and objective as a yardage measure, why should anyone ever believe anything you say about the more subjective interpretations in your long-promised book?

If nothing else, this little exercise ought to demonstrate to all, including any potential publishers, that your objectivety is seriously compromised when it comes to Merion Golf Club.

[DMoriarty]

Professor Moriarty,

You are an idiot.  Stop trying to convince me with your rambling posts, I believe it already, OK?

If you could think clearly, I said that from the 1916 tee it was 291 yards to the road.  The measurement you see in the 1930 Jones photograph was from a different tee, approximately 30 yards behind the 1916 tee.  This may give you some idea why your are so infuriating.  You are dense, poor in analytical skills, full of yourself yet with a sense of being a victim, emotional to the point of losing objectivity and your are boring.  Those are bad traits to have individually.  Combined, they make me want to ignore you completely.  I shall.

Yardage BS aside, let us not lose sight of your other failings.  Your hypothesis is a rehash of well established knowledge.  Your original findings are full of contradictions.

Gee, and I was hoping for co-author credit on your yet to be published book, or at least a nice acknowledgement thanking me for my help and hard work . . .

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with the 291 measure . . . It is approximately 291 yards from the tee Hogan played, according to your 'exact' shot chart.   But then I suspect you know this.  After all, you arent seriously contending that Hogan played from a tee that was 321 yards to the road in a straight line???  Give me a minute and I'll show you where that tee would have to have been.  

And before I go back and check what you have said in the past about the distance to the road, do you want to revise what you said above?  

[David Stamm]

Tom, I think you're observations are concise , well thought out , and extremely informative . And further more, should I need to ever ask   about the 10th at Merion I will surely know who to ask!

[TEPaul]

Anytime DavidS, anytime at all---just ask away to your heart's delight.

Judging from you last post it seems you are in a remarkably cheery mood today. That's good, good, good.  

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Are you saying you re-wrote the Merion chapter and you now mention the Redan, Alps, etc?

In my view the 7th is Redan because just about every source at that time said it was...including Macdonald, Whigham, Lesley, Tilly and Far & Sure (Travis?). Thats true with all the features except the Principles Nose. Since we can not go back in time all we have go on are the descriptions and comments of respected judges of golf and golf architecture.

That is why I was surprised you originally discounted them all. In my view that early version is one of the reasons the story of Merion is so interesting. One, the involvement of Macdonald & Whigham as advisers - theoretically, in guiding Wilson where and what to see and practically, assisting the committee on the ground. And two, the fact that those features do not appear on any of Wilson's other architectural efforts and that he eventually removed them all.

PS: You should not discount the Principles Nose.

[DMoriarty]

Yes, I meant Jones.  A mistake I make, silly as it is.  I also call my wife by my daughter's name and visa versa, but I assure you I know the difference between the two.  Nervous?  What do I have to be nervous about?  Bored is more like it.  

So the tee was 291 yards from the road in 1916?  In 1930 it was 30 yards in back of that.   So in 1930 the road was 321 yards from the road.

Let me show you where that tee must have been . . .


 I admit.  I have learned something from you Wayne.  I dont think I have ever seen that tee.  But surely this is not as indicated on the 1930 shot chart.

[David Stamm]

Anytime DavidS, anytime at all---just ask away to your heart's delight.

Judging from you last post it seems you are in a remarkably cheery mood today. That's good, good, good.  

You mean I don't get a winking face?

[TEPaul]

"You mean I don't get a winking face?  

No sir, that time called for the full beatific smile.  

[DMoriarty]

Take a look at this one as well . . .



Look familiar?  It is pretty close to Jones' drive on the 10th.  From the tee marked on the shot chart.  

Just how long are you going to keep up this charade?  Are you going to publish the wrong distances in your book now that you know you are wrong?  Why do you bother to discuss anything with anyone if you cannot accept that you will sometimes be mistaken?  

[DMoriarty]

Wayno, this is not a good sign at all. This does not bode well. At this point I'm not prepared to believe a single thing this man says, including his assurance that he knows the difference between his wife and daughter. What can we possible say regarding architecture to someone who doesn't even know the difference between his wife and daughter? Do you suppose after all this time and app 320 posts it could be the 10th at Riviera Moriarty has been meaning to measure?  

Your reading comprehension is as off as my occassional writing gaffs.  I said I know the difference.

[T_MacWood]

Where's the plans, Tom?

Sorry DE, I only know of the plans for the 15th and 16th. To my knowledge those are two sketches more than any Ross sketches for IHCC.

Are you from the TEPaul school logic, that says the fact that  there are only plans for two holes, that proves that someone else designed the other 16 holes (despite overwelming other evidence to the contrary)?

Why can't you come up with anything other than your "considerable" second-hand heresay information.

Since when are multiple independent written accounts heresay? Answer: when they don't jive with your version of things.

We can for Old Elm, you know.  There, Colt wrote a nice letter than said "I have designed you a really great course, and you're in great hands with Ross building it".

There are also multiple independent accounts that state Colt & Ross were involved at Old Elm ironically by the same people who said Colt (and Ross ) was involved at Indian Hill. They are right about the one, but wrong about the other. Go figure.

At Indian Hill, there is NOTHING!!

Thats true if you discount local newspaper accounts, major golf magazine accounts, and Colt's plan for Indian Hill.

You are histerical, or is that hysterical?

Say what?  

And, to cap it all off, you bring Alison into this equasion??

You brought Alison into the equation...which I knew you would do because all you see is Colt & Alison, not Colt or Alison.

I gather that's some sort of loose assertion (so what else is new! ) that I don't know which courses were Charles Alison courses borrowing Colt's name, ie, that Alison did North Shore and a few of the others attributed to Colt.  I most certainly DO know the difference, Tom!!

Good.

Ever been to Rye, Tom?

I have.  

I'm happy for you. Do you see any similarities between Old Elm and Rye?

Naaaah, that can't be it.  The correct answer is that he forgot to write anything about ever designing Indian Hill.  

No letters.

No articles.

No nothing.

I wouldn't exactly say there is nothing. What exactly do you have that proves Ross designed the course?

Maybe he simply didn't like to write, and that letter to Old ELm was an exception.

You're really into letters aren't you? Since you are so hell bent on correcting the record at Indian Hill why don't you ask the club if they have any letters from anyone? Maybe you'll find a letter from Ross or better yet a letter from Colt saying I wouldn't design this course if it were the last project on earth.

OOPS, there goes that theory!!  The guy only authored THREE books on golf course design (all after he supposedly built Indian Hill).

And you don't find it at all strange that he didn't say a peep - ever!! - about designing Indian Hill!!

Three books? Have you been drinking? I don't think he metioned any course in Chicago in his only book. Have you read it. I think you'd like it, there are quite few letters published in it.

BTW, if you're soooo impressed with secondary sources, Whitten and Cornish and Brad Klein attribute the golf course to Ross (presumably as a remodel of whatever garbage was originally laid out there in 1913), first in 1914 and then again in 1922.

Is this your only evidence?

One last thing:  do you have any evidence that Barker was EVER in Illinois??  The reason I ask is that you rely awefully strongly on an article that says he co-designed it (or was planning to co-design it)(or was supposed to co-design it)(or somebody said to somebody who told a reporter that he was going to co-design it) with Colt.  The only problem with that is that he never did anything else anywhere around here, so it's like saying Perry Maxwell designed Seminole or something.

Barker was also in Detroit at that same time. And Cleveland before that. And in Oregon. And in the South. He got around.

Oh, Christ, TEP, I'm sorry....next thing you know, he's going to try to attribute Seminole to Colt, too. After all, Colt and Ross had a loose affiliation and at some point they must have spoken of the need for a great course with a diagonal bunker in Florida...and as you know, the existence of a diagonal bunker that can be seen from 80,000 feet by the Google Earth satellite, particularly on a golf course that Colt once set foot, on CLEARLY indicates that he designed the golf course;D

Clearly you have nothing but insults...perhaps you did go to the TE school of architectural research.

[DMoriarty]

"Questions for both TEPaul and Wayne Morrison:

Is this really the research methodology used to research your book?  If you two cannot even accept and admit that you were wrong about something as mundane and objective as a yardage measure, why should anyone ever believe anything you say about the more subjective interpretations in your long-promised book?

If nothing else, this little exercise ought to demonstrate to all, including any potential publishers, that your objectivety is seriously compromised when it comes to Merion Golf Club."



This is why Moriarty started this thread in the first place. It's his attempt to prove us wrong about something trivial and to then claim that proves we basically know nothing of this entire subject.

Nice try twit but it's just another of your embarrassing failures.  

Yes, Tom you are on to me.  I scoured old issues of every paper in the land, finally found a 1916 article describing the 10th at Merion.  I then posted it and waited, just hoping that Mr. Morrison would post those Jones shot charts (that I had never even seen.)  Then, when he finally posted them I knew I was close . . .  All I had to do was post the accurate yardage for the hole and wait . . . wait for the inevitable overreaction, name calling, and unsupportable defamation. . . .
 . . .I didnt have to wait long.  Wayne not defamed me as I planned, he also he also pretended that he knew I was lying because he had done the measures himself.  Of course he had not. . . . .
. . . But then I got yet another surprise.  You guys still werent done.   Post after post you foolishly stick to your guns, even though you both know you've been shooting blanks all the while.  

No Mr. Paul, this wasnt my plan.   My plan was to share an interesting article I found in the NYTimes.  I should have known that you two would want nothing to do with it because it doesnt fit into your mainlineocentric view of golf architecture.

You guys are making fools of yourselves all on your own.  I cant say I am not enjoying it, though.  
______________________

As for your last post, you've got me again.  I misread your post.  I readily admit that I rarely read your posts at all, much less in full, even when they are directed to me or are about me.  But then who does?  

[T_MacWood]

"Are you from the TEPaul school logic, that says the fact that there plans for two holes, that proves that someone else designed the other 16 holes (despite overwelming other evidence to the contrary)?"

Tom:

I'm trying to figure out the significance of that remark but nothing is coming to me.

By the way, Tom, I didn't want to mention this but are you having some problem with prepositions, adverbs and verbs lately? You're writing that way on some of your posts really sucks. Try reading what I just cut and pasted from you above.

You're beginning to sound like some furiner who's trying to learn English.

I've been eating turkey for seven frieken days...its affected my grammar....give me a break.

[DMoriarty]

You will notice that Wayne once called the original Merion East something of a "mid-step". Of course the twit Moriarty was apparently thrown for a complete loop by that one and landed on his head which prompted another hissy fit.

Perhaps you understand now the significance of Wayne's stressing just how important it is to understand the architectural evolution of Merion East from it's beginning to the mid-1920s and finally to perhaps 1934 when it really was finished. That's quite a duration by the original architects.

Not to mention the fact that Wayne Morrison has never really seen the sophistication in the look of Macdonald/Raynor architecture in the context of naturalism in architecture that was rapidly and interestingly evolving in those times and up to perhaps the Crash. The fact that Merion East may've had some ramifications of Macdonald's style at that early time only to be removed later may account for the meaning of his label "mid-step". (Moriarty, don't even bother---this stuff is way over your head ).

Nice try, Mr. Paul.   The mid-point to which Mr. Morrison refers is likely the mid-point he has been referring to for almost a year now, at least.  Mr. Morrison views the early Merion not as a truly unique course representing a clear change in direction in American architecture of the time.  Rather, he views Merion East as somewhere in between geometric and natural, a mid-point, but by no means a quantum departure from the old Victorian courses.  

This is why it is so odd that he now says he agrees with most of the points I listed above.

[T_MacWood]

DE
American Golfer is a puff-piece rag the equivalent of People magazine? I see. This after skimming one or two issues? Hmm.

I don't see Walter Travis or Tilly or Henry Leach writing for People magazine, but who knows, maybe you're on to something.

Perhaps we should write off Tilly's accounts of how PV evolved as heresay, drivel and useless.

[Paul_Turner]

"Perhaps we should write off Tilly's accounts of how PV evolved has heresay, drivel and useless."

Tom MacWood:

I don't think we should write Tilly's accounts off as hearsay, drivel and useless, but I think you should read what he did say, when he said it, and what that actually means with a bit more care and consideration than you apparently did.

If you had I doubt you would have been so off the mark in your contention that Pine Valley was out to glorify Crump at the expense of Colt.

I'm happy to say I feel although it took plenty of time and effort I managed somehow to disabuse you of that silly an inaccurate notion. I feel that the record has now been analyzed well enough to assign credit properly to those who were responsible and in a measure that indicates almost precisely what they were responsible for.

"I've been eating turkey for seven frieken days...its affected my grammar....give me a break"

That's funny!  

Tom

That's not fair or your memory is failing.  Tom Macwood was the first, here on GCA, to highlight and accurately analyse the Tillinghast reports on Pine Valley.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Tom me and you were debating the whole PVGC club stuff with Tillie's articles some time before you discovered Finegan's mistake.  

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Here's maybe the very first thread where the 3 of us debated PVGC:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=12132

It's an interesting read (Tom M first mentions Tillie's articles)

[TEPaul]

"Tom
Tom me and you were debating the whole PVGC club stuff with Tillie's articles some time before you discovered Finegan's mistake."

I'm not the best at remembering how much time has gone by Paul, but I don't think so. I read Jim's book as soon as it came out and realized that mis-analysis of that date on that topo. His book came out in 2000 and that's getting to be six or seven years ago now. I sure don't think that debate we had on here was six years ago. GOLFCLUBATLAS.com didn't even start until the summer of 1999.

I even remember informing Jim of the old alternate fairway on #17 that I believe GeoffShac and Ben Crenshaw both were the first to realize perhaps within two weeks of one another and ironically totally independent of one another. I remember Jim saying: "Now you tell me just months after the book went to press".

As I'm sure you couldn't possibly miss, Tom MacWood and I have a lot of issues on a number of subjects and he doesn't hesitate to criticize me as not being particularly interested in research. So, I'm sure you can understand that about the last thing I'm going to do is ever let him try to take credit for research that was mine and my discovery and particularly about Pine Valley.

What he knows about the details of the creation of that course was from material I gave you and you gave to him. There was no one else out there that I know of who had anything from PV's archives before Jim Finegan, Gil Hanse and me. If there is someone else I don't have any idea who it might be. And I know neither of you two got anything from Gil or Jim. And without info from those archives there is not real way the creation or who did what and when on that golf course could be understood.

And of course, not to overlook the inevitable fact that no one can truly understand the creation of the details of a golf course without knowing the actual golf course. By that I mean going to a course and completely familiarizing oneself with all the details of it. I think I remember the first time you went to PV and the second time. And once again, Pine Valley is another significant course Tom MacWood has all kinds of opinions about and another one he has never been to, never seen at all.

If I do anything on this website vis-a-vis Tom MacWood it's going to continue to be to reiterate the importance of the fact that he just can never pass himself off as all that informed about any golf course he has never even been to.  

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Please read the thread in the link above (all of it).

(Tom's instincts were correct)

[TEPaul]

"Tom
Please read the thread in the link above (all of it).
(Tom's instincts were correct)"

Paul:

I did read it---all of it, and carefully.

Thanks a lot for finding that thread. I know I couldn't.

I don't think you quite understand a few things about that thread back then. You should read it again carefully.

Tom MacWood may've been the first to mention Tillinghast's articles on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com on that thread but if you will notice that very long thread of mine before Tom MacWood ever arrived on that thread I explained what I knew before that of how the design of the course and various holes began to come into being. There is no concievable way that anyone could know that without being totally familiar with all Tillinghast's articles and by that I mean John Arthur Brown, Warren Shelley, Jim Finegan and me.

I may not have mentioned Tillinghast's articles on that thread but I was completely familiar with all of them way before that thread or there is no way at all I could have said what I did. Many references to those articles of Tillinghast's were in Shelley's and Finegan's books anyway which I had and had read quite some time before that thread. And I recall getting all those articles from the Tillinghast Society and its guys.

So be careful who you assign credit too for various things, particularly about Pine Valley.

If you will notice Tom MacWood didn't know much about Pine Valley at that time and you can tell from his posts he didn't have any of that material I eventually gave you and you gave him.

Again, thanks for finding that thread. It was over five years ago---amazing, time flies. It was pretty good, don't you think? We sure were more civil then. I'm impressed with the info and the chronicle of events on that thread. It should be cut and pasted somewhere. Those may have been our finest hours on here.

But I will tell you something else. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever about Pine Valley that I've ever learned from Tom MacWood but I did learn a thing or so about the creation of it from you after I gave you that material.That overlay you once did of the two topo routings did show how the 17th hole got interestingly shifted slightly to the right.

Good show Paul, and good night.

[TEPaul]

Dave:

Your post #331 is terrific, and it's got humor, thank God. Keep it up with your interrogation of this sham MacWood. Perhaps someday he will learn to really engage and get real on these discussions. As for Moriarty, I wouldn't waste my time, if I were you, he's become a hopeless case of cyclical hissy fit irrationality.  

[T_MacWood]

DE
American Golfer is a puff-piece rag the equivalent of People magazine? I see. This after skimming one or two issues? Hmm.

I don't see Walter Travis or Tilly or Henry Leach writing for People magazine, but who knows, maybe you're on to something.

Perhaps we should write off Tilly's accounts of how PV evolved as heresay, drivel and useless.

What's funny, Tom, is that I'd read dozens and dozens of articles written for that magazine by serious guys like Travis and Tillie and always figured the magazine for serious stuff.  But I guess that's because I always just read the serious articles.

Serious articles? I prefer puff.

But in reality, when you read garbage like the stuff I read today (it was actually after finding out you can read and search the magazine on the internet from both the USGA and the AAFLA), I got a flavor for the rest  of the magazine, and the rest of it is drivel, for example this "Lochnivar" who wrote about the Western US.  It reads like the Suze column in the Post or Sneed in the Tribune.  Sorry, but that's the truth.

Thats fine, no one is forcing you to read the stuff. I reckon I'm not the only one who has been facinated by that drivel...Dan Wexner, Geoff Shackelford, George Bahto, Tommy N, Phil the Author, Wayne Morrison, Bob Crosby, TE Paul, Paul Turner, Sean Tully, etc. Etc.

The point, however, is that searching a magazine on the internet from the comfort of your den should not be mistaken for SERIOUS, REAL, PAINSTAKING research.  It's a starting point at best.

Thanks for sharing your researching advice.

Citing American Golfer as the truth of the early 20th century golfing world is the equivalent of citing Playboy as the truth of the late 20th century male world just because it's got the occasional good, serious, well-reasoned article - or so I'm told.  

Playboy? You said you only read serious magazine articles...Praise Hadji!

[TEPaul]

"Citing American Golfer as the truth of the early 20th century golfing world is the equivalent of citing Playboy as the truth of the late 20th century male world just because it's got the occasional good, serious, well-reasoned article - or so I'm told.  

Playboy? You said you only read serious magazine articles...praise hadji!"

Come on MacWood, if anything you've got a helluva imagination. Compare and contrast the early days of American Golfer and Playboy magazine. I'd say both pioneered getting down, getting naked and getting natural, wouldn't you?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()