Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?

[David Stamm]

A passage from Desmond Tolhursts "Golf at Merion", 2004 edition and the offical club histroy.

"Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen IN Scotland and England: the third hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (The Redan) and the 17th, with it's swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrews' 18th hole. Yet, none of the holes at Merion is an out and out copy. They are all original holes in their own right. Wilson had absorbed the principles underlying the great holes, then applied them to the terrain at his command.

It has been said that Hugh Wilson grasped these principles of Scottish and English course design  and conveyed them in his work better than CBM did. However, to compare Merion to the NGLA is somewhat of an 'apples and oranges' proposition. Macdonald set out to 'model each of the 13 holes (at NGLA) after the most famous holes abroad', that is, to duplicate these holes. Wilson never intended to design Merion under such constraints. His objective was to build a course that would rival the finest British parkland course in beauty and shot values."

[DMoriarty]

If your initial post was just to continue some internecine warfare with Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul you should have just addressed it to them.

There you go again, Mike.  Speculating about my motivation with absolutely no basis.  Perhaps instead of trying to read in between the lines, you should try the lines.  I posted the NYTimes article because I found it interesting and because it seemed to offer more information about a hole which had been much discussed but little understood.  I briefly considered forwarding the article to Mr. Morrison since I have heard he has a project, but the interest in Merion is more broad than Mr. Morrison so I posted it here.   I did my best to be civil with Mr. Morrison until became boorish and bullying and accused me of being an idiot or a liar.  

If you're coming at this with the mindset that those two guys are claiming Macdonald had absolutely no role in influencing Hugh Wilson, and then trying to prove otherwise, then it's no wonder that the rest of us are doing mental gymnastics trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

Mike they are absolutely trying to diminish MacDonald's role as much or more the record will allow.   Even when they are trying to pay lip service to MacDonald's influence they still make an effort to diminish it and wipe the slate clean as possible.  Let's break down what Mr. Morrison said a few posts ago, prior to his tired pot-shot at me.  

I'm not at all hell bent in trying to wipe Macdonald from the Merion archives.  What gives you that idea.  I admit over and over that he was a key figure in the early stages of Wilson's preparation for his trip to the UK and his understanding of golf course building and design principals.  We just don't have any information beyond that.  I await facts and not extrapolations of vague phrases that we cannot know the true implications of. You go on your flights of fancy, I'll stay here and conduct further research based on long-proven principals of scientific method. (my bolds)

The only thing he acknowledges is Wilson's early trip to Merion. [In the past he has even tried to cast doubt on what if anything Wilson learned there!]  Then he says:

We just don't have any information beyond that.  

This is absolutely FALSE.  We have quite a bit of information beyond that:  The routing issue.  The advisor comment.  The Wilson acknowledgement. The site approval. The Whigham comments. The Leslie article.  The other articles by experts of the time.  The Merion History.

Yet Mr. Morrison dismisses every bit of it with his next line:

I await facts and not extrapolations of vague phrases that we cannot know the true implications of.[/b]

This is the not so subtle slight of hand I have been talking about . . . Dismiss all of the evidence as "extrapolaitions of vague phrases."  Just like that he has wiped all the evidence past the visit to NGLA off the board.   I await facts and not extrapolations of vague phrases that we cannot know the true implications of.

The problem is, while this evidence is not nearly as specific as is ideal, it is EVIDENCE, and it surely creates a strong inference that there was more involvement that just Wilson's visit to NGLA!   Yet because he doesnt have every detail of that involvement, Mr. Morrison pretends there is no evidence of involvement at all.  

Such a position is as intellectually dishonest as it is preposterous.  You cant just throw away evidence because it isnt as specific as we would like it!   Doing so makes proof impossible, because all one needs to do is demand more and more specifics, and given my conversations with Wayne he is certainly willing to do this.  

What is being disputed is the inferred notion that Macdonald either routed significant portions of the course, that he had Wilson build specific holes modelled after the ones he favored, or that he had any hand in creating the original features on the course.

Mike, please quit telling me what I am disputing.  You have been wrong every time.  Just look at my words.  It is all there, and has been from the beginning.

[DMoriarty]

David Stamm,

It sounds like Tolhurst has a lot better grasp on what happened than Mr. Morrison ever will.  

But again, I suggest you read what I right BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO ME WITH SUCH VIGOR.  

I didnt say that MacDonald sent him.  I know who sent him.  But they probably would never have sent him if it werent for MacDonald blazing the trail regarding "modern architecture" in America.  

As for him copyng the originals as opposed to MacDonald's copies, if you gave me a quarter for each time I have said or suggested this during this thread, I might have enough for a double-half-decaf-latte-with-a-twist.  

As for your demand for specifics, what you ask for is impossible.   This all happened a long time ago, and what you are asking for is not not the way influence in the Arts works.  

Review Geoff's writing on Thomas' influences.  Studying influences takes an open mind, creativity, and a certain generousity of spirit.  These are apparently traits that our Merionomaniacs do not possess.
______________________________
NGLA's early membership is published.  Has anyone compared it to Merions?  Just curious.  

[JESII]

GENEROSITY OF SPIRIT!

That's rich!

[David Stamm]

But again, I suggest you read what I right BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO ME WITH SUCH VIGOR.

I'M A PASSIONATE MAN. I HAVE READ WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN. YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME OUT AND SAY ANYTHING, WHAT YOU ARE IMPLYING SAYS IT ALL. OR AM I TAKING THIS W/ TOO MUCH GENEROUSITY OF SPIRIT.

I didnt say that MacDonald sent him.  I know who sent him.  But they probably would never have sent him if it werent for MacDonald blazing the trail regarding "modern architecture" in America.  


PROBABLY? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

 

 

Review Geoff's writing on Thomas' influences.  Studying influences takes an open mind, creativity, and a certain generousity of spirit.  These are apparently traits that our Merionomaniacs do not possess.

I'VE READ EVERYTHING GEOFF HAS EVER WRITTEN AND HAVE THE ABSOLUTE UTMOST RESPECT FOR THE MAN. BUT IT'S UP TO THOMAS HIMSELF TO LEAD US TO HIS SOURCE OF INSPIRATION. GEOFF IS SPECULATING WITH THE INFO HE HAS, WHICH IS EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THOMAS AT THIS TIME. ALL WE HAVE TO GO BY IS THE COURSES HE LEFT BEHIND AND WHAT HE WROTE. OF COURSE AWT, CRUMP, WILSON INFLUENCED HIM. THEY HAD EXCHANGED IDEAS WHILE THOMAS WAS STILL IN PHILLY. BUT DOES THAT MEAN HE OWES IT ALL TO THOSE MEN BECASUE WE SEE INFLUENCES OF ANOTHER'S ORIGINAL IDEAS? DO THEY DESERVE CREDIT? ABSOLUTELY! MACDONALD TRIED TO DUPLICATE WHAT HE SAW IN BRITAIN AND MADE NO SECRET ABOUT IT. THAT'S NOT ORIGINAL! SURE, SOME OF THESE FEATURES INFLUENCED THEM, BUT THEY PROGRESSED AND EVOLVED THE IDEAS ON THEIR OWN. THEY WERE EXCHANGING NEW IDEAS. CBM WAS INTO COPYING WHAT WAS DONE ALREADY.  MACDONALD'S PASSION OF WANTING TO COPY THOSE GREAT HOLES IS WHAT IGNITED OTHERS IMAGINATION AND WE ALL ACKOWLEDGE CBM'S ROLE IN AMERICAN GOLF. BUT ART MUST PROGRESS AND THE MEN AFTER HIM DID JUST THAT. CREATING THE WHITE FACES OF MERION BECAUSE OF THEIR FEELINGS (FLYNN, WILSON) ABOUT HIDDEN POT BUNKERS CERTAINLY DIDN'T COME FROM CBM.

 

______________________________
NGLA's early membership is published.  Has anyone compared it to Merions?  Just curious.  

[DMoriarty]

GENEROSITY OF SPIRIT!

That's rich!

JES, have you read the Shackelford book to which I refer?  Specifically, the discussion of Thomas' influences?   If not, why don't you take a look and then tell me if you still consider my characterization of Geoff's approach to the topic to be "rich?"  

If so, I'll gladly change the quote to "generosity and richness of spirit."   Either way, our Merionomaniacs are seriously lacking.  

[DMoriarty]

I'M A PASSIONATE MAN. I HAVE READ WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN. YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME OUT AND SAY ANYTHING, WHAT YOU ARE IMPLYING SAYS IT ALL. OR AM I TAKING THIS W/ TOO MUCH GENEROUSITY OF SPIRIT.

Perhaps your passion is warping your reading ability and your overflowing generosity of spirit is sapping your ability to accurately infer much at all. Because you have been consistently wrong about what I have written and have absolutely no idea what, if anything, I am implying.    

PROBABLY? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

I dont know.  That is why I said probably.  This blind speculation looks like so much fun when everyone else is doing it, I thought I'd give it a try.  

BUT IT'S UP TO THOMAS HIMSELF TO LEAD US TO HIS SOURCE OF INSPIRATION.

Why on earth is it up to Thomas himself?

GEOFF IS SPECULATING WITH THE INFO HE HAS, WHICH IS EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THOMAS AT THIS TIME.

So then you obviously think that Geoff went much too far with his information on Thomas' influences, because his descriptions and speculations go far beyond what could ever be absolutely proven by the standards you are trying to apply here.  Interesting.  I rather enjoyed the chapter myself.    

BUT DOES THAT MEAN HE OWES IT ALL TO THOSE MEN BECASUE WE SEE INFLUENCES OF ANOTHER'S ORIGINAL IDEAS? DO THEY DESERVE CREDIT? ABSOLUTELY!

I agree 100%.  All I ask is that MacDonald be generously given the credit that is his due.  Mr. Morrison and others are giving much less than that.

I think perhaps you are arguing with ghosts of Merion's past here.  At least you aren't arguing with me.  Of course Wilson had his own ideas. Of course he put his own spin on things.  Of course he deserves great credit for Merion.  Of course they he contributed a great deal to golf design.  

But this is not a zero sum game.  Properly crediting MacDonald does not mean that Wilson, Flynn, or anyone else has to be dissed.   Mr. Morrison, et al, dont seem to be able to comprehend this.  

And you are mistaken if you think that Mr. Morrison is giving MacDonald the credit he deserves.  

[DMoriarty]

Everybody is wrong and poor little Professor Moriarty is right.  I can see him now stamping his feet and crying, "Mommy, nobody likes me."

Mr. Morrison, your derogatory comments are getting too hard for a pea brain like me to follow.  Just who is it that I am supposed to think is picking on me?  Besides you, of course-- your attempts don't count because they are so pathetic and transparent that they only reflect poorly on you.  

And if I was here to make friends, I'd kiss your ass like everyone else does.

Now, put on your dunce cap and go home and take your ball with you.

Ironic coming from a guy who refuses to address me directly merely because I corrected his misconception about a golf hole distance.

[JESII]

David,

I have not read the book you referrence. If you would like to hold of on this discussion until I do I'd tell you not to hold your breath. With all due respect to Mr. Shackelford, I am not going to run out and buy his book so as to continue a conversation with you. If you require me to understand the exact context you used the term GENEROSITY OF SPIRIT you ought to clarify yourself.

As I read it, and I assume how it was intended, you think it appropriate to allow a bit of leeway in the interpretations of what exactly went on 95 years ago at Merion, NGLA and the UK.

I'll tell you what that sounds like to me...it sounds like you want the merionomaniacs to buy into a certain degree of influence CBM imposed on HUgh Wilson and the committee responsible for creating the first iteration of Merion East.

I'll tell you what you are saying to those merionomaniacs...you are saying that the person, and committee, responsible for the project to research and learn about the great golf courses of the British Isles in hopes of re-creating as strong a course here in the states were so vain and self promoting that they would not recognize and pay his due one of the important individuals in the process of developing Merion East into what it was originally..a course deserving of a National Amateur Championship in its fourth or fifth year.

Correct me if necessary, and if so please include the location which I can read the facts, but didn't Wilson recognize some education and advisement CBM may have provided while in Southampton, NY prior to his trip overseas?

Didn't Wilson also recognize in writing that CBM saw the site and approved? This on its own is evidence that CBM got his just recognition. You see it as proof of a slight because why on earth would CBM show up on site and not provide as much advice as possible, right? Why on earth would a club committee and its novice architect not try to pull as much help and information as possible from the top name in the American golf world at the time? I'll tell you why. Their own ego and CBM's respect for it and of it.

I am a good golfer, not great, but good which is my impression of Hugh Wilson's golf game at the time. I am also a member of a very nice country club in suburban Philadelphia. If the club were ever in a situation which warranted relocation and decided they would like to use me as the architect for our new golf course I would want to do it myself. I would try as best I could to pick the brain of the best, most informed people I could, but I would want me and my committee to build the course. There is a certain sense of accomplishment in actually doing something, especially something like this.

I would also expect these top experts I might consult with to respect my interests and not overstep their bounds. Have you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged?

Now, you may very well turn and ask about the later involvement of William Flynn. My only answer right now is that he/they just changed their minds. Nothing more than that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I"m available for consultation and will waive my usual fee.

Where should we meet ?

How about Rachel's on 45th St ?

[David Stamm]

I'M A PASSIONATE MAN. I HAVE READ WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN. YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME OUT AND SAY ANYTHING, WHAT YOU ARE IMPLYING SAYS IT ALL. OR AM I TAKING THIS W/ TOO MUCH GENEROUSITY OF SPIRIT.

  Because you have been consistently wrong about what I have written and have absolutely no idea what, if anything, I am implying.

WOW! ENLIGHTEN US! WHAT ARE YOU IMPLYING?

   

PROBABLY? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

I dont know.  That is why I said probably.  This blind speculation looks like so much fun when everyone else is doing it, I thought I'd give it a try.

IT SUITS YOU!

BUT IT'S UP TO THOMAS HIMSELF TO LEAD US TO HIS SOURCE OF INSPIRATION.

Why on earth is it up to Thomas himself?

OH I DON'T KNOW, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HIM AND HE DID AFTERALL HAVE HIS NAME ATTACHED TO THE COURSES MENTIONED IN THE BOOK YOU'RE REFERING TO. GOD FORBID WE SHOULD DEFER TO THE MAN !

GEOFF IS SPECULATING WITH THE INFO HE HAS, WHICH IS EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THOMAS AT THIS TIME.

So then you obviously think that Geoff went much too far with his information on Thomas' influences,

DID I SAY THAT?  WHOSE IMPLYING WHAT NOW, BUBBA!



 because his descriptions and speculations go far beyond what could ever be absolutely proven by the standards you are trying to apply here.  Interesting.  I rather enjoyed the chapter myself.  

AND I DIDN'T SAY I DIDN'T ENJOY IT. I'VE BEEN QUOTING FROM THE BOOK EARLIER ON THIS THREAD.

 

BUT DOES THAT MEAN HE OWES IT ALL TO THOSE MEN BECASUE WE SEE INFLUENCES OF ANOTHER'S ORIGINAL IDEAS? DO THEY DESERVE CREDIT? ABSOLUTELY!

I agree 100%.  All I ask is that MacDonald be generously given the credit that is his due.  Mr. Morrison and others are giving much less than that.


SO WHAT DO YOU WANT? YOU MUST THINK AN AWFUL LOT OF MORRISON AND PAUL TO KEEP THIS THREAD UP AND GET THEM TO AGREE WITH YOU? IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT?

 

 

[JESII]

TEPaul,

I"m available for consultation and will waive my usual fee.

Where should we meet ?

How about Rachel's on 45th St ?

Go for the Strip, best in the county!

[JESII]

David Moriarty,

Both of the following quotes came from your sign in name.

All I ask is that MacDonald be generously given the credit that is his due.  Mr. Morrison and others are giving much less than that.

"Hold on a minute . . . Why are you asking me what warrants design credit?  I surely have never said nor even suggested that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East.  If that is what you think then let me set the record straight once again:  I do not believe that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East.  Nor do I believe that MacDonald deserves credit for designing a single feature or hole at Merion East."

Care to take one of them back?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

I've heard that.

I've asked Ran to include it in his "Courses by Country" section.

Wayne, TE, Tom and Dave,

Passionate debate is healthy, let's keep it at that.

[JESII]

JES II,

I've heard that.

I've asked Ran to include it in his "Courses by Country" section.

Should be a great photo tour...

[Mike_Cirba]

Fellows,

Patrick speaks some very wise words here.

We are all very passionate about a subject that we have such interest in, and healthy debate is just that, and very useful in terms of education and helping to shed light from all angles.

However, we seem to have degraded here to a lot of personal acrimony and tawdry comments that really don't portray any of us at our personal best.  

To my friends in Philly; I know David personally and I know you'd enjoy his humor, temperament, humility, and devotion to learning about the game.   Anyone of you would enjoy sharing a few beers in his company, and you couldn't ask for a nicer, more unassuming guy in person.  I'd hope that we could be a little less defensive about his motivations (me included) and slower to rush to judgement about the nature of his questioning.   I'm also pretty certain we'd all feel the same way about Tom MacWood if we can ever drag him to the City of Brotherly Love for a few days.

And David...I think that sometimes you let your passion for winning a debate exceed your ability to accept reasoned criticism.   We are all wrong at times...well, except for Patrick, that is , and sometimes it's easier to concede a point or at least grant that those who might be closer to a situation have an advantage in personal knowledge.  

However, we all get on here and sometimes the impersonal nature of this forum puts all of us on our high horses and we tend to write things that we'd never say to each other in person.   That cuts both ways, and sometimes it makes us brilliant and sometimes it makes us ignorant, belligerent, and obnoxious.   I don't think there's many of us who post here often who aren't guilty of that at least once in awhile.

So, I'm done with this thread.   I'm hoping that even this post doesn't come off as ridiculously condescending, because that's not my purpose.  

It's just that when you weigh bruised feelings and angry diatribes and lost personal friendships against whether Macdonald was given enough credit for what happened at Merion, it's really not all that friggin important.

[David Stamm]

Mike, agreed.

Now I'm going to take my ball and go home!

 Seriously, I don't think any good can come if this continues. Let's all agree to disagree and move on. And it only took us over 600 posts to reach this point!

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan Izatt,

You didn't answer a previous question.

Sorry, must have missed it.  This thread has gotten way too dense.

What's the height of the Seminole Clubhouse ?

27 feet, 23 feet, 21 feet ?

I can't answer that - the USGS database does not give elevations of buildings.  I won't even pretend to know why, but it doesn't.

How can it be below the level of some of the high points on the golf course if it's higher than 27, 23 or 21 feet. ?

So, how tall is it?  How was it measured?  If you wish to escort me I'll bring my altimeter down and use that to measure it within a meter.  I'm in FL next week, and could be available

Are you still insisting that the alleged Ross quote that Seminole is flat, is accurate ?
I was arguing that Ross may have had a different understanding of flat than you do.  Similar to CBM and some of the rest of us on the Redan subject.  I am prepared to accept that there is more elevation change at Seminole than I would have thought.  I'd still be surprised at 50', but me and my trusty altimeter are available to prove you right.

Do I get the last post on this thread?

[DMoriarty]

JES and Mr. Stamm,

I've dont know either one of you and have no negative feeling about you whatsoever.   If I have been insulting to either one of you personally, I apologize.  Believe it or not I am discussing this stuff just because I find it interesting.  But the tone has veered off track and for my role in that, I apologize.  

I will try to watch my tone and address your posts as best I can, because it is obvious to me that there may be some big misunderstandings, presumably in both directions.    

If you doubt my sincerity, motives, or intentions or think I am driven by some secret agenda, then I am sure my disagreeing will not change your minds.  Regardless, I will read your words without preconceived notions or suspicions, and would ask you to do the same for mine.  This, by the way, is probably pretty close to what I meant by generosity of spirit, above.  
___________________________

JES said:

You are saying that the person, and committee, responsible for the project to research and learn about the great golf courses of the British Isles in hopes of re-creating as strong a course here in the states were so vain and self promoting that they would not recognize and pay his due one of the important individuals in the process of developing Merion East into what it was originally..a course deserving of a National Amateur Championship in its fourth or fifth year.

(my bolds)

I beg your pardon but this is not what I am saying at all.   The persons involved did give credit where credit was due.   They acknowledged MacDonald's influence, recognized him as an advisor, and noted his involvement, etc.  

. . . didn't Wilson recognize some education and advisement CBM may have provided while in Southampton, NY prior to his trip overseas? . . . Didn't Wilson also recognize in writing that CBM saw the site and approved? This on its own is evidence that CBM got his just recognition.

I agree.  

You see it as proof of a slight because why on earth would CBM show up on site and not provide as much advice as possible, right? Why on earth would a club committee and its novice architect not try to pull as much help and information as possible from the top name in the American golf world at the time? I'll tell you why. Their own ego and CBM's respect for it and of it.

I dont think Merion slighted MacDonald.  At least I have not seen evidence of any such slight.  

Mr. Morrison is the one slighting MacDonald.  Wayne Morrison completely dismisses the notion that MacDonald had any influence at all after Wilson's pre-trip visit to NGLA.  (In the past he has even denied that this trip influences Wilson!)

If the club were ever in a situation which warranted relocation and decided they would like to use me as the architect for our new golf course I would want to do it myself. I would try as best I could to pick the brain of the best, most informed people I could, but I would want me and my committee to build the course. There is a certain sense of accomplishment in actually doing something, especially something like this.

I am sure that you would also freely acknowledge any help your mentor(s) gave you and influence they had in your preparation, in your site selection, in your routing, and in whatever other areas they might have influenced you.   Like Merion and Wilson did with MacDonald.

But what Mr. Morrison is trying to do is to act as if these acknowledgements were all empty and meaningless.  He simply ignores them all (except for the trip to NGLA,) because proof of  specific, in-the-ground influences does not (and could not ever) exist.    

Based on the contemporary historical record (as you describe in-brief above) we know that there were contacts, that MacDonald had some influence, and MacDonald had some limited involvement (some sort of routing problem and also approving the site.)   To deny this would be intellectually dishonest and insulting not only to MacDonald, but also to Merion and Wilson.  

Yet this is exactly what Wayne Morrison is doing.
________________________

I would also expect these top experts I might consult with to respect my interests and not overstep their bounds. Have you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged?

 

I have read them both, but I am not sure I follow you here.  Are you suggesting that MacDonald thought he should have received more credit or acknowledgement?  If this is what you meant, I was not aware that this was an issue.  

Now, you may very well turn and ask about the later involvement of William Flynn. My only answer right now is that he/they just changed their minds. Nothing more than that.

 

I am sorry, but again, I dont follow you.  My understanding was that Merion was always a work in progress (as were most of the quality american courses around this time, including NGLA.)  

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty,
Both of the following quotes came from your sign in name.

All I ask is that MacDonald be generously given the credit that is his due.  Mr. Morrison and others are giving much less than that.

"Hold on a minute . . . Why are you asking me what warrants design credit?  I surely have never said nor even suggested that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East.  If that is what you think then let me set the record straight once again:  I do not believe that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East.  Nor do I believe that MacDonald deserves credit for designing a single feature or hole at Merion East."

Care to take one of them back?

JES

I dont care to take either back because I think they are both true and accurate.  

In the second quote, Mr. Stamm had mistakenly assumed that I thought MacDonald deserved design credit for Merion.  I clarified  that I did not see any evidence that MacDonald should receive design credit.  I still do not.

In the first quote Mr. Stamm and I had been discussing Thomas' many influences. Mr. Stamm said of these influences: "DO THEY DESERVE CREDIT? ABSOLUTELY!"  My complete response was:

I agree 100%.  All I ask is that MacDonald be generously given the credit that is his due.  Mr. Morrison and others are giving much less than that.

I think Mr. Stamm will agree that neither of us were talking about design credit here, but rather the kind of more general credit that Shackelford gives Thomas' influences in "The Captain."  Like the acknowledgements you note above.

I've said throughout that I've seen no evidence to suggest that MacDonald deserved design credit.  My point is only that he ought to be allowed to keep the credit Wilson and Merion already gave him without Wayne Morrison and the like completely discounting it.    

[DMoriarty]

SO WHAT DO YOU WANT? YOU MUST THINK AN AWFUL LOT OF MORRISON AND PAUL TO KEEP THIS THREAD UP AND GET THEM TO AGREE WITH YOU? IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT?

Mr. Stamm,  

I know they will never agree with me, or at least admit to agreeing with me about anything. (If you dont believe me I've got a story for you about a measure of a golf hole.)  This is a large part of why I am doing this.   They do not seem at all interested in really, truly, getting to the bottom of all of this, but rather only seem interested in new information if it supports their view that MacDonald has received too much credit and Wilson not enough.  They apparently view this as a zero-sum circumstance where it is impossible to appropriately acknowledge MacDonald's influence, while at the same time properly crediting Wilson, Flynn, and Merion with their fantastic and ground-breaking accomplishment.  They also have a nasty habit of bullying, belittling, and ultimately ignoring anyone who disagrees with them, regardless of the validity of the disagreement.

So what do I want?  

I want to see that MacDonald's influence continues to be recognized.   That it not be dismissed or discarded.  

I also am interested in process, and proper process is being corrupted here by a shoddy and biased research approach, strongman tactics, a misunderstanding of the evolving use of language and meaning, and an inversion of normal analytical burdens of proof.  

So I think we all can learn to be better historical researchers by thoroughly examining Mr. Morrison's mistakes, which of course he will never admit he makes.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  I'm all for well-reasoned criticism.  But let's be honest here.  You and I both know that I havent received a bit of "well-reasoned criticism" from Mr. Morrison since I correctly corrected the Jones' driving distance, and have received only a bit more than that from Mr. Paul.

As far as your well-reasoned criticism (well, I guess it is reasoned)  I am all for it.  I just havent been convinced.  As you say, we are all wrong some of the time.  It just happens to be your time.  

Seriously, I agree that our differences are a matter of degrees.   Where we do disagree, though, is your belief that there is a concensus that MacDonald should be acknowledged for his influence after the NGLA visit.   I hate to go all Socrates Mucci on you, but I am really curious as to how you could think this.  

Here is the recent statement by Mr. Morrison regarding MacDonald's influence on Wilson:  

I'm not at all hell bent in trying to wipe Macdonald from the Merion archives.  What gives you that idea.  I admit over and over that he was a key figure in the early stages of Wilson's preparation for his trip to the UK and his understanding of golf course building and design principals.  We just don't have any information beyond that.  I await facts and not extrapolations of vague phrases that we cannot know the true implications of. You go on your flights of fancy, I'll stay here and conduct further research based on long-proven principals of scientific method.

-Where in this statement does Mr. Morrison acknowledge any influence past the NGLA visit?  

-What do you suppose Mr. Morrison means when he says "We just dont have any information beyond that."?

-When Mr. Morrison says he "awaits facts" isnt he implying that no such facts yet exist?

-But isnt it a "fact" that Merion and Wilson acknowledged some involvement and influence by MacDonald upon Wilson's return from Europe?  

-And isnt it a "fact" that others (Leslie, Whigham, the Merion history) also acknowledge MacDonald's influence?

-Does this approach leave any room for acknowledging that MacDonald may have had a role in approving the site?  In helping with the routing?  In advising in other matters?  

Thanks in advance for your answers and your patience , Mike.  I hate to make you answer for others, but you are the one who asked me to show you who didnt agree and you would hunt them down like the dog they are, or some such thing.  

I'd rather have Mr. Morrison answer directly himself, but since I corrected him on those Jones' drives he only converses about me, not with me.

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty,

Would you agree that CBM contradicted himself in describing what constitutes a Redan, especially in reference to the essential component, and his classifying # 3 as a Redan ?

Sorry for the delay in answering Patrick, I saved the hardest one for last.  

The reason I am having trouble answering is that I am still having trouble with just what this "essential component" is.  I understand why everyone is saying that the "essential component" is the slope away.  I agree that, as I view a redan, that is certainly an essential component, perhaps even the essential component.   And if this is what MacDonald meant, then the description contradicts the inclusion of the Merion reverse redan.  But if we take him literally to mean a side-slope, then there isn't necessarily a contradiction, at least for reverse redans.  

You likely know the other holes.  Are there other contradictions with other features?   For example do the distance or elevation changes on the other holes fundamentally alter the way the hole is described, or the way it would play?  

Shouldnt all this be cleared up somewhat by Mr. Stamm's recent post from the Merion history, where Tolhurst writes that Wilson apparently acknowledged that the hole was inspired by the NB redan?  

Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen IN Scotland and England: the third hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (The Redan) and the 17th, with it's swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrews' 18th hole. Yet, none of the holes at Merion is an out and out copy. They are all original holes in their own right. Wilson had absorbed the principles underlying the great holes, then applied them to the terrain at his command.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty,

There's a big difference between one hole INSPIRING another and one hole being a TEMPLATE of another.  That's the distinction I think you're failing to make.

While the 15th at NBerwick may have been the inspiration for the 3rd at Merion, it's NO Redan.

And, the inspiration may have come in the form of a lower tee to a volcano topped putting surface sitting above the tee.

A Redan isn't sloped side to side,  It tends to be sloped along the diagonal from the high front corner to the low back corner.
That is the tilt that CBM said was essential, and that tilt doesn't exist at # 3 at Merion.

In addition, the tilt has to feed the ball toward the green, and once on the green, further onto the green.

That element doesn't exist at Merion.

With respect to your comment that you want to make sure that MacDonald's influence continues to be recognized, how can you make that statement when you can't identify, qualify or quantify the extent of CBM's involvement.

His involvement may have been inconsequential.
It may have been non-specific
It may have been as a cheerleader.

Hence, until his "involvement" can be identified, qualified and quantified, I don't know how you can give him any credit beyond general recognition for his visit and meeting.

Byran Izatt,

The Seminole Clubhouse is large/high, higher than 21,23 or 27 feet, yet, it sits below the elevation points I mentioned.

[DMoriarty]

Dave Moriarty,

There's a big difference between one hole INSPIRING another and one hole being a TEMPLATE of another.  That's the distinction I think you're failing to make.

Patrick:  YES!!  I have been making this distinction throughout.  And suggesting others do so as well.  There are NO TEMPLATES at Merion.  There may be holes and features inspired by what Wilson learned in Europe and/or from MacDonald, but NO TEMPLATES, or COPIES OF TEMPLATES.

While the 15th at NBerwick may have been the inspiration for the 3rd at Merion, it's NO Redan.

 

By our definition, I agree.  But this is where they differed. Apparently the inspiration was enough for them to call it a Redan.

This is what I have been saying and saying.   We are talking about inspirations here.  About subtle influences.  Not about exact copies.   And any attempt to find exact copies, or to make any proof turn on whether there are exact copies, was doomed from the beginning, because their use of the words makes it clear that they were not talking about exact copies.

With respect to your comment that you want to make sure that MacDonald's influence continues to be recognized, how can you make that statement when you can't identify, qualify or quantify the extent of CBM's involvement.

Because there is a huge difference between recognizing someone's influence and cataloging ever aspect of the influence.  One can easily recognize the former without having finished the latter.

His involvement may have been inconsequential.
It may have been non-specific
It may have been as a cheerleader.

The historical record is that Merion, Wilson, Leslie, and Whigham all recognized that MacDonald had an influence.  It would be much too disrespectful to them and Merion to disregard this just because we cannot catalogue every aspect of the influence.

Think of Wilson and the Redan.  If HE considers it an inspiration, who are WE to disagree.   We may never be able to catalogue the specific inspiration, but to deny that the NB Redan "inspired" the 3rd at Merion is intellectually dishonest and a rewrite of history.  

And to deny that MacDonald had an influence over many aspects of Wilson's involvement of Merion (after the initial vist) is likewise intellectually dishonest and a rewrite of history.