[DMoriarty]

Patrick and Shivas,

Your mincing of language is entirely unconvincing, and am glad to see that Shivas has apparently realized this. That being said, it makes no difference.  Summarize the statements of Tillinghast, Travis, Lesley, and A. Wilson and others either way;  use either . . .
M&W advised and offered suggestions of the greatest help and value as to the layout of Merion East . . .
or . . .
M&W advised and offered suggestions of the greatest help and value about laying out the course . . .

it makes absolutely no difference.   Either way, M&W advised about the initial creation of Merion East, and there advice was very helpful.  

Despite your quibble with my word choice, surely you both see that  Mike Cirba's interpretation of the AWilson article is stretched well beyond breaking..
 
In his post above to Jeff Brauer, Mike argues that AWilson meant:

While M&W may have been helpful with "the process," or . .
--with "irrigation, agronomy, and a host of other construction matters," or . . .
--with “advice on his overseas trip,” or . . .
-- with “the concepts of the great strategic holes of the game,” or . . .
-- in “getting the process off on sure footing,” . . .    
. . . M&W's advice about the lay out of Merion East was of no help whatsover in that the committee did not follow any of this advice or suggestions; that all of M&W's advice was ignored and rejected by the committee.  

The evidence just doesn’t support this minimalization of M&W’s contribution to the initial lay out of Merion East.

Shivas, as for the don’t let the wicker hit you on the way out theory, it is purely unsupported speculation.  And the fact that they were still praising M&W’s contributions as of the "greatest value" over a dozen years later undercuts this theory.  

The only supported theory is the explanation given by just about everyone who commented, especially Wilson’s brother.     M&W advised about the lay out of Merion East, and their advice suggestions and advice were not only helpful, they were of the greatest value to Wilson and the committee.

Dave B.  (and to Mike Cirba, indirectly)

With all due respect to Mike, he has consistently misrepresented my position throughout.  I have never said or suggested that M&W deserved design credit.  I have never said or suggested said that Wilson did not.  In fact I have said the opposite throughout and even changed my signature to the left of this post to help Mike and others keep this in mind.  

To no avail.  At every turn Mike tries to make this discussion about design credit, but he is arguing with ghosts, not with me.

So while CBM was hardly the equivalent of a "design associate" in this circumstance, your analogy is still apt if your point is that sometimes even valuable advice does not justify an attribution of full design credit, as in Merion, designed my M&W.  

But it is also true that an associate’s advice oftentimes contributes significantly to the final result, even though all agree that the associate is not deserving of an equal and official design credit.  

Yet in this case, these guys consistently downplay MacDonald’s role as an advisor; insisting that his advice about laying out the course was not helpful at all.  And they do so despite overwhelming evidence in the written record to the contrary.

The evidence strongly suggests that M&W were advisors to the committee about laying out (and the lay out) of Merion East, and that just about everyone who commented on the matter recognized that M&W’s advice and suggestions about the lay out of Merion East were beneficial;  that M&W’s advice aided the committee, was beneficial to the committee, was of a great help; and was of THE GREATEST HELP AND VALUE.

[DMoriarty]

"-- TEPaul thought that most every bit of credit for the early Merion East ought to stay with those who were there every day, and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."

David Moriarty:

For the record, I didn't say that, you did.

Once again, by Christmas miracle, the ghosts of TomPaul's past:

Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia and worked on that course every day for a couple decades until they finally got it the way they wanted it and then they stopped.

(my bolds)


Also in the same post. . .

I just think it's patently perposterous to assign much credit to a couple of guys from New York who may've showed up down here for a few hours a couple of times compared to men who slaved away on that course for 10-15 and 20 years to make it what it is.

 . . . a couple of guys who hardly know Merion make a big deal out of a couple of mentions of a guy "advising". I think that's what is preposterous.

(my bolds)

[TEPaul]

David:

I don't know that it's worthwhile to continue this thread any longer. I think, at this point, we can all agree that M&W most certainly advised Wilson and Merion's committee in Southampton before Wilson sailed to GB for some months of architectural study, not the least reason being that Hugh Wilson specifically wrote about that and explained in some detail what M&W advised them about before he traveled to GB.

And I think we can also all probably agree that M&W "advised" Merion, Wilson and his committee somehow in two separate visits (one in late 1910 and the other in the Spring of 1911) but that as Alan Wilson reported, and as confirmed to him by each member of the Merion Committee, that Hugh Wilson, was, in fact, as Alan Wilson reported, 'in the main the architect of Merion East and West'.

And that that is probably the reason the design of Merion East AND West has always been accurately attributed to Hugh I. Wilson.

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 08:36:48am
"-- TEPaul thought that most every bit of credit for the early Merion East ought to stay with those who were there every day, and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."

David Moriarty:

For the record, I didn't say that, you did.
 

Once again, by Christmas miracle, the ghosts of TomPaul's past:
Quote from: TEPaul on December 09, 2006, 03:43:04 pm
Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia and worked on that course every day for a couple decades until they finally got it the way they wanted it and then they stopped.
 
(my bolds)"



David:

I'm glad that you reconstituted those remarks of mine from different dates.

If you read them again, you will see that I said the same thing in each remark from different dates about what I feel the credit should be to Wilson and committee.

What I disagreed with you on when I said 'to set the record straight', is that I never said in either remark on either date '"and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."

Those words were yours, and definitely not mine, and that's why I said 'To set the record straight, I never said that, you did'.

[DMoriarty]

David:

I'm glad that you reconstituted those remarks of mine from different dates.

If you read them again, you will see that I said the same thing in each remark from different dates about what I feel the credit should be to Wilson and committee.

Not sure what you mean here, Tom.  The first quote is yours from today, the rest of the quotes are not only from the same day, they are from the same quote.   I put them in two boxes because I changed my mind about what to include.

What I disagreed with you on when I said 'to set the record straight', is that I never said in either remark on either date '"and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."

You never said either remark on either date?  What about the above quotes??

If you are denying that you made the taking credit away statement, you are mistaken.  You did say, very specifically, that giving M&W credit was taking it away from Wilson and the others who were there.  (It could have even been in the very same post, but I wouldn't guarantee it.)

But putting that aside, I am at least glad we agree on one thing.  You have concluded that: Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia, and not to M&W.

That is still your position, isn't it?

[TEPaul]

David:

Perhaps you should consider responding on this thread's subject to my post above.

"Add to this H.Wilson's own statements as to the importance of MacDonald's teachings, then it is impossible to deny that MacDonald not only was involved in the layout, had a significant influence on the initial design of Merion East."

I think perhaps you need to do a bit of grammatical cleaning up of that statement of yours for us to consider it again, but if it even remotely conveys the same meaning that that one does, then, yes, it is not only NOT impossible to deny that Macdonald had a SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE on the initial design of Merion East, but it is even quite likely that he didn't have a significant influence on the initial design or Merion East.  

[TEPaul]

"and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."

David:

 I never said that, only you did.

[TEPaul]

"But putting that aside, I am at least glad we agree on one thing.  You have concluded that: Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia, and not to M&W.

That is still your position, isn't it?"

David:

I would say that is the case if we agree on the meaning of this statement from Alan Wilson;

"The land of the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study most of the famous links of Scotland and England. ON HIS RETURN THE PLAN WAS GRADUALLY EVOLVED AND WHILE LARGELY HELPED BY MANY EXCELLENT SUGGESTIONS AND MUCH GOOD ADVICE FROM THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THEY HAVE EACH TOLD ME THAT HE IS THE PERSON IN THE MAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ARCHITECTURE OF THIS AND OF THE WEST COURSE."

(my bolds, not Alan Wilson's)

[DMoriarty]

Tom, it is not a big issue, but you did say that giving CBM credit was taking it away from others.   With all due respect, my recollection of what you have said has been spot on, even when you have not remembered it that way.  

Regardless, it may well be a moot point.  Given your statements above I assume you agree with it whether you admit saying it or not.  
_______________

Thanks for pointing out my sloppy grammar.   I think you got my message.  
_________________

As for your capitalized quote, I think it means what it says.  No more and no less.  I never denied that Wilson was "the person in the main responsible"  for the design of both courses, nor do I have any reason to doubt it, especially since AWilson seems to be talking about not just the initial version of Merion East, but on how the courses evolved.  

As for M&W's (highly valued) contribution, your quote is silent on the issue.   H.Wilson is the main architect, but that was never my issue.  

Surely you do not seriously believe that A.Wilson's description of his brother as the main architect in any way precludes the conclusion that others also substantially contributed??

If so, can you point to me to where he says that.  Because I dont see it.  

As I explained above, in this paragraph A.Wilson seems to be making a pitch that his brother should be considered the main architect, even noting that the rest of the committee agrees with him.   Setting aside the obvious conflict of interest, and accepting A.Wilson's words at face value, it just doesnt say any more than this.  

___________________

As for your request that I address your post above, I have no idea to which of your many posts you refer.  

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I think the second statement below is where I continue to come unglued in your argument.  The first statement is OK and supported by the written evidence.  

In the second statement you say that showed Macdonald was "involved".  Does involved mean more to you than that he offered some, as yet unknown, advice?  In the next sentence you make an intuitive leap from the giving of unspecified advice to Macdonald "had a significant influence on the initial design".  How do you conclude that the advice given was "significant" to the design?  There is no evidence it was significant (whatever that means).  It was helpful and of value.  But that doesn't mean it significantly influenced the design.

Perhaps you could flesh out what you mean by influenced and significant.
 

........................................

The obvious and literal meaning of What Wilson, Tillinghast, Travis, Wilson, etc. wrote should not be in dispute:
 M&W advised the committee about the lay out of Merion, and that this advice was THE GREATEST HELP AND VALUE to the committee.  

Add to this H.Wilson's own statements as to the importance of MacDonald's teachings, then it is impossible to deny that MacDonald not only was involved in the layout, had a significant influence on the initial design of Merion East.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom, it is not a big issue, but you did say that giving CBM credit was taking it away from others.  With all due respect, my recollection of what you have said has been spot on, even when you have not remembered it that way.:

David:

Did I? Well, then I'm going to ask you to find it and cite it or else not claim that I DID say such a thing. With all due respect to you, my recollection of what I've said on this thread has been spot on and I never said that giving CBM credit was taking it away from others.  

You said I said that, as I mentioned above. I never said that--only you did. That quotation comes from your post #902.

[David Stamm]

The obvious and literal meaning of What Wilson, Tillinghast, Travis, Wilson, etc. wrote should not be in dispute:
 M&W advised the committee about the lay out of Merion, and that this advice was THE GREATEST HELP AND VALUE to the committee.  

Add to this H.Wilson's own statements as to the importance of MacDonald's teachings, then it is impossible to deny that MacDonald not only was involved in the layout, had a significant influence on the initial design of Merion East.  

 

David, you have been consistent in stating that you are not  trying to give design credit to M&W, so I'm wondering what you're interpretations of "laying out" are?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I think you might be mistaken and I don't recall Tom Paul saying that.

On the other hand, I did.

I think my paraphrased quote was somethiing like, "You can say that this isn't a zero sum game but if you tell me that, say, Macdonald designed 15 holes at the original Merion East course, well that's certainly 15 less holes of the total of 18 that Hugh Wilson designed."

I think Bryan sums up my feelings pretty well.

I certainly agree that M&W advised the committee on the layout and their advice was deemed very beneficial.

But, did that mean their contribution was 50% of the layout work?  90%?   5?    We don't know but we do know that what was built was nothing at all like any Macdonald or Raynor or Banks course that was ever built before or for the ensuing 20 years.   That is the physical evidence we're left with.

Let me relay a personal story.  

A few years back a local club was undertaking a restoration project and the principals of the club, for some unfathomable reason, thought that my advice and input would be valuable to the process.

So, I visited the club and we went over the proposed restoration changes in great detail.   Then, we went out to play and took time noting and comparing the changes against the current reality.

One of the points in question related to a fronting bunker on a par three where accumulated sandsplash over the years had built up the face so that most of the green was not visible from the tee.  Not only that but the buildup caused a disfiguration of the original green contours in a way that was challenging and interesting.   However, we also had the good fortune of having a number of historical aerial photographs, and some original architectural plans and it was clear that not only was there no sandsplash, but there was no bunker there.   The original fronting bunker was well short of the green, and the green itself did not have the fronting "ramp" that had been built up.  

At the time we were discussing this, one of the principals had some pretty strong feelings that perhaps this feature should be left alone.   More at issue was that the whole restoration project was coming up for a vote by the club committee, and there were various opinions and pet features among the varied group and no real consistent unanimity within the club.

I knew that the principals really wanted as true a restoration as possible, and I advised that once you open the bag of changing some things but not others, you would introduce a pandora's box of other suggestions that would dilute the overall project in a way that would lead to unexpected results.

Ultimately, they agreed with me, and with some other recommendations I suggested regarding some other controversial historical features.   In the end, the club voted for the full restoration plan and the work has been praised and enjoyed by the club since that time.

Do I consider that my role was imporant and valuable?  Well, only to the degree that I may have helped them to understand the logic of taking a strong stand to go back to the original design, armed with the argument that this was the course as built by a renowned designer.

The principals seemed to appreciate my input, and told me so repeatedly and I felt really good about that.

However, it would be a complete mischaracterization of my role to suggest that my input was anything but a miniscule piece of the overall pie, and certainly nothing at all compared to the work that was done by the principal movers and shakers at the club, the committee, and the architect and shapers involved in the project.

Of course, I'm certainly not trying to compare my knowledge with someone like Macdonald but simply trying to point out that an undertaking of a restoration is a huge effort involving a lot of people but a complete "startup" of a new course dwarfs that by several degrees.

And, in such a circumstance, it's very possible to contribute a great deal of valuable input, while still only being responsible for a very small piece of the pie.

[DMoriarty]

David:

Did I? Well, then I'm going to ask you to find it and cite it or else not claim that I DID say such a thing.

TEPaul,

Well. I see we really have come full circle, at least with regard to your fallacious logic and methodologies.   Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be insulting with these terms, in this case they are terms of art.  Your position is based on a logical fallacy and is therefore irrational.  Again.

Find it and cite it?   That will be tough, because you destroyed it.

Like with your (and Mr. Morrison's) repeated demand for evidence of what specifically M&W contributed, you make an irrational demand for proof here as well.  You insist that I provide you with evidence that you know cannot exist.  

My inability to cite it has absolutely nothing to do with whether you actually said it. You said it, whether or not I can cite it.  How many Christmas miracles do you expect me to come up with this year?

Same goes with evidence of M&W's specific contributions.  No evidence about anyone's specific contribution has been found.  Therefore the absence of evidence of M&W's specific involvement is absolutely irrelevant as to whether or what M&W specifically contributed.  Whether or not he contributed, no such evidence exists.  

But again, it is beside the point, because even if you deny saying it, you believe it, don't you?  
________________________________________

Mike Cirba,  

I am sorry I dont have time to address or even read your post now, but I did notice the first sentence or so.   Yes you did say it.  Your post is there to prove it.  

Nonetheless, I am certain that TEPaul said it as well.   But again, I don't care, because he believes it.  Don't you Tom?
____________

David S.  

I am sorry I do not have time to address your post either, but I will when I get the chance.

__________________________  


Merry Christmas to some, Happy Holidays to others, and a belated Happy Winter's Solstice to the rest of us.  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Happy Holidays to you, as well.    

I hope you get a chance to read my post as I believe it makes an important point.  

I think I've said all I can on this thread, but for the most part, I enjoyed the discussion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DavidMoriarty,

Why do you think, over a 25 year period, that there's nothing but vague references to nebulous tasks that you allege M&W performed for Merion ?

There's NOT one detail, not one specific of anything they did.
And, that's over a 25 year period.

How can that be ?

How can it be that the great CBM wasn't given credit for his SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS to the routing, design and construction of the golf course ?

The absence of same flies in the face of common sense given his stature in the American Golf Scene.

He was a giant, yet, not one accolade can be found with respect to specific contributions he might have made at Merion.

My theory is that CBM's involvement was more ceremonial than practical.

P.S.  Nice card, you and I should be thankful that our kids get
       their looks from their mothers.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

This is what you said in post #902:

""-- TEPaul thought that most every bit of credit for the early Merion East ought to stay with those who were there every day, and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there.""

You made that remark, not me. But of that remark by you I certainly do agree, and did agree a few times above that I said most of the credit for the early Merion East ought to go to those who were there every day.

What I never said on this thread or anywhere else is the part of that remark above that follows the comma that says;

"and that giving M&W credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."

I never said anything like that on this thread or anywhere else. Those are your words, not mine. And frankly that is the very idea you have probably been trying to establish all along on this thread that grew to about 32 pages. That is an idea I see virtually noone agreeing with you on.

I don't agree with it at all and I never have and the last thing I'm going to do on this thread since I don't agree with that is let you put your own words in my mouth so that you can attempt to make it look like I agree with that.

I never said such a thing. Those are your words, not mine.

[TEPaul]

“Same goes with evidence of M&W's specific contributions.  No evidence about anyone's specific contribution has been found.  Therefore the absence of evidence of M&W's specific involvement is absolutely irrelevant as to whether or what M&W specifically contributed.  Whether or not he contributed, no such evidence exists.”

David:

You’ve been saying things like that on this thread from the beginning. I guess you must be trying to imply that since there is no evidence of anyone’s specific contribution including no evidence of Macdonald’s specific involvement that therefore it follows that it must be a mystery about who designed the golf course. Tom MacWood actually implied that before he left this website. I don’t think anyone on this thread agrees with that. I doubt anyone anywhere agrees with it except perhaps you and Tom MacWood.

By stating that no evidence has been found of anyone’s specific contribution, and no evidence has been found of Macdonald’s specific involvement, I suppose you mean no laundry list has ever been found about who was responsible for the design of each and every hole, each and every green, bunker etc, and perhaps the over-all routing. Frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen architectural responsibility listed that way for any golf course at any time.

But it is not true to say that we have no evidence of who the architect of the golf course was and to a significant and specific extent. That specific and significant evidence did not show up on this thread until about page 31 but it did show up. And it is from someone who was there and perhaps in the best position of anyone to know what happened there and who did what. Here is that evidence:

“"The land of the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study most of the famous links of Scotland and England. ON HIS RETURN THE PLAN WAS GRADUALLY EVOLVED AND WHILE LARGELY HELPED BY MANY EXCELLENT SUGGESTIONS AND MUCH GOOD ADVICE FROM THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THEY HAVE EACH TOLD ME THAT HE IS THE PERSON IN THE MAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ARCHITECTURE OF THIS AND OF THE WEST COURSE."

When Alan Wilson says that he was told by all those involved that Hugh Wilson was ‘in the main responsible for the architecture of this (East Course) and the West Course’, that is significant and specific enough for me and apparently for most everyone else. But perhaps you have not yet realized that “in the main responsible” and “significant contribution” in the context of the design and construction of the course are essentially the same thing.

So it is no longer irrelevent that we have found no evidence of M&W's specific involvement because the first part of your statement 'No evidence about anyone's specific contribution has been found' is no longer true. Consequently your "Therefore", followed by (the absence of evidence of M&W's specific involvement is absolutely irrelevant as to whether or what M&W specifically contributed), is no longer even applicable to your point.

Hugh Wilson's specific (and significant) contribution according to those in a position to know was that "he was the person in the main responsibile for THE ARCHITECTURE of the East and the West courses."

That is obviously why he has always been known as the architect of Merion. There is no mystery, there is no puzzle and there isn't even 'another piece of a puzzle' remaining.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba,  
I am sorry I dont have time to address or even read your post now, but I did notice the first sentence or so.  Yes you did say it.  Your post is there to prove it.  
Nonetheless, I am certain that TEPaul said it as well.  But again, I don't care, because he believes it.  Don't you Tom?"

David:

If by your question "Do I believe it?", you mean believe this remark;

"and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."",

No, I do not believe that and I've never said that. Again, those are your words, not mine.

 

[DMoriarty]

David, you have been consistent in stating that you are not  trying to give design credit to M&W, so I'm wondering what you're interpretations of "laying out" are?

David, I think that they were rather loose in their use of the phrase; I don’t have a concrete definition for them, because I don’t think they had a concrete definition themselves.  One thing to keep in mind is that the state of golf course creation was really in flux during this period, and so I think the terminology was very likely in flux as well.   Sometimes they seem to be referring to just the routing and maybe the general placement of the hazards, but other times they seem to also include the actual construction of the course.  So generally, I would say that laying out a course encompasses routing the course including hazard placement, but sometimes also includes at least the rough construction.
________________________
Mike  
First, I do not understand how you can say that you I “agree that M&W advised the committee on the layout and their advice was deemed very beneficial,” unless  your view has changed since your post above where you appear to conclude that they did it themselves, and that M&W’s advice and suggestions were ultimately was not followed at all.   What am I missing here?

But, did that mean their contribution was 50% of the layout work?  90%?   5?  

I just don't think this is anything you can break down into percentages.   What percentage of Pacific Dunes was Jim Urbina?   What percentage of Rustic Canyon was Jim Wagner?  Geoff Shackelford?  You could try to come up with numbers, and numbers might make you think you were being objective, but the reality is that the numbers will never come close to accurately reflecting what really happened.  

We don't know but we do know that what was built was nothing at all like any Macdonald or Raynor or Banks course that was ever built before or for the ensuing 20 years.   That is the physical evidence we're left with.

This might matter more if we were talking about design credit.  And it might matter more if anyone was claiming that Raynor or Banks or even M&W were involved in the actual construction.  But for reasons I have explained repeatedly,  when it comes to the question of whether M&W's advice and suggestions had a significant influence on the initial design of Merion East, I do not think it could matter much less.

As for your personal example, I find it an interesting story, but I am not sure how it bolsters your position.  

When it comes to your specific area of involvement, it sounds like you were pretty important.   And you likely deserve credit for your contribution, but only within the narrow realm of your involvement.  So if the principles ever write an article on how to go about doing a successful restoration and are describing their own experience, they ought to mention that bringing in a person as knowledgeable and articulate as you was crucial in reaching their decision to stand firm, and that by standing firm and conveying your ideas to the partnership, they were able to get a real restoration done, and the course is the better for it.    Now obviously, I don’t know everything that happened, but from your description it sounds like ignoring your role would be telling well less than the entire story, at least when it came to the initial decision of whether they would push for a true restoration.  

You say the principles thought your input would be valuable; it sounds like it turned out to be valuable;  and it also sounds like they have acknowledged the value, at least to you.  

Given your description and the principles’ viewpoint on the matter, it would be absurd for me to claim that your input was disregarded or ignored or politely listened to then dismissed.  Yet when just about everyone who was there agrees that MacDonald’s advice was valuable, you still conclude that they really did not mean it; and that M&W’s advice about the lay out was completely ignored in the end.
_________________________
 
Patrick. Based on the information I have seen,   we know as much or more about what M&W specifically did than we do about anyone else involved in the initial creation of Merion East.  Wilson is referred to many as the architect and his brother says he was the main guy, but I have seen little or no information about what he specifically did.   Does this mean he was not the designer or the main guy?  Of course not.  

Your demand of evidence of CBM’s specific tasks makes about as much sense as TEPaul demanding that I find and cite a post which he destroyed.   I’ll never find it because it is no longer available by reason of destruction.  But y inability to find a deleted quote is irrelevant to whether the quote ever existed.  

 Likewise the laundry list of who did what (if there ever was one) is not available, and the inability to find CBM on that unavailable list says absolutely nothing about whether or not he was specifically involved.  

How can it be that the great CBM wasn't given credit for his SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS to the routing, design and construction of the golf course ?

He was given credit by Tillinghast, Travis, Leslie, Tolhurst, A. Wilson and H. Wilson,  and they apparently so no point in listing his or anyone else’s specific contributions.   You cannot dismiss their statements just because they don’t provide a laundry list of exactly how his advice was helpful!

I understand your theory.  I have just not seen any support for it at all.  
__________________________

TEPaul, as for what you said and didn’t say, I am done with it.  I am not going to argue with someone who deleted all his posts and is now demanding I cite them.   I know what you said, and had you not deleted your posts we would never have to have such a ridiculous discussion.  

At this point I don't even care.

I guess you must be trying to imply that since there is no evidence of anyone’s specific contribution including no evidence of Macdonald’s specific involvement that therefore it follows that it must be a mystery about who designed the golf course.

No, I am not trying to imply this.

By stating that no evidence has been found of anyone’s specific contribution, and no evidence has been found of Macdonald’s specific involvement, I suppose you mean no laundry list has ever been found about who was responsible for the design of each and every hole, each and every green, bunker etc, and perhaps the over-all routing. Frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen architectural responsibility listed that way for any golf course at any time.

So why then have you and Mr. Morrison been demanding evidence about CBM's specific involvement from the beginning of the thread?  

The rest of your post deals with proving that H. Wilson was the architect.  I have never had a quarrel with this.  You can go back through my posts if you do not believe me.  

I do disagree, though, that H.Wilson's brother pronouncing H.Wilson as the architect provides us with any specific details of what H.Wilson specifically did.  You apply a double standard.  Vague pronouncements are okay if they are about H. Wilson, but not if they are about CBM.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, as for what you said and didn’t say, I am done with it."

David:

That's nice. Next time you should quote me instead of writing what you think I said.

 "I am not going to argue with someone who deleted all his posts and is now demanding I cite them."

Sorry about that. I was fascinated to see that you cut and copied what I said on here so it's too bad you didn't copy something that you're now only claiming you think I said.

"I know what you said,...."

No you don't. What you know is what you said I said, but unfortunately I never said that, only you did.

"......and had you not deleted your posts we would never have to have such a ridiculous discussion."

We would never have had this ridiculous discussion if you hadn't tried to put your words in my mouth.

 

[TEPaul]

Maybe this can put this thread to bed once and for all.

"So why then have you and Mr. Morrison been demanding evidence about CBM's specific involvement from the beginning of the thread?"

Because we believe that information and evidence like Hugh Wilson's and Alan Wilson's report is reliable evidence to use to attribute who it was who was the architect of the initial stage of Merion East.

"The rest of your post deals with proving that H. Wilson was the architect." I have never had a quarrel with this.  You can go back through my posts if you do not believe me."

That's right it does deal with that and I think it goes a long way to proving he was the architect of the course. I'm glad you agree with that here.  

"I do disagree, though, that H.Wilson's brother pronouncing H.Wilson as the architect provides us with any specific details of what H.Wilson specifically did."

None of us have ever said that any evidence we've ever found proves any specific details of what anyone did if by that you mean who designed every green, tee, fairway, bunker etc.

As I said above that is not something I've ever seen listed about a golf course anywhere in any comprehensive way. I think we can prove that Harry Colt placed the green of #5 at PVGC simply because a number of people including Crump himself gave him specific credit for that, but other than that it has been hard to prove he did anything else (until now, I believe). With Geo Crump, on the other hand, Tillinghast described in detail in writing and most importantly during the fact the way a number of the holes he said Crump built were and that's the way they are today. That's proof, and pretty specific proof as it is assigning holes to various people. And isn't it interesting that Crump and Colt have both always been given credit for designing PVGC?

But I have never seen anything like a laundry list like that for the initial stage of Merion. What we do have however, is a specific description by Alan Wilson about who designed Merion East. Read again the quotation above. He says while the Merion committee made many recommendations it was Hugh Wilson who was in the main responsible as the architect of the golf course. To me that's specific if we are looking for evidence of who the architect of Merion East was.

"You apply a double standard.  Vague pronouncements are okay if they are about H. Wilson, but not if they are about CBM."

No I'm not applying any double standard at all, but you appear to be trying to create some kind of double standard by demanding that specific evidence be produced of who was responsible for every detail of the architecture of the golf course, and that if we can't do that we must not assume that Hugh Wilson was the architect of Merion East, despite the fact a most reliable report says he was the architect of the golf course.

And then you go on with some seriously shaky logic suggesting that since there is no specific information of who designed every detail of the golf course (despite the fact a reliable report says H. Wilson was the architect of the golf course), AND that since there is no specific evidence that M&W WERE or even WERE NOT involved in the design of the golf course, THEREFORE we cannot assume that M&W DID NOT make a specific contribution or have a significanct involvement in the design of the course.

Unfortunately we don't believe these things work that way, David, and Wayne and I definitely do not partake in that type of seriously flawed and frankly ridiculously tortured logic you have on this thread.

What we've done is look at the weight of the evidence we have which is a report by the man who it has always been purported is the architect of the course with his committee. In that report, written after the fact, he give M&W a good deal of credit for what he did for him and the committee before the project began and before he left for GB. He even explained what that credit was specifically for. Afterwards Wilson mentioned the laying out and the building of Merion East was "Our problem (proposition)". Yes, it's true, we are assuming that by "Our" Wilson meant he and his committee which is the way collectively they always seemed to refer to each other.

As I've said before if Macdonald had been part of that process or project I see no reason at all that Hugh Wilson would not have mentioned him again for his part in that phase of the project.

And the same goes for Alan Wilson's report. He said that H. Wilson was helped by his committee but in the main he was the architect of the golf course.

And so, laundry list or no laundry list if Macdonald had done anything following Wilson's return from GB that smacked of significant involvement in the design and construction of the golf course why in the world did Alan Wilson just not say so? We feel the reason he did not mention M&W is because it is true that the Merion committee made suggestions but in the main it was Hugh Wilson who was the architect of the golf course.

Again, we feel if M&W had been significantly involved at that point Alan Wilson definitely would've mentioned them and given them credit and since he did not do that in that report they obviously weren't significantly involved at that time in the design and construction of the golf course.

Henceforth, if you or someone else like Tom MacWood want to suggest there is some kind of conspiracy around here to shut outside architects out of credit for what they did around here, or that perhaps you think Alan Wilson was lying, or even if you want to use the kind of seriously tortured logic you have on this thread, I doubt you will have anyone who knows anything about the histories of these courses participating.

[TEPaul]

Certainly not to regenerate this long and contentious thread but since it did revolve around the hole at Merion that was once referred to as an "Alps" and since this thread discussed whether or not Macdonald may've influenced Wilson and Merion somehow with this template hole or whether Wilson was influenced by an "Alps" in GB, I think this bit of information may have some real relevence on early "Alps" holes over here and what their influence could've been.

I was reading the Myopia history book the other day and as many may know Herbert Leeds who created Myopia just may be one of the most interesting early influences on American architecture, beginning right around 1900-1902. When I say he was an early influence on American architecture, by that I mean the type of early American architecture that we today consider "good"---not the type of architecture we refer to as "geometric" or "Victorian", "Dark Age" or "Steeplchase-like".

People like Macdonald, Crump, perhaps Wilson too etc believed that Myopia may've been the best course in America in the beginning of the century, along with Chicago G.C. and GCGC.

The reason I mention all this is in 1900 Leeds created a hole on that "Long Nine" (where they held a US Open) that was named and referred to as "Alps".

And indeed it was exactly that---it played directly over a huge hill to a green beyond. It appears one perhaps needed to carry the ball a long way over that hill or risk losing it in some real junk and rough. The other option was to play the ball around that hill on the left in two shots.

For those who know Myopia this hole which was the 4th played from about where the tees are on #10 directly to the right over that hill to a green that was probably between the present 11th green and the present 12th tee.

But the point is this hole was called "Alps" and it was named "Alps" and it preceeded NGLA by almost a decade and it was famous amongst the day's best golfers as Myopia was which again, was considered by the likes of Macdonald and Crump et al to have been perhaps the best course in this country at that time. Myopia also held four US Opens within a decade (1898-1908).

 

[JESII]

Tom,

Wasn't there referrence (not sure if it was in one of these threads or somewhere else on GCA) to a hole at Yeaman's Hall that was called "The Alps" that did not have the hill, but did have the bunkers and broken ground leading up to the green so the forced carry was in effect?


Also, to those that know, would #8 at Royal New Kent be considered an ALPS?

[Andy Hughes]

JES, I am not sure of the answer but a well-placed drive would leave an approach that was not blind and did not need to go over the hill. Or maybe that is only if the pin is right as it was for us?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()