Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .

[TEPaul]

"If the land was purchased in 1909, and Alan said the first step was to send Hugh abroad, either he was way off if the trip didn't occur until 1912 or perhaps the 1912 trip was not the first trip abroad.  But is anyone aware of anything at all that shows he made a trip before 1912 other than Alan's comment?"

Andy:

When David Moriarty discovered through researching Ancestry.com that Wilson was in GB in 1912 obviously that led us to try to discover if Wilson went over there on another and perhaps first trip before that.

And why wouldn't we try to discover that? It has always been presumed by Merion and its history books that Wilson went to GB before Merion East went into planning, layout, design and construction.

I said in my first post on this thread that none of us have ever known when Wilson went to GB in 1910. We have never claimed to know that and we said so right in the very beginning of these threads. Merion's doesn't know. It's archives have nothing that's specifically dated about that. There has never been any specific evidence around Merion of the dates of a trip by him in 1910, and there certainly has never been any evidence around Merion that he went in 1912 either.

So why has it always been in the Merion history books that Wilson went over there in 1910? Good question---it could be just as simple as the fact that Alan Wilson said so in his report about the intial creation of Merion East. We do know that report has been in the Merion archives from 1926.

So we'll continue to look into it particularly after just discovering that the land was bought a year or more earlier than anyone seems to have known or said to date.

There're probably a number of avenues to explore with what we may have to get some idea from Hugh Wilson himself or those around him as to when he was over there.

I'll give you a good example of what that may turn out to be.

I've never known when Geo Crump went to GB in 1910 either or when he returned other than a report from a man who went over there with him that was written 40 years after the fact.

One could always claim that that man at 87 years old when he wrote that report may've had a very faulty memory, so I guess one always needs to take that into consideration.

But there is a postcard from Crump he sent home from GB in 1910 and in my opinion that piece of evidence conclusively puts Crump in GB on that date in 1910.

Will we find something like a postcard sent home from Hugh Wilson in 1910 or even 1909? I really don't know but if we do find something that conclusive it will go on here and if that doesn't put an end to this charade of Moriarty's that seems to imply that M&W need more credit for the creation of Merion than the club or the Wilsons ever gave them then I can't imagine what ever will.

[Mike_Cirba]

I decided to look this site up since it would definitely aid me in my Tillinghast research. Tiil and his wife Lillian, along with his father and mother, made three trips to the UK spending a great deal of time in Scotland. The trips were made in 1895, 1898 & 1901.

Using only the name "Tillinghast" in the search engine brought up 31 instances of a "Tillinghast" coming to America between 1890-1899.

Not one of them matches Tilly, his wife, his mother or his father!

Neither under Tillinghast or any of the references with initials match nor can possibly be any of them.

We know the dates of his trips as there are articles written by Tilly himself with the dates included, and if anyone would know at leats the years that he went he would, and also family correspondences confirming the same.

Philip,

That is pretty incomprehensible and very surprising.

It seems to me that a lot of the speculation about Wilson's 1912 trip back from France might be unfounded, as this could very well have been his 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th, or N trip.  

I must admit that I was beginning to believe that the 1912 trip was the first one based on the evidence David found.

This information throws that into a completely different light.   Not only are AW Tillinghast's trips overseas missing, but also those of the rest of his family!  That's astounding!

Did more of the well-to-do travel overseas via private yachts and sailing ships back then than we imagine?  Or, were the logs that incomplete?

[Phil_the_Author]

Neil,

My point is that they definitely missed 4 people who we can absolutely verify went to the UK & back in both 1895 and 1898.

How can we prove that Tilly was actually there in 1899 and not just "mixed up on his dates?"

In what appears to be the very first article he wrote, in 1899 in Golf, Tilly wrote about the 1898 trip and included 4 photographs that he had taken himself. One was at the first tee, another is very well-known and is of the Fish-wives of St. Andrews, another is of his caddy Jackie Ferguson of Musselburgh and, for the very first time in print, his famous photo of Old Tom Morris.

Despite scanning 1.5 million manifests, a tremendous feat and research tool, it is quite clear that it is an incomplete record.

Andy, you wrote, "I am starting to have little confidence in the writings of these guys..." DON'T! The problem isn't what they wrote as much as how it is being interpreted by those who are reading it.

 

[Dan Kelly]

Maybe it will turn out to mean a lot or maybe nothing much at all.

My money's on the latter.

I hate to be the anti-intellectual in the crowd (and I confess that I just lurk in here every few days, to see what's up, and haven't read 5% of what's been written, so I deserve to be ignored), but I still don't understand why the parsing of Merion's genesis is important enough to warrant all of the sound and fury of these various threads -- not to mention the enormous expenditures of time and energy that you guys are putting into the argument.

Does any of you really think it's possible to perfectly assign credit for every little detail -- particularly at a remove of 95, 96, 97 or 98 years?

Could you perfectly assign credit for every little detail of any project in which any of you, personally, has participated, even in the nearly immediate past?

I think it's vain to think you could.

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks for the admonishment, Dan!  

I have always been fascinated with historical research of design attributions of courses great and small.   Given that Merion has long been my "favorite" course for sentimental reasons, then consider that for a golf course research dweeb like me, this thread is like crack cocaine.  

However, I also admit that I've learned a tremendous amount here and for that I consider my participation beneficial, even through the sometimes personal discussion.

p.s.  I'm still looking in my mail every day for Stewart Sandwiches postmarked Minnesota.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Try not to see everything on this thread as a reaction to Moriarty and his theories.  I genuinely just wanted to know what you thought might have gone on.  No agendas.

Philip,

I'm not into the Tillinghast thing, but is it possible that Tillie also went to France by ferry and returned from there, and consequently wouldn't be on the UK manifests?  Were all these guys so golf centric that they would have gone all the way to Europe and then not gone to see gay Paris?

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

You asked, "Did more of the well-to-do travel overseas via private yachts and sailing ships back then than we imagine?  Or, were the logs that incomplete?"

I wouldn't and don't know.

There are only two possible ways to explain this discrepancy and for every single manifest to have been scanned in - that the Tillinghast's left the UK and went to Europe and came back from there each time. But that too is easy to check with this same search engine simply by expanding the search to include all Tillinghast's departing the UK with a destination ANYWHERE in the world.

Doing that search changed and now ONE other Tillinghast was noted leaving the UK in this same time period... he went to AUSTRALIA.

Did the Tillinghast's come back to the US on a private yacht, not once but twice in the 1890's? Possible but extremely unlikely to the extent that I would say it didn't happen.

The Tillinghast's were 'well-off' but not wealthy by Philadelphia wealth standards. Tilly's father left the naval academy 4 months short of graduating in 1871 due to a severe illness. He would marry the following year, open his rubber goods business in 1874 and Tilly was born in 1875.

The Rubber Goods store did very well and he even expanded it to a second location several years later, but how wealthy can a young man become when his featured product was rubber bathing attire for Baptist Ministers to wear when performing river baptisms?

Still, he was quite successful in business to any normal standard and they lived quite comfortably. He had many fine business contacts, but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that they knew and associated with those wealthy enough to own private yachts large enough to be used for transatlantic crossings just for fun and that were large enough to invite along at least four friends for the ride.

If the Tillinghast's didn't go across the pond and back by commercial liner they either stowed away or set records for swimming that will never be beaten.

Some on this thread, in a very insulting manner have jumped on my case for continuously demanding that statements accepted as facts be PROVEN as such and not ACCEPTED as such.

I think this sort of proves the validity of what I was asking. There are all sorts of statements being made, as if they are fact, based simply on an assumption.

Hypothesize and theorize and make posts as such... that is how many things are brought to light. Don't state as fact that which can't be proven such and treat the conclusions from these 'facts' as being correct interpretations... especially when one declares that they want their hypotheses to be examined in a scientific manner.

[Phil_the_Author]

Bryan,

I was typing as you asked. See above.

[Dan Kelly]

p.s.  I'm still looking in my mail every day for Stewart Sandwiches postmarked Minnesota.  

Will a package addressed to "Mike Cirba, Philadelphia USA" get to you?

(BTW, and considerably more seriously: I do understand the urge to, as you put it, learn something. Nothing vain about that! But isn't all of the sound and fury of these threads a product of the urge to find Ultimate Answers that are unfindable, given the nature of any collaboration?)

[Mike_Cirba]

Will a package addressed to "Mike Cirba, Philadelphia USA" get to you?

It largely depends on whether you're planning on sending it via transatlantic shipping lines.  

It may get to me but there would likely be no record of it.  

(BTW, and considerably more seriously: I do understand the urge to, as you put it, learn something. Nothing vain about that! But isn't all of the sound and fury of these threads a product of the urge to find Ultimate Answers that are unfindable, given the nature of any collaboration?)

I don't think so, Dan.   For instance, we now know that Merion was purchased in June 1909.   We also know that Crump was in GB in 1910.   Were Crump and Wilson friends at this point?   Might they have travelled together?

I think you're right that we will never find out who designed all of the features and the holes unless some routing map or hole drawings come to light, but I think we can say with pretty good certainty that Hugh Wilson and the Committee were in charge and the principal designers.  

What I'm hoping to learn next is SPECIFICALLY what David Moriarty means when he asserts that CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham played a "significant role in constructing the course".  

If he means that he provided Wilson with an education in good theoretical hole concepts and came once to see the course already in progress and provided suggestions based on his knowledge, then fine.   To me that's hardly "significant", especially since he seems to be asserting that we're not giving them their due, but perhaps David has a different threshold for "significant" that is causing us to miss his point.  

[Andy Hughes]

For instance, we now know that Merion was purchased in June 1909.

Not to pick too fine a nit here, but do we know this?  Did TomP say who had actually bought the land, and is it possible it was then sold again in 1910?

[TEPaul]

"Does any of you really think it's possible to perfectly assign credit for every little detail -- particularly at a remove of 95, 96, 97 or 98 years?
Could you perfectly assign credit for every little detail of any project in which any of you, personally, has participated, even in the nearly immediate past?
I think it's vain to think you could."

Dan:

Of course not. I've been saying that all along to David Moriarty but he just seems to want to ignore it. I've said all along there probably never has been a specific laundry list of any golf course ever built as to who did what specifically, and that certainly includes Merion East.

This is why I think, as do others, that the only way the involvement of various people on golf course layout, design and construction projects can be determined with any degree of certainty is basically in a general sense, and never through some laundry list of who specifically contributed what, although occassionally we get just little glimpses of that here and there on certain holes or features like at Pine Valley and Richard Francis's mention of what he contributed to Merion East.

And that is why I believe that the people who were there and worked on the project every single day in its app six months of construction time were the ones who basically deserve the vast majority of the credit for the layout, design and construction of the course.

That anyone could think otherwise just seems illogical to me. The only thing that would indicate otherwise, in my opinion, would be if we found some drawings of the layout, holes, features, concepts, whatever with Macdonald's name on it. Or failing that a full-blown report by someone who would've known, like Hugh Wilson, explaining in detail what Macdonald or anyone else contributed specifically.

Unfortunately, Wilson's only mention of Macdonald in any way that could be construed as remotely specific said he taught them in that two day session at NGLA some of the right principles from famous courses abroad, ideas on golf course constrution and what THEY (the Merion "WE") should try to accomplish with their ("OUR") natural conditions.

The point is they are the ones who were there every day doing this and the best we can do is put Macdonald down there for one visit (what would that have been, perhaps a single day or less?) in the spring of 1911 and probably before the course went into construction.

If Hugh Wilson was described by his brother and the rest of the members of the Construction Committee as 'in the main the architect of the East and West Courses', then how much more significant can we get about who laid out, designed and oversaw the building of those courses?

I'd say there only can be a limited amount of "significant involvement" to spread around given that reality of what we know about Merion East from the Wilsons and other sources, which frankly in the broad scheme of things in this kind of research is a helluva lot.  

[TEPaul]

Tom,
Try not to see everything on this thread as a reaction to Moriarty and his theories.  I genuinely just wanted to know what you thought might have gone on.  No agendas."

Bryan:

I'd like to be able to do that but it's been pretty hard to do on these Merion threads, don't you think? It certainly occurs to me and a number of others that David Moriarty has some agenda here that is not just finding out the truth of the creation of Merion East. He comes in here and just insists that everything he says is undeniable and that those who know one helluva lot more about Merion than he ever will are totally wrong. In the process of that attitude and pretty early on in these threads we lost perhaps our best researcher and authority on Merion East's entire architectural history---Wayne Morrison.

And unfortunately he's not coming back any time soon. He's completely disgusted by this pointless catechism of Moriarty's.

Do you really blame Wayne for refusing to continue? I don't.

[TEPaul]

"We also know that Crump was in GB in 1910.  Were Crump and Wilson friends at this point?  Might they have travelled together?"

Of course they were friends. The world of good golf in this town is pretty small today and it was miles smaller back then. Crump went to Europe with Joe Baker in 1910, not with Hugh Wilson. If Wilson was in GB in 1910 when Crump and Baker were there is it possible or likely they met up somewhere? Of course it is. Do I know they did? No, I do not, of course not or these threads would probably have been over and done with long ago as that would've conclusively put Wilson in GB in 1910 (11).

[TEPaul]

"Not to pick too fine a nit here, but do we know this?  Did TomP say who had actually bought the land, and is it possible it was then sold again in 1910?"

No it is not. The men who bought the land were all men who've been mentioned on these threads in one way or another regarding the move to Ardmore Ave and the creation of the East Course. All of them were part of the group that was the movers and shakers of the Merion Cricket Club.

By the way, and as a little trivia point, Merion Golf was for many years an association of golfers within the Merion Cricket Club which was a cricket and tennis club that still very much exists where it has been for over a hundred years. Merion GC did not become a separate club until voted on in 1941 and approved in early 1942.

The men who met that December day in 1941 to separate Merion Golf came out of their meeting to the news that America had been attacked by the Japanese in Pearl Harbor.

They made the decision to create the separate golf club on December 7, 1941---'A date that will live in infamy'.

[Dan Kelly]

Mike & Tom I --

Thanks for your answers. I hope you all find everything you're looking for.

Dan

[Andy Hughes]

No it is not. The men who bought the land were all men who've been mentioned on these threads in one way or another regarding the move to Ardmore Ave and the creation of the East Course.

Tom, thanks, that answers that.

And that is why I believe that the people who were there and worked on the project every single day in its app six months of construction time....

Tom, when you say 'six month construction time', is that based on when you originally thought the land was bought and when the course opened? Is it possible construction was actually more much time that originally thought now that Wayne has move the purchase date back to June, 1909?

[TEPaul]

"Is it possible construction was actually more much time that originally thought now that Wayne has move the purchase date back to June, 1909?"

Andy:

No, the purchase date does not change the construction date and time. The course went into construction in the spring of 1911, it was seeded in Sept 1911, allowed to grow in for a year and opened for play in Sept 1912. Of all that we are certain.

[Bryan Izatt]

So, Tom, I still can't persuade you to speculate on what might have been going on from June  1909 to Spring 1991?  No hidden agenda, no theories or hypotheses on my part.  Just curious on your views.

And, yes, I understand why Wayne would not want to participate on this thread any more.

[TEPaul]

"This is in your hands, Tom.  Quit being a longwinded jerk, and I will be glad to civilly discuss the issues.  Otherwise, when hit and I will hit back.  I may even quit pulling my punches."

Suit yourself Moriarty:

As all who want to will see I offered to make a deal with you on here and to take this garbage off here if you did (and yes I did go ahead and take some off to encourage you to as well) but in the post above it's clear you don't want to do that so it's going to continue.

As far as being long-winded I've simply answered questions on facts and opinions people asked me about Merion and its history. I don't see you doing that probably because, as usual, you don't know what they are.

Frankly, I don't think you can be of much use on these threads any longer anyway. I was talking to Wayne yesterday and he said he didn't see why any of us should supply you with any information even if you ask. I agree with him. In the future you can just glean your information from our answers to questions others ask. You've become irrelevent on this subject in my opinion, as all you're able to offer now are distortions, tortured logic and posts like #509.
 

[CHrisB]

The course went into construction in the spring of 1911, it was seeded in Sept 1911, allowed to grow in for a year and opened for play in Sept 1912. Of all that we are certain.

Tom,

I notice that, for both the East and West courses at Merion, the time from seeding to opening for play was one full year.

How were courses built in that day and age, and what would happen during that full year between seeding and opening day?

At seeding, did they have a finished architectural product (routing, tee/green placement, hazard placement--everything), having to wait a year only for the grass to grow before they could open?

Or did they just have a basic routing/plan at seeding, going in at a later time (once the grass grew) to create hazards, finalize tee/green placement, etc.?

Or was it somewhere in between?

[Bryan Izatt]

______________________________________

Bryan,

If I recall correctly we danced to this song before.  You asked me for a summary of my position regarding Macdonald’s involvement and I set it out for you in two posts in the last thread.  I also recall that you had no comment.  When I get the chance I will dig it up and update it, but I am pretty busy, so it might take a while.  Meanwhile, my old posts are still there.
____________________

David, you recall correctly that we tried to do this dance before.  Specifically in posts 787, 799, and 923.  In post 799 you summarized your position as:

4.  These influences alone undoubtedly had a tremendous, if indirect, impact on the early Merion.  Wilson speaks of MacDonald as if he was a mentor, and speaks of NGLA as if it was a holy site worthy of pilgramage.  So while it is impossible to actually point to any one single feature on the course which might have come from MacDonald, to deny his general influence defies common sense.  Wilson acknowledges his influence, so we should as well.

You mention general influence, mentor, and indirect.  Words that I, for one, could live with.  Subsequent to that post you reverted to "significant" impacts on the layout of the course.  I questioned you on that again in post 799.  To that there was no response.  The ball was in your court, not mine.

So let's try again.  Does the quote 4 above state your position?  Does it jibe, in your mind, with "significant" impacts on the layout of the course?  If you think they mean the same thing then I can live with understanding that you mean description 4 above when you say "significant".  If you have more that you mean by significant then I'd like to hear it.

[TEPaul]

"Let's treat each other and our positions with respect from here on out.  And let's also try to limit or posts to when we actually have something new or productive to offer.

That is the way Ran wants it.  So how about it, Tom?  Surely you can act in a civil manner for the sake of the website?"

David:

Of course I can and I offered that, and I'm the one who made the offer in the first place the other day. But if you and I agree to do that I saw no reason not to ask you to agree to remove the garbage and insults on here between us. You refused to do that. Why is that? Why would anyone want that stuff to remain on here, particularly if we are going to try to patch things up between us and act civily in the future towards one another? Do you think that stuff should remain on here for the good of this website, or for my benefit or for your benefit for some reason?

Frankly, we shouldn't even be having this conversation on this DG, in my opinion. If anyone on here is going to have these kinds of discussions they should be only on the IM or by email and they should remain there and never get on this DG, in my opinion.

This was precisely the problem with Tom MacWood. I IMed him some information I did not want on here, he put it on here obviously to embarrass me, I asked him to please remove it from the DG, he refused, I asked TommyN to remove it and he did. That prompted Tom MacWood to leave this site. I don't think he should have done that, no one asked him to, certainly not me and certainly not TommyN. It was his choice. Frankly, I wish he'd get over it and return.

You know you refused to use the IM on here with me saying you wanted all communication between us to be on this DG. I just don't think that's right. I don't think that should happen and I doubt anyone else on here does either, certainly including Ran Morrissett. If we have personal problems with each other I don't think the place to resolve them is on this DG. But here we are trying to do it on here because that's the only place you seem to want to do it. I just wonder why that is.

[TEPaul]

Bryan Izatt:

I admire you. You really do seem to try to remain above the fray of all this pettiness on here and simply try to get these elongated threads back to the essence of their subject, so hopefully they can stop with some agreed resolution.

The only problem seems to be since David Moriarty started these Merion threads and no one can really figure out what his subject or his point or his problem is with Merion's initial creation history they just continue to drone on.

As I can see from your post above you have asked him the same question a number of times and obviously you don't feel you have gotten much of an answer from him. I don't think any of us feel we have. At this point one really does need to ask why that is.

Here’s what you said to David Moriarty above:

“Quote:
4.  These influences alone undoubtedly had a tremendous, if indirect, impact on the early Merion.  Wilson speaks of MacDonald as if he was a mentor, and speaks of NGLA as if it was a holy site worthy of pilgramage.  So while it is impossible to actually point to any one single feature on the course which might have come from MacDonald, to deny his general influence defies common sense.  Wilson acknowledges his influence, so we should as well.


You mention general influence, mentor, and indirect.  Words that I, for one, could live with.  Subsequent to that post you reverted to "significant" impacts on the layout of the course.  I questioned you on that again in post 799.  To that there was no response.  The ball was in your court, not mine.

So let's try again.  Does the quote 4 above state your position?  Does it jibe, in your mind, with "significant" impacts on the layout of the course?  If you think they mean the same thing then I can live with understanding that you mean description 4 above when you say "significant".  If you have more that you mean by significant then I'd like to hear it.”

Bryan;

Since it seems to be me and Wayne Morrison and those from Philadelphia that David Moriarty continues to argue with, I should say I don’t know that I’d agree to that statement above regarding Macdonald’s part in Merion but I will say, as I have so many times on these threads, I certainly will and have endorsed what has been said about Macdonald’s part in Merion in the reports written by the Wilsons. I feel they were definitely in the best position to know.

I see nothing in their reports that discounts or minimizes M&W’s contribution to Merion. I endorse those two Wilson reports as the best description of M&W’s contribution and the best description of the initial creation of Merion East and West. I believe Wayne Morrison does as well.

If David Moriarty has a problem with those reports I’d like to know what it is. If I can figure out what his problem with those reports are vis-a-vis M&W, I think I may be able to figure out why he continues to tell us he thinks we are somehow minimizing or discounting M&W’s involvement or contribution to Merion East.

[TEPaul]

ChrisB:

Those are all good questions and I wish I had reliable answers but I don't other than our voluminous "agronomy letters" from Wilson.

I think all of us today just need to try very hard to put ourselves in the time and position and reality of those men back then on the entire subject of golf course agronomy. I think it's just something we instinctively completely overlook because none of us in our iifetimes have had to deal with or even think about those problems they had back then.

In a phrase, it was just so far removed from what we know and think and expect today as to virtually be something like the difference between night and day to us.

They had no real help, no resource, no real recourse other than just course to course OJT (on the job training). And this is precisely why Wilson must have become so fixated on agronomy and its problems and because of it to have virtually set the stage for the creation of the USGA's green section.

Did these enormous agronomic problems in golf at that time get into architecture and construction? Of course they did. They didn't even know how to make the substructure of greens and such to sustain turf long-term and this is why the death of Frederick Winslow Taylor became such an inspiration and rallying call to Wilson to record for golf and for the future all they were learning at Merion and the other courses of that time about American agronomics, construction methods, maintenance et al.

But did they intend Merion East to be some "first draft" after its 1911 seeding? I don't think so. They opened the course for play in 1912 after a year of grow-in (that was a very common duration back then) and immediately shut down their former course in Bryn Mawr. They were ready to go at Ardmore Ave and at Merion East, but they had all kinds of agronomic problems initially, as did Crump at Pine Valley and as did Macdonald at NGLA, and on all those courses too that did have an impact on their architecture.

But was that by their choice and by design? In my opinion, no way. Back then they were just feeling their way along and basically lack of agronomic understanding which of course got into construction methods was limiting and restricting them and definitely slowing them down.

If this website is ever going to really understand golf course architecture in all its ramifications in that time, I feel they are first going to have to appreciate where those people really were with golf agronomy back then. It wasn't very far along compared to what we know and expect today.