David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO

[Sean_A]

Right, David layed out much of his case in an organized fashion as he was asked to do several times.  I think it proper and much more cohesive if those who disagree with David's conclusions write an IMO piece of their own.  A thread like this will get nowhere quickly just as the other Merion threads devolved into nonsensical jibberish.  You lot can have a more productive discussion and interested parties will find it easier to follow what is quite obviously a complicated timeline and interpretation of data if ideas and counterpoints were presented in a more formal way.

Ciao

[Andrew Mitchell]

Right, David lay out much of his case in an organized fashion as he was asked to do several times.  I think it proper and much more cohesive if those who disagree with David's conclusions write an IMO piece of their own.  A thread like this will get nowhere quickly just as the other Merion threads devolved into nonsensical jibberish.  You lot can have a more productive discussion and interested parties will find it easier to follow what is quite obviously a complicated timeline and interpretation of data if ideas and counterpoints were presented in a more formal way.

Ciao

An excellent idea Sean

[TEPaul]

"Here's what I don't understand."



Pat:

Glad to have you back on here. You supported Moriarty's IMO piece and reviewed it. Maybe you can ask him to respond to our points and questions of his piece properly and in an academic process. Do you think he's done that? We here in Philadelphia who've been referred to as "The Philadelphia Syndrome" by Tom MacWood (apparently one of Moriarty's resources on his piece or its conclusion) don't see it that way. We don't think he is responding to our points and questions on here.


"David produced his white paper."

Yes he did and we've all read and reviewed it a number of times since it came out and we've offered our own points and opinions on it and asked him questions about it. Look at his responses to us and you tell us they're even remotely an "academic process". More like plain and simple dismissals or just ignoring most of the points of our critiques, I'd say. And why does he do that? I'd say it's because he knows he can't answer them without conceding that his assumptions and conclusion completely lacks logic if this subject is viewed in a balanced way. The way Moriarty portrays Hugh Wilson's lack of involvement in anything to do with the architecture of the course althrough out 1910 and until Jan 1911 is the most "postivist" technique, or trick really, imaginable. Frankly, it's just laughable to most of us who know a whole lot more about Wilson and Merion than he does. How can any reasonable mind assume and then conclude that Wilson was just doing nothing in that year, not to mention the fact that Moriarty conveniently has two men who will serve under him out there 'tweaking' Macdonald's proposed routing? One also needs to ASK Moriarty WHY he has those two men who will later be appointed to Wilson's committee out there 'tweaking' Macdonald's routing.

"Why the assault on it/him ?"

What assault? We're just trying to get him to respond to our points and questions about his piece. Do you want to see an assault? Just check out Moriarty's last post to me that references some analogy about Warren Harding.  I realize it's easy for him to respond to questions of others who admit in their posts they know very little about Merion. That's not the case with Wayne Morrison and me---we know a good deal more about the history of Merion than anyone on here and we are challenging him to offer proof on some of the points he clearly is trying to pass off as fact to support his case.

"Where is the academic process ?"

In my opinion. the academic process in a thread like this is for us to critique his piece with relevant  information we have which we feel he either didn't consider, didn't consider correctly or purposefully avoided to make his assumptions and conclusions. We're pointing that out to him and he's not responding in any kind of academic way. When I ask him questions and when I make points about various things he said and ask him to explain why he said them he generally responds by telling me to read his piece again. What kind of "academic process" response is that?  I've already done that and very carefully a few times.

"Why is there such a clamor to disclaim it rather than analize it ?"

We have analyzed it and very carefully a number of time and we believe it's not a cogent, balanced or even remotely accurate analysis of Hugh Wilson and his committee's roll in the creation of Merion East Golf Course. Surely that hasn't escaped you, has it? Do you know the meaning of the word "catechism" in the context of critiquing a piece like this? In my opinion, that is exactly what this piece of Moriarty's needs to be put through, and a very good and searching catechism at that. Are we defending the historical architectural record of Merion East as we know it and believe it to be to date? Of course we are. We've even explained what proof and facts would need to be produced to get us and probably the club to change our minds on what Moriarty offered as his conclusion in this piece---that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East.

We have no concern about that architectural attribution if can be proven. I don't believe Merion does either. It looks to me like he is trying to pass this piece of his off as proof of that otherwise I can't understand what he wrote it for. But maybe I've been wrong about that, maybe he's not trying to do that at all. Maybe all he's trying to do is offer some alternative way of looking at it. If that's true I think our alternative of what Merion's architecture history is, is very clear and a whole lot stronger given all the facts as we know them. In our opinion, Moriarty's piece has a ton of holes in it and it really just lacks logic and rather shockingly so. I, for one, support the reports Hugh and Alan Wilson wrote about the history of Merion East and I just don't see anything at all in either one that suggests Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed that course. What he did do for Merion both reports are very clear on as well as extremely liberal in their praise of him and in their gratitude to him for what they say he did do for them.

[RJ_Daley]

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion... 

While I don't intend to take on a role of an combatant in this fray, I have tried to add ancillary thoughts and ideas.  To some extent, I am mildly interested in the Merion story because of the romantic historical notion of the amatuer designer legend or HIW, as the Pine Valley story also holds such interest. 

Yet, of most concern is the almost absurd manner that this controversy has progressed.  It is a study in some kind of Internet psychology, historian pride-ego competence thing, that is way above my pay grade to analyse.  Perhaps Dr. Katz can take it on... 

But, as absurd as it gets, a few nuggets continue to surface, that adds to the historical picture and holds interest... like the "blurb". 

I have made an ancillary effort today to write to an entity in Philadelphia who might have some historical documentation on this creation scenario that I believe none of the contestants have heretofore researched.   It is such a long shot that I won't devulge it right now.  But, if it pans out, it may go at this controversy from a different angle than the circuitous one that the principle debaters have been travelling....  I'll let you know what after I hear back, even if it is a wild goose chase.  But, it is and example of the kind of effort and alternate reference sources I have been encouraging the principles to make, and has fallen on deaf ears.  For all the bickering and time spent nagging each other, it seems to me that you guys could have gone to alternate sources and maybe found supporting facts. 

Forgive me if you actually have checked other sources and that isn't coming through clearly, as you haven't named any sources you tried and struck out. 

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ,

I'm not sure where the disconnect is.   

David has asked for feedback on his article, and I believe that some of us have provided it.    I just don't think he's happy that we aren't on the same page or leaping to the same conclusions.

Tom Paul just provided evidence, for instance, that Hugh and Alan Wilson were keenly involved in this whole question of building a new course for Merion all the way  back to 1909, yet David's assertions rest on the idea that he was somehow brought out as an innocent sheep in January 1911, way after events were already in motion.

I brought up evidence that many, many members of Merion and others in Philadelphia including Crump, Tillinghast, Lesley, Findlay, Griscom, et.al. were frequent visitors overseas between 1900 and 1910 and were all familiar with the great courses and holes there...before a line for a plan was drawn, an acre of property was purchased, and before a spade of dirt was overturned at the new Merion site.

Because these pieces of the puzzle do not "fit" where he wants to drive this, David seems to either ignore them or say that they are coming from a position that is being unfair to his thesis.   

I'm not sure what the point is of providing feedback when it is ignored, or when we're called "fools" by him because I expressed incredulity that here a month after David returned to the site, and a week after he presented his White Paper, supposedly suddenly Tom MacWood (who rebuked me in a private email for suggesting here that he was actually feeding information to David as part of an agenda) provides David with a fundamental piece of evidence.   I thought the timing was just very much the sort of thing I feared regarding the motivations of both of them, and told them so.   

This stuff is supposed to be fun, guys, but some of it starts to make Hillary Clinton seem sweet, kind, open, and transparent.   

But...from an academic standpoint;

I find it interesting that the article calls him Hugh "G." Wilson, not because I doubt it's him, but because it is now basically the 4th different middle name/initial that I've seen.

There's also other information that should be considered, such as what Hugh Wilson's birthname actually was, but I'm not going to invest the time and energy if this is more about the background sniping and one-upsmanship and more unfounded speculation stated as gospel than a Reverend Wright sermon than it is about Merion.
 

[TEPaul]

"It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion..."

RJ:

I'm sure you're right. And I do think of you as one of the best barometers on here.

I've made some counterpoints and asked some very pertinent questions of David Moriarty about his piece and he just won't respond or answer any of them intelligently. He's even gone so far recently as to say they are too long and he can't be bothered. Of course not, instead of answering a couple of people who really know the details, it's so much easier to just field a bunch of softball questions from people on here who preface their posts by explaining they don't know the details of Merion.

Well we do. We've spent about 6-7 years on it.

This is no different than most any thread I've ever seen Moriarty start or get involved in--they all degenerate in just a few pages and nothing worthwhile gets accomplished. I was really hoping this one would be different and that it could be a real education for the contributors.

A few people emailed and called to say that my post (#152 to Pat) was a good one and a very fair one. Maybe he can respond to the points in that one, otherwise this thread has just become another waste of time like the others, in my opinion. It looks like Wayne's gone now out of frustration with evasions and dismissals and inadequate responses from Moriarty and that's too bad as he knows as much about the details of the history of Merion's architecture as anyone alive.

I'm out of here too as it's a waste of my time also the way this thread is going now like all the other Merion threads he takes part in. But maybe Moriarty will be satisfied by discussing this with people who admit they don't know much about it. It's easier that way, I'm sure, than to deal with people who really do know the details and who have and can challenge his assumptions and conclusion.

I'll be watching and maybe if you guys all stick with it in 6 or 7 years you all may know most of the details of Merion's architectural history as we do.

I'll be looking in from time to time and if and when Moriarty needs some question answered or he feels the time has come to respond to our points about and questions of his piece comprehensively and intelligently, I'm sure he knows where to find us.  

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ,

When the article begins the first paragraph trumpeting modern day praises of Merion's routing genius as having applicability and direct correlation to what originally got built in 1907, when David knows that seven of the holes were re-routed within the first 12 years, that's hardly an example of dispassionate, unbiased, objective academic study.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I would not fixate on these middle initial mistakes on Wilson anymore.

Even Tom MacWood said on a post on Merion back in 2004 that it is very necessary on these kinds of subjects to take what-all you know on it and then just apply that to good old common-sense and logic. Matter of fact, that's what he said back then he was doing and we weren't.

Moriarty has tried to completely exempt that from this discussion by calling on all of us to only produce facts and not common-sense logic which he refers to as speculation when he himself reverts to speculation in his own essay in a pretty illogical way about half the time.

This ship manifest thing is another most unfortunate ploy on his part. He is trying to force the contributors on here to admit that if HE cannot find Wilson on some ship manifest he couldn't have gone to Europe.

You're very right about those people going abroad. I made a post about that a week or two ago. To assume that the 1912 trip abroad was the first one a man of Wilson's type made abroad is really illogical. Moriarty may not understand that because he obviously doesn't understand those people and how they lived. I sure do know I do, and you know I do too. He probably knows I do too but he just can't seem to bring himself to ask or consider what I'm telling him. Clearly the reason is he might be seen to have been corrected or proven wrong by the evil and highly uncivil TEPaul, and that, I'm very sure, would be the greatest anathema imaginable for him.

This man will just not engage the ones he really does know understand this subject best and this thread is just another of many examples of that and the real waste of time it creates.

[RJ_Daley]

I have been trying and trying to figure out what all this reminds me of.  

I think it finally dawned on me.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB3stQg6nXg

I mean no disrespect and only believe this 'Bogie' clip is like a parody of the tone of this ongoing debate.  I assign no specific character roles to anyone, as I think all the parties to the controversy here in 2008 might say that Humphrey is the other guy!  

I think all of our debatants would be better served with the notion that YOU ARE ALL CORRECT!!!  All of you basic points of contention, aren't really substantive at all, IF YOU CAN COME TO THE REALIZATION THAT MERION WAS A COLLABORATION OF ALL THE GENTLEMEN YOU ARE ADVOCATING FOR.  

It is nearly undeniable that there is evidence to support the involvement of all of the people that your individual research and advocacy represents.  You are arguing over utimate attribution that was not apparently of any contentious nature to the principals in their time.  CB did not make a fuss over it.  Why now?  Wouldn't it be most helpful to footnote CB/'s role as more important than conventionally thought, and leave the rest to 'as it was told'?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul, Wayno, MPC and others.

Here's my suggestion and a comment.

Suggestion:

Make a simple, collective, ordered list of the questions you have and present them to David.  Then give him adequate time to address each question.

Comment:

Why don't/didn't all of you place the same degree of scrutiny on the current
"official" history of Merion ?  Why did you accept it without question for all of these years ?

David's real estate research appears to be the first time anyone's examined the genesis of Merion from that perspective.

Why was there blind acceptance that Wilson traveled overseas prior to 1911 when there wasn't documented evidence to support that claim ?

In fairness, shouldn't you question Merion's currently accepted history with the same intensity, degree of scrutiny and doubt that you're subjecting David's white paper to ?

Shouldn't all premises be treated equally, undergoing the same academic review and scrutiny ?

[RJ_Daley]

Here is are toss-up questions for anyone...

How many laborers do you think or know, that it took to 'build' Merion?

Can you characterize or document the on-going labor of the project.  Not the arm waving, the LABOR! 

Who was in charge of supervising the labor?  How did the everyday process of translating the design details into labor occur? 

Are there any known sources of photos of the on-going labor? 

Will knowing more detail of the labor process illuminate the design and planning process and who conducted that?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I just wrote a lengthy reply that got lost when my sign-in timed out with the new software.     As if this thread weren't already frustrating enough.   

The point is simply that I don't think the trust exists any longer for this dialogue to be productive and when the few simple questions or additional information that I and others have put forward to date have either been ignored or summarily dismissed I don't think this topic is ever going to what it could be and that's a shame.

If Hugh Wilson and the Committee were simply glorified Construction Foremen for Barker/Macdonald/Whigham's genius of a routing plan, as David's article suggests, then why, immediately after the opening of Merion East, did three of the richest men in the country immediately go to Wilson to have him do layouts for them?

David's article hinges on the premise of turning Hugh Wilson's humble modesty and lack of self promotion into an image of him as some "unlikely", "inexpert", babe in the woods, green behind the ears, Insurance man who got thrust onto a train that was already well down the tracks in early 1911.

Recognizing that he and his brother Alan were already integral to the "new Merion course" process back in 1909 is not welcome news to his essay because it shakes the core foundation of his premise to the core.  Such a portrayal of Wilson is not only incorrect, but it is insulting to his achievements.

Recognizing that there is no evidence the Wilson never went abroad before 1912, or that other members of Merion and friends of theirs like TIllinghast, and Travis, and Findlay spent considerable time across the pond and all knew their Alps from their Redans cast doubt on the premise that Macdonald was the only guy in this country who knew what was going on at the time and therefore had to be the real brains behind the operation.   It simply wasn't the case and it pure speculative, revisionist history.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul and Mike Cirba,

I wrote this essay in the hopes we could move the topic to from the realm of knee-jerk conjecture into the realm of factual analysis.   For whatever reason, you two have proven yourselves quite incapable of making that journey. 

Regardless, I am moving on.  Please do not expect me to continue to waste my time with your unsupported and unsupportable speculation about what you wish had happened at Merion.   I am only interested in THE FACTUAL RECORD of what did happen.

TomPaul:   Hugh I. Wilson's many capabilities are not relevant to my factual analysis.  The available facts indicate that Hugh I. Wilson did not plan the initial routing at Merion.    Unless you have FACTS to the contrary, I see no reason to continue discussing this with you.

RJ Daley.  I am not advocating for anyone.   Rather I am just trying to set out and analyze the facts.   But if you think my research has been woefully inadequate, then by all means do your own.  The more information the better.

[Mike_Cirba]

I second that emotion.   The moving on part, that is.

Case closed.

[RJ_Daley]

Which emotion, there are more than a few emotions here? 

[Mike_Cirba]

Dick,

Is there one that expresses frustration, exhaustion, and relief at the same time? 

I'm happy to move on and give David the last word, as this is clearly a non-starter.  Or perhaps this one he just posted says it all better than any of us ever could;

"Hugh I. Wilson's many capabilities are not relevant to my factual analysis."

I'm outtahere!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Again, no dog in this hunt.  However, if its academics we want , I suggest each new post provide a new primary document that furthers the discussion before we post.  Most of the negative response thrashes one side or the other for their opininons and then proceeds to offer more of their own of same.

In the realm of actually providing documents to discuss, DM still leads this tourney by several shots.  Oddly, he has had to endure "several shots" because of it.......

[Patrick_Mucci]

The point is simply that I don't think the trust exists any longer for this dialogue to be productive and when the few simple questions or additional information that I and others have put forward to date have either been ignored or summarily dismissed I don't think this topic is ever going to what it could be and that's a shame.

Mike, that's why I asked you and others to simply list the questions you had so that David could respond to them.

Despite my request, NOONE has come forth with an unemotional, simple list.  Why is that ?[/color]

If Hugh Wilson and the Committee were simply glorified Construction Foremen for Barker/Macdonald/Whigham's genius of a routing plan, as David's article suggests, then why, immediately after the opening of Merion East, did three of the richest men in the country immediately go to Wilson to have him do layouts for them?

No doubt, for the same reason that Tiger Woods was given millions to design a golf course, for his notoriety, and not for his design abilities.

Mike, your ability to reason is being compromised because the perspective in which you view David's white paper is tainted/biased.  
You continue to grasp at straws, using logic that's critically flawed, such as the non-sequitur question posed above, which you offered as a refutation David's work.[/color]

David's article hinges on the premise of turning Hugh Wilson's humble modesty and lack of self promotion into an image of him as some "unlikely", "inexpert", babe in the woods, green behind the ears, Insurance man who got thrust onto a train that was already well down the tracks in early 1911.

I think David's presented a reasonable case that you've described in exaggerated terms, like the ones above.  
David's used time lines, recorded deeds and geometric like logic to put forth his premise.  You're not responding in kind, you're responding emotionally.  I'm merely trying to get you to see that.

If Wilson never went to the UK prior to 1911, and had never met with CBM, how would you categorize him as an architect ?
Inexpert ?   Babe in the woods ?  Green behind the ears ?  All of the above ?

I believe a prudent person would say "yes" to all of those terms.
Why do you find fault with them ?[/color]

Recognizing that he and his brother Alan were already integral to the "new Merion course" process back in 1909 is not welcome news to his essay because it shakes the core foundation of his premise to the core. 

Where's the proof of their intimate involvement dating back to 1909 ?

And, why does NOONE classify them as the designers, the architects of the golf course if they were so intimately involved from the very begining ?

These are legitimate questions that you can't ignore.[/color]

Such a portrayal of Wilson is not only incorrect, but it is insulting to his achievements.

I don't know that you've proven that portrayal to be incorrect.
And, if it's not incorrect, it's not insulting.[/color]

Recognizing that there is no evidence the Wilson never went abroad before 1912, or that other members of Merion and friends of theirs like TIllinghast, and Travis, and Findlay spent considerable time across the pond and all knew their Alps from their Redans cast doubt on the premise that Macdonald was the only guy in this country who knew what was going on at the time and therefore had to be the real brains behind the operation.   
It simply wasn't the case and it pure speculative, revisionist history.

I disagree with that categorization.

It's speculative on your part to assign such direct imput at Merion to AWT, Travis and Findlay.

In addition, CBM and HJH were clearly credited by every particpant at Merion with being intimately involved at Merion.

Remember, I'm a huge CBM fan, but originally rejected Moriarty's and MacWood's earlier premise, initially centered around # 10 at Merion and CBM's influence on Merion.

However, David's white paper lays out a time line that's hard to dispute.

The assumption, on your part, that HW was a skilled architect, clearlly understanding routing, hole design and construction in 1909 is outlandish.

Think about what you're saying.

If you apply the same standards of scrutiny to your own statements that you place on David's premise, you'll see that you're being unfair, that your argument, as presented in this post, fails the prudent man test.[/color]

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

No one is spelled that way, not noone, or even NOONE.  Unless of course you were referring to some guy named Noone who "came forth with an unemotional and simple list." 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

Since I saw "Caddyshack" I always confuse Noonan with Noone.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

David has obviously put a lot of time and effort into this but I wholly disagree with his conclusions.   

Showing that Hugh Wilson was in Europe in the spring of 1912 proves nothing.

When time permits, perhaps later this year, I'll do what you ask and write a paper laying out the same timeline, and much the same evidence, but wholly different conclusions.

No...I won't even draw conclusions as David unfortunately has.   I'll just present what is known and discuss possible explanations that one might reasonably conclude.

How about that?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  If you want to give me the last word then don't cut my words and take them out of context.  I meant that, whether he could have or not, Hugh Wilson did not plan the initial routing.

Sean, Andrew, Patrick, and Jeff all have excellent ideas.  I'll be glad to cosider  any facts I haven't yet considered.  That is, if any are ever forthcoming.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

David has obviously put a lot of time and effort into this but I wholly disagree with his conclusions.   

To be candid, I don't think you wanted to agree with his conclusions from the outset.  Actually, you didn't want to agree with whatever he presented.

But, that's another matter.

If you don't agree with his conclusions, point out where his facts and/or his reasoning is flawed, and support your position with factual evidence, not emotion or wild theories, and especially non-sequiturs.[/color]

Showing that Hugh Wilson was in Europe in the spring of 1912 proves nothing.

Mike, you can't be that obtuse, or in that much denial.
HW's not being in the UK would be a critical factor due to the connection drawn to the best holes in the UK and the use of their principles in the design of Merion.  If he wasn't in the UK prior to 1912, and the reliable evidence points to that conclusion, it means that HW couldn't have made that quantum leap from concept to creation. 

The newspaper clipping that Tom MacWood produced, while it's not exclusionary, certainly leans toward evidencing that HW's first trip to the UK was in 1912.

HW's failure to be in the UK prior to 1912 would then further reinforce the significance of CBM's involvement and the importance of his sketches.

It's a HUGE factor.[/color]

When time permits, perhaps later this year, I'll do what you ask and write a paper laying out the same timeline, and much the same evidence, but wholly different conclusions.

Mike, read what you've just written.
You're stating that you've drawn your conclusion and now you're going to try to find the factual evidence to support it.  That's a hell of a research process.   You wouldn't call it biased would you ? [/color]

No...I won't even draw conclusions as David unfortunately has.   


Mike, you've already drawn your conclusions, however, they're absent the supporting evidence that David has presented to bolster his premise.[/color]

I'll just present what is known and discuss possible explanations that one might reasonably conclude.

That's fair.
Isn't that what David has done ?

If not, could you identify where he's deviated from that methodology ?[/color]

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Tell me what experience George Crump had before he started to design and develop Pine Valley.  The first 4 holes were designed before Colt arrived on the scene.  How would you characterize the qualities of these holes versus the remaining 14 holes?  How can you say that Wilson could not do what was done before?  Granted, Macdonald's first go at design was pretty poor, but this was years later and much more knowledge was publicly available to Macdonald and a host of others.  Please tell me exactly what Macdonald had to do with the design of NGLA.  How much did he rely on Emmett and a team of others to come up with NGLA?  He didn't do it on his own, right?  So are you telling me that a man that could not run a project on his own and one whose project experienced a significant grow in failure would be considered an unipeachable expert?  Prior to NGLA being completed, the Merion project was underway with Pickering, a very experienced construction (design?) man involved.  He had a lot more experience at the time than Macdonald and Whigham combined.  What everyone keeps ignoring is that there was experience on hand on a daily basis to work with the Committee, and that was Pickering.  Also, please tell me anywhere else Macdonald would, in the middle of a project, leave and work on a project of which he had no formal role or vested interest. 

I'm not ignoring the fact that perhaps there is something that will directly connect Macdonald and Whigham (and perhaps Barker) to the earliest iteration of Merion, but let's look at this from a balanced approach.  Your Macdonald knee pads are slipping 

And finally, who wants to take credit for the 15' berm behind the 10th green, the crossing of Ardmore Avenue 3 or 4 times and a course that really was a transition course between the steeplechase look and a more modern design?  Maybe it will prove to be Macdonald.  However,  this course was almost immediately reconsidered and altered significantly with 5 holes completely rerouted and designed, a number of other greens moved or redesigned (one was nearly unplayable) and the look and style of the bunkers and other features completely redone.  I'd say some of the results were initially amateurish and while the course was a big improvement over the old Haverford course, it was not univerally acclaimed until Wilson and Flynn, and later Flynn alone, redesigned the course.

Nothing presented as yet points to anything of Barker made it on the ground.  I won't be surprised if Part 2 contains some material that links Macdonald to the initial design.  It may even prove to be a significant contribution.  Such information if it is substantive will not,  as Tom Paul has stated, be ignored or discarded.  It would prove eye opening to many but what makes anyone think an individual, a club, a city or a district will cling to old stories in the face of new facts?  To think otherwise is a disparaging act without just cause.

What the casual reader or neophyte to Merion's history fails to understand is that the evidence to date, while compelling, is not yet definitive.  There is some new material, but at this point it raises some significant questions and answers less than may seem to understand.

[TEPaul]

“TEPaul and Mike Cirba,

I wrote this essay in the hopes we could move the topic to from the realm of knee-jerk conjecture into the realm of factual analysis.   For whatever reason, you two have proven yourselves quite incapable of making that journey. 

Regardless, I am moving on.  Please do not expect me to continue to waste my time with your unsupported and unsupportable speculation about what you wish had happened at Merion.   I am only interested in THE FACTUAL RECORD of what did happen.

TomPaul:   Hugh I. Wilson's many capabilities are not relevant to my factual analysis.  The available facts indicate that Hugh I. Wilson did not plan the initial routing at Merion.    Unless you have FACTS to the contrary, I see no reason to continue discussing this with you.”




David:

Let’s get one thing really clear---finally!

We may have no available facts that Hugh Wilson planned the initial routing but the fact is you have absolutely NO AVAILABLE FACTS that C.B. Macdonald did either! I’ve always taken you for a bright guy, David, but if you are seriously trying to insinuate on this website that the “assumptions” (points) you made and tried to string together in your essay to form a conclusion, pass, IN ANY WAY AT ALL, as FACTS, you are both incredibly mistaken and seriously continuing to waste the time of all of us. Are you really trying to convince any of us on here that your “opinions” which are nothing more than speculation on your part actually pass for FACTS??? 

What you should very carefully consider now is this simple bit of advice from a respected poster on this website over four years ago on a thread on this very same subject about the creation of Merion and Wilson’s and Macdonald’s part in it with all the available historical material we have on it.

He said:

“Sometimes you have to rely on logic (and multiple sources that make the same basic claim.......”

For some reason you are trying to limit and almost trap this discussion into some straight-jacket of just FACTS without the benefit of the logic of multiple sources. The point is there are no concrete FACTS that we know of at this time that indicate Wilson and committee routed and designed Merion East and there are NO FACTS that we are aware of at this time that indicate Macdonald did. As that intelligent poster said four years ago all we are left with are multiple sources that make the same basic claim, and those sources clearly point to Wilson and his committee.

That’s just the way it is, David, and you need to face it as we have. If, on the other, hand, you or someone else can produce SOMETHING that actually physically shows that Macdonald routed and designed that course the way it was built then of course, as we have always said, we will definitely concede this point and even recommend that Merion recognize Macdonald as routing their course and consequently giving him the architectural credit he deserves for it.

Again, you have no FACTS, none at all, that conclusively prove Macdonald routed that course as your essay has attempted to apparently factually conclude. What we have, who believe in the Merion record, including Alan Wilson’s report, is the weight of multiple sources that indicate Wilson and committee routed, designed and built that golf course.