[JESII]

Mark,
Could there possibly be an "innocent bystander" who could give an unbiased account? 

Quotation marks added by me for emphasis



Answer: NO

[DMoriarty]

Rich,

I dont think either Neil or I said that “lay out” meant construct.  I suggest you reread Neil's post as he explained the concept better than I.   

As for your verdict.  I think you and Peter are insistent on pronouncing edicts on mysteries of your own making. Quite I trick, worthy of any English Literature Seminar, even graduate level: 

--   First ignore what I have written,
--   Then tell me what you think I was really trying to say 
--   Then conclude that what I was really trying to say is unsupported by the text you've largely ignored.   

Problem is, my essay is not a work of fiction, and it requires none of your advanced English Literature interpretive skills to understand. 

 My interpretation of what you and others have presented would be something to the effect of:

--Barker advised Merion (in it's broadest sense) in June 1910 about the suitability of the land for a golf course.  In doing so it was likely (but not proven) that he walked the land and prepared some sort of routing (probably primitive, seemingly lost to history, per yopur recent admission).

My recent admission?   You say this as if I had previously pretended to have the rough sketch.  If I had the sketch I surely would have included it.  As far as whether it is "proven" that he inspected the land and prepared the rough sketch, I can only tell you what Barker and Merion's Site Committee  wrote on the matter.  If that is not enough proof for you, then it is likely nothing will move you.  But then I think we already both know that.

To say it was suitable, one had to be able to envision 18 holes on the land.  I assume that Barker did although I have no idea at all what those holes might have been, and neither does anybody participating on this thread.  That being said, it is not at all speculative to think that the routing would have taken the same general path as was built, and still exists (i.e. go out left and then cross the road, work your way out and then back to the road, cross the road and finish where you started, at the farmhouse/clubhouse).

Man!  You are much more willing to speculate than I was in my essay.  If you really believe Barker's routing outlined the same general path and still exists, then you must have information to which I am not privy.  Where your speculation really breaks down, though, is here:

--Once the general concept was agreed upon, and after some addiitonal planning had been done, M&W were consulted about a number a matters, the details of which are still vague, based on what I have read.

This seems pure fiction to me, at least as far as support goes.  I've read absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that "a general concept was agreed upon" and "some additional plans had been done" BEFORE M&W were consulted.   Yes, it is convenient to your Verdict, but don’t you think that ought to be based on the facts presented?   

--Very quickly (at least by today's standards), the club created a Construction Committee, gave the Chairmanship to Wilson, and Bob's Your Uncle. a great golf course eventually emerged.

"Very quickly" indeed in your version, which is fiction by omission, as you ignore the historical record, including M&W’s document involvement with choosing the site, the NGLA meeting, Hugh Wilson's description of how the course emerged, the later trip down before construction, and more.

One interpretation of this Classic Comics precis of the "facts" is that M&W (possibly incorporating Barker's ideas) did a proper layout of the course which they passed onto the powers that be who chose Wilson to manage their implementation.  At the other end of the specturm, one could interpret that Barker's routing was useful, but primitive, M&W advised only on the general scheme as well as providing some specific ideas regarding soils, seeds, etc. (an area where they had significant experience).  Probably they talked about "templates" too, but given the fact that there were very few holes on the original course which evoked British golf, their ideas on this were very unlikely to have been influential.  So, Wilson grabbed the ball and did (in consultation with the rest of the Committee) most of the detailed planning (i.e. "routing").

Behind every waiter and English Literature major there is a frustrated fiction writer.  But this isn't even good historical fiction, because it ignores the factual record, including the various statements made by those who were there.   I've read Hugh Wilson's description of the NGLA meeting, and I dont recall "soils and seeds" being on the agenda.  It also ignores that the "routing" had already been done before Wilson got involved.   But punch it up with some sort of sexual tension and maybe it could be a mini-series.

Based on all that I have read on this thread, and the other inisgnificant snippets of knowledge I have gleaned over the past 61 years, the latter scneario seems more plausible.

Yet it ignores the historical record and is contradicted by much of it.   

Vis a vis your comments regarding Peter P's most recent contriubtion, I must side with him.  I too have spent some time both writing for publication (public and private) and editing other's work.  As you probably know, my first degree was in English Literature.  Peter is absolutely right that all writers have points of view, biases, agendas, histories, etc., even including me and you!  The sum of these characteristics is the "voice" of the writer which pervades every piece they put to paper.  No matter how "neutral" you try to be, you never can be.  In fact, as I think Peter is trying to say, the best of all writing does take a point of view and builds the words, phrase, sentences, paragraphs and chapters upon the evolving fabric of that point of view to create a story.  It is up to the editor to make sure that this this story is clear, consistent and well-written.  It is then up to the reader to decide if this point of view is valid, and if so, interesting.

You have replaced my point of view with what you think it should be, and replaced the facts with what you want them to be.   Is that really what editors do?   
__________________________

David,

Please, I thought we'd put that behind us.

Mike, how could we have left it behind us when in your last post you again implied that TomMacWood and I held back that article to embarrass you, and have been lying about is ever since?   Don't expect me to politely continue to field your questions while you continue to malign my character.  You have proven yourself neither capable nor worthy of civilized discussion. 

Rich -

Good summary.

I share Peter's and your scepticism about "objective " writing. It doesn't happen. Better to be honest, put your "take" on the table and go from there. Ironically that sort of writing has always seemed more "objective" to me. It allows the reader to see where the writer is trying to take things. That is always helpful to a reader who will rarely know the facts as well as the author.

Bob

Bob, my essay certainly does have a point of view, just not the point of view that Rich and Peter want to attribute to it.  They both look for the essay to do what it wasn’t meant to do, and then criticize it because it doesn’t prove that which it did not intend to prove.  Rich goes further and ironically comes up with his own summary of events that is divorced from the historical record.   

I am surprised you and others are so accepting of Rich’s summary.  He give Barker much more credit than I have, and possibly more than the historical record thus far justifies.  Most of his review either contradicts or ignores the facts as we know them.   

Perhaps you and others are so smitten with his overall conclusions that you  don’t mind the complete lack of factual support?   No offense meant, just pointing out that readers have a point of view as well.

TEPaul wrote:

Wait a minute, David Moriarty, aren't you just once again completely dismissing Alan Wilson and his report? Have you bothered yet to read that entire report? In it he sure did mention that Hugh Wilson and his committee DESIGNED and constructed Merion East with some help and advice from Macdonald and Whigam. He also said that to a man the rest of the committee told him that of all of them Hugh Wilson was 'the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE both of this course and the West Course.'

Why in the world is the same word (DESIGNED) from some guy who may've been at Merion just twice now more important than a man from Merion who saw the entire thing from beginning to end??   

Alan Wilson’s account was over a dozen years later, and by his own words appears to be second hand.  According to the evidence as we know it, Alan Wilson was NOT on the Site Committee when that committee received MacDonald’s letter, he wasn’t at the NGLA meeting, and there is no evidence that he was on the site at all during the process.  His account is not first-hand, and contains obvious errors, like the one about Hugh Wilson traveling abroad as a first step, in 1910.  Plus, Alan Wilson does not say that Hugh Wilson did the original routing.

But even if we ignore all of that,  the Alan Wilson article does not support the conclusions you draw from it.

In sum, what Alan Wilson said was:  EXCEPT FOR WHAT M&W CONTRIBUTED, the design was homegrown, and of the committee members Hugh I. Wilson deserves the most credit for that design.

While its weight as evidence is suspect because of its second-hand nature and because it was written by Hugh’s brother shortly after Hugh’s untimely death,  I agree with him 100%.  Especially when one considers it was written in 1926 after Wilson had been tinkering with the course for 15 years!

But, because Wilson carefully excepts M&W’s contributions, it tells us very little about what is at issue today.   If anything, it speaks to Barker’s involvement, but given that Alan Wilson was not there and may not even had known there was a barker routing, I put little weight in his letter on that front. 
______________________________________

What I'm really after is if Mr. Cirba's birth certificate finds that H.I. Wilson was, indeed, H.D. Wilson he was spending some time on a ship and looking at some courses overseas. He was also making time for his wife, if she had a daughter in Sept. 1910  If he did, indeed, return in March 1910, then sketching a routing during that time (and maybe getting it tweaked by Barber and/or Charlie Mac later in the year) would coincide with beginning construction in Spring 1911.

But, if he also returned on a ship in September 1911, I'd sure as hell like to know how long he was gone. He sure as heck wasn't overseeing much construction in the summer of 1911 if he was gone during this time.

All this garbage I'm spewing could be irrelevant if H.D Wilson wasn't H.I Wilson, obviously.

I think it is irrelevant even if it was the correct Hugh I. Wilson.

Tony,  Mike's timeline is nonsensical.  Nothing evidences that Merion's members were working on the routing in the spring of 1910, or earlier, and no evidence that Hugh Wilson was at all involved at that date.  Most of Mike’s dates are off by about a full year.   Plus, I doubt Merion was seeding the East course in September of 1911, so I doubt that Hugh I Wilson was traveling.   

Again, Hugh Wilson tells us then he studied golf courses overseas:  After the NGLA trip, which occurred after the committee was appointed, which occurred after the land was purchased, which occurred sometime around early January 1911.
______________________________________________

For those of us who are interested in this thread but don't have four hours to read all the posts, could someone summarize what has or has not been concluded so far 

Sure Mark. 

Here is my tongue in cheek account, which I am sure will not be taken in the spirit that it is meant, but I'm used to that. 

Except for the inexplicable attempt to keep the novel and unsupportable two-trip theory alive, I think most posters have largely accepted my essay and have moved past the essay onto different questions that the essay never intended to address.   Whether the posters realize this or not is another question.

Some have raised interesting questions, such as why Macdonald and Merion did not attribute design credit to M&W, barker, or even Wilson.   I offered a theory, but not sure anyone even read it.    I also tried to explain that this is entirely outside the scope of my essay.  But I am sure no one cares about that.

Peter, Rich Goodale  and others all read the essay from a literary persective and so they  go well beyond its intended scope, usually interpreting it as my attempt to solely credit M&W for the design.  Like any true editor would, they all know my intentions better than me, and therefore ignore me when I explain that my paper does not even attempt to address that issue or others they repeatedly raise. 

Apparently it is not my decision to decide what the essay is about.   Others can just make up their own hypotheses, if only to criticize the essay for not answering questions it never asked.   Rich even makes up his own facts!

Mike Cirba has come up with his fifth or sixth (at least) attempt to identify Hugh Wilson’s supposed early trip, but he fails to explain or understand what relevance, if any, this information has, or to address the information that suggests that no earlier STUDY trip took place.   Apparently he thinks that if Hugh I Wilson ever stepped foot in Europe before 1912, this proves that Hugh I Wilson he must have used the trip to become an expert on the European courses, despite that Hugh Wilson told us where he learned these things. 

I don’t know what else Mike is up to because I quit reading his posts or fielding his questions after he again accused Tom MacWood and I of sandbagging, then lying about it.   But I am sure he will tell you that his behavior has been exemplary.

TomPaul has pontificated on the days of yore, and swears that Hugh I. Wilson must have been designing the course in 1909 and 1910 even though there is no record of any of it. His proof?   No proof at all, except he says that this is just how rich people were.  Because he says so.

Plus, he does not need proof because I cannot prove conclusively that it did not happen the way TEPaul says it happened.    So long as I cannot prove that a negative did not happen, Tom thinks he has no burden of proof whatsoever.   Unfortunately, if I do prove that it did not happen, Tom will just move to the next unsupported conjecture like he has with the two-trip abroad conjecture.

That is about it.   Thanks for stopping by. 

[Rich Goodale]

David

You are an interesting curmudgeon.  Sleep tight.

Rich

[DMoriarty]

I've tried to answer the questions presented, except where noted.   I too have some questions.

Let's start with the theory that, in addition to his 1912 trip to study golf courses, Hugh I Wilson must have also taken an earlier trip, sometime before January of 1911, and that this trip was also to study golf courses.   

Before my questions, lets review how this theory came about.

1.   It had long been thought that Hugh I Wilson traveled to NGLA so that Macdonald could help him plan his trip overseas, and that from there Wilson traveled overseas, returned with reams of sketches, then designed and built Merion East.   

2.   When I first figured out that Hugh I. Wilson had traveled overseas in 1912, this notion was largely criticized.  I must have had the wrong guy.  There was no proof that this was the real Hugh I Wilson of Philadelphia.  In fact Mike Cirba either still believes this or has just recently come around.

3.  As others became convinced that this was most likely the correct Hugh I. Wilson, the story changed to account for this second trip.  Now, posters thought that, yes, Hugh Wilson may have traveled later, but not to study golf courses.  That trip must have occurred earlier. The later one was probably for business or something.

4.  When my essay and the later found article established that Wilson was studying golf courses in 1912, the version has changed again.  Now Hugh Wilson took multiple trips to study courses abroad, at least one before January 1911, and at least one in 1912.   

As far as I can see, this latest version is cut from whole cloth.  It is a creation of convenience, and not based on any hard evidence whatsoever.   It seems to have been created just to keep the old legend alive, and to add credence to the version of the story that some wish were true.   It is intellectually suspect, to say the least.

The unwillingness of many of the posters to concede on this one single point demonstrates their inability to come at these issues with an open mind, and their refusal to accept that which ought to be obvious.   There is no reasonable justification for holding on to this notion of two relevant study two-trips, a notion that was created out of convenience in the first place.    

The only support offered thus far for this latest version is an ambiguous newspaper column written after the course opened, and after the second trip, and a few other newspaper columns that followed. These have been talked to death.

1. Other than these, what evidence is there that Wilson took a trip to study golf architecture before January 1911?   
2.  Is there other any evidence that such a trip trip took place? 
3.  Did Hugh I. Wilson ever mention an earlier study trip?   
4.  Has anything in Merion's history ever suggested TWO TRIPS?   
5.  Why would Hugh I. Wilson credit M&W for teaching him about the great holes, if he had already learned about them on his own.
6.  Why does Wilson say that M&W's teachings were confirmed "LATER" after the NGLA trip? 
7.  In Wilson's description of the NGLA trip, does he refer to the Pre-January 1911 trip, or the 1912 trip?   

I would love to hear your answers.    Thanks. 

[edited to change Jan 1910 to Jan 1911.0

[JESII]

David,

Throughout that post you referenced a mystery pre-January 1910 trip but in your last sentence you ask about a pre January 1911 trip...is the 1910 the typo or is 1911 the typo?

[RJ_Daley]

Behind every waiter and English Literature major there is a frustrated fiction writer.

If that is an original quip by you David, that certainly qualifies you as a crumudgeon.   

This discourse between David and Mike and Tom, now Rich, has 'elevated' itself to epic proportions... 

Perhaps Disreali and Gladstone could have used some of you gents as gag writers, or Jefferson and Hamilton. 

Hamilton told Jefferson in a debate that "while President Washington was the father of our great nation, you sir are the father of the mulatto race."

Hamilton snapped: "That sir is a topic that gentlemen do not discuss."

Replied Jefferson: "Sir, if we had gentleman in government we would have no place for politics."

or the reknowned:

Gladstone: "You sir, shall die on the gallows or of venereal disease."

Disreali: "That, sir, depends on whether I embrace your principles...or your mistress."

Sorry David, but here in the peanut gallery, I'm not giving your work more than a footnote to the story, yet.  For example, while describing the early history, planning and design/construction of Merion I'd envision a footnote after reference to Alan Wilson's rememberances about Hugh having the greatest credit for leading the design and construction committee:*

*... recent discoveries of various real estate transactions related to the land that Merion GC was planned and constructed upon, suggest "even" greater roles of preliminary evaluation, advise and potentially routing of the land tract by figures such as Barker, then MacDonald & Whigham.  While accounts written contemporaneous and in the near aftermath of Merion East and West construction do give varying degrees of recognition to these men, and various other committee men, the dominant role of Hugh Wilson has not been disproven.  No routing or detailed documents of 'specific and detailed' design and construction directives by Barker, MacDonald or Whigham of the Merion project have been located to date.  While rememberances of Alan Wilson and comments by Hugh Wilson do give credit and thanks to Messers. MacDonald and Whigham for valuable advise, the extent of which has not been fully documented or appreciated.  An on-going effort to locate more evidentary documentation of greater involvement is the subject of intense seaching and debate...

BTW, for what it is worth, I myself have done preliminary routing of a seriously focused effort, followed by a well known architect adding to the routing I completed with detailed and defined features... have secured said land on option and did earthwork on said land for soil testing, perculation evaluation, and other soil-terrain evaluation (as Jeff Brauer speaks of and describes as a process in the option phase)... met with that archie numerous times going over the routing, and details and worked with an CAdd operater to further refine plans, and I wrote the outline of the preliminary prospectus with aid of an attorney working 'COLLABORATIVELY' to the extent that the "real" architect was perfectly fine with giving me "design co-credit" .  There were 7 other members of our corportation BOD, all bringing various skills (real estate, land planning, legal, etc.).  If that project would have become Wisconsin's modern Merion, I suggest that similar debate 100 years from now would ensue regarding futile efforts to demarcate the "level" of contributions of theoriginal participants, to the extent some would be slighted, offended, (assuming any of us held the legendary status of those men of that 1900-20s era held) and David' Moriarity's great great grandson would be arguing that Daley should have been given more credit for all that prelim routing, option phase soil testing, prospectus work.  But the truth is it was COLLABORATIVE and I believe most any project like that is so, with one figure perhaps standing out a bit more than the others.

Show us MacD's plans, and routing and notations that he 'planned Merion' in the main, with everybody else just following orders, and the footnote changes to an attribution.  otherwise... keep arguing... perhaps it is stimulating.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Show us MacD's plans, and routing and notations that he 'planned Merion' in the main, with everybody else just following orders, and the footnote changes to an attribution.  otherwise... keep arguing... perhaps it is stimulating.

RJ,

Why is it that you and everybody else clamoring for CBM's routing plan haven't asked for Wilson's routing plan ?

Why ISN'T there the same overwhelming burden of proof being required of Wilson that's being required of CBM ?

Got to run, be back in a few days.

Have fun without me. [/color]

[Neil_Crafter]

Rich
As David has pointed out I was not suggesting that "laying out" = construction, but that "laying out the course" could likely refer to the stage between planning on paper and construction in the dirt - the act of setting out the shape, location and form of the golf features on the land by surveying means - today we call it "setting out".
As for the possibility of Wilson making two trips to Britain for the purpoe of studying the great courses - is it likely he would have made two when one may have sufficed to educate him sufficiently for what he thought he needed to study?
Neil

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,
Don't expect me to politely continue to field your questions while you continue to malign my character.  You have proven yourself neither capable nor worthy of civilized discussion. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHH

 

Evidently I asked questions that David does not want to answer, can't answer, or by answering honestly would sink his theory.

Oh well...have a nice life, David.   

[DMoriarty]

David,

Throughout that post you referenced a mystery pre-January 1910 trip but in your last sentence you ask about a pre January 1911 trip...is the 1910 the typo or is 1911 the typo?

It is January 1911.  I changed it.  Thanks.
______________

RJ Daley,

I dont care about a footnote, or other attribution.

Although they are set out in my paper, you have completely failed to grasp my intentions, so I am sure you will understand why I dismiss your critique as entirely beside the point.   

Your comments go toward issues that I havent even attempted to cover.   Do you really fault me for not doing what I did not set out to do?   If so, then what can I say?   If you want an essay to address your issues,  I suggest you write it yourself.   

Your "peanut gallery" judgments are i not even that, for you are commenting on a game that I am not even playing.   Like a criticism of the Red Sox because the Dodgers lost to the Padres, your critique makes no sense.   You are watching a game that only exists in your mind and is not related to my essay at all.   Therefore I could not care less about your judgments.   How could I?
 

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, great question, don't know the answer...

Only, that the story was told in its time, gives a round of thanks to M&W and ascribes Hugh as the dominant one.  

Is there an "as built" that evolved?  Does Tom and Wayne have any drawings done by Flynn that indicate on the "as built basis" what was altered, and if any side bar, marginal notations are written on subsequent "as built" or superintendent diagrams mentioning any of these character's in our discussions.  For example, a drawing of a green complex or teeing ground that shows how Flynn wanted to change an aspect, and note that said change was planned from Wilson, Mac's or Barker's original design concept.

How would I know.  I'm only serving on the peanut gallery jury.  Good lawyers can convince us rabble of indicting a ham sandwich or letting OJ off, for goodness sakes.  We are just trying to apply the judges instructions, "beyond a reasonable doubt" you know?  

[RJ_Daley]

My good and esteamed David,  , what is it you are 'intending' to say after all these years and postings and thread, then?

Do you really fault me for not doing what I did not set out to do?

No, I can't fault you if you don't intend to disprove that Hugh Wilson didn't have the lion's share of recognition as his peers gave him for the creation of Merion as a design and construction.  I can't fault you if you are not trying to prove that MacDonald&Whigham along with Barker deserve credit for the design of Merion, and that perhaps they should be written as the "new revised" designers of Merion, and that Hugh should be relegated as a footnote as just a guy that was in after the fact, and only did some unknown activity to organise construction aspects and grow-in.  I can''t fault you at all...

[Sean_A]

Show us MacD's plans, and routing and notations that he 'planned Merion' in the main, with everybody else just following orders, and the footnote changes to an attribution.  otherwise... keep arguing... perhaps it is stimulating.

RJ,

Why is it that you and everybody else clamoring for CBM's routing plan haven't asked for Wilson's routing plan ?

Why is there the same overwhelming burden of proof being required of Wilson that's being required of CBM ?

Got to run, be back in a few days.

Have fun without me. [/color]

I understand this seemingly uneven burden of proof, but we have to start out giving Wilson credit for the design because he was the boss.  I don't know how many different ways to put this.  This is how the world works.  The boss is given credit and he doles out credit to associates etc if he chooses to do so.  So it is logical to start with Wilson as the designer even if he sought out help and advice - this is what managers do.  Thus far, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Wilson wasn't in charge of the project or that somebody else had a much larger role to play other than as an advisor or resource. 

I think the piece breaks down who did what and when fairly well, or as well as could be expected given the evidence.  Like Rich and Peter, I don't buy that a writer doesn't have an angle and I do believe it is best to lay that angle on the table.  David seems to do this by essentially concluding that Merion was a group effort led by Wilson.  However, I do sense (and I could be wrong) that David wants to take this a step further (his full angle as it were).  He must have suspicions as to where he thinks his research will lead him and I do believe the piece is not as good as it could be because he doesn't come out and properly state what his suspicions are.  I spose you could call it a difference of opinion on writing style.  I like it when the author is upfront because I know he does have an angle and I would rather not waste time trying to figure it out.  Bottom line, there is no such thing as objective history so there is no point in claiming objectivity.

Ciao

[john_stiles]

In the December 1910 article by Tillinghast,  'Hazard' stated  

" Recently Mr. R. E. Griscom had as his guests Mr. C. B. Macdonald and Mr. H. J. Whigham, who have been so prominent in the building of the National Golf Links, at Shinnecock. Both gentlemen pronounced the new land to be admirably suited to the requirements of the game of today "

I think this was quoted somewhere in David's IMO piece or the above pages.   Anyway,  that Tilly/Hazard article has always held my interests, especially after DM's addition of more details.

Why would someone in the 'know' make such a statement if the course had already been routed as we say today ?

' Pronouncing the new land admirably suited '  might be the first step, but if Merion had a plan or a routing, wouldn't Tilly have known that and reported such ?  

So then the Merion construction folks visited MacDonald & Whigham at NGLA before course construction. And then MacDonald & Whigham visited a second time, persumably after construction had started.  

Tilly's column doesn't fit with MacDonald & Whigham doing an early routing in my sense of reading Tilly.

Are there any substantial newspaper accounts in that time frame of late 1910, early 1911 ?   If so,  ever be so kind to point me there.



It was interesting to notice that HH Barker was advertising in 1910 that he was a golf architect (by todays understanding of the term).

[wsmorrison]

RJ,

We have various newspaper accounts of the changes made between the 1912 opening and the 1916 Amateur.  We have Flynn's drawings of the course as played in the 1916 Amateur (done for the Brooklyn Eagle) and we have drawings showing existing holes, proposed changes and subsequent design changes for the Amateurs in 1924 and 1930 as well as for the Open in 1934.  We also have numerous ground photographs over time (1912-2007) and a series (25+) of aerial photos dated 1924 (2), 1925, 1930 (12), 1937, 1939 (, 1950 and later.  There were no significant architectural changes made between 1934 and today except for tee lengthening and the depth of the bunkers.

John,

I noticed that as well.  It is an interesting point.  I've been slowly compiling a response to the discussions since David posted his theory.  No matter what the final analysis is (and we haven't seen the whole story since I presume there is a Part 2), his efforts have been worthwhile even if they are eventually proved incorrect.  To date, I believe that while new information has been introduced, we really are not far removed from the traditional story.  Yet we will continue to search and fill some of the knowledge gaps as we explore new resources. 

However, I think it is important to realize that not everything can be known to the degree many of us would like.  The notion that there should be a comprehensive record of the design processes would be compiled and stored ignores the reality of that day.  Clubs just didn't see the need.  If files were kept, many were either tossed, lost, damaged or misplaced.  Given that reality, maybe Pat can better appreciate the value of finding that fabulous treasure trove of Flynn drawings in the Gordon's barn.  These drawings answered so many questions and raised a number of others.  But it helped us by pointing the way to search for those answers.  David's work is helping to point us in the right directions.  It is a small miracle that the Flynn drawings (hundreds) were not tossed with the business records.  Perhaps the artistic nature of many of the drawings made throwing them away an idea that was not considered.  Pat's expectations for documentation should therefore be tempered.

I simply am trying to say that there is a relatively small amount of documentation of clubs of that era.  To expect to answer all questions, especially when everything is questioned, is not at all likely.  So when the absence of information is used to deduce that an event could not have happened, I think we've already landed pretty hard at the bottom of a very steep and slippery slope. 

[DMoriarty]

Evidently I asked questions that David does not want to answer, can't answer, or by answering honestly would sink his theory.

Oh well...have a nice life, David.   

Naturally, you make my point for me.

You have attached ulterior motives and dishonesty to everything I have done since coming back, so it is no surprise that you do it again.  Do you really expect me to keep playing along with your never ending attempts to undermine my reputation?  You are the one who obviously has the personal agenda.  I am just trying to discuss my essay.

Ask questions not related to your agenda and I'll consider them, time permitting.   At this point you deserve absolutely no courtesy whatsoever, but nonetheless I'll continue to try to be courteous, despite my instincts to the contrary.

But I am not answering questions which in any way relate to your paranoid delusions, so don't bother asking.   Those are issues for a professional, not me.

My good and esteamed David,  , what is it you are 'intending' to say after all these years and postings and thread, then?

Do you really fault me for not doing what I did not set out to do?

No, I can't fault you if you don't intend to disprove that Hugh Wilson didn't have the lion's share of recognition as his peers gave him for the creation of Merion as a design and construction.  I can't fault you if you are not trying to prove that MacDonald&Whigham along with Barker deserve credit for the design of Merion, and that perhaps they should be written as the "new revised" designers of Merion, and that Hugh should be relegated as a footnote as just a guy that was in after the fact, and only did some unknown activity to organise construction aspects and grow-in.  I can''t fault you at all...

I know you meant to be rhetorical, but you are finally getting closer to understanding what I am trying to explain:

1.   My essay does not address the issue of whether Hugh Wilson got or deserved the lions share of recognition at Merion.  Nor do I present facts to address this issue.
2.   My essay does not address whether M&W and Barker deserve credit for the design of Merion.  Nor do I present facts to address this issue.
3    My essay does not suggest that Merion should write in MW&B as the "new revised" designers of Merion.  Nor do I present facts to address this issue.
4.   My essay did not suggest that Hugh Wilson should be relegated to a footnote, or that he only only constructed the course.    Nor do I present facts to address this issue.

As for what I was trying to say, it is all in the essay.   And none of this stuff is in there at all.   
All this other stuff must be your baggage.  You brought it with you when you read the essay, and it completely shaped your understanding of the essay, yet none of it is in the essay.    If you can figure out how to set your baggage aside, you might want to take another look.

________________________________

I understand this seemingly uneven burden of proof, but we have to start out giving Wilson credit for the design because he was the boss.  I don't know how many different ways to put this.  This is how the world works.  The boss is given credit and he doles out credit to associates etc if he chooses to do so.  So it is logical to start with Wilson as the designer even if he sought out help and advice - this is what managers do.  Thus far, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Wilson wasn't in charge of the project or that somebody else had a much larger role to play other than as an advisor or resource. 

Again Sean, I am not interested in trying to answer the issue of ultimate attribution.  Wilson was head of the committee so you think him the "boss," and if the "boss" is the designer then by your definition he is the designer.  Understood.     But this has nothing to do with my essay.  I am just trying to figure out what happened.   

As for the burden of proof, I am not sure what you mean but maybe because you couch it in terms of the ultimate attribution issue.  But, surely you agree that, as to aspects of who did what, I have met my burden and the burden?  Especially in cases where others have abandoned the specifics of the old legend and substituted in their on convenient takes on how it might of happened. 

Take the study trip abroad, for example.    It took place in Spring 1912.  All this new stuff about an earlier study trip is simply convenient revisionism based on a desired outcome.   Shouldn't the burden or proof be squarely on those who have injected this novel and unlikely notion of an earlier study trip into the conversation?

Or take an issue where I believe you offered your opinion:   When and where Hugh Wilson learned the principles underlying the great holes.     Hugh Wilson tells us when and where he learned this stuff-- NGLA, from M&W.  He even tells us that his "later" trip confirmed what M&W had taught him.    Instead of speculating about what books he might have read, or who else he might have talked to, shouldn't we take Hugh I. Wilson's word for it? Surely those who would like to inject other possible sources of this information into the discussion ought to have the burden of proving that we should ignore Hugh Wilson and replace his words with some other theory.

There are many more examples but you get my drift, I am sure.

I think the piece breaks down who did what and when fairly well, or as well as could be expected given the evidence.  Like Rich and Peter, I don't buy that a writer doesn't have an angle and I do believe it is best to lay that angle on the table.  David seems to do this by essentially concluding that Merion was a group effort led by Wilson.  However, I do sense (and I could be wrong) that David wants to take this a step further (his full angle as it were).  He must have suspicions as to where he thinks his research will lead him and I do believe the piece is not as good as it could be because he doesn't come out and properly state what his suspicions are.  I spose you could call it a difference of opinion on writing style.  I like it when the author is upfront because I know he does have an angle and I would rather not waste time trying to figure it out.  Bottom line, there is no such thing as objective history so there is no point in claiming objectivity.

Of course I have an agenda or perspective.  But and I set  it out in my paper.    I also even hinted about where I think the evidence will take me next, but left that for another day, when I will hopefully better understand that evidence. 

But contrary to your speculation, I did NOT come to any conclusions other than those that are explicit in my paper.  How could I with this crowd?   Some of these guys considered the evidence I presented on Hugh Wilson's 1912 trip as "pure unsupported speculation."   Many still keep alive the false hope of discovering an earlier trip to undo the damage done by my finding the later trip.   Imagine the reception that I would have received had I waxed philosophically, speculating about things without offering support.   No Way.

In this essay I tried to stick what I can prove necessarily happened and only suggest a few ideas on what I think happened, and only then when the evidence so obviously pointed to conclusions that to not draw them would have been disingenuous on my part.   

[As an aside, as far as the boss as designer, I am not so sure that Wayne will see it that way when it comes to later changes he attributes to Flynn, but I have no horse in that race.]

[Peter Pallotta]

"Peter, Rich Goodale  and others all read the essay from a literary persective and so they  go well beyond its intended scope, usually interpreting it as my attempt to solely credit M&W for the design."

David - for what it's worth at this point, that's just not true. What I think is that you intended to prove that Macdonald and Whigham deserve MORE credit, not SOLE credit.

I didn't read your essay from a literary perspective, just as a reader. You conclude your essay with: "In other words, while it may not have looked like it on the surface, the initial version of Merion East may have had Macdonald and Whigham’s concepts at its core."

I think I can be excused for assuming that you meant that conclusion to flow plausibly from all that came before. What I was suggesting is that the line "But this analysis is outside the scope of this essay, and will have to wait until another day" rings a bit hollow.

I've said it several times already: I admire and appreciate the hard work that went into your essay. But I can only read it and react to it as I'm able to, not as you would prescribe.

Peter

[TEPaul]

David Moriaty:

What you said in reponse to the quote you used of mine is frankly too bizarre to even bother to reply to but I thought I should include the following remark you made about Alan Wilson's report and make a clarification regarding it:

"His account is not first-hand, and contains obvious errors, like the one about Hugh Wilson traveling abroad as a first step, in 1910."

If you're going to analyze this stuff accurately you need to read what's written better. Alan Wilson did not say Hugh traveled abroad in 1910. What he said was;

"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as first step, Mr Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links of Scotland and England."

If Wilson did NOT go abroad before 1912 is it any wonder that Merion's history writers interpreted it that he went abroad in 1910, because that is precisely what YOU thought Alan Wilson said as evidenced by what you said above? Again, if you read VERY CAREFULLY what he actually said he didn't say he went abroad in 1910 at all. 

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

The question has been asked of you a few times now in the last day or so but so far I don't see your answer. Maybe I missed it. The question is:

When, in your opinion, is the FIRST time it can be proved that Macdonald came to Merion Ardmore?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have a new theory on who routed Merion.....

Since everyone agrees that Merion has a great routing.....and.....

Most everyone on Golfclubatlas.com believes only Doak and CC do good routings......then.....

Either Doak or CC did the routing of Merion!

I believe my logic is unassailable on this one.

[DMoriarty]

I think I can be excused for assuming that you meant that conclusion to flow plausibly from all that came before. What I was suggesting is that the line "But this analysis is outside the scope of this essay, and will have to wait until another day" rings a bit hollow.
Peter

As I said at the beginning of that response, it was with tongue in cheek.  I lumped you with some others who I think maybe are trying to read too much into the essay, but I didnt make fine distinctions the different posters' views.  I am sorry if i offended you.  I appreciate your comments and no offense was meant.

I understand what you are saying about only interpreting as you are able.  But it is very frustrating from my perspective be see  others attribute claims I did not make to me.  Especially when they are  dismissed as unsupported or unpersuasive.    I did my best to make my claims carefully and stick to ones I could support. 

The one exception is the last one, which you quote.   It is part of the section called The Next Step:  Analyzing the Golf Course  and the paragraph you quote is not a conclusion at all, but a foreshadowing of where I see this analysis taking me next.   Here is the entire paragraph:

Given their extensive involvement in the planning, at least some of the original holes at Merion East should be based on Macdonald’s and Whigham’s concepts for the holes, or at least Wilson’s construction of them.  Wilson’s versions of a Redan hole and an Alps hole are good examples of this.  These holes were key fixtures in Macdonald’s repertoire, and their existence at Merion is strong indication that Macdonald and Whigham were responsible for at least some of the plan.  Further, while my research is far from complete or conclusive, my preliminary analysis of the original holes suggests that other holes and features may have based on Macdonald and Whigham’s view of how the principles of the great holes should be applied in Merion’s natural conditions.  In other words, while it may not have looked like it on the surface, the initial version of Merion East may have had Macdonald and Whigham’s concepts at its core.  But this analysis is outside the scope of this essay, and will have to wait until another day.

I set out my next hypothesis, tell the reader that some support exists, but note that I put off that analysis to a later date.   While that may ring hollow to you, it doesn't to me.  I really did not intend for this essay to support my next hypothesis, and that is why I structured it the way I did.  For one thing I am not ready to engage in meaningful and detailed analysis of the holes.  For another, there is already plenty for the readers to consider without adding issues that by there very nature are more subjective. 

So, while you will interpret it the way you do, surely I can at least try to explain where i think you or others have gone off course.  After all, it is my essay, and I feel think I am the best source for what my intentions were and were not.

Thanks again for the comments.
_____________________________


TEPaul, I agree that the application of the date is ambiguous.  But he does say the trip was a "first step", and 1912 was a bit late to be taking a "first step." 

If Wilson did NOT go abroad before 1912 is it any wonder that Merion's history writers interpreted it that he went abroad in 1910, because that is precisely what YOU thought Alan Wilson said as evidenced by what you said above?

I have never accused Merion's history writers of intentionally trying to misreport the historical record, and have no reason to believe that they did.  In fact I try to point out in my essay the possible confusions that may have lead to their misunderstanding, and the Alan Wilson letter is one source that may have been misunderstood.

Alan Wilson was wrong about the trip being a first step, his information appears to be second-hand, and he excludes M&W’s contributions from statements where he gives Wilson credit.   So I have no idea why you hang your hat on this report.

As for other possible interpretations, if you care to dig back through the archives you will find that I have provided them in detail in the past.    But they don’t matter much to this discussion.   


Macdonald and Whigham were most likely at Merion between June 10, 1910 and July 1, 1910.   

_____________________________________
John and Wayne. 

I don’t know that we ought to assume that Tillinghast was in-the-know about this at this early date.

It often appears to be the case that these blurbs in articles appear right around the time of some sort of club announcement, or shortly after.    Merion reported to the members that M&W had visited the site on Nov. 15, and Tillinghast reports on the visit in December.   No details were given from M&W’s letter and no routing specifically mentioned, so I am not surprised that the magazine blurb sticks to general comments. 

Plus, it is by no means clear that M&W had actually drawn up a routing at this point.  As I note in my essay, the sent their views on what could be done with the property in a letter, so it doesn’t sound like they sent a drawing.   

[Sean_A]

________________________________

I understand this seemingly uneven burden of proof, but we have to start out giving Wilson credit for the design because he was the boss.  I don't know how many different ways to put this.  This is how the world works.  The boss is given credit and he doles out credit to associates etc if he chooses to do so.  So it is logical to start with Wilson as the designer even if he sought out help and advice - this is what managers do.  Thus far, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Wilson wasn't in charge of the project or that somebody else had a much larger role to play other than as an advisor or resource. 

Again Sean, I am not interested in trying to answer the issue of ultimate attribution.  Wilson was head of the committee so you think him the "boss," and if the "boss" is the designer then by your definition he is the designer.  Understood.     But this has nothing to do with my essay.  I am just trying to figure out what happened.   

As for the burden of proof, I am not sure what you mean but maybe because you couch it in terms of the ultimate attribution issue.  But, surely you agree that, as to aspects of who did what, I have met my burden and the burden?  Especially in cases where others have abandoned the specifics of the old legend and substituted in their on convenient takes on how it might of happened. 

Take the study trip abroad, for example.    It took place in Spring 1912.  All this new stuff about an earlier study trip is simply convenient revisionism based on a desired outcome.   Shouldn't the burden or proof be squarely on those who have injected this novel and unlikely notion of an earlier study trip into the conversation?

Or take an issue where I believe you offered your opinion:   When and where Hugh Wilson learned the principles underlying the great holes.     Hugh Wilson tells us when and where he learned this stuff-- NGLA, from M&W.  He even tells us that his "later" trip confirmed what M&W had taught him.    Instead of speculating about what books he might have read, or who else he might have talked to, shouldn't we take Hugh I. Wilson's word for it? Surely those who would like to inject other possible sources of this information into the discussion ought to have the burden of proving that we should ignore Hugh Wilson and replace his words with some other theory.

There are many more examples but you get my drift, I am sure.

I think the piece breaks down who did what and when fairly well, or as well as could be expected given the evidence.  Like Rich and Peter, I don't buy that a writer doesn't have an angle and I do believe it is best to lay that angle on the table.  David seems to do this by essentially concluding that Merion was a group effort led by Wilson.  However, I do sense (and I could be wrong) that David wants to take this a step further (his full angle as it were).  He must have suspicions as to where he thinks his research will lead him and I do believe the piece is not as good as it could be because he doesn't come out and properly state what his suspicions are.  I spose you could call it a difference of opinion on writing style.  I like it when the author is upfront because I know he does have an angle and I would rather not waste time trying to figure it out.  Bottom line, there is no such thing as objective history so there is no point in claiming objectivity.

Of course I have an agenda or perspective.  But and I set  it out in my paper.    I also even hinted about where I think the evidence will take me next, but left that for another day, when I will hopefully better understand that evidence. 

But contrary to your speculation, I did NOT come to any conclusions other than those that are explicit in my paper.  How could I with this crowd?   Some of these guys considered the evidence I presented on Hugh Wilson's 1912 trip as "pure unsupported speculation."   Many still keep alive the false hope of discovering an earlier trip to undo the damage done by my finding the later trip.   Imagine the reception that I would have received had I waxed philosophically, speculating about things without offering support.   No Way.

In this essay I tried to stick what I can prove necessarily happened and only suggest a few ideas on what I think happened, and only then when the evidence so obviously pointed to conclusions that to not draw them would have been disingenuous on my part.   

[As an aside, as far as the boss as designer, I am not so sure that Wayne will see it that way when it comes to later changes he attributes to Flynn, but I have no horse in that race.]

David

If you are not interested in the ultimate credit for Merion, then what is your paper about?  Breaking down events is a essentially determining who did what and if that isn't assigning credit (assuming the course doesn't deserve discredit) what is it?  I think you are trying to inject a false objectivity.  So, yes, from my perspective, you do have an angle and you do have a hunch as to what and when that is very different than the long held beliefs, but that you haven't openly stated it.  I am not merely talking about whether or not a trip or two was taken because that is essentially immaterial and filled with romantic notions.  If you don't have a hunch as to something being radically different then I don't really understand the paper.  It wasn't necessary to go into such great detail to show that CBM & M&W were involved or that there is no evidence for an early Wilson trip to the UK.  Logically, the paper is heading in one direction or it is a very long winded way of expressing a few simple concepts.  And I must say that this isn't intended to sound harsh - I am just looking at your paper how I believe many would.  At the very least, it is my take, but you can take it or leave it.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

If you are not interested in the ultimate credit for Merion, then what is your paper about?  Breaking down events is a essentially determining who did what and if that isn't assigning credit (assuming the course doesn't deserve discredit) what is it?  I think you are trying to inject a false objectivity.  So, yes, from my perspective, you do have an angle and you do have a hunch as to what and when that is very different than the long held beliefs, but that you haven't openly stated it.  I am not merely talking about whether or not a trip or two was taken because that is essentially immaterial and filled with romantic notions.  If you don't have a hunch as to something being radically different then I don't really understand the paper.  It wasn't necessary to go into such great detail to show that CBM & M&W were involved or that there is no evidence for an early Wilson trip to the UK.  Logically, the paper is heading in one direction or it is a very long winded way of expressing a few simple concepts.  And I must say that this isn't intended to sound harsh - I am just looking at your paper how I believe many would.  At the very least, it is my take, but you can take it or leave it.

It may sound like splitting hairs to you, but I am more interested in figuring out what actually happened, and less interested in whose name is listed on the bottom of the scorecard.   Attributing credit for designing golf courses is definitional, political, and very subjective, and in this case it falls well short of telling the entire story.    My overall interest is trying to better understand the evolution of golf course architecture in America, and calling someone "the designer" or listing "Course by Mr. X," doesn't really explain what makes Merion great, and I'd like to better understand how this  masterpiece rose (over time) from what was by almost all accounts a dismal golf landscape in Philadelphia. 

But you are probably correct, my essay may just be but a long-winded way of explaining a few simple concepts.   Yet the fact that you and others now consider them simple (and obvious) concepts tells me that, however long-winded, my essay was at least somewhat successful.   

[Sean_A]

If you are not interested in the ultimate credit for Merion, then what is your paper about?  Breaking down events is a essentially determining who did what and if that isn't assigning credit (assuming the course doesn't deserve discredit) what is it?  I think you are trying to inject a false objectivity.  So, yes, from my perspective, you do have an angle and you do have a hunch as to what and when that is very different than the long held beliefs, but that you haven't openly stated it.  I am not merely talking about whether or not a trip or two was taken because that is essentially immaterial and filled with romantic notions.  If you don't have a hunch as to something being radically different then I don't really understand the paper.  It wasn't necessary to go into such great detail to show that CBM & M&W were involved or that there is no evidence for an early Wilson trip to the UK.  Logically, the paper is heading in one direction or it is a very long winded way of expressing a few simple concepts.  And I must say that this isn't intended to sound harsh - I am just looking at your paper how I believe many would.  At the very least, it is my take, but you can take it or leave it.

But you are probably correct, my essay may just be but a long-winded way of explaining a few simple concepts.   Yet the fact that you and others now consider them simple (and obvious) concepts tells me that, however long-winded, my essay was at least somewhat successful.   

David

To be fair, CBM was always given some credit, your paper hasn't altered that or shown exactly what CBM should get credit for.  Secondly, I don't think it matters (and never have) in the least when Wilson went abroad when looking at the overall picture of Merion.  However, I do think it is important that he did go at some time because it seems to me that a trip like this could be quite useful in a continuing project  the nature of which Merion was.  However, despite my feelings, I do see the importance of the event in establishing a timeline.  It can only help to gain a better overall understanding of Merion.  Finally, we can't entirely discount that Wilson went twice to the UK for study purposes, though as you suggest, a reasonable amount of proof should be laid on the table, otherwise things just get cloudy with supposition. 

So far as I am concerned, Part I is done and dusted.  You have laid the groundwork for Part II.  When do you reckon this will be available to read?  I ask because I can't help feeling there are significant revelations yet to be revealed.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Rich
As David has pointed out I was not suggesting that "laying out" = construction, but that "laying out the course" could likely refer to the stage between planning on paper and construction in the dirt - the act of setting out the shape, location and form of the golf features on the land by surveying means - today we call it "setting out".
As for the possibility of Wilson making two trips to Britain for the purpoe of studying the great courses - is it likely he would have made two when one may have sufficed to educate him sufficiently for what he thought he needed to study?
Neil

Thanks Neil, but I still think that the 1907 definition for "lay out" ("to plan in detail") implies more design involvement than you seem to be willing to assume.

Rich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()