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

[Rich Goodale]

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... 

Dick

I'm just a straight man for David's comedic routines.  It's not discourse, yet......

Rich

Oops, forgot the smiley face!

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

John,

The first word here is telling, as is the rest of the article.

Macdonald didn't come back until April, 1911, and we now know courtesy of an article found by Indiana Joe that at that time, Tillinghast reports he's already seen "the plans" and has high hopes for the course. 

Unless Macdonald developed them in absentia, it HAD to be the committeee.

I believe why David's paper seems to have such odd gaps is that it is missing whatever the "Merion Cricket Club Golf Association" was up to during 1910.   This Committee, assigned by Lesley in 1909 to address issues related to the outmoding of courses by the Haskell ball, has not a single mention in this White Paper, except to note that they were the ones who bought the property offiicially at the end of 1910, and then rented it to the Cricket Club.

Both Hugh and Alan Wilson were on this committee, as were Griscom and Lesley. 

Their activities during 1910 are missing here, and that's why we're all on a goose chase.

Although I love Macdonald's courses, admire his genius, and am grateful for his legacy, I strongly suspect, once one considers all the activity that happened on the property between July 1909 til November 1910 (without him), and on the property between December 1910 and April 1911 without him, and on the property between May 1911 until September 1912 when the course opened without him, and all the trips of the Merion Committee members and Governors abroad during that time, that if the real truth be told, Macdonald and Whigham were given credit well beyond their due.

Of course I could be wrong, and if David gives us the date of the Merion Board of Governors meeting minutes he quoted in his report and it turns out to be well prior to late October to November timeframe...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Unless Macdonald developed them in absentia, it HAD to be the committeee.

Mike, that's terrible conclusion, unsupported by any factual evidence.

There are a number of possibilities to the creation of the routing plans and for you to declare that but one, the one you want to champion, is the correct one, is flawed thinking.

If, as you have declared, Donald Ross and Rees Jones "mailed it in", why couldn't CBM have done the same ?[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

I think it's important to our discovery here that people realize exactly who these men were.

I know Tom Paul tried to allude to it earlier, but let me put it in simpler terms.

In 1911, Horatio Gates Lloyd became partners with J.P. Morgan!!!

Rodman Griscom was heir to a shipping magnate fortune, which he as in charge of at that time.

Francis was a famed engineer and surveyor.   I'm not sure Toulmin's background but someone could fill in the gaps, perhaps.

This was all prior to "trust-busting".    These guys and their friends basically OWNED the country.   Rairoad property?   Ha!   Sure it is!   

Can you just imagine the cuyones it would have taken for Robert W. Lesley, himself a man of incredible means and prominence to say, "H.G. my good man...I'm assigning you to a committee to supervise common laborers digging in the dirt while they shape a plan put together by that Macdonald chap from Long Island.  Mr. Francis, you can put away those tools and send your crews home...we already have a plan...and, oh Rodman good fellow, do you know any Italian?"

Then consider the esteem and knowledge and confidence they must have had in Hugh Wilson to appoint him as chairman OVER these guys!?!?!?!?

THe portrayal in the White Paper of Wilson as a rookie reliever, babe in the woods, brought in during the 7th inning stretch as a closer is just beyond any leap of faith or imagination, once we start thinking about these people as people, and not just abstract objects and dates.

[wsmorrison]

There's way too much speculation and jumping to conclusions in most of your posts, Pat.  Get dirty and dive into the research and analyze the complete set of primary assets.  You are mailing it in from wherever you are after merely looking at bits and pieces.  Frankly, you Ran, Tom N and others made up your minds before any serious discussion/analysis took place regarding David's valuable work.  As a devotee of everything Macdonald, especially NGLA, be careful because your bias is showing.  Many of us have biases, but who is putting them aside and searching for the truth?  There's a lot of accusations flying back and forth but the fact is, amid the skirmish smoke can be found some sound reasoning and important new information.  It is just hard to identify the poor reasoning and false leads when your baseline of understanding is so low.

Rather than making up minds on an increasing but still far from complete data set, at this point we should be more interested in amassing all the information we can.  Again, these inquiries, even if proved false, help point us in the many directions we need to search.  But the incomplete, though conclusion laden evaluations by Ran and Pat on this site and others off-site (a small minority) is premature (as I've said all along) and wanting in a robust discovery process.  Give David the proper measure of consideration for all his efforts and study it carefully along with all the complete original information.  It is shocking how you and Ran jumped the gun and endorsed this piece when you did and now are loathe to believe anything at all that may upend your conclusion.  Ran, was it sweeps week? 

I'm delighted David is conducting this research as many are asking good questions and putting forth a renewed effort to discover answers.  Pat and Ran have not done any leg work but have taken a quick and easy review and conclusion process.  Sorry, I do not intend to stifle debate but must point out these significant short comings in their conclusion process.  If they turn out to be right, it is not because of their process but rather David's unfinished process.  And now I must comment by saying that David has been open to accessing his materials.  In that regard, I too have been sharing information with him as is only right and in the proper spirit of investigation.

[TEPaul]

"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." 


Quote
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."



David:

You have no idea why I hang my hat on Alan Wilson's report? Is that it? Well, then, let me try to explain it to you again!

First of all, let's take a look at Alan Wilson's report and try to understand why he wrote it and why he was asked to write it and who asked him to write it.

Do you have any idea, at this point, who William R. Philler was? If you don't perhaps you should, as he as well is very much part of this time and part of Merion's history. Understanding that is pretty important to the understanding of the history of MCC, MCC Golf Association and the entire development of Merion Ardmore including into the 1920s and 1930s. You are interested in that, aren't you?

Philler was a pretty prominent man anyway, an excellent law mind, and prominent businessman and the secretary and/or treasury of Merion Cricket Club for thirty five years. He was the VP of MCC apparently beginning in 1912. In 1926 he and/or Merion decided to write the first history of Merion (a book or report we have not yet been able to find if it was written). I think you should be able to begin to understand that if you look carefully at Alan Wilson's cover letter to Philler accompanying his report to Philler I posted above.

So, for some reason Philler asked Alan Wilson to write a report on the creation of Merion East and West. Why do you suppose he asked Alan Wilson to do that when all the men who had worked with Hugh Wilson on that committee that designed and built those two courses and all those who had worked on the search committee and on the boards were very much alive and still at Merion?? If that doesn't tell you something about Alan Wilson and his abilities to know what went on from the beginning on then I guess I just can't help you David! But I guess you just never knew any of that or appreciated it properly and so your first inclination is just to automatically dismiss Alan Wilson and his report as if he was just some guy who hadn't really been there or someone who was automatically lying by creating all kinds of incorrect information to be put into Merion's history.

For some reason your inclination seems to be to hang your hat on a guy like Whigam who may've been to Merion two or three times in his life and something he said in some eulogy he gave maybe 15 or 25 years later about Macdonald "designing" Merion!   

Alan Wilson was Hugh Wilson's older brother, and he had been there every step of the way with the original MCC Golf Association, and as the partner of Hugh Wilson working with him every day in their family insurance business. Alan was also a founding member of Pine Valley and very much involved in that creation, a man who also became an agronomic expert with Hugh at both Merion AND Pine Valley, a man who was on the USGA's Green Section, who actually helped found it with Hugh, and I believe on the board of the USGA too.

In other words, he was a man who was there from even before the beginning of Merion Ardmore and there every day and every step of the way all the way through into the 1930s at least. Alan Wilson was a very substantial guy but perhaps you never realized that and perhaps a lot of people on here didn't realize that.

And that may help explain why some people around here, including Merion GC, the club, do take some offense when some people on here including Tom MacWood, you, maybe Pat Mucci and including someone like Jeff Brauer who IMed me that Alan Wilson and the rest of the men involved in the creation of Merion Ardmore must have automatically been writing some hyper-glorified paean or eulogy to Hugh Wilson in Alan Wilson’s report which happens to be one of our best source materials, just to glorify him and consequently dismiss and minimize someone like Macdonald.

So, maybe all you guys should try to understand who these people were and what they were and what they really did do a little better than any of you apparently have to date. In my opinion, that includes people like Horatio Gates Lloyd, Toulmin, Francis, Griscom and Philler. Maybe you people should learn a bit better how to cut these people some slack instead of just coming on here with whatever the hell it is you’re trying to say by first assuming they were all virtually lying!

The best I can say about that is maybe it's just because none of you have ever been here and for that reason none of you really understand this club, who some of its members really were and why. Maybe that's exactly why most of you just start off looking at Merion's history by ASSUMING that an Alan Wilson and the rest of these men were lying, forgetting things and just willfully and knowingly distorting Merion's history including the creation and evolutions of the golf courses. If that is what you guys are doing or thinking, then, I believe it's pretty safe to say some of us and Merion GC really aren't interested.

And, then, really curiously, you apparently said last night that this entire thread is really about YOUR essay. Is that right? And if so, what is that supposed to mean? I thought your essay was about the history of the early creation of Merion Ardmore. I think a lot of people thought that and think that.

But now are we to hear that this thread is really about all of us critiquing just your essay only and the way you put it together and wrote it or something? Isn't there supposed to be some points and some conclusion about Merion we're trying to consider or is this really just about critiquing your essay as some editor or English writing teacher might? All of this is really just about you isn't it David Moriarty? If so that really doesn't surprise me at all and if that's what we're doing here, I, for one, am not in the slightest bit interested.

We will continue to look into the details of the early history of Merion Ardmore and if you'd like to know more about that maybe you should just email us and ask----something you and Tom MacWood probably should have done about five years ago when he started this entire subject with a thread titled "Re C.B. Macdonald and Merion" back in February of 2003 and which is today on something like the 4th or 5th page of this website. Everyone should check it out and they can see much better how we finally got to this point of basically being asked to focus on just David Moriarty!   

[TEPaul]

"I know Tom Paul tried to allude to it earlier, but let me put it in simpler terms.
In 1911, Horatio Gates Lloyd became partners with J.P. Morgan!!!"


Oh, for Chriiist's Sake, Mike, you know people like David Moriarty aren't interested in things like who these people doing all this at Merion back then were. He's already said this isn't about the lifes of the rich and famous at all, that that doesn't matter at all.

I believe he even finally said last night that this isn't even about any of us considering the early creation of Merion East and who exactly did most of it and how. I believe he said this is only about HIS ESSAY, which I guess just means this is only about HIM! I guess everyone thinks they need their fifteen minutes in the sun and this must be his.   


From David Moriarty last night:

"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."

Why don't we all just set aside what really happened in the creation of Merion East and devote about the next ten pages to trying to analyze why David Moriarty actually wrote this essay and what he's REALLY trying to say in it?   

 

 

[Mike_Cirba]

One thing I think we should examine is the contention that Merion purchased the land they needed for the golf course because of recommendations (meaning the creation of a routing) by Macdonald/Whigham?   Of course, if Macdonald/Whigham's visit was "recently" as Tillinghast wrote in December, 1910 when he told us that,

"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."

then, David's new evidence about the timing of land aquisitions by HDC proves that their detailed routing input would have been nigh impossible.

It's interesting they they mention the "requirements of the game of today".   What had changed?   Weren't they of course talking about the introduction of the new Haskell Ball and how it had outmoded all of the older courses in the country including Merion's?   Wasn't R.E Griscom on the MCC Golf Association with Hugh and Alan Wilson and Robert Lesley, (the committee whose mission was solely charged with finding a solution to the challenges of the new ball), and then subsequently on Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee?   Didn't the MCC Golf Association actually buy the property?

It's also interesting that as of December, 1910, Macdonald is quoted as pronouncing the land as "admirably suited".   It is of course important to keep in mind that Macdonald/Whigham were essentially "rock stars", and getting this pronouncement and blessing was certainly a good PR move for a number of reasons, including the selling of lots.

Let's remember that the Lloyd's (and other Merion members) Haverford Development Company had 350 acres, and that whatever land they sold to the club for golf would be for a song.   It was important to the overall profitability of this "real estate scheme" as David termed it that the great majority of the land be utilized for profit...the creation of large estate homes.

Barker's original recommendation of 100 acres and his routing must have been deemed wholly inadequte "based on the requirements of the modern game", and I'm quite sure that CB Macdonald would have told them that they were probably shooting themselves in the foot and needed probably at least another 20% greater acreage, given that a lengthy "Championship" course at that time needed to be about 6200 yards.   It would have also been important to these men not to have wasted land on the golf course that could be sold at profit.

In fact, listen again to what Macdonald told them at that time, as recounted in David's report;

After inspecting the site, Macdonald provided his (and Whigham’s) written opinion “as to what could be done with the property.”[12]  With Macdonald’s letter, the Site Committee now had two written recommendations about what to do with the property; first from Barker, and then from Macdonald and Whigham. The Committee must have preferred the latter, because according to Merion’s Board, the Site Committee’s report “embodied Macdonald’s letter,” and the Committee’s recommendation was based largely upon the views expressed by Macdonald. 

The Site Committee’s recommendation to purchase had a few important caveats.  They wanted the land at a slightly better price than had been offered.  Also, the development company had contemplated selling Merion 100 acres, but now, after Macdonald’s review and recommendations, the Site Committee required specific parcels measuring nearly 120 acres.

"It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase."

Does this sound like the precise language of an existing routing plan?

Woudn't the report have said something like, "Mr. Macdonald's plan requires that we purchase 135 acres of the existing property..etc."?

David's White Paper makes the leap that at this juncture, that Macdonald and Whigham had drawn up a plan, but that conclusion is not supported by any existing evidence, nor does it seem to be supported by what seems to be a late 1910 timeline for M/W's initial visit to the property.

Perhaps if David shared the date of that report it would mean earlier, potentially more detailed involvement by M/W, but to date we only have what Tillinghast shared.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne,

I appreciate that tone of voice and attitude. I have absolutely no interest in Merion other than historical curiosity and hope everyone contributes something to the effort. I sincerely doubt history will be totally rewritten, but I do think DM's efforts will certainly shed more light on what was an involved process.  Just MHO, but I think its fair to say that thanks to DM's research, we know more about how Merion was created than we did before, even if there are still some loose ends. 

I understand, as per TePauls private IM response to me that Merion doesn't care what I or anyone else here thinks, and I respect that.  I am sure its occurred to all of us that maybe we should just let this drop. While in the public eye, they are just a golf club, after all. I can understand them headscratching just a bit to wonder what all the fuss is about.  It seems like every famous figure in history is subject to some kind of theory.  Another book claiming Lincoln had some kind of disease which affected his work as President came out the other day, 140 years after the fact. It does strike one as kind of intrusive and tacky.


TePaul,

Thanks for making a private IM public, and the exagerrated misinterpretations. Class moves.  I think we had a thread on the ethics of that a year or so ago which perhaps you should re-read.  Frankly, I am surprised that I would ever have to type such words to describe you.

My only gripe is your tone, vs. the one displayed by Wayne above.  While I have no doubt you have done far more work and have far more intimate knowledge of Merion than most anyone on this thread, you too are prone to conclusion jumping, distortion and the like. 

Having followed this thread, I can hardly see how someone who writes the phrases you do and believes they are conclusive arguments can fault David, or anyone else for jumping to conclusions.  Its almost like repeating things louder and louder to a guy who doesn't speak English to make him understand.

As an example, here is a paragraph from your last post:


"So, for some reason Philler asked Alan Wilson to write a report on the creation of Merion East and West. Why do you suppose he asked Alan Wilson to do that when all the men who had worked with Hugh Wilson on that committee that designed and built those two courses and all those who had worked on the search committee and on the boards were very much alive and still at Merion?? If that doesn't tell you something about Alan Wilson and his abilities to know what went on from the beginning on then I guess I just can't help you David!"


The phrases "For Some Reason" "If that doesn't tell you something" and "I just can't help you David" are prime offenders in the "If I yell loud enough its a logical argument" side of this thread.  IMHO, those opinons don't have any more value than those of other factual contributors, at least without the dox to back them up.   In short, the opinions I expressed in the IM were that the more agitated you become at certain suggestions makes it seem like your bias is showing the strongest.  If I side with DM right now, its only because his primary deal has been to make some documents public and postulate some theories as to what they mean historically. I see no harm in either that or disagreeing, but many of your posts cry foul at the bias others have, bring up red herrings and/or shout downs.

Lets recognize that we all have bias, please.  I can understand if yours are among the strongest, given your connections in Philly.  But keep it civil or behind closed doors.  I look forward to whatever documents you can find and share, again just out of interest.  Please, just don't share private IM messages out or courtesy to anyone who sends them to you. 

[TEPaul]

"Of course I could be wrong, and if David gives us the date of the Merion Board of Governors meeting minutes he quoted in his report and it turns out to be well prior to late October to November timeframe..."


Mike:

As we've been saying for a couple of days now that particular item is just incredibly important to any understanding of the creation of Merion East, and certainly as it involved Macdonald. This is why we really must know when Macdonald FIRST came to Merion Ardmore. This is not some game or competition between people like Moriarty and some of us here, this is about understanding what really did happen in the year of 1910 with Merion Ardmore.

I have just got to think that MCC and the MCC Golf Association guys and their search committee brought in Macdonald pretty close after Barker visited on June, 10, 1910. That would be at some point through the summer of 1910 or into the early fall at least. If they didn't do that and Macdonald/Whigam FIRST arrived in the late fall or at some point after say November 5, 1910 then that just puts an entirely different color on this whole thing, not to mention the fact that Moriarty's premise or even conclusion that Macdonald offered a routing and hole designs that required the club to buy or option various pieces of property fall apart!

Newspaper accounts may help some but nothing can be more indicative than the dates on those MCC board deliberations over whatever was contained in that so-called Macdonald letter that apparently may've just been to some one person like Griscom or Lesley and not to the board of MCC, not to mention the fact that we've heard it was not exactly for publication which certainly makes sense if the club or Lloyd and HDC were about to rapidly go after some real estate without kitting its price by making their intentions public in the newspapers.

But if for some odd reason Macdonald/Whigam did not show up for the first time until around November I hardly think anyone should assume that this club and their committees were just sitting around for about five months with their thumbs up their asses doing nothing and waiting for someone to come and tell them what to do next.

Maybe David Moriarty really has no idea when Macdonald FIRST got to Merion Ardmore but I sort of thought all alone this so-called "Sayers" report which he apparently as access to said something about that.

If not, what we should do next is just go over to Merion G.C. or probably more logically Merion Cricket Club and see if we can't get a look at the dates on those board or committee minutes, assuming either club still has them.

I have to think those dates must be in the summer or at least early fall of 1910 but we really do need to know the date Macdonald/Whigam FIRST arrived at Merion Ardmore. Maybe Macdonad's letter is still on file with MCC's minutes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

One thing I think we should examine is the contention that Merion purchased the land they needed for the golf course because of recommendations (meaning the creation of a routing) by Macdonald/Whigham?   Of course, if Macdonald/Whigham's visit was "recently" as Tillinghast wrote in December, 1910 when he told us that,

"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."

then, David's new evidence about the timing of land aquisitions by HDC proves that their detailed routing input would have been nigh impossible.

It's interesting they they mention the "requirements of the game of today".   What had changed?   Weren't they of course talking about the introduction of the new Haskell Ball and how it had outmoded all of the older courses in the country including Merion's?   Wasn't R.E Griscom on the MCC Golf Association with Hugh and Alan Wilson and Robert Lesley, (the committee whose mission was solely charged with finding a solution to the challenges of the new ball), and then subsequently on Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee?   Didn't the MCC Golf Association actually buy the property?

It's also interesting that as of December, 1910, Macdonald is quoted as pronouncing the land as "admirably suited".   It is of course important to keep in mind that Macdonald/Whigham were essentially "rock stars", and getting this pronouncement and blessing was certainly a good PR move for a number of reasons, including the selling of lots.

Let's remember that the Lloyd's (and other Merion members) Haverford Development Company had 350 acres, and that whatever land they sold to the club for golf would be for a song.   It was important to the overall profitability of this "real estate scheme" as David termed it that the great majority of the land be utilized for profit...the creation of large estate homes.

Barker's original recommendation of 100 acres and his routing must have been deemed wholly inadequte "based on the requirements of the modern game", and I'm quite sure that CB Macdonald would have told them that they were probably shooting themselves in the foot and needed probably at least another 20% greater acreage.

In fact, listen again to what he told them at that time, as recounted in David's report;

After inspecting the site, Macdonald provided his (and Whigham’s) written opinion “as to what could be done with the property.”[12]  With Macdonald’s letter, the Site Committee now had two written recommendations about what to do with the property; first from Barker, and then from Macdonald and Whigham. The Committee must have preferred the latter, because according to Merion’s Board, the Site Committee’s report “embodied Macdonald’s letter,” and the Committee’s recommendation was based largely upon the views expressed by Macdonald. 

The Site Committee’s recommendation to purchase had a few important caveats.  They wanted the land at a slightly better price than had been offered.  Also, the development company had contemplated selling Merion 100 acres, but now, after Macdonald’s review and recommendations, the Site Committee required specific parcels measuring nearly 120 acres.

"It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase."

Does this sound like the precise language of an existing routing plan?

Woudn't the report have said something like, "Mr. Macdonald's plan requires that we purchase 135 acres of the existing property..etc."?

David's White Paper makes the leap that at this juncture, that Macdonald and Whigham had drawn up a plan, but that conclusion is not supported by any existing evidence, nor does it seem to be supported by what seems to be a later 1910 timeline.

Perhaps if David shared the date of that report it would mean earlier, potentially more detailed involvement by M/W, but to date we only have what Tillinghast shared.

Mike,

Interesting comments.  From the letters, including the one you quote above, I am still missing what convinces you that Lloyd was acting early as part of HDC.  I still believe that the collaboration between the parties evolved more slowly, as DM supposes, rather than having been in place at the outset.  Those letters from Merion do say "among the properties considered".

Then, the most logical scenario is that Barker came in at HDC request while they were pitching MCC the idea of placing their golf course there and that HDC optimistically believed 100 acres was enough.  I base this SOLELY on my more recent dealings with developers. It is almost universal that they want to give less land for golf than is really needed.   And like any land deal MCC was wary and decided to ask their experts to review.  I agree Mac was a rock star, but can envision MCC really needing their own representation in this deal, rather than it being truly collaborative with HDC at that point.

Whats interesting is that while I previously stated that Mac and Whigham might have looked at Barkers routing and made tweaks via written report, like "reverse the routing" or "extend this hole" it may be possible that Barkers routing was something along the lines of 5800 yards and Mac said "Wait a second, a modern course needs 6200 yards and you need more land.  While I had previously surmised that the Barker routing set the land envelope and couldn't have been modified much, your post opens up my mind more to the idea that it was scrapped completely.

But, I do think the phrase "The Site Committee’s recommendation to purchase had a few important caveats.  They wanted the land at a slightly better price than had been offered.  Also, the development company had contemplated selling Merion 100 acres, but now, after Macdonald’s review and recommendations, the Site Committee required SPECIFIC parcels measuring nearly 120 acres.

How could they want specific parcels unless MacDonald told them via a routing plan which they had to be, considering he had advised them they needed a longer course?  Its possible, but of course, its possible that you are reading too much into the exact choice of words as well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

I understand what you are saying about the dates that CBM came in.  One thing I don't recall being addressed is whether Barker really did complete his routing for HDC in one day on June 10.  Is it possible that he visited the site and provided the routing several weeks later when his schedule allowed?  I ask because even with Bendelow and 18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon being the standard method of the day, certainly the more typical way to create a routing is to walk the property, and then go back to the office and design it and have it drafted up.  Any routing on the actual day of the 10th would be a back of the envelope affair, most likely, although he might have used HDC or Francis offices to draw something up.

If the actual routing came later, and given what was probably a busy CBM schedule as well, the months of delay between the two MIGHT be easily explained.

[DMoriarty]

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. 

To be fair, CBM had been given some credit in the past, but hasnt been given any in decades.  His proported role had dwindled to doing nothing but advice Wilson about his travel itinerary.   There is NO EVIDENCE that Wilson took two trips abroad to study.   There is evidence of one trip, 1912.  There is also evidence of where he learned about the great holes, from Macdonald.
_________________________________

There's way too much speculation and jumping to conclusions in most of your posts, Pat.  Get dirty and dive into the research and analyze the complete set of primary assets.  You are mailing it in from wherever you are after merely looking at bits and pieces.

Wayne, I think you may have addressed this post to the wrong poster.  Here is to what Pat was responding :

Unless Macdonald developed them in absentia, it HAD to be the committeee.

Mike Cirba, with usual zeal, declared unequivocally that "it HAD to be the committee."  Patrick told him that this was a terrible conclusion, which it is, and yet you lecture Patrick about jumping conclusions?   

Mike and TEPaul have continuously made a mockery of the factual record, jumping to whatever conclusions they think convenient.   All Patrick did above is try to pull Mike back toward reality. 
_____________________________________

TEPaul,      The Alan Wilson just does not say what you wish it said.    Nothing in your rambling posts has changed that.

[TEPaul]

"TePaul,
Thanks for making a private IM public, and the exagerrated misinterpretations. Class moves.  I think we had a thread on the ethics of that a year or so ago which perhaps you should re-read.  Frankly, I am surprised that I would ever have to type such words to describe you."

JeffB:

I'm sorry about that. With the way you apparently feel about a guy like Alan Wilson and maybe the people of Merion back then, or even what you feel about me and my take on all this including the points I make and the things I say on here, maybe you should just put all that on this disussion group and forget about the IM.

I did not hide the fact at all to you that your position on a guy like Alan Wilson (and perhaps Merion) is really disappointing to me but obviously you didn't want anyone to know that.

Again, I'm sorry about that, it won't happen again if you send me anymore IMs.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,      The Alan Wilson just does not say what you wish it said.    Nothing in your rambling posts has changed that."

 David Moriarty:

How is it that you know what I wish it said? That's pretty damn clever. What are you now, some clairvoyant too?

What do you think it said?

[DMoriarty]

I asked a few simple questions above regarding the supposed early Hugh I Wilson trip.   No one has answered.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

I've been editing my post a bit and I think we're pretty close in our thinking.

I base my contention of Lloyd's early involvement on the fact that the November Philadelphia News report from 11/1910 states that Connely and his partner were tipped off about Merion's intended use of the property (when they only owned 150 acres) 16 months prior, and then went out and bought up another 200.

If Lloyd hadn't provided assurances, or hadn't invested in the company enough to be a principle by that time, and didn't have his incredible power and influence, it would have been wildly speculative.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

I've been editing my post a bit and I think we're pretty close in our thinking.

I base my contention of Lloyd's early involvement on the fact that the November Philadelphia News report from 11/1910 states that Connely and his partner were tipped off about Merion's intended use of the property (when they only owned 150 acres) 16 months prior, and then went out and bought up another 200.

If Lloyd hadn't provided assurances, or hadn't invested in the company enough to be a principle by that time, it would have been wildly speculative.

"Wildly speculative" describes this entire line of thinking.

[Mike_Cirba]

In fact, Jeff...this is what I added to my post above while you were writing yours...I think we're arriving at the exact same place;

"Barker's original recommendation of 100 acres and his routing must have been deemed wholly inadequte "based on the requirements of the modern game", and I'm quite sure that CB Macdonald would have told them that they were probably shooting themselves in the foot and needed probably at least another 20% greater acreage, given that a lengthy "Championship" course at that time needed to be about 6200 yards.   It would have also been important to these men not to have wasted land on the golf course that could be sold at profit."

As far as the language of "SPECIFIC parcels" that you mentioned, I see where David wrote that, but I don't see where the Merion Committee report says that.   

[Mike_Cirba]

"Wildly speculative" describes this entire line of thinking.

David,

What is the date of the Committee meeting that describes Macdonald's visit and discusses his letter?   Why should that be a msytery to all us at this juncture??

Is it any wonder that there is "wild speculation" as you term it, when we have half a year unaccounted for in your report, as well as not a single mention of the activities or members of the MCC Golf Association (formed in 1909) until they purchased the property in late 1910?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

But Barker was brought in in June 1910 and that report is in November.  I think HDC had the original options in 1909 and it would have made sense to land plan the original parcel, and then take an option on the extra 200 acres and do some prelim work with a golf course.  Its possible that the idea of a country club near there parcel would have flown with or without MCC, but MCC was clearly the best option, if for no other reason that HDC would be working with friends and/or reputable people.

Besides, all I read was that MCC was known to be looking at new land all over the city, (again the phrase "among the parcels considered) I think starting in 1909, not that they had this land and were going to use it as a golf course.  Am I wrong in that somehow?

Just saw that I was quoting DM and not MCC circa 1910 or so.  That probably throws my contentions out as to CBM and puts me back to Barker routing, and everyone else tweaking to some degree, probably based on CBM's first site visit where he said they needed length.  Just think, if it were today, he would be saying "Hell no, you need more land.  You need at LEAST a 7600 yard course!"

TePaul,

Thanks for that consideration. As we both expressed in our IM's there aren't any hard feelings and we are entitled to our opinions.

BTW, my comments about possible inaccuracies in the Merion history are really not meant to disparage the Wilsons. I do think its a star sytem.  I do think a club history would have been unimportant enough in many minds back then to not provide as complete a history as is sought right now.  And lastly, after last years Medinah thread, where we discovered that Bendelow wasn't brought back because Harry Cooper shot a 63, as per club history and legend, but because the club discovered that the original founders were involved in a land scheme that benefited them more than the golf, lawsuits were filed, etc., that I do believe that many clubs did sanitize their history. 

While it might not have been to glorify Wilson in the case of MCC, there are certainly some similarities in the land deals between two clubs.  Given the less open ways of the times, it is simply not inconcievable that the club simply preferred to keep some things under wraps and it may have just been easier to say "we did it ourselves" and hope for the best!  If ture, it appears to have worked for 90 years!

[Mike_Cirba]

One more bit of "wild speculation", if Macdonald wasn't to the property until November or so, and then not again til April.  

David tells us that the Committee went to NGLA in January, and ostensibly to learn how to build the course that Macdonald designed for them.

But, if he hadn't designed it yet, given the late date of his visit, then I expect the next fallback position for those wishing for a Macdonald routing is that Macdonald designed it for them during that two day visit?   If that were the case, why wouldn't Hugh Wilson have just said that in his report of that visit?

Do we think they might have played any golf during those two days?   Perhaps 36??

[DMoriarty]

"Wildly speculative" describes this entire line of thinking.

David,

What is the date of the Committee meeting that describes Macdonald's visit and discusses his letter?   Why should that be a msytery to all us at this juncture??

Is it any wonder that there is "wild speculation" as you term it, when we have half a year unaccounted for in your report, as well as not a single mention of the activities or members of the MCC Golf Association (formed in 1909) until they purchased the property in late 1910?

Mike, it only a mystery of your making.  Again.

I have given you the dates before.  Barker's letter was dated June 10, 1910.  The site committee's letter was dated July 1, 1910.   The Board's report to the membership was mid-November 1910.     

What is your proof that the MCC Golf Association began in 1909?   It may have been, but what is your proof of this?   Surely you are not relying purely on Tolhurst again, are you?

Do you have any idea what the MCC Golf Association was?    No, I guess you don't . . .

Wasn't R.E Griscom on the MCC Golf Association with Hugh and Alan Wilson and Robert Lesley, (the committee whose mission was solely charged with finding a solution to the challenges of the new ball), and then subsequently on Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee?   Didn't the MCC Golf Association actually buy the property?

 Was it a committee?  Charged solely with finding a solution to the challenges of the new ball?  With Alan and Hugh Wilson? 

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.   But then I am sure you somehow pin that on me.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

So, consistent with the Tillinghast report of Macdonald's first "recent" visit that he reported in December 1910, the Boards report to the membership was in mid November of 1910, recommending purchase and citing Macdonald's concurrence?   

Is there any other evidence that Macdonald came prior?

Jeff,

I think that if the circumstances were the the great C.B. Macdonald had actually designed their course, the members of Merion would have SHOUTED it from the rafters, espcially considering the real estate sales component that David uncovered.

[DMoriarty]

David,

So, consistent with the Tillinghast report of Macdonald's first visit that he reported in December 1910, the Boards report to the membership was in mid November of 1910, recommending purchase and citing Macdonald's concurrence?   

Is there any other evidence that Macdonald came prior?

Mike,  I addressed all of this yesterday.  Macdonald likely came between June 10 and July 1, 1910.  Unless Macdonald made another trip, then Tillinghast's information came from someone who received the Board's communication to the membership in November.   

Now Mike, how about you answer some of my questions?