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

[Andy Hughes]

there is also no chance in Hades that Lesley would have appointed Wilson if he didn't think he knew his Alps from his As..er...Redan at this point, because Lesley certainly had that broad, international golf experience as did other members of the committee like Griscom, and they weren't going to hand over their golfing futures and Merion's reputation to someone as vapid and inexperienced as Moriarty tries to portray him.

Mike, this has stuck in my craw more than anything. You mentioned once that Gates et al had such wealth and power they could have bought a new boat and brought over Colt if they wished.  Why didn't they--why did they 'hand over their golfing futures and Merion's reputation' to someone who it must be admitted at the time could not have been seen as the equal of a Colt or even a Tille. 
Much is made of the fact that as a top college golfer Wilson 'must' have seen Myopia and GCGC--why then would they have not gone with Leeds or Emmet or Travis rather than someone who had only seen their work?  This is not meant as an insult to Wilson in any way, but in their business lives if Gates and the rest wanted a railroad built would they have used someone who had done it well already, or someone who had merely ridden on the nicest railroads?

[Mike_Cirba]

Andy,

That's a great question, and I wish I had an easy answer.   I can only speculate, but let's remember that at this time there were very few practicing "architects" in the US.   Tillinghast had just started Shawnee...Macdonald worked for many years at NGLA...Emmett didn't have much under his belt yet....Travis was mostly a competitive golfer.

In fact, at the time, the members of Merion mostly thought about guys like Macdonald, Travis, Tilly, as fellow competitive golfers first and the whole idea of a golf course architect was almost a brand new concept.

Of the "pros" who had come over from Great Britain, like Willie Dunn, Mungo Park, and Tom Bendelow, et.al., they were providing generally serviceable courses, but nothing of greatness.

We also know that Merion wanted to build a championship course, and I sense that they wanted it to be a "homegrown" effort, probably so that they could exert control over the final product to a degree.

But, I also think that Lesley and the men in charge of Merion saw something in Hugh Wilson...call it leadership, call it perserverance, call it his quick intelligence and almost obsessive nature when confronted with a problem.   

Towards the end of 1914, Max Behr wrote, "We have said there are good green comittes.   But we make the admission mainly for sake of argument.  By far the best work done in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators.   Witness Mr. Herbert Leeds, at Myopia, Mr. C.B Macdonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club.   These dictators, however, have not been averse to taking advice.   In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting.   They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before."

A report I have about Cobb's Creek indicated that Wilson spent six months on the layout.   He didn't have to do that..it was in his nature.

[Andy Hughes]

Mike, that seems a reasonable response and I suspect there is likely some truth in there.  But does it sit well with you? It doesn't with me--it just doesn't make sense to me.  Someone like Travis, while clearly a top player, had already finished Ekwanok and remodelled Garden City (I believe?) and was fairly active in GCA. There is no way Merion's founders would have been unaware of who he was, and no reason to think he wouldn't have taken on Merion, is there?  And that doesn't even consider Europeans.

I can't help but feel that maybe there was more to Wilson then we are aware before Merion even began. Or perhaps Gates et al were not particularly savvy when it came to golf or the creation of an outstanding course (or maybe they were incredibly savvy as look how well it turned out!). Perhaps there are many more possibilities.  But the thought that a group of highly successful guys handing over something so important to a complete novice when there were others with good experience and success in the field just defies logic to me.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I am half way through your Missing Faces piece. Aftere reading for the ninth or tenth time your hot smoking gun the famous "what can be done with the land" letter I have to stop and ask you, before I waste any more time on this: does it get any better than this? Do you ever provide any real evidence that MacDonald and Whigham actually designed Merion? I mean all I have read half way through this is some very laughable conjecture on your part. Should I continue?

Mr. Anderson:

Continue with what?   My Essay?  Or your critique?

As for my essay, I would stop reading.  I cannot imagine that you'd learn much from the second half. 

But as to your criticisms, by all means continue if you'd like.  You've not addressed much of anything in my essay so far, so I doubt you need to read the second half before you continue with you criticism.

I am curious though, what essay are you reading?  I don't recall claiming a "smoking gun," nor do I recall claiming that Macdonald designed Merion.  Perhaps you read another essay all together. 

You also claim that my essay offers no evidence to support my inferences or conclusions, but if you are actually referring to the inferences and conclusions in my essay as opposed to ones you made up, then I need some clarification.   

What are you talking about?  I offer the following outline of the topics as a point of reference, so you will not be overburden you and your response:

1. The Legendary Merion East: A World Class Course Rooted in a Masterly Routing
2. The Legendary Hugh Wilson
3. Merion’s Creation Story
4. Golfing on Land Leased and Borrowed, Merion Fails in its Efforts to -Purchase Current Site
5. Developers Speculate on Merion’s Golfing Future
6. H.H. Barker Plans a Golf Course
7. H.G. Lloyd Offers Merion’s Members A Chance to Share the -Potential Profits
8. Merion’s Site Committee Brings in Macdonald and Whigham
9. Merion Purchased the Land they Needed for their Golf Course.
10. Haverford Development Company Acquires 21 Acre “Dallas Estate”
11. Merion Secures 117 Acres from Haverford Development Company
12. Merion’s Unsecured Three Acres
13. Richard Francis Fixes the Routing Plan
14. Merion Completes Its Purchase
15. Experts at Work Preparing Plans for the Course
16. The Construction Committee Gets off to a “Good Start” at N.G.L.A.
17. Wilson did not Travel Overseas to Study Until After He Had Built and Seeded Merion East
20. Macdonald and Whigham Return to Merion to Further Assist with the Layout
21. Wilson and His Committee Construct the Golf Course
22. Wilson Travels Abroad to Get Ideas for the Course
23. Reviews Praise New Course, Note Overseas Design Influence
24. The Next Step:  Analyzing the Golf Course.

The first three (3)sections of my essay (1-3) were somewhat introductory, covering the greatness of Merion East and particularly its rouing, briefly summarizing of the many contributions that Hugh I. Wilson made to golf and Merion, tracing largely accepted version of Merion's history during this time period, and summarizing the major points at which I offer an alternative historical account.

The next twenty (20) sections of my essay (4-23) provide a historical analysis of certain aspects of the early origins of Merion East.  While any historical analysis necessarily builds on existing historical accounts, every one of these twenty (20) sections also offers facts and analysis that have never before been disseminated, at least not publicly.

[/b]The last section of my essay[/b] (24) provides the only first-hand statement as to the degree of early Macdonald's involvement, other than Hugh Wilson's long misunderstood description of his (and his Committee's) visit to NGLA discussed mostly in sections 16-17 and 22.)    This section also offers a brief preview if the next step in my analysis. 

Since I posted my essay, two new facts have come to light.  The first was interesting but has little or no bearing on my essay.   The second (CBM's letter) impacts my understanding of what was in the letter that the site Committee had described as having encompassed M&W's views as to what could be done with the property.

While I am still considering the impact of this letter, so far I have determined that the CBM letter has almost nothing to do with the vast majority the new material and analysis presented in my essay.    I am reconsidering a few of my inferences and conclusoins, but so far most remain very much intact, and some are even stronger than ever. 

So, Mr. Anderson, I am left wonder what you are talking about?  Did you even bother to read the first half?   

Thanks in advance for your carefully considered response.

[henrye]

I don't believe that Merion necessarily has anything they feel they should hide from anyone but certainly numerous members of Merion have tried to follow this essay by Moriarty and the discussion of it on here. I feel that they generally believe it would be quite interesting and even benefical if it could be proven that Macdonald had more to do with their architecture than they heretofore realized. However, having said that, not a single Merion member I know and have spoken with about this is in the slightest bit impressed by the technique and logic that Moriarty has used in his essay, and particularly on these threads on his essay, to try to conclude or prove or even explain what he concluded in his essay, and I competely share that feeling and have said so many times on this subject on here.

TEPaul,

I am hopeful by your comment that some members of the club have an interest in all this.  Perhaps someone can put this whole thing to rest if Merion has some more documents, which might prove enlightening on the subject.  

Bradley:

I even expect some on here to accuse a club like Merion or some of it members of being defensive or trying to hide something---eg just another extension and rerunning of this ridiculous "Philadelphia Syndrome" crap we've heard on here before. That attitude does not and should not promote cooperation, in my opinion. It can only stifle it.

I didn't accuse Merion of hiding anything, but apologize if anyone thought I did.  My concern was how it appeared to me that Wayne felt the matter to be closed when I think most still have some outstanding questions - including yourself and apparently some of the membership.

I am thrilled that Merion Cricket Club allowed me access to their files.  It was a very unusual opportunity that will not be made available to others.......I hope that there isn't a rush for researchers to try and gain access to these private records of private clubs.  It is of course a very sensitive matter to make such club documents available to the public and we should not expect that these materials are disseminated.  The members of this site should respect the private nature of club documents and not expect to have access to them.  
  

Wayne, I don't know you and have no axe to grind in this equation, but why take the position that no one should seek access to Merion's files in an attempt to better understand these uncertainties.  Not sure why they would be so against an interested researcher viewing their documents?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, 

I read your argument about how, at the relevant time, "constructing a golf course" meant designing it as well.   

-So why don't you give M&W the benefit of that generous reading when Merion's site Committee noted M&W's expertise in constructing NGLA?

-Why don't you give give M&W the benefit of that generous reading when you claim that Hugh Wilson went to NGLA to learn how to construct Merion?   

Once again, your facts and interpretations (even your most tenuous ones) are only allowed to cut one way. 

____________________

As for your most recent post above,  can you explain why it is that you feel compelled to draw unsupported inference after unsupported inference in your posts?

. . .  let's remember that at this time there were very few practicing "architects" in the US.   Tillinghast had just started Shawnee...Macdonald worked for many years at NGLA...Emmett didn't have much under his belt yet....Travis was mostly a competitive golfer.

Hardly any golf course designers in 1910?    What is your support for this statement?   And what exactly do you mean by "very few?"   You yourself mention five  (misrepresenting their qualifications.)  This barely scratches the surface. 

In fact, at the time, the members of Merion mostly thought about guys like Macdonald, Travis, Tilly, as fellow competitive golfers first and the whole idea of a golf course architect was almost a brand new concept.

In fact?   It not only unsupported and unsupportable, it is also very likely false, at least if we consider those members who were educated about golf courses and design.   Remember, you have also claimed as fact (but without support) that all of the key members of Merion were undoubtedly well-schooled in hole types, and the underlying prinicples of the great holes.

Of the "pros" who had come over from Great Britain, like Willie Dunn, Mungo Park, and Tom Bendelow, et.al., they were providing generally serviceable courses, but nothing of greatness.

  Not only is this unsupported, it also cuts against your argument.

We also know that Merion wanted to build a championship course, and I sense that they wanted it to be a "homegrown" effort, probably so that they could exert control over the final product to a degree.

Again, not only entirely unsupported, but also contradicted by Merion's willingness to bring in M&W, send the Committee to M&W, and to bring M&W back.

But, I also think that Lesley and the men in charge of Merion saw something in Hugh Wilson...call it leadership, call it perserverance, call it his quick intelligence and almost obsessive nature when confronted with a problem.   

Again, unsupported.   

As for the Behr quote, he noted that   "They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before." (your bolds)   Are you suggesting that Max Behr did not know the difference between course construction and course design at this time?

A report I have about Cobb's Creek indicated that Wilson spent six months on the layout.   He didn't have to do that..it was in his nature.

He took six months to lay out Cobb's Creek?   How long did it he take at Merion?   Surely not six months for the layout?   Why after he had learned so much, did it take him longer at Cobb's creek?

_______________

[Lou_Duran]

Shivas,

Thanks for the lesson on hearsay.  Too bad that Tilly or whoever wrote the article stating that he saw the plans is not available to clear up whose they were and whether the original Merion course was built with some fidelity to them.

BTW, I only got a "B" in Business Law, so perhaps my understanding of the following (which you provided) is erroneous as well:

"(16) Statements in ancient documents. Statements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established."

Doesn't this mean that the subject article would be admissible and considered somewhat authoritative?

BTW2, if we are to abide by the rules of evidence on this site, wouldn't much of "the thoughtful discussion" be OB?  Maybe we can have a special BS emoticon designed.

David Moriarty,

The comments and questions you posed to me are in quotes.  My replies follow each.

"You have misstated the evidence offered to support my theory about the timing of Wilson's study trip."

It was not my intention to misstate the evidence.  Wasn't your principal argument that H. Wilson did not make a trip to the UK prior to 1912 based on his proper name not being found on ship manifests?   

"Taking into consideration the actual evidence, including the article Tom MacWood found, are you suggesting that my theories about the timing of the Wilson Study Trip are flawed or unsupported?"

Not necessarily.  My objection was to Shivas's assertion that somehow those theories were proof of a "hoax" (that Wilson had traveled to the UK prior to designing Merion).

"If so, based on what?   What is your standard of proof?"

As others have noted, it is very difficult to prove a negative.  One possible way to demonstrate that Wilson had not made such a lengthy trip would be to cite contemporary accounts that he was engaged in other activities which would have precluded it.  Another way to cast doubt is the repudiation of the historical record by credible sources, preferably made during or close to that time.  A third possibility is to demonstrate that Wilson and his peers had a propensity for mendacity, hidden agendas, and underhanded dealings that would render much of what they said suspect.

Based on the evidence that I have seen thus far, my understanding of how real estate and golf course development have been practiced, and some familiarity with historicity, nothing close to a reasonable standard of proof has been met.  Perhaps you can tell me how to access the article Tom MacWood found.  I do look forward to the conclusion of your interesting two-part article.

[DMoriarty]

Wayne, I don't know you and have no axe to grind in this equation, but why take the position that no one should seek access to Merion's files in an attempt to better understand these uncertainties.  Not sure why they would be so against an interested researcher viewing their documents?

Henry E,

I have the same question and many others do as well.   My hope is that this is a misunderstanding.   Surely Wayne must only mean that he is concerned with: 1) the dissemination of copies of their original documents; 2) with researchers continuously bothering them, and 3) perhaps with the dissemination of certain types of sensitive information that is not at all related to the history of the great Merion East.

Provided that those concerns could be addressed (and I believe they could be) I cannot imagine that Wayne would try to keep the substantive content of the relevant MCC documents hidden from serious researchers who are genuinely interested in understanding the origins of the course.   

Why would he?   He has always insisted that he and Merion are not hiding anything, and that all the relevant information has been made available for anyone to see.  Why should that change now that Wayne has reviewed the MCC documents? 

Plus, as some of you know, Wayne and I have been sharing information and source material off-board for a while now, and I am sure he would ask for and receive my source material but then refuse to allow me access to the source material he recently reviewed. 

Additionally, keeping the documents from serious researchers would cut directly against the goals and policies stated in Wayne's own description of Merion's new Archives.   Here is some of what Wayne wrote about the new Archive (my bolds added):

Merion Golf Club has a long and rich history.  Beginning in the middle 1870s, Edward Sayers began amassing a collection of scrapbooks documenting the earliest days of the Merion Cricket Club (founded in 1865).  Later, George Scudder collected a wealth of material that became the critical mass in establishing the Archives at Merion Golf Club.  Upon George Scudder's death, his family donated funds to be used in the creation of a formal archives.  John Capers III urged the Board of Governors to appoint an Archives Committee and provide an operating budget.  John was named chairman of the committee.  Under his leadership, we have successfully reached out to the membership and the golf community at large to seek original or facsimile copies of a wide range of archival materials including, photographs (~2000, all of which are being digitized), architectural drawings (1916, 1924,1930 and 1934, all of which are digitized), films, videos, books, tournament memorabilia, clubs, balls, trophies, newspaper articles (~1000, all of which are digitized), magazines, clothing, and a host of other items. 

In combining the Archives with our library, the club now has two rooms in our small clubhouse dedicated to the history of golf in general and of Merion in particular.  This research facility is open to the public under certain guidelines.  It is meant to allow interested parties access to an important collection of materials.  Merion understands its place in the history of American golf and has a strong sense of responsibility to the sport.  Thus the courses are made available to local and national tournaments and why the club feels a need to share the information housed in their historic clubhouse (an 1824 farmhouse and barn).

We recently had an Archives Day at the club to celebrate the formal opening of the facility.  It was very well attended with a steady stream of visitors from 11am until 8pm.  We're doing it again during the summer to coincide with some tournaments at the club.  The response was fantastic and led to additional items donated to the club.  I urge all clubs to put together a committee responsible for collecting, preserving and storing archival materials.  As many of you know, the USGA formed a golf architecture archive and research center.  The history of golf's playing fields is very important and I hope all of you get behind efforts at your clubs, both public and private to preserve its history.

Given Wayne's words in the past, his recent dealings with me, and his statements in the post above, I think it too soon to assume that Wayne and Merion really planning to screen this information from serious researchers.  Such would cut directly against the interests everyone who was concerned with figuring out what really happened, against the interests of Golf, and would surely be inconsistent with the policy and goals stated in the above description of the Merion Archives.

That being said, I hope Wayne will clarify the issue soon so that others do not begin speculating about his motives, or about what else might be in the records.

[TEPaul]

"Given Wayne's words in the past, his recent dealings with me, and his statements in the post above, I think it too soon to assume that Wayne and Merion really (are sic) planning to screen this information from serious researchers.  Such would cut directly against the interests everyone who was concerned with figuring out what really happened, against the interests of Golf, and would surely be inconsistent with the policy and goals stated in the above description of the Merion Archives.

That being said, I hope Wayne will clarify the issue soon so that others do not begin speculating about his motives, or about what else might be in the records."


David Moriarty:

You think it's too soon to assume that Wayne Morrison and Merion really are planning to screen 'this' information from serious researchers, do you??

Let me ask you something. When DO YOU think it's TIME to assume that Wayne Morrison and Merion are planning to screen information from people such as yourself, assuming you included yourself in what you describe as 'serious researchers'?

 

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

By asking Mike, "Why don't you give give M&W the benefit of that generous reading when you claim that Hugh Wilson went to NGLA to learn how to construct Merion?" in reference to his belief that the words "construct" and "constructing" are akin to designing and inclusive of it (something that I believe as well) simply proves it to be true.

If Wilson went to see M&W to learn HOW to "construct" they certainly weren't being asked by him to go back and DO IT. No they were being asked for advice only. Not to design or build, just recommendations that might be either accepted or ignored...   

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said to Bradley Anderson today:

“…..I don't recall claiming a "smoking gun," nor do I recall claiming that Macdonald designed Merion….”


David Moriarty said this in his essay “The Missing Faces of Merion.”

"By the time of the NGLA trip:
1.  Merion already had a routing plan.  Francis had been putting the finishing touches on the layout plan months before, when he resolved the routing issue."




Perhaps, David Moriarty did not say in his essay Macdonald "designed" Merion East but the above quote from his essay does say that a routing plan was in place before Wilson (and his committee) traveled to NGLA (the NGLA trip documented in both of the Wilson brothers reports). The above quotation from David Moriarty in his essay suggests that Macdonald offered MCC that routing in 1910 and that it was "tweaked" by Francis and Lloyd at some point before Nov. 15, 1910 and by January, 1911 when Wilson's "Construction Committee" was appointed Merion (MCC) had a routing plan in hand for the Wilson construction committee to build the course to!

 David Moriarty, do you now still stand by the above---eg that Macdonald (Whigam) offered MCC a routing plan in 1910 and that Francis and Lloyd put the finishing touches on it, or would you, at this time, like to begin to back away from that claim that you made in your essay?

If you do, perhaps we could all get on the same page that the reports of Hugh and Alan Wilson that H. Wilson's committee created Merion East with some help and advice from Macdonald and Whigam are correct. This is the story of the history of the first phase of Merion East that the club has always subscribed to.

[TEPaul]

henrye said:

"Wayne, I don't know you and have no axe to grind in this equation, but why take the position that no one should seek access to Merion's files in an attempt to better understand these uncertainties.  Not sure why they would be so against an interested researcher viewing their documents?"


David Moriarty:


"Henry E,
I have the same question and many others do as well.   My hope is that this is a misunderstanding.   Surely Wayne must only mean that he is concerned with: 1) the dissemination of copies of their original documents; 2) with researchers continuously bothering them, and 3) perhaps with the dissemination of certain types of sensitive information that is not at all related to the history of the great Merion East.

Provided that those concerns could be addressed (and I believe they could be) I cannot imagine that Wayne would try to keep the substantive content of the relevant MCC documents hidden from serious researchers who are genuinely interested in understanding the origins of the course.   

Why would he?   He has always insisted that he and Merion are not hiding anything, and that all the relevant information has been made available for anyone to see.  Why should that change now that Wayne has reviewed the MCC documents?"


David Moriarty:

For some reason you seem to assume that ALL clubs like Merion G.C. and MCC should open their doors to all people you term serious researchers. Again, I assume you think of yourself as a serious researcher.

So, let me ask you something. Have you EVER in all the time you've spent thinking about Merion (and Macdonald's roll in the initial creation) and researching the subject and writing on the subject THOUGHT to pick up the phone and call either club to ask them if they would mind making their archives available to you?

And if you call yourself a serious researcher and you never have even bothered to pick up the phone and call either club to ask them if they'd consider letting you research their archives, then one really does need to ask after that recent post of yours above and after all this time, WHY in the world you haven't done that yet???      

[Bradley Anderson]

David,

I finished reading your essay and I did not come away from it thinking that you made a case for Merion to rewrite it's history and heritage.

In my opinion, nothing you have written threatens the legends surrounding Merion.

[TEPaul]

There is another major player who just entered the research fray and context on the creation of Merion East and he is pretty amazing on the finance structure side of the whole golf course move and creation.

His name is T. (Thomas) DeWitt Cuyler, and, in my opinion, he's pretty amazing, probably exactly of the financial ilk of even Horatio Gates Lloyd, although he appears to be a lawyer supreme too. It looks like they were working hand-in-hand on the move and the financial structure side of it as 1910 would down to a close and everything was put in place with HDC and MCC. Cuyler also has something very interesting to say about why title to the HDC Johnson Farm land should be put in Lloyd's name for a transfer to MCC (or the corporate structure they both set up to buy the land and lease it to MCC). It mostly had to do with the fact that a golf course "plan" (routing) was not in place in 1910 (Moriarty's premise and conclusion)and there needed to be some easy ability (through Lloyd) to move some of the boundaries lines around between the golf course plan and the HDC residential development plan to its west.

Look him up. He was probably the most powerful man in America when it came to the American railroads!!

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

If you knew that "constructed" was used alternatively and interchangeably with "designed" or "planned" or "built" at that time, then why does your White Paper argue that we should draw some special distinction from the terminology of the name "Construction Committee", inferring that it obviously meant simply building to someone else's plans?

Speaking of inferences, I'd like for you to show me very specifically how you believe that I "feel compelled to draw unsupported inference after unsupported inference in your (my) posts?"


Could you name for me how many great, championship courses existed in America by 1910, and the slew of professional architects responsible for them?   

How many great courses had Macdonald designed at that time? 

How about Travis?  Tillinghast?  Donald Ross?  Anyone??   

In 1910, were any of these men better known for their architecture or for their competitive standing?

How about the first British Invasion architects/professionals like Mungo Park, or Willie Dunn, or any of their ilk?   What great American courses did they design?

How about Tom Bendelow?   Alex Findlay?   Were they building great championship courses prior to 1910 or were they just trying to popularize the game at that time with "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon"? 

If I'm wrong, this shouldn't be a difficult exercise for you to quantitatively prove.

Let's see a list, and let's see the architects who built great American courses at the time that Merion was deciding on a course of action in 1910.

How about just five great American courses in 1910, and their architects?

Thanks.

[Andy Hughes]

Mike, I realize you addressed David but the reality is that while there were not many 'great' courses here there certainly were some good ones and there were folks on the other side of the Atlantic producing the same.  So why select a newbie when there were successful practitioners available?

Me? I'd of gone with Travis. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike, I realize you addressed David but the reality is that while there were not many 'great' courses here there certainly were some good ones and there were folks on the other side of the Atlantic producing the same.  So why select a newbie when there were successful practitioners available?

Me? I'd of gone with Travis. 

Andy,

Prior to 1910, Walter Travis wasn't really a practicing architect.

He had done work with John Duncan Dunn in 1899 at Ekwanok.

He had built a nine-hole course for a vacation resort in the Poconos in 1904 that is NLE, unfortunately.

He also built Flushing Golf Club in New York (also NLE) in 1902, and suggested revisions to bunkering and greens at Dev Emmett's Island GC (Garden City), but my understanding is that most of that work was actually done after he semi-retired from competitive golf in 1916.

Almost no one knew him as anything but a tournament golfer and Amateur Champion in 1910.   

Also, I can't overstate how badly the golfers of Merion in particular and Philadelphia in general felt that they needed a "championship" course at the time, and how they felt the lack of one was probably the single most important reason that Philly golfers were performing poorly in regional and national tournaments.   This philosophy that was driven by a sense of competitive need really was what spawed the "Philadelphia School" of architecture, and which directly drove the creation of Merion, Pine Valley, and Cobb's Creek.

[henrye]

David Moriarty:

.........So, let me ask you something. Have you EVER in all the time you've spent thinking about Merion (and Macdonald's roll in the initial creation) and researching the subject and writing on the subject THOUGHT to pick up the phone and call either club to ask them if they would mind making their archives available to you?

TEPaul,

It's a legitimate question because, even if David felt his request would be denied, he should have probably asked.

Wayne,

If you are adamant that no one impose a request upon Merion to research their archives, what do you propose?  Do you feel that the current state of uncertainty is the preferred outcome?

[TEPaul]

henrye:

I sure can't speak for David Moriaty about whether he ever called either of those clubs and asked for access to their archives. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, I asked that as a legitimate question. But if he did and they turned him down maybe that explains something about his attitude today about them.

But as I told someone today, the archives and affairs of MCC and Merion G.C. are not exactly something like the Warren Commission that would eventually fall under the "Freedom of Information Act". That's a governmental issue and it's public. MCC and Merion G.C. are private entities and they in no way fall under the same demands or expectations.

The fact that some on here accuse them of trying to hide something just because they don't allow any old Joe Smoe into their archives because he thinks he's some serious researcher is what really disturbs me.

[TEPaul]

"Wayne,
If you are adamant that no one impose a request upon Merion to research their archives, what do you propose?  Do you feel that the current state of uncertainty is the preferred outcome?"

henrye:

Wayne's a busy guy and he has other things to do than spending time on this website answering questions by Moriarty and being challenged by him about why he doesn't buy some conclusion none of us thought anything of in the first place for all kinds of good reasons.

What I would propose for people who are interested in Merion's history is to just ask somebody like Wayne about it on here, and maybe think a bit more about accepting what he says rather than challenging everything he says. I doubt there's anyone in the world who knows what he does about the history of Merion's architecture. He's spent about ten years on it. Or ask me--I've been around him most of that time and most of the way.

The problem on here with people like MacWood and Moriarty is they don't seem to want to ask us offline for information on a club like Merion. They seem to want to make it look like they found something out (from old newspaper articles or whatever) and then challenge us with it.

MacWood started that seminal thread on this subject ("Re: Macdonald and Merion") over five years ago because he found two old newspaper articles that mentioned Macdonald and Merion and he thought he discovered something unknown and I guess he felt like making a name for himself with it and then he started another thread to challenge "legends" and the "status quo!   He should have just called or emailed us and we would've told him those same newspaper articles had been in Merion's archives probably since the day after they were written, and that they were embodied in Merion's history book. But apparently he didn't know that because he never read the club's history book nor has he ever even been here.

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul, 

First, while you obviously consider yourself Merion's spokesperson, I do not.  So you might as well quit wasting our time trying to engage me regarding anything about their policies, decisions, or opinions.

Second, your constant accusations that I have disrespected Merion or that I have a chip on my shoulder about Merion are absolutely wrong.   I have the utmost respect for Merion, and have treated and will continue to treat them with the respect.   

As for you, I try to remain civil for the sake of the website, but you certainly do not deserve my respect.  But, again, while you may not know it, I know that you are not Merion, and so I do not judge them based on your rude and obnoxious behavior.

Third, your suggestion that I should have turned to you offline for information about Merion is an absolute joke.  Again, you are not Merion.   Plus, dealing with you offline is much more of a hindrance than a help.   You are even more rude and offensive offline than on, and all you have ever tried to to is manipulate and suppress my work and the work of others.
 
_____________________

Mike Cirba. 

I never came up with the novel definition of "construction."  You did.   Are you going to apply your new definition uniformly, or only when it suits you?

And please quit asking me to do your research for you.  You have changed your point from there wasn't really a separate conception of course design at the time to there were not many great courses yet.   Either way, it is yours to support, and you haven't.

If Merion and Philadelphia were so intent on having a championship course, then don't you think they might have followed up with CBM and HJW?   Just maybe?   After all, NGLA was considered far and above the best course in America,  even comparable to the great courses abroad. (See Darwin's and Horace Hutchinson's reviews of NGLA.)    Surely you agree that while CBM's playing had not been news for years, his creation of NGLA was the talk of two continents.
____________________

[Rich Goodale]

Since we have yet another linguistic dispute......

Both of my main dictionaries (1907 and 1971) use the verb "devise" to define "construct."  As a definition of "devise" is "design," I think that it is certainly possible that Merion meant "design/build" (to use modern nomenclature) when they created the "Construction" committee.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul, 

First, while you obviously consider yourself Merion's spokesperson, I do not.  So you might as well quit wasting our time trying to engage me regarding anything about their policies, decisions, or opinions.

Second, your constant accusations that I have disrespected Merion or that I have a chip on my shoulder about Merion are absolutely wrong.   I have the utmost respect for Merion, and have treated and will continue to treat them with the respect.   

As for you, I try to remain civil for the sake of the website, but you certainly do not deserve my respect.  But, again, while you may not know it, I know that you are not Merion, and so I do not judge them based on your rude and obnoxious behavior.

Third, your suggestion that I should have turned to you offline for information about Merion is an absolute joke.  Again, you are not Merion.   Plus, dealing with you offline is much more of a hindrance than a help.   You are even more rude and offensive offline than on, and all you have ever tried to to is manipulate and suppress my work and the work of others."


David Moriarty:

I suggest you read what you just said to me above, and then reread it and consider it carefully. Take a day to consider it and then get back to me publicly on this thread by the end of tomorrow with a complete apology. If you care about and respect Merion, as you just said you do, that's what you'll need to do. You don't know much about this town or Merion but I do. I've tried to reach out and deal with you and you know that. But if you write things like you just did above I will personally shut you down with anything and everythng to do with Merion---you can count on it.

[TEPaul]

Matter of fact, Moriarty, consider yourself shut down. You will get nothing more out of Philadelphia with that kind of post! You can belay that email to Ran Morrissett you probably just got in which I just offered to cooperate with you and Tom MacWood. It's more appropriate with what you just said if we just take our time and hopefully get MCC's permission with direct source material and just disprove your essay and make the fool out of you that's deserving of your kind of crap assumptions, conclusion and essay! Honestly, I think you've single-handedly destroyed the credibility of this nearly ten year old website to such an extent a prudent person wouldn't want to be part of it anymore. I can think of a few good ones who've left since you came back. I can't believe it was me who actually asked you to return.   

[DMoriarty]

I suggest you read what you just said to me above, and then reread it and consider it carefully. Take a day to consider it and then get back to me publicly on this thread by the end of tomorrow with a complete apology. If you care about and respect Merion, as you just said you do, that's what you'll need to do. You don't know much about this town or Merion but I do. I've tried to reach out and deal with you and you know that. But if you write things like you just did above I will personally shut you down with anything and everythng to do with Merion---you can count on it.

Matter of fact, Moriarty, consider yourself shut down. You will get nothing more out of Philadelphia with that kind of post! You can belay that email to Ran Morrissett you probably just got in which I just offered to cooperate with you and Tom MacWood. It's more appropriate with what you just said if we just take our time and hopefully get MCC's permission with direct source material and just disprove your essay and make the fool out of you that's deserving of your kind of crap assumptions, conclusion and essay! Honestly, I think you've single-handedly destroyed the credibility of this nearly ten year old website to such an extent a prudent person wouldn't want to be part of it anymore. I can think of a few good ones who've left since you came back. I can't believe it was me who actually asked you to return.   

TEPaul, Again, I remind you that you are not Merion.  My respect for Merion has nothing to do with you.   I will not kowtow to you to gain favor at Merion or anywhere else.