[Patrick_Mucci]

One other contention makes little to no sense, and that's the idea that Macdonald somehow created his template holes at Merion in a routing, but then Wilson waited to see how it played before bunkering it, sometime after it opened in 1912.

Hogwash.   Complete and utter nonsense, and all of you guys are smarter than to buy into that, including David.

Think about it.  

Macdonald was high on Merion and told friends that "it would be one of the best inland courses...etc.", and that "seven holes would be as good as any in the country..etc.", ALL Before a shovelful of dirt was turned.

Maybe that's because MacDonald had a part in the routing and hole design.

So far we've established the existance of a Redan, Alps and Eden hole.
Maybe there's more.[/color] 

Was that because he had created the routing and was so confident in it?  

No, it was because the club was working with Macdonald, and leveraging his knowledge of the great holes.   We've seen in contemporaneous news articles how Macdonald was trying to sell the concept of copying the "ideal" holes from overseas into courses in the states.   I'm quite sure from what he wrote, as well as from his subsequent designs that he viewed it as almost a franchise...and his legacy.  

Evidently some at Merion agreed with him.
They created an Alps, Redan and an Eden hole that we know of.[/color]

After NGLA, the first course to come along wanting to do something similar was Merion.   They dearly wanted a "championship course", and were going to try and leverage Macdonald's expertise.   I'm sure he thought that they would just build the standard templates, much as he had done, and following his vision and example.

How can YOU be so sure ?
You don't know that.

Wayno, why aren't you lacing into MPC for making wild, irresponsible statements ? [/color]

Somehow, things went awry.

While we don't know the story, (STOP THERE)[/color] the fact that the course started under construction in April 1911, and didn't open until Sept 1912...and then with holes without bunkers and only as a "rough draft" indicates clearly that they didn't follow the Macdonald model.

How do you know that.
Didn't the Alps hole have bunkers
And, I'd imagine that the Eden had bunkers[/color]

Why do I say that?

If you think about it, the entire idea of template holes that Macdonald and Raynor regularly produced and the idea of waiting to place bunkers until the course had been played are entirely incongruous.[/b][/color=green]

Not to novices who had no prior experience designing and building golf courses [/b][/color]

We could go to George Bahto's hole descriptions, but the fact is that virtually every single template hole is a template hole because of the PREDICTIVE NATURE OF THE BUNKERING that created the hole's strategy, or the hole's "problems".

On a redan hole, a diagonal green is approached over a large fronting bunker that is on the same angle as the green.

On an eden hole, there is a dangerous front bunker, and an equally dangerous leftside bunker for those trying to avoid the first.

On a bottle hole, a string of bunkers intersects the fairway at a diagonal.

On an alps hole, a large crossing bunker lies directly in front of the green.

On a road hole, a huge bunker cut into the internals of the green forces play around it, where one can get tripped up by hedging their bets too far away and finding even greater trouble on the road (often replaced by Macdonald with a bunker) behind.

On a short hole, a par three green is virtually encircle by a sea of sand.   Skeptics might point out today's 13th as an example, but that hole wasn't built until 1924!

On a Biarritz, long, thin bunkers flank both sides of the green of a long par three.   Again, one might consider stretching the definition to include the 17th at Merion, but Hugh Wilson and William Flynn totally rebuilt that green and redid the bunkering configuration in 1916.

The Long hole was something similar to a Hells Half Acre hole, where a "Hell"-type bunker intersected the hole on the second shot, requiring a full carry or play around on a longer route.

The leven hole features an intesecting central bunker feature that one could avoid by either carrying, or attempting a lengthy carry away to one side.  

Once again, you're assigning the strictest of configurations to the hole descriptions, yet, we know that many variations exist, mostly depending upon the land, and that these variations or hybrids still fall within the general classifications.

And, MACDONALD HIMSELF declared # 3 a Redan in 1917, as did RTJ and Tom Doak subsequently.

So you can posture all you want, three of the great architects of American golf have declared  # 3 to be a Redan.   CASE CLOSED[/color]

Other standard Macdonald holes didn't exist either.   There was never a "cape", or a "double plateau", but those were about the only standard MacRaynor template holes that did NOT require some type of rote, standardized bunkering configuration that dictated the holes strategy, or problems.

So what, other courses of his didn't contain those holes either.[/color]

EVERY SINGLE COURSE THAT MACDONALD BUILT had most of these holes includes, as well as Raynor, and later Banks.[/b][/color=green]

That's not true.
And, according to you, some of the alleged templates wouldn't qualify as templates because they don't meet your rigid definition.[/b][/color]

These holes are not only MIA at Merion...they never were there...even upon opening.

Perhaps you missed the REDAN, ALPS and EDEN holes, but, they were there, according to CBM, AWT and others.[/color]

...simply because there were almost no bunkers built when the course opened in 1912.

Almost no bunkers ?

Well, of the bunkers that were there, where were they ?

On the template holes ?[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Your answers are the golf architectural equivalent of Hillary Clinton's reasons for staying in the presidential race.   

I know you better than that, and I know you'd bet on that poor horse that got put down on the track in the Preakness before you'd bet on the flimsy contentions that you're trying to prop up with your rapidly stretched logic supporting this story.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MPC,

I can understand why HC is staying in the race.

The race isn't for the Recording Secretary of gibip, it's for one of the most, if not the most powerful position in the world.

And, many's the slip twixt the cup and the lip.

But, that's another story.

Back to the questions.

On what holes were there bunkers on opening day ?

[DMoriarty]

Wayne,

I  am a little surprised parts of your post above, especially your premature conclusions about my essay, as exemplied in this last paragraph:

Should any new evidence rise to the level required for proof, the written record will be amended.  So far, by any objective measure, it has fallen well short.  For now, I will continue to cast my lot with Wilson, the Committee and Pickering with perhaps some able assistance from HC Toomey. 

 

By any objective measure it has fallen well short?  You have have repeatedly passed judgment on my essay, but you have yet to specifically identified even one of the "problematic conclusions" you have been alluding to since my essay was posted.     That does not seem like "any objective measure" with which I am familiar.  Rather it is a proclamation, supported by nothing.

Agree with them or not, the conclusions are all been supported by facts and analysis, and I have freely shared my source material so that you and others could check them every which way.  I have also answered many questions many times.   If Ran, Shivas, Patrick, or anyone has come to conclusions, they have done so based on their understanding on the facts and analysis I have presented.  In contrast, you dismiss my essay, and criticize them, with no reference to facts, no analysis, and no support whatsoever. 

If you need more time to complete your research, I understand.  These things take time.  But I have to ask, how can you say that my essay falls well short "by any objective measure" when you do not yet have the facts, nor have you presented any specific critical analysis?

Shouldn't you hold off on presenting your conclusions until you have a basis for forming them??
. . .

Something else has left me perplexed.   You and others keep writing about closely scrutinizing my essay.  I will welcome that.  But we are weeks into this discussion and you and others still apparently do not grasp what I have claimed, and what I haven’t.   With all due respect, you are going to closely scrutinize my essay, I’d appreciate it if you do not attribute to me that which I did not write. 


1.   I did NOT write or suggest that  "HWilson had nothing at all to do with the design" of Merion.  I have repeatedly said that he was involved, starting in January 1911, and continuing probably until his death.

2.   I have NOT given M&W most of the credit for the design of Merion, nor have I said they did “most of the work.” 

3.   I don’t care about attributions, nor did I assign any.  to the original design.  That is up to Merion and anyone else who feels qualified to attribute.   I just want figure out what actually was done, when, and by whom.

You also wrote that there is insufficient evidence to draw the conclusions I have drawn.   

***Could you please tell me exactly which conclusions I draw based on insufficient evidence? ***
. . .

I've known about Barker's work for several years, though it slipped my mind, since I found the scrapbooks in the Historical Society of PA and copied a number of them in July 2003 (including an indecipherable copy of Barker paper).  I made a more recent trip and rather than photocopying them (some were downright horrible and others barely legible) I was able to take digital photos of them and they are easy to read.

I am confused by this, especially given our off-board exchanges.  Could you please explain what exactly you mean when you say you knew about ‘Barker’s work’ and what exactly ‘slipped your mind’ and what exactly is the ‘Barker paper’ to which you refer?   On board or off, I don’t care.   

[wsmorrison]

David,

I have a very blurry copy of Barker's letter from the Sayres scrapbook collection that I copied on July 28, 2003.  I have the pink slip still attached with the date and reference number so I could look at it again when I had time.  It slipped my mind because I haven't referred to those copies due to the quality of the copy.  I think you know something about how those copies are printed.  Would you have me copy and send you my copies including the request slip so you can verify my statement?

You can ask Tom Paul, John Capers III, the GM of the Merion Cricket Club and several others if you challenge my knowledge of the materials and the specific page in question.  I don't know what Barker's work amounted to, I only knew that there was a reference to it.  Again, I already stated that it slipped my mind until you brought it up again.  You will recall that I surmised that you had access to the Sayres scrapbooks.  I know that took you by surprise even though I mentioned it on this site and to a number of individuals I know you have regular contact, at least one of whom has a very early copy of my manuscript where the references to that collection are easily observed.

When you say of Wilson,

He not only oversaw the construction of and changes to Merion East, he was also involved in the design and construction of Merion’s West course, among others.

It would seem clear that you have concluded that he had nothing at all to do with the design of the golf course as opened in Sept. 1912.  You conclude that he was involved in the design and construction of Merion West.  How do you know this?  What archival material makes you accept the fact that he designed Merion West?  That he'd been to the UK and spent more time with Macdonald?  That is pure speculation without any measure of proof you require for the East Course.

Here is your summary, in which you craftily characterize that Wilson did not provide the first routing of the golf course, that it was instead Barker.  While I understand the narrow point you made, you do not allow the possibility that any design work by Wilson made it onto the ground when the course first opened and merely characterize his work as construction because of the timeline you would like us all to accept as fact.  Without Barker's plan and Macdonald's report, you cannot come to that conclusion.

While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land.  Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan.   After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course.   Immediately thereafter, the Construction Committee departed for NGLA so that Macdonald and Whigham could teach them how to build the golf holes at Merion East.   A few months later, before Merion began major construction, Macdonald and Whigham again visited the site and further helped Wilson and his Committee with the plans. In the spring and summer of 1911, Wilson and his Committee built the golf course, leaving many of the hazards to be built later.  In the spring of 1912, Wilson traveled abroad to study the great golf holes and to get ideas for the course. He continued to work on the course for years to come.  Whatever our modern impressions of the singularity of Merion’s original design, multiple reports indicated that the concepts for at least some of the original holes were derived from great golf holes abroad.  At least one report indicated, “Nearly every hole is patterned after some famous hole abroad.”  Other contemporaneous commentators singled out the famous “Redan” and “Alps” holes, noting that each inspired a hole at Merion.   While my research is in the early stages, my preliminary view is that many of the original holes at Merion East were based upon the conceptual underpinnings of the great holes, as understood by Macdonald and Whigham.

Barker's plans were modified or replaced.  Which is it?  You don't know because you don't know the contents of either Barker's plans or Macdonald and Whigham's report.  Before construction began you say that Macdonald and Whigham came down to "further help with the plans."  You don't know what that means because you don't know anything at all about the plans.  Or at least you have not indicated that you do. 

You talk about reports that nearly every hole was patterned after holes abroad.  In your own words based upon your own analysis, please confirm this.  You cannot because you don't know the initial design.  Please tell me which holes in the early 1910s did not have some sort of conceptual link to holes in the UK.  They all had a holes.  They all had tees.  All non-par 3s had fairways.  They all had greens.   Nearly every hole had bunkers.  Nearly every green was sloped.  Just where do you determine the cause and effect link with Macdonald?  He wasn't the only one in America that knew of a Redan, Alps and Eden.  Just because they were the "conceptual underpinnings of holes" by Macdonald and Whigham doesn't mean they were unique to them.  Did Macdonald and Whigham help Leeds at Myopia Hunt?

Do you know what the course was like when it opened?  Do you know what was added between 1912 and 1916?  I sent you the Flynn drawings from the 1916 Brooklyn Eagle, so you know what they eventually became.  But are you aware what did not exist in 1912?  I do.

You ignore Wilson's own use of the word construction and how it impacts your analysis. 

You propose in your essay that Merion lacked expertise and fail to recognize the talents of Pickering and Toomey.  These are important points that cast doubt on your entire essay.

You talk about Merion's creation story as if it is as mythical as the Bible.  You characterize the Legendary Hugh Wilson as if it is just that, legend and not fact.  Undoubtedly the long-held story is a combination of errors and fact.  The truth is, you have not been able to determine which is which.  Consider the following passage from your essay,

Or so the story goes.  But as is often the case with creation stories, this one is a blend of myth and reality.   In reality, Wilson neither planned the routing nor conceived of the holes at Merion East.  The course was planned months before Merion even appointed Wilson and his “Construction Committee.” Wilson and his Construction Committee were not appointed to design the course or conceive of the holes, but were to do what the name of their committee implies, construct the golf course.  They laid the course out on the ground and built it according to plan.

Moreover, while Wilson did travel overseas to study the great courses, he and his Committee had finished building and seeding the course months before Wilson’s departure.  When building the course, the Committee had wisely left many of the hazards to be built later, and while traveling overseas Wilson got ideas for the finishing touches on the new course.  But while artificial hazards and stylistic touches were added after Wilson’s return from Europe, the core of the course was in place before Wilson studied the great holes from which he supposedly received his inspiration for the design. 

Finally, while the original routing plan for Merion East may never be located, we can piece together enough of the early history to know that H.H. Barker sketched the first routing plan, but it may have been superceded by C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigham, who played a major role in planning the course.   Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd also contributed.[/i]

You cannot hide or backtrack from the above statement.  You clearly say that Wilson had nothing at all to do with the routing or conceived the hole designs.  According to your essay, Wilson built the course according to plans other than his own.  You craft words, you make suppositions and you omit information.  Now you know and Pat and Ran should have guessed, that when you write something about a subject that few people have any in depth knowledge of, they rely on your story.  There are a few of us that know a lot more than you do.  When we see things that are omitted (deliberately or not) it is easy for us to understand why what you think is fact and others take as fact, is in fact a leap of faith often without support.  You don't clarify your hunches and unsupported conclusions very well.  You do not know who is responsible in general and in particular for the design of the course as opened in Sept. 1912.  Yet you draw definite conclusions.  For instance, you said that there is evidence of concepts rooted in courses in the UK and concepts understood by Macdonald and Whigham.  These original hole designs were played by many more men in America than Macdonald and Whigham, including Philadelphians in the small circle of golfing gentlemen in Philadelphia possibly including Wilson (you have not proved he did not see the courses prior to construction) but surely Tillinghast, Lesley, Crump and others, possibly Thomas and Geist.

I said, For now, I will continue to cast my lot with Wilson, the Committee and Pickering with perhaps some able assistance from HC Toomey.  How is that phrased in such a way that I have drawn a final conclusion?

One reason I haven't posted information or a comprehensive reply to your essay is that I wanted to wait for your Part 2.  I am also less inclined to be in the mix of this confrontational process.  I am appalled by Ran's conclusion and Pat's constant BS on and off the site as well as Tom MacWood's incessant emails despite my requests not to write to me.   I also have a lot of other work to do.  It is my decision to make as to when and if I present the information on this site.  Much of it is already included in the work-in-progress Flynn book.

That's enough for now.  Do you begin to understand at last the weaknesses in your essay?  You have to consider your creation story from a broader perspective than your own and your narrow-minded and uninformed apostles.

[Mike_Cirba]

I find it ironic that there is only one single piece of factual evidence I've ever seen that claims to tell us who "conceived" of the holes at Merion, yet of all the possible contributors, that is that only person who David has ruled out in no uncertain terms.   

Why??

[Mike_Cirba]

This 1914 article ought to shed some light on the terminology of the time;

[Patrick_Mucci]

MPC 

On what holes were there bunkers on opening day ?

In addition, it seems that Tillinghast has confirmed that Wilson only visited the UK in 1912, not prior to 1911 for 7 months, as had been reported.

You can't say that David's treatise hasn't produced any significant findings.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Do you note in the article where is says Bendelow "Will at least ASSIST" in giving the new golf club the right start in placing the holes?"

Since "assist" is a phrase we are also parsing regarding CBM and Merion, I guess we can start a new round of what that word means in terms of 1914 gca.....

Also "To the layman, the PLACING of a golf course consists of only MAKING A MAP"....................

What the heck does placing mean?

[Mike_Cirba]

From Joe Bausch;

"Sure, you can mention I found this article and it is just an example 
of another author and how "lay out" and "laid out" was used around 
that time.  It was one of many others that I haven't looked at very 
closely.  Tonight I can gather up all 30 or so of them from around 
1910 to 1915 and send them along.  I haven't looked at many others to 
see if there is variation in these newspapers as to what 'lay out' 
means."

[Patrick_Mucci]

MPC 

On what holes were there bunkers on opening day ?

In addition, it seems that Tillinghast has confirmed that Wilson only visited the UK in 1912, not prior to 1911 for 7 months, as had been reported.

You can't say that David's treatise hasn't produced any significant findings.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Are you now trying to argue that Macdonald only designed 3 holes at Merion?

A backwards redan, where the green slopes back to front and doesn't accept a running shot from high side?

A woeful, backwards Alps, where the large mound is not in front of the green impediing visibility, but actually looks like a Rees Jones centerfold fantasy in the rear?

And an Eden, that didn't even have the common sense and understanding to be placed on a par three hole? 

Wait...perhaps you're onto something. 


There isn't one other hole on the course that resembles any of Macdonald's standard templates in the slightest degree.   

Would you disagree??

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Are you now trying to argue that Macdonald only designed 3 holes at Merion?

No.

By what stretch of your imagination do you conclude that ?[/color]

A backwards redan, where the green slopes back to front and doesn't accept a running shot from high side?

Well at least you're now conceeding that it's a redan, albeit a backward redan.  You are making progress. [/color]

A woeful, backwards Alps, where the large mound is not in front of the green impediing visibility, but actually looks like a Rees Jones centerfold fantasy in the rear?

You should study the "alps" at NGLA more carefully.  There's also a huge earthen berm behind that green as well.[/color]

And an Eden, that didn't even have the common sense and understanding to be placed on a par three hole? 

This may come as a shock to you, but, the original Eden green IS on a par 4 as well.

The 7th at TOC is the EDEN green and it's a par 4.

Your desperation knows no bounds [/color]

Wait...perhaps you're onto something. 

There isn't one other hole on the course that resembles any of Macdonald's standard templates in the slightest degree.   

This may also come as a shock to you.

There are lots of holes on courses by CBM that don't resemble any of CBM's standard template holes in the slightest degree.

You're fixated on a single iteration of template holes, whereas many variations exist.  In addition, you're laboring under the false impresssion that every hole on a CBM course was a standard template.

You're wrong on both counts.

But, you knew that, didn't you ?[/color]

Would you disagree??


YES.
See my response above.[/color]

[Rich Goodale]

[This may come as a shock to you, but, the original Eden green IS on a par 4 as well.

The 7th at TOC is the EDEN green and it's a par 4.

That was a joke, Pat, no?

I can see you mounting Rosinante with Sancho Panza (aka the evil Dr. Moriarty) at your side, or is it vice versa....?

[DMoriarty]

This 1914 article ought to shed some light on the terminology of the time;

Thanks to Joe for providing the article and to Mike for posting it. 

Mike

You cannot seriously think this helps your interpretation can you?   He is going to at least assist them in giving them the "right start in placing the holes on its course out in the Tunlatin(?) Valley." 

Placing the holes on its course in the . . Valley.   Sure sound like they are talking about laying the course out on the ground to me.   

Remember Mike,  I am not saying that one cannot plan a course while the simultaneously stake it out, or lay out, or it out.    But one can also lay out a course on the ground according to plan, even if it is someone else's plan.

If a host announces that a lavish meal has been LAID OUT on the buffet table, the guests will be very disappointed if there is no food laid out, but a list of dishes instead.   The recipe or menu shouldn't be confused with the meal.

How do you LAY OUT your logo golf shirts for a golf trip?  I'll bet it involve taking your golf shirts and placing them on the dresser or bed or wherever.   Certainly you havent laid them out if you make a list of what you will bring. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

If Hugh Wilson and Committee "laid out" the course on the ground as glorified construction supervisors to Macdonald's plan, then why did they need Fred Pickering, Joe Valentine, and Howard Toomey?

I'm beginning to think that Wilson and those slackers didn't do a dadgummed thing except hog all the credit! 

I do wonder why Macdonald's last visit to Merion was prior to construction, however?   You think he might be the slightest bit curious to see how this group of amateurish knuckleheads were progressing with his plans.   Maybe he pulled his name off it when he heard what a mess they made of things?

I'd be curious to know if Macdonald visited either Sleepy Hollow and/or Piping Rock after construction began on those courses?   I'm also curious why he didn't use Raynor at Merion?   Perhaps because he had that expert golf course planner Richard S. Francis onsite? 

Most of these are rhetorical questions and some are tongue-in-cheek, but if you do know anything more about his normal modus operandi at this time I'm sincerely interested in the answers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

If Hugh Wilson and Committee "laid out" the course on the ground as glorified construction supervisors to Macdonald's plan, then why did they need Fred Pickering, Joe Valentine, and Howard Toomey?

That's simple.  Because they knew nothing about constructing a golf course and agronomy.  They admitted same when they visited CBM.

I know that Pete Dye liked to climb up on the dozer, but, I wouldn't expect others to be so hands on.[/color]

I'm beginning to think that Wilson and those slackers didn't do a dadgummed thing except hog all the credit! 

I do wonder why Macdonald's last visit to Merion was prior to construction, however?   You think he might be the slightest bit curious to see how this group of amateurish knuckleheads were progressing with his plans.   


You may have hit on something there.[/color]

Maybe he pulled his name off it when he heard what a mess they made of things?

I'd be curious to know if Macdonald visited either Sleepy Hollow and/or Piping Rock after construction began on those courses?   

I'm also curious why he didn't use Raynor at Merion?   

How can you guarantee that he didn't ?[/color]

Perhaps because he had that expert golf course planner Richard S. Francis on site? 

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Francis and Raynor communicated with one another, kinda like a lawyer to lawyer thing.[/color]

Most of these are rhetorical questions and some are tongue-in-cheek, but if you do know anything more about his normal modus operandi at this time I'm sincerely interested in the answers.

Actually you bring up an interesting question.

Did Francis visit Southampton with the committee ?

And, was Raynor in attendance at that meeting ?

If so, it would seem logical that Raynor and Francis would have spent a good deal of time together discussing the "engineering" aspects of the project.

And, if they were both together at the meetings, I wouldn't be surprised if subsequent communications continued between them.[/color]

[Jim Nugent]

From NGLA on, did CBM design any courses without the help of Raynor? 

[wsmorrison]

Rich Goodale,

After calling the 7th green at TOC the Eden green, I think it more likely that Pat will mistakenly mount Sancho Panza instead of Rosinante 

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Instead of trying to asking you more than you can answer, from now on I'm going to just limit it to very specific issues: You said yesterday:

"1.   I did NOT write or suggest that  "HWilson had nothing at all to do with the design" of Merion.  I have repeatedly said that he was involved, starting in January 1911, and continuing probably until his death."


Let me tell you something, David. You just said there that Hugh Wilson had nothing to do with the routing and design of Merion East UNTIL January 1911.

If you think ANYONE should accept that from you as a FACT I simply can't imagine why. That is nothing more than your OPINION, your ASSUMPTION, and not a very logical one at that. You have no evidence at all that he wasn't involved before that and simply because YOU haven't seen any does NOT make it a FACT. So, do us all a favor and quit trying to pass it off as a FACT.

To make things even more illogical you have Francis and Lloyd out there in 1910 BEFORE the same committee that they served on under Wilson was appointed in January 1911.

And do you base that they were out there in 1910 doing what Francis said he was doing on some FACT??

Of course you don't. That as well is just your OPINION and your ASSUMPTION that those two men were out there in 1910 BEFORE their committee was appointed because that is the ONLY WAY you can support you assumption and conclusion that Macdonald routed and designed the course.

Do us all a favor, for God's Sake, and do not TRY TO pass off that Wilson was not out there BEFORE January 1911 and that Francis and Lloyd were as A FACT!!

You do not know whether any of them were or weren't! It is only your OPINION and ASSUMPTION and nothing remotely more than that. It is NOT a FACT just because it is CONVENIENT for you to pass it off as a fact!

If you keep on either trying to weasel out of this reality or ignore it or dimiss it I will just keep bringing it up again and again until everyone can see what you're doing here. If you retort with some more bullshit like I'm trying to ruin your reputation I will simply ignore it because nothing could be further from the truth. All I'm doing is asking you to tell the truth about what you're trying to pass off as FACT which you just have to know is NOT FACT!

This is precisely why so many from Merion and elsewhere who may be interested in your subject are somewhat incredulous about some of the techniques you use to present it which are just so remarkably transparent to so many people. If you want anyone to take you and your essay even remotely seriously you really will need to stop doing this kind of thing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

From NGLA on, did CBM design any courses without the help of Raynor? 

Jim,

Raynor was an engineer, a surveyor.

If he didn't use Raynor, he would have had to use someone else.

Ask Wayno about Toomey's role with Flynn

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

After calling the 7th green at TOC the Eden green, I think it more likely that Pat will mistakenly mount Sancho Panza instead of Rosinante 

The 7th green and the 11th green at TOC are one in the same.

The EDEN green.

While it's approached from different angles, the architectural features remain constant.

# 7 at TOC is named, "High" perhaps because of the elevated nature of the green, but, that's just a guess.

# 7 is a par 4 that plays to this green, so why would it be a stretch to duplicate # 7 at TOC with the Eden Green on the 15th hole at Merion, a par 4 ?

Maybe you guys don't get it.

[DMoriarty]

Wayne, 

Thanks for your response. 

As for the Barker letter, I wasn't asking you to verify.  Rather, I didn’t understand your post and asked you to clarify.  Thanks for clarifying, no need for verifying.  Was the map or anything else attached?

I know that took you by surprise even though I mentioned it on this site and to a number of individuals I know you have regular contact, at least one of whom has a very early copy of my manuscript where the references to that collection are easily observed.

First, I have never seen or read a copy of your manuscript.   I’d like to at some point.   Do you mind? 

Second, as I explained, I was surprised because the scrapbooks contain a wealth of pertinent information about which we have been debating for years, yet none of that information had ever been disclosed or shared.

But you explained that, while you discovered the scrapbooks 2003, you only were able to obtain rough copies of portions of the scrapbook, and that even some of these were illegible.  And so you were unfamiliar with much of the information contained in them, including the letters and documents concerning the Nov. 1910 transaction.   I understand this correctly, don’t I? 

If so, I take you at your word on all of this, as I take you at your word that it slipped your mind that you had a horrible copy of the original Barker letter. 
. . .
You imply that I am rushing you for your response.  Not at all.   I know how long thorough research and coherent analysis takes, and I’d hate to treat you and your work with the same disrespect and unreasonable demands that welcomed me upon my return to the site.   My concern isn’t the timing, but rather that you support the conclusions you draw in the mean time, and that you stop attributing to me that which I am not claiming.

I appreciate that in this last post, you actually address of few things
in my essay. 

First, one thing about which we agree: I do conclude, at least for now, that while some of what Barked did may have survived, and while Francis’s contribution was crucial, M&W largely routed the course and conceived of the holes.  But as I thought was clear in the paper, I consider conceiving of the holes to be an integral part of arranging them. The routing forms backbone, or core, of the course and determines of possibilities presented by the natural setting.

I am sure you agree with this, because you have said essentially the same thing with regard to Flynn’s courses.

But if you think that one can route a course without conceiving of the holes, then perhaps we just understand the word differently.   
. . .

When you say of Wilson,

He not only oversaw the construction of and changes to Merion East, he was also involved in the design and construction of Merion’s West course, among others.

It would seem clear that you have concluded that he had nothing at all to do with the design of the golf course as opened in Sept. You conclude that he was involved in the design and construction of Merion West.  How do you know this?  What archival material makes you accept the fact that he designed Merion West?  That he'd been to the UK and spent more time with Macdonald?  That is pure speculation without any measure of proof you require for the East Course.

Great, thanks for clarifying where you think I have so concluded. I now understand from where you draw this inference, but you are mistaken.  I drew no such conclusion.   

You mistakenly assume that if I do not state he DID design the course, than I have concluded that he did NOT.  There is a third alternative, which is what I have said all along.  I don’t address it. I am not getting into an empty argument about ultimate attribution, but would rather just try to understand what happened as best I can.

Yet for you, Mike, and TEPaul, it always comes back to whether what I have written might impact Wilson’s design credit.  Why else would you  “cast your lot” for Wilson, Pickering, and Toomey at the end of many of your posts.   How does that at all advance the discussion? We are all well aware of where you cast your lot, but frankly that is none of my concern and doesn’t really have anything to do with my paper. 

If you really want to find the truth, then let’s forget about design credit at ANALYZE the FACTS.

The rest of your post is just trying to twist my essay into something that it is not. 

For example, you seem to think that in order for me to conclude that M&W apparently modified or replaced Barker’s plan, I first need to be able to tell you exactly what changes they made.  This is just not the case.  I provide the basis for my conclusion and believe it to be sound. 

Likewise, when I write that the Inquirer reported that nearly every hole was patterned after holes abroad, you insist that I confirm it.   I’d be glad to confirm that the Inquirer wrote this, but as to the actual holes, you are twisting my point.   I did not conclude that every hole was modeled after a great hole abroad.  Rather, I cited the press coverage of the opening, and noted that a number of sources make the overseas comparison to some degree.   

There is more, but it seems to boil down to the fact that I do not make the arguments you want me to make.    The reason is, that at this point I think we should focus on the very core facts, like the order of events.   

I think this discussion could be very interesting if we ever get on the same page. 

[Mike_Cirba]

You mistakenly assume that if I do not state he DID design the course, than I have concluded that he did NOT. 

David,

C'mon now...the Clinton era is almost over.      

Do you seriously wonder why sometimes we're left frustrated in trying to understand you?   

I know I can torture grammar as well, but I usually have a good sense of when I'm suffocating and strangling the meaning of words as to make them ineffectual, and ultimately meaningless.   

I know guys like you and Shiv make a living trying to work the shades between the lines to your advantage, but I'd suggest that a less obtuse, more direct style would do wonders for you here.

[wsmorrison]

You mistakenly assume that if I do not state he DID design the course, than I have concluded that he did NOT.

I don't know what could make me think that.  Perhaps this from the essay:

Or so the story goes.  But as is often the case with creation stories, this one is a blend of myth and reality.   In reality, Wilson neither planned the routing nor conceived of the holes at Merion East.  The course was planned months before Merion even appointed Wilson and his “Construction Committee.” Wilson and his Construction Committee were not appointed to design the course or conceive of the holes, but were to do what the name of their committee implies, construct the golf course.  They laid the course out on the ground and built it according to plan.


I am certain Ran will be online to again endorse this position since he has no doubt of it.  And Pat is sure to follow as night follows the day.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()