What can we learn?

[TEPaul]

Wayne Morrison and I have spoken for years that the most dangerous thing we can do on our particular project (a book on William Flynn) but also on the numerous other courses and subjects on architecture we've tried to research over the years is to make the kinds of undocumented assumptions that turn into incorrect and historically inaccurate conclusions and end up some day being accepted as the truth by too many people when they may be nothing more than historical revisionism.

After about five years of speculation and also some heated arguments over Merion East and particularly C.B. Macdonald's part in it, it appears a really seminal piece of source material from THE MAN himself has finally turned up at MCC explaining in his own words what he actually did to do to advise Merion in 1910, for which they later thanked him, as well as for his hosting an NGLA visit and another visit he made to Ardmore, Pennsylvania. So, these endless multi-page Merion/Macdonald threads should wind down because the subject has finally been resolved with some real "Fact".

What can we learn from all of that and other opinions that have been floated on here as fact or correct history that may not be and most likely aren't?

I think we can learn a whole lot and I think a really good thread or two or perhaps a really good "In My Opinion" piece should be done on what we've learned for this and this type of thing. I think it would help GOLFCLUBALTAS.com immeasurably!

I would now like to try to make amends with all the people we have argued with and who have argued with us. I want to apologize to all of them and propose we can do much better in the future if we all try to work together rather than seemingly try to spring things on one another in some game of "one-upsmanship". I don't think there is any doubt that truly interesting raw research material that was been heretofore unknown or unrealized IS a form of very real and valuable "currency" on this website.

I propose that a few who have been really good, and really thoughtful, throughout all this should consider doing some very good posts or a good collaborative IMO piece on this subject of "What can we learn?" from all this?

Off the top of my head I'd propose Peter Pallotta, Kirk Gill and Phil Young and maybe a few others.

To discuss this subject I would also like to invite back Tom MacWood, Tom Nacarrato and offer and olive branch to David Moriarty. If the former two don't want to stay around, at least come back for this one. As for Pat Mucci---well what're gonna do with a guy who can't get it right more than 2% of the time?

If we produce this on here, particularly a good and permanent IMO piece on this subject that should include how to NOT create conclusions out of unsupportable assumptions or preconceived conclusions over some particular "agenda"----and we all discuss it well together including how to cut some of these threads down to readable size with supportable facts and everything else labeled as "opinion" for the interpretations of others, we should get back some of the credibility and maybe outside interest this site may've lost in all this. It should also get most of these threads back down to readable size as they once were in the beginning of this website.

What do you say? Will you join me to get it done?

[Kalen Braley]

Tom Paul,

So what did THE MAN say?  That Wilson was indeed the architect and he just gave some input?

I think all of your comments sounds like a great place to start for a post-mortem...but I have no helpful input for Mr.Mucci, they really is no hope!!   

As for helping, I'm handy with a computer and can document/archive/help in the making of soft copies if needs be.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Paul:

If you can make this happen, then allow me to assist with the nomination papers for your Nobel Peace prize.

 

Kalen - it's all toward the current end of the longest Merion thread on page one. 

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Tom, it appears that you and I are thinking precisely alike.

But before we jump to conclusions, what I'd really like to know is what conclusions, precisely, can be drawn from the discovery of this letter and its contents?

I'd really like to know that.

What does it prove conclusively?

What does it refute conclusively?

What theories does it strongly, though not conclusively, argue against?  For?

I just went back and read the letter, and for whatever its worth from having only sparsely followed all of the threads...

I think Shivas makes some good points here, what does it rule out conclusively?

[DMoriarty]

What does it rule out conclusively?

It rules out conclusively that Macdonald and Wilson did not provide a specific routing for the holes in their June 29, 1910 letter.   

The reason they couldn't arrange the holes is because they did not have a routing map.  because they did not have a contour map in front of them.

Kalen, you don't have to follow the threads to know that this is yet another attempt (the 4th) to declare my essay dead to stop the conversation cold.   And just when it it is finally getting interesting. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Shivas - I think this is where we probably differ, i.e. you ask what the letter refutes or proves conclusively. I've never understood why ANYTHING had to be conclusively proven or ruled out, since the 'traditional' history of Merion's creation and the respective/relative roles that Wilson and Macdonald played in it has always seemed very plausible and believable to me. So, a letter from Macdonald himself that in NO WAY contradicts the traditional view shouldn't need to prove or rule out anything; it simple supports what history has told us. The burden of providing conclusive proof or refutation lies in the 'revisionist' camp, it seems to me -- and all that these threads have really been about is whether or not David's essay has shouldered that burden.

Tom - that was a good post. I think what's important to take away is the realizaton of the need to debate and argue "in good faith", i.e. to assume about others and have others assume about you that everyone is saying what they mean and meaning what they say. And I think in order for everyone to help engender that good faith, it's important that they lay out their assumptions and biases up front. Personally, I'm weak with details and my mind naturally tends to run intuitively and with the overarching ideas - which means I'm bound to be wrong much of the time, but might occasionally stumble onto a framework for or a vision of the big picture -- so I toss off my thoughts for whatever might be interesting or useful in them. But also, I don't think I have much of a revisionist bent, which probably pre-disposed me to challenging David's essay in those terms right off the bat. I tried to make both of my assumptions/biases clear....hoping to help along a "good faith" discussion. We've ALL got biases and driving interests -- I think on topics like these it could (might) help if everyone just laid those on the table right from the start.

Peter       

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I think, as usual, Peter is very wise.

The irony is that David's essay would have been 10x more effective and ultimately useful if he presented it in a questioning tone, rather than an authoritative one.

It's primary long-term value will be that it stimulated additional research, that ultimately disproved it's assertions, but I have to wonder if it had been originally presented in a more collaborative, congenial, questioning tone if the energy that was spent by many of us in refuting it might have been more usefully spent in trying to cooperatively work together to fill-in the gaps.

I can't for the life of me imagine going it alone in this type of endeavor.   For instance, if I had a deep interest in the details of the creation of Riviera Country Club, I know that my first outreach would be to Geoff Shackelford, or if it were Ohio State Scarlet, to Tom MacWood, or to Patrick Mucci for Garden City, and so on.

I'm still not sure why guys like you and Wayne weren't contacted personally up front to see what you had learned that could ultimately help to fill in more of the blank spaces.   

I do guess we all have our methods and reasons, but those are just a few of the observations I have that I think might have improved this process.

[TEPaul]

"But also, I don't think I have much of a revisionist bent, which probably pre-disposed me to challenging David's essay in those terms right off the bat. I tried to make both of my assumptions/biases clear....hoping to help along a "good faith" discussion."

Peter:

Personally, that would be what I'm looking for and looking to accomplish----eg to simply get this site to look much more intuitively for real "revisionist" attempts at history, and whatever it is that motivates people to do it. If this is not analyzed carefully and basically prevented some of these revisionist ideas may become accepted history and I think Wayne and I, as examples, take that very seriously and see a real danger there.

I mean just look at this essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" and what it suggested and how far it managed to get on here? I believe your intuition all along towards it was very right and valuable. Look even what's been going on in the hours since Macdonald's own words have been found in the only thing that search committee ever mentioned he offered 1910---his "LETTER" to the search committee, with the author of that essay and perhaps another person or two----eg they are still looking for any possible vestige to try to prevent this revisionist conclusion from dying naturally through the weight of direct source material that contradicts this revisionist idea. We think this kind of thing should be prevented by better intuitive input before it gets to this point in the future, and that a good IMO piece might help accomplish that on this website.

Clearly, one of the best ways to accomplish this is just not to allow people to promote as fact or anything close to it these premises and conclusions that are CLEARLY based on one speculation on top of another speculation and so on and so on as some revisionist house-of-cards conclusion gets created and people without a wealth of surrounding information on the subject start to accept these revisionist conclusions as the truth of a course's architectural history.

[TEPaul]

"I'm still not sure why guys like you and Wayne weren't contacted personally up front to see what you had learned that could ultimately help to fill in more of the blank spaces."

MikeC:

If you want to be sure why that happened simply read the thread "Re; Macdonald and Merion" that was begun in Feb, 2003 and then pulled back up in 2004 by Tom MacWood to accompany another thread he started about "legends" and "the status quo". It was pulled back up again I guess when David Moriarty came back on here with this idea of his that's contained in his essay "The Missing Faces of Merion."

You can clearly see the entire evolution of why there was never more cooperation on Merion with people here like Wayne Morrison and me. In that thread, at some point, is this suggestion of what was called the "Philadelphia Syndrome" that stated that there was both a frustrated and defensive posture, and a bias in this area to protect our legends and the historical status quo of some of these famous clubs at the exclusion of material and the prevention of reinterpretations from others that could show that credit due other architects on these courses here was being prevented and denied by Philadelphians.

Don't let anyone take my word for it---it is all right there in that particular thread about Macdonald and Merion that began over five years ago. I believe the most indicative post was on May 8, 2004.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas - I think this is where we probably differ, i.e. you ask what the letter refutes or proves conclusively. I've never understood why ANYTHING had to be conclusively proven or ruled out, since the 'traditional' history of Merion's creation and the respective/relative roles that Wilson and Macdonald played in it has always seemed very plausible and believable to me. So, a letter from Macdonald himself that in NO WAY contradicts the traditional view shouldn't need to prove or rule out anything; it simple supports what history has told us. The burden of providing conclusive proof or refutation lies in the 'revisionist' camp, it seems to me -- and all that these threads have really been about is whether or not David's essay has shouldered that burden.

Peter,

What exactly does the letter contradict in my essay?

Tom,

I think, as usual, Peter is very wise.

The irony is that David's essay would have been 10x more effective and ultimately useful if he presented it in a questioning tone, rather than an authoritative one.

It's primary long-term value will be that it stimulated additional research, that ultimately disproved it's assertions, but I have to wonder if it had been originally presented in a more collaborative, congenial, questioning tone if the energy that was spent by many of us in refuting it might have been more usefully spent in trying to cooperatively work together to fill-in the gaps.

I can't for the life of me imagine going it alone in this type of endeavor.   For instance, if I had a deep interest in the details of the creation of Riviera Country Club, I know that my first outreach would be to Geoff Shackelford, or if it were Ohio State Scarlet, to Tom MacWood, or to Patrick Mucci for Garden City, and so on.

I'm still not sure why guys like you and Wayne weren't contacted personally up front to see what you had learned that could ultimately help to fill in more of the blank spaces.   

I do guess we all have our methods and reasons, but those are just a few of the observations I have that I think might have improved this process.

Mike,  I am starting to think you never read the essay.

As far as you wondering why I did not contact TEPaul.  You are delusional.   

[TEPaul]

"As far as you wondering why I did not contact TEPaul.  You are delusional."

David:

This thread is an attempt to put our past differences and arguments behind us and try to learn something from all of this and to do better and get along better in the future. Remarks like yours there don't help at all so try not to take any of this personally and to just easily blame me for the fact your essay's premises and conclusion has essentially been proven wrong by the discovery by Wayne Morrison today of Macdonald's letter. Please tell me you did not think that was possible when you did this essay.

Macdonald's letter just says what it says and all of us are more than capable of reading what it says and what it doesn't say. I hope you aren't holding out the possiblility that some routing and design plan from Macdonald is resting in some file at MCC where it's been for 98 years and never before mentioned by anyone---not anyone who had to do with the creation of Merion, not Macdonald, not anyone---ever.

I mean I guess you could ask us to all go on for another thirty pages trying to discuss the idea that proof of the tooth fairy exists somewhere in the ancient archives of one of these old clubs but what's the point of any of that?

Try not to take this personally, it shouldn't be that way and I hope it isn't taken that way in the future. It's not the end of the world to admit to making mistakes, it's the nature of this business of architectural analysis and research. We all have certainly made these kinds of mistakes in the past and I'm sure we will in the future.

The purpose of this thread is to propose the creation of a IMO piece and/or to discuss how and why we sometimes make mistakes with research and analyses and learn something from it so we can all do better in the future. It's important.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

You've promised to put our past differences behind us many times.  But that is done through behavior not empty proclamations, and so far they have been nothing but empty proclamations.   Things usually break down about the time I disagree with you.   

As for the rest, this is the fifth time (at least) you have prematurely pronounced the death of my essay.       But if you think that the letter wipes it out, then you haven't read one of the two. 

What new do we know?   There was no routing in the June 29, 1910 letter.   

That is about it.   

[TEPaul]

David:

I haven't read one or two of what?

Yes, the wording of Macdonald's letter pretty much kills the entire conclusion of your essay which was that Macdonald provided Merion with a routing and design plan in 1910 and that Wilson's committee in 1911 constructed the course to Macdonald's routing and design.

That idea is pretty much dead now from Macdonald's own words unless you are now thinking of concluding they sent a topo map of the course's land to him in New York at some point in 1910 and he created a routing and design for Merion on that topo map and he just mailed it back to them at some point before Nov. 15, 1910.

Is that really going to be what you might claim on here next as as "fact"? I certainly hope not, if at least for the simple reason no one has ever heard of Macdonald doing that for any golf course. But had he done something like that I see no reason in the world why Merion and the Wilsons wouldn't have mentioned that. If he'd actually done that I'm quite sure it would've been most significant to them and they would've recorded that too as part of their architectural history.

[DMoriarty]

David:

I haven't read one or two of what?

One of the two.

Yes, the wording of Macdonald's letter pretty much kills the entire conclusion of your essay which was that Macdonald provided Merion with a routing and design plan in 1910 and that Wilson's committee in 1911 constructed the course to Macdonald's routing and design.

First, you forgot part of my conclusion.  Second, it  negates my inference that the letter contained routing map.    I'll have to consider what else is impacted, but so far the answer is not much. 

That idea is pretty much dead now from Macdonald's own words unless you are now thinking of concluding they sent a topo map of the course's land to him in New York at some point in 1910 and he created a routing and design for Merion on that topo map and he just mailed it back to them at some point before Nov. 15, 1910.

This is certainly a strong possibility.  And when I try to think of who could have planned the routing before Nov. 15, 1910 I don't really have many options.    Not Wilson.   Maybe the site Committee.   Maybe Francis.   M&W are still by far the best candidates.

I am not sure that you understand the nature of historical research, Tom.  This is just another fact, and one I consider very helpful.  Does it alter a few things about my essay?  Yes.  Does it fundamentally change my essay?  I don't think so, but need to go through it all and see.

But surely Wayne has more than just this letter.

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 12:41:39 am
David:
I haven't read one or two of what?"

"One of the two."


DavidM'

I know. You already said that the first time I asked you one of the two of what?

[DMoriarty]

"Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 12:41:39 am
David:
I haven't read one or two of what?"

"One of the two."


DavidM'

I know. You already said that the first time I asked you one of the two of what?

No.  You asked me one OR two of what.   I wrote one OF the two.    The letter.  My essay.

[paul cowley]

 

[Rich Goodale]

We could all be more concise.

[paul cowley]

Rich....I'm trying, but its hard to be when somehow an unremovable black line shows up in my post.

Oh well, maybe its time for bed!

[Rich Goodale]

paul

to help you sleep, try reading macbeth, act V, scene v, line 17.

".....out, out brief candle...."

[TEPaul]

"This is certainly a strong possibility."

David:

You now think it's a strong possiblility Merion mailed Macdonald a contour map in 1910 and he mailed  back a routing and design plan to them of how they built the course??? Uh, huh, I see.

Have you thought at all about why the Wilsons or Francis or not a single word of Merion's history EVER mentioned that? That's pretty significant, you know?   That's a real question, by the way. Also, have you ever thought to ask if Macdonald ever did something like that which the best Macdonald experts in the world say he never did on any golf course? That's kinda, sorta, just maybe, a bit significant too, in the broad scheme of things, don't you think?




"And when I try to think of who could have planned the routing before Nov. 15, 1910 I don't really have many options.    Not Wilson.   Maybe the site Committee.   Maybe Francis.   M&W are still by far the best candidates."


Well, then David, maybe what you should start thinking about next is that the routing and design never was done in 1910 and that it was done in 1911 as all the available evidence surrounding Merion has always seemed to suggest!

It's tough doing this architectural analysis, isn't it? It's gotta be tough when you all of a sudden might need to begin to think that maybe things never did happen in the year that you've been basing your premises and conclusion on---strike that, in the year you pretty much have to base your premises and conclusion on?

Believe, me, I can easily guess where you'll be going next with this to try to preserve some vestige of you essay.  

[TEPaul]

"I am not sure that you understand the nature of historical research, Tom.  This is just another fact, and one I consider very helpful."


David:

Honestly, at this point, I doubt there's a single soul on here or anyone elso who's been reading these threads who thinks you understand the nature of what a "fact" is. 

[wsmorrison]

By the way, given the number of bookmarks and the locations of those bookmarks in the club records, it is clear that someone was researching this source before.  I believe it was Tolhurst making use of the references for his history Golf at Merion.  I do not for a minute believe he was recording oral traditions in his book, I believe it was well-researched.  A lot more has come to light since he started the project.  I am glad we are adding to that record.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Not sure more lengthy writing is the way to say what we learned! Part of what we should learn is shorter writing, and not repeating ourselves!

As to the bigger picture, to which I am sure you allude, I would urge all courses to find out as much about their history as possible and the sooner the better.  Even for new courses, finding out which associate did was for a gca, putting together a Sayre Scrapbook chronologically, and taking pictures of the course the day it opens, every so often and after every change (including photos of pipes and what not going in the ground that will be covered up later) is good to do ASAP.

It is surprising how many courses go on "oral history" and memory and don't document.

As to those historical researchers, I have mentioned that I have been doing a bit of historic research, for which I have considered getting published.  This has, like Wayne and TePaul, been going on for many years, and has accelerated with the advent of the internet. 

I never have published that, or even shown it to anyone.  I have never been quite sure I had enough info, and sure enough, often I have proved myself right!
 
I wonder if Doak and Klein, among others who have written history books decided that they had enough?  Surely, some point or another on Ross's hundreds of courses will come up after the publication of the book because you have to cut it off sometime.

Its amazing, really, all the info that is out there if you keep looking.  I can check some of the sites or Google a particular way and in a weeks time, find even more new stuff.  So I keep going, but don't keep writing.

BTW, one tip I got on historic research is to Google more general topics.  Even if you are looking for specific thing like green construction, those who tag photos for search engines think in terms of "golf course." And, sometimes, photos or articles will show up in the damnedest places.  You might find some info on Merion by searching "Pennsylvania."  So, Google early and Google often, albeit not being afraid to think outside the box.

And, if and when you decide to publish your findings, undersell and over deliver and write with the attitude that this is what we know now, not this is the truth.

[Melvyn Morrow]

One thing that we must learn is that oral traditions are generally based upon a true fact or story. To dismiss them is pure folly. Examples are many, from Schliemann’s search and discovery of Troy through to understanding the Ancient Greek’s myths of Sea Monsters, Giants and Cyclops. Professional Scholars & Archaeologists are explaining that these myths started from the discovery by the ancient Greeks of fossilised dinosaur bones and hence the Cyclops spawned from a mammoth skull, believing that the trunk central aperture was the single eye socket, the long leg bones resembled humans but 10 to 15 times taller. In other words, there are real reasons for the stories and we should not dismiss oral traditions out of hand.  Written proof is not always available for various reasons, from never being noted, destroyed or not yet uncovered.

Victorian/Edwardian English must also be understood as it was written and not interpreted in the light of our modern understandings.