Whoops, got cut off at 20,000 characters.
Coninued . . .
6
GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
on: June 18, 2008, 02:54:57 pm
Started by Melvyn Morrow, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 43.1%
David Moriarty wants facts. So now I’m going to give you just facts, nothing more. These are facts that have been on this DG for two months. Below from a post of his today he recounts that he was met by extreme hostility before his essay came out. There was none of that at all---nothing. Matter of fact, in a group email exchange from Pat Mucci on another subject entirely I asked David Moriarty if he would please consider coming back. I made the same request to Tom MacWood on that group email.
All we did is simply wait for his essay for about two weeks. He did provide a brief outline in that group email on what points he would cover, nothing more. I never asked him anything about his research material or where it may have come from. I still don’t know that and it’s never mattered to me. Perhaps two or three weeks into these threads following his essay I asked him if he'd ever been in contact with Merion because I'd never known. He certainly never volunteered to tell me anything about any of it. Below he seems to try to make it look like we warned him that Merion would be resistant to his research and essay. That never happened all, not an iota. We had no idea what his essay was going to be about and either did anyone else at Merion but he certainly makes it look that way. Basically none of us knew a thing. All any of us did was wait.
He makes it sound like all we did is threaten and bully him both before his essay and as soon as it came out. So I’d like you all to judge that for yourselves. Just below is what he said today happened back then before his essay came out and as soon as it came out. Following that is the first post from me followed by the first post from Wayne Morrison. You Judge for yourselves if it looks like anything remotely like hostility. I’d say it looks to be just about the opposite! Wink
My Decision Not to Contact Merion
I considered providing Merion with an advanced copy, and even discussed it with Ran, but I ultimately decided against it.
Whenever I had previously tried to discuss Merion, my efforts met nothing but extreme hostility and resistance from those associated with or claiming to be speaking for the club. More than that, I had been told specifically, repeatedly, and in no uncertain terms that the powers at Merion, including the club historian and chairs and members of various key committees, had said that they were extremely upset that I was even researching Merion’s history, wanted me to stop, and wanted nothing to do with me. (While I did not know it until recently, these were apparently lies, told to get me to stop looking into Merion.)
So my concern was that presenting the work to Merion would have accomplished nothing positive but would have creates a number of problems. I feared they would have tried to stop me or delay me from releasing it, or that they would have given it to Wayne and TEPaul, who undoubtedly would have done everything they could to discredit me and my essay and to stop me from releasing it before anyone even got a chance to read it. Those who have been around for a while may recall the incessant bullying, nastiness, and ugliness directed toward Tom MacWood when these guys got word he was researching Pine Valley and Crump. I wanted no part of that.
As it turns out, some of my concerns were at least partially justified. What I thought were private communications with Merion somehow immediately found their way to TEPaul who promptly tried to use them rhetorically against me on the boards. I doubt that was Merion’s intent, but I also doubt that they fully understand that if they involve Wayne he will inevitably involve TEPaul, and that TEPaul knows no bounds when it comes to trying to protect what he feels is his to protect.
Now I have few questions for all of you:
When it first leaked out that I was working on something that significantly contradicted the accepted notion of Merion’s history, where was the outcry for me to go to Merion first before releasing it?
As I recall, there was none. To the contrary, there was a frenzy of attacks and criticisms because I wanted to finish the essay before posting it. Those criticizing me now for not having gone to Merion are some of the same ones who demanded then that I post everything I had immediately. They could not even wait for the essay to be finished!
Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul were certainly involved in those pre-essay “discussions.” In fact, before even coming back to the site I forewarned Wayne, Tom Paul, and a number of other posters that I was coming back to openly, honestly, and frankly discuss Merion, and that my ideas would very likely be cutting against much of the accepted notion of Merion’s history. I even gave them a sampling of the kinds of contentions I would raise. I asked them, specifically, if they had any problem with any of that.
If Wayne Morrison or Tom Paul or anyone else thought that I needed to go to Merion first, then why did they not tell me so before? Everyone had ample opportunity to do so.
The fact is, this whole notion is being used as yet another distraction to detract from the substance of my essay, and as an excuse for Wayne and TEPaul to continue to try and trash me and my essay without allowing me to verify any of their claims.
From TEPaul:
Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2008, 11:26:31 am »
Thanks Ran and David! I, for one, am glad this "White Paper" is finally here.
I haven't had a chance to do more than scan it but I'm looking forward to analyzing the credibility of particularly this idea that H.H. Barker essentially routed the land that is Merion East golf course and that Macdonald and Whigam (and/or Barker) essentially "designed" the holes that basically became Merion East.
THAT, most certianly is something that the history of Merion GC does not contemplate or remotely mention in any way, or ever has to my knowledge, regarding the creation of Merion East, the golf course. As to whether that is just unsupportable speculation promoted by a series of preceding events, or is, in fact, something about which there is some hard provable evidence, I guess we will just have to see with some really good analyses of all the other information extant about the creation of Merion East golf course.
David, that looks to be a lot of work, and congratulations from me on doing it all. We're certainly looking forward to analyzing it carefully, but I should note here and now that simply doing a lot of work (analogous example---Tom MacWood's five part essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf") both shouldn't and won't NECESSARILY pass in and of itself as indicating an accurate historical reexamination of Merion East's golf course and its entire creation, or anything else, for that matter.
Let's have a really good AND CIVIL analysis of and dicussion on this paper!
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 11:29:55 am by TEPaul »
From Wayne Morrison:
Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under I
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2008, 02:34:08 pm »
David,
I congratulate you for putting forth such a tremendous effort, and to think this is only part 1. You must have had access to board records of the Cricket Club that I have not yet seen. While my research has concentrated on Wm Flynn's work subsequent to the opening of the East Course (he was not present for the initial construction of the course), I am keenly interested in the earliest iteration of the East Course. If possible, I would like to have a look at some of the primary assets you utilized in the making of this essay. Reading the article (I must do so in a more thorough fashion) clearly indicates that you have material on hand that I have never seen and which the club is unaware. I guess you found the Sayers scrapbooks as some information you mentioned is contained in there.
I have found some inconsistencies and errors in my initial review and hope to give it a more concerted effort over the next week or so. Before jumping to conclusions (as others have done) I want to give this report the consideration it deserves. I will be happy to share with you my findings. Clearly the record needs to include some of your discoveries though I am hesitant to say to what extent that history is revised by them. In fact, if your findings regarding Hugh Wilson's lack of design involvement proves correct (and I am not presuming that it does as yet) then it has some profound impacts on matters closer to my field of study.
I must say that I am concerned or rather alarmed by the quick rush to judgment by Ran, Tom H and others that agree with the findings without a more informed understanding of the course and its history and certainly without an exhaustive study of the essay. The only way they can agree with David's conclusions are if they take for granted or assume what he states is correct. While there are an awful lot of facts presented, and potentially very important ones at that, some of the conclusions are troublesome and require a great deal of consideration. Something that neither Ran nor Tom has done and on a subject that neither one of them knows very much about.
While the conclusions they say are obvious and proven may turn out to be for the most part true, any judgment to that effect is premature and poorly considered at this stage.
Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
7
GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: California 1930
on: July 12, 2008, 07:31:59 am
Started by Tom MacWood, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 41.7%
"TE
I never said Watson should be considered one of your fifteen architects. To be honest I've never really thought about who should be on your list. As I said in a previous post my focus is prior to WWII and globally. Fifteen is a very limiting from my perspective, and potentially not very informative."
Tom MacWood:
I realize that and so does the USGA. As I've said a number of times the reason for that is this has to start somewhere. We cannot do this all instantly particularly when some such as yourself aren't even willing to get involved. Wink
"This thread is about California golf architecture. If you want to explore Barker and pre-WWI American golf architecture, start another thread in which you tell us who were the most prominet architects operating in the US in 1909-1911."
I realize that but answering a simple question like why you (or Moriarty) think H.H. Barker should be considered the second best architect in America in 1910, amateur or professional, right behind C.B. Macdonald isn't exactly going to wreck this thread. My sense is you both feel you just can't answer that and that's why both of you continuously deflect the question.
Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
8
GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: The importance of understanding the details of Mr Francis' Merion landswap story
on: May 08, 2008, 08:15:03 pm
Started by TEPaul, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 41.5%
"It just does not make sense that they would have been stumped that late into the process when the answer all along was so easy."
Sully:
I have no real idea what you mean to say by that.
"As to the points Pat was just making about the likelyhood of some plans being in existent at some point...Francis also mentioned in that land-swap story that the "swapped-out" land (where the homes on Golf House Road are now) never fit into any golf course PLAN."
I've already mentioned on here numerous times when the existence of plans were mentioned. Francis mentioned it in his land-swap story a couple of times and H. Wilson mentioned it to Piper in a Feb 1, 1911 letter that he had a topo map of the golf course. Obviously Merion had a topo survey map made perhaps off that basic November 1910 plan that was sent out to the membership.
"My suspicion is that the committee was out looking at that land well in advance of June 1910 and had plenty of holes drawn and routing plans...my only question is why Connell would have brought in Barker in June 1910."
I'm sure the search committee was doing exactly that and it's more than a bit illogical to think they would be looking at it for a golf course without even talking to the men the club would make members of Wilson's committee, which of course would include Wilson himself. Of course Lloyd was a member of both committees.
"Can we confirm absolutely any relationship between Connell and HDC?"
But of course we can. Connell and four other people were the ones who bought up most of this land including the 140 acre Johnson Farm most of which is Merion G.C. today BEFORE MCC and their search committee became involved in it.
"What are the land title facts pertaining to him? What was he part of?"
That is what is extremely hard to figure out, other than the fact that Connell was the spokesman for the other four developers. Some of the real estate maps list the Johnson Farm in 1908 as being owned by the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company. I figure that probably was Connell and his group.
On the other hand, we have a hand written quite hard to read contract (referred to as an "indenture") that was executed by The Title and Trust Company of Philadelphia that this man Nickolson was the president of. I think Moriarty referred to Nickolson, at one point, in these threads, as one of the 'ambitious developers' with Connell. I do not think he was that at all, he was simply the president of the title and trust company that acted as a "party" to this June 24, 1909 indenture.
Moriarty also mentioned in his essay that he was not sure when Lloyd and some of his investor friends from MCC got involved in investing in this land at the behest of those developers. It certainly isn't easy to figure out.
In this hand written indenture that was created on June 24, 1909, there were three "parties" to the contract:
1. The "party of the first part" was the Title and Trust Co.
2. The "party of the second part" was these five developers who were not any part of MCC.
3. The "party of the third part" was the Haverford Development Co. (HDC)
I am not at all clear what HDC's purpose was at that point. It could've been those five devolpers simply putting their individual real estate holdings into a corporate entity with their individual percentage breakdown for pay-in for maintenance purposes and payout for lease and sale purposes. This indenture also has a very detailed "metes and bounds" description that is the textual details of a land survey. Yerkes & Co was the surveyor and they are very much still in business as I dealt with them all the time when I sold real estate.
Or, HDC may very well have been formed at that point by Lloyd and his MCC investor friends who were acting at that point as financial facilitators for MCC's golf course move as well as their own real estate investment or purchase interests. We do know at some point in 1910, Lloyd appears to have either bought about half the interests of the developers through purchasing about 50% interest in HDC or else simply forming HDC himself and essentially capitalizing HDC into a stock subcription entity for both members of MCC and "others".
In a letter to the MCC membership signed by only Lloyd he does mention that HDC has been capitalized to the tune of a $300,000 stock offering of which about half had already been subscribed to by others than MCC members. My hunch is Lloyd may've taken control of all the land (338 acres) at that point by underwriting the developers with his stock offering. After-all, that's the kind of thing he did for a living as the managing "partner" at that time for Drexel & Company, one of the most powerful "financing" (underwriting) firms in the country.
If Lloyd had not done the foregoing, I can't really imagine what else could've been going on as I doubt those developers had created a stock offering out of HDC which is very clear to see from Lloyd's letter to the membership in November 1910 is exactly what HDC was at that time and basically for the benefit of MCC members. The stock being offered for subscription to MCC member is HDC!
In a financial breakdown structure in another post I'll show you how I think Lloyd and/or those developers basically did that to benefit everyone.
Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
9
GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Massachusetts 1927
on: July 21, 2008, 09:05:58 pm
Started by Tom MacWood, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 39.3%
""TE
If you don't consider newspaper and magazine reports solid or factual in comparison to a supposed scrapbook which apparently consisted of newspaper and magazine clippings, a supposed scrapbook that has been lost for 25 years or more, and no one living has ever seen, than you are right I have nothing."
Tom MacWood;
The Leed's "scrapbook" was his own personal record of his years to do with Myopia. There are a ton of people who saw it.
"TE
If Myopia is interested they can contact me directly."
I know it's probably maddening to you but neither Myopia or any of these clubs like Merion are going to get in touch with you. And It's probably even more maddening that you will have to go through me. You and Moriarty can complain about that on here or anywhere else you want to but that's pretty much the way it is and will be.
So, if you have ANYTHING solid on Willie Campbell, put it on here where both I and the rest of the contributors can see it. Failing that you really ought to just stay out of trying to analyze the histories of these clubs and courses you, admittedly, don't know much about.
And let's not forget, the world of golf architectural interested parties and analysts are still waiting for you or Moriarty to produce something solid from Macdonald or Barker on Merion East to back up your heretofore speculations and conjectures! Wink
We've been waiting and waiting and waiting! Where is this information that you led us to expect? Are any of us ever going to get it from either of you? Wink