[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

As you know, I'm a HUGE Alex Findlay fan and I'm betting I've played more of his courses than anyone in the world.

I'm also betting that I've discovered more courses he actually designed than anyone in the world.   

The evidence linking Findlay to Kilkare is highly circumstantial, at best, and given his travels, he may or may not have been around when it was built, but likely not. 

I have a looser design attribution standard for my own records than I do for anything I'd publicly acredit to any designer on this website or anywhere else, and even there I'd never put Findlay in as the designer of Kilkare without significantly more information.

[TEPaul]

"TE
There's no reason to be so defensive. The fact is there has been a good number of new discoveries in the last few years that you & Wayne have faught tooth and nail. I'm not sure what it is about your attitudes...it appears you are emotionally invested in some of these legends and have hard time with any adjustments to the story. The truth is always more interesting than you preconcieved notion of it."


Mr. MacWood:

Again, none of us here are being at all defensive and I'm afraid for you that this entire website and the larger world of the INTERNET understands that now.

It really is time for you to forego these automatic responses to us and our responses to your speculative and exaggerated information that we are being defensive about "legends", as you say, (and have been saying for over five years).

We are doing nothing of the kind and we never have. We are simply supplying credible information, most of it coming from contemporaneous administrative information from the clubs themselves (what I contend is the best and most accurate information and documentation of all)!

The fact is incredibly obvious that you are trying to make a name for yourself and have for years by simply picking apart the research of others by inserting seemingly trivial bits and pieces of information you think you've found in newspapers and magazines and then massively exaggerating the importance of it.

I suppose there is nothing really wrong with floating some of the information you have on here that seems trivial at best but when you continue to exaggerate the importance of it and even contend that others far closer to a subject such as Flynn's daughter or a club's administrative records are always engaging in hyperbole or just lies to protect some "legend" if they contradict your "theories" and your speculations and exaggerations, well then, Mr. MacWood, I think it's about time for even you do reconsider your approach! Wouldn't even you agree with that? 

Don't you think the time has come and gone for you to stop wasting your energies trying to make yourself look better as a researcher by showing others to be wrong on really trivial points, Mr. MacWood? 

Or alternatively (as I've always said to you) when you find something then go to others FIRST who really do know the subject and discuss with them first how to deduce the information and what it really means historically to clubs and architects before your twenty questions campaign and policy on here.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm at a complete loss here too, again, as well.

I'm not sure what new information has been brought forward to disprove any existing records, evidence, or "legends"?

In the case of Merion, there was never a routing or design produced by CB Macdonald and that's a fact.   The routing produced by HH Barker was never used and that's a fact.   There were multiple routings, including a "final 5" produced by Hugh Wilson and the Merion Committee and they asked for advice from Macdonald to help them select the best one, and that's a fact.

In the case of this thread, there is not a single shred of evidence that this Peters fellow was involved in the architecture or construction of a single golf course or even golf hole on the planet.   How can we possibly elevate his status given the complete absence of a historical record?

In the case of Pine Valley, we now know to a much greater detail who did what and it's clear that while Colt did more than those who believed the design was solely Crump's (whoever they might be, because I don't recall anyone here ever claiming that), it's also clear that the majority of what got built over time was mostly Crump's design, even as implemented after his death.

In the case of Myopia, I hold out hope that Tom MacWood might show us that Willie Campbell designed the orignal nine holes prior to Leeds arrival, but to date, nothing of substance has been produced, probably because of personal issues.

So...I'm really not sure why anyone thinks anyone is defensive for simply recognizing and pointing out these facts and inconsistencies, and missing information, and I'm really not sure what has been the purpose or achievements of all of these revisionist historical attempts that seem to have no end.

[TEPaul]

"In the case of Myopia, I hold out hope that Tom MacWood might show us that Willie Campbell designed the orignal nine holes prior to Leeds arrival, but to date, nothing of substance has been produced, probably because of personal issues.

So...I'm really not sure why anyone thinks anyone is defensive, and I'm really not sure what has been the purpose or achievements of all of these revisionist historical attempts that seem to have no end."


Me either Mike. I have produced on here the quoted accounts from the Myopia contemporaneous meeting minutes of 1894 (apparently called, even back then, the "Run Book") who it was that designed and laid out the original nines holes of Myopia. In my opinion, and in theirs, it remains today completely unrefuted!

I mean, what is the credible point of anyone coming on this website and inferring they have documentary evidence to the contrary and then refusing to produce it because they don't want to help someone on here or even the club itself?

That makes no sense at all and it is my hope and belief that this website can and will understand that because I'm interested in accurate historical accounts always, no matter who they attribute golf course architecture to!

This constant litany and refrain from Mr. MacWood that we are being defensive and always out to protect "legends" in the face of historical accuracy is really getting old and I completely agree with you that it has to stop.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
I don't think your reporting Flynn's first design was Kilkare at the age of 19 is a trivial claim. The first design of an architect is often very significant - Alwoodley, Rye, Dornick Hills, Chicago, Walton Heath, Lakeside, Shawnee, etc. And to my knowledge there has not been a golf architect who designed a golf course at age 19.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Aren't there child prodigy golf architects wannabes who enter the GD design a hole contest? I seem to recall one Tiger Woods submitted an entry to GD at an early age. Whatever happened to him?

I recall drawing golf holes in my mechanical drawing class in junior high school when I should have been using my TSquare and protractor for some other project that could have resulted in a grade.

I also recall the late Ed Seay telling the greens committee at my former club that being a golf architect was not "rocket science" and that all he did was design tees, fairways, bunkers and greens in some semblance of order to produce a golf course. Of course, he simplified things somewhat and laughed after he said that.

Didn't Pete Dye, an "expert golfer," sell insurance before he became a golf course designer?

[Thomas MacWood]

Steve
Who gives the opportunity to 19 year old to design their private golf course? There is no evidence Flynn and the person who sponsored the project knew each other. The person who sponsored the project had long standing relationship with Findlay. Findlay's construction man built the course. It has been misreported when the course was built, not 1909 when Flynn was 19, but in 1912-13. Everything points to Findlay.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom,

Times were different then. The GCA business was just getting started. Tom Bendelow wasn't in town. Perhaps the person who sponsored the project just wanted to get it done quickly. It's all conjecture to me.

[Thomas MacWood]

I'm at a complete loss here too, again, as well.

I'm not sure what new information has been brought forward to disprove any existing records, evidence, or "legends"?

In the case of Merion, there was never a routing or design produced by CB Macdonald and that's a fact.   The routing produced by HH Barker was never used and that's a fact.   There were multiple routings, including a "final 5" produced by Hugh Wilson and the Merion Committee and they asked for advice from Macdonald to help them select the best one, and that's a fact.

I'm affraid its not that black & white. Since no one has seen Barker's orignal routing or the 'final five' routings its very difficult to say who did what. We also have no idea if any of the 'final five' resembles the course as built, for all we know Macdonald may have rejected them all. There are many unanswered questions.

In this case the defensive came in the emotional response and attacks on David. Before it was done you had attempted to trash Macdonald, Whigham and Barkers careers in hopes you might elevate Wilson. Also the lengths you went to put Wilson on boats to Argentina and other ports unknown was pretty bizarre. And along the way you also tried (futile) to denigrate one of the best research tools we have today. Your defensiveness became so accute you got on here and accused me of holding evidence for years so I could embarras you.

In the end David is responsible re-writing the early history of Merion-East and correcting an erroneous story that had been told for years.

In the case of this thread, there is not a single shred of evidence that this Peters fellow was involved in the architecture or construction of a single golf course or even golf hole on the planet.   How can we possibly elevate his status given the complete absence of a historical record?

Actually more evidence has been produced on this thread of Peters involvement in architecture/construction during the period in question that for Flynn. Other than the ad for F&P there has been nothing presented involving Flynn. Where as we have the Phila Inquirer reporting in 1917 that Peters has in recent years done considerable work in laying out golf courses.

In the case of Pine Valley, we now know to a much greater detail who did what and it's clear that while Colt did more than those who believed the design was solely Crump's (whoever they might be, because I don't recall anyone here ever claiming that), it's also clear that the majority of what got built over time was mostly Crump's design, even as implemented after his death.

You don't recall the reaction of TE & Wayne when I mentioned to them that I had confirmed Crump committed suicide. That whole affair is exhibit A in defensiveness and the lengths they will go. Of course TE now claims he knew all along Crump's life story and his suicide - another form of defensiveness.

In the case of Myopia, I hold out hope that Tom MacWood might show us that Willie Campbell designed the orignal nine holes prior to Leeds arrival, but to date, nothing of substance has been produced, probably because of personal issues.

There is no reason to hold out hope...by the way I've told the entire world where they can find the evidence.

So...I'm really not sure why anyone thinks anyone is defensive for simply recognizing and pointing out these facts and inconsistencies, and missing information, and I'm really not sure what has been the purpose or achievements of all of these revisionist historical attempts that seem to have no end.

[wsmorrison]

I agree with Tom that the course wasn't open for play until 1913, with the club founded in 1912.  The planning of the course may have taken place a year or more earlier.  I don't believe Flynn designed the course in 1909.  Have any of you seen pictures of Kilkare?  I don't think there were any bunkers.  Rough and meandering streams were used to create lines of play and hazards.  It was very flat and very rudimentary.  

Flynn was a famous schoolboy golfer in Boston and very successful in competitions.  He was a very long driver of the ball and would have been considered an expert golfer.  It wouldn't surprise me if Wm Plunkett's son competed against Flynn in and they got to know one another well enough to give him a chance.  Though I guess I should look up the family tree in Ancestry.com so I can see when he was born. 

Update:  Theodor Plunkett was 8 years older than Flynn...they wouldn't have played schoolboy golf together, but they may have played amateur golf at some point.

Before anyone was looking to link architect to course, Flynn's daughter wrote to Geoffrey Cornish about her father's work in golf architecture for the book he and Whitten were writing.  That 1979 letter mentioned a course her father built for Wm Plunkett in Heartwellville, VT.  How would she come up with this long NLE course unless she had some direct knowledge of it from her father?  Is it a course he was likely to exaggerate his attribution of for some gain?  It was a rudimentary 9-hole course in rural VT.  Why couldn't it be Flynn and not Findlay?  Because Findlay was accomplished at the time and Flynn wasn't?  That is not good enough for me and it is a trite and problematic model to stick to.

In the end David is responsible re-writing the early history of Merion-East and correcting an erroneous story that had been told for years.

In the end, your protege is responsible for getting the history nearly all WRONG.  Promote his work if you like, but that sort of rewriting we can all do without.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba said:

"In the case of Pine Valley, we now know to a much greater detail who did what and it's clear that while Colt did more than those who believed the design was solely Crump's (whoever they might be, because I don't recall anyone here ever claiming that), it's also clear that the majority of what got built over time was mostly Crump's design, even as implemented after his death."

Tom MacWood responded:

"You don't recall the reaction of TE & Wayne when I mentioned to them that I had confirmed Crump committed suicide. That whole affair is exhibit A in defensiveness and the lengths they will go. Of course TE now claims he knew all along Crump's life story and his suicide - another form of defensiveness."


MikeC:

You are right that far more is now known about the creation years of Pine Valley and who did what and when than had been previously known but none of that has anything to do with Mr. MacWood.

Mr. MacWood did write an article on Crump's suicide in Jan 1918 but that article had nothing to do with who did what and when in the ensuing 5-6 years that Crump was involved with Pine Valley regarding his part and Colt's part (or anyone else's part). The reason for that is Mr. MacWood doesn't know any of that information other than what I've put on here (or what I gave to Paul Turner).

Crump's suicide and Mr. MacWood's apparent interest in it seems to have emanated out of Mr. MacWood's belief that Colt's contribution was minimized as the club and others around here sought to glorify Crump and his part in the creation of Pine Valley DUE to his suicide. This is not conjecture on my part, it is all very easily verifiable by numerous posts by Mr. MacWood in the back pages of this website BEFORE Mr. MacWood wrote that article on Crump's suicide. This is apparently another reason (perhaps one of the first) why Mr. MacWood seems to have become fixated on this debunking of "legends" particularly in and around Philadephia).

Again, Mr. MacWood's article on Crump's suicide had little to nothing to do with who did what and when architecturally in the preceding years before Crump's suicide or in the ensuing years. Exhibit A is not what Mr. MacWood says it is in the entire saga leading up to that article either. Exhibit A is pretty much the reaction towards Mr. MacWood of the Merchantville township manager who he initially contacted about this subject while neglecting to tell the man what he was REALLY calling him for. Wayne and I did call him but there is no reason at all not to do that in this context. Perhaps Mr. MacWood believes he has exclusive access to that township manager and what he thinks but that is of course ridiculous. Perhaps Mr. MacWood even thinks that township manager should have agreed to some unspoken secrecy agreement and even without being informed by Mr. MacWood what the real purpose of his call was. That is of course doubly ridiculous, not to even mention that Mr. MacWood now seems to assume that Wayne and I should've honored some ridiculous secrecy understanding that was never even mentioned. 

Mr. MacWood then says I now claim I already knew about Crump's life and suicide. I did not know that much about Crump's life before he launched into Pine Valley (just the basics of his previous life and family) but I had heard the rumor of his suicide for about thirty years. As I've said many times on here and Mr. MacWood continues to avoid and dismiss, the rumor of Crump's suicide has been around Pine Valley for many years (my old friend Mayor John Ott told me about it decades ago). And Geoff Shackelford and I discussed it and the idea of Geoff writing about it a number of years before Mr. MacWood even became aware of it or considered writing about it. Geoff decided not to do it for a few reasons I consider to be good reasons. If Mr. MacWood continues to try to disagree with that it would be pretty simple to just check with Geoff Shackelford on it. 

As far as what members of Pine Valley and others around here considered to be Colt's part and Crump's part that is a most interesting story in and of itself. Mr. MacWood seems to think the entire club was under the impression Crump did everything there. That is not the case at all but Mr. MacWood could have no way at all of knowing that because he has never known anyone from Pine Valley as I have for years. Mr. MacWood has never even been there which seems to be the same case as with a number of other clubs and courses whose histories he questions the accuracy of. I probably know over a hundred members and others down there and I know what many of them believed in that vein and it was not remotely close to what Mr. MacWood thinks, that's for sure.

It is true that when Mr. Finegan (and some others) wrote about Pine Valley in recent years a mistake was made in interpretation (primarily of the date on that so-called "blue/red line" topo map hanging in the clubhouse) and that led many in recent years to assume Colt did less than he actually did----eg that he was basically only responsible for fixing the routing and design of the famous par 3 fifth hole.

But Mr. MacWood was not the one to make that discovery, that's for sure! 

[TEPaul]

As far as what Mr. Moriarty discovered about the history of Merion, he definitely did discover that Hugh Wilson really did go abroad in 1912 and may not have in 1910 before design and construction of the course began.

For that, we here and Merion too are more than willing to give him credit and we've all said so on here numerous times.

However, virtually everything else he assumed and apparently concluded about the history of Merion in the years 1910-1911 that is reflected in his essay is simply wrong and must be considered historic revisionism. The fact that he seems to continue to deny the obvious, even to this day, does not really matter to the accurate history of Merion and who did what and when, including Macdonald/Whigam's part in it which has always been reflected in the written history of Merion and never minimized at all----despite the apparent protestations of Mr. MacWood and Mr. Moriarty on here to the contrary.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm affraid its not that black & white. Since no one has seen Barker's orignal routing or the 'final five' routings its very difficult to say who did what. We also have no idea if any of the 'final five' resembles the course as built, for all we know Macdonald may have rejected them all. There are many unanswered questions.

In this case the defensive came in the emotional response and attacks on David. Before it was done you had attempted to trash Macdonald, Whigham and Barkers careers in hopes you might elevate Wilson. Also the lengths you went to put Wilson on boats to Argentina and other ports unknown was pretty bizarre. And along the way you also tried (futile) to denigrate one of the best research tools we have today. Your defensiveness became so accute you got on here and accused me of holding evidence for years so I could embarras you.

In the end David is responsible re-writing the early history of Merion-East and correcting an erroneous story that had been told for years.

Tom,

I'm sorry but it is that black and white.   Barker's routing wasn't used and considered land that isn't part of what the club bought and didn't consider land that they did.   It wasn't used.   Macdonald and Whigham never submitted a routing.   Wilson and the Committee came up with multiple iterations, both before and after the visit to NGLA where they spent one day looking at sketches of holes overseas and the next going over the NGLA golf course.   They asked Macdonald to help them select the best of the five in April, then purchased the Francis Land Swap land and started building.  

You can deny and obfuscate and try to cloud this in mystery all you want but that's it in a nutshell.

As far as the Shipping Manifests that you hold out as gospel truth, let me ask a few questions because you know I've reviewed them in depth as well.

Did they require first names?

Did they require age?

Did they require residency?

Are there obvious mistakes, as in the case of George Crump?

Did they require gender?

Are there obvious mistakes in terms of companions and who was travelling with whom?

What about private vessels?   Did they always submit manifests to the governement?

Why wouldn't one consider Argentina as a possible route of travel back for Wilson?   He was a Maritime Insurance man who might have had business in many ports of call.  

There is no question that Hugh Wilson travelled overseas in 1912, and we also know he didn't go in 1911.    We don't know if he travelled prior because the manifests themselves are fraught with error, omissions, and vague information.  

There is nothing defensive at all about this, Tom.   I couldn't believe that you guys were using these as gospel to "prove" your theories once I started looking at them, as they had so many errors and inconsistencies that they raise way more questions than they answer.

I also would challenge your charge that I somehow insulted the work of Barker, Macdonald, and Whigham.

NGLA wasn't opened until 1911 and didn't even have the opening tournament for Macdonald's close friends until after Macdonald came to Merion in 1910.   Barker had nothing built on the ground that either of us were able to identify by June 1910.    It seems given his short time in the states and the geographic dispersion of his courses that most of them were either paper jobs or "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon", very much like what he did for Connell who hoped to entice Merion to buy his property.

There is nothing insulting about stating these facts and pointing out these tiimings.   This is the reality as it happened then.

Ok...I did kid around about Whigham being Macdonald's servile toady, but if ever threads needed some attempts at humor, boy did these ever!    

[wsmorrison]

One of the reasons why it may have been accepted into lore that Wilson went to the UK to study golf courses prior to construction of the new course in Ardmore is because a dated letter stating that Wilson went to Europe was incorrectly dated...it was off by a year, April 1911 rather than April 1912.  Tom Paul discovered the letter in his verification attempts.  Only by looking carefully at the receipt stamp by the Dept. of Agriculture, can you determine the typing mistake.

[TEPaul]

" We also have no idea if any of the 'final five' resembles the course as built, for all we know Macdonald may have rejected them all. There are many unanswered questions."

Mr. MacWood:

When you include the word "we" in your posts on here, do take care not to include some of us here in that context. I can understand that you may still have questions about a particular routing and design being accepted and constructed because you simply are not familiar with the club records that we are. If you want access to them the way is exactly the same as the way some of us here have taken. This only proves that there are many inaccuracies along the way if one takes a route and method of trying to analyze the history of a club's golf course without ever bothering to go to that golf club, as is the case with you. This is a general construct that just has to be constantly pointed out on here over and over again as long as you continue to deny it or dismiss it and discount it. This is a reality that applies to everyone, even you.

You continue to try to foist the idea that you can play the part of the expert researcher on here without ever doing all the necessary research work but it is my hope that most everyone can now, at this point, understand that will never be the case with anyone, even you. 

In a larger and general context, this is the very thing that a website like this one needs to know and should know. You can continue to ask endless questions about the details of the architectural history of golf courses and you can continue to try to make those questions look like facts but it will never be remotely productive trying to do it that way. And when your implications and suggestions completely fly in the face of internal club records and you continue to automatically dismiss them as inaccurate because they are contrary to your implications and suggestions, the whole process becomes far more unproductive and basically an everlasting waste of everyone's time and energies.

And all this is how you think you should try to impress people that you are some expert independent researcher/writer? I can't imagine that anyone understands that modus operandi any longer.

[Thomas MacWood]

I agree with Tom that the course wasn't open for play until 1913, with the club founded in 1912.  The planning of the course may have taken place a year or more earlier.  I don't believe Flynn designed the course in 1909.  Have any of you seen pictures of Kilkare?  I don't think there were any bunkers.  Rough and meandering streams were used to create lines of play and hazards.  It was very flat and very rudimentary.  

I have not seen any pictures of the course.

Flynn was a famous schoolboy golfer in Boston and very successful in competitions.  He was a very long driver of the ball and would have been considered an expert golfer.  It wouldn't surprise me if Wm Plunkett's son competed against Flynn in and they got to know one another well enough to give him a chance.  Though I guess I should look up the family tree in Ancestry.com so I can see when he was born. 

Famous is a relative term. He was one of the best high school golfers in Boston, along with Anderson and Ouimet. If you were in Plunkett's shoes would you go across the state and explore the HS ranks for someone to design your golf course? That makes no sense.

Update:  Theodor Plunkett was 8 years older than Flynn...they wouldn't have played schoolboy golf together, but they may have played amateur golf at some point.

How does that conversation go? A twenty-seven year old Theodor says, "I know we have a relationship with Alex Findaly, but you must engage this HS senior I've met to layout your new course. We really hit it off" That makes no sense.

Before anyone was looking to link architect to course, Flynn's daughter wrote to Geoffrey Cornish about her father's work in golf architecture for the book he and Whitten were writing.  That 1979 letter mentioned a course her father built for Wm Plunkett in Heartwellville, VT.  How would she come up with this long NLE course unless she had some direct knowledge of it from her father?  Is it a course he was likely to exaggerate his attribution of for some gain?  It was a rudimentary 9-hole course in rural VT.  Why couldn't it be Flynn and not Findlay?  Because Findlay was accomplished at the time and Flynn wasn't?  That is not good enough for me and it is a trite and problematic model to stick to.

Flynn's obit claimed Hartwellville was the first course he built. The obit also differentiates built from designed or laid out. It is easy to see how she could be confused. Your theory that Flynn designed the course makes no sense. All the evidence points to Findlay.


In the end David is responsible re-writing the early history of Merion-East and correcting an erroneous story that had been told for years.

In the end, your protege is responsible for getting the history nearly all WRONG.  Promote his work if you like, but that sort of rewriting we can all do without.

The Merion-East history has been wrong for decades, give credit where credit is due, David is responsible for correcting the record.

[Thomas MacWood]

I'm affraid its not that black & white. Since no one has seen Barker's orignal routing or the 'final five' routings its very difficult to say who did what. We also have no idea if any of the 'final five' resembles the course as built, for all we know Macdonald may have rejected them all. There are many unanswered questions.

In this case the defensive came in the emotional response and attacks on David. Before it was done you had attempted to trash Macdonald, Whigham and Barkers careers in hopes you might elevate Wilson. Also the lengths you went to put Wilson on boats to Argentina and other ports unknown was pretty bizarre. And along the way you also tried (futile) to denigrate one of the best research tools we have today. Your defensiveness became so accute you got on here and accused me of holding evidence for years so I could embarras you.

In the end David is responsible re-writing the early history of Merion-East and correcting an erroneous story that had been told for years.

Tom,

I'm sorry but it is that black and white.   Barker's routing wasn't used and considered land that isn't part of what the club bought and didn't consider land that they did.   It wasn't used.   Macdonald and Whigham never submitted a routing.   Wilson and the Committee came up with multiple iterations, both before and after the visit to NGLA where they spent one day looking at sketches of holes overseas and the next going over the NGLA golf course.   They asked Macdonald to help them select the best of the five in April, then purchased the Francis Land Swap land and started building.  

No one knows if Barker's routing was used or not because no one has seen it. Nor have they seen the five you mentioned. Francis said the additional land only changed the routing slightly - one tee and one green.

You can deny and obfuscate and try to cloud this in mystery all you want but that's it in a nutshell.

As far as the Shipping Manifests that you hold out as gospel truth, let me ask a few questions because you know I've reviewed them in depth as well.

Did they require first names?

Did they require age?

Did they require residency?

Are there obvious mistakes, as in the case of George Crump?

Did they require gender?

Are there obvious mistakes in terms of companions and who was travelling with whom?

What about private vessels?   Did they always submit manifests to the governement?

Why wouldn't one consider Argentina as a possible route of travel back for Wilson?   He was a Maritime Insurance man who might have had business in many ports of call.  

There is no question that Hugh Wilson travelled overseas in 1912, and we also know he didn't go in 1911.    We don't know if he travelled prior because the manifests themselves are fraught with error, omissions, and vague information.  

There is nothing defensive at all about this, Tom.   I couldn't believe that you guys were using these as gospel to "prove" your theories once I started looking at them, as they had so many errors and inconsistencies that they raise way more questions than they answer.

I also would challenge your charge that I somehow insulted the work of Barker, Macdonald, and Whigham.

NGLA wasn't opened until 1911 and didn't even have the opening tournament for Macdonald's close friends until after Macdonald came to Merion in 1910.   Barker had nothing built on the ground that either of us were able to identify by June 1910.    It seems given his short time in the states and the geographic dispersion of his courses that most of them were either paper jobs or "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon", very much like what he did for Connell who hoped to entice Merion to buy his property.

There is nothing insulting about stating these facts and pointing out these tiimings.   This is the reality as it happened then.

Ok...I did kid around about Whigham being Macdonald's servile toady, but if ever threads needed some attempts at humor, boy did these ever!    

Here we go again. The lengths you will go in the name of Hugh Wilson is remarkable.

[Thomas MacWood]

One of the reasons why it may have been accepted into lore that Wilson went to the UK to study golf courses prior to construction of the new course in Ardmore is because a dated letter stating that Wilson went to Europe was incorrectly dated...it was off by a year, April 1911 rather than April 1912.  Tom Paul discovered the letter in his verification attempts.  Only by looking carefully at the receipt stamp by the Dept. of Agriculture, can you determine the typing mistake.

Wayne
The legend has always had Wilson travelling in 1910. How come you didn't mention this April 1911 letter?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I believe I provided proof of the errors and inaccuracies and omissions of the manifests on the previous threads.

When an H. Wilson travels without any residence, any age, any sex, any listed companions, or a 60 year old George Crump travels with the wrong first name and his companion's name, etc., has similar errors then we aren't talking about retinal scans here, Tom.   Those documents make the Mexican Border look like the Berlin Wall.

Please don't make me spend more money to join Ancestry.com again just to waste everyone's time.

[Thomas MacWood]

Mike
The bottom line is the manifests correctly showed when Wilson and Crump & Baker travelled overseas...despite all your protests and crazy scenerios. They are a wonderful tool once you get the hang of it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike Cirba,

"In the case of Merion, there was never a routing or design produced by CB Macdonald and that's a fact.   The routing produced by HH Barker was never used and that's a fact.   There were multiple routings, including a "final 5" produced by Hugh Wilson and the Merion Committee and they asked for advice from Macdonald to help them select the best one, and that's a fact."


I must have tuned out of the Merion threads and missed these facts.  Can you point me to where the "final five" routings were discussed in detail?  Thanks in advance.  (I have no interest in the other portions of the Merion thread anymore, and fear this may help turn this one into another one.  Sorry for that if it happens)

[TEPaul]

"Wayne
The legend had Wilson travelling in 1910. How come you didn't mention this April 1911 letter?"

Mr. MacWood:

Because we were not aware of this letter until around May of this year. I went back to the USGA at that time to go through every single letter in those so-called "agronomy files" for the years 1911 and 1912.

I've told you all this now a number of times so one does need to ask why it is you aren't aware of it and continue to ask the same question.

As far as the letter's relevence to the writing of Merion's history book (Tolhurst in 1988 and 2005) those "agronomy letters" were, at that point, still either resting in the attic of some old USGA Regional Agronomist around the Mid-Atlantic where they had apparently been for many, many decades or else those revising the Tolhurst Merion history book were not aware of all of themin 2004 and 2005.

It is interesting that even if that letter from Francis was clearly written in May 1912, Richard Francis dated it 1911. Wayne just discovered that less than a week ago.

It seems a few of those men back then got the year wrong on some of their letters and recordings, most certainly Hugh Wilson who got the year wrong twice on the same page to do with the West Course.

[TEPaul]

"Mike
The bottom line is the manifests correctly showed when Wilson and Crump & Baker travelled overseas...despite all your protests and crazy scenerios. They are a wonderful tool once you get the hang of it."

Mr. MacWood:

That is true but the point Mike Cirba is making and has always made about ship passenger manifests is that in the absence of a record of someone on a digitized ship passenger manifest today, one can just not conclude that there is no way at all that person could not have been abroad.

If you are still attempting to suggest otherwise it is not hard to tell how illogical you are being for a number of reasons (for instance, how does anyone know if all ship passenger manifests from these times have been digitized at this point or even if they all even survived TO BE DIGITIZED?!).

If you think you can suggest to any degree of certainty or crediblity that they all have been, then do not blame any of us for taking your suggestion with some massive grains of salt!). 

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Whatever you say. Why would you criticize a tool you have never used and know nothing about?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Why would you accept the following manifest as George Crump when it has his his travelling partner's name incorrect, his own age incorrect, and his nationality incorrect...



...but then summarily discount a Mr. H.D. Wilson coming from France in 1910?



Or how can you discount one I need to put up of a Mr. H. Wilson coming from Liverpool in 1910, that has absolutely no other information listed?

What's more, you only located the Crump manifest by searching for Peters.    Like on many of the manifests, Crump's name is scrolled so illegibly that it doesn't show up in the search engine.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()