[Thomas MacWood]

When was Merion awarded the 1916 US Am?

[DMoriarty]

Tom, At the January meeting if I recall correctly.
__________________

Joe,  Surely you understand that the Wilson letter,  written in 1926 and based  second hand information, does not constitute a "club record."   

There are multiple reports that the West course was intended to be the East's equal.   I believe at least one other article suggests that the west was the harder of the two.  And articles note a debate on which course should be used for match play at the 1916 Am.   

While Lesley acknowledges that the East is harder in his 1914 article, he  plays up that the courses are equal in quality and still present.

There may be support for this notion that the West was intended to be a secondary course, but if so such information has not been forthcoming.

_________________________

Wayne, I don't have my documentation in front of me, but I think you may want to recheck what you wrote about the par on both courses pre-1916.   

_________________________

Joe,

As I have discussed in my previous posts (and maybe my essay, I don't remember)  the article you site about the course opening is a pretty transparent rip-off of the Findlay article.   Note that they describe the eighth as playing over a "plain."  The Findlay article describes the hole as being "plain."   Not even good plagarism.    Other rip-offs exist as well.


As for this latest Findlay article, is this the same one again where Findlay praises Pickering? (This one has been "discovered" at least two or three times since I first quoted it in my essay.)

Compare it to the Findlay article of which Wayne provided you a copy. 

___________________________

Mike Cirba,

Did you really just quote yourself and then respond to your own quote?   What do you need us for?

Again, this article is discussed in my essay.   As were Macdonald's recommendations on when to build fairway bunkers.   

This has been covered again and again.   

[Joe Bausch]

When was Merion awarded the 1916 US Am?

January 14, 1916.

[Joe Bausch]

As for this latest Findlay article, is this the same one again where Findlay praises Pickering? (This one has been "discovered" at least two or three times since I first quoted it in my essay.)

No.

David, when I say I've uncovered something new by Findlay, then that is what I mean. 

You might want to re-check your info as to where Findlay published his 'Breezy' article on Merion.  Your essay says the Public Ledger.  I've never seen any Findlay article in this newspaper.

[DMoriarty]

As for this latest Findlay article, is this the same one again where Findlay praises Pickering? (This one has been "discovered" at least two or three times since I first quoted it in my essay.)

No.

David, when I say I've uncovered something new by Findlay, then that is what I mean. 

You might want to re-check your info as to where Findlay published his 'Breezy' article on Merion.  Your essay says the Public Ledger.  I've never seen any Findlay article in this newspaper.

But it was Mike who said you had found something new.   He has been mistaken about such things in the past, which is why I asked for clarification.   

We discussed the Breezy article and the "Public Ledger" attribution in private messages, didn't we?   Given that you have found another of Findlay's articles then you likely know where my article is from.  If so, are you playing games?

Did you ever get a copy of that page you were looking for?  I still have no working scan, but I can snap a photo if you still need it. 

[Joe Bausch]

As for this latest Findlay article, is this the same one again where Findlay praises Pickering? (This one has been "discovered" at least two or three times since I first quoted it in my essay.)

No.

David, when I say I've uncovered something new by Findlay, then that is what I mean. 

You might want to re-check your info as to where Findlay published his 'Breezy' article on Merion.  Your essay says the Public Ledger.  I've never seen any Findlay article in this newspaper.

But it was Mike who said you had found something new.   He has been mistaken about such things in the past, which is why I asked for clarification.   

We discussed the Breezy article and the "Public Ledger" attribution in private messages, didn't we?   Given that you have found another of Findlay's articles then you likely know where my article is from.  If so, are you playing games?

Did you ever get a copy of that page you were looking for?  I still have no working scan, but I can snap a photo if you still need it. 

Thanks for editing and deleting certain material from your original post above.  I think it was a wise move.

If you re-read one of my posts above, you'll know that I don't have a copy of this 'new' Findlay article in my possession.  At some point I will, and I'll post the contents soon thereafter.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

Did you really just quote yourself and then respond to your own quote?   What do you need us for?

Again, this article is discussed in my essay.   As were Macdonald's recommendations on when to build fairway bunkers.   

This has been covered again and again.   

David,

Can you show us where Macdonald recommended this approach to Hugh Wilson and/or the Merion Committee or to anyone else prior to 1911?

The first mention I see from Macdonald advocating observing play on the course before determining the placement of bunkers is 1928 in his book.   Perhaps by that time he had already determined that the rote, formulaic placement of bunkers he'd routinely used to serve his template models didn't always make sense when applied to different, varying pieces of land??   Can you show us how he implemented that strategy on NGLA between the time the course opened and the next few years?   Which new bunkering did he add to NGLA after the course opened in 1910/11 to create imaginative new strategies on his template holes?

If CB Macdonald had already designed Merion prior...as far back as 1910 as you speculated, or perhaps during his final visit in April 1911, then why wait anyway?    Wouldn't Macdonald have shown the fuzzy-headed Merion Committee exactly where to place the hazards in the first place when he designed the course for them??   It's now 18 months later, the course has just opened, and they still haven't figured out where to place the bunkers on Macdonald's self-defining template holes??!      What a bunch of numbskulls!   

Or, perhaps Macdonald's plans weren't very clear...perhaps they were left out in the rain by the bumbling Hugh Wilson and the ink had smudged?   

Perhaps the club dog Sparky ate them?? 

Perhaps they....good gracious no!...perhaps they didn't exist!?!

Otherwise, David...can you tell us why they'd have to wait until spring of 1912 to place the hazards and determine the strategies??

WHO played Merion between fall 1911 seeding and grow-in and spring 1912 who would be following Macdonald's supposed advice to them against placing hazards until the course is played and observed?

NOBODY was playing the course then, David.

The Merion Committee was still designing it.

[Dan Herrmann]

"... When everything is considered, the West Course at Merion calls for every shot in the bag".

What's great is that's still the case today. 6, 7, and 8 are all architectural gems - short for sure, but long on fun.

[Thomas MacWood]

When did Wilson begin redesigning the East?

[DMoriarty]

Come on Mike, knock it off.

Macdonald was placing and moving bunkers and other features from when they first started playing on NGLA in 1909, through the "formal" opening of club, and for years after. 

The article that Joe posted and that you quote is dated Sept. 14 1912.     The course was open.   I discussed all this in my essay.


 

Can you show us where Macdonald recommended this approach to Hugh Wilson and/or the Merion Committee or to anyone else prior to 1911?

The first mention I see from Macdonald advocating observing play on the course before determining the placement of bunkers is 1928 in his book.   Perhaps by that time he had already determined that the rote, formulaic placement of bunkers he'd routinely used to serve his template models didn't always make sense when applied to different, varying pieces of land??   Can you show us how he implemented that strategy on NGLA between the time the course opened and the next few years?   Which new bunkering did he add to NGLA after the course opened in 1910/11 to create imaginative new strategies on his template holes?

If CB Macdonald had already designed Merion prior...as far back as 1910 as you speculated, or perhaps during his final visit in April 1911, then why wait anyway?    Wouldn't Macdonald have shown the fuzzy-headed Merion Committee exactly where to place the hazards in the first place when he designed the course for them??   It's now 18 months later, the course has just opened, and they still haven't figured out where to place the bunkers on Macdonald's self-defining template holes??!      What a bunch of numbskulls!   

Or, perhaps Macdonald's plans weren't very clear...perhaps they were left out in the rain by the bumbling Hugh Wilson and the ink had smudged?   

Perhaps the club dog Sparky ate them?? 

Perhaps they....good gracious no!...perhaps they didn't exist!?!

Otherwise, David...can you tell us why they'd have to wait until spring of 1912 to place the hazards and determine the strategies??

WHO played Merion between fall 1911 seeding and grow-in and spring 1912 who would be following Macdonald's supposed advice to them against placing hazards until the course is played and observed?

NOBODY was playing the course then, David.

The Merion Committee was still designing it.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for editing and deleting certain material from your original post above.  I think it was a wise move.

If you re-read one of my posts above, you'll know that I don't have a copy of this 'new' Findlay article in my possession.  At some point I will, and I'll post the contents soon thereafter.

Do you know in which paper(s) the Breezy articles appeared?

Have you posted all your articles on early Philadelphia golf?   If not, I'd appreciate seeing them.   As you know, unlike many of the contributors to this conversation, I am a long ways from Philadelphia so I don't have immediate firsthand access to the source material. 

[Joe Bausch]

Thanks for editing and deleting certain material from your original post above.  I think it was a wise move.

If you re-read one of my posts above, you'll know that I don't have a copy of this 'new' Findlay article in my possession.  At some point I will, and I'll post the contents soon thereafter.

Do you know in which paper(s) the Breezy articles appeared?

Yes.

Have you posted all your articles on early Philadelphia golf?   If not, I'd appreciate seeing them.   As you know, unlike many of the contributors to this conversation, I am a long ways from Philadelphia so I don't have immediate firsthand access to the source material.

I've never counted how many articles I have on early Philadelphia golf.  It is certainly in the hundreds, if not more than a thousand by now.  Hence, I have barely posted much of my collection at all.

[DMoriarty]

. . . .Maybe I should have left my comments last night . . .

[Mike_Cirba]

. . . .Maybe I should have left my comments last night . . .

David,

That's really not fair.

Joe has posted/shared everything he's found of relevance to the matters we've been discussing/debating over the past months, and has also posted a whole host of other articles of interest to those of us interested in the early history of PHilly golf, including virtually ALL of the wonderful stuff on Cobb's Creek.

I'm not sure what you're expecting from him here?

[Joe Bausch]

. . . .Maybe I should have left my comments last night . . .

I don't know why you took them down David.  I saved them.

[DMoriarty]

. . . .Maybe I should have left my comments last night . . .

I don't know why you took them down David.  I saved them.

Feel free to repost them if you like.   

After I posted, I reread your posts and thought that perhaps I was misreading you and that I was not sure I was being entirely fair to you, so I edited my comments.   Pretty quickly after I posted, I think.   

 I am tired of the games with the source material, and was disappointed to see you engaging in them, but then thought I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

Here is what I was thinking in the edited portion last night . . .

You know that I know that my Public Ledger attribution may not have been correct, and that the reason is the way the articles were placed in the Sayres scrapbook.    You know that I also tried to help you figure out where the article came from, if not the Ledger article.

So your suggestion to me that I recheck my source wasn't conveying any real information, but was more about playing games with the documents, wasn't it?   Seems like I know and you don't to me.    Otherwise, what was the point.   Same goes for your latest non-answer answer to my question about the attribution.   

When I get the chance, I'll change the attribution in the essay to "Joe Bausch says it is not Public Ledger, and knows where it is from, and it is important to him that I know this, but he not saying where the publication is from."     Does that work for you? 

You have indicated to me repeatedly that you were not going to play these games, and were not going to take sides, and what you found was equally available to everyone.    Yet here you are, apparently playing them.

As I've said a number of times on the public board and off, your contribution here has been terrific.  As Tom MacWood has pointed out, through your posts we've learned more about Philadelphia Golf than the other supposed researchers have taught us in about 8 years.   

But as you used to know, this isn't about who-can-find-what, it is about figuring out what happened.  It is sad if you are losing site of this. 

. . . .Maybe I should have left my comments last night . . .

David,

That's really not fair.

Joe has posted/shared everything he's found of relevance to the matters we've been discussing/debating over the past months, and has also posted a whole host of other articles of interest to those of us interested in the early history of PHilly golf, including virtually ALL of the wonderful stuff on Cobb's Creek.

I'm not sure what you're expecting from him here?

I think his contribution has been terrific.   He's been the most valuable contributor by far, with the possible exception of Tom MacWood.   He is one of the reasons I came back to gca.com.

But what you write above is not really square, is it?   You've referenced a number of articles of his before he has posted them, and implored him to post this or that.    Wayne Morrison touts that Joe has helped him gather a substantial library of information, and has made a point of repeatedly saying that I will never see that info.

Don't get me wrong.  I have no entitlement to Joe's hard work.  I know how difficult and time consuming this type of research can be, and if he wants to feel proprietary about it, that is his business.

But I do want to make sure we all know the score.   
-- If Joe wants to play the role of neutral fact-finder, then that it is terrific, but there is no place for games.   
-- If he wants to be just another Philly partisan or if he wants to serve them, then that is his choice as well.   But if that is the case we should all look at his information a bit differently, and assume we are only seeing what serves his interests.

So what'll it be, Joe? 

_______________________________

Again, Joe,  Do you still need a copy of that scrapbook page or not? 

[Joe Bausch]

Joe,

I don't recall the emails regarding the scorecards indicating the routing progressions in the 1913 and 1915 articles.  I sure would like to see them.
Thanks,
Wayne

Weeks before I uncovered that Evening Bulletin article above that suggests at opening in 1912 the routing of Merion East was the same as it is now, I was just curious if early Philadelphia Inky articles where occasionally scorecards are given could shed any light.  And I think they do.

Here was the first in my investgation, where in July of 1913 the scorecard for the Philadelphia Open participant Jack McDermott was given.  His scores on the 3rd and 4th holes (3 and 6) suggests to me the routing in 1913 was the same as it is currently. 



Ok, then I knew the routing for the 1916 Amateur was different, but when did it likely change.  Back to finding some newspaper scores.  Here is one from June of 1915 for the women's Eastern Championship.  Many hole by hole scores are posted and it seems clear to me the routing has now changed.



Hence, a good guess would be the routing changed sometime in 1914.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()