[Sean_A]

____________________________

I am surprised this debate popped up again.  Like David, I think the weight of evidence still points toward Wilson as the man responsible for the creation of Merion.

Sean, glad to have your input. Good timing,as I was recently thinking about some of your posts from long ago, shortly after my essay came out.  But before I get to that, let me say again that I have no doubt that Wilson deserves a huge amount of credit not only for creating Merion in 1911-1912, but also for overseeing it and improving it for many years to come.  However, as you may recall, I have always focused on trying to determine who is primarily responsible for the routing and the hole concepts.  It was in this regard that I was thinking of your old posts.

If I recall correctly, in the past you have indicated that the person(s) responsible for choosing the final design should be credited with that design, because regardless of whatever input they may have sought and/or received from others, the design was ultimately their decision.   Your statement above echos your past posts;  "I still don't think it matters much if he sought outside help, in fact, I would have expected him to seek outside experience." 

Am I understanding you correctly?    If so, I'd ask that you consider a few details that have come out since your previous participation.  Here is TEPaul's version of what happened in March and April of 1911:
-- After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.   
-- Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), M&W returned to Merion to review the five draft plans and to again go over the grounds (M&W had already gone over the property at least once before.)   
-- After reviewing all the draft plans and again going over the ground, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.   
-- In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different any of the five drafts they had reviewed. 
-- Shortly thereafter, Lesley presented the plan chosen M&W to Merion's Board, noting that M&W returned to the site, considered the drafts and ground, and had chosen and "approved" of the version presented.

If this is what happened, then weren't M&W in charge of choosing the final plan?   Sure, the Committee may have come up with some draft plans after meeting with M&W, but short of the Board's final approval it was M&W who made the final decision, at least of those involved in the design.  Wouldn't you therefore credit them with at least this aspect of the design?   

___________________________
To the Findlay Article:

Still, when I read the sentences below I don't know how they can't be open to interpretation.

This thread proves that the language is open to different interpretations.   That said I think we need to be careful our threads are consistent with both the text and the facts as we know them.   You wrote:

Findlay is asking Wilson to take a close look at Prestwick's Alps.  Why?  Because there is a disagreement between the two if what exists at Merion (be it rough layout, plan, sketch or just idea based on land forms) is really suitable in creating a good Alps.  I don't read that an Alps exists, only that that the idea of a Alps exists, hence the use of the word "imagined".  Now, Wilson is convinced that what indeed is "imagined" is not up to scratch to the original and that to make it so would require much effort.

As I understand the facts, while the hole may not had all the "finishing touches," it was not a "rough layout, plan, sketch or idea based on land forms."  It had been built and seeded, and it had been built as an Alps Hole.  He wasn't merely considering abstract ideas and possibilities "based on land-forms."   To the contrary, he had tried to build an Alps hole, including the requisite land forms on a CBM Alps hole such as the large berm behind the green.  Moreover, Findlay indicated that Wilson really imagined that an Alps such as Prestwick's "existed" at Merion.  It existed, it just wasn't like Prestwick's. 

Now, Wilson is convinced that what indeed is "imagined" is not up to scratch to the original and that to make it so would require much effort.  Findlay then ends by backing up the general idea of a template Alps because he knows CBM has created some good examples.

But CBM had not created enough Alps holes for Findlay's statement to make sense as you read it.  CBM had built NGLA's Alps, but I don't even think that the few others he had designed by then were even open.   [I have seen nothing that indicates that Findlay, a professional, had even been to NGLA at this point in time.]   And there is nothing in the text about "the general idea of an Alps."

I don't read that one was created at Merion by CBM, only that an Alps has been thought about and possibly CBM chose the land where one might exist.  If anything, I think these three sentences point toward a rejection of CBM's input, at least on this one issue, if indeed it was CBM's idea in the first place.

With all due respect, I think your understanding of what happened with this hole is mistaken.  Given all the negative comments Wayne and others have made about Merion's original 10th, one might get the wrong idea that is was immediately identified as folly and scrapped at the very beginning.   The reality was that the hole was praised, and was played as an Alps hole for over a decade.   It is my understanding that the Alps was scrapped because Merion no longer considered it safe and prudent to play over an increasingly busy Ardmore Avenue. Even Findlay ultimately liked the hole.   

After seeing Alps hole seeing Prestwick and realizing that Merion's Alps "will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot" Wilson did not reject the Alps at Merion.   To the contrary, he got to making it equal that of the famous old spot, and Findlay was very appreciative of the result. Three month's later Findlay praised Merion's Alps, noting that the second shot at Merion closely resembled the second shot on Prestwick's Alps. 

________________________

Sean,

What "other player" do you believe altered so much of the original design?  Thanks.

Mike

According to Wayne, what we have today is mainly a Flynn course.

Ciao 

I don't want to get into it on this thread, but I am very curious as to what Flynn had to do with designing the Merion, particularly when it comes to the routing of the course?   I have read that he flipped the direction of the dogleg on the first hole, but what else did he do?  Is he responsible for moving the second green, or was that under Wilson's watch?   

David

Does anybody know when the Alps was built?  Presumably, there was time to build some holes after Wilson's return and before Merion's opening.  Is it not possible that an Alps was built even after Wilson returned and deemed the idea not at all ideal, but no better solution could be found at the time?   I ask the questions because I don't know.  

Regarding CBM and other Alps, I don't know how many were built by the time this quote was produced, but I don't see how it can be referring to anything else other than CBM's other Alps holes.  Any other reading of "But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great." is stretched and unsupported by the text at hand.  There just isn't any wriggle room David.

"I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick,  which he really imagined existed on his new course.  He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot.  But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great."

To be honest, this quote smells very much apologetic to me.  If I had to take a shot at what was going on I would say both Wilson and Findlay are rejecting an idea put forward by CBM.  Perhaps you are right and the hole was built in some capacity before Wilson left, but I don't think so, well at least I don't think it was finalized which is to say it wasn't ready for consumption.  

So far as Flynn's involvement goes, unless I grossly understood Wayne's words, Merion is 60% Flynn and that is what I recall to be an exact quote.  To be honest, I am more interested in what Merion became rather than how it started and to me the involvement of Flynn is a fascinating concept. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt asked”

“Mike, Tom and Dave:
Who, precisely, went from 5 plans to 1? I presume it was the Golf Committee.  If it wasn't, who was it?
And do we know what person or persons actually made that choice?
In other words, who picked the plan that Lesley ultimately presented to the board?
This, to me, seems to be a rather important fact.

Dave's saying above that CBM made that pick.  Is that true or not?  And why?”



David Moriarty responded to it with”


“I wanted to return to this because, as you said, this is a rather important fact.   Sure, Mike sort of answered, but he has now backtracked. 
What about TEPaul?   Is he ignoring the question?  Or did he call you to scold you for acknowledging the importance of the question?  If so, did he happen to mention that it was M&W who chose the final routing?   
Let's settle this point so we can consider the ramifications.”



Shivas:

I’ll go through your questions:

1. “Who, precisely, went from 5 plans to 1?  I presume it was the Golf Committee.  If it wasn't, who was it?”


We don’t know who it was because neither the minutes nor the Wilson Committee report to the Golf Committee to be delivered to the board by Lesley, the chairman of the Golf Committee, says specifically who the person was who made the decision to send only one plan to the board. By the way, Lesley was not on Wilson's Committee that was not a permanent or "standing" committee but Wilson was on the Golf Committee, that Lesley was the chairman of and which was a permanent or "standing" committee. I think I pointed all that out a few days ago. So in a club organizational structure like MCC had then obviously Wilson's Committee was a form of an "ad hoc" committee that worked under the aegis of the Golf Committee. That's pretty common in clubs like that one.


2. “And do we know what person or persons actually made that choice?
In other words, who picked the plan that Lesley ultimately presented to the board?
This, to me, seems to be a rather important fact:


Again, we don’t know what person or persons made that choice. We don’t know who picked the plan that Lesley ultimately presented to the board because neither the Wilson Committee report to the Golf Committee nor Lesley’s Golf Committee report of the Wilson Committee report to the board mentions that specifically.

What we do know is the Wilson Committee report says that before visiting NGLA they had laid out many different courses and following their visit to NGLA the Wilson Committee then went home and rearranged the course and laid out five different plans. Then approximately three weeks later Macdonald and Whigam came to Ardmore for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over the grounds and looked over the plans and said they would approve the plan they felt contained a last seven holes that were the equal to any inland course in the world. The report says the Wilson Committee sent that particular plan to Lesley and the board.

Other than that it does not say who precisely went from 5 to 1 or who made the decision to send the plan tothe board that Macdonald said they would approve of. Since Hugh Wilson was the chairman of the committee who had been charged by MCC with creating a golf course for the club and that committee began its work at the beginning of 1911 (this is from a club report to the membership), and his report to the board four months hence, said they had created many different courses in the winter and then rearranged them to five different plans in the spring, I would assume Hugh Wilson made the choice to send the one Macdonald/Whigam approved to the board. After all, isn’t that what committee chairman do----eg make the final decisions about what the committee does or is going to do? But it doesn’t say that specifically anywhere (perhaps that wasn't recorded because noone felt it was necessary to record something like that and probably for good reason---ie it was probably pretty obvious to the men running Merion that the committee or man who ran the committee charged with creating a course for MCC made the final choice to send that particular plan to the board, don’t you think? But who the hell knows; maybe Wilson took a vote of his committee to see if they agreed to select the one Macdonald/Whigam approved of and send it to the board. I doubt it could’ve been Macdonald or Whigam who made the selection of which to send to the board because neither of them was on the committee that had been charged by MCC to create Merion East nor did either of them belong to Merion.

Frankly, I've never seen it written anywhere, I've never heard it said or even implied anywhere at any time that MCC even asked Macdonald/Whigam to create a golf course for them. All that has ever been said at any time (until a couple of speculators on this website came along) is that MCC just asked Macdonald/Whigam for some help and advice on how they could create a golf course themselves.

But again, it does not say anywhere who made the choice of which to send to the board, and so if you’all want to just parse sentences and argue over the meaning of a word or words endlessly to figure that out somehow or just continue to speculate about who made the selection or the choice to send the particular plan that went to the board, by all means, be my guest!

[Mike_Cirba]

The hypothetical here implies that the Committee worked for Macdonald.

That is hardly the case.

Hugh Wilson was the man in charge and Macdonald was brought in to provide expert advice in certain matters, particularly around agronomy and construction issues, as I read the correspondence.  They of course also used his knowledge about ideal holes and leading courses abroad as well as having him look over their "Final Five" and recommend the best.

In any case, it's a faulty analogy.


Shivas,

As far as the terminology back then, I can't say I've seen examples of routing being separated in the terms that were used.   The most common terms I heard for what we today call the architecture of a golf course included "laid out", "built", "constructed", and "responsible for".   

Perhaps Joe Bausch can weigh in as well, because although I'm pretty sure that there are exceptions, I can't think of any offhand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I just began to read this thread.

Below is a quote from you.

David,

Actually, you didn't just use Findlay's exact words.   Instead you spun them as such, adding your own interpretive verbiage;

From this we know that, according to Findlay:

Wilson mistakenly thought ("imagined") he had built a good "Alps" hole at Merion.

Findlay disagreed, and told Wilson to take a closer look at the real thing.  

None of the bolded words were written or even implied by Findlay.  They are your words, your implication, and your interpretation.

One doesn't need David's bolded words to understand the quote from Findlay.   He bolded words for emphasis for the most thick headed readers.

For you to deny the gist of the quote, because David bolded the words is ridiculous.  The words stand on their own merit and their message is crystal clear.  Here they are again.

"Wilson has just returned from a trip abroad.  He visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent the making of good golf holes.  I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick,  which he really imagined existed on his new course.  He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot.  But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.  ........"

I don't find anything disengenuous about David's summary as it seems to capture exactly what was stated above.

Now, it's back to reading the other 7+ pages of this thread

  

[DMoriarty]

David

Does anybody know when the Alps was built?  Presumably, there was time to build some holes after Wilson's return and before Merion's opening.  Is it not possible that an Alps was built even after Wilson returned and deemed the idea not at all ideal, but no better solution could be found at the time?   I ask the questions because I don't know.

A number of sources (including Hugh Wilson) wrote that the course was built in the spring and summer of 1911, and seeded in September of that year.  If memory serves, Wilson returned from his trip in mid to late May of 1912 and the course opened in mid-September 1912.   So while there may have been time between his return and the opening to build some bunkers and mounding, the backbone of the course was in place before Wilson's trip.   As for the Merion's Alps Hole in particular, a photograph on a Holiday Dinner Program from 1911 shows part of the course and identifies the large mound at the back of the 10th green.   As you know, the large mound behind the green was a typical feature on a CBM Alps hole.    So some version of the Alps hole was there before his trip.   

I don't think there is any reason to believe that Wilson rejected CBM's Alps hole as "not at all ideal."   Wilson not only built the hole, he kept it for more than a decade.   In fact, I have seen no evidence that Wilson rejected any of Macdonald's teachings on course design.   In his 1916 article in the Turf for Golf Courses, Wilson is still praising the help Macdonald gave him with Merion; "Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings." 

Regarding CBM and other Alps, I don't know how many were built by the time this quote was produced, but I don't see how it can be referring to anything else other than CBM's other Alps holes.  Any other reading of "But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great." is stretched and unsupported by the text at hand.  There just isn't any wriggle room David.

If an interpretation has an author speaking nonsense, then the interpretation is probably not correct.   And no matter how you count them, there were not enough CBM Alps holes in June 1912 for your interpretation to make sense.   "Many of the other [Alps Holes] as laid out by CBM" could not have been really great if there was only one or very few CBM Alps holes. 

The other interpretation has no such problem and fits very nicely if one recognizes that Findlay is writing about the 10th at Merion, and if one at least recognizes the possibility that CBM routed the course.    Cutting to the chase and leaving the CBM issue aside, I think we'll agree that he meant that Merion's 10th hole need a lot of work. Then, in contrast, he noted that many of the others were really great.     Merion's 10th needs a lot of work, but many of the others are really great.   Adding back in CBM shouldn't change the logic.

To be honest, this quote smells very much apologetic to me.  If I had to take a shot at what was going on I would say both Wilson and Findlay are rejecting an idea put forward by CBM.  Perhaps you are right and the hole was built in some capacity before Wilson left, but I don't think so, well at least I don't think it was finalized which is to say it wasn't ready for consumption.

   

I agree that is smells very much apologetic.   But not to CBM.  The article was not about CBM, but about Wilson and Merion.    Findlay subtly criticized Merion's Alps hole, noting that it needed a lot of work to match the real Alps.  But he followed this subtle but specific criticism with a broad compliment.  Merion's other holes are really great.

So far as Flynn's involvement goes, unless I grossly understood Wayne's words, Merion is 60% Flynn and that is what I recall to be an exact quote.

60% Flynn?  Wow.    As far as the routing and hole concepts, off the top of my head, I think Flynn might have been responsible for flipping the direction of the dogleg on the first hole, shifting and moving the 2nd green a bit back, and tweaking the back of the 14th green.  Other than that I don't know what the did to the backbone of the course.  But I'd be curious to hear what else he did and why that work ought to be considered redesign work.   They rebuilt the bunkers, but that project was started under Wilson.   The built some new back tees but that surely does not constitute a redesign. 

To be honest, I am more interested in what Merion became rather than how it started and to me the involvement of Flynn is a fascinating concept. 

I too am interested in what Merion became, but in my opinion understanding the beginning shines a whole different light on what came later.   

As for Flynn, I try to stay away from the topic generally.  If I tread too closely to the topic of Flynn, feathers tend to get even more ruffled than when I write about Merion.   

________________

[TEPaul]

"Over a decade later, even Alan Wilson acknowledged M&W's role in the design process, only crediting his brother Hugh for that which M&W were not responsible."

David Moriarty:

It is just that kind of fucked up tortured logic and COMPLETE garbage that pisses off any reasonable mind interested in this subject.

You show us where Alan Wilson EVER credited his brother Hugh FOR THAT WHICH M&W WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE!!!

GO ahead, get out ANYTHING you can find that Alan Wilson ever said about Merion East and SHOW US where he ever said anything like that. Don't avoid, evade, discount or try to rationalize this away anymore. YOU SHOW US WHERE HE EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Go ahead do it and stop torturing the events and records of those fine people back then. DO IT MORIARTY! SHOW US RIGHT NOW!


"Even in the disputed article, Hugh Wilson himself is Findlay's source, and so if Findlay meant that CBM planned the routing, it was likely because Hugh Wilson told him so."


"IF" Findlay meant......!!!!!

That's a pretty big "IF" don't you think?!?!? (Turkey deleted ). What are you trying to do now---make that remark look like it states some actual FACT of what Findlay MEANT??

And where did Findlay ever say "ROUTING?"

Are you now so confused over your own tortured logic and shilling of events and timelines that you now think Findlay's "others" (laid out by CBM) in his sentence is SYNONYMOUS with a golf course ROUTING, INCLUDING MERION's??

Matter of fact, try to show us if the word "ROUTING" was ever even USED by ANYONE within 20-30 years of Findlay's 1912 article on Merion.

Go ahead, quit avoiding the fact that you're constantly getting nailed by us in your own tortured logic. SHOW US how "others" could possibly mean ROUTING in that sentence. SHOW US where the word was even used back then.

Why don't you try to SHOW US how your tortured claim that "laying out" must mean actual building when Wilson and his committee used the term "laid out" referring to the plans they were drawing about 4-5 months BEFORE Merion East even STARTED TO GET BUILT!

SHOW US David Moriarty and stop avoiding every single question we ask that constantly proves you, your claims, assumptions, and conclusions wrong!

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Do you think the November 1910 article that claims the club hired Barker to lay out the course is historically accurate?

A yes or no answer will suffice.   And if you're honest with us, you'll at least admit the answer is no.

Mike, if you and others were honest, you'd have posted what you have in your possession and not restricted its release.

As to the accuracy of the article, that should be able to be ascertained with additional research, but, by no means should this article or any other article be withheld

Before you accuse me or Joe of sandbagging, please at least recognize that we were hoping to find any shred of supporting evidence in any other accounts before picking the scab off of this issue again.

If someone did the same to you, would you think they were sandbagging ?

That article brought no "NEW" information forward, and contains INACCURATE information.

That's your conclusion, one that may not be universally shared.

DISCLOSURE should be the FIRST order of business.
Ascertaining accuracy would be the NEXT order of business
WITHHOLDING is improper.

On the other hand, the Findlay article that Joe uncovered certainly introduced new information, so we thought it was very valuable and posted it here.

I don't think that SELECTIVE posting is in anyone's best interest, unless there's an agenda.

Mike Cirba,

Who decides which newspaper articles are accurate and which ones aren't accurate ?

As to "failure to publish" accusations from both sides, rather than explain why there's been a failure or hesitation to publish discovered articles, why not publish what's PREVIOUSLY been published, introducing it to the record, and then publish/post qualifying documents that either support or refute the article ?

I have to tell you that I feel uncomfortable when people knowingly withhold articles that may not reinforce their position, and then use the excuse that they wanted to further "authenticate" them prior to releasing them.

It's disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.

If anyone discovers an article related to the subject they should post it as it furthers the pursuit of the truth vis a vis discovery and due diligence.

Whether the article is 100 % accurate, 50 % accurate or 0 % accurate will be revealed in time with additional research, but, to WITHHOLD these articles is wrong.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom Paul wrote, "SHOW US where the word was even used back then."

I just spent some time on SEGL, and I only found the word used twice before 1945 - once in 1922 that described a golfer shooting a 67 and routing the competition, and once in 1929 speaking about the economy: "Economies will be affected all along the line, in freight routing, in accounting, etc.

[TEPaul]

"If anyone discovers an article related to the subject they should post it as it furthers the pursuit of the truth vis a vis discovery and due diligence."


Patrick:

An article? Do you mean a newspaper article? Who has ever with-held a newspaper article on one of these Merion threads? As far as I'm concerned those things are provably all over the place as to accuracy, depending on when they were written, who wrote them, the sources used and whether or not they actually interviewed someone who was actually involved and would know first hand.

[TEPaul]

Dan Hermann:

Precisely. Good post. Thanks for that but it should be David Moriarty answering that question because he's the one who used the word on here above in connection with Merion East and C.B. Macdonald in 1910 and 1911.

I keep saying and just keep hammering away on here that if one plays fast and loose with events and facts on here the "OLD TIMELINE" will show the errors or their ways eventually, and just as clear as the noonday sun----in this case even with a words or a word---ie "routing" as it applies to golf course architecture!

I think Dave Schmidt made a pretty appropriate point in that vein recently. I told him Moriarty's essay mentioned that "laying out" meant building (a golf course) and not routing or designing one as per the definition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Dave Schmidt said: "Did he use a 1911 Oxford English Dictionary when he looked up the definition of "laying out?" 

[henrye]

Just thought I'd comment on a couple of things.  First, Shivas seems to imply that it's somewhat absurd for MacDonald to approve his own plans, as his approval would appear redundant.  This, however, is very common when an individual is charged with providing final approval on a proposal.  Often, and very commonly when applying governance at a board level, a motion proposer also votes in favour of their own proposal.  It's not really a big issue, except that Shivas seemed to draw conclusions from the notion that it didn't make sense for someone to approve their own plan/proposal.

Second, MacDonald's approval could simply be his agreement or blessing of a particular plan in an informal way.  Nowhere have I seen it stated that MacDonald had any final approval (he may or may not have) on the plan that would be submitted to the board, rather, all we know is that he gave his approval (blessing) to one particular plan (whoever it was created or modified by).

[DMoriarty]

I have a crazy question, and I apologize if this was asked and answered on prior threads or if the answer is known and obvious or whether it's simply not known, but back in 1910-1912, did anybody back then, in writing,  ever separate or distinguish routing from any other part or parts of the course creation process?  I don't know a lot of this stuff, but I'd imagine it would have been called arranging or mapping or creating the course of the holes or something like that.   Did anyone, anywhere distinguish that part of the process in writing?  Or was building a golf course thought of more holistically back then?

Not exactly sure to what you are asking.  But as I explained above to Dan, it was pretty common for one person to plan the lay out (or stake out the course) and another (or others) to build the course.  An extreme example would be the '18 stakes in an afternoon' golf professionals;  they didn't stick around and lovingly nurse and develop the course into maturity, they staked out green locations and tee locations and maybe bunker locations and they were immediately on the road to the next town.  One interesting contemporary example involves H.H. Barker, the same architect who drew out the first lay out plan for a course on the Merion property, and a prominent D.C. area club.  If I recall correctly, Barker planned the layout for Columbia Country Club in or around 1909, but the course took a few years to get built and opened because of agronomy problems.  Ultimately Dr. Walter Harban took over as chairman of the green committee (like Wilson, he also wrote an essay for Turf for Golf Courses) and reseeded much of the course.   Over time he became the person most closely associated with the creation of the course and Barker's name pretty much dropped out of the courses history.  Now I believe they credit Travis, who made some changes later.

Anyway, I believe that numerous examples exist where the person who actually planned the layout is not the person credited with creating the course.   I just played one of the older courses in Southern California and according to a member who has researched the issue, its original design has been wrongly attributed to a prominent person in the regional golf association even though he had nothing to do with planning the course.   I haven't read Wayne's lengthy draft on Flynn, but doesn't he claim that Flynn designed courses that others ultimately got credit for.    I recall Wayne imploring me to drop my Merion research and to focus on NGLA, because he thought that individual's other than CBM played a large role in planning the course.    And then there is the Myopia debate, which I do not have any interest in getting into here.  Leeds gets all the credit for creating the course, but did he plan the original lay out of the holes?   My understanding is that it is at least debatable.   Pine Valley? Another one I have no interest in discussing for obvious reasons, but don't at least some early accounts that credit Colt for planning the lay out, and others who argue that Crump deserves the lion's share of the credit because he is the one who actually created the course (or a large part of it?) 

Some of these are the larger and more famous examples, and ones in which I am not offering an opinion on personally and do not wish to discuss, but in my reading I have found many less famous examples where one person planned the layout and another, often the person who oversaw the creation or a later designer who made minimal changes, is credited with designing the course.   
________________________________

Tom Paul wrote, "SHOW US where the word was even used back then."

I just spent some time on SEGL, and I only found the word used twice before 1945 - once in 1922 that described a golfer shooting a 67 and routing the competition, and once in 1929 speaking about the economy: "Economies will be affected all along the line, in freight routing, in accounting, etc.

Dan Hermann,

I didn't make it through TEPaul's post, nor do I plan to, so I am not sure to what you are referring.    As I explained to you above, they didn't necessarily use the same terms we used or value the same things we did.  It was all pretty new to them.    Surely you understand what I mean when I say routing, don't you?   I doubt I claimed anyone ever actually used the word then. 

_____________________________________________


Shivas and All,

Over the past few days TEPaul has not only admitted that (according to the MCC minutes) M&W chose the final routing from the 5 plans, but also that this was the final plan that went to the board, and even that it may have contained changes made by M&W that weren't even in the other plans!   Now we are to believe that the records in no way indicate that M&W chose the plan that went to the board??    Incredible.   

Isn't it amazing how TEPaul and Mike portray the MCC documents as crystal clear and beyond reasonable dispute when trying to convince us to believe their version of the story.  Yet suddenly, now that they finally realize that even their version of the facts undercuts their own story, they change their reading and can no longer draw any conclusions or even figure out what those portions of the documents really mean.   

Despite TEPaul's new song and dance, he has already written repeatedly that it was M&W returned to the site, went over the grounds, reviewed the plans and chose the best one and that one was sent to the Committee.   While I'd rather see the documents, I will take him at his word on this particular matter until I see proof to the contrary.   

From TEPaul, post 136:

The board report goes on to say that following the visit to NGLA Wilson and his committee did “five different plans.” It ends by reporting that Macdonald/Whigam returned to Merion for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over their plans and went over the ground and stated that they would approve of a particular plan as they felt it contained what would be the best seven holes of any inland course in the world! As they had done the previous June, Macdonald also suggested on April 6, 1911 that Merion should acquire that 3 acres behind the clubhouse which belonged to the P&W railroad and was not a part of the 338 land deal between Lloyd and the developers that included the land for the golf course that had already been purchased actually in the name of Lloyd and his wife. Presumably, as per Macdonald’s suggestion to that effect, by April 6, 1911, at least, one of the plans incorporated that 3 acre P&W land for some holes (that would be the land that included the old 12th green and the old 13th hole which no longer exist). I also believe it was just previous to this time (April 6, 1911) that Richard Francis conceived of his idea with Lloyd to do the land swap to create enough space in the existing triangle to construct the 15th green and 16th tee that would bring into design Merion's famous Quarry hole (#16). David Moriarty, in my mind, it is more than possible, although definitely not certain, that none of the five Merion plans on that day in April included that P&W land and that in fact may’ve been an architectural or conceptual suggestion that Macdonald/Whigam made on their own during that one and only single day they were there . . .  Within two weeks, the plan that Macdonald/Whigam said they would approve of was taken to the board and considered and approved and that was the routing and design plan used to create the original Merion East.

[DMoriarty]

_______________________________________

"Over a decade later, even Alan Wilson acknowledged M&W's role in the design process, only crediting his brother Hugh for that which M&W were not responsible."

David Moriarty:

It is just that kind of fucked up tortured logic and COMPLETE garbage that pisses off any reasonable mind interested in this subject.

You show us where Alan Wilson EVER credited his brother Hugh FOR THAT WHICH M&W WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE!!!

GO ahead, get out ANYTHING you can find that Alan Wilson ever said about Merion East and SHOW US where he ever said anything like that. Don't avoid, evade, discount or try to rationalize this away anymore. YOU SHOW US WHERE HE EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Go ahead do it and stop torturing the events and records of those fine people back then. DO IT MORIARTY! SHOW US RIGHT NOW!


"Even in the disputed article, Hugh Wilson himself is Findlay's source, and so if Findlay meant that CBM planned the routing, it was likely because Hugh Wilson told him so."


"IF" Findlay meant......!!!!!

That's a pretty big "IF" don't you think?!?!? (Turkey deleted ). What are you trying to do now---make that remark look like it states some actual FACT of what Findlay MEANT??

And where did Findlay ever say "ROUTING?"

Are you now so confused over your own tortured logic and shilling of events and timelines that you now think Findlay's "others" (laid out by CBM) in his sentence is SYNONYMOUS with a golf course ROUTING, INCLUDING MERION's??

Matter of fact, try to show us if the word "ROUTING" was ever even USED by ANYONE within 20-30 years of Findlay's 1912 article on Merion.

Go ahead, quit avoiding the fact that you're constantly getting nailed by us in your own tortured logic. SHOW US how "others" could possibly mean ROUTING in that sentence. SHOW US where the word was even used back then.

Why don't you try to SHOW US how your tortured claim that "laying out" must mean actual building when Wilson and his committee used the term "laid out" referring to the plans they were drawing about 4-5 months BEFORE Merion East even STARTED TO GET BUILT!

SHOW US David Moriarty and stop avoiding every single question we ask that constantly proves you, your claims, assumptions, and conclusions wrong!

TEPaul,

If you want me to discuss these matters with you, then you need to grow up. 

[TEPaul]

"First, Shivas seems to imply that it's somewhat absurd for MacDonald to approve his own plans, as his approval would appear redundant."


henryE:

Whether or not Macdonald approved his own Merion East plan is sort of beside the point. What the real point is, is when would Macdonald have had the opportunity and the time to do his own routing and hole design plan for Merion East?

Can you shed any light on that, henryE? I'd love to know because even after having been asked on here a number of times it appears David Moriarty isn't even capable of considering the question?  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
If you want me to discuss these matters with you, then you need to grow up."


David Moriarty:

Those kinds of posts and deflective responses really just aren't going to cut it on here anymore. This isn't about you so try not to make it about me----just answer the questions!

The longer you avoid them the more you will convince everyone out there in INTERNET land following these Merion/Macdonald threads how baseless everything you've said in your essays and in your posts on here about it really is.

Don't revert to personal responses just answer the questions I asked you on Merion! If you don't I'm just going to keep asking you. You know I will. This is only about Merion's architect and architectural history; it's not about you or me. 

[TEPaul]

"I didn't make it through TEPaul's post, nor do I plan to, so I am not sure to what you are referring."

Dan:

Well, shit, is it any wonder why this turkey is a complete waste of time and effort on these Merion threads? He isn't even willing to read the posts of the people who can actually teach him something about the details of the history of Merion!




"As I explained to you above, they didn't necessarily use the same terms we used or value the same things we did.  It was all pretty new to them.    Surely you understand what I mean when I say routing, don't you?   I doubt I claimed anyone ever actually used the word then."


It's not a matter or what Dan Hermann understands today, Moriarty. You made the point; excuse me, I should more ACCURATELY say you made the PREMISE in your ESSAY that when men like HUGH WILSON a century ago used the term "Laying Out" it meant "building" or "constructing" a golf course to someone else's plan to them and apparently that's the way they used it back then. You even cited Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "laying out" as meaning building not creating a routing and design plan on paper as Wilson and his committee did numerous times for Merion East.

By the way, was that a 1911 Oxford English dictionary you referred to? 

[TEPaul]

"From TEPaul, post 136:

Quote
The board report goes on to say that following the visit to NGLA Wilson and his committee did “five different plans.” It ends by reporting that Macdonald/Whigam returned to Merion for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over their plans and went over the ground and stated that they would approve of a particular plan as they felt it contained what would be the best seven holes of any inland course in the world! As they had done the previous June, Macdonald also suggested on April 6, 1911 that Merion should acquire that 3 acres behind the clubhouse which belonged to the P&W railroad and was not a part of the 338 land deal between Lloyd and the developers that included the land for the golf course that had already been purchased actually in the name of Lloyd and his wife. Presumably, as per Macdonald’s suggestion to that effect, by April 6, 1911, at least, one of the plans incorporated that 3 acre P&W land for some holes (that would be the land that included the old 12th green and the old 13th hole which no longer exist). I also believe it was just previous to this time (April 6, 1911) that Richard Francis conceived of his idea with Lloyd to do the land swap to create enough space in the existing triangle to construct the 15th green and 16th tee that would bring into design Merion's famous Quarry hole (#16). David Moriarty, in my mind, it is more than possible, although definitely not certain, that none of the five Merion plans on that day in April included that P&W land and that in fact may’ve been an architectural or conceptual suggestion that Macdonald/Whigam made on their own during that one and only single day they were there . . .  Within two weeks, the plan that Macdonald/Whigam said they would approve of was taken to the board and considered and approved and that was the routing and design plan used to create the original Merion East."


David Moriarty:

I'm very interested to know why you'd bother to quote that. What's your point exactly?

I can certainly see that something like that is POSSIBLE (to switch up a hole or two in just a single day on one of Wilson and committee's plans), even though there is no evidence of it. But something like that which is a fairly minor "plan" adjustment is just speculation on my part, and it's a very long way from Macdonald having the time or the opportunity to actually route and design the holes of Merion East or to be the "driving force" being Merion East which seems to be your recent fall-back position on the actual meaning of your remarkably illogical and tortured essay.

Perhaps you've just never been able to see or understand the distinctions or the reasons for them between the two. If that's the case, it's not surprising at all, believe me, and it's no knock on you really as you just don't have any practical experience with golf course architecture so how could one even expect you to understand or appreciate these things like Macdonald just didn't have the time or opportunity to do what you've been suggesting for some years now that he did at Merion IN ONE SINGLE DAY?

[Sean_A]

David

Does anybody know when the Alps was built?  Presumably, there was time to build some holes after Wilson's return and before Merion's opening.  Is it not possible that an Alps was built even after Wilson returned and deemed the idea not at all ideal, but no better solution could be found at the time?   I ask the questions because I don't know.

A number of sources (including Hugh Wilson) wrote that the course was built in the spring and summer of 1911, and seeded in September of that year.  If memory serves, Wilson returned from his trip in mid to late May of 1912 and the course opened in mid-September 1912.   So while there may have been time between his return and the opening to build some bunkers and mounding, the backbone of the course was in place before Wilson's trip.   As for the Merion's Alps Hole in particular, a photograph on a Holiday Dinner Program from 1911 shows part of the course and identifies the large mound at the back of the 10th green.   As you know, the large mound behind the green was a typical feature on a CBM Alps hole.    So some version of the Alps hole was there before his trip.   

I don't think there is any reason to believe that Wilson rejected CBM's Alps hole as "not at all ideal."   Wilson not only built the hole, he kept it for more than a decade.   In fact, I have seen no evidence that Wilson rejected any of Macdonald's teachings on course design.   In his 1916 article in the Turf for Golf Courses, Wilson is still praising the help Macdonald gave him with Merion; "Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings." 

Regarding CBM and other Alps, I don't know how many were built by the time this quote was produced, but I don't see how it can be referring to anything else other than CBM's other Alps holes.  Any other reading of "But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great." is stretched and unsupported by the text at hand.  There just isn't any wriggle room David.

If an interpretation has an author speaking nonsense, then the interpretation is probably not correct.   And no matter how you count them, there were not enough CBM Alps holes in June 1912 for your interpretation to make sense.   "Many of the other [Alps Holes] as laid out by CBM" could not have been really great if there was only one or very few CBM Alps holes. 

The other interpretation has no such problem and fits very nicely if one recognizes that Findlay is writing about the 10th at Merion, and if one at least recognizes the possibility that CBM routed the course.    Cutting to the chase and leaving the CBM issue aside, I think we'll agree that he meant that Merion's 10th hole need a lot of work. Then, in contrast, he noted that many of the others were really great.     Merion's 10th needs a lot of work, but many of the others are really great.   Adding back in CBM shouldn't change the logic.

To be honest, this quote smells very much apologetic to me.  If I had to take a shot at what was going on I would say both Wilson and Findlay are rejecting an idea put forward by CBM.  Perhaps you are right and the hole was built in some capacity before Wilson left, but I don't think so, well at least I don't think it was finalized which is to say it wasn't ready for consumption.

   

I agree that is smells very much apologetic.   But not to CBM.  The article was not about CBM, but about Wilson and Merion.    Findlay subtly criticized Merion's Alps hole, noting that it needed a lot of work to match the real Alps.  But he followed this subtle but specific criticism with a broad compliment.  Merion's other holes are really great.

So far as Flynn's involvement goes, unless I grossly understood Wayne's words, Merion is 60% Flynn and that is what I recall to be an exact quote.

60% Flynn?  Wow.    As far as the routing and hole concepts, off the top of my head, I think Flynn might have been responsible for flipping the direction of the dogleg on the first hole, shifting and moving the 2nd green a bit back, and tweaking the back of the 14th green.  Other than that I don't know what the did to the backbone of the course.  But I'd be curious to hear what else he did and why that work ought to be considered redesign work.   They rebuilt the bunkers, but that project was started under Wilson.   The built some new back tees but that surely does not constitute a redesign. 

To be honest, I am more interested in what Merion became rather than how it started and to me the involvement of Flynn is a fascinating concept. 

I too am interested in what Merion became, but in my opinion understanding the beginning shines a whole different light on what came later.   

As for Flynn, I try to stay away from the topic generally.  If I tread too closely to the topic of Flynn, feathers tend to get even more ruffled than when I write about Merion.   

________________

David

I have already stated that the passage in question is debatable as to its meaning.  That said, it is quite evident that both Findlay and Wilson were not satisfied with the Alps as it existed, imagined or real - that is quite clear from the text.  I never stated that Findlay and Wilson rejected the idea of CBM's template holes.  I said they rejected the specific Alps at Merion and yes, it eventually disappeared - which would suport the idea that it wasn't ideal.  If Findlay was referring to other templates at Merion that CBM designed, what are these holes?  I know a supposed Redan exists, which in fact is sheer nonsense because the 3rd is most certainly not a Redan in concept or design.  I find it very presumptous on your part to assume that CBM didn't have at least two other Alps in existence which the sentence could be referring to (and logically should be if the structure of the sentence is followed correctly) especially since we know at least one did exist. 

Like I said before, your reading could be correct, we will likely never know, but I do believe your interpretation wholly depends on CBM being the designer of Merion and that is a very big if.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

I find it very presumptous on your part to assume that CBM didn't have at least two other Alps in existence which the sentence could be referring to . . . especially since we know at least one did exist. 

First, it would take more than two Alps holes for your reading to make sense.   He said "many of the others" so there would have to have been enough CBM Alps holes for him to distinguish the "many" really great CBM Alps holes from the even larger set all CBM Alps holes, whether really great or not.   That sounds like a whole lot of Alps holes.  More than a few.   

Second, I didn't think I was assuming much at all.  Were there many CBM Alps holes in existence in June 1912?   I don't think so, but I am willing to listen.

If Findlay was referring to other templates at Merion that CBM designed, what are these holes?  I know a supposed Redan exists, which in fact is sheer nonsense because the 3rd is most certainly not a Redan in concept or design.

I don't think he was referring to specific templates at Merion.  I think he is referring to every hole on the course.   Merion's 10th needs work, but many of Merion's other holes are really great.

As for your comments about the Redan, so noted, now and before.   But you must realize that it doesn't matter whether you or I think it is a Redan.  What matters is whether they thought it was a Redan.  And they did. 

But perhaps we should agree to disagree on the matter of the Findlay article.   At least I think I have said my piece.

I wonder if you could perhaps address my other questions, from above.  I am very curious as to what you think.   

If I recall correctly, in the past you have indicated that the person(s) responsible for choosing the final design should be credited with that design, because regardless of whatever input they may have sought and/or received from others, the design was ultimately their decision.   Your statement above echos your past posts;  "I still don't think it matters much if he sought outside help, in fact, I would have expected him to seek outside experience."

Am I understanding you correctly?    If so, I'd ask that you consider a few details that have come out since your previous participation.  Here is TEPaul's version of what happened in March and April of 1911:
-- After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.   
-- Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), M&W returned to Merion to review the five draft plans and to again go over the grounds (M&W had already gone over the property at least once before.)   
-- After reviewing all the draft plans and again going over the ground, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.
-- In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different any of the five drafts they had reviewed.
-- Shortly thereafter, Lesley presented the plan chosen M&W to Merion's Board, noting that M&W returned to the site, considered the drafts and ground, and had chosen and "approved" of the version presented.

If this is what happened, then weren't M&W in charge of choosing the final plan?   Sure, the Committee may have come up with some draft plans after meeting with M&W, but short of the Board's final approval it was M&W who made the final decision, at least of those involved in the design.  Wouldn't you therefore credit them with at least this aspect of the design?   

[Sean_A]

I find it very presumptous on your part to assume that CBM didn't have at least two other Alps in existence which the sentence could be referring to . . . especially since we know at least one did exist. 

First, it would take more than two Alps holes for your reading to make sense.   He said "many of the others" so there would have to have been enough CBM Alps holes for him to distinguish the "many" really great CBM Alps holes from the even larger set all CBM Alps holes, whether really great or not.   That sounds like a whole lot of Alps holes.  More than a few.   

Second, I didn't think I was assuming much at all.  Were there many CBM Alps holes in existence in June 1912?   I don't think so, but I am willing to listen.

If Findlay was referring to other templates at Merion that CBM designed, what are these holes?  I know a supposed Redan exists, which in fact is sheer nonsense because the 3rd is most certainly not a Redan in concept or design.

I don't think he was referring to specific templates at Merion.  I think he is referring to every hole on the course.   Merion's 10th needs work, but many of Merion's other holes are really great.

As for your comments about the Redan, so noted, now and before.   But you must realize that it doesn't matter whether you or I think it is a Redan.  What matters is whether they thought it was a Redan.  And they did. 

But perhaps we should agree to disagree on the matter of the Findlay article.   At least I think I have said my piece.

I wonder if you could perhaps address my other questions, from above.  I am very curious as to what you think.   

If I recall correctly, in the past you have indicated that the person(s) responsible for choosing the final design should be credited with that design, because regardless of whatever input they may have sought and/or received from others, the design was ultimately their decision.   Your statement above echos your past posts;  "I still don't think it matters much if he sought outside help, in fact, I would have expected him to seek outside experience."

Am I understanding you correctly?    If so, I'd ask that you consider a few details that have come out since your previous participation.  Here is TEPaul's version of what happened in March and April of 1911:
-- After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.   
-- Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), M&W returned to Merion to review the five draft plans and to again go over the grounds (M&W had already gone over the property at least once before.)   
-- After reviewing all the draft plans and again going over the ground, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.
-- In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different any of the five drafts they had reviewed.
-- Shortly thereafter, Lesley presented the plan chosen M&W to Merion's Board, noting that M&W returned to the site, considered the drafts and ground, and had chosen and "approved" of the version presented.

If this is what happened, then weren't M&W in charge of choosing the final plan?   Sure, the Committee may have come up with some draft plans after meeting with M&W, but short of the Board's final approval it was M&W who made the final decision, at least of those involved in the design.  Wouldn't you therefore credit them with at least this aspect of the design?   

David

"I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick,  which he really imagined existed on his new course.  He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot.  But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great."

I don't think your reading is accurate at all in context of what was written.  The reason for Wilson to visit the UK was to look at original design concepts.  The entire passage is about the 10th, an Alps.  If Findlay is suddenly and out of nowhere is now talking about the remainder of the course with the last sentence I would be very surprised because that sort of thing isn't even hinted at earlier.  Maybe there were more than two Alps in existence, I don't know, but to me, this seems more reasonable than to suddenly state out of the blue that CBM was the designer of Merion - which in fact the passage doesn't state - that is your interpretation which is biased by your previous conclusions that CBM is largely responsible for Merion. 

I don't know who reduced the plans from 5 to 1.  It seems to have been a committee decision.  Unlike Tom P, I don't necessarily agree that it was the Chair's call because often times the Chair of a committee only has a deciding vote.  To my way of thinking, if it was solely Wilson's call there wouldn't be a committee - it would be Wilson calling the shots.  In other words, the job of a chair is not to make the ultimate decisions for the committee.  His job is to chair the meetings so they are effective and to the point and ensure that progress is made toward the goal.  So, absent any direct evidence (which I haven't seen) I can only conclude that Wilson was the driving force behind Merion with the help of committee members and other outside advisors which CBM seems to be one of. 

Honestly Dave, I could care less who designed the original iteration of Merion.  I find the entire debate fascinating, but I haven't seen you produce any killer evidence which demonstrates that CBM was the designer of Merion.  I think it would be wild if indeed CBM were the designer of Merion because it would represent a major departure from his "style" and perhaps a great many people may then think of him very differently. 

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer?  Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?

[Mike_Cirba]

Why wouldn't Merion have hosted a celebratory dinner for Macdonald and Whigham and trumpeted the news worldwide that their new course was designed by M&W?   These guys were the creators of NGLA and Macdonald was probably the most famous golfer in America.

In fact, why would they hide it?

David's article claims they of course meant no slight over the next 30 years when every single article credited Hugh Wilson with never again a single mention of Macdonald the rest of their respective lives, and that Tillinghast and Findlay were silent partners in this "slight oversight", but always implying some conspiratorial tones to hide the truth.

I thought that this subject was exhausted, but I have to admit...this new tack of CB Macdonald as "The DECIDER", ala George W. Bush, is such a fresh, soft, runny, squishy set of bull turds that have been "laid out" that it smells from here to Kentucky.   

Such simple little common-sense questions that David consistently and purposefully fails to answer in his seeming "search for the truth" get lost in the semantic nonsense, and now that Macdonaldite Patrick has jumped in to defend David I see this thread breaking all records.   

At the point where David seriously tried to argue that the article stating that Macdonald "laid out others" is dispositive proof that he designed the holes at Merion while simultaneously dismissing scores of reports, internal minutes, and eye-witness accounts by men like Tillinghast that Hugh Wilson and Committee "laid out Merion" meant they were construction workers following Macdonald's one-day plan I should have run like hell from this intellectually dishonest circle-jerk.

In fact, given the early 1913 Merion letter crediting Wilson and committee for "laying out and constructing" the new course spelled it slightly differently, I'm waiting for David to suggest that "laid out" in the case of Macdonald means course routing and design while "layed out" in the case of Wilson means "laying around, or engaging in other prone activities", and citing the Portugeuse Slang Dictionary of 1908 as his source."     

So, have fun, fellows.   

A wise person advised me to avoid this thread a few weeks ago.

I'm now taking his advice and I'd advise him to do the same.

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

The following is another example of how David Moriarty has constantly tried to rationalize that CBM even could have routed and designed the holes of Merion East.


“I don't think he was referring to specific templates at Merion.  I think he is referring to every hole on the course.”


Notice how he said he feels Findlay was referring to every hole on the course of Merion East that are the “others” that Findlay said CBM has laid out that are really great!


Sean, I can very easily show you how that assumption of Moriarty’s is a virtual impossibility but for me to show you and others that you have just got to stop parsing those sentences in Findlay’s article. They are largely irrelevant and unimportant when you carefully consider WHAT ELSE I am about to tell you and have told you before on this thread but perhaps you didn’t read it or appreciate the extreme importance of it.

C.B. Macdonald and Whigam JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY to substantially design or redesign Wilson and Committee’s Merion East plans because they JUST DIDN’T HAVE THE TIME TO DO THAT!!! And this doesn't even broach the fact that Wilson and committee and MCC at no time ever even asked them to do something like that because if they did noone, but noone has EVER mentioned or implied such a thing about Merion East.

If you really want to understand the truth of the architectural history of Merion East and who did it including who was in the main responsible for it, eventually you’re going to need to deal with that reality.

Would you like to do that, Sean, or do you want to spent all your time looking at something and trying to analyze something that is largely irrelevant to this matter, not to mention incredibly unclear as to its meaning in and of itself (the Findlay article)? What I’m speaking of can show any analyst the truth here who is even semi-familiar with the realities and practicalities that have to do with time and opportunity in GCA when it comes to substantially routing and designing a plan for a golf course.

It’s your call, just let me know.

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

Consider the quote below:


"-- In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different any of the five drafts they had reviewed."


Now find it in the bottom half of Moriarty's Post #298.


It is in the part that Moriarty says is my version of events. I said that in a single day it is possible, in my opinion (and I stated that my opinion on that point was merely speculation on my part) that M&W could've made some suggestions in that single day in April that could've created a MINOR alteration in the routing and design plan that went to the board for approval. I even supplied a logical example on this thread of what that MINOR alteration may've been but I NEVER said or implied that "it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different from any of the other five drafts they had reviewed."

I hope you understand, Sean, that MINOR is just about the antithesis of SUBSTANTIVE! 


The latter remarks in quotes are Moriarty's words not mine even though he attributes them to me in his post #298. He has always had a odd way of doing that with the remarks of others on here. Obviously he does it for a reason---eg he thinks it makes it appear that what others have said somehow makes his point. The fact is I have always categorically disagreed with him about this very point regarding Merion and Macdonald, and I said so a number of times on this very thread.

He altered my own words to try to make it look like I said or believe that it was possible that Macdonald altered the plan (that went to the board for approval) so that it was substantively different.

I don't believe that and I never have, and I believe I can prove it with Merion own record. Quite the opposite in fact; I believe it was virtually impossible for Macdonald to have even been able to do that and again I can quite easily show you why I believe that was virtually impossible for him to do.

[mike_malone]

 David M.

   I sure hope you wouldn't send someone to prison based on your interpretation of Findlay's words.  I can see various interpretations as possible but none are clear.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()