Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson / AWT chats with CBM

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Here is what Findlay wrote:

"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."

 Read the words.  Nothing about Macdonald's travel advice to Wilson.  Nothing about Myopia's Alps. Nothing about CBM's other courses or holes.   Certainly nothing as creative as "He 'laid out' Wilson's itinerary."

All your nonsense and hemming and hawing doesnt change the fact.  Nor does your nitpicking about words used in my explanation of what the quote meant after I set out the actual quote.

Bottom Line:  From the article we learn, among other things, that: 

Findlay didn't like Merion's Alps Hole, but thought many of the others as laid out by Charles McDonald, are really great.

Nothing you have written or will write can change this.   

____________________________________________________

Mike Cirba and TEPaul,

You can can write all you want about what the minutes say.  But until those documents (not just the minutes) are available for us all to see, it is all just noise, for reasons that should be obvious to everyone by now.   If these discussions over the years have proven anything it is that you guys obviously cannot be trusted to accurately dissimenate source material.

I mean come on, Guys, in this single thread:

1.  We have about four different absurd interpretations of a not too difficult couple of sentences by Findlay, and absolutely no recognition of the simplest and most obvious interpretation.

2.  We have TEPaul claiming that he and Wayne have been sitting on the Barker article for years, even though it goes to the heart of the matter so often discussed on this board, and even though they have repeatedly assured us that they have brought everything to light. 

3.  We have Cirba admitting that he was also trying to control the record by sitting on the same article.  (Particularly ironic given Cirba's past righteous outrage and false accusations and paranoia about me supposedly sitting on documents.)

4.  We have both of you guys trying to justify why it is just fine for you to attempt to control the record by failing to disclose a newspaper article stating that Barker was hired my M.C.C. to build the course.  

5.  We even have Cirba  misrepresenting the meeting minutes  to justify his fantastic reading of the Findlay article ("'laid out' the itinerary" ?!?!)

6.  And of course we have TEPaul waxing on about how it is me who cannot be trusted with source material.  That's rich.

I'm not back here to argue with the two of you.  Your minds have been set for years on these issues, and no amounts of facts will change this.    I just wanted to pop in and remind anyone still reading how absurd this has all become, and to take everything you guys write with a huge grain of salt.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I know you're not much on news accounts, but thanks to the marvels of modern archiving capabilities I've been able to go back and find photographic evidence of both Hugh Wilson and H.H. Barker working together under the iron-hand of the combined forces of dictatorial C.B. Macdonald, his toady H. J. Whigham, and the well-lubricated Fred Pickering.

If you look really closely I think you might be able to spot Lloyd and Griscom, as well. 

I think that's Wilson on his knees (in the white shirt) in the foreground, praying to a merciful God, and asking, "Oh Lord...what did I ever do to deserve THIS!?!...I just want to play golf!!", probably presciently knowing full-well that nearly 100 years later he would be posthumously tortured in ways far beyond any of these tough, sweaty physical exhaustions he went through in building the Merion course. 

I think that's Barker on the left (dark clothing) seemingly taking a leak into the big pit they're digging while trying to build Charley's newest creation, the "Reverse Alps".   

Either that or Pickering has Charley's plans upside down again!! 





As is evident in this photo, even Wilson's wife Mary was pressed into service by the diabolical Macdonald and his lackeys, bringing some turf sod over to her husband, working feverishly to build yet another Raynoresque, high-grass-faced bunker.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

If you choose not to take our word for what those MCC meeting minutes say, and for that reason you'd prefer not to discuss their contents on here, that's certainly your own prerogative, but believe me we could definitely not possibly care less at this point or any other point in time.

At some point you may see that transcribed material or you may never see it (that's sort of up to you if you do or do not choose to go about this as we have by making arrangements with the clubs first) and you are certainly free to put whatever tortured spin you want on what the material you have never seen means----I think we've all seen how capable you are of doing that with whatever incomplete research material you did have when you wrote your essay on Merion.

However, the fact remains, unless literally scores of people involved back then conspired to create a lie and drum up some massive untruth, Wilson and his committee routed and designed that golf course but with some help and advice from their friends Macdonald and Whigam. But of course we've always known that, and certainly way before either you or MacWood came along questioning what it meant in detail, and the club has known it since the beginning and that is the way it was always recorded by MCC and Merion GC and accurately so.

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

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.

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

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.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Of course you guys were sandbagging!  You had a Nov. 24, 1910 newspaper article stating that HH Barker was hired to lay out the course, and by your own admission you sat on it.  What is this if not sandbagging!   

Imagine the shoe is on the other foot.  Imagine that the Nov. 24, 1910 article said that Wilson had been appointed to design the course, and I  sat on the article because it was uncorroborated, contained some other inaccuracies, and because it was inconsistent with everything we know thus far.    You would come out of your skin!   

Do I think that the article is accurate??   I haven't thought much about it  yet, but parts of it obviously are, and for reasons you apparently have not considered.    But what I think or what you think about the accuracy has nothing to do with the issue of sandbagging.   It is part of the historical record and has to be exposed to the bright light of critical examination by all.   

You obviously think my beliefs about Macdonald should shape my views of the article.  I don't work that way.  I try to let the source material shape by beliefs, and not the other way around.   That way I can avoid taking absurd positions like the one you take regarding the Findlay article . . . "'laid out' the itinerary" indeed.

It is the same thing I have been telling Wayne and TEPaul for years:   It is not up to you guys to decide for the rest of us whether or not source material is accurate or important or corroborated.   

Ask Joe Bausch whether it is okay in Chemistry to hide research because he does not like what conclusions others might draw from it.    If it is flawed, identify the flaws, but do so in the light of day where everyone can draw their own conclusions.  I imagine it was Joe who insisted on bringing the article to light after I asked him what else he had.  Surely he knew that sitting on the document was the wrong thing to do.

But lets set that aside, because there have been very important revelations in this thread.

We now know, among other things:

1.   Findlay reported, among other things, that CBMacdonald laid out at least some of the holes at Merion, including not only the weak 10th (in his opinion), but many of the great holes as well.

2.  The Phil Press reported on Nov. 24, 1910 all of that which is in the article above, including among other things, that Barker was hired to lay out the course.

Those are the facts.  Draw whatever conclusions you want about the accuracy of these two reports.

[Joe Bausch]

Ask Joe Bausch whether it is okay in Chemistry to hide research because he does not like what conclusions others might draw from it.    If it is flawed, identify the flaws, but do so in the light of day where everyone can draw their own conclusions.  I imagine it was Joe who insisted on bringing the article to light after I asked him what else he had.  Surely he knew that sitting on the document was the wrong thing to do.

DM, it is wonderful to have you back.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks Joe.    And thanks again for all your terrific leg work.   

Anyone interested in getting to the truth has got to be greatful to you bringing the source material into the light of day. 

You guys aren't sitting on anything else, are you?  If so, mind if we take a look?

[Mike_Cirba]

Ahhh....David...you are amazing! 

Obfuscate, confuse, mislead, redefine, refuse to answer any direct questions, and then start from the top and do it again.   What are you, a lawyer or something?! 

Since you interpret what Findlay wrote as "C.B. Macdonald laid out the holes at Merion, I guess you're saying that C.B. Macdonald was strictly involved in "the construction of the course, and was being quite literal.   He was charged with laying out the course on the ground.   According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.”    Macdonald had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan."

After all, isn't that how you defined what it meant when Hugh Wilson said that he and the Committee laid out the holes at Merion?   

If Macdonald actually did the conception and planning of the course, wouldn't another word be more applicable?

Say...something like "Mapping Out"?   That might be a term that would define the routing of the golf course pretty unambiguously, don't you think?

Yet, not a peep from you about the other article Joe posted that states very clearly that Hugh Wilson and his Committee "mapped out" Merion as reported opening day in the same newspaper that Alex Findlay wrote for.    (see below)   If it was inaccurate, and Alex Findlay knew better that Macdonald had created the course, why didn't he correct the record sometime in the next 30 years as everyone around Philadelphia gave credit erroneously to Wilson?   Was Findlay another of the Philadelphia Conspiratorial Syndrome??

Didn't you find that article of historical interest?   

Once again...selective study.   You claim to be after the truth yet claim absurd interpretations (such as that Joe Bunker was talking about Merion West as the new course at Merion nine months before it opened) of articles that don't fit with your theories, and ignore, dismiss, or twist definitions of words to suit your purposes.




You also state "as fact" that "Findlay reported, among other things, that CBMacdonald laid out at least some of the holes at Merion,"

Findlay did no such thing.

Findlay said that Macdonald laid out "Others".   

It is not clear in the least what he means by that.   He could be talking about other Alps holes, other template holes such as at NGLA, other courses he trumpeted as having ideal holes....

in fact, it would be ludicrous for Findlay to pronounce individual holes at Merion as "great" when he first tells everyone that he's not even ready to discuss the "possibilities" of the new course given its state of immaturity.


As far as the November article about Barker.   

This is not a court of law, no matter how you try to make it into one.

The Merion threads you started here in the past have been exhausting, frustrating, and ultimately demaning to all of us as we let our frustration with each others intractable positions turn into some pretty ugly dialogue.   It's why I'm trying to keep things humorous here this time, before it gets out of hand again.

So, when I came across that article, I shared it with Joe and we found it to be interesting because it presented something that was strange and not supported by any other evidence.   

I did think about posting it and I'm betting Joe thought about it, as well.   But, we never did discuss doing so, and I think separately we probably both came to the same conclusion that unless we had something really interesting, or something really new, or something we thought was clearly valid, we didn't want to open this can of worms again.

At least I know that's what I thought...

Joe can speak for himself, much as you want to speak for him in some effor to make him think you're on his side.   

Do you know that Joe and I discussed prior and agreed to post this newest article, simply because it was valid, it was first-hand, and it was newsworthy and valuable?

In fact, BOTH articles we posted are valuable, much as you choose to pretend that the other article that states Wilson and his Committee "mapped out" Merion doesn't exist.   

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
Mike and Joe are the definition of integrity.  There's no way they're "hiding" anything.

I do give you credit, though....   You questioned the dominant paradigm and initiated more research that has been very successful.  It's not easy going through fiche after fiche after fiche.  Their research is truly like looking for a needle in a 200' high haystack.

Not only are they men of integrity, they're both extraordinarly wonderful gentlemen.  Please trust me when I stress that their goal is not obfsucation or worse.  Their only "iron in the fire" is a passion for history.   

One last note, the Free Library of Philadelphia is open to all for research. 

[Joe Bausch]

David,
Mike and Joe are the definition of integrity.  There's no way they're "hiding" anything.

I do give you credit, though....   You questioned the dominant paradigm and initiated more research that has been very successful.  It's not easy going through fiche after fiche after fiche.  Their research is truly like looking for a needle in a 200' high haystack.

Not only are they men of integrity, they're both extraordinarly wonderful gentlemen.  Please trust me when I stress that their goal is not obfsucation or worse.  Their only "iron in the fire" is a passion for history.   

One last note, the Free Library of Philadelphia is open to all for research. 

Dan, DM seems to think that it is comparable to compare historical research for giggles on the architectural origin of a golf course with the research in my profession.  Interesting, eh?  Not a single person on this site has ever made a claim like that to me.  But I'm going to think about it long and hard to make sure I haven't been 'hiding' some chemistry research results from my peers. 

[TEPaul]

Dan:

You're right, Mike and Joe have come up with a ton of good old not seen in years newspaper article and magazine research on the Philly area, on Merion and a number of other clubs in the area.

On all that additional research on Merion with just a minor exception or two of articles that were in error from the day they were printed, all their research just confirms what Merion and us here have always known and always maintained----eg that Merion East (and West) was routed and designed by Hugh Wilson and his committee with some help and advice from Macdonald and Whigam which the club both recorded and recognized them for from Day One.

So the real irony after all that great supplemental research confirming those facts is David Moriarty still just as staunchly refuses to accept any of it and what it means, as he always has. He is still apparently trying to maintain that somehow Macdonald's roll was minimized by the club or us. I guess he has to continue to do that or else he would essentially be admitting that his scatter-brained logic in his essay is just about entirely bunkum with the single exception of his discovery that Wilson went abroad in 1912 rather than 1910. Not exactly a totally insignificant discovery, mind you, but for numerous reasons most certainly not something that leads to the logic that he tried to use to assume and then conclude that Wilson was too much the novice to have been able to do what he actually did do there from 1911 to his death in 1925.

But the irony to that last one (the 1912 trip) is the club never even said Wilson went abroad in 1910 and for seven months until about a half century after the fact of the creation of Merion East by Wilson and his committee. That fact always seems to be sloughed aside on these Merion threads. I guess if it wasn't constantly sloughed aside on here, there probably wouldn't be anything else left to argue about or discuss regarding the history of Merion.

[DMoriarty]

Dan, DM seems to think that it is comparable to compare historical research for giggles on the architectural origin of a golf course with the research in my profession.  Interesting, eh?  Not a single person on this site has ever made a claim like that to me.  But I'm going to think about it long and hard to make sure I haven't been 'hiding' some chemistry research results from my peers. 

First and most importantly, Joe, I meant no offense and would never cast aspersions on your integrity or ability in your occupation.  That has happened plenty to me on here and elsewhere by some friends of yours, but it is not my style. 

Second,  the comparison is yours, not mine. In one of your first posts ever to me you noted that you did scientific research and that you thought the peer review process should be pretty much parallel here.  I was just reminding you of this and hoping you'd fill in Mike Cirba and the gang on what proper peer review requires. 

 I'll be very surprised if are backing away from the standard of open and honest disclosure because this is for fun.  Golf is fun and games too, yet we don't lower our standards of behavior there, do we?

___________________________________

Mike:   
You can insult me all you like.   It wont change the facts.

1.  I've explained many times the various uses of the phrase "laid out" and won't again on these boards.  If you have a problem with the way Findlay used the phrase, take it up with him.

2.   Of course the other article about the opening is germane.   In fact I think I cited it in my Essay.  But it is neither new nor all that promising a resource.  If you read it carefully you'll notice that it borrows heavily (but not necessarily accurately) from Findlay's articles.

3.   If you want to argue that: "The course is 6245 yards long as mapped out by [the Committee]" means that the Committee is responsible for choosing the routing and the hole concepts, be my guest.   It is not worth my time to counter.

4.  Findlay's meaning will be clear to anyone who reads it carefully. 
  - He did not like the original version of Merion's Alps.  "BUT" thought "many of the others as laid out by Charles McDonald, are really great."
  - "But" is a conjunction signifying contrast or exception from the idea to which it connects.   In context, the only idea to contrast is Findlay's (and then Wilson's) disapproval of Merion's Alps hole!   It makes no sense if you plug in any of your meanings.  It makes no sense grammatically, and it makes no sense logically. 
   -  There were not "many Alps holes" to contrast.
   -  There is no reason to believe that Findlay was talking about supposed itineraries.
  - There is no mention or reason to infer that they were talking about other supposed CBM templates, Alps or not.   Such an interpretation renders the passages nonsensical.
   - And even if he was writing about Macdonald's other Alps holes or templates (he wasnt,) this would still put Macdonald as responsible at Merion.  Why else contrast Merion's to his other holes!
 
Only one reading makes grammatical and logical sense. That you summarily dismiss my interpretation with no reasonable explanation whatsoever speaks volumes about your approach to this entire endeavor. 

[DMoriarty]

Joe Bausch:

On the first page you wrote that you "believe Findlay was referring to the other Alps holes that CBM had done already."

Given that at the time of the article there were not "many other[]" CBM Alps holes to contrast with the Alps at Merion, do you still believe this?  If so, could you explain why?  If not then what do you think the passage means?

[TEPaul]

“It is the same thing I have been telling Wayne and TEPaul for years:   It is not up to you guys to decide for the rest of us whether or not source material is accurate or important or corroborated.   

 
But lets set that aside, because there have been very important revelations in this thread.

We now know, among other things:

1.   Findlay reported, among other things, that CBMacdonald laid out at least some of the holes at Merion, including not only the weak 10th (in his opinion), but many of the great holes as well.”


David Moriarty:

That’s pretty typical of you. You just said you’ve been saying to me and Wayne for years that it’s not up to us to decide for the rest of us (“WE” on here) whether or not source material is accurate etc. And then a mere few sentences later you conclude that ‘”WE” now know Findlay reported among other things that Macdonald laid out at least some of the holes at Merion, including not only the weak 10th, but many of the other great holes as well.’

It looks like you need an education on the definition of consistency, self contradiction or hypocrisy.

WE don’t know anything of the kind, Friend, so zip it in telling us what WE NOW KNOW, particularly after you just got finished with the fact you’ve been telling us not to tell the rest of those on here what’s accurate. WE certainly do not know that Findlay meant Macdonald laid out any holes at Merion, including the 10th. Findlay never said that, not about Merion anyway! If that's your opinion, then just say it's your opinion, PERIOD.



“4.  Findlay's meaning will be clear to anyone who reads it carefully. 
  - He did not like the original version of Merion's Alps.  "BUT" thought "many of the others as laid out by Charles McDonald, are really great."
  - "But" is a conjunction signifying contrast or exception from the idea to which it connects.   In context, the only idea to contrast is Findlay's (and then Wilson's) disapproval of Merion's Alps hole!   It makes no sense if you plug in any of your meanings.  It makes no sense grammatically, and it makes no sense logically.”


Findlay’s meaning certainly is not clear to everyone who reads his remarks carefully, and he most certainly did not ever say those “others” laid out by Macdonald that he said are really great are AT MERION or are even Alps holes. And don’t try to give anyone on here a lesson in grammar, I doubt anyone on here needs that from you, particularly since one of the last things Findlay was when he wrote was grammatically correct.

If you have an opinion on something on here then say it’s YOUR OPINION, but don’t tell the rest of us what WE now know, particularly after your stupid remark about Wayne and me.

One of these days you’re going to need to get around to facing up to and answering the numerous questions put to you on here that if you are still maintaining Macdonald routed and designed Merion despite all the contemporaneous evidence to the contrary then what does that say about the scores of people involved with Merion back then who said Hugh Wilson and his committee designed the course?

Are you completely incapable of answering a question like that and if so what does that say about you and what you have been doing and implying and saying on this website about Merion for years now? 

[Dan Herrmann]

Speaking of Alex Findllay, take a peek at the history of Coatesville CC here:  http://www.gapgolf.org/clubs.asp?cid=25  (scroll down a little to get to the history - do a search for Findlay to get to the good part).

Coatesville shares little with Merion, but I think it's interesting how this Findlay project went a few years after these artices.  I'm not implying anything here but the fact that it's an interesting story that involved Findlay.

[DMoriarty]

“It is the same thing I have been telling Wayne and TEPaul for years:   It is not up to you guys to decide for the rest of us whether or not source material is accurate or important or corroborated.   

I am referring to the fact that you and Wayne have been playing us for fools by sandbagging the source material for many years.  See your post in this very thread where you claim that you guys have had this Barker article for years, but kept it hidden because you were worried about how others would react.   There are numerous other examples but let's let bygones be.

WE don’t know anything of the kind, Friend, so zip it in telling us what WE NOW KNOW, particularly after you just got finished with the fact you’ve been telling us not to tell the rest of those on here what’s accurate. WE certainly do not know that Findlay meant Macdonald laid out any holes at Merion, including the 10th. Findlay never said that, not about Merion anyway! If that's your opinion, then just say it's your opinion, PERIOD.
. . .
If you have an opinion on something on here then say it’s YOUR OPINION, but don’t tell the rest of us what WE now know, particularly after your stupid remark about Wayne and me.

First, we are not friends.   Second, everything on here I write is my opinion, based on my understanding of the facts.   Feel free to disagree, but I'd appreciate if you changed your tone.

One of these days you’re going to need to get around to facing up to and answering the numerous questions put to you on here that if you are still maintaining Macdonald routed and designed Merion despite all the contemporaneous evidence to the contrary then what does that say about the scores of people involved with Merion back then who said Hugh Wilson and his committee designed the course?

Are you completely incapable of answering a question like that and if so what does that say about you and what you have been doing and implying and saying on this website about Merion for years now? 

I'd be glad to answer this and any other questions but not before I see the source material. I have yet to read a single contemporary account that says that Wilson planned the routing and  conceived of the holes.  Surely you understand why I won't take your word for it that such documentation exists.

If it did exist, it is my opinion that we'd have seen it long ago.

[Dan Herrmann]

David, What about post 9?

Granted, it's not a newspaper, but it's a good source of info.

[DMoriarty]

David, What about post 9?

Granted, it's not a newspaper, but it's a good source of info.

We covered this in great detail many times in the past, and I am not here to rehash old arguments.  In short, the members said he worked hard in laying out and constructing the course, and that of the Committee, he deserves the most credit.  Similar to what Alan Wilson said years later (maybe this letter was Wilson's source.)  I don't disagree with any of it.  But it says nothing about who conceived of and chose the routing, or who conceived of the hole concepts.   

Also Dan, this is a single document out of volumes of documents (not the minutes) that Wayne Morrison agreed to provide to me, but then broke his word.  It is just the kind of cherry-picking that has corrupted this entire process for years.   We should take every such cherry-picked, selectively produced document with a huge grain of salt. 

[TEPaul]

"First, we are not friends."

David Moriarty:

No, we certainly are not. I used the term Friend in that post above in the sense that Quakers use it. That's why I capitalized it which you probably wouldn't understand either. It's kind of a Pennsylvania term since this state I live in was begun by William Penn, a rather well known English Quaker. The Quaker term Friend does not necessarily mean one either referring to someone or being referred to must be friendly.

It's pretty clear you don't like me which never has and never will mean a jot to me and I doubt I could think of another person I like less than you at this point. So of course we're not friends and so what?

But none of that means we can't have an intelligent conversation on here on golf course architecture or the accurate history of Merion. The only problem is you either don't know how to do that or you are incapable of it.

You did make another remark above about Barker and what Wayne or I ever said about him on here and I will be happy to answer it civily despite all your "woe is me" histrionics on this website.   

 

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul, 

It was not a question so don't bother answering.  I have absolutely no interest in discussing any of this with you. 

[TEPaul]

"I am referring to the fact that you and Wayne have been playing us for fools by sandbagging the source material for many years.  See your post in this very thread where you claim that you guys have had this Barker article for years, but kept it hidden because you were worried about how others would react.   There are numerous other examples but let's let bygones be."




On H.H. Barker, if I said Wayne and I have known about him for years as to some connection to Merion I was wrong to say that. I have known about H.H. Barker for years for a number of reasons but I do not believe I was aware of him to do with some connection to Merion until your essay entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" appeared on this website. My recollection is that was about a year ago, not years ago, and I do not at this time remember seeing that Nov 24, 1910 article about Merion and Barker in the Philadelphia Press or Telegram.

As to whether or not Wayne was aware of him years ago in some connection to Merion or that Nov 1910 article, you'd have to ask Wayne about that.

But since you mentioned him in your essay and thanked Tom MacWood for making you aware of him as perhaps the second best architect in America at the time we surely did look back through the complete Merion archives and even MCC's archives, as you know.

The fact is Barker was a complete nonentity in the creation of Merion. MCC never hired him at any time and the fact is the Merion record is rife with who did route and design Merion East in 1911 and none of it had a thing to do with Barker.

I do remember you said on one of these many lugubrious Merion threads that have been generated on this website only because of your and Tom MacWood's incessant and ridiculous implications that Wilson was glorified and Macdonald slighted and even that Macdonald must have routed and designed Merion that it might be considered AT LEAST POSSIBLE that Barker's self proclaimed "rough sketch" of the Merion property before it was even put together and six months before it was bought, might have been used by MCC or at least something on it might've been remembered when Wilson and his committee set about their work over six months after Barker was here in June 1910.

Well, sure, David Moriarty, anyone can say ANYTHING under the sun might be possible but the fact is Merion's administrative record of that time and all that was written about it ACCURATELY during those years in the Merion administrative records (these are not some indirect newspaper accounts they are MCC's own ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS) says Wilson and his committee designed Merion East.

I think one of these days you're going to need to address our constant questions TO YOU of why in the world you think, claim or imply the board and the committees of Merion back then when they were trying to move their course from Haverford to Ardmore would sit there and meet in front of one another and LIE TO EACH OTHER about what they were in the midst of doing and who was doing it.

The fact is you just can't deal with that reality and the truth of the history of Merion because you made a damn fool of yourself with that essay you made public on here and clearly you are incapable of admitting how ridiculous and illogical it was given all the other counter-pointing facts involved in the creation of Merion East.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, 
It was not a question so don't bother answering.  I have absolutely no interest in discussing any of this with you."


Question or not, David Moriarty, I'm going to keep answering whatever I feel like answering on here from you or anyone else whether its agreement or disagreement or just discussion. It's the same old drill, pal, so maybe the time has come again for you to take one of your six months powders or should I say pouters?     

[DMoriarty]

Earlier today you wrote . . .

We have been aware of various newspaper reports (perhaps for years now) including the one from Nov. 1910 by some unamed writer posted above that MCC had hired Barker to do their new course. .

But now you write . . .

On H.H. Barker, if I said Wayne and I have known about him for years as to some connection to Merion I was wrong to say that. I have known about H.H. Barker for years for a number of reasons but I do not believe I was aware of him to do with some connection to Merion until your essay entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" appeared on this website. My recollection is that was about a year ago, not years ago, and I do not at this time remember seeing that Nov 24, 1910 article about Merion and Barker in the Philadelphia Press or Telegram.

As to whether or not Wayne was aware of him years ago in some connection to Merion or that Nov 1910 article, you'd have to ask Wayne about that.

Too funny.  I figured Wayne would try to curb your enthusiasm at some point, but he really shut you down.   When your own writing partner won't stand by your stories  maybe it is time to cool it a bit.   He must owe you big time, but that is between the two of you.   

Anyway, I'll file this under "If You Say So," next to Wayne's claim that he had seen Barker's cover letter to the June 1910 routing, but that "it slipped his mind."

Surely you are starting to understand why I have no interest in discussing this or anything else with you.  Everything you write completely lacks veracity. In fact the only reason to even look at your posts is that if you make a claim, then the opposite is probably true.  At the very least your claims are incomplete and misleading.   This is especially true when you are making claims about documents that you guys are hiding, like the MCC docs. And the more adamant you are, the more sure we can be that there is more to it than you are letting on.  And you have been pretty adamant about a few things lately.  When are you going to learn that so long as you are hiding source material, your unsupported claims can only hurt your cause?
 

"TEPaul, 
It was not a question so don't bother answering.  I have absolutely no interest in discussing any of this with you."


Question or not, David Moriarty, I'm going to keep answering whatever I feel like answering on here from you or anyone else whether its agreement or disagreement or just discussion. It's the same old drill, pal, so maybe the time has come again for you to take one of your six months powders or should I say pouters?    

Good one. But I think you may be confusing my desire to get to the truth with pouting. 

I stayed away from the site because I had more important things to do and because my involvement had become unproductive for me and others.  (I know that is probably impossible for you to comprehend since this gca.com is apparently all you've got.) 

This Findlay article brought me back because it is too important to let you guys gloss over.   I am sure I'll be around when anything else important comes out.

But by all means keep posting all you want, just don't expect me to play along.  Except maybe to glean what didn't happen. 

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I, too, say a sincere welcome back!

Unfortunately the thread is really degenerating here and so i have exited myself from it for a few days. The ONLY REASON I am posting now is to clear up a few "facts" that are being thrown about and to ask for some civility by ALL!

The first "fact" is this statement:

"See your post in this very thread where you claim that you guys have had this Barker article for years, but kept it hidden because you were worried about how others would react..."

I know for a FACT that this isn't true.

This article was first found just PRIOR to the GCA holiday gathering enjoyed by many at the Tom Paul barn. I know this because the PERSON WHO SHOWED IT TO TOM & WAYNE shared it with me at that time. I asked if he had shown it to TOM & WAYNE and he replied that he had JUST DONE SO  a FEW DAYS before. I STRONGLY recommended that he post it on GCA despite the fact that I was certain that it would be VERY controversial. He made the decision, at that time, not to do so because he wanted to give careful consideration as to WHEN might be the right time to do so. I know this person well and can COMPLETELY vouch for his integrity in this matter.

So both Tom & Wayne have only known of this for several months and it wasn't being hidden from anyone, rather, it was being delayed. I am also well aware that the person who shared it with me is relieved that it was revealed on here. That simply wasn't and isn't the case.

What this also means is that NO ONE has been hiding, obfuscating, concealing or any other word one may want to use this article.

David, you stated that, "Only one reading makes grammatical and logical sense. That you summarily dismiss my interpretation with no reasonable explanation whatsoever speaks volumes about your approach to this entire endeavor..."

Whereas I agree that there is only one grammatically correct reading, you have now personalized this FAR TOO MUCH. OTHERS have stated this same understanding from the beginning of the thread onward and had their concludions disagreed with quite strongly. For example, in post #12, I stated:

"I think some serious and careful study of exactly what Findlay wrote is required BEFORE simply explaining away the part that it appears he is assigning to C.B. McDonald... Findlay clearly is refering to Wilson's & the new course when he states, "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..." Wilson's reaction to what was created at Merion AFTER seeing the real hole? That follows immediately. "He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot..." This shows that efforts to imitate the great holes of the U.K. were being tried at Merion. It is THAT which Findlay seems to be clearly refering to next when he states, "But many of the others..." These "others" are NOT on other courses but part of the MERION design. This means that his next statement, "as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great..." shows that C.B. had some definite hand in at least partially designing the original course... I don't see any other way to interpret what Findlay wrote..."

Again, in post #19, Henry stated that, "Philip, I'm sure there are many ways to interpret what Findlay wrote, but I would agree with your explanation as being the most logical one..."

So this isn't YOUR "interpretation" that is either being "summarily dismissed" or strongly disagreed with. It is one that has been drawn by others as well and disagreed with quite strongly BEFORE you made a single post! By taking such a disagreement so personally you show a lack of respect for the others who have both shared and disagreed with what you wrote. Also, you bring back to the site, the anger that created so many problems in the past. This must not continue for everyone's benefit.

In line with that, the LACK OF RESPECT shown to David since his initial statements, regardless of who "threw the first stone" so to speak, is ALSO an example of the anger and vitriol that MUST NOT be allowed to continue and MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY!

Guys, we've lost too many fine minds on this site because of discussions that become too personalized and insulting. To do so is a disrespect to Ran & everyone who is a member and chooses to participate. Please stop it now.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Man...I sure hope my legacy to golf research doesn't solely consist of coming across an obviously error-filled article claiming that Barker, a good five months after he's been on site, ha now been hired to lay out Merion...

The article is completely unsupported and not worth being used for toilet tissue, except as muckraking this whole non-issue once again.

David,

Do you not see the irony and inconsistency of dismissing the scores of articles and personal accounts stating that Wilson "laid out" Merion as being exclusive of routing the course and conceiving the holes - in fact, you claim that wording makes him a day laborer to ABW's (anybody but Wilson) plans, yet cling to a single obviously erroneous account of Barker "lay out" and a single account of Findlay stating the MAcdonald "laid out others" as solid design gold.