[TEPaul]

"This is taken from the Merion website:


Quote
In 1910, the committee to lay out the new course decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for Merion.

Hasn't this been more or less disproven now that Findlay reports Wilson himself said to never have visited the Old Country before that 1912 trip? Or is this statement an indication that the club minutes contain a passage where this decision to send Wilson abroad is detailed?"




Ulrich:

The Merion history and apparently website does say that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and for six to seven months and came home with sketches and drawings from holes abroad.

But that story apparently did not crop up until at least a half century AFTER Merion East was done and Hugh Wilson had been long dead. Do you understand what that means?

And it was not the Findlay article that potentially put the Kibosh on that story that Wilson went abroad or when that story occured. We figured that out over a year ago.

I would fully expect that the Merion history will be altered shortly to reflect that misinterpretation that cropped up about half a century AFTER the events we are discussing here.

[TEPaul]

Ulrich:

My answer to you that was quoted in the last portion of Post #577 is just not flatout false no matter how much or how often the essayist says it's been discussed on here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

The back edge of that front bunker is raised up a foot or two.

It's more than that.
And, Wayne Morrison has stated that the green was elevated 8 feet above grade.

That would put the bottom line of the bunker a good 10+ feet above grade making it highly visible.

However, the most glaring error in your premise is that fact that you totally ignore the angle from which the picture is taken.  An angle that places the fronting bunker complext to the right flank of the green in the photo, NOT in front of the green as it is when the golfer views it from the DZ.

You continue to cling to a photo, taken from a height above the golfer in the DZ, at an angle about 45+ degrees left of where the golfer would be in the DZ.

You continue to FAIL to address the questions I posed along with the photo you  initially posted.
WHY is that.
I answer every question you ask, yet, you continue to avoid the questions I pose to you.
There can be but one conclusion drawn from your failure to answer.
You KNOW that the putting surface was blind.
In FACT, you previously admitted that.

That might make some very front hole locations blind in the sense that the bottom of the flagstick might not be visible.

From where, from a photo taken at a very high elevation, from an angle that places the fronting bunker complex to the flank instead of in the front of the green.

Mike, give it up, you're wrong on this one.

On the other hand, what do you have to say about this?



The bottom line of the back bunker is completely visible from WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY (in Matt Wardspeak ) below the either the landing zone of the 10th hole or the green surface itself, and it's also clear that you can see that from about anywhere on planet earth, so where my friend is the NGLA, "CBM Alps-Like Hole" in all of that?

First of all, the visibility you allege is based on a photo taken from a high elevation FAR REMOVED from the DZ.
It's your demented interpretation of the photo that's the basis of your premise.
Secondly, I NEVER stated that the 10th at Merion was a "CBM Alps-like hole".
Let me again state my position so you can't twist it to your liking:

"Wilson designed what he thought was an Alps hole.  He built his Alps hole at # 10.
While he built one, it lacked the dramatic flair or extreme features contained in Alps holes. 
His version was inept, despite the fact that it had a putting surface that was blind from the DZ, a rear berm and a fronting bunker complex.  Findlay and others recognized that Wilson's version was a poor excuse for an Alps hole.
Wilson eventually recognized that his Alps hole was a poor excuse for an Alps and the hole was later abandoned.

The unintentially funny thing is that you just criticized Hugh Wilson for not building a Alps hole as good as Macdonald yet still cling to that cold, frozen, stiff, and bloated piece of driftwood as you float aloft in MacdonaldDesignedMerion Neverland.   

Perhaps these concepts are too nuanced for you to understand.

Your fears are clearly evidenced in the above paragraph.
I now see why you've clung to the unreasonable defense that # 10 couldn't have been an Alps, for if it was an Alps, in your mind, it gives CBM a greater foothold in his involvement or influence at Merion, and that's your greatest fear.  You HAVE to disavow # 10 being an Alps because if it's an Alps, it might strengthen Moriarty's premise/s.

But, the physical evidence, the contemporary discriptions all lead to but one conclusion.
# 10 was Wilson's attempt to create an Alps hole.

Hop in the life raft...there's still room.

Trust your eyes and your brain and get over your provincialistic prejudices. 


I'm trying to ascertain if you have Alpsaphobia or Macdonaldaphobia.
I think it may be both.

P.S.  Mike, would you answer the three questions I posed in reply # 570.
        Thanks

[TEPaul]

Ulrich, you said:


“I am new to this discussion, but I can't help imagining some hidden agendas behind the fight over a few historical details that aren't overly important in the grand scheme of things.”


Ulrich:

I don’t know that it’s worthwhile to get into some long and contentious discussion on here about some hidden agendas by some on here but I think it’s pretty safe to say that we here in Philadelphia have felt for years now that there were some hidden agendas to do with these Merion/Macdonald threads that have been going on for over six years now. And of course we do recognize that at least two people on this website have accused us and probably Merion too, and for years now, of some hidden agenda to protect and preserve the legend of Hugh Wilson which may not be based on fact and truth.

We believe that agenda from those two people on here began with Tom MacWood on his thread from 2003 that has recently been linked on post #17 by Eric Smith on the “Why so much talk about Merion” thread.

I feel Tom MacWood’s agenda was not hidden at all though because if you read that thread he started back in 2003 (“Macdonald and Merion”) he is merely asking what more Macdonald might have done at Merion compared to what the club has always reported in its history? Tom MacWood mentioned in that thread that he had found two old articles that mentioned Macdonald/Whigam had helped and advised MCC and the Wilson Committee back in 1910 and 1911. He mentioned he was not aware of that and he wanted to know what it meant in detail and perhaps to do with the specifics of who was basically responsible for most all the architectural concepts and details of Merion’s holes.

Apparently MacWood felt he might have found something about Merion East that Merion G.C. never knew. I guess that was understandable from Tom MacWood’s perspective at that time because he’s never been to Merion and was obviously unaware of the details of its history. But we weren’t and Merion G.C. wasn’t.

But those articles he found have always been in Merion’s archives and the source material those articles came from have always been contained in Merion’s administrative records and we all here have been aware of them and they’ve always been reflected in Merion’s recorded history.

We’ve been aware of them for years and what they all say Macdonald/Whigam did for MCC back then. We told him all that in that 2003 thread and we told him that the details of who did what on each and every hole was never recorded but that it was recorded by the club, and we told him how, that the committee reported that the creation of Merion East was a committee effort of five members who received some gracious help and advice from Macdonald/Whigam (probably split between advice on architecture and its principles and advice on how to best grow grass on their inland site) on three separate occasions spanning ten months and which amounted to perhaps four days in total but that in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses.

None of this has ever been questioned or contested by anyone at any time that I’m aware of until this subject began on here back in 2003. So my point is, there never was and never has been much of anything to question or contest on the subject of who designed Merion East and we feel today we have proven that and reconfirmed it more strongly than ever before.

In my opinion, it probably should’ve ended there but following that David Moriarty entered the picture and eventually attempted to create a scenario of much greater and more significance from Macdonald/Whigam such as they actually routed and designed Merion East or was what he calls the driving force behind it.

We do not think that is even close to the truth and we feel we’ve virtually proven it with the weight of recorded evidence FROM Merion’s records of who actually did it. To assume those records are wrong we feel is to actually make the assumption and conclusion that what all those men running Merion back then were recording about what they were in the process of doing was a lie or some massive mistake in facts. We feel that is what this essayist on here has done and is continuing to do and to suggest and attempt to defend.

None of us here have EVER denied that Macdonald/Whigam helped and advised MCC, and either has Merion and its history---not EVER, and we think we now know both how and how much but to even assume, much less conclude or contend that he and Whigam actually routed and designed the holes of Merion OR were the driving force behind the East course, as this essayist has done and continues to do, is not only pretty insane but also virtually impossible because Macdonald/Whigam simply never put in the time (just four days total compared to the Wilson committees many months to that point) and consequently did not have the opportunity to do something like that even assuming they were asked to do that which not a scintilla of evidence anywhere or at any time, even from the essayist, suggests they were! 


On another post Ulrich, I will try to give you a few fairly straight-forward EXAMPLES of how the essayist attempted to do this and just WHY what he tried to do and did with his essay is such a series of distortions of the records, timeline, and events of what happened back then.

[TEPaul]

"Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land.  Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan.   After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course."



Ulrich:

Above is about the first half of the synopsis of the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion."

Having read the essay many times and very carefully and then having gone over the administrative records of MCC and the events and the timeline and all the supplemental material therewith, I will show you both how and why a number of the statements contained in even the first half of that synopsis are completely wrong----they pretty much have to be when you begin to see the details of the events of that timeline.

Personally, I think the essay's synopsis is a pretty darn good one of what the essay is and says and the essay itself shows that it is just as wrong as its synopsis is.

If you are really interested in this subject, Ulrich, I suggest you read that essay very carefully and familiarize yourself with just how the essayist tries to establish a point or points into an assumption, premise or conclusion and uses that hopefully accepted premise to actually go on and to establish the next one and so on and so on. In fact the reliability or factual accuracy of each premise must hold or the final "a priori" established conclusions and contentions will fall apart as does a toppling house of cards!

The real problem here, for us at least, is we know all the details and recorded events by MCC's administrative records that establish the over all timeline of 1910 and 1911, but we recognize that very few others on this website do and that therefore makes this kind of distorted logic of this essay somewhat believable or interesting AT FIRST!

This is what some call "a priori" reasoning but in this case we will show just how many of those premises which necessarily must support one another are not only not true but virtually can't be because of the inevitable facts of the over-all timeline and how some events cannot possibly be put before or even put after some other events in the manner in which they occured or for the very reasons they occured. This is what the essayist attempted to do and it just doesn't work logically or factually or any other way! 

But unfortunately when we have pointed all this out to the essayist using the written material and and even in one case survey map material and what it pretty clearly shows and means from the men of Merion and others around them and helping them at that time, the essayist continues to dismiss, discount, or rationalize away what it all clearly says and means.

At this point, we feel all that is left to him is to just constantly argue and not for facts or the truth of the architectural history of Merion but simply for argument's sake alone. Apparently he does this because argument for argument's sake is his real interest on here or else for whatever his reasons he simply cannot admit that he was wrong and is wrong and how he is and was wrong.

Occasionally, when faced with the fact that some of the things he has said or maintained really are illogical even apparently to him, rather than admitting that on here and particularly to us, he will revert to the last ditch defense question type of; "Well isn't it at least possible?" OR "Can you prove to me how it's IMPOSSIBLE or even isn't IMPOSSIBLE?"

You know, Ulrich, we here aren't really interested in discussions like that and certainly not over Merion's history. They are basically futile and pointless discussions and we feel we have better things to spend our time on that stuff like that!

[Mike_Cirba]

The “Missing Faces Of Merion” essayist then asked you the following question in the next post:


“Mike, I disagree with your reading for a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed before. 
A factual question:
Do the MCC minutes specifically refer to sketches and/or drawings?   If so, are they identified as the sketches/drawings for CBM's overseas trip?  From the construction of NGLA?  From something else?”


Do you know the specific answer to that question Mike? Because if you don’t I believe I will put it on here from Wilson’s report and get AT LEAST all this argument and disagreement ABOUT WHAT SKETCHES AND DRAWINGS they SAID they were looking at and studying while at NGLA over with once and for all. What the report says in that vein is not in the slightest unclear and it definitely does not refer to any plans for Merion or even some NGLA plans of what had already been built at NGLA. I have explained what it said on here many times and so have you but apparently this essayist is not willing to believe it and just continues to argue against our point!

Matter of fact, I don’t know that NGLA even used comprehensive topographical contour survey map plans for the construction of NGLA. If they did they’ve been lost over time. George Bahto informed me some time ago that the only contour plans of NGLA that survived were only a few contour line drawings of some holes apparently for the purpose of some localized earth-movement or adjustment as needed.

Tom,

No, I only read that section once and it was a few months back.

Your clarification from the minutes on that question would be very helpful.

Thanks!

[DMoriarty]

The “Missing Faces Of Merion” essayist then asked you the following question in the next post:


“Mike, I disagree with your reading for a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed before. 
A factual question:
Do the MCC minutes specifically refer to sketches and/or drawings?   If so, are they identified as the sketches/drawings for CBM's overseas trip?  From the construction of NGLA?  From something else?”


Do you know the specific answer to that question Mike? Because if you don’t I believe I will put it on here from Wilson’s report and get AT LEAST all this argument and disagreement ABOUT WHAT SKETCHES AND DRAWINGS they SAID they were looking at and studying while at NGLA over with once and for all. What the report says in that vein is not in the slightest unclear and it definitely does not refer to any plans for Merion or even some NGLA plans of what had already been built at NGLA. I have explained what it said on here many times and so have you but apparently this essayist is not willing to believe it and just continues to argue against our point!

Tom,

 I appreciate your attempt to address "AT LEAST all this argument and disagreement ABOUT WHAT SKETCHES AND DRAWINGS they SAID they were looking at and studying while at NGLA over with once and for all."

I asked Do the MCC minutes specifically refer to sketches and/or drawings?   If so, are they identified as the sketches/drawings for CBM's overseas trip?  From the construction of NGLA?  From something else?”

You answer, in relevant part:
-     "What the report says in that vein is not in the slightest unclear . . . ." 
- ". . .  it definitely does not refer to any plans for Merion . . ." 
- ". . . or even some NGLA plans of what had already been built at NGLA."   

Great.  I didn't figure they were NGLA plans.  I thought either you or Mike  might have implied this, but I may not be remembering correctly.   As for them not being identified as "plans for Merion, you have said this in the past, but thanks clarifying.  And for clarifying that they were not NGLA plans.

Unfortunately, while your answer is helpful and appreciated, the issue is still far from clear, and your answer did not address the bulk of my questions.  Perhaps my questions lacked clarity, so let me try again.

-In the context of the NGLA meetings, do the MCC documents specifically mention anything about sketches and/or drawings?  (may seem a silly question but I do want to clear all this up.)

-If so, do the MCC documents specifically identify these as sketches and drawings from CBM's previous overseas trip(s)?

-Do the MCC documents specifically state that these were sketches/drawings of great golf holes abroad and/or specific features of the great golf holes abroad?

-Do the MCC documents specifically identify the subject matter of what was sketched and/or drawn?  By whom?  When?  (In other words, what was sketched or drawn, by whom, and when?)

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

"It simply makes no sense, other than to show me that you're highly prone to seeing what you want to see in this stuff, depending on what you want to see at the time..."


Shivas:

I'm not certain how or when M. Cirba is assuming the meaning and interpretation of "laying out" when he mentioned it somewhere above but it actually is very possible to determine what they meant if you use particular events in a timeline analysis.

In other words, if men are referring to "laying out" a course or plan to describe the event they are describing many months before they actually build a golf course, then obviously they can't be using the term "laying out" to mean the actual building of the golf course.

I hope you can at least admit to and understand that.    

On the other hand, if they are using the term "laying out" to describe something they are doing during the building of a course or have done before the building of a course then of course it's very possible and very likely they're describing the routing and designing phase BEFORE the building of the course OR they could be describing the building of the course.

This isn't much more than understanding that TIME as we know it, Shivas, doesn't exactly run backwards, it only runs forward!   If it ran backwards and forwards too then looking at these kinds of events back then could never be determinative.

I'm saying all this all the time understanding that I shouldn't call some of you guys and your posts on here stupid----and I'm not---not technically anyway.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

No, I only read that section once and it was a few months back.

Your clarification from the minutes on that question would be very helpful.

Thanks!"



No problem, it may be taking a risk with my understanding with Wayne and MCC but I'm willing to take that risk on that at this point if it will AT LEAST help to put a stop to the constant ongoing argument and bickering and mindbendly boring and irrelevent PARSING of words and their meaning on here as to WHAT drawings and sketches the Wilson Committee were referring to during their two day visit to NGLA:

Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf course on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......

That's all that's mentioned about plans and data (the words sketches and drawings are not used) and I think it's pretty clear that probably means Macdonald's plans and such from abroad even though one could conclude the first part could mean his plans of NGLA itself also, BUT it could not possibly mean Merion's plans or drawings. I hope you all notice the word "his" (so I didn't highlight or capitalize it ) and I hope no one on here will try to contend Merion's plans were HIS (Macdonald's, even though at this point I wouldn't put anything past the essayist)! 

I hope that helps and I sure do hope this will put a stop to this irrelevent and frankly ridiculous discussion of what plans they may've been referring to while at NGLA.

If somebody still tries to parse it as Merion's plans, well, then I guess I'll pretty much just give up on trying to help people understand the history of Merion East.   

[DMoriarty]

No problem, it may be taking a risk with my understanding with Wayne and MCC but I'm willing to take a risk on that at this point if it will AT LEAST help to put a stop to the constant ongoing argument on here as to WHAT drawings and sketches the Wilson Committee were referring to during their two day visit to NGLA:

Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf course on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......

Thanks Tom,

But what does it say after studying . . . ?

. 

[TEPaul]

It says they went out on the ground the next day and studied NGLA but we've told you that for years now, haven't we and so did Wilson's later report, right? I also mentioned today that Wilson reported in another piece of source material (the agronomy letters) that they also discussed grasses, fertiliser etc while at NGLA those two days.

So much to do and so little time to do it in, right? 

So was it impossible for Macdonald to have whipped off a routing and hole design paper plan on Merion East for those bunch of novices while at NGLA when he was like taking a leak break during all this other recorded stuff, even considering that Macdonald was never even known to draw a course routing or hole design plans at any time even for his own courses (that's pretty much what Raynor always did FOR him)?

No, I guess one could not say that was IMPOSSIBLE but I think any reasonable and logical mind would say it was highly unlikely.

And now we only have a single day left as much of a possibility, don't we---April 6, 1911?   

[TEPaul]

"Thanks Tom,"


David:

You are very, very, VERY welcome. I truly hope this helps you finally understand that what we have been saying about the Wilson Committee's report to the board indicates Wilson's Committee were "laying out" their own courses and plans throughout the winter and spring of 1911.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, of course "laying out" prior to construction can only refer to written plans."


No, Shiv, you haven't gotten it right quite yet but you're getting there, I guess. "Laying out" prior to construction can certainly refer to WRITTEN plans but it can also refer to "courses" staked out on the ground. I've seen that too but if someone calls that "written" it's definitely the biggest damn WRITING I ever saw.   

Shivas, what are you doing this for anyway? You'll get there someday I'm sure if you listen very carefully to us here who've been through these details for years but along the way you're just bound to confuse more people on here than you'll edify with posts like yours just above.   

On the other hand, I would like to nominate you at this time as the chairman of the new "Golf Course Architecture History Grammatical Sentence Structure, Meaning and Word Parsing Society."

[Joe Bausch]

Woohoo, my first thread to reach the Top 10 in replies overall at GCA.com.   

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Dan Herrmann]

A bit off topic, but I'm curious - what were the condition of the grounds of Merion East before 1910?  I know a lot of it was farmland, but what shape was the quarry in?  Was Cobb's Creek then as it is today, or was any rerouting requird?  Was much shaping for fairways required?

[TEPaul]

"Yes, you're right.  Before people start to think about construction, laying out could also refer to staking.  I omitted that due to the context of this discussion, which was plans vs. construction.

I guess laying out could also refer to sunbathing, but the thought of  Wilson, Pickering et al. hanging out on beach chairs with CBM and Wigham - half naked and slathered up with oil - is too much for my Midwestern sensibilities...."



Shivas:

Don't you think you're being too kind to those bunch of Novices from Merion? I mean don't you think it's possible or at least not impossible, at least in a grammatical sentence structure, meaning and word parsing sense, that they could've been hanging out on beach chairs half naked and slathered up with oil in the middle of the winter in the ice and snow in Philamadephiaey?!?

These guys were real NOVICES man! Even a midwesterner should understand that. They didn't know shit from dirt, at that point. I think it's possible that Wilson even though he was considered a very good golfer may not have even known what end of the golf club to hold at that point. I heard the reason he was always so sick is while at Princeton he ate a bunch of golf balls thinking they were marshmellows that were perhaps just a tad old.

Don't forget, guys like Lloyd and Griscom were a couple of Captains of the Universe. They were some damn smart cats. I bet they heard that old saw that if you wanted a really natural and random golf course the thing to do was just go get the town idiot and let him go out there and make a mess of stuff in the dirt. I think that's probably why they picked Hugh I. Wilson----eg it's possible or at least not IMPOSSIBLE that he was the biggest idiot in MCC at that time, and by a mile.

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Interesting question. It sort of looks to us like they might have rerouted the creek a bit after they bought that acreage later that is the green-end of #11 and the first part of #12. At least as to where it used to bend and cross what is now the 12th.

Do you think we should have a 30 page discussion on here to see if we can prove that at this point?  And if we can prove it we might be able to exhume their asses and turn them over to the EPA for prosecution and a fine? If they can't pay it because they've all been dead for 50-85 years maybe we could sue Horatio Gates Lloyd's heirs and make them pay for the damages those bunch of no-nothing novice idiots did back then.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom,
Nah - I think we should let them RIP

[Ulrich Mayring]

I did read the essay and the old threads, so I am gradually coming around to understand how this unfortunate situation developed. There is an intermingling of personal sensibilities with factual discussion. And it is on both sides. I guess if I continue to write here, it will only be a matter of time until I come to some erroneous conclusion or propose an untenable theory and then I'll have to defend my reputation as well.

So I should be extra careful or maybe take Yoda's advice: "Up the shut fuck, you must" ;-)

Ulrich

[TEPaul]

"-In the context of the NGLA meetings, do the MCC documents specifically mention anything about sketches and/or drawings?  (may seem a silly question but I do want to clear all this up.)"

No


"-If so, do the MCC documents specifically identify these as sketches and drawings from CBM's previous overseas trip(s)?"


No, they call them his plans and other various data from his overseas trips. I guess what they call 'his plans' could be NGLA or all of it is from overseas courses. You probably need to submit this to Chicago's Dave Schmidt to be grammatically certain what it means.



"-Do the MCC documents specifically state that these were sketches/drawings of great golf holes abroad and/or specific features of the great golf holes abroad?"


They don't call them sketches and drawings (see above). No specific features or specific great holes abroad are mentioned.


"-Do the MCC documents specifically identify the subject matter of what was sketched and/or drawn?  By whom?  When?  (In other words, what was sketched or drawn, by whom, and when?)"


No




PS:
However, there is a brief paragraph explaining that Hugh told Macdonald that Tommy Birdsong's (the only Timucuan Indian golf course architect, by the way) Fernandina Beach Municipal G.C. had some great holes and great architectural principles that they would like to use at Merion East as templates (I think this explains the confusion on this board over exactly what the 10th (Alps) hole was or was supposed to be and the intended degree of blindness on the putting surface or otherwise. Personally, I think it was a 1906 flat Florida version of Leeds' Myopia Alps). Obviously the grammatically-challenged Findlay didn't understand that in June 1912 and Hugh didn't feel like taking the time to explain it to him since Findlay's ability to understand people wasn't much better than his ability to write clearly). Apparently Charlie disagreed with that, thought it might be provably IMPOSSIBLE (depending on the grammatical sentence structure used and the level of intelligence of the parser a century from then) and it seems like they might have gotten into a brief but vicious argument until Horatio Lloyd stepped in and told Charlie Blair MacD that if he didn't shut his arrogant curmudgeonly YAP at that very moment he would personally see to it that his friend J.P. Morgan ruined Macdonald's business career and sent him out of the stock brokerage business on a water torture board.

It sounds like they all had a fine time at NGLA those two days, don't you think, David? If you'd like to know what Charlie was drinking and how much I think I'll have to get permission from MCC first to find out if I can tell you that.

[TEPaul]

"So I should be extra careful or maybe take Yoda's advice: "Up the shut fuck, you must" ;-)"

Ulrich:

Would you mind submitting that to Dave Schmidt for a complete and through grammatical sentence structure analysis and meaning and word parsing check?

You very well may be pleasantly surprised to find out what it really means compared to what you thought Yoda meant.

Do you think Yoda deserves any design credit for Merion East, Ulrich? Come on, don't be shy; you're amongst friends here.

[DMoriarty]

I am not sure I totally get this conversation about "laying out" or why this is the phrase we are currently parsing, but my brain is a bit fuzzy right now, probably because  I am in shock with TEPaul's revelation from the MCC Minutes.  I won't get into it at this point except to say that I can certainly see why they refused to give us the text for so long.

But to the latest discussion of "to lay out."

First, let me say again that I want to clarify that portion of my essay, and will if I ever get the chance to update it with accurate and confirmable information.    Generally I think my understanding was correct, but it is certainly is susceptible to misunderstanding and that is my error.  The meaning of "lay out" and "to lay out" were not definite terms and were used quite differently by different people in different circumstances, and one must look at the circumstances to figure it out.  Also, some what we know about the circumstances surrounding Merion's creation has slightly changed and that may (or may not) alter what I think it means in the context of Merion.  That being said . . .

"Laying out" was used very similarly to "staking out" a course, or otherwise marking it out on the ground.   My understanding is that "to lay out" usually (but not always) described some interaction with the actual land, as opposed to solely on paper.   

- Sometimes a designer would plan a course by "laying it out, "staking it out," or otherwise marking out a course on the land.   In other words the designer would go on site,  look around and decide where the green, tee, feature locations, etc. were to be located, and actually mark them out on the ground then and there.    Later (or at the same time, I suppose) the designer might transcribe the create a written plan.     

- But "laying out" and even "staking out" did not necessarilyinvolve planning where the holes and features would go.  "Laying out," "staking out," or otherwise marking out a course on the ground could be done pursuant to a seperate plan.   For example, Barker drew up a rough plan for a proposed lay out.  Had Merion taken his plan and then laid out the course on the ground without his further involvement, then Merion at the time it would have made sense to write that Merion"laid out the course" on the ground, even if it was done pursuant to Barker's plan. 

- Now we oftentimes refer to the written plan as the "lay out" especially if it is the final plan.  While I don't think this was the norm then, there are probably instances (can't think of any offhand) when the written plan would be referred to as the "lay out."  But I submit that it would have been more accurate to call it a "plan," a "lay out plan" a "planned lay out," "a plan of the layout," maybe a "proposed lay out,"  or something else along these lines,  because the plan was on paper not on the ground.   For example, the written Barker plan was a "planned lay out"  or "lay out plan" (I don't remember the terminology he used) but drawing it out on paper was not the same as laying out the course.   

Think of how one might pack for a vacation (which I could use.) 
 - One might go to the closest and dresser and physically "lay out" cloths on the bed in in the bag order to see what is needed and to consider if it is too much or too little for the bag and trip.    This is analagous to planning while "staking out" or "laying out" a course. 
 - Someone (like my wife) knows what she has, and will first make a detailed list of items to be packed.   One may then  then "lay out" the cloths from the list, maybe making a few adjustments in the process.    This would be the equivalent of first planning a course paper and then "laying it out" "staking it out" or otherwise marking it out on the ground.

Hopefully this helps clear this up.   

[TEPaul]

JEEEESUS CHIIIRST ALMIGHTY----I thought I had pretty much seen it all on these Merion threads and now that last post!!! I guess I never will see it all.

THAT POST is UNFRIGGININININCREDIBLE!!! I think I might be going into MIND LOCKDOWN with THAT ONE!

Ran Morrissett, I know we'll be seeing each other at the Homestead in about a month and by that time if you do not take down David Moriarty's In My Opinion piece "The Missing Faces of Merion" and swear to God and Charles Blair Macdonald that you will never, EVER, EVER, NEVER let this maniac post another IN MY OPINION piece on Merion or hopefully anything else----all I can says is you are NUTS! NUTSO!! NUTSOPHILIACISH!!!! JUST NUTSO, NUTSO, NUTSO!!!!!!!

Even in my wildest nightmares did I ever think all this Merion/Macdonald garbage could ever come to a post like that one!

WOOF!   

[DMoriarty]

JEEEESUS CHIIIRST ALMIGHTY----I thought I had pretty much seen it all on these Merion threads and now that last post!!! I guess I never will see it all.

THAT POST is UNFRIGGININININCREDIBLE!!! I think I might be going into MIND LOCKDOWN with THAT ONE!

Ran Morrissett, I know we'll be seeing each other at the Homestead in about a month and by that time if you do not take down David Moriarty's In My Opinion piece "The Missing Faces of Merion" and swear to God and Charles Blair Macdonald that you will never, EVER, EVER, NEVER let this maniac post another IN MY OPINION piece on Merion or hopefully anything else----all I can says is you are NUTS! NUTSO!! NUTSOPHILIACISH!!!! JUST NUTSO, NUTSO, NUTSO!!!!!!!

Even in my wildest nightmares did I ever think all this Merion/Macdonald garbage could ever come to a post like that one!

WOOF!   

 I am afraid I don't understand, Tom.  Your post, while colorful, is entirely devoid of substance, so I have no idea why you are so upset.   

My previous post provided my understanding of what "laying out"a golf course meant back then.  I offered it because you and Shivas were discussing how the phrase was used.  Since I have researched how it was used, I thought my perspective might help.   The meaning is evasive and I could be wrong, so if you have also researched the issue and have a different understanding, then I'd love to hear your thoughts.  Provided they are factually based.   
_____________________________


In the meantime, hopefully you will clarify a few things about the portion of the MCC minutes you transcribed earlier today.  You may find my questions to be pickayune, and I apologize for that.   I only ask to better understand what happened, and am not trying to cast aspersions or offer any sort of alternative opinion.  Just trying to get the facts straight before I come to any unsupportable conclusions. 

You transcribed the pasage as follows:

"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf course on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......"

1.  I assume that the text actually reads "laying out many different golf courses"as opposed to "laying out many many different golf course"

2.  Along the same lines, in the past you have written that the MCC minutes referred to the "numerous plans" that existed before the NGLA meeting.   Do the minutes also refer to "numerous plans" (or a similar description), or is this the only mention of committee's lay out related activities that occurred before the  NGLA meeting.

3.  Your answer here may also answer the question immediately above.  You have written that these early plans and/or layouts were discarded after the NGLA meeting.     What specifically did the minutes say about this?   Where in the passage does it fit with what else you have transcribed and told us?   

4.  While I appreciate you again telling me happened the second day, it would be very helpful to have the actual words, if only to help me better grasp what came before. 

Thanks in advance.   

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

Another factual inquiry, trying to tie up loose ends.

If I recall correctly, you have concluded based on the MCC minutes that the Francis Land Swap occurred sometime shortly before M&W's April 6, 1911 site visit.

- What do the records say about this swap and when it occurred?   

- Is there anything in the records indicating whether the swap occurred before the NGLA trip?

Thanks again.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()