[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Five of the top six golfers of 300+ golf members at Merion made up the Committee.

Tom MacWood tells us it's because they were on the existing Green Committee but hasn't offered any evidence when asked.

These men were the EXPERTS in golf within the club.

The correspondence went out to members, golf-members and non-golf members alike.

Don't you think if rock star CB Mac was at work on plans for the course that he was well enough known that they would have trumpeted that great news to the membership??!?!?  

The "plural" language alone tells us it was not Mr. Barker, who worked alone.

So, it was either the local Committee or CB Mac and Mr. Whigham.

Why the hush hush if the latter?

Please let's avoid the excuse of his amateur status...it was widely known when he accepted design gigs at Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock shortly thereafter.

[DMoriarty]

This is a non-issue, demonstrably proven to be true.

This almost but not quite caused me to break down and use a dreaded emoticon.   Fortunately I could not find one that truly represented how I feel about this statement.     It is funny yet sad; shocking yet mundane; pitiful yet distainful; completely absurd yet entirely typical.  

Perhaps I need to invent a little Cirbamoticon.

____________________________


Mike, since you have it all figured out, it could do you no harm to answer my questions, could it?  

I've read your last post but it is just a rehash of points already addressed.   Are you allergic to answering direct questions?  

How about it?

  Thanks.  

____________________________________________________

[Peter Pallotta]

You know, I'm one who thinks that, while there's been much unhelpful parsing of words in these threads, this particular parsing of words is at the least very interesting. I think Jim's point about the way the membership would have viewed the announcement well worth considering. And I find it curious that, by using just a few extra words, they could've easily identified exactly WHO those experts were -- so why didn't they?

Peter

Mike - just saw your last post, but decided to post this anyway

[DMoriarty]

You know, I'm one who thinks that, while there's been much unhelpful parsing of words in these threads, this particular parsing of words is at the least very interesting. I think Jim's point about the way the membership would have viewed the announcement well worth considering. And I find it curious that, by using just a few extra words, they could've easily identified exactly WHO those experts were -- so why didn't they?

Peter

Perhaps one reason is that they had just mentioned M&W and Barker in their November announcement.   Perhaps it did not occur to them to mention them again.  Perhaps they didn't think CBM would want to be mentioned along with Barker.   There are many possible reasons.  You'd have to ask them.  

Whatever the reasons, I fail to see your point.   If it was Wilson and Co. why didn't they identify them as the experts?

Do you have any factual reason to doubt or deny the accuracy of my description of how the phrase "expert" was commonly used around this time?

If not, then given how the term was commonly used, were Wilson and Co. experts?  

[Peter Pallotta]

You fail to see my point, David, because there was no point. It was a question.

Peter

[DMoriarty]

You fail to see my point, David, because there was no point. It was a question.

Peter

Well then I hope I answered it.

Will you answer mine?

[Rich Goodale]

Dave

I assume it was I at whom you addressed the questions below:

"Based on my research into the usage of the term, I think it is extremely unlikely that the MCC announcement was referring to Wilson and his Committee as "experts at work preparing plans . . .."   That MCC had been dealing with real experts makes it even more unlikely.


-  Do you have any factual basis for disagreeing with my conclusion?

-  What does the 1901 Open have to do with whether, in late December 1910, Wilson et al. had any expertise at planning golf courses?

-- What do the 1901 or 1910 handicap listings have to do with whether, in late December 1910, Wilson et al. had any expertise at planning golf courses?  These lists do not even include professionals, yet the vast majority of those considered experts at planning courses were professionals. 

-- What is the factual basis, if any, for your belief that Wilson et al. qualified as "experts" when it came to "preparing plans" for golf courses?"

As for #1--it is a classic Holmesian case of the "dog which did not bark."  Other than casual and unconnected references to Barker and Macdonald, no dog barked.  The only dogs that barked said that Wilson and his Committee largely designed and built Merion East.

As for #'s 2 and 3 I was merely offering a counter argument that someone of Wilson's golfing pedigree could easily be considered an "expert" in those early days.  The 1901 Open was contemporaneous with the NYT article, according to Tom Macwood.  Does the fact that John Low performed so badly there ,mean that he was not an "expert" when he bunkered the outward 9 at the Old Course at about the same time?  (BTW--Having viewed that bunkering many times I tend to beleive that he was NOT an expert, but that is another thread....).

As for #4, I am confident that they were at the very least as much experts in golf course architecture then as you and Tom Macwood are now in golf course architecture historical research.  Evidence?  The proof is in the pudding.  Merion East is a great golf course, and better than any course that Macdonald ever created.  As for you and Tom Macwood--you still have time to prove your theories, but if you don't have any more to show us now than you have over the past 6+ years, please go away and come back when you can make a coherent argument.  As for HH Barker, I am sure that he is just Tom Macwood's private joke and/or obsession.

Constructively

Rich

[Dan Herrmann]

Rich,
Bravo, and well said:  "Merion East is a great golf course, and better than any course that Macdonald ever created."

[henrye]

Jeffrey:

I doctored documents? Who said that? What documents does someone think I doctored?

TEPaul.  Not sure if you are asking in jest or not, but if not, perhaps you could clear up a few inconsistencies attributed to some documents that you had quoted.  I asked you this earlier in another thread, but don't think you answered.

From TEPaul's recent version of the Alan Wilson letter:  

They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value.

From TEPaul's version of the Alan Wilson from 2006, from posts which he has conveniently deleted (my underline):

They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.

Tom Paul, I truly hope that you can explain this inconsistency.  Regardless of your thoughts on David's essay and his further comments; this is no way to debate or battle.

More recently, David has brought up another.

..............he now claims that the report said "we" went to NGLA when all along he has been telling us that the report said that "they" went to NGLA?  Typical.   Yet another switcharoo of what was represented as a verbatim account to support the argument.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Henry E and DM,

I hate to jump into unproductive arguments as much as I hate stepping in poo.

While I understand the source material argument, riddle me this:  Does TePaul's omission really alter the meaning of that Lesley reading of the committee report?  I know DM is arguing the signifigance of the words "laid out" circa 1910, but I don't think TePaul has ever denied either the NGLA trip, or its signifgance, despite that ommission.  Yes, he would stop short of saying that CBM was "callling all the shots" as DM contends, but even with the words "as to the lay-out of the East Course" the other words convey "advice and suggestions" on the part of CBM and HJW, not routing plans and feature designs.

While it may have happened, in reality, we would still be debating just what advice and suggestions they gave, and we just don't know. 

Again, I understand the source documents, but also recognized that 1) this ain't really that important and 2) using that document vs parsed words makes a hell of a lot more sense, even if it wasn't transcribed perfectly.  Not only does DM need to prove his theory of the MCC creation story, he needs to prove that TePaul is purposely conspiring to conceal the truth, rather than just have the rest of us rely on him telling us that this is the case.

Kind of ironic, no?

[TEPaul]

"It is all about the process, Rich.  A few of us want to follow established, accepted, and necessary procedures to try and get to the truth of the matter, while most others insist that we just accept what we are told as the truth.   It is an age-old discussion, and one that has long tended to rile those comfortable with conventions, much to the detriment of those who would dare challenge it."


It's all about process is it? I see. Then why didn't you two follow the most important part of the established, accepted and necessary process and procedure of researching any subject----eg go directly to the subject FIRST, in this case Merion G.C., get to know it and all its available records intimately? What do you think we are or are supposed to be, your research assistants?


This is about Merion G.C's Merion East golf course isn't it or have I been misreading and misunderstanding something along those lines for the last six and a half years? Have you ever actually established any kind of relationship with a golf club whose course you are attempting to research and understand and write about? Every adequate researcher, writer and historian I've ever heard of considers that to be a pretty fundamental part of the established, accepted and necessary process and procedure of investigating, researching, understanding and writing about a subject. But who knows, maybe you two have found a better and a far easier way to do it but after six and a half years on this subject of Macdonald, Barker, Wilson and Merion it sure doesn't seem so!

[TEPaul]

HenryE:

So is whomever says I doctored a document saying I left out the words "as to the layout of the East course" from the 1926 Alan Wilson letter to William Philler I typed up and put on here on some thread at some point like maybe a year ago?

[DMoriarty]

Rich,

All your "proof in the pudding" responses have the ultimately conclusion as the basis for the facts.   To paraphrase,  your position seems to be that:   Hugh Wilson designed the course, so he must have been "the expert" to which MCC's board referred.

While the most common approach around here, you must realize this gets us no closer to understanding who really planned Merion.  

My guess is that this is fine with you, since like TEPaul you are apparently think you already KNOW the answer, and that answer determines your understanding of everything else.  

But if that is the case, then I will ask you what I have asked Dan Hermann.   What exactly is your role here other than to periodically pronounce your unbending conclusion?  Are you merely here as another cheerleader for your team?

Or maybe I have you wrong?    

If so, could you please try to answer my question based on facts rather than your ultimate conclusion?    Thanks.  

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Rich,
Bravo, and well said:  "Merion East is a great golf course, and better than any course that Macdonald ever created."

Dan,  if I recall correctly, last time you were commenting on the differences between CBM's work and Merion, you had not even seen NGLA.   Do I have that correct?   If so, have you seen NGLA between now and then?      

If you haven't seen NGLA, then what are we to make of your post given that you couldn't possibly know whether the comment has any merit?  
-  Is it just blind cheerleading in the hope that Rich scored a point?
-  Or are you just generally a fan of circular reasoning and fallacious presumptions?  
-  Or is it something else all together?
_____________________________________

Damn,  I've got to get busy on that Cirbamoticons.   So far all I have is a name for the first "The ABCIRBACON."

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

HenryE,

I am relieved that at least one other poster is concerned with such trivialities and intellectual honesty.  

So you have your facts straight on the first issue . . . .

-  About three years ago, TEPaul posted the version of Alan Wilson report with the "as to the layout of the East Course" language.
-  Very shortly thereafter, TEPaul deleted the entire post with the "as to the layout of the East Course" language.
-  The next time TEPaul posted the portion of the report, it was identical except that the "as to the layout of the East Course" language was no longer there.  
-   When TEPaul or Mike have posted this passage, they have left out the "as to the layout of the East Course" language.

I hope this helps.  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Count me as excitedly awaiting your creation of an emoticon on what has already been a highly creative topic. 

Out of curiosity, how long passed between Tom Paul's two Alan Wilson postings?

I know myself I just copied one off to Word and posted it from there periodically as needed, but mine didn't have that phrase.

[John_Cullum]

David

With all due respect, it has become clear that the only way you are going to be satisfied is to see the Merion minutes for yourself. I advise you make arrangements to do that; otherwise, this incessant squabbling about what they really say will go on endlessly.

Have you tried calling them to gain access. The number is (610) 642-5600. Ask for the club manager and go from there

[TEPaul]

HenryE:

Well, from the last portion of post #2913 it may require another 80 page thread with its writer to determine why the words "as to the layout of the East" course may have been in or may not have been in a post I made three years ago or a year ago or whatever while referencing Alan Wilson's 1926 letter to William Philler about the creation of Merion's East and West courses and who was in the main responsible for their architecture.

Since David Moriarty's essay said it could not quote Alan Wilson's letter because I had deleted it or something from Golfclubatlas.com I do remember taking the time to type out and put on here the whole approximately five page letter for his benefit and that of the participants on here. If I left something out of that five page letter I wasn't aware of it. When it comes to Macdonald and Merion does "as to the layout of the East" really matter since the East course was the only course at Merion Macdonald/Whigam lent their help and advice to Merion about?

Furthermore, if this is something David Moriarty thinks is of great importance I'd have to say he must be pretty much out of things to offer on this thread and this entire subject. Have you noticed in the last week or month or so in just about every post he makes he blames me or me and Wayne for something that we got wrong somehow or hid from him or refused to give him?

John Cullum is a most commonsensical and level-headed guy and I suggest Moriarty take his advice in his post just now to get in touch with Merion himself and stop trying to depend on the people he incessantly criticizes to act as his Merion research assistants.

[Tom MacWood]

This 'expert' debate may go down as one the most pathetic displays of ignorance in GCA history. You have intelligent men with a good understanding of golf architecture history making an argument that not only insults the group's intelligence, it insults their own reputations. It borders on the comical. You can do no better than 1901? That is embarrassing.

Hugh Wilson himself admitted he wasn't an expert. He said that the knowledge he and the rest of the committee had in construction and green-keeping was that of an average club member. The statement we are debating about experts at work preparing plans came from the Club, it was official release. These were savvy men who knew the meaning of the term expert. They had already been involved with Macdonald and Barker, arguably the two top experts in golf design. They would later hire the top contractor in the country and one the top grass experts in the world. If you believe these men thought Wilson & Co. were experts you must believe they were a bunch of dumb asses.

[JESII]

Interesting post Tom, what can you tell me about the club's engagement of Barker?

[Tom MacWood]

Dave

". . . Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds of clubs of importance in the country.  He is in charge of of a country club at New Brunswick Nova Scotia, and spends his summers there.  While here he will also give instructions as to the game to local players."

Mr. Peacock may have been an "expert in his line" but he was crap at geography.  "New Brunswick Nova Scotia" is equivalent to "Connecticut Massachusetts."

Try harder next time.

Rich

That is interesting about Peacock. In the early years at Pinehurst they had three professionals who were basically equals - Donald Ross, Alex Ross and Peacock. When the resort at Southern Pines decided to build a new golf course in 1907 they hired Peacock.

[John_Cullum]

If you believe these men thought Wilson & Co. were experts you must believe they were a bunch of dumb asses.

I don't believe they thought Wilson and his committee were experts. I believe they were exaggerating and making intentional misrepresentations to the members. If you don't think that is the most likely scenario, you've clearly never been a member of a private club run by a board of appointed members

[Phil_the_Author]

"That is interesting about Peacock. In the early years at Pinehurst they had three professionals who were basically equals - Donald Ross, Alex Ross and Peacock. When the resort at Southern Pines decided to build a new golf course in 1907 they hired Peacock."

And aren't they thrilled that they chose him over Ross today!  

[Tom MacWood]

Interesting post Tom, what can you tell me about the club's engagement of Barker?

I suppose you want to argue semantics. Would you prefer involved? HH Barker inspected the property in June of 1910. His report was included in the club minutes in July and November, along with his routing. Every news report at the time mentioned him by name and used his quote. The news reports also said he was engaged by Lloyd. The point is they knew an expert when they saw one - Barker was an expert, Wilson was not.

[JESII]

Merion said he was not engaged by Lloyd, but rather by a non-member by the name of Connell. Is that a meaningful difference without falling inside of the bounds of semantics?

[DMoriarty]

David

With all due respect, it has become clear that the only way you are going to be satisfied is to see the Merion minutes for yourself. I advise you make arrangements to do that; otherwise, this incessant squabbling about what they really say will go on endlessly.

Have you tried calling them to gain access. The number is (610) 642-5600. Ask for the club manager and go from there

John,  

Thanks for the suggestion, but I try not to discuss my dealings (past or present) with private clubs on public forums, but I can assure you that if I had the minutes or could easily access them elsewhere, I wouldn't bother trying to get a look at them here.  

But I sure hope it did not take you until now to figure out that I will not be satisfied until I see the minutes for myself.    What I don't understand is why, at this point, any of the rest of you would be satisfied with anything less?      TEPaul's version of the source material changes at his whim.  

For one example, he even changed his version of the source material earlier today.   He has long told us that the minutes said that "THEY went to down to the National . . . ." yet to justify his claim that the report was in Wilson's voice today he claimed that the report said that "WE went to down to the National . . . ."       Given the a large part of the debate has been about who did what, these pronouns (if there are even pronouns in the real document) are pretty crucial to the debate, yet TEPaul seems to think he can change them and use them however he wants, to suit his porposes.

Now I am sure that the TomPaulogists will line up to say that all these could have been innocent errors, but that is BESIDE THE POINT.  Even if TePaul's repeated botching of the supposed "source material" has just been a series of mistakes, then we should be just as concerned, if not moreso.   For whatever reason, TEPaul is historically very bad at accurately and completely disseminating the source material.   Moreover, even if he was good at it and entirely trustworthy, we should still insist that come forward with the actual documents.  

And John, with all due respect to you, why aren't you and others asking TEPaul to come forward with the accurate information?   He can obviously do whatever he wants to with it.  So wouldn't this be a more direct and elegant solution the this problem?   After all, he and Wayne and the ones who have injected all this unverified garbage into our discussion to serve their rhetorical purposes, so the burden is theirs to verify that they have done so truthfully and accurately.  

[Tom MacWood]

Merion said he was not engaged by Lloyd, but rather by a non-member by the name of Connell. Is that a meaningful difference without falling inside of the bounds of semantics?

I changed it to involved. The minutes said Connell hired Barker. The minutes also said Griscom engaged M&W. Macdonald's letter is addressed to Lloyd, not Grisom. Barker's letter is addressed to Dear Sir. Multiple newspapers reports said Lloyd hired both. The newspaper reports make more sense IMO.

The point is Merion was quite familiar with term expert, their project was crawling with them, and Wilson was not one of them by his own admission.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()