Merion's Early Timeline

[Mike_Cirba]

For what it's worth, I do very much hope that David and Tom and anyone else here interested DO get to see the MCC Minutes in full at some point before too long.

I say that even while feeling that while that would put the issue to rest for 98 pct. of us, I have little doubt based on the parsed interpretations to date that Tom and David would find some reason not to agree with the consensus opinion.

So be it and that's ok.  I'd just hate to see this situation result in some type of guarded control of club historical data, whether at Merion or anywhere else, nor do I think any interested research parties should be denied access if they are sincerely interested, even if that is certainly within the rights of any private club.

[TEPaul]

"But, really, enough pissing and parsing!  I am with you that some valuble info came from your essay - even if TePaul claims to have known it, and a few around MCC knew it, the rest of gca.com didn't."


Jeffrey:


What TEPaul knew or claims to have known or what Wayne Morrison knew at any particular time is not important to this subject that very much includes the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" and the architectural history of this first phase of Merion East that questions if Wilson and his committee routed and designed Merion East before it was built in the spring of 1911 and then contends and concludes that he and his committee did not route and design Merion East before it was constructed.

All that matters is what actually did happen in that regard back then, not what Wayne and I knew at any particular time even if we have suspected for years that was one of the reasons this entire subject began in the first place that included that essay.

[Mike_Cirba]

As regards the date of Wilson's trip abroad, that was indeed a very valuable find by David which I admittedly didn't believe at first but was later proven wrong when Joe found the Findlay article that made clear it was Wilson's first trip abroad in 1912.

One related area I don't think has been discussed enough is the whole question of how and why Merion might have been inspired to attempt a few template holes prior to Wilson's trip.

I'm not sure why that is an open question at this point, if it is.   In early March 1911, before the Merion Committee's golf course plans were finalized and approved, and before construction began, the Merion committee saw not only Macdonald's detailed sketches of great holes abroad, but they also saw his own American interpretations of them in person at NGLA, as well as heard explanations of their key principles from Mac and Whigham...

Who knows...perhaps the 3rd at Merion owes more in way of direct inspiration to the 4th at NGLA than the 15th at North Berwick?

I do also think David also desrves credit for helping all of us to gain a clearer, more nuanced and detailed understanding of what M&W actually provided in terms of valuable advice and suggestions as well as what Alan Wilson meant when he wrote that M&W came to Merion a second time "to consider and advise about our plans".   Some of that was admittedly due to subsequent research efforts by others, but as I've said prior, I think his essay was the impetus for a lot of folks to dig deeper and I do believe that has all been for the greater good of our mutual understanding of Merion East's early history.

[TEPaul]

"As regards the date of Wilson's trip abroad, that was indeed a very valuable find by David which I admittedly didn't believe at first but was later proven wrong when Joe found the Findlay article that made clear it was Wilson;s first trip abroad."


Mike:

For the interest and entertainment of the real golf architecture research buff, there is another bit of material evidence that corroborates the Wilson trip abroad in 1912 that is now part of the Merion archives along with that Findlay article that Joe Bausch found.

There's a pretty interesting backstory to that second item and more than a bit of irony to this entire Merion investigation! It is an April 11 letter to Russell Oakley from guess who?-------Richard Francis of all people, who was obviously standing in for Hugh Wilson as he makes what Francis describes as "a hurried trip abroad."

It is on the George A. Fuller Building Construction Company letterhead and it is signed "Very Truly Yours, Richard Francis, For the MCC Golf Association."

That letter was in the so-called "agronomy files" that are at the USGA Green Section.

When Wayne and I came across those so-called agronomy letters, maybe 5-6 years ago we were told by the USGA Green Section the entire voluminous file had just come in a few months before we walked into the USGA Green Section looking to do research on William Flynn. Apparently they'd been found in the attic of a Mid-Atlantic USGA regional agronomist where they may've been for decades.

Wayne and I spent most of a day in the USGA Green Section scanning through about 2,000 letters in those files basically looking for Flynn's name and any mention of him, and that is what we ended up copying that day and taking home with us. I still have those separate file folders with what we copied that day----maybe a hundred or so letters.

We did not copy that Francis letter to Oakley of April 11, 1912 because it didn't pertain to Flynn.

However, a little over a year ago I went back to the USGA Green Section to go through every single letter from the very first one from Wilson to Oakley (Feb. 1, 1911) up until Wilson's trip abroad just to see if Wilson even had the time opportunity to be abroad before that 1912 trip. Since his letters to Oakley from Philadelphia were on such a constant and regular stream I determined he had not time opportunity to be abroad before that 1912 trip and I said so on here and I also put on here the fact of that April 11, 1912 letter from Francis to Oakley corroborating that Wilson was abroad for some time period between March 1, 1911 and May 20, 1911 (the dates that bracket Hugh Wilson's letters from Philadelphia to Russell Oakley).

Unlike the Findlay article, that Francis letter to Oakley did not mention that the trip abroad that Wilson was on at the time was his first abroad or even why he went over there!

[Tom MacWood]

"Well there you have it.   At least there was no pretense about TEPaul being at all concerned with what really happened."  


"TEP
I was never quite sure what your goal was, but I knew it had nothing to do with finding the truth. Thanks for spelling it out."



David (and Tom):

You're welcome; I thought you knew that. You two have always maintained on here there was some "mystery" to who designed Merion East. I've never thought that, Merion has never thought that, and consequently I've never thought there was any truth to find in that regard, and either have they---it was all there at MCC all along and it was always reported that Wilson and his committee designed Merion East and West courses. Obviously MCC (Merion) or anyone else around at that time never questioned it as its own records from back in 1910 and 1911, particularly that Wilson report, are clear it was Wilson and his committee who laid out (routed and designed it before constructing it) Merion East. Apparently everyone back then knew that and there never has been any good reason to doubt it or question it. There never was any mystery about it.

What you certainly did find the truth on, however, and for which you should get full credit, was that error in the 1989 Tolhurst history book (and the previous Merion history book) that had Wilson going abroad in 1910 and not 1912---a story that cropped up some 60 years after the fact of that first phase of Merion East. You should notice in that recent Philadelphia Inquirer article (posted on this thread by Mike Malone) on John Capers and Merion's archives it was mentioned that Wilson went abroad in 1912 so that single error in Merion's history has now been corrected due to your passenger manifest searches. It is also interesting that there are now two other material items in Merion's archives that corroborate the fact Wilson went abroad in 1912.

TEP
You (and Wayne) have had along history of trying to protect these legends, and going to extraoridnary means to do so. I'm not sure if its some emotional attachment or an ego that can not bear seeing others making dicoveries on your turf. It goes back to my discovery of Crump's suicide and your irrational attempts to stop me from writing that essay. Another example was the exchange last year when I questioned the facts you presented in your Flynn essay (Waynes essay based on your book). I think it showed your general inclination is to rely upon the often told story as opposed to looking for the truth. Either that or you were guilty of very sloppy research, possibly a little of both. And now the thorough look into Merion's hsitory is the latest example along those lines.

It is interesting you bring up the two documents in Merion's archive that corroborate Wilson's trip abroad in 1912. One of those documents must be the two 1912 letters from the P&O collection that mention Wilson has gone to Europe. When you wrote your Merion history for your Flynn book, you had those letter, but yet you made the decision to burying that infomration and continue to tell the old legend of Wilson traveling to the UK in 1910 before returning to design the golf coursse.

Why did you choose to keep the info about the 1912 trip to yourself? And if the Wilson report is as conclusive as you say, how come you refuse to share the information with the group? Your tendecy in the past has been to post any information you believe will hurt David's essay.

[TEPaul]

"It is interesting you bring up the two documents in Merion's archive that corroborate Wilson's trip abroad in 1912. One of those documents must be the two 1912 letters from the P&O collection that mention Wilson has gone to Europe. When you wrote your Merion history for your Flynn book, you had those letter, but yet you made the decision to burying that infomration and continue to tell the old legend of Wilson traveling to the UK in 1910 before returning to design the golf coursse. Why did you choose to keep the info about the 1912 trip to yourself?"


Tom:

You mentioned this before on here as you just did above. I didn't keep that Francis letter to myself; I mentioned it on here within a day of finding it at the USGA Green Section last year. Perhaps you weren't able to read my post just above before your most recent one. My post just above yours this morning explains that Wayne and I did not have that Francis letter of April 11, 1912 to Russell Oakley until I went back up to the USGA Green Section a year ago and found it. Hope that helps you understand the research we did and what we were researching on at the time 5-6 years----eg FLYNN!!

Your last post is just another of many many examples of how easily you seem to get things mixed up about Merion and what Wayne and I were doing or not doing at any particular time.

You have always said that all we or Merion is trying to do here is protect a "legend" or a "Myth." You've said the very same things about us with Crump and Pine Valley and about me and Leeds and Myopia. Apparently this idea of yours led you to label us here "The Philadelphia Syndrome" that suggested we are conducting some kind of conspiracy here to protect the legends of our own local architects and to minimize the contributions of outside architects.

I think we have shown throughout all the years of you labelling us that way and suggesting such a thing that there is absolutely no factual or historically accurate reason or evidence that we have ever done such a thing. In your attempts to suggest other architects were largely responsible for the things attributed to the likes of Wilson, Crump and Leeds, the best you have done is to imply there is some article in Boston, that you constantly refused to produce that says Willie Campbell designed Myopia or that HH Barker must have stopped at Merion and designed the East course in a day in early Dec, 1912 simply because you found he took a train trip from New York to Georgia at that time.

Tom, I have no desire or interest in ever trying to convince you how foolish these things you say are----my only interest is that all others see how foolish the things you have said and say are and in that I feel, at this point, I have pretty much totally succeeded.

[TEPaul]

"And if the Wilson report is as conclusive as you say, how come you refuse to share the information with the group? Your tendecy in the past has been to post any information you believe will hurt David's essay."


Tom:

The real irony here is that I did and have shared that information with this group. Unfortunately, that information was immediately subjected to the most ridiculuous parsing of words and misinterpretations of what it actually says as is imaginable. That's not my doing---it's primarily yours and David Moriarty's. This response of your and his of "we" and "they" in that report making no sense at all is preposterous and then you go on to accuse me of doctoring and altering my transcriptions of those documents. I did nothing of the kind and I never have. Those accusations can't be anything other than some last ditch and really alarming effort on the part of you two to cling to some contention about Wilson and committee not actually routing and designing Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911 before one of their plans was submitted to the board, approved by the board and then built in 1911.

My only regret is that I posted too much of the actual information when I really didn't have the permission to do that from Wayne or Merion or MCC. That I very much regret and I apologize to Wayne, Merion and MCC for what I did. If I had it to do over again I would not do what I have done and subject Merion, their historians et al to this constant and ridiculuous nonsense you two have put that club and those people from it through over the last six and a half years.

Lastly, it's not my tendency to only post on here what hurts Moriarty's essay. The fact is the entire MCC record (board meeting minutes, Cuyler letters, Wilson report et al) hurts Moriarty's essay bigtime because those material assets found in the last year tell the accurate and correct story of what happened back then at MCC in 1910 and 1911 and they show very clearly how and why that essay is almost totally inaccurate.

In a nutshell, his conclusion is that Wilson and his committee did not route and design Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911 and that their only roll was to build or construct the course to someone else's plan. He suggested that plan was Macdonald's and you suggested it was HH Barker's. You both are entirely wrong about that and the MCC records that neither of you had or were even aware existed when you wrote and produced that essay show both those interpretations and conclusions to be categorically wrong and that in fact Wilson and his committee did route and design Merion East (and yes with some help and advice from M/W which was always acknowledged and reported) as Merion has always known and always reported.

He used the error of that 1910 trip abroad in the Tolhurst history books to open the door to his revisionist assumptions, interpretations and conclusion and we have shown how that incorrect story that first appeared over a half century after the fact is totally irrelevent to what actually happened at Merion East back then in the beginning!

Again, getting you and Moriarty to admit and acknowledge that is no longer my goal. My only goal is to try to get everyone else to see the truth of Merion's architectural history as well as what has happened here on this website!

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

You mentioned this before on here as you just did above. I didn't keep that Francis letter to myself; I mentioned it on here within a day of finding it at the USGA Green Section last year. Perhaps you weren't able to read my post just above before your most recent one. My post just above yours this morning explains that Wayne and I did not have that Francis letter of April 11, 1912 to Russell Oakley until I went back up to the USGA Green Section a year ago and found it. Hope that helps you understand the research we did and what we were researching on at the time 5-6 years----eg FLYNN!!

TEP you had seen those letters before you sent me the rough draft of your Flynn book in 2005. The draft has numerous quotes from those letters. Your apologists maybe naive but not the rest of us.

Merion is a major focus of that book because it played such an important role in his career. A large portion of the book is devoted to Merion, including the development of Merion-East. One of the unknown mysteries regarding Flynn's career was when and how he came to Merion. Would you have us believe you did not search thoroughly through those letters for clues? The first letter of the series is dated 2/1/1911 and mentioned CB Macdonald prominently. Would you have us believe you would brush over that? As you continue through those letters you would find further mention of CBM, including a copy of a letter from CBM. That would be of no interest? And then the letter from Richard Francis announcing Wilson is abroad. You quote RS Francis in your book and he's metioned prominently in Merion's history book. That would not be of any interest either?

Your explanation does not fly.

Your last post is just another of many many examples of how easily you seem to get things mixed up about Merion and what Wayne and I were doing or not doing at any particular time.

You have always said that all we or Merion is trying to do here is protect a "legend" or a "Myth." You've said the very same things about us with Crump and Pine Valley and about me and Leeds and Myopia. Apparently this idea of yours led you to label us here "The Philadelphia Syndrome" that suggested we are conducting some kind of conspiracy here to protect the legends of our own local architects and to minimize the contributions of outside architects.

I think everyone accepts by now that is all you do. Last year you were upset by my essay on the golf architecure of the 1890s becasue it did not jive with your simple understanding derived from Cornish & Whitten.

I think we have shown throughout all the years of you labelling us that way and suggesting such a thing that there is absolutely no factual or historically accurate reason or evidence that we have ever done such a thing. In your attempts to suggest other architects were largely responsible for the things attributed to the likes of Wilson, Crump and Leeds, the best you have done is to imply there is some article in Boston, that you constantly refused to produce that says Willie Campbell designed Myopia or that HH Barker must have stopped at Merion and designed the East course in a day in early Dec, 1912 simply because you found he took a train trip from New York to Georgia at that time.

I told you what I found on Campbell and Myopia, and I told you where you could find the articles. If you are too lazy or incompetent to follow up whose fault is that? I have no idea if Barker stopped at Merion in the winter of 1910. I simply made the point he would have travelled through Philadelphia (twice) during the time in question. And combined with the fact he had just been annouced as the designer of Merion and the other report about him laying out new courses its worth considering.

Tom, I have no desire or interest in ever trying to convince you how foolish these things you say are----my only interest is that all others see how foolish the things you have said and say are and in that I feel, at this point, I have pretty much totally succeeded.

The Crump essay clearly showed who the fools were; the jury is still out on Merion. The fact that you are doing everything in your power to keep the original documents hidden does not bode well for you.

[Tom MacWood]

Again, getting you and Moriarty to admit and acknowledge that is no longer my goal. My only goal is to try to get everyone else to see the truth of Merion's architectural history as well as what has happened here on this website!

TEP
Thats funny, last night you said your only goal was the following:

"My goal, my only goal actually, in this last year was simply to try to convince as many people as I possibly could that your essay is incredibly fallacious and revisionist of the architectural history of that early phase of Merion East."

You didn't mention anything about finding the truth. 

[TEPaul]

"TEP you had seen those letters before you sent me the rough draft of your Flynn book in 2005. The draft has numerous quotes from those letters. Your apologists maybe naive but not the rest of us."


Tom:

Yes it did but not from that April 11, 1912 letter from Francis to Oakley about Wilson being abroad. That letter also never mentioned a thing about why Wilson went abroad in 1912 or that Wilson had not been abroad before that. All it said to Oakley was Wilson "is on a hurried trip abroad." Matter of fact, before he went and after he returned Wilson himself never said a thing to P&O about why he went abroad or what he did over there. I copied that Francis letter at the USGA Green Section in maybe May/June of 2008. If it was in the copies Wayne and I made 5-6 years ago I'm not aware of it. We were writing about William Flynn primarily and he doesn't appear to have been part of what was going on there in 1910 and 1911 and that Francis letter had nothing to do with Flynn.

But you can just keep saying whatever you want about what we knew or didn't know at any particular time; it really doesn't matter to us because even if you try to act like it you have no idea what we knew or didn't know at any particular time compared to us.

But I can certainly understand why you keep saying those things on here now; after-all what is there really left for you to say at this point?

[TEPaul]

"You didn't mention anything about finding the truth."

Tom:

That's why I mentioned it this morning! I guess the fact I didn't mention it last night falls into your standard thinking that if someone didn't actually write something specific down there is no way (in your mind) it could've happened!    



"Would you have us believe you did not search thoroughly through those letters for clues?"


As I've said a number of times before to you 5-6 years ago while in the USGA Green Section we spent the better part of a day scanning through those 2,000 or so letter looking for Flynn's name or the mention of anything he did. When Wilson went abroad was not even on our minds when we first scanning through all those letters 5-6 years ago while researching on William Flynn.

If you were so interested in that issue of that Wilson trip abroad 5-6 years ago perhaps you should have gone to Far Hills yourself, as we did, and spent a day in the USGA Green Section scanning through those 2,000 letters looking for some mention of a Wilson trip abroad. Frankly, the same goes for Moriarty. One really wonders why both of you expect us to do all this research for you both! Just do it yourself; even after six and a half years of this subject it appears you still haven't! Why is that? All you seem to do or say on here recently is criticize us for not finding something FOR YOU that you've been interested in all this time.

I think your long-lasting refusal to go to the club or anywhere else that is the subject of some interest you have really has pretty much destroyed any credibility you ever had about being what you call an "expert researcher." You're probably a very good researcher from your home computer but that's about the extent of it.
 
 
 

[TEPaul]

"I think everyone accepts by now that is all you do."


Tom:

Everyone?  

Then why is it that you and Moriarty are the only ones who have ever said that?    

I wonder if it's actually possible that the statements you (and David) make on here can get any more ridiculuous than they have been recently. It is you two who are so interested in your credibility and reputations, particularly with that essay, is it not?

[TEPaul]

"The Crump essay clearly showed who the fools were;"



Tom:


Who the fools were?  

I guess that includes Crump's friends and Pine Valley all those years who knew of that rumor of Crump's suicide and for some reason chose never to investigate it, dredge up his death certificate and tell the world of that tragedy. If someone like you could do it there is no possible way on earth any of them couldn't had they actually wanted to confirm it throughout all those years.

Tom MacWood, you are really showing this website who you are and your true colors and it's about time and I'm glad of it. I, for one, will never consider forgiving or forgetting this incredible arrogance, egoism and lack of feeling on your part for a golf club and its memberships and the memory of a beloved owner, designer, friend, member that made it all happen for them and the world. At least Geoff Shackelford had the good sense, taste and consideration not to reveal that in an article and he knew about it long before you ever did.

Believe me, for that, if any of my friends in Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia and the other numerous clubs like it ask me for my opinion of you I will be sure to tell them that in my opinion none of them should ever show you their door! At the very least, that is what you deserve for the things you have done and the things you have said on this website. You talked above about something not boding well? Uh huh. Why don't we just stop this nonsense on here and wait and just see about that?

[Tom MacWood]

"TEP you had seen those letters before you sent me the rough draft of your Flynn book in 2005. The draft has numerous quotes from those letters. Your apologists maybe naive but not the rest of us."


Tom:

Yes it did but not from that April 11, 1912 letter from Francis to Oakley about Wilson being abroad. That letter also never mentioned a thing about why Wilson went abroad in 1912 or that Wilson had not been abroad before that. All it said to Oakley was Wilson "is on a hurried trip abroad."

So you are admitting you saw the letter and chose to ignore it? You were aware Hugh Wilson said he only made one trip. You have repeatedly mentioned the story about Wilson and the Titanic in 1912. You were aware of the 1913 Far & Sure article which said Wilson travelled abroad the previous year. By the way the letters are in chronological order so please don't give us any BS about skipping over arguably the most important period.

Matter of fact, before he went and after he returned Wilson himself never said a thing to P&O about why he went abroad or what he did over there. I copied that Francis letter at the USGA Green Section in maybe May/June of 2008. If it was in the copies Wayne and I made 5-6 years ago I'm not aware of it. We were writing about William Flynn primarily and he doesn't appear to have been part of what was going on there in 1910 and 1911 and that Francis letter had nothing to do with Flynn.

Wilson told Oakley that he had just returned from abroad, and a few weeks later mentions info he's received from Suttons. In his own account (and his brothers account too) Wilson only mentions one trip abroad. In your book you wrote Flynn assisted in the construction of the East course. Have you read it? Construction began in the Spring of 1911 just about when the letters begin. In your book you wrote there was a constant stream of correspondence between Wilson and P&O beginning 1911. So please don't insult are intelligence.

But you can just keep saying whatever you want about what we knew or didn't know at any particular time; it really doesn't matter to us because even if you try to act like it you have no idea what we knew or didn't know at any particular time compared to us.

But I can certainly understand why you keep saying those things on here now; after-all what is there really left for you to say at this point?

I think it is obvious you buried that information just as you buried the info about Barker and Macdonald, and are now trying to bury the April 1911 report. Preserving these myths seems to be your goal in life. Why is that?

[Tom MacWood]

"The Crump essay clearly showed who the fools were;"



Tom:


Who the fools were?  

I guess that includes Crump's friends and Pine Valley all those years who knew of that rumor of Crump's suicide and for some reason chose never to investigate it, dredge up his death certificate and tell the world of that tragedy. If someone like you could do it there is no possible way on earth any of them couldn't had they actually wanted to confirm it throughout all those years.

Tom MacWood, you are really showing this website who you are and your true colors and it's about time and I'm glad of it. I, for one, will never consider forgiving or forgetting this incredible arrogance, egoism and lack of feeling on your part for a golf club and its memberships and the memory of a beloved owner, designer, friend, member that made it all happen for them and the world. At least Geoff Shackelford had the good sense, taste and consideration not to reveal that in an article and he knew about it long before you ever did.

Believe me, for that, if any of my friends in Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia and the other numerous clubs like it ask me for my opinion of you I will be sure to tell them that in my opinion none of them should ever show you their door! At the very least, that is what you deserve for the things you have done and the things you have said on this website. You talked above about something not boding well? Uh huh. Why don't we just stop this nonsense on here and wait and just see about that?

TEP
You and Wayne were the fools who tried to prevent me from finding and writing about the true story. Don't try to brush off your foolish behavior on others.

[DMoriarty]

What a joke this has become!  The namesake Tompaulogist  trying to justify his and Wayne's past abhorrent behavior;  trying to pretend like they were protecting Pine Valley and Merion; trying to justify their shoddy research and their ignorance (intentional or unintentional) of the vast amounts of source material that was right in front of their noses.

Funny thing is I believe that TEPaul truly thinks he was protecting the "truth" in both the case of Merion and Pine Valley.   Unfortunately for us, it is the "truth" as TEPaul and Wayne knew it a decade ago, or whenever it was that he and Wayne started touting their knowledge of these places.   And since they think they already knew what the truth is, then all facts that disagree with his version of the truth must necessarily by wrong, misunderstood, fallacious, and revisionist.  And anyone who suggests anything other than what he believes is irresponsible, reckless, lying, etc.

I mean listen to him.  He seriously believes that the only thing that has changed about the Merion legend was the date of the Wilson trip, and as recently as about a month ago he was still intimating that there may have been an earlier trip!   He is delusional about the history of Merion.   The facts are irrelevant.  He wants you all to believe him regardless of the facts, not because of them!  That is the approach he and Wayne follow, so why shouldn't you all.

TEPaul has admitted this explicitly with regard to the Findlay letter.  If the facts disagree with what he knows, then it is the facts that must be changed, not his conclusion.   And he has admitted withholding information that may weigh against his case.    This is why it is such an easy thing for them to play games with the source material.  They are just protecting the "truth" as they believe,  and as far as they are concerned anything goes to protect that "truth."

[JESII]

Tom, David, Tom and Mike,

To each; which of your posts was the most recent that actually helped move the conversation forward?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  I think I have only had a few posts as of late, and they haven't helped move the conversation forward at all.   But when TEPaul misrepresents my essay, or misrepresents my motives, or misrepresents my research, or misrepresents his behavior, then I will occasionally set the record straight. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Don't put me in the middle of this one!

Did you read my last post?

As regards the date of Wilson's trip abroad, that was indeed a very valuable find by David which I admittedly didn't believe at first but was later proven wrong when Joe found the Findlay article that made clear it was Wilson's first trip abroad in 1912.

One related area I don't think has been discussed enough is the whole question of how and why Merion might have been inspired to attempt a few template holes prior to Wilson's trip.

I'm not sure why that is an open question at this point, if it is.   In early March 1911, before the Merion Committee's golf course plans were finalized and approved, and before construction began, the Merion committee saw not only Macdonald's detailed sketches of great holes abroad, but they also saw his own American interpretations of them in person at NGLA, as well as heard explanations of their key principles from Mac and Whigham...

Who knows...perhaps the 3rd at Merion owes more in way of direct inspiration to the 4th at NGLA than the 15th at North Berwick?

I do also think David also desrves credit for helping all of us to gain a clearer, more nuanced and detailed understanding of what M&W actually provided in terms of valuable advice and suggestions as well as what Alan Wilson meant when he wrote that M&W came to Merion a second time "to consider and advise about our plans".   Some of that was admittedly due to subsequent research efforts by others, but as I've said prior, I think his essay was the impetus for a lot of folks to dig deeper and I do believe that has all been for the greater good of our mutual understanding of Merion East's early history.
 

How about the one asking how it's possible to read the minutes as anyone but whoever went to NGLA as being the same as who laid out manyy golf courses first and then created five five plans on return?

I'm the only one here still even remotely trying to talk about the evidence.

Please show me any differently if you believe I'm not.

[RJ_Daley]

When folks of the future decide to research histories of golf courses and delve into Merion, they will undoubtedly find that the epic thread on GCA.com, for whatever point of view one is inclined to believe, is as historically curious as the golf course's history of events itself.

I think when the big Merion USGA Open event takes place, they ought to do a golf channel special report on the evolution of these 'debates' and try to determine how and why this one course could generate such a long sustained and fervant participation.  Soemtimes I liken myself looking in (only from time to time) as a rubbernecker looking at a train wreck, and sometimes from the curiousity of human behavior, and sometime to see if anyone has come to any consensus on the actual subject.  But that last thing seems to me to be like the issue of laying economists (int his case self designated golf course historians) end to end, and they will never reach a conclusion...  

But good luck to you fellows.  We are rooting for you all to come together, some how, in some dimension of time and space.  Maybe you all could be the honorary lead-off 4 some(s) at the Open when it is finally held there.  I'd buy a ticket for that!!!

[Norbert P]

 
Sniper alert !!!

Ya dig a hundred and five pages
 And what d'ya get
 Another day older
 In a deeper revet.                                                                                                                                     (-ted bunker)



(With apologies to T Ernie Ford and poets everywhere.)

[JESII]

David,

You may have missed it a few pages ago, but I think Joe's sentiment here is wise and worth considering.

David,

Can we just let it be that you don't trust them, without it having to be a part of every post? I understand, and have understood for a long, long time that you don't trust them.

There's 1500 or so participants here. Most have a reasonable sense of memory and don't need the constant reminder. And, before any of the other combatants join in resounding agreement, we know how you feel as well. We've heard it. For 100 pages now.

Thanks for your understanding.

Joe

Mike C,

Fair enough...

[TEPaul]

"Tom, David, Tom and Mike,

To each; which of your posts was the most recent that actually helped move the conversation forward?"



Sully:

Good question. I'm not exactly trying to help move the conversation forward because I don't think there is anything left of this subject to have a conversation about that hasn't been discussed before ad infinitum. But I sort of like my #3601 and another post (which I can't find at the moment ) where I sort of summarized how Moriarty used that 1910 error in Tolhurst's book to create a series of inaccurate assumptions and premises that led to his incorrect conclusion that Wilson and Committee only BUILT the course to someone else's plan and that when he wrote that essay he did not even know the material from MCC that we produced later existed which makes it very clear that Wilson and Committee created many different routings and design plans in the winter and fall of 1911, honed them down to five and with M/W on the site on April 6, 1911 submitted one to the board that was approved by the MCC board and then built.

I think that post was awesome, don't you? That one should wrap this whole thing up, and I see no reason why it won't.

WHAT? What did you say there Sully? I can't hear you; would you mind speaking up and speaking a bit louder?

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok,  let's discuss the evidence.

Would anyone care to answer the questions below?  

If we can't even agree that this whole section of the MCC Minutes is talking about the activities of Hugh Wilson's Committee (no matter how much of their activities were influenced by M&W or not), then there really isn't much point in continuing here, is there?


"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses 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....."

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."


THAT is what the minutes say according to my understanding and it's what I've probably copied here at least 5 times previously, and consistently.   It is also consistent to what I saw of the minutes in person, on two separate occassions, the second time with Joe Bausch in attendance.


Does anyone not agree that it was Hugh WIlson's committee who went "down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald..."??

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "after laying out many golf courses..."... AFTER went down to NGLA??

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "on our return" rearranged the course and laid out five different plans??

[TEPaul]

Quote from: Joe Hancock on July 24, 2009, 06:52:00 PM
David,

Can we just let it be that you don't trust them, without it having to be a part of every post? I understand, and have understood for a long, long time that you don't trust them.

There's 1500 or so participants here. Most have a reasonable sense of memory and don't need the constant reminder. And, before any of the other combatants join in resounding agreement, we know how you feel as well. We've heard it. For 100 pages now.

Thanks for your understanding.

Joe




Joe:

You say WHAT? Did you say he said he doesn't trust us?? You say he's mentioned that 1500 times already?? Damn it to Hell, Joe, that's a fine Hoody-do, don't you think? Why the Holy Hell did you wait until July 24th to tell me that? That might change everything. He doesn't trust us, huh? Why not? We're as trustworthy as the National Bank of Switzerland!