Merion's Early Timeline

[JESII]

2 L's Mike, or you're next...

[Mike_Cirba]

2 L's Mike, or you're next...

Jim,

Phew...thanks...fixed it.

Lord knows I don't need the hair-trigger wrath of the Carnivorous Canadian laying a can of whup-ass in my direction! 

[JESII]

You have no idea...

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Will you go back to Hawaii??

What's with this crap of coming back here and trying to interrupt MY thread before we reach 100,000 posts and 5,000,000 views?!?  

Do you really think we can reach consensus here?

Ok, that was a serious question.

For my part, it boils down to this...and I've said it before.

I think that David and Tom MacWood's research have yielded some very interesting facts and certainly all the subsequent, reactive digging got us all a lot further into a true understanding of Merion's early history than we probably all thought was possible in the beginning.

I'm not sure the cost was worth it, but nevertheless....

And I do believe that Macdonald's role was greater, and at least more understood now than the vague, general term "advise" would indicate, but I think where we're never going to reach consensus is simply that after all of the new evidence has surfaced, I see no corresponding concession from others that maybe, just maybe, by virtue of the fact that these guys were the best golfers in the club and smart, sharp, Ivy-League educated guys who had been involved in golf for almost fifteen years at about the highest playing levels in the country, and had time and interest, and motivation...that perhaps they didn't spend a hell of a lot of time studying and asking questions, and modifying, and asking more questions, but ultimately were responsible for creating the plans that they then passed by a host of more experienced folks, from Macdonald, to Alex Findlay, to Fred Pickering, but ultimately, everyone in town who knew the story, including most importantly one AW Tillinghast, at the end of the day both inside and outside of the club credited the Merion Committee, and most particularly Hugh Wilson with the bulk of the design of Merion East, even if CB Macdonald came down for a day in April 1911 and approved one of five final "plans".  

As long as the goal of some here is to wipe Hugh Wilson's original contribution from the history of golf, and can barely even admit that "he might have had some input to the original course", then it's tough to see how any consensus could be reached that reflected any historical accuracy in the least.  

I think most of us are not only more cognizant now of Macdonald's role due to David and Tom's research, and actually believe it enhances the original story of Merion East's origins, but are not willing to simply add a contribution of unknown proportions by Macdonald to the story at the cost of discarding what was already known.   There were simply too many there in town who credited Hugh Wilson to believe it was either a lie, a mistake, or that they were patronizingly lauding him and his committee with selecting good grasses and manure.

Hugh Wilson and his committee were there during the design and build for hundreds of days.   Macdonald and Whigham were there for two.   Their contributions were valuable and I think as the first correction to the history books, it should be reflected that M&W came back on April 6th, 1911 and helped Hugh Wilson and Committee select the best of their plans, approving one that went to the Merion Board for final approval and implementation.

[TEPaul]

"Do you really think we can reach consensus here?
Ok, that was a serious question."


Mike Cirba:

In my opinion, it depends on what someone is trying to reach a consensus on such as:

1. Did Macdonald/Whigam's contribution to the original routing and design of Merion East get minimized by Merion and its recorded history somehow?

2. Did the attribution that particularly Wilson and his committee routed and designed Merion East get overblown and heroized somehow?

No, I don't think a consensus on either can ever be reached ON HERE---eg on this Internet website. And I don't think that matters. I think what ultimately matters is what Merion and its historians think about and do about any of this----eg from nothing to perhaps something.

If people like MacWood and Moriarty actually think they can serve as some kind of Merion historian effectively somehow I think they and any others like them need to seriously consider going back to Square One and establishing a relationship with Merion or any other club like it and getting to know its history and its people from the inside out not from the outside with no access to the club and its important records. I firmly believe any competent historian understands that and that the Internet world, website and search engines, is just not going to change that. The phenomenon of the Internet world can sure help with ease of access to information which unfortunately can be as quickly inaccurate and revisionist as it can be the opposite. Some of us here in Philadephia with long and strong relationships with a club like Merion firmly believe now that information on Merion from a website like this one just adds to the ease of revisionist information on Merion's architect and architectural history.

Do we want to spend weeks and months and years arguing minutiae with these semi-informed revisionists and their pet theories? Not really; I guess that's what I've finally come to learn on here. All we need to do is remind them if they truly want to know the architectural history of a course just start by going to the club itself, really getting to know it, its people, its course and its complete record from beginning until to date! If anyone truly wants to do that and in that way, believe me, the club, its members and administrators and friends will probably be helpful and accomodating.

[Tom MacWood]

TE
I have a better suggestion, its called full disclosure. In the spirit of sharing information, exemplified by the recent postings of the Francis article, the Piper & Oakley letters and the 1916 Hugh Wilson account, the Lesley April 1911 report should be posted for all interested parties to read, including the Cuyler letters. We've been given bits and pieces of the report there is no good reason the entire report can not be posted.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

It's a good suggestion you make but what you should do is address it not to me but to Merion Golf Club and Merion Cricket Club. You know that; I know you do. It is what you should have done in the first place when YOU started this subject and issue over six and a half years ago. We and I have told you that for years now. If you never choose to consider what we have said and are saying there really is no reason to continue to repeat it anymore. If you want to be a good and competent golf architectural historian (which you may be capable of somehow if you do it correctly) you're going to have to learn to take and travel the right roads to be that. That is something I personally don't think you have done or even yet understand the reasons for. You and I have been at this a long time now on this website, Tom; you should try taking my advice for a change and give it a try. I believe you will see the benefits and the good results from it.

[DMoriarty]

David - re your point #5 from your second to last post: you wrote that "...they waited to proceed until M&W could teach Wilson and his Committee how to lay out the course in early to mid March...".

This I really don't understand. WHOMEVER you think was being referred to in the sentence from the minutes about "laying out many different courses on the new ground,"  I assume you agree that this laying out happened BEFORE the Committee went to visit Macdonald at NGLA.
I think so, but I haven't seen the source material, so I cannot tell.  Can you?  
I have granted the possibility that in their first visit to Merion, and then later at NGLA, Macdonald could've suggested possible locations for holes based on the principles of the great British holes (in fact, I think the minutes also say that during their visit, Macdonald spent the 2nd day walking the Committee around NGLA showing them how he'd done it there) -- but that seems to me a far cry from teaching the committee how to lay out the course, and even more so from routing an 18 hole golf course.
Really?  What else is there to routing a golf course than deciding where and how the holes fit on the ground?  

And, Peter I have no reason to suspect that M&W waited to start routing the course until Wilson and his committee showed up.  Before January 7, 1910 Merion's Board announced to the members that experts were already at work preparing plans for a course that would rank in length, soil, and variety of natural features with the best in the country.   The only experts involved up to that point were Barker, and M&W.  And by this time, M&W had already seen the property, knew at least some of the characteristics of the holes they envisioned, even took note of the properties special features such as the quarry, the creeks, the land behind the clubhouse, as well as the properties shortcomings such as the cramped space and lack of natural mounding.   Also, Merion had a contour map well before the NGLA trip and they'd have been fools not to send it to CBM.  After all, M&W had already told Merion that they could not absolutely determine whether a first class course was possible on the land without a contour map.  What could this possibly mean but that they needed a contour map to see if the holes they envisioned would fit?

So by the time Wilson and his Committee showed up, I think M&W already had a very good idea of what needed to be done, and most of what remained was teaching it to Wilson and his novice Committee . . .

Do you really mean exactly what you wrote, i.e. that during their visit to NGLA in March, Macdonald taught the Committee how to lay out Merion?
Yes.  I really mean that during their visit to NGLA in March, M&W taught the Committee how to lay out Merion.  Judging by Wilson's apparent mode of operations, there were very like some letters before and after, as well.    IF so, how do you TEACH someone to lay out a course?  Among other things, you could teach them . . .
. . . the length and types of holes to lay out;
. . . the fundamental strategic principles underlying these holes;
. . . where and how to place the holes so as to incorporate that the fundamental strategic principles into the natural conditions  (e.g., the quarry, the creeks, slopes, corners, out of bounds) at Merion East;
. . . and where and how to layout and build artificial features such as mounding and certain green contours, and why to build such features.

In short, you teach them where, why, and how to lay out the golf holes and their features.  

(By the way, I just noticed that, after my last post on this thread, you sort of insinuated that I had intentionally left out a portion of the reference in the minutes about "laying out many different courses" -- a reference that everyone had already seen and debated a dozen times.  Please, David - stop doing that, will you? In your timeline prior to my post, you'd left out that same reference completely, and yet I dealt with it straight-up, without the b.s.)

You have misunderstood and mischaracterized my previous post, and taken offense where none was intended.  Please Peter - stop doing that, will you?   I did not "sort of insinuated that you had intentionally left out a portion of the reference in the minutes about 'laying out many different courses.'"  This had nothing to do with the point of my post.   Nor was there any "B.S."

As I recall you claimed that the references (pronouns) in TEPaul's transcription were clear and indicated that Wilson's Committee was the only actor, and I explicitly noted that you had left the contradictory references (pronouns) out of your version of the transcription.  Whether done so intentionally or not, you cannot edit out the contradictions and then claim none exist!  

I believe I also suggested that you ask your friend TEPaul to clarify by providing a complete, accurate, and verifiable transcription, so we could move beyond this absurd disputes about his apparently flawed representations.  He's back.  So why don't you ask him to clarify?  

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't need to ask TE to clarify, David. I trust that the minute, as TE provided it, is correct, and I trust that partly because the whole paragraph makes sense to me as it stands.  (If I was absolutely alone on that, I might start to question myself. But I think it makes sense to a few others around here as well.)  You disagree. We're stuck.  

I think I wrote that my reading of the minute was that it referred to one and the same committee, i.e. the one that laid out many different courses was the one that went to visit Macdonald at NGLA (and so that would have to make it the Wilson Committee).  I didn't include the "we" in reference to developing five plans because I thought I just needed to quote a snippet from Bryan's post to indicate what I was talking about, but all the "we" says to me is that one of the committee members who didn't travel to NGLA joined the rest in that latter task.

Peter

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

As far as the supposed January 11, 1911 Construction Committee.  I do not recall ever seeing reference to any such meeting.   Does anyone else recall any reference to any such meeting?

I'm guessing that Jeff's reference in post #1830 doesn't count in your mind.

"I really doubt these important men did a lot the weeks between XMas and New Year.  When they returned in January, they found that Hugh Wilson ahd asked Santa for the chairmanship of the Construction Committee and they made his wish come true on their first meeting of January 11, 1911.  They start to work, and await the topo maps, which because of the Xmas break, show the 11-10-1910 approximate road as their boundary."

Where do you suppose Jeff might have got that specific date?

My understanding is that they were appointed in early 1911, and the first record of them doing anything is the February 1, 1911 letter to Piper, and the activities described therein (communicating with CBM, discussing communicating with CBM, deciding his advice was of great value, writing Piper immediately.) 

Can you remind me of the reference for your understanding that it was early 1911. Do we agree that it was before February 1, 1911?  So, as not to flog this dead nag anymore, how would you like to characterize the date of the creation of the Construction Committee?  Sometime in January?  Some other time?

Vis-a-vis the content of the Feb 1 letter, Wilson said (with my parenthetical additions):

"Mr. Charles Macdonald spoke of you and said that you could help us out (regarding soil and grass) if anyone could.  We realize the value of his advice (about you being the source for soil and grass advice) and immediately decided that we would write to you and ask if you would be good enough to help us out (regarding our soil and grass).

[Bryan Izatt]

I missed the section where we moved to First Principle Only. . .

Jim,  

Bryan stated a while back (and a number of times I think) that his time line was trying to work with first principles, which I take to mean axioms or facts which required no deduction or additional proof;  In other words, the basic, undisputed building blocks of arguments to come.   A good example of a first principle would be that, according to the x deed, Lloyd took title to y property on z date.  

David, you have taken one statement I made and generalized it.  My only reference to first principles was in reference to our discussion of "approval".  I said,

"I'm working on first principles here.  I know of no organization that allows the consultant to approve anything."

I intended it only in relation to consultants and approvals.  You dismissed my thoughts.  Now you want to transfer the first principles to my time line.  You are incorrect in making that transferance.  You're beginning to sound Cirbaesque.. 

I thought the purpose of his time line was to list out all the reasonably undipsutable facts, or first principles, off of which all these other arguments are being developed.  Maybe I am wrong about this, but that was my understanding of his time line.   (Aside:  While generally a good idea, there are some big problems with Bryan's fact based time line approach in this instance, but that is outside the scope of your question.)

I have tried to be as factual as possible in the time line, but where the "facts" are questionable or uncertain or need comment, I have highlighted them in red or provided commentary.

. . . but David tell me are you saying Wilson's committee required CBM's approval in April 1911 before taking the plan to their board?   In other words, if CBM were overseas for the month, do you think they would have waited until he returned before proceeding?

First, to clarify, I was explaining to Bryan what sanction I thought M&W had from Merion that gave M&W the authority to sanction to the plan before it went to the board.   My answer was NOT meant to be a first principle or statement of fact, but was my understanding based on the facts we know from the Board Meetings.  My understanding may change if we ever get to see the parts of the record that are currently being hidden from us.  

You have started to use the word sanction in place of approve, I assume in the following definition:

▸ noun:  the act of final authorization ("It had the sanction of the church")
▸ noun:  formal and explicit approval
▸ noun:  official permission or approval

As I've stated before, I think that the following would be a more sensible definition of approve:

▸ verb:  judge to be right or commendable; think well of

Where is the evidence that M&W were given the power of the state or the church (tongue firmly in cheek) or MCC to sanction anything.  Isn't it eminently more sensible that they were asked to judge which plan was right or commendable or that they thought well of, and recommend it to the Board for approval?  This is done every day in business.  You hire consultants to develop or review options and give you their expert opinion and recommendations.  But they are still consultants and formal and explicit approval comes from the Board.


Second, to try and address your questions:
1.  I don't think Wilson's Committee took the plan to the MCC board.   I think Lesley's Committee did.   TEPaul assumes that Lesley was speaking on behalf of Wilson's Committee, but I have seen no facts supporting TEPaul's assumption.

2.  Judging from what we have been told that Lesley told the Board, I think  (where is the evidence, not the thinking) that it was very (where is the evidence that it was "very")  important to Lesley and the MCC's Board of Governor's that M&W had been involved in the planning process (at NGLA) and that M&W had already sanctioned the plan being presented  (sanctioned the plan being presented?  Or, judged one of the plans as commendable?)  , and that they stated that it would produce a first class course with some of the best inland holes in the country.  

3.  Judging from what we have been told that Lesley told the Board, I do not think that Lesley or the Board were much if at all concerned with what Wilson and his Committee thought of the layout plan, or with what, if anything they had contributed to it.  You have third hand information, from sources you don't trust and now you're making a leap that the Board didn't care about their own man and his committee's input.  Wow! 

4.  I do not think it was a coincidence that a plan was not presented to MCC's Board until shortly after M&W returned to Merion, went over the land (again) and over the various versions, and sanctioned the final routing plan.  

5.  As for whether Merion would have waited for M&W to approve of the plan, who says they did not wait as it is?   In other words, I think they waited to proceed until M&W could teach Wilson and his Committee how to lay out the course in early to mid March, and then they waited until M&W could come back down about three weeks later to go over the land (again) and over the various layout options, and to finally determine the routing plan.  

6.  What would they have done if they could not get CBM?   I don't know, but my guess is that they would have gotten someone else, but they probably would not have been that happy about it, as they clearly wanted nothing but the best.  

7.   I think the choice of the word "approved" is significant because it provided insight as to how important Lesley and the Committee thought M&W's opinion was.  As long as you're fixated on one of two possible meanings of the word "approve"

Hope this helps.

[DMoriarty]

Interestingly, I agree with the basic points (including what you just laid out David) each side makes but get disagreement from both when I offer a thought...

The problem with all of this is the desired degree of final attribution. That's it!
Not sure how many times I have to say it, but I really don't care about attribution.  I want to figure out who did what.  The problem I see it, is that the other side is so afraid losing face that they will not allow an honest discussion of who did what.  Only one side is hiding facts.  Only one side has used them selectively and disingenously for about a year.  Only one side has ever tried to cut off the conversation or threatened those who would not acquiesce and accept the story without proof.  So I refuse to accept that both sides are engaging in the same type of behavior.

Both sides have dug in so deep that a reasonable understanding of the other's thought process is impossible...and frankly both sides seem to make rationalizations that could only come from a strong desire to shift the balance fully one way or another.I disagree.   I am trying to be honest with all the material and see where it leaves us.  I'd appreciate it if you would point out rationalizations that try to shift the power fully one way or another.  But I refuse to accept other's representations without vetting them and verifying them, especially when those representations have been used to attack me and my work.  No one in their right mind would ask me to, much less demand that I do.

David,

I believe CBM was incredibly helpful in a variety of ways during his June visit in terms of procuring the land in a manner most efficient for all involved as well as identifying the key attributes of the property to be used for golf. This, on its own, warrants mention of "providing the greatest assistance...". If he were in consistent communication with the Merion folks for the next 7 months we would know about it.

How would we know about it?  If P&O had not saved copies all of their correspondence (both sent and received) we'd not have known about the thousands of Ag letters.  It is not as if Merion kept records of that sort of thing.  We have NO correspondence of this type from Wilson or MCC.   And if CBM saved all his correspondence I haven't been able to locate it, and not for lack of trying.   So I don't think you can assume that we would know about it.  In fact, I don't even see how you think we might know about it?  Why would possibly expect to know?

That they documented two very detailed sessions in March/April 1911 provides even more support for him playing a part, a significant part, in the creation of Merion East. This has been acknowledged for 99 years...
With all respect Jim, this is just NOT the case.   

The NGLA trip has long been misunderstood as having taken place on the eve of his overseas trip, which was thought to have taken place BEFORE Merion East was designed.   Moreover, it has long been thought that Wilson went to NGLA for help planning his trip abroad, and that CBM provided a general primer on what he should learn.  In short, CBM's role has long been reduced to that of a glorified travel agent.     This is a far cry from what really happened.As for CBM's second trip to Merion to again go over the course and to review and determine the final layout plan, that too has been denied, ignored, forgotten, and or misrepresented.   

If you'd like I can provide you multiple quotes and examples where the self-proclaimed experts on Merion site and real experts elsewhere have repeatedly ignored, dismissed, and misrepresented these events,  but I really don't think it gets us much closer to the truth.   That being said, I will not sit silently while others claim that Merion has always known, understood, and acknowledged these events and others.

What about the fact that they already identified the land they ideally wanted, and had a blessing in hand from another very prominent GCA of that land before CBM ever showed up? Does this minimize CBM's "approval" of it? Does it really mean they made the purchase recommendation largely on his blessing? Or is it safer to assume they were using his endorsement for the land to their best?
The Site Committee wrote that their recommendation was based largely on M&W's opinions, so I am not sure why you keep dismissing this or modifying it.
 
What about the fact that Francis came up with the land swap enabling the last five holes we currently know? Regardless of when he did it, we better take his word for having done it. Without them, Merion is not the same. How can you assign much in the way of routing credit to CBM when 5 holes were most assuredly not his doing at all?
My essay acknowledges that Francis played a major role, and I believe I have always acknowledged it.  Plus, we know that M&W's involvement and influence extended much further than the routing.  But again, figuring out who did what is different than crediting them for it, at least as far as I am concerned.

Re: your point #4 in the first of the recent numbered posts..."4.  I do not think it was a coincidence that a plan was not presented to MCC's Board until shortly after M&W returned to Merion, went over the land (again) and over the various versions, and sanctioned the final routing plan."    Do you, therefore, think they had a plan to present to CBM/The Board much earlier then if it was not a coincidence that they waited to present it?

Not sure I get what you are asking or that I can answer . . .I think that you are assuming that Wilson and his Committee played a more independent role in the design process that the record justifies.  In short, I don't think Wilson and his Committee did much of anything regarding the design without direction from M&W.  Whatever plans they came up with were done with M&W's direction, so I am not sure how to speculate about what they might have done without M&W.   Don't get me wrong, surely this was a collaborative process throughout and Wilson's committee must have had substantial input; laying out the five variations, for one possible example. But M&W were the ones directing the design process and calling the shots.

In other words, I think the NGLA meeting led to the 5 variations, and M&W took over from there.   As for what happened before NGLA, I will be surprised if we find out they were doing much more than messing around with some inherited layout(s.) 

Now some of this last answer on my part is speculative, but your question requires me to speculate, but I am unable to accept your speculative assumptions to even properly answer your question.   

I hope this helps. 

[DMoriarty]

I don't need to ask TE to clarify, David. I trust that the minute, as TE provided it, is correct, and I trust that partly because the whole paragraph makes sense to me as it stands.  (If I was absolutely alone on that, I might start to question myself. But I think it makes sense to a few others around here as well.)  You disagree. We're stuck.  

Of course you trust TEPaul.  But that shouldn't have anything to do with it.  I don't think anyone who cared at all about accurate  historical research would ever recommend that we simply take an interested party's word for what the source material really said.  I'd certainly never demand that you take my word for anything.  Nor would anyone seriously concerned with actually determining the truth.  There is never an excuse to allow unsupported claims to stand without having them properly vetted and verified.  Consult Wayne's many past posts on this exact issue if you doubt me.   He posted a whole bunch of them in the years before my essay as well as right when I posted it.  

Yet here we have an example where there is apparently something wrong with the transcription we have been given, yet you insist it must be accurate and do not even want to double check it?   In short Peter, your position (and the position of those who agree with you) is unsupportable under any reasonable standard.   Verification is a necessary and essential part of the process.   This is true even when the person making the claim is totally trustworthy.  

If I were to follow your methodology and just trust what TEPaul and Wayne have told me, we'd still all believe that Hugh Wilson traveled abroad in 1910 and that Charles Blair Macdonald's role at Merion was nothing more than acting as Hugh Wilson's travel agent.  

I think I wrote that my reading of the minute was that it referred to one and the same committee, i.e. the one that laid out many different courses was the one that went to visit Macdonald at NGLA (and so that would have to make it the Wilson Committee).  I didn't include the "we" in reference to developing five plans because I thought I just needed to quote a snippet from Bryan's post to indicate what I was talking about, but all the "we" says to me is that one of the committee members who didn't travel to NGLA joined the rest in that latter task.

Interesting interpretation, Peter, but it doesn't make any sense either.  You have previously stated that this was Hugh Wilson's report, so for your interpretation to make sense, then it would have to have been Hugh Wilson who "didn't travel to NGLA [but] joined the rest in that latter task." . . . "they" traveled to NGLA, "we" laid out five plans . . .

I am pretty sure Hugh Wilson went to NGLA.   Rather than try to stretch meaning and make sense out of nonsense, wouldn't it make sense to make sure we have a true and accurate quote?  Surely if TEPaul was as loyal a friend as you, he'd at least give you that so you were not stuck here defending the indefensible.

And Peter, I know what you wrote, and I responded to you accordingly and accurately.  You were out of line in your last post to me.  

David.  

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

As far as the supposed January 11, 1911 Construction Committee.  I do not recall ever seeing reference to any such meeting.   Does anyone else recall any reference to any such meeting?

I'm guessing that Jeff's reference in post #1830 doesn't count in your mind.

"I really doubt these important men did a lot the weeks between XMas and New Year.  When they returned in January, they found that Hugh Wilson ahd asked Santa for the chairmanship of the Construction Committee and they made his wish come true on their first meeting of January 11, 1911.  They start to work, and await the topo maps, which because of the Xmas break, show the 11-10-1910 approximate road as their boundary."

Where do you suppose Jeff might have got that specific date?

With all due respect to Jeff, his posts are not the first place I turn for accurate representations source material.  Nor are the posts of anyone else for that matter.  I would prefer to see the source material.  I have no idea where he got it.  Maybe he read January '11 and typed January 11, then tacked on 1911.   I have no idea what meeting he is talking about, but I guess we could intepreting the Feb. 1, 1911 meeting as indicating that the committee had at least discussed the CBM communication, whether they met or not.

My understanding is that they were appointed in early 1911, and the first record of them doing anything is the February 1, 1911 letter to Piper, and the activities described therein (communicating with CBM, discussing communicating with CBM, deciding his advice was of great value, writing Piper immediately.) 

Can you remind me of the reference for your understanding that it was early 1911. Do we agree that it was before February 1, 1911?  So, as not to flog this dead nag anymore, how would you like to characterize the date of the creation of the Construction Committee?  Sometime in January?  Some other time?
I assume by "it" you are referring to when they were appointed, and not their first meeting?  If so I believe that is what Hugh Wilson wrote, but I haven't gone back to check.  If it wasn't in January then February 1, 1911 was a very busy day.  If it were my time line (which it isn't) I'd be inclined to stick with early 1911, but put it immediately before the February 1, 1911 letter reference, and let the reader figure it out.  I'd certainly not object to January 1911, depending on how it was presented in relation to everything else.
 
Vis-a-vis the content of the Feb 1 letter, Wilson said (with my parenthetical additions):

"Mr. Charles Macdonald spoke of you and said that you could help us out (regarding soil and grass) if anyone could.  We realize the value of his advice (about you being the source for soil and grass advice) and immediately decided that we would write to you and ask if you would be good enough to help us out (regarding our soil and grass).

I don't suppose tongue was firmly in cheek when you typed this?    IMO the first and last parentheticals are fine, although obvious and therefore unnecessary.   IMO the second is by no means a necessary conclusion, and so I am not sure why you would add it?  Again, it seems as if you are unnecessarily reading things in when they are not necessarily part of the record.  For example it could well be that they realized the value of CBM's advice because he was C.B. frickin' Macdonald, and when it came to golf courses they were going to do what he told them to.   I'd say this second supposition is at least as likely as your supposition.  But they are both suppositions, and I don't know why you want to move beyond the facts.

[DMoriarty]

I missed the section where we moved to First Principle Only. . .

Jim,  

Bryan stated a while back (and a number of times I think) that his time line was trying to work with first principles, which I take to mean axioms or facts which required no deduction or additional proof;  In other words, the basic, undisputed building blocks of arguments to come.   A good example of a first principle would be that, according to the x deed, Lloyd took title to y property on z date.  

David, you have taken one statement I made and generalized it.  My only reference to first principles was in reference to our discussion of "approval".  I said,

"I'm working on first principles here.  I know of no organization that allows the consultant to approve anything."

I intended it only in relation to consultants and approvals.  You dismissed my thoughts.  Now you want to transfer the first principles to my time line.  You are incorrect in making that transferance.  You're beginning to sound Cirbaesque.. 

Ouch.  Be careful with the nasty name calling or else I'll have to report you.  I might say the same thing about you for confusing fact with supposition, but I'm too polite.

It probably didn't help my understanding that I disagreed that you were working with first principles there, but I thought you were starting with a statement of your general approach then applying it.   Anyway, my mistake.

Seriously, I am disappointed that you are not going for first principles.  Your time line would be much more useful to all of us (including you, I think) if you stuck to the most basic factual building blocks and left all supposition and deduction until later.   Otherwise the entries in the outline will inevitably taint the result. 

I thought the purpose of his time line was to list out all the reasonably undipsutable facts, or first principles, off of which all these other arguments are being developed.  Maybe I am wrong about this, but that was my understanding of his time line.   (Aside:  While generally a good idea, there are some big problems with Bryan's fact based time line approach in this instance, but that is outside the scope of your question.)

I have tried to be as factual as possible in the time line, but where the "facts" are questionable or uncertain or need comment, I have highlighted them in red or provided commentary.

I agree with your approach regarding questionable and uncertain facts, but not sure I do with your "need comment" category.  It seems to me a good way to put a strong spin on a fact that is not necessarily justified or appropriate.   The few comments we have discussed seem to be highly speculative and arguable in my mind, and I was hoping you'd stay away from that sort of thing.   

Isn't the ultimate goal to let readers (including possibly yourself) to be able to examine all the facts before they are spun, and come to their own conclusions?   Or do I have this wrong, as well?

You've long been an advocate against suppositions and speculations, and so I hate to see suppositions and speculation slip into your time line.  Why not let the reader decide what the was meant by "approved" or why Wilson wrote he valued CBM's advice?

. . . but David tell me are you saying Wilson's committee required CBM's approval in April 1911 before taking the plan to their board?   In other words, if CBM were overseas for the month, do you think they would have waited until he returned before proceeding?

First, to clarify, I was explaining to Bryan what sanction I thought M&W had from Merion that gave M&W the authority to sanction to the plan before it went to the board.   My answer was NOT meant to be a first principle or statement of fact, but was my understanding based on the facts we know from the Board Meetings.  My understanding may change if we ever get to see the parts of the record that are currently being hidden from us.  

You have started to use the word sanction in place of approve, I assume in the following definition:

▸ noun:  the act of final authorization ("It had the sanction of the church")
▸ noun:  formal and explicit approval
▸ noun:  official permission or approval

As I've stated before, I think that the following would be a more sensible definition of approve:

▸ verb:  judge to be right or commendable; think well of

Where is the evidence that M&W were given the power of the state or the church (tongue firmly in cheek) or MCC to sanction anything.  Isn't it eminently more sensible that they were asked to judge which plan was right or commendable or that they thought well of, and recommend it to the Board for approval?  This is done every day in business.  You hire consultants to develop or review options and give you their expert opinion and recommendations.  But they are still consultants and formal and explicit approval comes from the Board.


If we are talking about M&W's role in relation to Wilson's Committee, I think his was an authorized and authoritative approval.   In other words, I don't think that Wilson's committee was in any position to override them or disregard their opinion.   If we are talking about M&W's role in relation to the Board, then obviously the Board had final say, but M&W were the foremost authorities on this stuff, so it would have been pretty unlikely that they were not going to accept M&W's recommendation. 

I can live with "approved" though.  But not "liked."

Second, to try and address your questions:
1.  I don't think Wilson's Committee took the plan to the MCC board.   I think Lesley's Committee did.   TEPaul assumes that Lesley was speaking on behalf of Wilson's Committee, but I have seen no facts supporting TEPaul's assumption.

2.  Judging from what we have been told that Lesley told the Board, I think  (where is the evidence, not the thinking) that it was very (where is the evidence that it was "very")  important to Lesley and the MCC's Board of Governor's that M&W had been involved in the planning process (at NGLA) and that M&W had already sanctioned the plan being presented  (sanctioned the plan being presented?  Or, judged one of the plans as commendable?)  , and that they stated that it would produce a first class course with some of the best inland holes in the country.  

The evidence is that it was presented it to the Board and that it was noted in the Minutes.  As explained above, I think it was authorized, authoritative, approval. 


3.  Judging from what we have been told that Lesley told the Board, I do not think that Lesley or the Board were much if at all concerned with what Wilson and his Committee thought of the layout plan, or with what, if anything they had contributed to it.  You have third hand information, from sources you don't trust and now you're making a leap that the Board didn't care about their own man and his committee's input.  Wow! 

If there was evidence that they did care about Wilson's input, we'd have seen it.   If evidence comes up otherwise, I'll change my view.

4.  I do not think it was a coincidence that a plan was not presented to MCC's Board until shortly after M&W returned to Merion, went over the land (again) and over the various versions, and sanctioned the final routing plan.  

5.  As for whether Merion would have waited for M&W to approve of the plan, who says they did not wait as it is?   In other words, I think they waited to proceed until M&W could teach Wilson and his Committee how to lay out the course in early to mid March, and then they waited until M&W could come back down about three weeks later to go over the land (again) and over the various layout options, and to finally determine the routing plan.  

6.  What would they have done if they could not get CBM?   I don't know, but my guess is that they would have gotten someone else, but they probably would not have been that happy about it, as they clearly wanted nothing but the best.  

7.   I think the choice of the word "approved" is significant because it provided insight as to how important Lesley and the Committee thought M&W's opinion was.  As long as you're fixated on one of two possible meanings of the word "approve"
Just my opinion, but consistent with what I have been told about the use of the term by TEPaul and Shivas. Others can draw their own conclusions.  That is harder to do though if "approved" is changed to "liked"
Hope this helps.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

How about "recommended" or "commended" rather than "liked" or "approved" or "sanctioned"?

Since you "think" one thing, and I "think" another, I guess it can't go in the time line.

What's interesting to me, and perhaps not a surprise, is that different people read or hear something and understand it in completely different ways.  A thought spoken or written is not always received and understood in the way it was intended by the speaker or writer.  Unfortunately we don't have Wilson, Lloyd, Macdonald, Francis, Oakley et al available to put on the stand and cross examine as to their intent in their words.

While I'm on philosophical points, I found this quote when I was looking for the meaning of "with all due respect", that you've used with several people in the last day:

"There was a great comedy piece a few years back (whose origin escapes us) that gave examples of how the English would use their language when speaking to a non-native speaker to imply the precise opposite of what was actually being understood. This allowed the English to feel superior without actually damaging international relations. One example was the phrase “with all due respect” which is generally understood to imply that the speaker has a great deal of respect for their counterpart, while the speaker is actually implying that they have no respect in the slightest for their interlocutor. The respect due being precisely zero."

I received this interpretation as your intent with the comment, as I suspect others did.

It seems to me that TEP is now sounding like the voice of reason in his two posts since returning tonight (although, based on past experience, that might degenerate quickly  )  .  I hear that the door at Merion/MCC might be open to you if you want to pursue the information we'd all like to see from their records.  I respect that given the bad blood between you and Tom on one side and TEP and Wayne on the other that Wayne and TEP don't want to give the information to you or to GCA.  If the door at Merion is open to you, then why not enter and get the information, rather than continuing to beat on TEP and Wayne for past sins.  Those sins are in the past and can't be recanted. We all know how you feel and we all know how Wayne and Tom P feel about the relationship.  Move on.

Your oft stated goal here is to find out what happened in the early days at Merion.  Let's focus on that by uncovering new information.  It's perfectly clear that when we have to interpret words to create suppositions that we try to turn into inferences that then turn into facts, we all end up in knots.  I presume, maybe wrongly, that part of your goal in discovering the early history is to have that early history accepted by Merion and the participants who are interested from GCA.  I can't see anybody else who'd care.  I believe many interesting "facts" have come out of these gargantuan threads, but it is my feeling that you have failed so far to convince anyone on most of your suppositions.


   

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

It's a good suggestion you make but what you should do is address it not to me but to Merion Golf Club and Merion Cricket Club. You know that; I know you do. It is what you should have done in the first place when YOU started this subject and issue over six and a half years ago. We and I have told you that for years now. If you never choose to consider what we have said and are saying there really is no reason to continue to repeat it anymore. If you want to be a good and competent golf architectural historian (which you may be capable of somehow if you do it correctly) you're going to have to learn to take and travel the right roads to be that. That is something I personally don't think you have done or even yet understand the reasons for. You and I have been at this a long time now on this website, Tom; you should try taking my advice for a change and give it a try. I believe you will see the benefits and the good results from it.

TE
Well isn't that convenient for you. You must be a very important person if the Merion Golf Club and Merion Cricket Club allow you do whatever you want with their documents. They allow you to post them if you please, like the CB Macdonald letter, they allow you to post them and alter them, like the Allan Wilson letter, and they allow you to post little snippets you feel are important while hiding other information you prefer hidden, like the April 1911 report. It appears the MGC and MCC are the perfect alibi for someone who wants to release part of the story but not all of the story.

[Mike_Cirba]

Your oft stated goal here is to find out what happened in the early days at Merion.  Let's focus on that by uncovering new information.  It's perfectly clear that when we have to interpret words to create suppositions that we try to turn into inferences that then turn into facts, we all end up in knots.  I presume, maybe wrongly, that part of your goal in discovering the early history is to have that early history accepted by Merion and the participants who are interested from GCA.  I can't see anybody else who'd care.  I believe many interesting "facts" have come out of these gargantuan threads, but it is my feeling that you have failed so far to convince anyone on most of your suppositions. - Bryan Izatt


Bryan,

Nice paragraph.

I think what you're summarized here is universal and I appreciate your ongoing efforts to be objective and rational, but "Cirbaesque"?    
 

[Mike_Cirba]

On a factual point, I did just notice that Wilson told P&O in Feb, 1911, "Macdonald spoke of you, which to me does not imply any letter writing communications, but instead one can reasonably infer Wilson's attendance at Charile's one-day visit to Merion eight months prior.

Macdonald would come again in 2.5 months for a single day.

I think we too often lose sight of those huge gaps between Macdonald's two scant visits to Merion, as well as the lack of any other evidence of consistent ongoing communications between Merion and Macdonald in the timeline.

[Tom MacWood]

David,

How about "recommended" or "commended" rather than "liked" or "approved" or "sanctioned"?

Since you "think" one thing, and I "think" another, I guess it can't go in the time line.

What's interesting to me, and perhaps not a surprise, is that different people read or hear something and understand it in completely different ways.  A thought spoken or written is not always received and understood in the way it was intended by the speaker or writer.  Unfortunately we don't have Wilson, Lloyd, Macdonald, Francis, Oakley et al available to put on the stand and cross examine as to their intent in their words.

Bryan
This debate between you and Moriarty has been going on for several pages now. You are arguing over the wording of document that neither one of you have read. I think there is quick and easy way to break the stalemate.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood and David Moriarty,

I don't know, I think Tom Paul's suggestion certainly sounds fair and concilliatory.   If nothing else, there would be no charges of withholding or tampering with information, and I can tell you personally that the the Merion Historical Archive is wonderful.

I'm quite certain that Joe Bausch and I would be happy to accompany you, and although I don't have much else of value to offer, I'll throw in a round at Cobb's Creek on me if either or both of you decide to take the invitation seriously.

In the meantime, here's the article David requested;






My reading of this is simply that Lesley announced that he had seen plans for an eighteen hole golf course laid out at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park.   The sentence is grammatically awkward, largely due to the insertion of the related phrase, "prepared as the result of many consultations with himself and other golf experts, referring to the plan laid out (on paper) for the new course.  

We also see that construction work would not begin in the spring here, so the term "laid out" refers to the golf course plan drawn on paper (*note - we have the plans), not on the ground, and the phrase that the plans were prepared as the result of consutlations with Lesley and other golf experts by definition calls Lesley a "golf expert".

I'm interested to hear other, differing interpretations.   Thanks.

[TEPaul]

AGAIN---




From above;






“I do have what may be a great idea to bring this whole Macdonald and Merion issue to a close once and for all on this website. I would suggest that this thread that is certainly the longest in the history of GOLFLCLUBATLAS.com be brought to a close with the agreement of all its participants (or the site's two administrators) and that a new thread be started with the title "What mistakes did Merion's two latest history books make regarding Merion East's architectural history?"

I'm extremely familiar with the details of what those two Desmond Tolhurst history books say and I believe any participants on this website can have easy access to those two history books and what they say. Both books seem to treat Macdonald's contribution to Merion East early on appropriately given the length of those two books and the extent they treated and reported Merion's architectural history.

If anyone on here feels that something is amiss or lacking in how those Merion history books treated Macdonald's contributions, then I guarantee that Wayne Morrison and I, at least, will definitely note some consensus on here of what is lacking and recommend to Merion that in a future history book it be addressed in some manner, at least. I also guarantee that preceding another history book any factual evidence that has been found since the last Tolhurst Merion history book (2005) be reported to and included in Merion's historical archives (which are pretty much state of the art, by the way).

That would certainly include the fact Wilson went abroad in 1912 and probably not in 1910 (that apparent mistake is both understandable, explainable and actually somewhat humorous in how it was reported in one Tolhurst history book) and it would also include these MCC board meeting minutes, Cuylers letters et al and the Wilson report to the board in April 1911 that were apparently never considered by Merion's history writers in the last half century because they had been residing unseen and unconsidered in the attic of MCC (another club since 1942) for very close to a century now (found by three Merion members about a year ago).

I know Merion and its members and administrators of the last thirty years or so well and I know they care so much about their history and that it be reported both accurately and comprehensively. Merion is not a club that is shy or reserved about their club and its history and they are most definitely not trying to hide anything from anyone or anything legitimate anyone may find about their history. As most know the club has perhaps the most impressive USGA tournament record in American golf history and it is soon to be added to by two impressive USGA tournaments in its immediate pipeline---eg the upcoming 2009 Walker Cup and the 2013 US Open.


I cannot think of a better resolution for both the passionate architectural participants on Golfclubatlas.com AND Merion Golf Club!”

[Tom MacWood]

Tolhurst's account is taken, almost verbatim, from Richard Heilman's 'Golf at Merion 1896-1976.' 

Haven't we in effect been showing that those books are incomplete and inaccurate for several years now? Our understanding is much more advanced than theirs from just about every perspective. Our understanding of golf architecture history is more advanced, our understanding of  Macdonald is more comprehensive, we now know the significance of HH Barker, the vast amount of info provided by the P&O letters is a major advantage, the information regarding the real estate transactions, etc etc.

It is a given we have significantly more information than they had at their disposal, IMO there is no need to unnecessarily rub their noses in it. Instead of looking back we should continue to look forward and continue to share all the information we uncover.

[JMEvensky]

Don't know if it's been said yet but welcome back TEPaul.Your hiatus was cause for alarm.You're my only chance to actually meet Fern in the flesh.

BTW-is anyone opining in all this actually a member of Merion?Shouldn't some consideration be given to the people who actually own the object of all this information?

[DMoriarty]

David,

How about "recommended" or "commended" rather than "liked" or "approved" or "sanctioned"?

"Recommended" is better than "liked" but I don't understand what you have against "approved."  Could it be that if M&W "approved" the plan, then you have to reconsider your understanding of their role?

Since you "think" one thing, and I "think" another, I guess it can't go in the time line.

What's interesting to me, and perhaps not a surprise, is that different people read or hear something and understand it in completely different ways.  A thought spoken or written is not always received and understood in the way it was intended by the speaker or writer.  Unfortunately we don't have Wilson, Lloyd, Macdonald, Francis, Oakley et al available to put on the stand and cross examine as to their intent in their words.

All the more reason we should ALL insist on working off of verifiable information instead of what someone else tells us to believe.

While I'm on philosophical points, I found this quote when I was looking for the meaning of "with all due respect", that you've used with several people in the last day:

"There was a great comedy piece a few years back (whose origin escapes us) that gave examples of how the English would use their language when speaking to a non-native speaker to imply the precise opposite of what was actually being understood. This allowed the English to feel superior without actually damaging international relations. One example was the phrase “with all due respect” which is generally understood to imply that the speaker has a great deal of respect for their counterpart, while the speaker is actually implying that they have no respect in the slightest for their interlocutor. The respect due being precisely zero."

I received this interpretation as your intent with the comment, as I suspect others did.

With all due respect, you and these others are mistaken.  I haven't thought of it much, but I think I generally use the phrase to indicate that my disagreement is neither meant to be personal nor is it meant to reflect poorly on the person I am addressing.  I am apparently not clever enough to be English.  

It seems to me that TEP is now sounding like the voice of reason in his two posts since returning tonight (although, based on past experience, that might degenerate quickly  )  .  I hear that the door at Merion/MCC might be open to you if you want to pursue the information we'd all like to see from their records.  I respect that given the bad blood between you and Tom on one side and TEP and Wayne on the other that Wayne and TEP don't want to give the information to you or to GCA.  If the door at Merion is open to you, then why not enter and get the information, rather than continuing to beat on TEP and Wayne for past sins.  Those sins are in the past and can't be recanted. We all know how you feel and we all know how Wayne and Tom P feel about the relationship.  Move on.

I'd love to move on and more than willing to do so.  But unfortunately I believe you are mistaken.  Without going into detail regarding my private conversations with the private clubs, I'll say generally that while some information at Merion may be available, it is my understanding that none of the information at issue here is available.  

Your oft stated goal here is to find out what happened in the early days at Merion.  Let's focus on that by uncovering new information.  It's perfectly clear that when we have to interpret words to create suppositions that we try to turn into inferences that then turn into facts, we all end up in knots.  

I'd love to uncover new information, starting with the information that we know exists but which has not been fully provided and verified.   But again, I believe you have misconstrued TEPaul's words and intentions.  My understanding is that the documents we need are thus far unavailable, except at Wayne and TEPaul's discretion.  And, as I understand it, Wayne and TEPaul are certainly not coming forward with the documents.   Ask him if you disagree.

I presume, maybe wrongly, that part of your goal in discovering the early history is to have that early history accepted by Merion and the participants who are interested from GCA.  I can't see anybody else who'd care.  I believe many interesting "facts" have come out of these gargantuan threads, but it is my feeling that you have failed so far to convince anyone on most of your suppositions.

With all due respect, your presumption misses the mark by a wide margin.  My primary and specific goal is to figure out what happened.  My secondary goal is to verify, vet, and rebut the various claims and information that have been used to attack me, my essay, and my reputation.  A more general but related goal is to participate in a discussion where ALL of the parties are required either to back up their claims and with verifiable information or keep their unverifiable claims and information to themselves; a discussion where ALL parties are free to express their views on any issue without threats, attacks, lies, or defamatory campaigns being carried out against them.  We are far way from all these goals, and I don't see how TEPaul's recent posts address any of them.

Let me put it this way:  If tomorrow Merion rewrote their history, changed their website, changed their scorecard, and fully adopted MY current view of the role M&W's role at Merion East, I'd be far from satisfied.
-- I'd still continue to try and figure out what happened.
-- I'd still continue to try locate and disseminate all of the relevant source material.
-- I'd still continue to demand that Wayne and TEPaul provide me with the documents necessary to thoroughly verify, vet, and try to rebut the many claims they have made against me, my essay, and my reputation.
-- I'd still continue with this phase and the next phase of my research.

In other words, I'll be satisfied and finished when I believe I understand what happened to the best of my ability, and when I have had my opportunity to verify, vet, and try to rebut the claims that have been made against me.   I know more information is out there. I know it has not been provided completely and accurately.  I know that it has not been verified and vetted.  I know that it has been used against me repeatedly, inaccurately, and unfairly, and I know that the explicit purpose of this usage has been to trash me, my essay, and my reputation.   All these things only increase my resolve to get to the truth of the matter.  Whether I convince Merion or anyone else in the process is tangential at best.