[Bryan Izatt]

We have been through the looking glass and back again.  

The adminstrator's of this site are now long over-due in issuing a verdict on all the evidence that has been posited.

Bradley,

Which administrator's did you have in mind?  What leads you to believe that they are at all interested in being judge and jury to this little dispute?  Or, that there will ever be a concluding verdict by anyone, that everybody will agree with?

Bryan,

I am thinking of the same administrators who want to be welcome at the great clubs in America, to profile. Let me ask you Bryan, if you were a member at one of these clubs, would you welcome these men to your club after what Merion has endured here?

I assume you are talking of the owner of the site, not some administrators.  I have no idea if their motive in providing this site is so that they will be "welcome at the great clubs in America", but I kind of doubt it.  In answer to your question, and assuming that by "these men" you mean Ran and Ben, the answer is, yes, I'd welcome them.  I don't hold them responsible for the content or the tone of anything posted by the protagonists on either side of this debate.  Nor do I expect them to police the debate (other than those rare occasions when the slanging gets out of bounds of normal decency, as it has on a few occasions).  Based on Tom Paul's humorous anecdote above, I don't think that the members of Merion have "endured" too much (Wayne being an exception to that).  The high level of emotion evoked by this thread is likely limited to the relative few participants.

** Edit **   I see our posts crossed.  So, good-bye.  Are you out of this thread or out of GCA, on principle?

[DMoriarty]

One can not fully appreciate what is written above if they are not familiar with these times. Read some biographies from this time, and the stories of how people lived then; how they thought about things: these were post-enlightenment men who were not even remotely influenced by the scepticism that stultified progressive men from daring to do the impossible after the first world war. These men were possessed by a kind of fearlessness that would have laughed in the face of being written off as novice or un-expert.

And most of them smoked too.

Ooooo . . .  they smoked too?   Well then they must have been daring manly-men with square jaws who let their actions do their talking.  Every one a John Galt.

But Bradley, before you get too far afield with your glorified yet uninformed pronouncements, generalizations, and apparent man-crush on this entire generation, perhaps you should take your own advice and actually try to figure out who these particular men were, and how they functioned.  

Because whatever the general truth in your fantastic and heroic depiction of this generation, you could hardly be more off the mark when it comes to these actual men, and Hugh I Wilson in particular.   What do you know about Hugh Wilson, other than your Ayn Randish notion of who you wish him to have been?  

If you bothered to try to figure out how he functioned you might find your above description almost as humorous as I do.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Some thoughts on the "Expert" posts.

I think Mike has posted evidence that demonstrates that in the time frame in question, Hugh Wilson might have been considered an expert golfer (i.e. he was in the upper percentiles of players), although not a golf (in a broader sense) expert.

I think that David has provided evidence that "those considered "experts" in planning golf courses actually had obtained a level of expertise in planning golf courses.   Almost without exception such individuals were professionals and/or had done it before."

So we have two ships passing in the night, proving two different points.

What we don't have is any factual evidence that states who the "experts" are that are referred to in the announcement.  So, both sides try to infer that their evidence proves that it was either Wilson or M&W.  David goes so far as to say it very likely it's M&W, but, even he can't quite make the leap to absolutely.

Then there is the Jim/John third side who say that the Board was probably just aggrandizing their own chosen people by calling them experts.  I count myself in this camp.

In the end there is no factual evidence that allows any of us to make an absolute conclusion that we are right.  Much like the "blue  print" and "approve" debates.


As a side thought on David's approach to evidence and logic, I have been trying to understand why it doesn't always fly for me. In this particular case of "experts", David has described how, by searching databases he has found a sample of hits that demonstrate that course designers were "Almost without exception such individuals were professionals and/or had done it before."  From this he deduces that since Wilson was neither a professional nor had he done it before, therefore he couldn't be the expert.  From Wikipedia, the following about logical fallacies:

"The logical fallacy of converse accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter) is a deductive fallacy that can occur in a statistical syllogism when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for.

For example:

    Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white

The inductive version of this fallacy is called hasty generalization."

If I could rewrite the example to our example:

    Every course designer of the time that I found in the databases were professionals and/or had done it before, therefore all course designers of the time were professionals and/or had done it before.       

To be fair, David did start by saying "almost without exception", so he does allow that there may be an exception, but then goes on to ignore the possible exception that Wilson might have been, or might have been seen to be by others in the club.

From there, David moves on to inductive logic, reasoning which takes us "beyond the confines of our current evidence or knowledge to conclusions about the unknown."  In our case his inductive logic is that experts were professionals or had done it before, therefore Wilson couldn't have been an expert because he wasn't a profession and hadn't done it before, and therfore whoever wrote the announcement couldn't have meant that Wilson was the expert. 

So, I guess I'm hung up on logical fallacies and inductive generalizations as a way to "prove" the expert reference.  Personally I don't think Wilson was an expert course designer and may have been an expert golfer at that time, but, conversely, I don't think it can be ruled out that he was one of the "experts" referenced in the announcement.  And, I see no point in discussing probabilities.  In the end, we just don't know.

[Bryan Izatt]

One further thought on the announcement.  The full sentence with the "expert" reference is:

"The land has been purchased and settled for and experts are at work preparing plans for a Golf Course that will rank in length, soil and variety of hazards with the best in the country."   (e & o e)

Now, we know that at the time of the announcement that MCC had not "purchased" the land.  It is factually incorrect.  Perhaps the writer was trying to create a positive, we're moving forward vibe. 

In the same vein, perhaps they also tried to create a positive, moving forward vibe about the use of "experts" for planning.  How much more buzz could they have generated by saying that M&W, the famous golfers who have studied golf course construction and built NGLA, are at work planning the course?  (As a parenthetical thought, in July, 1910, M&W MCC described M&W as "famous golfers" not famous course designers, nor experts, who had studied "construction", not designing.)

The last part talks about "length, soil and variety of hazards".  Didn't M&W suggest a shortish course?  Didn't M&W slough them off to Piper on soils?  Variety of hazards - now who was the "expert" on that?  What an interesting set of three goals for the Golf Course.  And, it didn't even mention template holes.   

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I hope your sense of humor is intact for this one.  What would you say to a person who would post the following quote:

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

when the actual article:




said (my deletes and adds to correct the quote):

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

Would you admonish the person quoting about being sloppy or accuse them of doctoring the quote?

How do reporters write things so wrong -    New, Brunswick Novia Socitia, really.     Two provinces juxtaposed and one hopelessly misspelled.  No wonder we Canadians sometimes wonder if Americans have any clue about Canada.

[TEPaul]

"No wonder we Canadians sometimes wonder if Americans have any clue about Canada."



Where?

Is that the place that Montreal and Quebec is? I think I went up there last year to play in the Lesley Cup at Royal Montreal GC but I'm not completely sure. I did notice some checkpoint where they asked for my passport but I thought it was just some speed trap in New York state that nailed me for driving 107mph on the Northway. I did notice the people had a sort of strange accent but I thought maybe that was because I forgot to remove some excess wax from my ears. The older I get the more I realize one should never go anywhere without golf clubs, a blue blazer and cue-tips.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, I'd love to see you try to outline the logical fallacies in Mike's various positions.

Some thoughts on the "Expert" posts.

I think Mike has posted evidence that demonstrates that in the time frame in question, Hugh Wilson might have been considered an expert golfer (i.e. he was in the upper percentiles of players), although not a golf (in a broader sense) expert.

I think that David has provided evidence that "those considered "experts" in planning golf courses actually had obtained a level of expertise in planning golf courses.   Almost without exception such individuals were professionals and/or had done it before."

So we have two ships passing in the night, proving two different points.

You left out the most important part of  Mike's attempted argument.   He proposed that good golfers were commonly considered to have been experts at designing courses" based solely on golfing ability.    Therefor, Mike reasoned,since Hugh Wilson was an "expert golfer" he would also  have been considered an expert at designing courses.  

In support of this claim, Mike just pretended that hundreds of club members had planned their own courses before 1910, and that these club members were considered "experts" at designing golf courses simply because they were good golfers.    Aside from this, he has offered no support.  

My research checked whether Mike's understanding that good golfer equaled "expert" designer was supported by the facts.   It was not.  

So we don't really have two ships passing in the night.  We have one ship passing, and one ship sinking.  Mike has not supported his contention that if Hugh Wilson was an expert golfer, then he would have necessarily been considered an expert at designing golf course.  
  
What we don't have is any factual evidence that states who the "experts" are that are referred to in the announcement.  So, both sides try to infer that their evidence proves that it was either Wilson or M&W.  David goes so far as to say it very likely it's M&W, but, even he can't quite make the leap to absolutely.

We have plenty of evidence, just no necessarily conclusive evidence.  That is why I say it is very likely M&W.   And, it was very unlikely Wilson and Co.  But while the evidence is not necessarily conclusive, standards of proof are very rarely absolutes, and for good reason.  

Then there is the Jim/John third side who say that the Board was probably just aggrandizing their own chosen people by calling them experts.  I count myself in this camp.

This is the camp that doesn't even bother to figure out the facts or even to believe  what the Committee said.  I guess the advantage is that no one can criticize your facts or logic if you have neither.  (I am joking, sort of)  

In the end there is no factual evidence that allows any of us to make an absolute conclusion that we are right.  Much like the "blue  print" and "approve" debates.

I agree, which is why I did not come to an absolute conclusion.   Yet why do I feel I am being criticized for not doing so?  

Absolute conclusions are rarely if ever possible in this sort of inquiry.   So we have three choices, we can throw up our arms and don't bother trying to figure it out and just go with whatever we are inclined to believe anyway (your middle position) or we can simply insist that we have conclusively proven our position even though we have offered no factual support for one of our key contentions (Mike's posiiton) or we can try and look at all the facts including how the terms were generally used, MCC's level of understanding and sophistication regarding these issues, and numerous other factors and try to figure it out as best we can.    

Don't get me wrong, in the end it may turn out that you guys are correct and the committee was just spouting off.    But by my understanding of the facts this is not very likely, although maybe more likely than Mike's contention that they were definitely referring to Hugh Wilson and his committee.  


As a side thought on David's approach to evidence and logic, I have been trying to understand why it doesn't always fly for me. In this particular case of "experts", David has described how, by searching databases he has found a sample of hits that demonstrate that course designers were "Almost without exception such individuals were professionals and/or had done it before."  From this he deduces that since Wilson was neither a professional nor had he done it before, therefore he couldn't be the expert.  From Wikipedia, the following about logical fallacies:

"The logical fallacy of converse accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter) is a deductive fallacy that can occur in a statistical syllogism when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for.

For example:

    Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white

The inductive version of this fallacy is called hasty generalization."

If I could rewrite the example to our example:

    Every course designer of the time that I found in the databases were professionals and/or had done it before, therefore all course designers of the time were professionals and/or had done it before.        

To be fair, David did start by saying "almost without exception", so he does allow that there may be an exception, but then goes on to ignore the possible exception that Wilson might have been, or might have been seen to be by others in the club.  

When I said "almost without exception" I was referring to the results of  my research, and explained the possible exception.    

From there, David moves on to inductive logic, reasoning which takes us "beyond the confines of our current evidence or knowledge to conclusions about the unknown."  In our case his inductive logic is that experts were professionals or had done it before, therefore Wilson couldn't have been an expert because he wasn't a profession and hadn't done it before, and therfore whoever wrote the announcement couldn't have meant that Wilson was the expert.  

Not so and not at all.   My argument never moves outside our current knowledge or evidence.  Rather it is entirely conditioned upon that evidence.   I do not claim that experts were professionals or had done it before.  Nor do I claim the rest.  I DO NOT MAKE THE LOGICAL LEAP YOU ATTRIBUTE TO ME.  Rather I stay within the evidence and condition my conclusions on that evidence.  I looked at how the terms were used at the time or the common usage. According to my understanding of how the terms were commonly used in these circumstances, Hugh Wilson was not an "expert" at planning golf courses.   Therefore, if Merion used the terms as they were commonly used at the time, then they could not have been referring to Hugh Wilson.  

This is a far cry from the kind of absolute conclusion you attribute to me.   It is wholly conditional on the evidence, and requires no inductive logic whatsoever.  

So, I guess I'm hung up on logical fallacies and inductive generalizations as a way to "prove" the expert reference.  Personally I don't think Wilson was an expert course designer and may have been an expert golfer at that time, but, conversely, I don't think it can be ruled out that he was one of the "experts" referenced in the announcement.  And, I see no point in discussing probabilities.  In the end, we just don't know.

I think you are misunderstanding the nature my argument which was essentially a test of Mike's assumption.  Mike claimed that  good golfers were automatically considered experts golf course planners;  Wilson was a good golfer, therefore he was a expert.   This is not the case.   Mike's assumptions are false, therefore his argument fails.  

Moreover, while my argument does not necessarily prove it was M&W and/or barker it is strong evidence that it was M&W and/or Barker, because so far as we know they were the only "experts" -- as the term was used at the time -- who were at all involved.   This leaves open the possibility that they were using the term in a manner inconsistent with how the terms were usually used.

In short, Bryan, I think the problem you have having with my argument stems from the fact that you have misunderstood it.

More importantly, you missed the most important part of Mike's argument.  I could not care less whether Mike thinks Hugh Wilson was an expert golfer.  But I do care when Mike asserts that this means Wilson was necessarily an expert at designing courses, and therefor that the Committee was necessarily referring to him.  

[Bryan Izatt]

David

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

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

John, 

Thanks for the suggestion, but I try not to discuss my dealings (past or present) with private clubs on public forums, but I can assure you that if I had the minutes or could easily access them elsewhere, I wouldn't bother trying to get a look at them here.  Could you be a little clearer.  I know it would be difficult and expensive to get to Ardmore from California, so you can't easily access them in that respect, but have you been denied access at Merion and/or MCC? 

But I sure hope it did not take you until now to figure out that I will not be satisfied until I see the minutes for myself.    What I don't understand is why, at this point, any of the rest of you would be satisfied with anything less?   I'm not satisfied with anything less.  But, I'd want to see them myself, not just hear what you've seen.  But, I don't believe badgering TEP for material he might or might not have copies of, and that is not his, is going to be successful.     TEPaul's version of the source material changes at his whim.   I agree, he has recanted on a number of points over the last few months.  Good reason to want to see it ourselves.

..............................

............................... 

And John, with all due respect to you, why aren't you and others asking TEPaul to come forward with the accurate information? I don't want accurate information, I want to see the documents.  He can obviously do whatever he wants to with it.  Maybe, maybe not.  The source material is Merion's and Wayne has access as a member.  I expect Tom is not free to act independently, despite leaking parts of documents.  So wouldn't this be a more direct and elegant solution the this problem?   After all, he and Wayne and the ones who have injected all this unverified garbage into our discussion to serve their rhetorical purposes, so the burden is theirs to verify that they have done so truthfully and accurately.  This is not a legal issue, it's a discussion group issue.  There is no burden, no matter how hard you might want to push it. As with the deeds, Tom foolishly did not want to provide them, so we found another way to get them.  In this case, if we want the Merion records the burden is on us to get them.  Again, have you tried lately to get access, and have you been denied.  Do not hide behind the privacy of your dealings with private clubs. If Tom/Wayne won't provide them and you and Tom M have been denied access then we're up the creek on the Merion records.

[TEPaul]

"Bryan, I'd love to see you try to outline the logical fallacies in Mike's various positions."


Bryan:


If you have a year or two to spare I would love to see you outline the logical fallacies in David Moriarty's essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" and particularly his year long defense of it on here. A year or two might be a liberal estimate. Could you spend the rest of your life on it?

[Bryan Izatt]

"No wonder we Canadians sometimes wonder if Americans have any clue about Canada."



Where?

Is that the place that Montreal and Quebec is? I think I went up there last year to play in the Lesley Cup at Royal Montreal GC but I'm not completely sure. I did notice some checkpoint where they asked for my passport but I thought it was just some speed trap in New York state that nailed me for driving 107mph on the Northway. I did notice the people had a sort of strange accent but I thought maybe that was because I forgot to remove some excess wax from my ears. The older I get the more I realize one should never go anywhere without golf clubs, a blue blazer and cue-tips.

I guess we can count you amongst the enlightened, at least on this count.   

I hope you didn't run into too many igloos on your way to Royal Montreal. 

[DMoriarty]

One further thought on the announcement.  The full sentence with the "expert" reference is:

"The land has been purchased and settled for and experts are at work preparing plans for a Golf Course that will rank in length, soil and variety of hazards with the best in the country."   (e & o e)

Now, we know that at the time of the announcement that MCC had not "purchased" the land.  It is factually incorrect.  Perhaps the writer was trying to create a positive, we're moving forward vibe. 

The land had been purchased and settled for.  MCC had not yet taken title, Lloyd had.  But the land had been purchased and settled for.

In the same vein, perhaps they also tried to create a positive, moving forward vibe about the use of "experts" for planning.  How much more buzz could they have generated by saying that M&W, the famous golfers who have studied golf course construction and built NGLA, are at work planning the course?  (As a parenthetical thought, in July, 1910, M&W MCC described M&W as "famous golfers" not famous course designers, nor experts, who had studied "construction", not designing.)

I don't think you fully understand the nature of the transaction or have accurately presented it, so I am not sure that any of this follows.  Plus it is nice speculation, but without much basis. 

The last part talks about "length, soil and variety of hazards".  These are three of CBM's are crucial components of an ideal golf course.  Didn't M&W suggest a shortish course?  No.  If measured the way courses are commonly measured, MCC built about the length of course M&W recommended. Didn't M&W slough them off to Piper on soils? If referring them to the foremost experts and continuing to stay involved was sloughing them off, then yes. Variety of hazards - now who was the "expert" on that? Undoubtedly CBM. What an interesting set of three goals for the Golf Course.  Read Scotland's Gift and it will all make sense to you.  And, it didn't even mention template holes.   

[DMoriarty]

David,

I hope your sense of humor is intact for this one.  What would you say to a person who would post the following quote:

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

when the actual article:




said (my deletes and adds to correct the quote):

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

Would you admonish the person quoting about being sloppy or accuse them of doctoring the quote?

Oh my lord, what a cad that person must be.  How dare he not misspell Novia Socitia!  Whoever posted this nonsensical, asinine garbage really ought to have to back it up with the original source material . . .
Oh wait, I did post the source material.  So next time I should be more careful and never mind the rest.

People make mistakes and get things wrong, but I am obviously not as good at being sloppy as TEPaul, because I don't think any of my mistakes happen to favor my argument, but maybe with practice I'll improve on my effectiveness of my errors.

Bottom line is that we really out to be dealing in the source material, as mistakes are inevitable even when intentions are above board.   This is all the more true when as here, intentions have been highly suspect.

Thanks for making my point for me.

How do reporters write things so wrong -    New, Brunswick Novia Socitia, really.    Two provinces juxtaposed and one hopelessly misspelled.  No wonder we Canadians sometimes wonder if Americans have any clue about Canada.

I think it is about time I reminded you of something pretty important . . . CBM?  Canadian.  And I read that Wilson hated all Canadians, but I read it in a friend's book so I won't be able to produce it.  

[DMoriarty]

David

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

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

John, 

Thanks for the suggestion, but I try not to discuss my dealings (past or present) with private clubs on public forums, but I can assure you that if I had the minutes or could easily access them elsewhere, I wouldn't bother trying to get a look at them here.  Could you be a little clearer.  I know it would be difficult and expensive to get to Ardmore from California, so you can't easily access them in that respect, but have you been denied access at Merion and/or MCC? 
Sorry Bryan, but I do not discuss my dealings with the clubs on public pages as I feel it would be rude.  Also, in this case it would not be at all productive.

But I sure hope it did not take you until now to figure out that I will not be satisfied until I see the minutes for myself.    What I don't understand is why, at this point, any of the rest of you would be satisfied with anything less?   I'm not satisfied with anything less.  But, I'd want to see them myself, not just hear what you've seen.  But, I don't believe badgering TEP for material he might or might not have copies of, and that is not his, is going to be successful.     TEPaul's version of the source material changes at his whim.   I agree, he has recanted on a number of points over the last few months.  Good reason to want to see it ourselves.

I'm not badgering him.  I am encouraging others to stop putting up with his nonsense, and start treating him like he desrves to be treated.   We'll never be able to discuss anything productively unitl TEPaul learns that his actions and words have consequences.
..............................

............................... 

And John, with all due respect to you, why aren't you and others asking TEPaul to come forward with the accurate information? I don't want accurate information, I want to see the documents.  He can obviously do whatever he wants to with it.  Maybe, maybe not.  The source material is Merion's and Wayne has access as a member.  I expect Tom is not free to act independently, despite leaking parts of documents.  So wouldn't this be a more direct and elegant solution the this problem?   After all, he and Wayne and the ones who have injected all this unverified garbage into our discussion to serve their rhetorical purposes, so the burden is theirs to verify that they have done so truthfully and accurately.  This is not a legal issue, it's a discussion group issue.  There is no burden, no matter how hard you might want to push it. As with the deeds, Tom foolishly did not want to provide them, so we found another way to get them.  In this case, if we want the Merion records the burden is on us to get them.  Again, have you tried lately to get access, and have you been denied.  Do not hide behind the privacy of your dealings with private clubs. If Tom/Wayne won't provide them and you and Tom M have been denied access then we're up the creek on the Merion records.

There is no formal burden but there is a rhetorical one.  We ought not to accept anything this guy tells us unless he backs it up!  That is the way these conversations are supposed to work.   We should all tell him that his unsupported ramblings serve no productive purpose unless he backs up everything he says.   In other words we need to hold him to a standard of civil discourse, and should refuse to accept a single representation without factual support.

He needs to put up or shut up.

[Mike_Cirba]

In response to Tom MacWood's question of what Wilson had in common with the other great amateur architects I thought about posting Alex FIndlay's opening day article from 1912 that makes the comparison between what Wilson and company did at Merion to what Leeds did at Myopia, perhaps coupled with a 1906 article showing how tight Findlay was with the goings-on at Myopia.

Then I thought about adding the 1914 article that someone here originally credited to Max Behr but that I believe was Robert White who compared the successful, autocratic, almost dictatorial styles of Wilson at Merion, Big Mac at NGLA, and Leeds at Myopia.

Then, in answer to Bryan I was going to point out that the one article I posted last night uses the terms golf expert and expert golfer interchangeably...

Then I read the rest of the stuff posted last night and figure, what's the use?

Do I hear a last call for any new evidence?

Without anything new to consider, this thread is pointless at this point.

[Tom MacWood]

In response to Tom MacWood's question of what Wilson had in common with the other great amateur architects I thought about posting Alex FIndlay's opening day article from 1912 that makes the comparison between what Wilson and company did at Merion to what Leeds did at Myopia, perhaps coupled with a 1906 article showing how tight Findlay was with the goings-on at Myopia.

Then I thought about adding the 1914 article that someone here originally credited to Max Behr but that I believe was Robert White who compared the successful, autocratic, almost dictatorial styles of Wilson at Merion, Big Mac at NGLA, and Leeds at Myopia.

Then, in answer to Bryan I was going to point out that the one article I posted last night uses the terms golf expert and expert golfer interchangeably...

Then I read the rest of the stuff posted last night and figure, what's the use?

Do I hear a last call for any new evidence?

Without anything new to consider, this thread is pointless at this point.

Mike
Why not go into a little more detail. You've probably studied Wilson more than any man I know, certainly you can do better than to quote an article after the fact. My question is what did Emmet, Travis, Macdonald, & Leeds have in common, in other words qualities or experience did they possess to considered an expert in golf course design? And the second part what similar qualities/experience did Wilson have in January 1910?

[Tom MacWood]

I'll help you.

Regarding Travis, Emmet, CBM and Leeds.

Were they nationally recognized golfers? Yes. All four played in tournaments all over the country, including major national and regional events. Three of the four were Lesley Cup contestants. Leeds was not, but his golfing peak came before the advent of that match.

Were they involved in design? Yes, all three men became involved in design in the 1890s, and continued through the 1900s and in some cases beyond.

Did they travel abroad? Yes, all four travelled abroad and studied the famous golf courses, multiple times in each case.

Did they study golf architecture? Three of the four wrote extensively on the subject, Leeds did not but was recognized as one of the great innovators in golf design.

Do you see a pattern? Can you see why these men were considered experts? What qualifications did Wilson share in January 1910?

Another fact that seems to be lost on you guys. The art of golf architecture had been raised to new level by 1911. In the 1890s, when the four began, being an expert golfer was the main qualification, but even then they were assisted by professionals from overseas. By 1911 the art of golf architecture had been seriously studied, largely through the efforts of the four. There were numbers of very serious golf architects, experts if you will, on both sides of the Atlantic.

[JESII]

Tom,

You've told us that we must think Lloyd and Griscom were "dumbasses" if they thought Wilson was an expert at the time...I've told you what I think of the expert debate, but tell me, what did Lloyd and Griscom say about Wilson's role in the process after the fact? Does anyone have any words from them or their committee(s)?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Did they throw a big dinner for Barker? No wait, that was Wilson.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff, you dumba#s...

That's only because he picked up the most sticks.

[JESII]

I think, if it were ever possible for all the facts to come out...we would all recognize that CBM was more influential than WE thought...but that is not to say he was more influential than MERION thought. Tom Paul makes an interesting suggestion about correcting what is in the Merion history books...what is in the Merion history books regarding CBM? What if it already acknowledges his role in full? I wouldn't expect it agrees with David's..."CBM was calling all the shots...", but it may well recognize the full scope of what we can agree on.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

You've told us that we must think Lloyd and Griscom were "dumbasses" if they thought Wilson was an expert at the time...I've told you what I think of the expert debate, but tell me, what did Lloyd and Griscom say about Wilson's role in the process after the fact? Does anyone have any words from them or their committee(s)?

I missed what you said about the expert debate. What did you say?

[Dan Herrmann]

Dan,

While I don't believe that Merion ever intentionally slighted M&W, if we consider what we was ongoing in golf at the time, we can see that there might have been reasons for Merion not to sing CBM's praises too loudly or too often.   This was right about then the Schenectady Putter fiasco broke out, and most of the golfing community in the United States was very much at odds with not only the R and A, but also with CBM personally as he was construed to have sided with the Royal and Ancient and against the United States and its hero of the time, Walter Travis (ironically an Australian) who had beaten them at their own game on their soil with the mallet headed putter.    Tempers were running high and scathing rebukes of CBM were written and printed, and his popularity suffered greatly, and American nationalism toward things golf related was in a fervor.  But again, I don't think the intentionally slighted him, although a changing attitude toward him and what he represented probably did not make it all that conducive a time to brag excessively about one's CBM course.    

That being said, I've always figured that this golfing nationalism might have had something to do with why those in Philadelphia suddenly quit talking about how most of the holes at Merion were modeled after the great holes abroad.   It was no longer all that popular to be following what had happened abroad.   But that sort of thing is tough to prove or quantify.

David,
Let me see if I got this right - you're hinting that xenophobia, either overt or subconsious, is the reason that Merion never credited CBM?

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan,

Somehow I missed that one!  Now that's a real pisser!

Notice how he snuck in there his newest contention that "most" of the original holes at Merion were template holes.

Oh golly...I can't wait to see the verbal acrobatics and herculean leaps of logic coming in Part Duex! 

[JESII]

I said that if the term "expert" as debated here was originated in a document the club was sending out to its membership/prospective membership it is very possible they were using it as a persuasive technique...much like my comments about basing their recommendation for the land purchase "largely on the words of CBM"...well, the committee looked at several pieces of land and narrowed it down to one, showed it to CBM and he approved (hahaha). It certainly will reduce the arbitrary questions from members about the land if CBM had already approved it as opposed to saying..."well, we like the Ardmore spot because Horatio is building a house right around the corner and it suits him pretty well..."

I just think your pounding of the term "expert" is misguided because you're trying to force down our throats what someone else meant when they used the term...and how could you possibly know, indisputably, what was meant?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Cut that out. Much too "logical".  And this thread has never been about conciliation or meshing the opinions of two sides, its all out war and "either or."

BTW, there is some acknowledgement of CBM all the way through the MCC documents.  It could be strengthened a bit IMHO, now that more facts have been flushed out.  Like you, barring any real evidence, like a string of letters actually found between CBM and Wilson, I doubt it would be wise for MCC to buy into DM's theory competely and say CBM designed MCC and called all the shots.  It just isn't there to make that bold a statement.

Besides, the record also shows that Wilson did a lot to MCC post initial routing and construction in modifying the routing (holes 10-13) and the features (taking out the Alps hole, continually adding bunkers, etc.) which in addition to his role in construction (if you presume he had a smaller role in original design) should be enough to have created the legend of Hugh Wilson.  Oh yeah, and there were those few other courses and the mentoring of Flynn, etc.  Wilson's rep should be safe!

But still, my probably wrong opinion is that we ignore some of the basic, real evidence that CBM wasn't calling the shots - only a FEW of the holes look anything like CBM template holes.  Just judging by the original aerial photos, it appears to me that they only took his advice in part and still went their own directions in many other areas.  When I look at those photos - which BTW I consider source documents - I would expect them to look a lot more like NGLA if CBM was truly calling all the shots.

Of course, there I go again, trying to be logical. I am fairly sure DM will come back and tell me that I misunderstand. He will also ask me what my factual basis if for disagreeing with him, even though I just posted what it is.  And, TMac will tell me once again that Barker did it, and all you have to do is look at a third rate newspaper article, even though there is not a single other shred of evidence.  And I will be told the meaning of words like blueprint, and laid out and expert.

I don't need to be Carnak to predict my immediate future!

BTW, you make a good point about how MCC feels.  We have to remember that WE are making the BFD about all of this.  As far as MCC is concerned, none of this has happened!  We would be pretty arrogant and full of self importance to think that MCC feels they owe us as a group anything in the way of access, cooperation, etc.  Or that they even care.  All TePaul is suggesting is that if by some miracle, some true facts come out of this, AND if MCC ever goes to the trouble of a new history book, then the wording might be changed a little bit.  And that is just the way it is.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()