Merion's Early Timeline

[Kalen Braley]

Don't stop now guys...

You're only 6 pages away from taking this thing to 100!!!   

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
You may be interested TEP recently corrected your January 11, 1911 date for the formation of the Construction Committee. He confirmed the date of its formation is unknown.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thanks, Tom.  After posting that, perhaps too casually, I came to believe that I had gotten it wrong in a phone conversation with TePaul.

[Mike_Cirba]

Does anyone know when Macdonald hired Seth Raynor FIRST to do a contour map of the NGLA property?

George?  Gib?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  how about my question? 

[TEPaul]

"That is not what Allan Wilson or Hugh Wilson wrote."


Tom:

I believe Hugh Wilson did write the report about his committee laying out numerous different courses in the winter of 1911 then going to NGLA (second week of March 1911) and then doing five different plans that Lesley read into the board meeting minutes; one of which was approved by the board on April 19, 1911. Wilson was the chairman of the committee, who else would have written the report for HIS committee? Lesley probably didn't write the report because he wasn't on the committee and he probably didn't go to NGLA with the committee.


"You do have the report, that is true, whether it proves what you say it proves remains to be seen. The fact that you have only given us a disjointed portion of the report, with a confusing narrative mode, does seem to indicate there are portions of the report you would prefer hidden. The question is why?"

Remains to be seen by whom? You or Merion? If you think Merion should listen to you about the accuracy of their architectural history I think you probably have a pretty good idea what you would need to do about that at this point. As far as I know Merion does not depend upon Golfclubatlas.com to explain, interpret and write their architectural history.



"The fact that you continue to call it the "Wilson report" despite the fact Lesley gave it, and it apparently does not mention Wilson or his committee by name, brings further questions. I would also caution you not to jump to the conclusion that "plans" translate to routing. Lesley tells us a course or routing was in existence prior to the NGLA visit, that was rearranged when they returned. Common sense indicates the plans were a tweaking of that course, as opposed to five new full routings. Wilson's ongoing preparation of the ground also indicate this had to be a tweaking."



We've been all over this a number of times before and there's no point in going over the same things again the same way. Apparently neither we nor Merion agree with your interpretations reflected just above.

[DMoriarty]

Whatever the contents of this mystery report, it should speak for itself.   It has been garbled enough already.   

Mike, 

Do you believe that TEPaul has ever even seen the actual meeting minutes?

Anyone?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

What an odd question.  

Is that what this discussion has been reduced to in the absence of supporting facts for your position?   Asking everyone here to speculate as to whether or not Tom Paul has seen the actual Merion Cricket Club Meeting minutes??

Wow...I guess we're getting into a whole new level of desperation and attempted diversion here.  

In response, I'd say simply that I believe that minimally Tom Paul has seen the exact same thing I've seen which is photographs of various pertinent pages and entries from the MCC minutes.   To my knowledge, those originals were never moved from the Haverford location.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,  Have you seen photographs of the actual April 19, 1911 Meeting minutes?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

***EDIT***

I have been asked by Wayne not to discuss the MCC Minutes in any detail on this website as is his perogative as the person who found the information and who no longer wishes to contribute to the information made available here.

[TEPaul]

I have the photographs of the pages of the actual meeting minutes books into which were transcribed by the long term MCC secretary Edward Sayres (sometimes spelled by treasurer William Philler) all the documentation that has ever been mentioned on this website---eg board meeting minutes, Wilson report read by Lesley, the Cuylers letters etc. All were transcribed into the MCC meeting minutes (mostly in Sayres handwriting and sometimes typed, particularly later. If MacWood, Moriarty or anyone else on this website doesn't want to believe that then that is certainly their good right. If any competent researcher and historian interested in Merion's history manages to establish a good working relationship with Merion and its historians they will probably be able to see for themselves.

We mentioned a number of times that those records are not going to be scanned onto this website and we've given the reasons why a number of times, there is no need to do it again. If MacWood and Moriarty want to see what I have I think at this point they do understand or at least they certainly should understand what they would need to do about it.

It seems like I have put all this on here a dozen times and so it should be completely understood. I won't be doing it again.

[DMoriarty]

David,

What I saw on Wayne's laptop on the veranda off the first tee at Merion last year were image files of the MCC minutes.

I know Joe Bausch and I also later this spring saw Word docs that had been transcribed from those minutes, for purposes of inclusion in Wayne's book.

Why don't you take up Tom Paul on his offer to contact Merion and see them yourself?

Mike,

Are you sure what you saw weren't photographs of the Sayres scrapbook pages?  

It doesn't sound like you know whether you saw the actual April 19, 1911 minutes, or not.   Is that a fair assessment?

Surely you realize that seeing Wayne's transcription of the minutes is not the same as seeing the minutes, don't you?

Let me ask again.  Have you seen photographs of the actual April 19, 1911 minutes or not?  

[TEPaul]

"Why don't you take up Tom Paul on his offer to contact Merion and see them yourself?"


Mike:

Are you kidding? I most certainly made no offer to David Moriarty to contact Merion and make some arrangement with that club for him. Why on earth would I do that with someone who has acted on here the way he has in the last year and more? All I did is simply suggest to Moriarty and MacWood that if they want to have a working relationship with Merion they need to establish one themselves.

[Tom MacWood]

"That is not what Allan Wilson or Hugh Wilson wrote."


Tom:

I believe Hugh Wilson did write the report about his committee laying out numerous different courses in the winter of 1911 then going to NGLA (second week of March 1911) and then doing five different plans that Lesley read into the board meeting minutes; one of which was approved by the board on April 19, 1911. Wilson was the chairman of the committee, who else would have written the report for HIS committee? Lesley probably didn't write the report because he wasn't on the committee and he probably didn't go to NGLA with the committee.

Again you take liberties with the disjointed portion you have given us. It doesn't give a time frame on when the numerous courses were laid out, only that it was sometime before the NGLA visit. Regarding who else could have written the report I'm not in position to say because I haven't seen it, but the fact remains Lesley gave it and Wilson is not mentioned. Your speculation may turn out to be correct, but at this point its just speculation.

"You do have the report, that is true, whether it proves what you say it proves remains to be seen. The fact that you have only given us a disjointed portion of the report, with a confusing narrative mode, does seem to indicate there are portions of the report you would prefer hidden. The question is why?"

Remains to be seen by whom? You or Merion? If you think Merion should listen to you about the accuracy of their architectural history I think you probably have a pretty good idea what you would need to do about that at this point. As far as I know Merion does not depend upon Golfclubatlas.com to explain, interpret and write their architectural history.

It remains to be seen in the eyes of the golfing world, and those who document its history. Historians will ultimately decide what the report says.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba,

If TEPaul has photographs of those meeting minutes, then why do you suppose he keeps changing what he tells us they said?  Like a few days ago when he changed THEY went to down to the National to WE went down to the National?


________________________________

Mike Cirba,

Are you now finally clear that there was no olive branch from TEPaul about any of this?  He is still hiding the source material same as he has been for years.

[TEPaul]

"Again you take liberties with the disjointed portion you have given us. It doesn't give a time frame on when the numerous courses were laid out, only that it was sometime before the NGLA visit. Regarding who else could have written the report I'm not in position to say because I haven't seen it, but the fact remains that Lesley gave it and Wilson is not mentioned. Your speculation may turn out to be correct, but at this point its just speculation."


Tom:

I'm sorry you think my opinion and explanation of what I have is disjointed or that I'm taking some liberties with something; I've taken no liberties at all with that material and I don't think what I've said is disjointed at all and either does Merion or its historians. It is very indicative of what Wilson and his committee did regarding routing and design iterations leading to a final plan that was approved but if you want to call it all speculation, again, that is your good right. To Merion its direct evidence of its early architectural history.  

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
You took liberties when you said the numerous course were laid out in the winter of 1911. It could have been in 1910 or 1911. This is an important distinction.

[TEPaul]

"If TEPaul has photographs of those meeting minutes, then why do you suppose he keeps changing what he tells us they said?  Like a few days ago when he changed THEY went to down to the National to WE went down to the National?"




I've been over that a number of times. The report contains "they" about 5-7 times, it contains "we"  about 2 times and "our" about 2 times. I already mentioned this on a previous post; I guess you must have missed it again, particularly since you've claimed you rarely ever even read what I write. YEAH RIGHT!  

In that post I believe I mentioned that the last "they" in the report refers to the Johnson Co that was a contractor, and that I believe the second to last "they" in the report was something of an aside by Lesley who was a known letch and that he was referring with his "they" (in the second to last  case) to the jugs on the hot waitress who had just left the boardroom after bringing Lesley and the rest of the MCC boys their tenth glass of champagne.

[Mike_Cirba]

We have now reached a new level of insanity here.

This is not a courtroom.

This is a discussion group.

The presumption that someone here can attack someone else within their own club to give up private information is just mind-boggling.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba,

If TEPaul has photographs of those meeting minutes, then why do you suppose he keeps changing what he tells us they said?  Like a few days ago when he changed THEY went to down to the National to WE went down to the National?


________________________________

Mike Cirba,

Are you now finally clear that there was no olive branch from TEPaul about any of this?  He is still hiding the source material same as he has been for years.

David,

I think he may have made a mistake, as have we all with the mind numbing number of posts and theories to respond to on this thread.  Let he who hasn't made any mistakes on this thread cast the first stone, eh?  As far as TePaul and the olive branch, he has merely suggested you politely contact MCC and get the source material that you have always wanted yourself, abeit about 6 years late.  You may not be successful because private clubs and private documents are just that - private.  But, you should try.

Tom MacWood,

While I agree that "historians" may ultimately decide what the true meaning of the MCC documents mean, I am pretty sure that none of us will be considered historians and thus, won't have a say in the matter, even if this thread goes to 300 pages.  If its that damn important, then someone with some qualifications will be appointed, or just take up the cause.

And, would you agree that if the "other side" is offering an "interpretation" that you call it "taking liberties" while if your side is offering an "interpretation" that you call it "telling the truth?"  Not busting chops, but this thread is nothing if not about the varying interpretations.  You calling out TePaul for same is not really fair, given the number of times you and David ask to not be bashed for doing the exact same thing (with widely divergent conclusions) 

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  believe me, this is nothing like any courtroom I have ever seen.  In court rooms people are just allowed to spout their opinions without offering a basis in fact.  I am merely trying to figure out who knows what, and based on what.  Surely we all ought to have some sort of grasp on what we know and the source of that material, shoudn't we?

At this point I am thoroughly confused.  I must have missed whatever post there was about the Johnson Construction Co.  I rarely make it through all of TEPaul's longer posts, but then who can honestly say they truly do?

Mike and Jeff,

Can one of you tell me what YOU think the April 19, 1911 meeting minutes say? Because I truly have no idea.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Would you really care to know either Jeff's or my interpretation?   C'mon...

I'm going back underground, other than to periodically pop up with any new findings, or findings that I think need to be re-addressed here (such as Macdonald being a "friendly adviser" for any number of clubs well before Merion, or the Max Behr report) based on how far aflounder the conversation and interpretations drift.

I would ask that we try to find out when Seth Raynor actually did the contour mapping of NGLA, because it seems fundamental to the contention that Macdonald first routed the course, and then bought the property he needed.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I'd like to know what you think it says.  And what Jeff thinks it says.  And whatever anyone else thinks it says.   Because I have no idea.  

No explanation has been given as to why TEPaul recently changed THEY to WE, or even what the correction verions is?

Which is it?    Did THEY go or did WE go . . ?

Do you know?

Do you care?

If not why not?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I don't care because I think its casaul writing (and/or reading of writing and writing what was read) and I do not think the speakers voice change really means a damn thing in terms of what was said in that document, especially as regarding the preparation of many plans by the committee, the trip to NGLA, and the preparation of five more on return.

I do understand that poor graphics, presentation, or english can often affect human perception of content.  But, I also understand and believe that those making a big issue of the periphery inconsistencies while ignoring the main content are doing it either to hold on to their points, or just to argue endlessly, or both.  And that means you!

It says the committee routed the golf course and that CBM helped a lot.  In your terms, how hard is THAT to understand and what does a bit of poor grammar really have to do with it?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

I hardly think that who did what and when is peripherary.  And those pronouns go to the heart of who did what and when. 

Sticking to one little snippet, Here is what we have been told about this particular part, I think . . .

Someone made many different courses on the new land.    
  -   We don't know who it was.  So far as I can tell it could have been Lesley's committee or Merion in general or someone for Merion.   It could have been Wilson's Committee but that doesn't seem likely give the other facts. (Such as Wilson's 1916 chapter.)
  -    We don't know precisely when it was.  It seems that it was before NGLA, but how far before we do not know.   

Now I'll bet you want to tell me that it is obviously Wilson's Committee who did this.  My question to you is based upon what?