Merion's Early Timeline

[TEPaul]

"We disagree.
The premise was that Wilson traveled abroad and studied the great courses of the UK and as a result, he routed and designed Merion based on what he observed, studied and discovered in his travels in the UK.

I'd say that the above explanation of Merion's creation is a substantive error and consequential in the explanation of how Merion came into being."


Pat:

Do you really think that story is a substantive error and consequential in the explanatin of how Merion ACTUALLY came into being in 1910 and 1911 if that story began about A HALF CENTURY AFTER 1910 and 1911?      

We're talking REAL history here, Pat, at the TIME it happened and not just some story a half century after the fact! Can you possibly understand that "STORY" has no bearing on what happened back then if thar story began about a half century LATER?

[Tom MacWood]

"The fact that Merion's "official" record/history is still in error leads a prudent man to agree with my general statement."

Pat:

Still in error how so?

"That's not an inconsequential mistake.
In fact, it was a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion."

Pat, that's where you are wrong---really wrong. The 1912 rather than the 1910 trip was not a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion's.


We disagree.
The premise was that Wilson traveled abroad and studied the great courses of the UK and as a result, he routed and designed Merion based on what he observed, studied and discovered in his travels in the UK.

I'd say that the above explanation of Merion's creation is a substantive error and consequential in the explanation of how Merion came into being.

That's what David Moriarty's essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" tried to make it look like that was the linch pin with a series of specious a priori reasoning; that was his linch pin not Merion's, but that is just not the case at all in the real history of Merion, never was.


I don't know how you deny the significance of the error regarding the date of Wilson's travels abroad, the basis and result of those travels and the fact that Merion was already routed by the time Wilson went abroad, two years after he was alleged to have gone abroad to observe and study the principles of the great courses of the UK for the specific purpose of incorporating them into Merion.

He tried to use that revelation (which I certainly do and have given him plenty of credit for pinning down with his ship passenger manifest searches) to construct a number of his own premises around that mistake in Merion's history that are just not historically accurate and we proved it as completely as any reasonable mind would require proof.

I'm afraid that you lost me with that last paragraph.
If it was alleged that Wilson sailed in 1910 to observe and study the great courses and design principles of the UK for the express purpose of incorporating them into the design of Merion, BUT, he never sailed until 1912, AFTER the course had been routed, you don't think that Moriarty's account is accurate and Merion's account is grossly INACCURATE ?  ?   ?

The incorrect date of Wilson's trip created and perpetuated the myth regarding the genesis and lineage of Merion.

The fact that Moriarty or MacWood haven't accepted it and probably never will has nothing to do with it----ie Merion's actual history of the Wilson Committee in the winter and spring of 1911. Everybody at Merion back then in the winter and spring of 1911 sure could see what Wilson and his committee did with numerous routings and designs but that Wilson report to the board that may not have been seen in a century definitely sealed the deal for us [today[/size],

But you didn't know that until AFTER Moriarty wrote his position paper.

AND, we're NOT BACK in 1911, we're in 2009.

and getting hysterical over lack of access to information from us (which isn't even true ) or trying to parse the hell out of every damn word such as "we" or "they"  in that report is never going to change that fact.

As I've said numerous times, "I don't know what happened circa 1909-1912, but, I'd like to find out", and I don't think hording documents and/or complete information furthers that quest.

You keep on harping on Moriarty and MacWood, but, the issue/s isn't/aren't about Moriarty and MacWood, the issue is about searching for the truth, finding out as much as we can vis a vis varifiable information.

If that leads to the discovery of a routing and design signed by Wilson, so be it.
If it leads to a routing and design signed by Donald Ross, so be it.
It's not about who is right, partially right, or wrong or partially wrong, it's about establishing what actually transpired, as best as can be determined by prudent men.

Pat
Actually TEP & Wayne knew Wilson travelled to the UK in 1912 and not in 1910 long before David's essay. They had the P&O letters which twice mention Wilson being abroad in 1912. They chose to ignore that discovery and continued to put forth the myth Wilson traveled in 1910 before designing the course.

[TEPaul]

"But you didn't know that until AFTER Moriarty wrote his position paper.

AND, we're NOT BACK in 1911, we're in 2009."




Patrick:

That's right, we did not know that Hugh Wilson went abroad probably for the first time in 1912 and not in 1910. But we found meeting minutes and that Wilson report that specifically stated Wilson and his commttee laid out numerous different courses in the winter of 1911. That actually happened despite the fact that Wilson did not go abroard in 1910 and not until 1912 and he and his committee routed and designed Merion East BEFORE he went abroad and not AFTER THE FACT as that "STORY" that happened a half century after the fact said he did.

I guess you don't have much idea what a TIMELINE means, huh, Pat?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Just  a little fact checking of current events:


Tom M said:

"Even more disturbing in this case Wayne is the acting archivist for Merion, and has a control of all their documents. He won't let David or I to see the documents but he has shared them with you and others he deems friendly."


Tom P said in response:

"You contacted Merion's historian and you were told regarding the particular information you had mentioned that you should be in contact with Merion's architectural historian. That's Wayne Morrison. Anyone contacting Merion for that kind of information would be told the same thing in the same way you were.


Than Phillip said:

"Wayne is definitely NOT the Historian for Merion NOR is he there ARCHIVIST"


Patrick then interjects in response to Phillip:

"I think you've taken some of Tom MacWood's remarks out of context, especially the remarks concerning Wayno's perceived or practical role with respect to the disemination of information relating to Merion and/or MCC."


Prompting Phillip to respond:
"You are doing that in your own statement when you state that Tom stated a “perceived or practical role…” That is incorrect. There is simply no way that the statement, “Wayne is the acting archivist for Merion, and has a control of all their documents…” to mean anything other than that. Merion has given the CONTROL of all their archives and documents contained therein to John Capers III and NO ONE ELSE!"


In response to which Patrick replies and interprets Tom M's initial statement:

"Tom MacWood stated that Wayno is the "acting" archivist for Merion.
Wayne appears to be the ONLY participant on this site that has been given access to and has seen and diseminated bits of information related to Merion.   Since no one else on this site has been granted access, for practical or perceived purposes Wayno was "acting" as the archivist for this site.
I don't read Tom MacWood's post as extending beyond this website.  Perhaps you do, and that's where our positions are at odds."

 

No wonder my factual head hurts on this thread.  Tom M calls Wayne the acting archivist for Merion.  Patrick interprets that role to refer only in relation to GCA.com.  But Tom P clearly says that Wayne is Merion's architectural historian with emphasis on "architectural".  Meanwhile Phillip insists that John Capers III is the historian.

Now, guys, this isn't some fact from 1910 that needs vetting.  It is current.  What is Wayne's role?  Is he the architectural historian, subordinate to John Capers III that deals only with architectural inquiries from members of GCA.com?  Or is it one of the other roles?


On the access issue, if someone neutral approached Merion Golf Club historian Capers and was referred on to Wayne, what would be the answer if the request was to review the MCC minutes and letters?  Would it be that, sorry we don't have that information.  Are the records in question still at MCC?  Does Wayne or Capers have a role in the MCC archives?  Do they control access at MCC too?

[Tom MacWood]

On the access issue, if someone neutral approached Merion Golf Club historian Capers and was referred on to Wayne, what would be the answer if the request was to review the MCC minutes and letters?  Would it be that, sorry we don't have that information.  Are the records in question still at MCC?  Does Wayne or Capers have a role in the MCC archives?  Do they control access at MCC too?

They would be told they are free to make an appointment to see the archive, unfortunately copies of the MCC minutes and the Sayers scrapbook (arguably the most important documents dealing with the early formation of the course) have not been added to the archive yet. They will eventually get around to it but it hasn't happened yet.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom.

Why is every muni you listed there simply a celebrity name-drop?  Were there any good munis in existence at that time not created by profssional architects?

How many of them have you seen or played?  Mark Twain wasn't even opened before 1937.

[Tom MacWood]

If by the genesis of the site you mean Wilson and Committee designing and constructing Merion East and not for instance Lloyd's part in the residential real estate development and the business structure that was created back then, I would say anyone from Merion who is familiar with Merion's history books and their archives. That would definitely include Merion's historian and a number of others. As I said on here previously, I believe the only thing the Merion history books got wrong was the fact that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and not 1912. They also did not include any references to those early MCC meeting minutes, Macdonald's letter, Cuyler's letters, the Wilson report to the board meeting of 4/19/1911 because that material has always been at MCC and was never transported to Merion GC when it became an independent entity from MCC. The latter material only serves to completely strengthen and confirm what the Merion GC and their history books give Wilson and his committee credit for and what so many other sources around the time of the creation gave him and them credit for. They all also always gave Macdonald and Whigam credit for their help and advice, even though some like MacWood and Moriarty did not know that when they began all this.

The Tolhurst book minimizes Macdonald's role and tries to minimize CBM's understanding of golf architecture (does that sound familiar?). The book says Wilson went to the NGLA in 1910 before traveling abroad, and CBM helped with his itinerary, and on his return M&W freely gave advice. There is no mention of M&W being on site, no mention of the key times they were on site, and no mention of M&W assisting with the plans.

And I get the impression Tolhurst doesn't have a clue about golf architecture or golf architecture history. "It has been said that Hugh Wilson grasped these principles of Scottish and English design and conveyed them in his work better than Charles Blair Macdonald did." It has been said by who? CBM had been studying those courses for a decade in 1911, and had built the NGLA. Wilson made one hurried trip abroad after Merion had been laid out. That may go down as one of the dumbest things written in golf architecture history.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom.

Why is every muni you listed there simply a celebrity name-drop?  Were there any good munis in existence at that time not created by profssional architects?

How many of them have you seen or played?  Mark Twain wasn't even opened before 1937.

Take Mark Twain off the list.

Again, acknowledged as the finest public course in the country by who?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Salisbury Links became a public course when?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

You and Mike C can start a 100 page thread on the merits of Cobbs Creek if you wish. Its irrelevant here unless the goal is to get to 200 pages.  Or start on one early public golf courses.  Without the infighting, that would be a very interesting thread on its own.

As to the Tolhurst history (and I am speaking to both you and Pat here) I think its wrong.  TePaul has provided the explanation that many in MCC knew that Wilson just missed the Titanic, but Tolhurst wrote it differently because he had heard that he went and it influenced the design, etc. and PRESUMED that it had to have been earlier.

As to the "Wilson understood it better" phrase, I don't know where it came from.  However, I always took it to mean that MCC had taken pride in their more naturalistic look, rather than the strategies of the holes.

So yeah, they took pride in Wilson's accomplishements.  In large part because of the alterations he made after the initial design.  And perhaps because he had the audcacity (my guess) to go away from CBM's artistic principals and even strategic principles (fitting the land instead of forcing those same 18 template holes in) even while trying to generally use the great holes as models.

But the conspiracy logic of arguing over documents produced so much later, vs. looking at the April 19, 1911 minutes or other contemporaneous dox is a straw man.  A club history made a mistake.  Big Whup.  I say we stick with contemp. dox, but either way, I guess this argument will never end.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Mac,

You said that, "CBM had been studying those courses for a decade in 1911, and had built the NGLA. Wilson made one hurried trip abroad after Merion had been laid out. That may go down as one of the dumbest things written in golf architecture history..."

As one who admits he simply doesn't know, how many trips to the UK did CBM make between 1901 and 1911?

[Phil_the_Author]

MIke,

You asked, "Salisbury Links became a public course when?"

From the day they opened. In the first issue of The American Golfer the "Newly opened Salisbury Links" were advertising themselves as, "... a public subscription service, OPEN TO ALL GOLFERS..." (Capital and bold letters were PART of the advertisement).

The course that hosted the PGA in 1927(?) was the #3 course which had been private since it's opening. It would become Nassau Vounty property later on and then opened to all as the Red course of what is today a three-course public park.

[Mike_Cirba]

MIke,

You asked, "Salisbury Links became a public course when?"

From the day they opened. In the first issue of The American Golfer the "Newly opened Salisbury Links" were advertising themselves as, "... a public subscription service, OPEN TO ALL GOLFERS..." (Capital and bold letters were PART of the advertisement).

The course that hosted the PGA in 1927(?) was the #3 course which had been private since it's opening. It would become Nassau Vounty property later on and then opened to all as the Red course of what is today a three-course public park.

Phil,

I think that's what I'm getting at...the course there most highly regarded was/is what is today the Eisenhower Park Red course, which I played a few years back, and which hosted the 1927 PGA tournament.  

It was not a public course at the time.   If the other courses at Salisbury had prestigious architectural reputation, it didn't make it off the island.  

Jeff,

Point taken.

Although at some point I think it should be a qualification when comparing courses that one should at least have seen the courses being compared.

I've played quite a few on that list and would put CC above most, and at least equal to any of them.  

I'd also add Gus Hook's Mount Pleasant in Baltimore and Joe Bartholemew's City Park in New Orleans as worthy qualifiers, allthough the latter is likely gone post-Katrina.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

It's not that the quality of the Salisbury courses were not known nationally and that their "prestigious architectural reputation... didn't make it off the island," it's that it didn't make it to Philadelphia!

In all seriousness, Salisbury was well-known and a quite popular place to play during the first thrid of teh 20th century. Consider, each course was built on its own and so the complex grew to 5 courses! I believe it was the first 5-course complex in the anywhere. That would not have happened if the courses were crappy and not being played. Considering the number of clubs on Long Island even then this speaks to their quality. In fact, many players would come out and play Garden City one day and Salisbury the next...

Were they the greatest public courses of their day? No, but they were among the better ones and quite popular... 

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

You and Mike C can start a 100 page thread on the merits of Cobbs Creek if you wish. Its irrelevant here unless the goal is to get to 200 pages.  Or start on one early public golf courses.  Without the infighting, that would be a very interesting thread on its own.

As to the Tolhurst history (and I am speaking to both you and Pat here) I think its wrong.  TePaul has provided the explanation that many in MCC knew that Wilson just missed the Titanic, but Tolhurst wrote it differently because he had heard that he went and it influenced the design, etc. and PRESUMED that it had to have been earlier.

As to the "Wilson understood it better" phrase, I don't know where it came from.  However, I always took it to mean that MCC had taken pride in their more naturalistic look, rather than the strategies of the holes.

So yeah, they took pride in Wilson's accomplishements.  In large part because of the alterations he made after the initial design.  And perhaps because he had the audcacity (my guess) to go away from CBM's artistic principals and even strategic principles (fitting the land instead of forcing those same 18 template holes in) even while trying to generally use the great holes as models.

But the conspiracy logic of arguing over documents produced so much later, vs. looking at the April 19, 1911 minutes or other contemporaneous dox is a straw man.  A club history made a mistake.  Big Whup.  I say we stick with contemp. dox, but either way, I guess this argument will never end.

Jeff
Have you read Tolhurst's history?

As far as Cobbs Creek is concerned, Mike asked what he was guilty of. I'm answering his question. Mike's gross exaggerations and distortions of Wilson, CBM and Barker are motivated by his hopes for CC. And now the distortions extend to the architectural importance of CC. This distraction could go away if Mike simply answered my question.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Why are you avoiding my question? Cobbs Creek was acknowledged as the finest public course in the country by who?

PS: At the time Salisbury Links opened in 1907 it was considered a cutting edge design. Travis wrote an important article on the course for Country Life.

[Joe Hancock]

I'll just throw this out there rhetorically, as I don't believe there's a good way to get an answer; How much of the passion and discourse that has taken place in these Merion threads has to do with something else? A book? A potential golf course restoration? Is there more than meets the eye?

I'm beginning to think so.

Joe

[Bryan Izatt]

On the access issue, if someone neutral approached Merion Golf Club historian Capers and was referred on to Wayne, what would be the answer if the request was to review the MCC minutes and letters?  Would it be that, sorry we don't have that information.  Are the records in question still at MCC?  Does Wayne or Capers have a role in the MCC archives?  Do they control access at MCC too?

They would be told they are free to make an appointment to see the archive, unfortunately copies of the MCC minutes and the Sayers scrapbook (arguably the most important documents dealing with the early formation of the course) have not been added to the archive yet. They will eventually get around to it but it hasn't happened yet.

And, does that mean that Merion has the minutes and scrapbook, but they haven't been added yet?  Or, does it mean that they don't have them and that they're still at MCC, but they will add them when they get them from MCC?

And, back to Wayne's role, are you still claiming that Wayne is the "acting archivist" at Merion and consequently is acting in place of Capers III?

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

On your last few paragraphs on post #3586, I could answer those questions for you but I often wonder on this thread why even bother as some on here might even try to "parse" what MY words mean.   If you want accurate answers to your questions my suggestion would be for you to just get in contact with Merion GC and ask them!


Tom:

I think your opinion of Tolhurst's knowledge of golf course architecture is just that----eg just your opinion, and I wouldn't think it is generally shared by many others.

Macdonald's role in the early phase of Merion East is treated pretty appropriately in Tolhurst's history book other than the fact of that 1910 story. As far as the details of Macdonald/Whigam being on site in June 1910 and then again on April 6, 1911 not being included in the Tolhurst book, as I have said many times before on here, I do not believe Tolhurst had access to that material when he wrote his book because that MCC material was sort of buried in the attic of MCC probably not to be found again and considered again for close to a century. The two Merion historians and another Merion member found that material around a year ago.

As far as a number of people over the years mentioning that Wilson may've used some of the "principles" of golf architecture or some of the "principles" of famous holes abroad differently, more naturalistically, or even 'better' than CBM, that can certainly be well explained from the overall look of the architecture of Merion East compared to CBM's style. People just have different preferences that way and the distinctions between say NGLA and Merion East that way are pretty obvious to a golf architectural historian and analyst with a good eye.  

[TEPaul]

"I'll just throw this out there rhetorically, as I don't believe there's a good way to get an answer; How much of the passion and discourse that has taken place in these Merion threads has to do with something else? A book? A potential golf course restoration? Is there more than meets the eye?

I'm beginning to think so."



Joe:

Of course there is. There's no question about it, but I doubt there will ever be a consensus opinion on that either on this website.

The real irony of all this is that Tom MacWood has actually articulated what that "something else" is and he's articulated it on this website a number of times over the years. It's all in the back pages of this website on some threads he created himself over six and a half years ago. It appears David Moriarty just picked up on Tom MacWood's basic theme in THAT "something else" with this on-going subject of Merion and Macdonald and Wilson. A number of times Moriarty said on these Merion threads that the architectural history or Merion East, particularly the very early or first phase of the architectural history of Merion East was a "mystery." He may think that, and Tom MacWood may think that, but there sure does appear to be so many reasons and so many good reasons why no one else ever thought there was any mystery to the beginning phase of the architecture of Merion East.

Tom MacWood has also said on this website that he admires fresh and novel and interesting new perspectives on various subjects, historical subjects etc like old architecture or old architects. That sounds fine on the face of it, don't you think? I think so too but after a while it both will and does get down to the credibility of those fresh and novel and interesting new perspectives if they happen to be some attempt to reinterpret and rewrite established histories which may not need to be reinterpreted or rewritten simply because there is nothing or very little historically inaccurate about them in the first place! 

[Tom MacWood]

On the access issue, if someone neutral approached Merion Golf Club historian Capers and was referred on to Wayne, what would be the answer if the request was to review the MCC minutes and letters?  Would it be that, sorry we don't have that information.  Are the records in question still at MCC?  Does Wayne or Capers have a role in the MCC archives?  Do they control access at MCC too?

They would be told they are free to make an appointment to see the archive, unfortunately copies of the MCC minutes and the Sayers scrapbook (arguably the most important documents dealing with the early formation of the course) have not been added to the archive yet. They will eventually get around to it but it hasn't happened yet.

And, does that mean that Merion has the minutes and scrapbook, but they haven't been added yet?  Or, does it mean that they don't have them and that they're still at MCC, but they will add them when they get them from MCC?

And, back to Wayne's role, are you still claiming that Wayne is the "acting archivist" at Merion and consequently is acting in place of Capers III?

I made several contacts with the club historian, at first I asked if I could get a copy of the Francis article. I had figured out it was in the 1950 US Open program. Some time later I sent an email asking about the Cuyler letter, and that email was answered by Wayne, who requested that all future communications dealing with architectural issues be directed toward him.

Wayne has copies of the key MCC minutes and the portions of the scrapbook dealing with the course. TEP has said he has a copy of the April 1911 minutes too. I've been told they will be added to the archive at some point.

[Bryan Izatt]

On the access issue, if someone neutral approached Merion Golf Club historian Capers and was referred on to Wayne, what would be the answer if the request was to review the MCC minutes and letters?  Would it be that, sorry we don't have that information.  Are the records in question still at MCC?  Does Wayne or Capers have a role in the MCC archives?  Do they control access at MCC too?

They would be told they are free to make an appointment to see the archive, unfortunately copies of the MCC minutes and the Sayers scrapbook (arguably the most important documents dealing with the early formation of the course) have not been added to the archive yet. They will eventually get around to it but it hasn't happened yet.

And, does that mean that Merion has the minutes and scrapbook, but they haven't been added yet?  Or, does it mean that they don't have them and that they're still at MCC, but they will add them when they get them from MCC?

And, back to Wayne's role, are you still claiming that Wayne is the "acting archivist" at Merion and consequently is acting in place of Capers III?

I made several contacts with the club historian, at first I asked if I could get a copy of the Francis article. I had figured out it was in the 1950 US Open program. Some time later I sent an email asking about the Cuyler letter, and that email was answered by Wayne, who requested that all future communications dealing with architectural issues be directed toward him.

Wayne has copies of the key MCC minutes and the portions of the scrapbook dealing with the course. TEP has said he has a copy of the April 1911 minutes too. I've been told they will be added to the archive at some point.

Thanks Tom. Does this suggest that the originals are still at MCC in the attic?  Have you tried approaching them?  Or, do you just get cycled back to Merion and Wayne?

[Mike_Cirba]

David
Cobbs Creek has never been considered architecturally significant in its own city much less nationally.

Tom,

Let's first disavow this ridiculous revisionist notion that Cobb's Creek was never considered architecturally significant in it's own city.   The fact it hosted the US Publinks in 1928, and even in the mid 50s hosted the Philadephia Daily News Open in 1954 and 1955 on the PGA tour is indicative of a course of merit, but let's see what was being written about Cobb's Creek during it's heyday in the 20s.














First, you made up a story that I had created a new version of the MCC Minutes...which, I proved you wrong about.

Then, you made up a story that I was only hanging onto the Hugh Wilson myth because of my interest in Cobb's Creek, which I already completely proved you wrong about, as well, and our complete discovery process regarding Cobb's Creek is viewable to anyone and everyone here.

Now, you make up another whopper....Cobb's Creek was never a significant golf course in Philadelphia....sheesh, Tom...I don't know where you get this stuff.....

[Tom MacWood]

Well we know at least Frank McCracken liked it. We are still waiting for you to answer my question, who acknowledged it was the finest public course in the country between 1916 and 1936?

And by the way who is Frank McCracken?

[John_Conley]

David, here is a post from over a year ago on another thread.  How prescient!

David Stamm
Sr. Member

 Offline

Posts: 3399


The strategy of the course is the soul of the game


    Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2008, 11:05:28 AM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Obviously alot of work went into this. Thank you for the efforts you put into this, David. I look forward to the discussions.