Excuse me while I clarify something.
TEPaul has been claiming that the only my only contribution to the entire Merion debate has been to correct the date of Wilson's trip. This is consistent with their three prong approach to my essay: Deny the essay's accuracy, demean the author, and when those things don't work, pretend that you knew it all anyway.
Problem is, this is utterly and demonstrably false. TEPaul, Wayne, Mike, and apparently Merion had the history wrong on almost every count, from before the land was purchased, until after the course opened. Whether we ever settle the question of M&W's exact contribution, we now have a much better and more detailed understanding of every aspect of the early history of the East course. I could go through each new parcel of evidence and analysis that my essay brought to light, but to do so would be to repeat the essay itself.
The first three (3)sections of my essay were somewhat introductory, covering the greatness of Merion East and particularly its rouing, briefly summarizing of the many contributions that Hugh I. Wilson made to golf and Merion, tracing largely accepted version of Merion's history during this time period, and summarizing the major points at which I offer an alternative historical account. The next twenty (20) sections of my essay (4-23) provide a historical analysis of certain aspects of the early origins of Merion East. While any historical analysis necessarily builds on existing historical accounts, every one of these twenty (20) sections also offers facts and analysis that have never before been disseminated, at least not publicly.
There are plenty of small details. For instance, Merion legend has it that the old site was abandoned because of the advent of the Haskell ball. My paper established that the reason given at the time (in multiple sources) was that the RR wanted more for the land than Merion was willing to pay. There are larger details, such as the early routing by HH Barker, and the addition of the land behind the clubhouse per M&W's advice.
And then there are details that completely turn Merion's legend on its head, such as the timing and importance of the NGLA meeting. Wayne, TEPaul, Mike, and just about everyone thought that NGLA had nothing directly to do with planning the layout at Merion East. As they understood it Macdonald just gave Wilson some information about all the great holes he should see. In other words, CBM was nothing but a glorified travel agent for Wilson. And because they were sure that Wilson's trip happened before Merion was designed, they were certain that the NGLA meeting must have happened even before that! So while they may have had Hugh Wilson's 1916 chapter from the P&O book, they completely misunderstood it.
This (rather than the timing of the overseas trip) may be the most important mistake they made about Merion's early history. As my paper explains, the NGLA meeting was about laying out Merion East, not planning a trip. And it didn't occur sometime long before the planning, but occurred while Wilson was preparing to lay out the course. He knew next to nothing about laying out a golf course, so he and his committee went to NGLA for help, and M&W not only taught them about the principles underlying the great golf holes, M&W also taught them how to apply these principles at Merion, on Merion's natural terrain.
[My essay noted that the NGLA meeting had to have occurred in early 2008. As I explained in my paper, Wilson had already been communicating with CBM before February 1, 1910. Based on this, I suggested that the meeting could have occurred in January, or if not, then there was more communication between CBM and Wilson than had been previously known. The latter turned out to be correct.]
In short, M&W helped them plan the layout. We can argue about the extent of the help, but it no longer can be denied that M&W helped them plan the layout. And this is a huge change from what had been admitted before by Merion. And we now know that after helping them, M&W came back and approved the final layout plan. M&W may have been more involved in Merion that CBM was with some of his other designs!
Here are a few things that my paper brought forward:
- The real reason Merion abandoned their old site.
- Various details relating to land aquisitions.
- The involvement of the Haverford Development Company, including the original 100 acre offer, the fact that they did not own all of the land eventually used for the golf course, etc.
- That HH Barker inspected the land and drew out a proposed layout.
- That Merion, through R Griscam, actively sought out Macdonald and Whigham for help regarding their golf course.
- That Merion appears to have aquired the Dallas Estate somewhat clandestinely.
- The the purchase may have been delayed while the Dallas Estate was being acquired.
- That Merion added of the land behind the clubhouse per M&W's advice.
- The key role played by Lloyd on both sides of the deal.
The list goes on, but you get the idea. In addition to this, I explained a number of things directly to Wayne that were not covered in my essay, most notably a detailed description of how the land deals played out and of the nature of Lloyd's role. Merion, or at least their acting assistant historian in charge of who knows what or whatever Wayne is, thought that Merion had purchased the land in 1909, along with just about all the other land from the golf course all the way to Lloyd's estate or thereabouts. He was mistaken and I explained in great detail why.
TomM and I are still correcting Merion's record! Merion, TEPaul, Wayne, etc. claim that the Merion Golf Association was formed in 1909 to investigate the impact of the Haskell ball. In fact, it had existed since the early days on the old course, and was the internal organization of all the golfers at Merion Cricket Club, and it eventually became MGC.
So for TEPaul to pretend that my essay contributed nothing but a new date for the trip is disingenuous, at best. Just another attempt to bring me down without actually dealing with anything in my essay.
I cannot wait for their self-published dvd to come out. Something tells me that their version of Merion East's history will look remarkably like mine as presented in my essay. But of course they will claim they knew it all along.
Pathetic.
_____________________________________
Jeff, my essay outlines a number of additional mistakes in Tolhurst's history book. More are outlined above. I don't know why you keep pretending there was only one mistake, or suggesting that we should assume the accuracy of the rest. Sounds like TEPaul talking to me.