News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3625 on: July 29, 2009, 09:22:19 PM »
"I'm not sure how I insulted him in post #3707."


Tom:

Just another one of your unimaginably stupid posts. #3707 is chickenfeed---of limited consequence. You and Moriarty have been mercilessly insulting and denigrating Merion's respected architectural historian for months if not years and for what, your own warped egos and perspectives? It's not going to fly, I'll tell you, at least not with me and I very much doubt with the clubs I know and respect and who know me. I don't give a shit anymore about what the sentiment is on this website, I only care about where it really matters, at least to me, Merion and in clubs across this land like it. You two jerks have hoisted yourselves on your own petards. And I think you've taken a pretty potential architectural website down with you too.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3626 on: July 29, 2009, 09:28:50 PM »
"I'm not sure how I insulted him in post #3707."


Tom:

Just another one of your unimaginably stupid posts. #3707 is chickenfeed---of limited consequence. You and Moriarty have been mercilessly insulting and denigrating Merion's respected architectural historian for months if not years and for what, your own warped egos and perspectives? It's not going to fly, I'll tell you, at least not with me and I very much doubt with the clubs I know and respect and who know me. I don't give a shit anymore about what the sentiment is on this website, I only care about where it really matters, at least to me, Merion and in clubs across this land like it. You two jerks have hoisted yourselves on your own petards. And I think you've taken a pretty potential architectural website down with you too.

I'm confused.  Who is Merion's architectural historian? 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3627 on: July 29, 2009, 09:31:14 PM »
TEP
Post #3707 is about the superiority of Heilman's history compared to Tolhurst's. What does that have to do with Merion's respected architectural historian, and why are you sullying his good name by dragging him into your Tolhurst mess? You are the only person I know who hoisted himself on Tolhurst.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3628 on: July 29, 2009, 09:39:05 PM »
I don't give a shit anymore about what the sentiment is on this website

You never have, Tom, you never have.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3629 on: July 29, 2009, 09:51:10 PM »
Is TEPaul really blasting us for pointing out errors in the Tolhurst history?   When he came back after his suspension he repeatedly asked us to do just that.   Now that we have he is outraged?   I don't get it.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3630 on: July 29, 2009, 10:03:40 PM »

Mike, you have to make up your mind.   Last week you were accusing me of reducing Wilson's role to nothing, and claiming that after the final layout plan was finished there was really nothing left for him to design. Yet now you misrepresent the final layout plan as merely the "final routing" and you puff up Wilson's design contribution after the study trip abroad.

Which is it Mike?  
--  Did Wilson make a substantial design contribution after the trip?   Because if he did, then you cannot argue that later references to his design contribution (like Tilly's) must have only referred to what he did before the trip.
-- Or, was there nothing really for Wilson to do with the design after the trip?   If so then you cannot make the argument you just did above.    

So which way is it?   You cannot just change your position day-to-day to suit your current rhetorical needs.  



David,

There is nothing inconsistent at all here in what I'm contending or asking, but you ask some good questions and I think my answer might get to the heart of where our differences of opinion lie.

Your essay contends that Hugh Wilson neither routed the golf course nor planned the designs of the holes.   The fact you've broken them into two separate, discrete acts or tasks hints at your understanding that they are not necessarily synoymous, yet you use the fact that the course was routed and grassed before Hugh Wilson went abroad as evidence supposedly proving he wasn't involved in either routing the course or conceiving of the hole designs.

From my perspective, I believe that the evidence clearly and strongly shows he did both.   He and his Committee routed the golf course prior to seeding and grassing, with Macdonald and Whigham's valuable advice and suggestions, and he (and they) also planned the holes, their concepts, their interiors, their strategies, and their problems...not only as the holes originally opened in 1912, but as they evolved for the next twelve years.  

My questioning to you asking "what was there left to design" was strictly based on your contention that he did neither the routing, nor the internal hole designs.   We also know that Fred Pickering supervised construction of the course.   So, given that everything I can pretty much think of from conception to planning to construction and implementation was covered elsewhere, I was trying to get you to tell me specifically what you thought was left that he did....why he received so much acclaim for, in your terms, "laying out" the course, and exactly what that entailed.

If it wasn't the routing, and it wasn't the hole internals or their strategies, and it wasn't supervising the shaping and construction, then...I think my very logical question was simply, what did he do?

I believe I know what he did and I've made that pretty clear.   Others at the time acclaimed his work.   So, I was simply asking you to tell me what you thought that was all about if he didn't route, design, or supervise construction of the course.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3631 on: July 29, 2009, 10:20:47 PM »
Mike you've really, really got to stop fudging my points to suit your purposes.   It is ridiculous.

What I said was that Macdonald and Whigham came up with the routing and the hole concepts.  I have ALWAYS acknowledged that Wilson placed many of the bunkers, mounding and other finishing touches AFTER his trip abroad.    Yet you change this to M&W did the routing and "planned the designs of the holes."  

And Mike, in the case of M&W routing and hole concepts are pretty much synonymous.  As they explain at NGLA they are looking for landforms where certain underlying strategic principles will best fit!

This notion of yours that they just found places for greens and tees without ever considering the hole concepts is downright silly.

And Mike, you have REPEATEDLY claimed that if Hugh Wilson had not planned the course originally that he would have not have received the accolades he did.  That is inconsistent with position today where you have Wilson contributing substantially to the design AFTER the trip abroad.

I agree he contributed substantially after the trip, but last week you were singing a very different tune.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 10:35:30 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3632 on: July 29, 2009, 10:52:16 PM »
David,

Finally...at least you finally come right out and say it;

What I said was that Macdonald and Whigham came up with the routing and the hole concepts.

At least let's get our clear positions out here in the open and stop this "I'm just a neutral observer simply trying to find out what really happened" shtick, when you've been an advocate for a pre-determined, pre-disposed position for the past several years.  

But to be specific to our present discussion, your essay says about Hugh Wilson "...he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that includes routing and hole design, no?

Yet you then contend I'm misrepresenting your position when I say that you're claiming M&W "planned the designs of the holes."

However, in your next sentence, you say exactly that, correct?   You say, "And Mike, in the case of M&W routing and hole concepts are pretty much synonymous.  As they explain at NGLA they are looking for landforms where certain underlying strategic principles will best fit!"

David, I don't agree with that at all.

One of the reasons the template holes popularized by Macdonald and Raynor proved so popular is that their concepts were transferrable from Long Island to the mountains of Tennessee to the low-country of South Carolina, to the coast of Hawaii, to the plains of Chicago and St. Louis, to the hills of West Virginia.

There are uphill, and downhill, and flat redans.    There are Alps holes on dead flat ground at places like Yeaman's Hall.   There are Shorts, and Biarritz's on all sorts of terrain, as well as Road hole concepts, and all the rest....

On 90% of the template holes, their distinguishing characteristics are the placement, angles, and patterns of bunkering or other hazard to create the fundamental strategy of the hole.

That's true of the redan, the road, the Alps, the bottle, the short, the biarritz (with a dip in the green twist), the cape, the long, the eden, the leven, the sahara, even the punchbowl.   In fact, the only two template holes I can think of totallly dependent on a land form would be the hogsback, and perhaps the double plateau, which more describes the green site and was usually manufactured.

So, to suggest as I'm sure is coming in the second part of your essay, that many of the holes at Merion were placed on the ground during a half-day of looking over the property nine months prior to fit into some grand design of Macdonald's that no one ever recorded or reported is a fallacious theory on the face of it, and bears no relation to the fundamental truth that even by the time Macdonald designed his next course after NGLA at Sleepy Hollow, he not only turned the redan on it's head with a reverse redan, but created a steeply DOWNHILL one, as well.  

To your other point, there is nothing inconsistent in my opinions, or in my contentions.   If Hugh Wilson had not planned the course originally, as well as routed it he would not have received the accolades that he did and the evidence shows that he did in fact do that.   But he also opened the course as a "rough draft" and updated it and evolved it, and modified it though the next twelve years, and that was noted in his achievements, as well.

That is where all of the evidence points, David.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 11:05:59 PM by MCirba »

Phil_the_Author

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3633 on: July 30, 2009, 12:32:09 AM »
David,

PLEASE take this in the spirit that it is intended which is one of peace-seeking and my hope that EVERYONE will finally STOP the back and forth insults. I had recently decided to not comment on the Merion threads anymore because the nonsense just doesn’t end. Unless this changes this WILL be my last comment here, though that seriously will be a small loss on this subject.

What you, Tom Macwood, Mike Cirba and Tom Paul have done is simply not listen to good advice and simply STOP! ALL of you are guilty of this and it is a shame because there has been so much time, space and energy wasted when a good discussion, in fact, a good PROPER argument could have been taking place. Go back and read the last five pages of this thread. Count the number of posts that the 4 of you have made and then count how many times all of you made posts that DIDN’T contain a “defense” of yourself that was actually a form of insult to one of the others or posts that were simply an insult.

You wrote, “I don't know Joe, maybe it is a matter of perspective, but it seems that the vast majority of the complaints and lectures are directed at me…” You are correct; it IS a matter of PERSPECTIVE and not one of fact. You have become so defensive, some of which is understandable but frankly not all of it and not most either, that you keep missing the things said by others.

“This guy says whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and why shouldn't he?   No one ever says a damn thing…” That is categorically untrue. I, for one, have taken Tom and Mike to task on this thread and other Merion threads for what I believed was their wrong treatment of both you and Tom Macwood. And not just me, but numerous others as well. Yet you refuse to either see it or believe it.

I have been using a phrase that should be quite familiar now as I have used it to EACH one of you in turn… BE THE BETTER MAN! You refuse to do so. Tom & Mike insult you; SO WHAT?!? Be the BETTER MAN and simply don’t respond in kind. You will be shocked to see just how soon your view of how “the vast majority of the complaints and lectures are directed at me…” no longer applies. In fact if each of you do that you will all be surprised at how quickly the animosity will end and actual discussing of this and other topics will once again begin.

Look at how you defended yourself in what you next said. “He lives in a world free of consequences…” Yet you followed that post up with another in which you stated, “Is TEPaul really blasting us for pointing out errors in the Tolhurst history?   When he came back after his suspension he repeatedly asked us to do just that…”

Since when is being “SUSPENDED” from the site being “free of consequences?” You are the one who said BOTH so why can’t you see it?

How about making a concerted and constant effort to REWORD what you would like to say to Mike and Tom? For example, you just posted, “Mike you've really, really got to stop fudging my points to suit your purposes. It is ridiculous…”

Wouldn’t something like, “Mike, I guess you didn’t understand what I meant when I said…” and then make your point be seen as being reasonable?

You have stated a number of times that you are simply trying to get to the truth of how Merion East was originally created. That is a worthwhile goal whether your essay is accepted by anyone as the answer or not. There will always be those who criticize it and some of those criticisms demand an answer on your behalf. So answer them and don’t insult while doing it.

This is something that everyone involved needs to do… start acting our ages and be mature. It has gone way too far when new topics having NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Merion threads or your essay have posts made in them in which Merion insults follow one after another after another. That is truly childish.

We ALL have egos and get insulted overly quick. That includes me and the “other 1490” mentioned earlier in this thread. Let it end.

Once again, though this was addressed to you and directed at some of your comments in particular, it is specifically directed at all those who have been carrying on the nonsense for far too long. Everybody just stop the self-defenses, stop the insults and find a milder way to make your points. Simply stop it… It’s time…

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3634 on: July 30, 2009, 12:36:41 AM »
David,

Finally...at least you finally come right out and say it;

What I said was that Macdonald and Whigham came up with the routing and the hole concepts.

At least let's get our clear positions out here in the open and stop this "I'm just a neutral observer simply trying to find out what really happened" shtick, when you've been an advocate for a pre-determined, pre-disposed position for the past several years.

You are loosing it Mike.  I was simply correcting your error.  I've said many times that, based on the verifiable facts as I know them M&W were the major creative forces behind the routing and the hole concepts, although obviously Barker and Francis/Lloyd most likely played important roles as well. Surely Wilson contributed the the routing and hole concepts, but he appears to have been working with a preexisting course, and also was heavily reliant to M&W when it came to the layout.   If there are verifiable facts that should lead me to change my opinion, bring them forward.

But to be specific to our present discussion, your essay says about Hugh Wilson "...he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that includes routing and hole design, no?

You are wrong.   It includes routing, but my essay makes perfectly clear that Wilson added many elements of the design (bunkers, mounds, grasses, other finishing touches) after his trip.    Let me give you an example.   As I mentioned before, I think the current 6th hole was meant to be conceptually similar to a road hole.  The placement of the tee behind the corner, the length of the hole and the relative placement of the tee were very likely all determined with this concept in mind. The hole was placed on the property (routed) based on the hole concept that fit in that spot (the road hole concept.)    Did Macdonald determine the position of the fairway bunkers?   It is very unlikely given that he believed that fairway bunkers were best left until later.   Did Macdonald design the greenside bunkers and green?   Generally and conceptually, I think he very likely did because a certain type of green and and a certain arrangement of bunkers goes with that.   But as far as specifically determining the exact contours, and specifically and exactly placing and creating the bunkers, that was most likely all Wilson and Pickering.    The hole concept is based on the road hole concept, as is the placement of the hole on the property, but CBM wasn't there for the construction or the addition of features later (at least I dont think he was) so my guess is that is where Wilson contributed the most.  
Yet you then contend I'm misrepresenting your position when I say that you're claiming M&W "planned the designs of the holes."You are.

However, in your next sentence, you say exactly that, correct?   Not correct. You say, "And Mike, in the case of M&W routing and hole concepts are pretty much synonymous.  As they explain at NGLA they are looking for landforms where certain underlying strategic principles will best fit!"

David, I don't agree with that at all.

One of the reasons the template holes popularized by Macdonald and Raynor proved so popular is that their concepts were transferrable from Long Island to the mountains of Tennessee to the low-country of South Carolina, to the coast of Hawaii, to the plains of Chicago and St. Louis, to the hills of West Virginia.

There are uphill, and downhill, and flat redans.    There are Alps holes on dead flat ground at places like Yeaman's Hall.   There are Shorts, and Biarritz's on all sorts of terrain, as well as Road hole concepts, and all the rest....

On 90% of the template holes, their distinguishing characteristics are the placement, angles, and patterns of bunkering or other hazard to create the fundamental strategy of the hole.

That's true of the redan, the road, the Alps, the bottle, the short, the biarritz (with a dip in the green twist), the cape, the long, the eden, the leven, the sahara, even the punchbowl.   In fact, the only two template holes I can think of totallly dependent on a land form would be the hogsback, and perhaps the double plateau, which more describes the green site and was usually manufactured.

This is about the most oversimplified and inaccurate descriptions of how CBM applied the underlying fundamental principles as any I have ever heard.   It is no wonder that people don't understand the concepts when those who claim to like CBM's work would suggest something like this.   Setting Raynor aside (because he has no relevance here) you are grossly misrepresenting CBM's approach.   It is not as if he just slapped preconceived holes anywhere, willy-nilly without regard for the contours and landforms.  

CBM, Whigham, others made clear that at NGLA they found landforms which would allow them to use certain underlying principles.  They did not build 18 copies of holes abroad because the landscape wouldn't allow for it.  So instead they applied principles where they fit with the land.    That is why instead of 18 copies there are only three or four quasi-templates.  

The Cape at NGLA wasn't just placed anywhere.  Nor was the Cape at Mid-Ocean.   The Redan wasn't just placed anywhere on any of his courses that I know of.  In fact he specifically described the landform suited for a Redan in his article on it.  He looked at the land, and found places where the underlying concepts worked best.  For you to suggest otherwise is quite arrogant on your part, given that M&W both explained how they routed NGLA!   Just look at his description of Merion in the June 1910 letter, he singles out addition of the land behind the club house, even though there were almost 200 adjacent acres that were more available.   You think he didn't have some idea of what could be done with that land.   Preposterous.    He specifically mentions that great use could be made of the quarry.  Do you suppose he was plannning on flooding it for swimming, or could he have had golf holes in mind?   And what about the meandering creeks he mentioned.  By your understanding they shouldn't have mattered because he could just put his holes anywhere then define them with his bunkers.  

Yes some bunkers are characteristic to certain holes, and sometimes bunkers were used when the natural terrain did not provide something integral to the underlying strategic concept, but oftentimes the land itself provided all that is needed. To deny this is just crazy.


So, to suggest as I'm sure is coming in the second part of your essay, that many of the holes at Merion were placed on the ground during a half-day of looking over the property nine months prior to fit into some grand design of Macdonald's that no one ever recorded or reported is a fallacious theory on the face of it, and bears no relation to the fundamental truth that even by the time Macdonald designed his next course after NGLA at Sleepy Hollow, he not only turned the redan on it's head with a reverse redan, but created a steeply DOWNHILL one, as well.

As you often do, YOU MAKE MY POINT FOR ME.   CBM "turned the concept on its head" because that is what the site gave him!   The site dictated the hole, and not the other way around!  Same thing at Merion, which was CBM's first reverse redan.  The plateau went front left to back right and the steep drop was along the front right side, so a Reverse Redan concept was used, not a Redan concept. The LAND dictated the placement and characteristic of the hole.

And Mike, Just drop the half-day garbage.  That isn't my position nor is it a reasonable straw-man for you to keep throwing out there.  While he may have only been there for one day in June, he had all winter to contemplate the layout.  He commonly worked off of written plans on his other projects, so it is absurd to pretend he wouldn't have at Merion.  He also had two days with Wilson and his committee, and another day on site to come up with the final plan.   He had six more months than Wilson did, and he knew what he was doing.  He may have spent more time designing Merion than some of his other Raynor assisted projects.
 


To your other point, there is nothing inconsistent in my opinions, or in my contentions.   If Hugh Wilson had not planned the course originally, as well as routed it he would not have received the accolades that he did and the evidence shows that he did in fact do that.   But he also opened the course as a "rough draft" and updated it and evolved it, and modified it though the next twelve years, and that was noted in his achievements, as well.

You cannot have it both ways Mike.  Either many contributions -- laying out and building the course, updating it with final touches before it opened (after his trip), and continuing to do so after either justifies accolades, or it does not.   You cannot seriously suggest that the contribution after the trip is enough to justify great accolades, but just not those that he received.


That is where all of the evidence points, David.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3635 on: July 30, 2009, 12:50:36 AM »
Phillip,

PLEASE take this in the spirit that it is intended but I'd be much more inclined to listen to your advice if you ever bothered to call TEPaul out for what he is.   This is a perfect example.   TEPaul calls us "stupid" and our work "shit," denegrates us and tells the world he will do everything in his power to blackball us everywhere he can, and your response is to scold me once again for mentioning it.  I didn't call him a name didn't even address him.  I simply asked, where is the outrage?

Well here it is.  Laughably, you are apparently upset that I would even call attention to the fact that TEPaul is acting as he does once again.   Well Phillip, I've had it with your condescending lectures telling me how to behave.  I am not interested.

And Phillip, my posts contain relevant facts.  All of what you claim are insults are relevant facts, and probably the key facts that are behind all this nonsense.  That you would suggest that I don't mention them because Wayne's feelings might get hurt is preposterous.  As is your failure to call them out for what truly has been abhorrent treatment of the source material.  
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 01:35:03 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3636 on: July 30, 2009, 01:47:12 AM »
Back in the day, we used to get called to these bar room brawls (on a saturday night after the cowboys got paid - as TEP likes to add) and we'd just let 'em fight until they got tired, then haul the whole lot of'em in for disorderly conduct.  Trouble with these cyberbrawls is the sum'bitches never seem to get tired when all they're fightin with is their fingers over a key board.  Let there be blood'n guts'n and beer spilled.  We need to put'em all in a seedy tavern somewhere and let'em have at it with free drinks and smokes, and really loud music, until they engage and tucker out.  We'll need the paddy wagon an a big net.  A week on baloney samiches n water will shape'em up just fine cap'n. 
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3637 on: July 30, 2009, 01:55:55 AM »
Back in the day, we used to get called to these bar room brawls (on a saturday night after the cowboys got paid - as TEP likes to add) and we'd just let 'em fight until they got tired, then haul the whole lot of'em in for disorderly conduct.  Trouble with these cyberbrawls is the sum'bitches never seem to get tired when all they're fightin with is their fingers over a key board.  Let there be blood'n guts'n and beer spilled.  We need to put'em all in a seedy tavern somewhere and let'em have at it with free drinks and smokes, and really loud music, until they engage and tucker out.  We'll need the paddy wagon an a big net.  A week on baloney samiches n water will shape'em up just fine cap'n.  

RJ,

I'm done fighting.  Just trying to have a conversation.   What did you do when there was one extremely beligerent drunk in the bar who was taking pot shots at everyone else, without cause or justification?   Did you arrest the guy he hit for disorderly conduct?  Did it depend on who the drunk was?  
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3638 on: July 30, 2009, 02:05:22 AM »
Quote
What did you do when there was one extremely beligerent drunk in the bar who was taking pot shots at everyone else, without cause or justification?

I found most of the great bars with loyal clientele handled that without us, or before we got there, or had faith we'd figure it out.  After some lawyers got done with protecting belligerant drunks rights about early 70s, they invented this ritual we'd have to go through where the barkeep would have to recite infront of us that the belligerant guy is no longer welcome on the premises and the 'establishment' would sign a complaint to restrain the dude and then have him arrested for violating the order to stay out of the joint.  Most of those types were well known to us already because it was likely the 100th time we had to respond to such a belligerant's antics.  

Quote
Did you arrest the guy he hit for disorderly conduct?  Did it depend on who the drunk was?

sometimes, and sometimes...everthing depends... :P ::) ;) ;D
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 02:13:06 AM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3639 on: July 30, 2009, 08:22:15 AM »
Phil,

With all due respect, and with great admiration for your efforts at peacemaking, please show me the last post of mine that was insulting or mean-spirited, or doing anything but trying to actually talk about the evidence that's been presented.  

I even tried to lighten the mood using some satirical humor about MacWood and I going partying and dropping David and Tom at Weiskopf's house, but one would get a better reaction at a funeral I suppose than in this dead serious, dour place.  ;)

David,

Honest question...no negativity intended,,,

How many CB Macdonald courses have you played or seen?

I ask simply because your description of him as some sort of early minimalist just finding holes on the land differs sharply from the Macdonald whose courses I've seen and played where tremendous and obvious amounts of earth have been moved to construct the exact features he wanted for his concepts and templates.

George makes this point very clear in his book.  

The same goes for Raynor...please list courses of his you've seen or played.   You made the point earlier that Raynor would go out and then Macdonald would "fix" his routings based on contour maps, so I think the same points are relevant there, as well.

Honestly, David...you couldn't have surprised me more with your answer if you told me that Pete or P.B. Dye just find holes on the land.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 08:54:12 AM by MCirba »

Phil_the_Author

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3640 on: July 30, 2009, 08:53:43 AM »
Mike,

You asked me to "... please show me the last post of mine that was insulting or mean-spirited, or doing anything but trying to actually talk about the evidence that's been presented..."

Mike, let me state unequivocally and for everyone out here to see that I absolutely acknowledge that you have made a rather dramatic change in the tenor of your Merion posts especially by not saying anything that is insulting. You have made a concerted effort to change the directions of the discussion when things quite uncomplimentary have been said to you.

In that regard, so has Tom Macwood. He has maintained a civility for quite a while, this too in the face of some highly uncomplimentary things sent his way, that also has gone unnoticed and I think the two of you should be commended for it.

It is that spirit that I was hoping to see others begin exhibiting and that all (not just you four) could take it further and get us back to fun and educational discussions without any disparagement from one to another.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3641 on: July 30, 2009, 08:56:23 AM »
Thanks Phil...

As you pointed out earlier, sometimes we're the last one's to see our own negative, insulting, or reactionary behavior.

I had hoped that I was keeping things conversational, while still tough in debating points I feel strongly about.

I really appreciate your feedback and efforts to keep us all on the up and up here.

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3642 on: July 30, 2009, 09:42:28 AM »
From my perspective, it appears that Cirba, MacWood, Moriarty, and Paul are now all in basic agreement as to what happened during the early stages of Merion's creation. The argument now is down to when they all came to be on the same page, and it's a hell of an argument going on.
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Mike_Cirba

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3643 on: July 30, 2009, 09:42:58 AM »
George Bahto in his wonderful book, "The Evangelist of Golf"*, describes the routing process at NGLA as follows;

*as an aside, if you don't own this book, which is edited by our own Gib Papazian, you should go stop reading right now, exit out of this site, and just buy the book!  ;D  

http://www.amazon.com/Evangelist-Golf-Story-Charles-MacDonald/dp/1886947201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1248959823&sr=8-1

For those of you who already have the book, please open it and read along beginning on page 64;


"Macdonald and company purchased the tract in November of 1907*..." 

(*My Note - Macdonald secured an unspecified 205 acres of land out of the 400+ available in December of 1906, and it was noted at the time that he and his committee would be spending the next 3 months trying to lay out the course on the land (i.e. routing) followed by 2 months building plasticene, scale models of the holes prior to beginning construction.   Macdonald originally believed he would need approximately 110 acres for golf, but ended up using approximately 150-170 acres...Now, back to George's book.  ;) )

"C.B. next asked Henry Whigham and Walter Travis, each golf champions and course architects in their own right, to assist him in implementing his plan.   Though Travis soon bowed out of the project, C.B. and Whigham continued on with the assistance of Joseph P. Knapp.   Also closely involved were banker James Stillman, Devereux Emmett....and a few others"

"Using Raynor's survey maps and Macdonald's personal drawings as a guide, they forged ahead."

"Once cleared, the site was visually stirking.   Knolls, hills, and basins furnished the topography.   They also found natural ponds and uncovered a portion of Sebonac Creek which could be used for water hazards."

"Macdonald and company located fairly natural sites for a Redan and Eden, as well as a site for an Alps, requiring only a slight modification.   The location for a Sahara hole was selected, as well as spots for a few original Macdonald creations suggested by the terrain.   The routing of the course was beginning to take form, and although Macdonald later claimed the majority of the holes were on natural sites, in reality he manipulated a huge amount of soil."

"A number of strategic and aesthetic innovations took place at National, yet often overlooked is the seminal influence Macdonald and Raynor had on early course construction.   Macdonald was not afraid to move massive amounts of earth in order to achieve a desired artistic effect, and Raynor had the engineering skills to blend it all together."

"Macdonald eventually admitted to importing 10,000 truckloads of soil to recontour and sculpt areas to fit his diagrams.   A meticulous planner, Macdonald knew precisely what he was trying to achieve, and if he could not find an appropriate site, one would just have to be created!   It is true that natural sites were located for his Redan and Eden, but to build other replications to his exacting specifications required extensive movement and importing of soil.  Heavily influenced by this philosophy, Seth Raynor - and later Charles Banks - would later take earthmoving to new dimensions."



I have to ask...

Does this sound like a man who would create a plan for a golf course based on a one day visit to inspect the property in June 1910, followed by another site visit to help pick the best of five plans 10 months later?



« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 09:49:43 AM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3644 on: July 30, 2009, 09:54:52 AM »
Mike
The NGLA was not the only golf course CBM designed. If I were looking for an appropriate example to compare with Merion it would not be the NGLA, which was one of the most unique projects in golf history.

How much time did CBM spend at Sleepy Hollow or St. Louis or Old White - I think those comparisons would be more useful. Also, many golf architects at the time utilized topo maps when designing, which allowed them to be working on a project when not physically on site.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3645 on: July 30, 2009, 10:13:55 AM »
Mike
The NGLA was not the only golf course CBM designed. If I were looking for an appropriate example to compare with Merion it would not be the NGLA, which was one of the most unique projects in golf history.

How much time did CBM spend at Sleepy Hollow or St. Louis or Old White - I think those comparisons would be more useful. Also, many golf architects at the time utilized topo maps when designing, which allowed them to be working on a project when not physically on site.

Tom,

That's a good point, but again one needs to look at the timelines.   During the period that you guys are implying that Macdonald would be studiously working away on some topographical map of the Merion course, he was just then beginning to get his NGLA course open after four solid years of work, and he still had a ways to go.   We also know that the land boundaries for Merion weren't even determined until after December 1910, and the formal course routing planning took place over the next three and a half months.     

In 1910, Macdonald had his own hands very full, as is detailed in George's book;


"On July 2, 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was finally ready for a test run.   An informal Invitational Tournament was held for a select group of founders and friends invited to participate."

"A qualifying round was played on the first day, followed by two days of match play.  The course was still rough with temporary tee boxes, and a few bare spots on fairways and greens.   Macdonald was still altering and refining the course.  In fact, a new 9th (current 18th) green was already under construction before the course ever opened."

"...It was noted that the tournament served the purpose of revealing any design shortcoming that needed correcting.   All holes received high praise, except the Road Hole "which did not play as anticipated".   Apparently the corner hazard in the driving area was not what it would later become."


It's very clear that during the period in question, from June 1910 when Macdonald made a single-day site visit to Merion for his friend Rodman Griscom to report on the potential of the site for a golf course, until Merion actually purchased the land in December 1910, through what was reported as a tough winter, to the March visit of the committee to NGLA the second week in March 1911, followed by Macdonald's one-day visit in on April 6th, 1911 to help the committee pick the best of their five plans, that NGLA was still very much a work in progress and that Macdonald had his own hands very full.    It was very gracious on his part to help Merion in this way, and to ensure that they were following the correct principles, but to suggest he was designing Merion at the same time is completely incongruous to the way Macdonald worked.
  
Just as I pointed out earlier when we were told that Macdonald first laid out the course (I believe "roughly routed" was the term used) at NGLA  in 2-3 days on horseback, this was not the actual routing process at all, which actually took months and happened AFTER Seth Raynor was contracted to topographically survey the land in 1907.   Once again. we need to look at what was happening when.

The examples you're using...Greenbriar and St. Louis, both took place after Seth Raynor had been hired full-time by Macdonald, which was well after Merion.   Both were begun in 1912, well after NGLA was in full gear and Macdonald finally had some time to spread his game.

And in both of those cases, although Macdonald did not spend as much time onsite as he did at National, he left his own man, Seth Raynor onsite to act in his stead.

Who did he leave onsite at Merion?

« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 10:45:27 AM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3646 on: July 30, 2009, 10:21:13 AM »
“From my perspective, it appears that Cirba, MacWood, Moriarty, and Paul are now all in basic agreement as to what happened during the early stages of Merion's creation.”


JohnC:

Unfortunately it is probably important to come on here from time to time since one's words and opinons seemed to get miscontrued so quickly and easily. I can only speak for myself here but from my own perspective as to what happened during the early stages of Merion’s creation if the following statements are still someone’s opinions of what happened during the early stages of Merion’s creation, I am not in basic agreement at all; not even close. And I guess it still is someone's opinion since he said it again just yesterday. But who knows, maybe today is the day he finally saw The Truth and The Light even though he (they) seem to still be suggesting he (they) is still seeking more "facts." I have all the facts right here on my computer and if he (they) still feel there are more "facts" to seek I've told them repeatedly where they could find them---eg pretty much where they have always been!   ;)




“What I said was that Macdonald and Whigham came up with the routing and the hole concepts.”


“I've said many times that, based on the verifiable facts as I know them M&W were the major creative forces behind the routing and the hole concepts, although obviously Barker and Francis/Lloyd most likely played important roles as well. Surely Wilson contributed the the routing and hole concepts, but he appears to have been working with a preexisting course, and also was heavily reliant to M&W when it came to the layout.”  




My own opinion on what happened during the early stages of Merion's creation is exactly the way Merion recorded it back then----eg Wilson and his committee routed and designed Merion East with some help and advice from those two kindly gentlemen from NGLA, C.B. Macdonald and H.J Whigam.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 10:44:56 AM by TEPaul »

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3647 on: July 30, 2009, 10:44:52 AM »
Tom

With all due respect. There is not that much difference between the last paragraph above and the two that precede it.

At this point, everyone acknowledges that McDonald and Whigham had substantial influence. The balance of the argument has become a parsing of words, or "spin" so to speak
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Mike_Cirba

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3648 on: July 30, 2009, 10:48:20 AM »
John Cullum,

With all due respect, "advice" and "suggestions" are hardly synonymous with "design" and "routing", no matter how valuable, nor do they indicate authorship or authority.

One also does not "approve" of their own plan, nor do they create a plan remotely and then have to travel onsite to pick it out of five possibilities.  ;D

I would agree with your basic point that we're talking gradations to a degree (is that redundant? ;)), but we're also talking ultimate responsibility.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 10:50:26 AM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3649 on: July 30, 2009, 10:49:58 AM »
"Tom

With all due respect. There is not that much difference between the last paragraph above and the two that precede it.

At this point, everyone acknowledges that McDonald and Whigham had substantial influence. The balance of the argument has become a parsing of words, or "spin" so to speak."



JohnC:

Do you mean to say there is not much difference from your perspective between that last paragraph where I give my own opinion of what happened during that early stage of Merion's creation and the two statements quoted just above it?