[Bradley Anderson]

David,

Philadelphia is the most American city in America. See, there you go again. You really do not have a good sense of history.

[TEPaul]

"Be careful Bradley,  some around here won't take kindly if you call the great men of Merion "common."


“My goodness you are confused.  They were Philadelphians.”




It seems like David Moriarty’s true motivation in writing that fallacious and historically inaccurate essay is really beginning to show, doesn’t it? It never was about an interest to unravel some "puzzle" about Merion East, because there never has been any puzzle about Merion East. It was always about the fact that he (and his collaborator MacWood) was upset with some Philadelphians and this was their way of trying to show them up!  Unfortunately, that still is their primary motivation. This never really was about Merion.

[DMoriarty]

As to the question, "If not M&W, then who?", the obvious answer is "The Committee." 

Rich, take a look at Robert Lesley's statement, in the 1914 article announcing the courses:

The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman, R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.

It seems you must be assigning a hierarchy to those involved.  You say it was the Committee.  You acknowledge that M&W were advisors, but as I understand you, that is somehow a less significant roll that the Committee.  Why?   What else would they have been called, given that they weren't members and therefore not on the Committee?   

This is the best way to describe the design credit for many of today's great golf courses, including Portmarnock, Pine Valley, Dornoch (and as some of the recently presented evidence implies) NGLA.  There is always, of course, someone on any effective Committee who is the driving force:  Macdonald at NGLA, Sutherland at Dornoch, Pickeman at Portmarnock, Crump at Pine Valley. 

I agree that "BY COMMITTEE" is the best way to describe what happened at these courses, and the best way to describe what happened at Merion.  But we have a problem of semantics in that the small cap committee at Merion who did all this consisted of the large cap Committee of Merion Members plus two very important contributors who were not of the Committee. 

I fail to see the logic of elevating the Committee of members over the non-members.   

I don't know much about Dornoch, but if I understand your past posts correctly, Old Tom Morris was brought in and advised them on the layout, didn't he?     He wasn't a member was he? Or on any internal committee?     Yet he was certainly part of the the small cap committee of men who created Dornoch, wasn't he?

We have the word of the Committee at Merion that their driving force was Hugh Wilson.  That is enough evidence for me to think he deserves more of the design credit than anyone else.

We have no such thing.  At least not as far as the initial routing and hole concepts go.   We do have a statement of Alan Wilson which indicates that of the member's of Merion's site committee,  Wilson was the driving force.  But the statement focuses on much more than the initial concepts and placement.  Not only that but it indicates that  Hugh Wilson was responsible for what M&W were not.    I agree with this completely. 

[TEPaul]

"We have no such thing.  At least not as far as the initial routing and hole concepts go.   We do have a statement of Alan Wilson which indicates that of the member's of Merion's site committee,  Wilson was the driving force.  But the statement focuses on much more than the initial concepts and placement.  Not only that but it indicates that  Hugh Wilson was responsible for what M&W were not.    I agree with this completely."





We certainly do have such a thing. I call it the Wilson Committee report to the board meeting of April 19, 1911.

THE FACT is when you wrote your essay you did not even know that this report existed. Frankly either did we or Merion G.C. until less than a year ago (after your essay came out). Wayne Morrision found it and it appears it had been at MCC for about a century with no Merion G.C. historian ever referring to it.

THAT report confirms from the Wilson Committee itself that THEY did numerous different courses and then five different plans (routings and designs).

You know David Moriarty, you try to talk to me about a joke. The biggest joke of all is anything and everything that we produce that refutes that totally fallacious essay of yours you just ignore or rationalize away as a mistake and no fact.

Things like that Wilson report is A FACT and it can't be ignored, and either can that 4/19/1911 board meeting and Thompson Resolution that CLEARLY is asking for board approval of the Francis fix on the last five holes. That you actually think anyone isn't going to notice how you constantly ignore everything or try to rationalize it away that doesn't suit your fallacious essay is the biggest joke of all. 

The more we have looked into this era of Merion the more we realize the entire thing is remarkably well documented by MCC and Merion for a course that old.

[DMoriarty]

As I said, we have NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that Wilson was the one in the main responsible for the initial routing.

Of course he was involved in tweaking the routing and working out the details, but I've seen no evidence that he initially chose the routing or the original hole concepts.   

Some have suggested that the Meeting Minutes establish that Wilson and his committee did this, but who knows what the minutes actually say?   Not me, and not anyone whose opinion has been at all reliable on these matters.

Plus, even these supposed minutes  establish that Wilson and his committee came up with their five variations AFTER spending two days discussing CBM'S "plans" and after CBM had taught them what they should do with their natural features.    So even the minutes make it sound like these variations were driven by CBM's plans.   This is corroborated by the supposed minutes themselves.  After the committee spent a few weeks implimenting CBM's ideas and working out the details, CBM returned to make sure they got it right, and determined the final layout plan.
 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Yet again, you unleash a torrent of preposterous assumptions.

There is not a single contemporaneous suggestion that Macdonald had anything to do with the design of a single tee, fairway, bunker, or green on the original Merion course.

Out of 858 days, Macdonald was there for one day to look at the land they were thinking of buying and filed an one page feasibility study and then again TEN MONTHS later to help them pick out the best of the five plans they created.

Its called advising and its something Merion has forever given him credit for.

Why, if it took him THREE MONTHS ONSITE to lay out NGLA, do you think he either could or would do it in less than a day at Merion?

Its beynd absurdity.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, 

So where again is the VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that Wilson was the one in the main responsible for the initial routing?   You do know what verifiable means don't you?   

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Are you talking about the MCC minutes?

I have no control over that and I've told you since this whole topic resurfaced with the Findlay article that I've felt you are at an unfair disadvantage debating these issues without that resource.

I don't know what else to say about that.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

So far about the only thing I can figure about those minutes is that if you present something from the minutes, we can be sure you have misunderstood it or are otherwise misrepresenting it. 

That is why if you cannot verify as fact what you are claiming is fact, then you really ought not say anything at all.   

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

The only thing I've ever done here related to the minutes is repeat exact quotes that have already been put on here prior by Tom and offered what I think they mean and how they read.

If you have a different interpretation of the meaning of those direct quotes then by all means, let's hear it, because I don't recall you weighing in at all yet with what I'm certain will be a very interpretive reading.

[TEPaul]

"That is why if you cannot verify as fact what you are claiming is fact, then you really ought not say anything at all."


David Moriarty:


I can't verify as fact a lot of what you're claiming as fact either. Maybe you too then ought not say anything at all.

I've asked you a number of times to tell all of us what fact or evidence at all you have for putting Richard Francis out there in 1910 working on a routing and design plan months before he was appointed to the Wilson Committee other than what YOU THINK he meant in one small part of his story?? 

Can you give us any other actual fact about that other than YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he meant by that 130X190 yard dimension??

Did Francis ever say he was out there routing and designing at any time in 1910? Did anyone ELSE ever say anything like that or even imply it??

If not then what the hell are you USING as the FACT to support that kind of contention??

We're all ears about that but from past experience something tells me you will just ignore this too or try to rationalize it away somehow.

Can't say I blame you because there IS NO FACT putting Francis out there in 1910 routing and designing the course before he was appointed to the Wilson Committee. I'm pretty sure you always knew that too but apparently you just thought no reason not to say it and claim it because perhaps noone will notice!   

[DMoriarty]

David,

The only thing I've ever done here related to the minutes is repeat exact quotes that have already been put on here prior by Tom and offered what I think they mean and how they read.

What you think the documents mean is entirely worthless unless others are able to examine the basis for your interpretations, and that is not the case here.  In other words, I don't care what you think if you cannot back it up, and you can't.   

If you have a different interpretation of the meaning of those direct quotes then by all means, let's hear it, because I don't recall you weighing in at all yet with what I'm certain will be a very interpretive reading.

 

You are joking right?  You want me to offer my interpretation of alleged fragments from documents that are being hidden from me?  I am pretty good, but that is pushing it a bit, don't you think?     Although come to think of it, I have understood the MCC documents better than you guys even without seeing them.  Still though, it is absurd to offer your theories without backing them up and it is absurd to demand any of us have a conversation under these conditions.

You guys seem to be having trouble with the concept of factual analysis, in that you don't appear to understand either the FACT part or the ANALYSIS part.

Take my Francis land swap theory, for example.   I have a certain understanding of documents and information that is readily available to all of us, and I have drawn conclusions based on that understanding.   You are free to challenge my understanding, challenge the validity of my conclusions, offer your own alternative theories, or otherwise vet BOTH the documents and information.   Agree with me or not, it would be foolish to claim that I had not supported my analysis with the facts or that I have not made all such facts readily available to all comers. 

In contrast, you guys just tell us what you think the MCC documents mean, and you never allow the information to be vetted.   Sure you guys occasionally release a specially selected fragment, but that too is meaningless because it is out of context and begs the question of what isn't being released. 

Plus Mike, you guys have terrible track record on these subjects, going back years.   Think of everything you and Tom have gotten wrong in this thread alone!   I'd have to be an idiot to take your words for anything.   

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I've been wrong on a number of things here.   No shame in that.   Some of this is going to be conjecture, and testing, and vetting, and all of this discussion is based on the shreds of history left to us from 100 years ago and we constantly reassess and reevaluate as new material surfaces and new ideas and theories come to light.

You've been wrong too, in many of your assertions.

The only difference between us is that I will be honest enough to admit it.

I've also admitted that I've learned quite a bit about Merion from your paper and the associated threads.   I can admit that too.

You've also introduced lots of interesting facts.

I just think you're whole premise is wrong so you can't help but come to erroneous conclusions.


p.s.  Speaking of facts, can you tell us the source of the early 1912 article that says almost all the holes will be based on famous holes?   Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

I've been wrong plenty, Mike,  you guys just don't notice because I accept what I learn and move on with my life.   Also, I don't make such a fool out of myself regarding things about which I could be wrong.  Every step of the way you have been outraged and personally offended that I could even suggest what I have suggested, and most of the time you have been absolutely wrong.    Take a look at how you went on and on about the map, how it was a legally legal document made by legally legal licensed surveyors and that I knew that it was good in court . . . false advertising . . . etc.   Once you were proven wrong you didn't lose a step but instead launched right into the same routine, only now the document is toilet paper, completely worthless, no one can use it for anything, etc.    You are wrong again.   

But that is not the point.   
I NEVER ASK YOU TO TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING, even though I have a pretty solid track record.  I explain my analysis and provide the basis, so if I am wrong, I give you every possible avenue to prove me wrong.

YOU GUYS DEMAND THAT WE SIMPLY TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT, even though you are just about always wrong.

But that is the way these things go; it is the ones who are wrong are the one's who wont risk being proven wrong.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok...so we're both wrong.   Some common ground, at last!

Now at least we're getting somewhere! 

[TEPaul]

"You are joking right?  You want me to offer my interpretation of alleged fragments from documents that are being hidden from me?  I am pretty good, but that is pushing it a bit, don't you think?     Although come to think of it, I have understood the MCC documents better than you guys even without seeing them.  Still though, it is absurd to offer your theories without backing them up and it is absurd to demand any of us have a conversation under these conditions."


David Moriarty:

I find it hard to believe even you would say something that ridiculously arrogant. You're 'pretty good' at analyzing this material?? You just might be the worst at it this website has ever seen.

And I'm certainly not DEMANDING that you accept my opinion on anything. If you don't want to consider my opinion on the material I have on Merion believe me I couldn't possibly care less. The only thing that can be assured here is you're never going to get anything from me with your petty, pompous and constantly complaining attitude that can never do more than blame us for everything you failed at. You really are like a five year old but what else can you do at this point since we have virtually shown everyone else how fallacious that essay is. At Merion itself any interest or crediblity in your essay only lasted about a day. The only one who seems to be remotely in your corner, at this point, is Pat Mucci and his opinions on Merion's history don't matter a jot anyway. He hasn't gone after a single detail to do with Merion on his own and it shows in spades; always has. Like you, all he seems to care about is arguing with people. 


And how about you try answering the question about what FACT you've ever had that Francis was out there in 1910? It's getting a bit transparent that you keep avoiding that one, don't you think? 


Again, as far as the measurements on the Johnson land's old border and Golf House Road as it relates to the Francis land swap we are going to get a professional surveyor to do that. Do you have a problem with that and are you going to claim THEY are mistaken or engaging in hyperbole TOO?   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,  if we can change your mind, anything is possible!

But how'd you come down on the original 3rd was a Redan discussion? 

I've always felt that # 3 was an attempt to design a hole with redan qualities.  

I seem to recall discussing it with you, and I don't think we were patting each other on the back in agreement . . . yet when you were demanding apologies yesterday I don't recall seeing your name on the list . . . .

I think you're confusing me with Mike Cirba.
Mike has always maintained that # 11 at LACC North is a redan, yet, he's in denial regarding # 3 at Merion being a redan.
Look at the two holes and tell me which one more closely resembles a redan

My memory must be going I guess. 

Could be !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Would you listen to the advice of a Sex Counselor who had NEVER had sex ?

Remember, they're circa 1909-1910, not today with instantaneous electronic communication


By your theory, he wouldn't have had to go to Prestwick in order to build an "Alps" hole either.

How did his attempt at an "Alps" work out ?

Everyone seems to view the attempts to design and construct holes in 1909 in a 2009 context, where we have the benefit of a hundred years of hindsight, an overwhelming body of physical evidence and an abundance of photographic and electronic information.

Wilson's original 10th hole was a horrendous attempt at replicating an "Alps"
Had he spent a week at Prestwick studying # 17, I believe his efforts would have been vastly improved.

No one has to spend time studying anything, however, if you want a quality product, investing in one's education is the foundation for success.

Pat

Since you are so obsessed by sex today, here's some evidence that at least one seemingly respected celibate believes he is qualified to do sex counselling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8049853.stm

As for Merion's "Alps" hole (NLE), none of us have played it and most of us (seemingly including you) seem to think that the pictures of it we have seen are hideous. 

You call it Hugh Wilson's hole, and yet I thought that Macdonald designed Merion. 
Am I as confused as you seem to be?

There's no confusion at all.
In addition to the photos, contemporary criticisms indicated that Wilson's attempt at an "Alps" was sorely lacking.
Noone doubts that Wilson constructed the holes on the golf course, do they ?

Could you cite for me, where I stated that CBM designed Merion ?

Rich

PS--Mr. Anderson is on a roll today.  He is right that NGLA's "Alps" is at best a pale and inferior intimation of the 17th at Prestwick.

You're both far, far, far off the mark, # 3 at NGLA is so far superior to # 17 at Prestwick that they're not in the same architectural universe.


PPS--now how about the guy who designed/found the original Alps hole (Old Tom Morris). 
Who advised him on how to do that? 
How did he ever manage to build a design career without help from CBM?
It's a good question.
Mother Nature might have played a part in the discovery
[/quote]

[henrye]

The only one who seems to be remotely in your corner, at this point, is Pat Mucci and his opinions on Merion's history don't matter a jot anyway.

Tom, trust you understand that just because others aren't firmly in David's corner, there are a number who more than remotely believe there is more to MacDonald's involvement.  Regardless of your critique, David's arguments are persuasive.

I respect that you and Wayne are attempting to assist Merion and I suspect their historian is highly interested in the outcome of the information that you or others uncover.  While you have treated many of the historical documents as privileged, do any of you intend to disclose any further information about MacDonald's early involvement in the course based on what you uncover?  Are there many more documents to review at MCC about the early move to Admore?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

David has a legitimate point, several in fact.

One is, why are you waiting for a surveyor to produce a report prior to giving Bryan the Metes and Bounds he's requested from you innumerable times ?

Why are you withholding that information ?

The second point is, when one party reviews a document that the other party isn't privy to,  and the first party makes statements that are allegedly supported by that document, the second party ISN'T out of line to request that they get to review that document.

The third point is, you keep telling David how wrong his treatise is, yet, you admit that neither David, you, Wayno or Merion had seen relevant documents prior to the release of David's opinion piece.

The fourth point is, David's being denied "discovery" or due diligence.
I know it's a touch subject, yet, MCC can't hold the documents in too high a regard since they kept the up in an attic for 100 years collecting dust.

So much more is known about Merion's early history THANKS to David's opinion piece, yet, you, Wayno and Mike have done nothing but trash it from day one.

I have no doubt that more interesting information could be presented if access were granted to "independent" researchers.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I think we all need to quit pretending that this has anything to do with the privacy of these clubs.  This is nothing but TEPaul's unbridled arrogance and insecurity.  He has proven repeatedly that he can do whatever he wants with these documents, by doing whatever he wants.  The most recent examples are
1.  His refusal to turn over even publicly recorded documents, and
2) The absurd demands he has made on me for access to these documents.
3) His continued dissemination of selected fragments he think will help his argument. 

He and Wayne are calling the shots on these documents, and that is the way it has always been. They are just using Merion as a scapegoat to justify their abhorrent behavior.   

As far as I am concerned, the only legitimate reason for keeping this information from us is if MCC has specifically requested it not be revealed in public.   Both TEPaul and Wayne have repeatedly proven that this is not the case.   

They are just playing games, same as they always have. 

Ask Tom what his recent ultimatums and threats have to do with Merion's privacy interests in the documents?   Ask him what his piecemeal distribution has to do with their interests. 

Nothing of course, because it is up to TEPaul and Wayne.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob Crosby's post #34 was articulate and thoughtful. Only David M referenced it. But, as David did in another thread, he links hole concepts with hole placements -- and, as I mentioned to him in another thread, I think that link is a tenuous one.

David writes: "If I understand you correctly, you [all] think Wilson was trying to incorporate the underlying principles of the holes abroad into Merion even before he had seen the holes abroad.  I agree.   But my question is, who originally came up with the hole concepts and their placement?"   

That part of CBM's advice to Wilson involved talking to him about the great holes he had seen in the UK and about how CBM had fitted some of those holes (i.e. the principles behind those holes) into NGLA - this seems clear to me.

But I just don't see how -- from that -- we can extend/link the claim for CBM's role to include the "placement" of these holes (i.e. the principles behind those holes) at Merion. 

But this has all been covered before, and is at the heart of the disagreement I guess.

Peter

[DMoriarty]

That part of CBM's advice to Wilson involved talking to him about the great holes he had seen in the UK and about how CBM had fitted some of those holes (i.e. the principles behind those holes) into NGLA - this seems clear to me.

But I just don't see how -- from that -- we can extend/link the claim for CBM's role to include the "placement" of these holes (i.e. the principles behind those holes) at Merion. 

According to Hugh Wilson, M&W taught them how to apply the classic principles to Merion's land. 

At this point, M&W had already seen the land, and they almost certainly had topos.   What else could they have been talking about except for where to put the holes?  Plus, they went over CBM's "plans." 

[Mike_Cirba]

Yes, David...CBM's "plans" for NGLA.

How in the world can you say that he had a "plan" for Merion when all he had ever done prior to that day was visit the Merion site which at the time was unpurchased and unmapped for a single day in June 1910 and now it was the second week of March in 1911, a full TEN MONTHS LATER and the Merion gang, who had been out on the property creating their own plans for several months, came a-calling?

We know Macdonald took 3 months working onsite every day "laying out" NGLA and another 2 months on plasticene models before even attempting construction.

How in the hell would he have a plan for Merion?   If he had, why did no one mention it, ever?

Also David, perhaps you should stick to quotes.

Hugh WIlson never said that M&W "taught them how to apply the classic principles to Merion's land".   Your paraphrasing puts an entirely unintended spin on things.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Here's the ironic part in all of this...

Charles B. Macdonald was a pioneer and a giant, largely because he eschewed all of the nonsense that passed itself off as golf course design with few notable exceptions in America at that time.

Up until then, most clubs thought they could get a golf course laid out in a single day by a Dunn, or Bendelow, or Mungo Park, or a Campbell, or any number of English and Scottish professionals who were the supposed "experts".

I believe that Macdonald would have told Merion that if they wanted a great course, they weren't going to get it with the single-day routing that HH Barker "worked" on for probably an hour or so.

He took things in a new direction.   Much like other early pioneers like Leeds was doing at Myopia, or Emmett and then Travis were doing at Garden City, or Wendeler was doing at Brookline, and Fownes at Oakmont, or Ross at Pinehurst, he was taking a different direction that was all about excellence, and actually finding and building the golf course in the dirt, and attention to details...not about some half-assed job meant to just build some type of thing passing for golf.

Yet this is exactly what you're essay is suggesting he did at Merion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()