[henrye]

Henry E,

The only documented visits of M&W to Merion were June, 1910, and April 6th, 1911.

If they were there more often, no internal club records or contemporaneous news accounts  reflect those events.

Thanks Mike.  That is my understanding as well.  It's just that you and Tom Paul have been so definitive on this issue, I thought you may have had more on it.

[TEPaul]

"I am not asking Merion to look at David Moriarty's essay or even consider rewriting their entire history - that is indeed a touchy matter that needs to be approached with caution, if anything good is going to come of it."


Ulrich:

Merion did look at that essay over a year ago and to say they were completely unimpressed would be something of an understatement. They definitely don't need to rewrite there history and the irony is there history of what Macdonald/Whigam did for them back then has ALWAYS been part of their history although apparently MacWood and Moriarty didn't know that when these ridiculous Merion/Macdonald threads on here began.

The 1912 trip will be included in their history and as I said earlier it will probably even have something of a back story to it because for quite a while it was the rumor there that Wilson almost went down on the Titanic which of course he almost did.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Tom, are you saying that Merion has been aware of this error in their website history for more than a year? Or do you mean there is no connection between the persons who were looking at the essay and the ones writing the website history?

Whatever the reason, if they don't fix it, they might lose credibility. Strike that, they will. Again, I am not talking about CBM's involvement in the design of Merion or any of the other possibly contentious points in the essay. I am talking about the Wilson trip, the facts of which everyone seems to agree on. Is there really so little interest at Merion how they present themselves and their history to the outside world?

Ulrich

[TEPaul]

Ulrich:

Merion has a couple of really effective historians and one of the best and most organized archives I've ever seen but let's just say they probably aren't quite so fixated on those kinds of things on their website as some of the participants of this website are. I don't think Merion G.C. is worried about losing credibility, nor should they be! They may even be vaguely aware that there are some real loonies this way out there somewhere like MacWood and Moriarty but I'm pretty sure they aren't concerned about them or what they think of Merion's credibility!

[Ulrich Mayring]

Well, do you suppose the mainstream media will, while researching for the 2013 US Open, go to Merion's undoubtedly fine historians and ask to be shown round the archive?

I think they will not sit down and thumb through dusty files on-site, rather they will just look at the website and use whatever they find there. And that will make for a loss of credibility on Merion's part. Not necessarily what David Moriarty publishes, but what Merion themselves publish.

Ulrich

[TEPaul]

Ulrich:

Honestly, in the broad scheme of things the fact that Wilson went abroad in 1912 and not 1910 does not have much effect or influence on anything that actually happened at Merion in 1910 and 1911. Of course since Moriarty documented that 1912 trip he has used the difference between the 1912 trip and the reported 1910 trip to virtually try to convince everyone that things could not have happened back in 1911 for Wilson the way they actually did happen.

Both he and his fallacious essay stretches the logic all the way to trying to conclude that Wilson was not actually in the main responsible for the architecture of the East course as everyone surrounding Merion back then always said he was.

Honestly Ulrich, it really doesn't matter because we all know now it not only doesn't matter but we also now know exactly why it doesn't matter. Merion's own records, including some that haven't been seen for almost a century, tell us why it doesn't matter at all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ulrich:

Merion has a couple of really effective historians and one of the best and most organized archives I've ever seen

but let's just say they probably aren't quite so fixated on those kinds of things on their website


TEPaul, the above two statements are in direct conflict with one another.
How do you reconcile that ?

as some of the participants of this website are. 

I don't think Merion G.C. is worried about losing credibility, nor should they be!

They may even be vaguely aware that there are some real loonies this way out there somewhere like MacWood and Moriarty but I'm pretty sure they aren't concerned about them or what they think of Merion's credibility!

I don't know what the answer or facts are, but, David has put forth a reasonable question relating to the date of the land swap and Wilson's involvement.

As David indicated, a routing was done that incorporated 13 holes.
The land swap allowed Merion to design/construct the remaining 5 holes.
If the land swap was done prior to Wilson coming on board and steering the committee, then it HAD to be someone else's routing, NOT Wilson's.

I don't think anyone can question/deny the logic of the above paragraph.

Hence, the date of the land swap and the date that Wilson comes on board/steers the committee are vital dates.

Does anyone disagree with that ?

David, did I state your case correctly ?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  that is one of my theories, yes.   

But we now have many additional reasons to think that there was a plan in place before Wilson even began on the project.  The Ag letters, for example.  From the very beginning of the Ag letters, Wilson repeated offers to show Oakley the course, and the "contour map" Wilson sent Oakley was actually a blueprint of the course. 

[JESII]

I disagree Patrick, only to the extent that proving Wilson was not involved in early to mid-1910 at least casually would be near impossible...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ulrich,

Merion's records also told us that Wilson went to the UK prior to 1912.

So, you tell me, should we automatically accept Merion's records as an infallible source regarding their history ?

I'm also not so sure that those on this site speak for Merion.

I don't know where the "search" will lead, but, If I were a member of a club I'd want the factual history to be revealed, irrespective of whether it confirms or denies the previously accepted history of the club.

What I really don't understand is the following:

IF M&W's involvement turned out to be expanded, SO WHAT ?
I would think it would be accepted with open arms.

Everyone accepts that Wilson built and fine tuned the golf course.

If M&W played a greater part in the routing and design of Merion, that's just another feather in Merion's
cap.  It doesn't detract from the greatness of the golf course.

AND, if M&W DIDN'T play a greater part, SO WHAT ?

It doesn't detract from the greatness of the golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I disagree Patrick, only to the extent that proving Wilson was not involved in early to mid-1910 at least casually would be near impossible...

Jim,

I don't know what you disagree with since I've taken NO POSITION.

I merely stated what I believed was one of David Moriarty's points, which David subsequently confirmed.

[DMoriarty]

I disagree Patrick, only to the extent that proving Wilson was not involved in early to mid-1910 at least casually would be near impossible...

Proving something didn't happen is often nearly impossible.  But at some point we have to ask ourselves, what it the proof that it did happen?   A number of sources, including Hugh Wilson himself, tell us that he was not involved until early 1911.   So on what basis should we assume he was involved earlier?

[Mike_Cirba]

Ulrich,

Merion's records also told us that Wilson went to the UK prior to 1912.

So, you tell me, should we automatically accept Merion's records as an infallible source regarding their history ?

I'm also not so sure that those on this site speak for Merion.

I don't know where the "search" will lead, but, If I were a member of a club I'd want the factual history to be revealed, irrespective of whether it confirms or denies the previously accepted history of the club.

What I really don't understand is the following:

IF M&W's involvement turned out to be expanded, SO WHAT ?
I would think it would be accepted with open arms.

Everyone accepts that Wilson built and fine tuned the golf course.

If M&W played a greater part in the routing and design of Merion, that's just another feather in Merion's
cap.  It doesn't detract from the greatness of the golf course.

AND, if M&W DIDN'T play a greater part, SO WHAT ?

It doesn't detract from the greatness of the golf course.

Patrick,

Honestly, how can you write such horseshit and then have spent the past week trying to hide the true history of NGLA? 

Joe Bausch, a decent and fair and impartial guy if I ever met one, just put out a bunch of historical information he uncovered about NGLA without any political commentary or slant and you blasted him as "playing a game".

He's done the same about Merion...wasn't he the guy who published the Findlay article that said something David felt indicated Mac's further involvement in the layout, and wasn't he the guy who published the article that had Tillinghast talking to Macdonald about Merion.

Yet, when it comes to the history of NGLA, which reveals the true story isn't exactlly like the myth guys like you and David tried to propagate, you try to shut him up and stifle debate.

Your hypocrisy on this issue is staggering, and I'm not sure what you're afraid will be revealed.

In any case, I think you owe Joe a big apology, because he's been one of this websites shining stars in recent years, and one of the few, frankly.

[JESII]

Patrick,

Two posts earlier you asked if anyone disagrees with the timing of the Francis Land Swap and Wilson's appointment being a linchpin to Wilson's ultimate responsibilities/credit...I answered accordingly.

David,

You are certainly correct, but to me it seems unlikely that he was not involved in the least until he became chairman of a committee to build the course. Please don't accuse me of throwing him under the bus, I just think there are too many inconsistencies across all the different remembrances to not make some presumptions...no facts, just my opinion.

[Peter Pallotta]

David - while I've struggled with understanding even a little bit of the land-swap details, I've been thinking about what I've been reading the last few days in more general terms, and about what your position/theory is in a larger sense/context. So:

The theory is that, IF the land-swap happened BEFORE Wilson and the Committee were appointed in the first part of 1911, Wilson and the Committee could NOT have been the driving force behind either the routing/placement of holes or the hole concepts (with 'hole concepts' referring to the principles behind the great holes/concepts of British golf, as espoused and promoted by CBM). Is that correct? Is that the theory? 

And if that IS the theory, is the 2nd part of the theory that, instead of Wilson and the Committee, the proper credit for the routing and hole concepts should go to EITHER Barker OR to CBM/Whigham.  Is that correct? Is that the 2nd part of the theory?

And if that IS the 2nd part of the theory, is the 3rd part of the theory that either Barker or CBM/Whigham laid out/proposed the routing AND the hole concepts BEFORE the beginning of 1911, i.e. in 1910. Is that correct? Is that the 3rd part of the theory?

And if that IS the 3rd part of the theory, is the 4th part (Subsection A) of the theory that BARKER was the kind of architect who could have and would have laid out/proposed BOTH the hole placements/routings AND the hole concepts (i.e. the principles behind the great holes/concepts of British golf, as espoused by CBM), in 1910.  Is that correct?

OR

Is the 4th part (Subsection B) of the theory that CBM/WHIGHAM laid out/proposed BOTH the hole placements/routings AND the hole concepts in 1910, and BEFORE the land-swap. Is that correct?

Can I assume that the 4th Part (Subsection B) is the more PLAUSIBLE version of the theory? (I'd imagine so, since all the attention we paid to the probability that Wilson did not visit the UK until 1912 was based on the belief that only someone intimately familiar with the principles behind the great holes/concepts of British golf, as espoused and promoted by CBM, could've design Merion).

If that IS the more plausible version, is the 5th part of the theory that this CBM/Whigham routing and hole concept is referenced -- and, as far as we know at this point, only referenced -- in that CBM LETTER to Merion that gives his hole-by-hole breakdown of a proposed 6,000 yard course. Is that correct?

If that IS the 5th part of the theory, is the 6th part of the theory that this proposed 6,000 yard course in NOT just a boiler-plate breakdown of the standard lengths on a per-hole basis for a standard 6,000 yard course, BUT INSTEAD is the the course that CBM envisioned (routing AND hole concepts) at Merion? Is that correct?

And if that IS the 6th part of the theory, is the 7th part of the theory that this 6,000 yard  course (routing and hole concepts) that CBM envisioned is what PRECIPITATED the land-swap?   Is that correct?

You may feel like you have covered all this ground many times before, and if you do feel that way and decide not to answer the post at all or point by point, that's okay - I'll understand. And maybe this isn't the thread for this kind of re-cap. But this is what I could cull from all the many posts over many different threads over the months, and I have to admit I'm curious to see if I've got the theory basically right.

Peter 

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter,

Without wanting to reply for David, I'd just add section 102ZC, which says that any length course that Merion might have built or measured at any time during their history is suddenly null and void and automatically adds up to the mythical 6,000 yard sporty course envisioned by Macdonald because during those days everyone, including professional land surveyors like Francis, measured it wrong.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'd also ask David again what was so special about One Day Wonder Herbert Barker who was able to route Merion in one day that couldn't be duplicated by Macdonald and Whigham, who seemed perplexed by the exercise.

Why do you think they needed a topo map, David?

You're the one who said they needed a topo to design the course, although they never made that claim.

Why weren't they as talented as Barker at this type of same day service, do you think?   What in heaven's name were they going to do with a topo that they couldn't do while out walking around the land??   

If they were asked to route the Merion course like Connell asked Barker during his single day visit, why couldn't Macdonald and Whigham pull it off?   

Did Merion bring in the wrong guys?

What couldn't they see with their very own eyes walking the property that you think they were miraculously going to find on a map?

Perhaps they were going to roll it up and smoke it?

Honestly David...this is a serious question.

You say they were "a topo map away from designing the course", so what do you mean?   What were they going to do with the map that they couldn't achieve out on the property??

[DMoriarty]

Peter, 

You don't have the theory right in any part.   Try the above description if you don't understand the theory about the landswap.  Or see the essay.   Thanks. 

I'd love to hear your version of what you think TEPaul's theory is at this point.

________________________


Mike,

1. Another about face?    A few days ago you went after M&W for phoning it in, now you go at them for not phoning it in?   Foolish. 

2. Rather than rail at me about my claims regarding the early measures of Merion, check them out.   Because again you are wrong.   

3. I did not say "they were 'a topo map away from designing the course.'"

What I wrote was:

"In short, in June of 1910, M&W knew what the specifics of what the land had to offer, and they were a contour map away of routing their suggested holes to see for sure if the holes fit on Merion's land.    Yet you assume that once a contour map was created that M&W would have confined themselves to a general academic discussion of the great principles?   I don't buy it and think the evidence cuts against it."

And I mean exactly that. 

[Rich Goodale]

Peter

I must say that your understanding of the "Theory" as expressed by David is very close to mine, which is why ultimately I do not find it credible.

David

Please tell us where Peter is wrong on each or any of his parts.  You have certainly not to date provided sufficient evidence that I am aware of which would lead to signficantly different conclusions than what Peter has concluded.

Thanks in advance to each of you

Rich

[Niall C]

Niall,

Not sure what your understanding of what happened is based upon.   Could it be that you are still giving credence to the old Merion legend that CBM instructed Wilson in the general principles of golf course design when Wilson was preparing for his overseas trip?  Because that has been discredited, and I see no factual support for your speculation that CBM's advice was of a general nature.   

Yet your example portrays a situation where any advice given was extremely general . . .

Let me explain my thinking, as an example when Tom Doak was at University he was no doubt taught the principles of landscape architecture and maybe even something on golf course design. If his lecturer one day gave him an exercise in designing a course or part of course on a given piece of ground based on what he had been taught, and he then did so, presenting his design to the lecturer who marked it accordingly. Who would you say had done the design ? Presumably Doak or else his lecturer would still be getting joint design credit for all Tom's courses.

You might have a point had CBM been uninvolved in this project and unfamiliar with the specific details and possibilities of the land at Merion, but this was hardly the case. Contrary to your example of a disconnect university professor, CBM was involved and was very familiar with the specifics at Merion:

1.  Merion brought him in to inspect the specific property and to determine if it would support a first class golf course, and long before Wilson ever became involved:
  -   M&W had already inspected the land and had considered whether a first class course could fit on the property.
  -  They had also already considered using the best natural features for such a course, including the quarry and the streams.
  -  They had also considered that artifical mounds could be built to make up for the lack of those on the property.   
  -  They had specifically considered using the land behind the clubhouse for the golf course, and suggested that it was necessary if a first class course would fit. This even though this land was not even being offered to Merion!

In short, in June of 1910, M&W knew what the specifics of what the land had to offer, and they were a contour map away of routing their suggested holes to see for sure if the holes fit on Merion's land.    Yet you assume that once a contour map was created that M&W would have confined themselves to a general academic discussion of the great principles?   I don't buy it and think the evidence cuts against it.   

Not only that, but this is largely how CBM worked.  According to Bahto (and to H.J. Whigham,) once Macdonald figured out what he wanted to do, he would let Raynor work out the details, and would edit Raynor's plans off site, at NGLA.    He was even more involved at Merion, where he went back to the site and reexamined the land before he determined the final layout plan. 

Add this to these numerous facts above, and I just don't have any idea why you or anyone else thinks that CBM's was just providing general and background information.   

I've outlined my reasons for thinking the advice was of a very specific nature, in the post above and in this one.  What makes you think that CBM's teachings were of a general nature?  Was is your FACTUAL basis for so assuming?

Thanks. 

David,

Having never been to Merion or indeed Philadelphia, and having only limited golfiing experience in the US, I was not really too much aware of Merion let alone its creation until I came on this website. Merions own website gives credit to Wilson and I think I am right in saying that contemporary accounts largely agree with this assessment. That being the case I have started from the basis that it is for you to prove otherwise which is what you have endeavoured to do with your essay. The point I have been trying to clarify in my last two posts is whether M&W gave general advice or actually came up with any of the design of Merion. For me at least, that is the crucial point. And again I would respectively suggest that it is for you to prove your case.

You have cited M&W's visit to Merion and their giving a view on the suitability of the land for a golf course as evidence as to M&W's part in the design. Again an affirmative comment on the general suitability of the site doesn't prove your point to me. Off the top of my head I think the only letter posted here from MacDonald gives general advice on ideal hole lengths and suggest Merion get in touch with certain experts on agronomy. To my mind the existence of that letter weakens your case as if M&W were respoinsible for the design there advice would surely have been more specific. I guess what I'm looking for is either plans prepared by MacDonald, or related correspondence from him.

You suggest that because a contour map was produced that it is implausible that M&W wouldn't have used that to do a routing. Again I just can't make that assumption and would need proof that they did do a routing plan. Two reasons why I am unconvinced (other than lack of documentary evidence) that M&W didn't do a routing is firstly the visit to NGLA and various routing plans that the Wilson committee produced subsequent to their visit. Firstly, if the design team were having a get together to discuss M&W's plans for Merion, why have the meeting at NGLA and not Merion ? I note your comments on MacDonalds mode of working however it still seems a fairly odd way of going about it. Secondly, if M&W produced a plan for Merion why would the Wilson Committee then produce a number of alternative plans of their own. I am writing this from my memeory of the timeline and it is possible that I've got that wrong however I think the general premis about proving the case still holds true.

As an aside I'm not really sure what all the discussion on land ownership is going to prove one way or another as it would seem fairly clear that most if not all of the significant land transactions were done at somewhat less than arms length.

Niall

[Mike_Cirba]

Niall,

Your common sense is a breath of fresh air that just cuts right through all of the purposeful fog of confusion constantly being pumped into the room.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

A reason that the committee would meet Macdonald at NGLA is to OBSERVE the great holes at NGLA, the holes supposedly representing the best the UK had to offer.

If I was a committee member I'd like to see the work of the fellows who were helping me route and design my course, wouldn't you ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

LOTS of golf committees from various clubs went out to see and visit NGLA.

Was he desiging courses for all of them?

[henrye]

I'd also ask David again what was so special about One Day Wonder Herbert Barker......

Do we know from some document or news report that Baker was only there for one day, or is this just an assumption based on someones' knowledge of the way he routed prospective golf courses?

[Mike_Cirba]

Do we know from some document or news report that Baker was only there for one day, or is this just an assumption based on someones' knowledge of the way he routed prospective golf courses?

Henry,

A July 1, 1910 letter to the board of Government at Merion has the following;

..."Mr Connell, on his own account, obtained from H. H. Barker, the Garden City professional, a report, of which the following is a copy:"


Philadelphia , PA., June 10, 1910.

Mr. Joseph R. Connell,
   802 Land Title Building, Philadelphia.

Dear Sir:

    I today inspected the property at Haverford, south of College Avenue, where it is proposed to lay out a golf course: and beg to submit to you my report.

   I am enclosing a sketch of the property in question on which I have roughly shown in pencil a proposed lay-out of the course...



There is no proof that the proposed layout sketch was ever attached to anything received by the Merion board.

Barker's routing went to Connell alone.

The letter of the site committee to the board was dealing with describing the entire property and this was merely a small section.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()