[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

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

Was he desiging courses for all of them?

Mike,

I will go back to something I mentioned earlier, because I think you are deflecting the issue again.  The real question is, from DM's perspective, is "Could Merion have done it without CBM?"  We still may not know how much work he put in from the record, but the case for some greater design attribution COULD be made soley on the knowledge that they waited to see him with their five routings, apparently unable or unwilling to decide until he reviewed them.

It doesn't matter if other clubs went out to NGLA and played golf or picked his brain.  The only thing that matters to this discussion is what actually happened in the routing of Merion, isn't it?

For that matter, I don't know that DM says that Barker should really get any credit and that is a deflecting issue as well, isn't it?

[Mike Sweeney]

 The real question is, from DM's perspective, is "Could Merion have done it without CBM?"

Because of the lack of information, I believe this is an unanswerable question. However after years of this, I think this is the first time I have seen that question, and it is a very interesting one to me.

[DMoriarty]

Niall,

I asked you for your support for your understanding that the advice and help was general and you referred me to Merion's website and suggested the burden of disproving it was mine to meet.

As it relates to the initial creation of the course, Merion's website is mistaken, and has been proven so.  In other words, I have more than met my burden.

I won't argue with the general sense you may have gleaned from an error ridden history, except that to suggest you focus on the actual facts.  That is what I have tried to do.

Are there any facts whatsoever that support your notion that the advice was of a general or hypothetical in nature?

You mention a few of my facts, but not in a way that the record supports. 

You erroneously assume that M&W never contributed more than what was in the June 1910 letter, as if the June 1910 letter was M&W's only contact and was the end of their involvement, and we know this isn't the case.      It is a mistake to assume that if it isn't in the minutes that it did not happen - the only letters that made it to the minutes were those presented to the board.  Nothing else.    So whatever else M&W did, it wouldn't be in the Minutes.  Plus, the letter itself explains why it is not more specific as to how the course would fit, they didn't have a contour map.

It seems that only a map in CBM's hand would convince you or detailed correspondence. We know more correspondence existed but we don't have it, because there was no reason for it to have gone to the board.   And we don't have the blueprint that Wilson sent to Oakley near the beginning of his involvement with the issue..  So we have to be reasonable and figure out what is most likely given all the facts.  Yet your approach seems to be to rely on a history that has been largely or completely disproved.

If you have some facts to support YOUR position, I'd be glad to consider them, but it doesn't appear you do. 
___________________________________________

 The real question is, from DM's perspective, is "Could Merion have done it without CBM?"

Because of the lack of information, I believe this is an unanswerable question. However after years of this, I think this is the first time I have seen that question, and it is a very interesting one to me.

Unanswerable?  I think that Hugh Wilson and Merion's Board answered it already.

Wilson wasn't even involved until well into the process, and he admits that when he did finally get involved, he was in way over his head and didn't know a thing about what he was trying to do, and that he never would have taken on the job had he known.

From what I can tell, Merion's Board had not placed their faith in Wilson, but in Macdonald and Whigham.
    -  The June 1910 Site Committee report to the board makes it clear that their recommendations for the purchase were based on M&W's inspection and thoughts, and the Nov. 1910 Board announcement reaffirms this by inclusion.
    -  The fragments released of the April 1911 Minutes indicate that the final routing was ultimately determined by M&W, not by Wilson and Committee.   

As Wilson noted in a related context, they realized the value of CBM's advice, and they followed it.

[Rich Goodale]

the only letters that made it to the minutes were those presented to the board.  Nothing else.   

[/quote]

Dave

I've been on the board of a golf club.  During my tenure, EVERY letter received by the club, from Mr. and Mrs. Havisham to Mr. Hiigh Mucky-Muck, was presented to the board, at our monthly meeting.  Maybe it was different ~100 years ago, but I doubt it, particularly if "Mr. High Mucky-Muck" was in fact CB MacDonald......

Rich

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Please just post your newly-found "proof" that Wilson and committee were working with a blueprint containing a pre-routed course created prior to Feb 1911 and put an end to all of this speculation.

Thanks

[henrye]

Oh, come on Rich.  The board of MCC doesn't even have the early course layout, regardless of who put it together - Wilson, M&W or even Barker.

[David Amarnek]

I have been fortunate enough to play Merion on a number of occasions and will be there this weekend for the member-guest.  My memories are confined to the splendid course and equally splendid members.  
Why is it so difficult to accept (for some) that Merion was designed and built by Wilson and his committee of MCC members with the advice of Macdonald and Whigham?  William Flynn's further efforts have helped to produce this classic layout.  There is no compelling reason why anyone would wish to distort this truth, intentionally or not.
In the grand scheme of things, who cares about anything else, let alone who can truly prove anything otherwise after all these years?
Just my opinion.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

While you are producing that proof I'd ask you to consider that a letter sent to an agricultural expert who may or may not have been very familiar with the game at the time, one might be very inclined to use the simple term "golf course" as shorthand for "the various sections of land we purchased that we are now at present attempting to devise and construct a golf course upon".

Just sense it might be pertinent.

[henrye]

David Amarnek.  I guess you haven't followed the essay or these posts, but David Moriarty has shown that the club history was wrong about when Wilson went abroad and he has also made a case that the club history is wrong about Wilson being the main protagonist in the course's early development.  No one disputes the initial error and there is much debate about the rest.  In the end, it may be that a substantive enough case has not been made to warrant changing the history, but who knows what these guys will uncover?

[Mike_Cirba]

Henry,

I have more of Barker describing his "slam bam, thank you Merion" method of doing things if you'd like to hear it.

[TEPaul]

"While you are producing that proof I'd ask you to consider that a letter sent to an agricultural expert who may or may not have been very familiar with the game at the time, one might be very inclined to use the simple term "golf course" as shorthand for "the various sections of land we purchased that we are now at present attempting to devise and construct a golf course upon"."


Mike Cirba:

Not just inclined, I think they used the term "course" numerous times to include the entire 117 acres. I say that because Hugh Wilson refers to it that way when he mentions the 117 acres in his first letter to Oakley. Cuyler's and I believe president Evans too refer to the entire boundaries of the property as "the course" and we sure do know the entire boundaries of the 117 acres included a number of other things than just the golf course itself such as the club house, maintenance area and any other areas such as a fairly substantial parking lot enclosed within that 117 acre boundary on which golfers do not play golf.

[David Amarnek]

HenryE,
You are correct that I have not followed all of the Merion posts and David M.'s original essay to any great degree.  I do understand that David M. did discover the actual date of Wilson's trip abroad and that should be corrected in the historical record of Merion.  That was a worthy effort.
I just don't believe that there will be any "smoking gun" that will materially change anything of that record.
I am not suggesting that anyone discontinue their efforts, on the contrary, let them have at it.  From my vantage point, this has been entertaining, if nothing else.

[TEPaul]

"David Amarnek.  I guess you haven't followed the essay or these posts, but David Moriarty has shown that the club history was wrong about when Wilson went abroad and he has also made a case that the club history is wrong about Wilson being the main protagonist in the course's early development.  No one disputes the initial error and there is much debate about the rest.  In the end, it may be that a substantive enough case has not been made to warrant changing the history, but who knows what these guys will uncover?"


HenryE:

I think that encapsulates very well what David Moriarty did do in his essay or tried to do.

In other words, he tried to make the point that because Wilson did not go abroad in 1910 BEFORE the course was routed and designed and built as the Merion History book said he did, that therefore means he did not have the experience to route or design the golf course and therefore somebody else must have done it for him and his committee. The fact there was no one else around who had the time to do that seems to have sort of gotten lost in the shuffle here.   

David Moriarty as we can all see from his essay then translated that into the fact that Hugh I. Wilson had to have been a rank NOVICE in the beginning of 1911 and had no practical ability with architecture and therefore he and his committee were totally incapable of routing and designing Merion East on their own or even with no more than 2-4 days general help and assistance over ten months help on site from M/W. Therefore he thinks M/W must have done it for them.

That, unfortunately overlooks a couple of pretty fundamental factors:

1. The story that Wilson went abroad previous to routing and designing the course did not first come up until over a half century AFTER 1910-1912.

2. Recently found records at MCC indicate in detail that Wilson and Committee laid out numerous different courses and plans in the winter and spring of 1911.

3. That it is most definitely NOT SOME ARCHITECTURAL GIVEN that a man like Wilson was completely incapable of routing and designing and building a course without first going abroad to study golf course architecture.


Of course David Moriarty tried to make us think that was a GIVEN and he may even continue to contend it is a GIVEN but the fact remains it simply ISN'T a GIVEN. One of the reasons David Moriarty may actually think that is a GIVEN is because he has virtually no experience himself with golf couse architecture in that phase of development!! 

If you have any questions you would like to discuss on the telephone, HenryE, by all means IM me and I will give you my phone number. By the way, Henry, what does the "E" stand for? 

[Mike_Cirba]

I'd also point out, once again, that Wilson said he and his committee were complete novices in terms of agronomy and construction.

He never said he didn't know what a good golf hole looked like, or how one might spend a lot of time studying the property and trying to put the jigsaw pieces of a  course routing into place.

Hell, you and I could do that if someone set us out on a property for a few months...especially if it was a property like Merion that was very narrow and where all the holes south of Ardmore Avenue had to go east/west and all the ones north of Ardmore Avenue had to go north south because of width restrictions.

But Hugh Wilson, just like any of us, would have been a complete novice in terms of construction and agronomy and that's mostly what he got from M&W based on their recent experience as amateurs trying to do it for themselves.

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh, come on Rich.  The board of MCC doesn't even have the early course layout, regardless of who put it together - Wilson, M&W or even Barker.

Oh, c'mon Rich?   

Merion Cricket Club has their old board minutes, which Wayne Morrison found.   

Be careful in your quick reactions Henry as you wouldn't want to accidentally come out of character. 

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

This is part of what you said to Niall Carlton:



"You erroneously assume that M&W never contributed more than what was in the June 1910 letter, as if the June 1910 letter was M&W's only contact and was the end of their involvement, and we know this isn't the case. It is a mistake to assume that if it isn't in the minutes that it did not happen."


It may be somewhat of a mistake to assume that if something is not in those minutes it did not happen, but not half so big a mistake as assuming even though it was never mentioned anywhere at any time that it 'must have happened' and should be considered a fact!

The latter was your modus operandi and technique throughout your essay and it continues to be your modus operandi and technique on your posts on this DG.

[DMoriarty]

David Armaneck,

I agree that Merion is a splendid place and have have no reason to doubt that almost all the Members are splendid as well.     

I am not looking for a "smoking gun" but rather just trying to figure out what happened as best I can.    So far much of the Merion Legend has proven to be inaccurate, and that alone is reason enough for me to keep on digging. 

Given that TEPaul and Wayne are playing games with the source material, this will probably have to go on indefinitely.   Too bad for Merion.  It would be far better if we could move beyond this and focus on the splendor of the course. 

Thanks for your input, and I really hope that none of this distracts from your or anyone else's enjoyment of the golf course.   

Alas, I am saddened to hear that I've been again been overlooked for inclusion into the member-guest.

__________________________

Dave

I've been on the board of a golf club.  During my tenure, EVERY letter received by the club, from Mr. and Mrs. Havisham to Mr. Hiigh Mucky-Muck, was presented to the board, at our monthly meeting.  Maybe it was different ~100 years ago, but I doubt it, particularly if "Mr. High Mucky-Muck" was in fact CB MacDonald......

Rich

Once again Rich, your own experience proves to be wholly irrelevant and downright misleading when it comes to determining the actual facts.  Perhaps you should set aside your experience and opinion and look to the facts instead.

So far as the records have been presented, the ONLY letters that are contained in those records directly involve BOARD BUSINESS.  Either the Board was corresponding or the letters were presented to the Board in a meeting/report.  This is true even of letters from "Mr. High Mucky-Muck," CB MacDonald.   I have a copy of one such letter FROM CBM TO WILSON THAT WAS NOT FOUND IN MERION'S RECORDS, and there are references to other communications with CBM that WERE NOT FOUND IN THE RECORDS.

So regardless of your experience to the contrary, you are wrong in this case.

By the way, what do you suppose it says that you about your objectivity is you cannot even mention "Mr. High Mucky-Muck" without mockery and distain?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

When did CBM write to Wilson and what did he have to offer?

[Rich Goodale]

Oh, come on Rich.  The board of MCC doesn't even have the early course layout, regardless of who put it together - Wilson, M&W or even Barker.

Henry

it seems very plausible to me that there was never an "early course layout."  We know that MacDonald's June 1910 letter was vague to the extreme, and there is no evidence that Barker did anything but say that some (13?) golf holes could be fit into the land to the south of Ardmore Ave.  The evidence seems to strongly suggest that the only pre-construction layouts were the 5 alternatives that were created by Wilson's Committee and presented to the board (and their advisors, MacDonald and Whigham) in 1911.

As an independent observer, do you see things differently?  If so, why?

Rich

[Rich Goodale]

By the way, what do you suppose it says that you about your objectivity is you cannot even mention "Mr. High Mucky-Muck" without mockery and distain?

At least I didn't refer to CBM as "Mrs. Havisham"  (Insert big smiley face, just for Dave......)

Rich

[Andy Hughes]

I have a copy of one such letter FROM CBM TO WILSON

Am I the only one who has never heard this before? David, what was in the letter?

MikeC--I think it would be fair to call Wilson (and the others) novices in terms of golf architecture as well as construction/agronomy.  That is not to say he was incapable or could not design and build a great course, but he had no experience, access to limited information and had played only a handful of good courses.

[DMoriarty]

Rich,

I have no idea what you refer to in your post above to Henry.  Thirteen holes south of Ardmore?   You are confusing a number of different sources and facts here.    It is becoming very apparent that

1.  While you think you have a grasp of the facts you really have no clue.

2.  Your not quite as independent or unbiased as you would like us to believe. 

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba and Andy,

TEPaul has vaguely alluded to this CBM letter a few times, although he did not mention the companion letter from Wilson to Oakley or grasp the significance of the letter as it's companion letter indicating that CBM and Wilson were communicating much more than he was letting on. 


I covered it in my description of the Ag letters, but that was apparently missed by everyone in the shuffle.

I don't have time to dig it up right now, but will soon.  The search function is not working.


In short, the letter  is about Agronomy, and was anclosed with a Wilson letter to Oakley, which is the only reason we have a record of it.   But we can tell by the exchanges that Wilson and CBM were communicating even after the course was planned.   And the letter shows up nowhere in Merion's records. 

It had to do with one of Beale's tours, where he went to Merion in or around June 1911, and later met with CBM.    The companion letter established that Wilson had asked CBM to try to get Beale to speak to frankly about what Wilson was planning on doing, and after CBM spent some time with Beale and was reporting to Wilson what Beale had to say about Merion. 

- Not about design, but definitely not general instruction but very specific direction about fertilizer and such.  This was hardly a arms-length relationship where only general concepts were being discussed.

- More importantly, it indicates that communication was ongoing that WAS NOT reflected in the Merion records.

[Niall C]

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 ?

Patrick

Fair point but would you not have a look at their work before you gave them the job ? I think I'm right in saying Davids theory is that M&W were already engaged.

On the other hand perhaps Wilson and his committee were only going to NGLA to get some general advice on course design and construction. To me that seems a more plausible explanation but I accept it does come down to how you interperet what was the reason for their visit. Again the report in the Merion minutes suggests to me that they were going to find out how a course was designed and built.

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall,

I asked you for your support for your understanding that the advice and help was general and you referred me to Merion's website and suggested the burden of disproving it was mine to meet.

As it relates to the initial creation of the course, Merion's website is mistaken, and has been proven so.  In other words, I have more than met my burden.

I won't argue with the general sense you may have gleaned from an error ridden history, except that to suggest you focus on the actual facts.  That is what I have tried to do.

Are there any facts whatsoever that support your notion that the advice was of a general or hypothetical in nature?

You mention a few of my facts, but not in a way that the record supports. 

You erroneously assume that M&W never contributed more than what was in the June 1910 letter, as if the June 1910 letter was M&W's only contact and was the end of their involvement, and we know this isn't the case.      It is a mistake to assume that if it isn't in the minutes that it did not happen - the only letters that made it to the minutes were those presented to the board.  Nothing else.    So whatever else M&W did, it wouldn't be in the Minutes.  Plus, the letter itself explains why it is not more specific as to how the course would fit, they didn't have a contour map.

It seems that only a map in CBM's hand would convince you or detailed correspondence. We know more correspondence existed but we don't have it, because there was no reason for it to have gone to the board.   And we don't have the blueprint that Wilson sent to Oakley near the beginning of his involvement with the issue..  So we have to be reasonable and figure out what is most likely given all the facts.  Yet your approach seems to be to rely on a history that has been largely or completely disproved.

If you have some facts to support YOUR position, I'd be glad to consider them, but it doesn't appear you do. 
___________________________________________

David

I think you'll find I'm not as entrenched as you probably think I am. I think my original post of a couple of days ago was asking what documentation there was to support the idea that M&W were involved in the design as opposed to giving general advice. You gave me a number of reasons why you think they were involved in the design but unfortunately no plan or supporting correspondence. I have admitted that the other circumstantial stuff suggests to me that M&W didn't undertake the design, but I am more than happy to be persuaded should you have documentation which proves their involvement in doing the design either in part or in whole. Does the Wilson/MacDonald letter that you referred to in your other post shed any light on the issue ?

Also, I agree with Rich, if M&W had provided the design it would have been noted in the minutes at the club. I can't see how it wouldn't.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()