[Sean_A]

Mike

I spend a lot of time going through minutes of all sorts.  If there is one thing that I am sure of it is that one can never predict what will or will not be minuted.  It all comes down to the diligence or lack thereof of the person taking the notes and how little or much he (most likely in consultation with whatever group) potentially wants to be made public. Minutes are a great "so called" first hand source, but they are often not terribly precise - much of the time purposefully so.  What is really telling is the agenda and minutes of a meeting.  Unfortunately, agendas are quite rare to come across.

Ciao  

Sean,

While that's true, unless there was some related board action or proposal needing board approval, the announcement of the makeup of the members of a temporary sub-committee reporting to a permanent standing committee would hardly be routine or expected as is implied by the very question and nature of this thread.  

Mike

Again, I wouldn't make such an assumption.  Presumably the standing comm. reports to a general/management comm and all its sub comm activity should be included in that report - if the note taker is diligent and the general comm wants it reported.  Remember, a load of business will occur through word of mouth and it may or may not be beneficial or meaningful to report all the business which is transacted.  Even today there is a lot of you pat my back and I'll pat yours going on.  For many note takers, at the very least, I would have thought the terms of reference for the sub comm to be reported.  There should be an overtly stated purpose for the sub comm.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Mike Sweeney Wrote:
I think you and David are trying to apply 2009 standards to the early 20th century world. If this was 1925, I could see your point. Reality is there really are no professional architects in 1911? Macdonald never accepted a fee at any of his projects. Even today, there are no real standards today to call yourself a golf architect. If I could afford it, I could appoint myself as architect of a new to be built course.

In 1911, if I had fairly unlimited time and money, access to some of the greatest golf architecture minds of the day in M&W, access to industrialist throughout Philadelphia that are building bridges, infrastructure and factories, and I had a supportive membership, I absolutely believe I could build a great golf course. We have such a person on this Board today in Archie Struthers. Is Twisted Dune world class? No, but he did not have the access, money and support that Hugh Wilson did at the time? No.[/color]

I think you might be missing the point.   The question isn't really whether Hugh Wilson could have done it with unlimited time (which I don't think he had) and unlimited money (which I don't think Merion was willing to spend.)    Rather, the question is, would MCC have entrusted Hugh Wilson to design their golf course?    Given that they were looking for the very best, I don't think they would have.   More importantly, given the evidence available of which I am aware, I don't think they did.   That is why I started this thread.   To figure out what evidence exists that Hugh Wilson was put in charge of designing this course?   So far, none has come forward.

Plus Mike, I don't think that even Hugh Wilson would have chosen Hugh Wilson to design the course.  As I say in my essay, Hugh Wilson's greatest quality may have been his ability and willingness to learn, and for him this entailed gathering the expertise and experts to do the job.   The Ag Letters provide a terrific window into his approach, at least early on.    Frankly it is hard for me to imagine him doing anything without having sought and received guidance from the utmost experts in the field, and then double checking with them to get the story straight.
   
I believe that Merion has always (and probably more so now!) known and acknowledged Macdonald's involvement at Merion. I did not know about it and have attributed it to David's essay but that is due to my (probably lack of) knowledge about the details of the club's history.

This just isn't the case with the modern understanding of their history.   They have always acknowledged there may have been some involvement, but Wayne has actively tried to diminish and minimize this involvement, insisting that there was no proof of any real contribution, insisting there was nothing on the course that even remotely resembled CBM's influence, and even insisting that the only known guideance was CBM helping Wilson plan his trip.    So while TEPaul and Wayne are fond of saying they have always known all about CBM's involvement, if this is true then they have been intentionally to us for many, many years.   Take a look at Wayne's early 68 page chapter on Merion in his Flynn Bible, which he insisted was incorporating all the resources available to them, and tell me what, if any mention there was of CBM at all.     Wayne desperately doesn't want me to see that or any other draft, but I am willing to wager that his information is largely incomplete and misleading as to CBM's involvement, if he mentions CBM at all.     I know, they claim they focused on Flynn, but that is entirely inconsistent with what they have written in the past about how complete their knowledge was about Merion, and even inconsistent with their statement that they knew all this all along. 

So my question to you and David is, what do you want Merion to do, and please be specific?

Your putting me in a tricky spot here, because if I answer you others will undoubtedly hold it against me and claim that I am arrogantly telling Merion how to behave.  Nonetheless, I'll try to answer.

Believe it or not, I am not all that concerned with design attribution issues, and have no advice for Merion on to whom they should attribute the design of their course.   All I can hope for is that they do so honestly and based on a complete understanding of all of the available information.   Unfortunately, I believe that they have been provided inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete information just as we have, and so I doubt they have much idea of what actually occurred in Merion's early years, at least through Hugh Wilson's unfortunate death.

Aside from that, I echo Tom MacWood and would add that, while I don't have high hopes, I wish they would set aside loyalties to those responsible for creating this website mess and join the pursuit of truth.   I don't think that it would be necessary for them to actively participate with anyone, but at the very least I wish they'd quit allowing Wayne and TEPaul to control who gets to see the information obtained from MCC and who does not-- selective dissemination of incomplete information will not get us to the truth, and while I can see how Wayne and TEPaul might think that controlling the record is in their personal best interests, it is no way in Merion's best interest.   I wish that Merion would realize this.

Once all the information is out there and has been honestly presented, analyzed and VETTED, I'd of course leave it to Merion to determine their attribution for themselves.

[DMoriarty]

So my question to you and David is, what do you want Merion to do, and please be specific?

MikeS,

Let me take another shot at this question, only I'll let Wayne do my talking for me.   Here he is writing about the USGA archives in 2007.

Wayne Morrison Wrote:
There is no absolute known as design credit.  If all available information is compiled and made available, each can make his own subjective determination according to their own standards for design attribution.  All I'm saying is there will be a central clearing house for golf architecture and it will aid in determinations. 

I understand there is room for interpretation.  There are some that give design credit without knowing all the information available such as Macdonald and Whigham at Merion.  I don't think we will ever know what Macdonald and Whigham did at Merion so there is no need to speculate and make attributions based solely on interpolations of vague statements.  All existing information  will be available to everyone so that interested parties can make their own informed decisions based upon their own criteria.  They will not have to rely upon determinations made by unknown processes.

I agree with him completely and wish only that Wayne and Merion would live up to his representation.  Let the information out, and then we will not have to rely on determinations made by an unknown process.  That is all I would have Merion do. 
 

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh David, please come down from your pulpit,,,we know what you think.

If he wanted the best, there were only 3 great courses in the US at that time and out of Travis, Leeds, and Mac, they were able to gain the latters assistance and we all know now very much more about the nature of his valuable advice.

[Mike_Cirba]

You know, this has become pathetic.

If you don't like Tom and Wayne please go write your own book and stop cluttering these threads with personal attacks on people who aren't here any longer.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Mike Sweeney asked a question, and I honestly answered it.   And in answering I have honestly and accurately described what I think has long gone on in these threads and at Merion.  

-  Surely no one paying any attention can seriously disagree with my assessment that over the years the information Wayne and TEPaul have provided us about Merion has been incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading.

- And by now no one can seriously deny that Wayne and TEPaul have been and are still playing games with the source material, divulging selected portions and not others, hiding information they don't want disclosed, demanding all that all sorts of strange conditions be met and and concessions be made before they turn over anything, forcing others to incur the expense of acquiring publicly accessible information that they already possess,  and even manipulating documents to mask portions that do not support their agenda.   There is plenty of proof of all of this.  

- And it should be obvious by now that Wayne has neither lived up to his own standards when it comes to peer review, nor has he lived up to his representations about making all the relevant information available to allcomers.  

- It should be equally obvious by their words and behavior that all this business about protecting Merion's privacy was just a ruse they used to justify the way they have been manipulating the documents.    They could show them all to us, but won't because they think they can continue to control the record and dictate the truth to us.

Look Mike, I know that all this is probably very embarrassing to Wayne and TEPaul, but it is also the truth and backed up by a slew of examples and facts.   More importantly it is absolutely relevant to the questions and comments that Mike Sweeney made and relevant to many others issues as well.   It is not like I am randomly spreading gossip and lies about them like they have about me. I'd be glad to move past this.  I don't relish in calling them out, but so long as they keep hiding the source material and playing games with the documents, what choice do I have but to call it the way I see it?

Just think, Mike, if Wayne Morrison had lived up to his representations to me in private and to all of us on this board, we would have avoided all this garbage.   But I am a forgiving type and as soon as they make amends and come clean I am more than willing to let bygones be bygones.    Until then, I will continue to call it as I see it, being careful to stick to the topic at hand and avoid the kind of irrelevant name calling and rumor mongering that they and you have so often engaged in.

Here again is Wayne's quote.   Next time they are feeding you information to post, ask them when they are going to live up to it?

Wayne Morrison Wrote:
There is no absolute known as design credit.  If all available information is compiled and made available, each can make his own subjective determination according to their own standards for design attribution.  All I'm saying is there will be a central clearing house for golf architecture and it will aid in determinations.  

I understand there is room for interpretation.  There are some that give design credit without knowing all the information available such as Macdonald and Whigham at Merion.  I don't think we will ever know what Macdonald and Whigham did at Merion so there is no need to speculate and make attributions based solely on interpolations of vague statements.  All existing information  will be available to everyone so that interested parties can make their own informed decisions based upon their own criteria.  They will not have to rely upon determinations made by unknown processes.

Thanks.

[JESII]

David,

As you said in preface the first time you quoted Wayne...he was discussing the USGA archive.

Just because you would like everything out in the open in here on GCA doesn't mean it must be.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I've found that rarely is the person being attacked the one who is ultimately embarrassed.

Even rarer is the person with the facts on their side doing the attacking.

[John Mayhugh]

John + David,

Please put it back in your respective pants.

Thanks.

What do you mean by this tacky, classless remark?  I've said nothing negative about you at all. 

Still waiting for your explanation, Mr. Cirba.

Hey Mike,

Speaking of attacks, why won't you explain this one?

[DMoriarty]

David,

As you said in preface the first time you quoted Wayne...he was discussing the USGA archive.

Just because you would like everything out in the open in here on GCA doesn't mean it must be.

Wayne has said the similar things about Merion, and at the time he wrote that Merion was going to be a full participant in the USGA Archive, at least according to Wayne.   Look at his example -- Merion.

I would like everything out there, but realize this doesn't mean it must be.   But here are a few things for you to consider.

1.   Wayne and TEPaul have used the MCC inforrmation to try and trash my essay and my reputation, and any standard of reasonable discourse requires that they give me a chance to verify their claims and respond.  That is what Wayne demanded of me  (even though my essay was in no way a direct in personal attack like their unsupported attacks) and what I provided to them.   If they used Merion's information in a way that betrayed Merion's trust (by putting themselves (and by extension Merion) into that awkward position) this is their doing, not mine.  I still deserve a chance to verify their claims and respond.  I warned them of this long ago, when Wayne first started cherry-picking the source material to try and make their case.   It is far to late for them to hide behind Merion's supposed privacy concerns.

2.  Wayne and TEPaul repeatedly indicated in the past that they have nothing to hide and that Merion has nothing to hide.   Wayne indicated to me in private and all of us in public that all the relevant documents would be available for all to review.  Certainly it is proper for me to ask him to live up to his commitments and for him to live up to his commitments.

3.  Wayne and TEPaul's treatment of this information has made it abundantly clear that they are not protecting any "privacy interest" of Merion's but are instead trying to control the source material and the conclusions that might be drawn from it.   This has nothing to do Merion and seems to me to be very much against Merion's interest.   (That is of course Merion's to decide, but it sure looks that way to me.)

4.  Mike Sweeney asked me what I would like to see happen, and I answered him.   I did not and have not demanded anything of Merion.   My demands are of TePaul and Wayne and are based on their past words and actions.  They will continue until these two live up to their committments and the requirements of civil discourse.

[john_stiles]

I still go back and look at the contemporary article,  Golf Illustrated 1914, in which Robert Lesley said "The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about 3 years ago by the following committee:  Hugh Wilson, chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Grissom, Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers Charles B. Macdonald, and H.J. Whigham."    I guess it could all be second guessed as to the 1910-1914 definition of  'laid out,'  and  'found adapted.'    I would put the 'found adapted' more at the feet of CBM and HJW than the others.

Lesley,  as chaiman of the golf committee, said  CBM and HJW were  'advisers.'   I do not think the definition of 'advisers' has changed much until 2007 or so.     Didn't all the other contemporary newpaper and magazine articles say much the same with respect to CBM, HJW and HIW.

It will have to be some sort of a bombastic article or club minutes notation, quite to the contrary, and not yet produced,  to knock Hugh Wilson from his perch as architect of Merion East.

And yes,  I would say Hugh Wilson was chosen by Lesley and the Board to lay out the course upon the selected property.

[DMoriarty]

John,  Given that Macdonald and Whigham were not members of Merion, and thus could not be on the committee, then what else would they have been called?  The term "golf architect" didn't really exist at that time.   Consultants would be no different than advisors would it?     So, if they were on equal footing (at least) as far as the design goes, what should they have been called?

I agree that they were advisors.   But the key is to figure out what they were advising about and whether Merion was listening.   We know that they were advising about the layout plan and that their advice as of the greatest help and value.  We also know that it seems that Merion's Board was acting on their advice (not the advice of Wilson or even Lesley)  so I hardly see the justification for making their role diminutive in comparison.

[DMoriarty]

He wrote that they did it without the help of an architect, but then immediately went into how much those two amateur sportsmen helped.  If he meant to include Macdonald and Whigham as "architects" who did not help, then the report makes no sense.    I don't think he thought of them as architects who earned their living designing courses.  They were amateur sportsmen.

So my reading is that Wilson meant that except for the help provided by M&W they did it themselves without the help of a [professional] architect.   How else could one read it without rendering it nonsensical?  

David,

Okay, I agree with this, so can you take us to the next step of your thinking?

The next step is to look at the other portion of the Alan Wilson Letter that has been misconstrued.  Here is the next paragraph:

The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.

TEPaul, Cirba, and Wayne insist that this paragraph means that Wilson was the person in the main responsible for the original design, over CBM and HJW.I think this is a suspect reading, at best.  

Here again is the sentence in question, color coated:

On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course.  

1.  He is not writing about the original plan, but how it evolved after Wilson's trip.  (This is a bit confusing because he apparently has the date of the trip wrong or is suggesting that the trip was really the "first step" in Wilson's detailed involvement in the design process.)
2.  He is also including the West Course in his analysis.  
3.   Most importantly, Cirba et al. ignores the part highlighted in green.   They are not writing about M&W.   AW is writing about HWilson's contribution AS COMPARED to the rest of his Committee.   The rest of the committee had good suggestions, but the other members of the committee said that (of the committee) Wilson was the person in the main.

[Mike_Cirba]

John Mayhugh,

You're correct.

I owe you an apology.

I was on the golf course, saw the stupid f*cuking title to this ridiculous waste of time thread on my Blackberry and fired off an inapproriate response.

I'm sorry for that and I hope you accept my apology.

Sincerely,
Mike

[DMoriarty]

John Mayhugh,

You're correct.

I owe you an apology.

I was on the golf course, saw the stupid f*cuking title to this ridiculous waste of time thread on my Blackberry and fired off an inapproriate response.

I'm sorry for that and I hope you accept my apology.

Sincerely,
Mike

Mike,  You owe me an apology as well.  Not only for what you said to John and I, but also for what you just said about this thread. 

You also owe the participants in John's survey an apology for calling them "nimrods" and again to John for your part in ruining his thread.   

[Mike_Cirba]

John Mayhugh,

You're correct.

I owe you an apology.

I was on the golf course, saw the stupid f*cuking title to this ridiculous waste of time thread on my Blackberry and fired off an inapproriate response.

I'm sorry for that and I hope you accept my apology.

Sincerely,
Mike

Mike,  You owe me an apology as well.  Not only for what you said to John and I, but also for what you just said about this thread. 

You also owe the participants in John's survey an apology for calling them "nimrods" and again to John for your part in ruining his thread.   

David,

My comment was inappropriate and I apologize to you, as well.   I still think the topic is ridiculous, but if this is what you want to talk about, please have at it.   It's just getting difficult chasing around all of these theories on all of these new threads.

As far as those folks who voted that they would think better of a golf course based simply on finding out someone...anyone designed it, well, I still think they are nimrods.

[John Mayhugh]

Mike,
Apology accepted. 

I do disagree with your characterization of poll respondents as nimrods, though.  The question asked:
"If you learned that CBM was more involved in the design of Merion than he has historically been given credit for, how would that affect your opinion of the golf course?" 

What's wrong with saying more impressed?  I don't think this is really the equivalent of celebrity worship.  CBM is a giant in golf history and architecture, so having his name more associated with a course - even a great one - could still help its reputation.  Granted, when a course is near the top there is not so much room to improve, but I don't think it's fair to say people are stupid for letting CBM's involvement influence their perception of a course.  Especially one they may not have played.  Remember, this is perception. 

We probably won't agree, but I would sincerely like to know your opinion.  You may have missed these three questions I posed on the other post:
1.  Do you think CBM achieved more in golf architecture than Hugh Wilson?

2.  Do you think either of the following statements is any more logical than the other?
a.  Giving CBM design credit at Merion hurts the course's reputation
b.  Giving CBM design credit at Merion helps the course's reputation

3.  Why would it be necessary to have played Merion before answering questions about how the Merion debates have affected one's perception of the course?

Thanks!

[john_stiles]

David,

Yes,  the GCA Merion principals  (TM/DM v. WM/TP)  might very well agree the Merion committee was listening to and sought the advice of CBM and HJW.  It was so stated, and CBM/HJW visited Merion twice, and Merion committemen visited NGLA.

But,  I don't think they would need to be called or labeled by any term.   I don't think a new noun or description for the term  golf architect  is necessarily needed to proportion praise.

It could have been  stated  "The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about 3 years ago by the following :   the Merion committee:  Hugh Wilson, chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Grissom and Dr. Hal Toulmin,  and National Champions Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham."      You could substitute  'NGLA members' for  'National Champions'  or any other appropriate description in 1914 for golfers now labeled 'US Amateur Champion'.

Or if  Merion placed great credit for the resulting golf course upon CBM/HJW it could have been stated   "The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about 3 years ago by National Champions Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham and the following Merion committee:  Hugh Wilson, chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Grissom, Dr. Hal Toulmin."

Either would have bestowed equal credit to all named.

Or,  those who did not deserve the most credit would be advisors.

Of course,  we can all pick about the definition of 'laid out.'       BTW,     I see that Bernard Darwin commented that  " Dr. Mackenzie is very well known as a golfing architect "   in August 1, 1914 issue of Country Life.

[DMoriarty]

John,


I don't see why you think advisor was a dimunutive term.  I don't, and there is nothing about the term's meaning that necessarily connotes inferiority.   It all depends on what he advised and the extent to which they listened to him.   Hard to imagine they could have listened to him more, isn't it?  Given that both committee reports cite and rely on M&W's opinion and do not mention Wilson at all, it is hard for me to see how M&W's advice wasn't crucial to the design process.   

As for those who did not deserve at least equal billing they were not mentioned at all.   These include Oakley, Piper, Beale, Findlay, Pickering, and who knows who else.    That M&W are mentioned above all these ought to give yo some idea of their importance.

Let me ask you this:   If Lesley saw fit to mention M&W along side Wilson and the committee, then who are we to decide that their role was dimunutive and that they aren't really worth mentioning?   

[David Kelly]

2.  Do you think either of the following statements is any more logical than the other?
a.  Giving CBM design credit at Merion hurts the course's reputation
b.  Giving CBM design credit at Merion helps the course's reputation

3.  Why would it be necessary to have played Merion before answering questions about how the Merion debates have affected one's perception of the course?

John,

What do you mean by reputation and are you using the word in the same way that you are using the word perception in question 3 because I don't understand the phrasing of the two questions?

[john_stiles]

David,

You seemed to balk at how the Lesley attribution could have been worded differently given the word 'architect' may not have been in popular use.       I provided two pretty simple examples of how it could have been reworded without creating a new noun, or perhaps using a recently coined term  'architect.'  

I didn't mean to diminish any role by CBM or HJW for it is there in Lesley's own words.  But, with my limited means, I did provide you with a pretty simple way for Lesley to have reworded his article. No ?  

I still stand that advisors advise those who are doing the work.    The advice is received and may be taken or not.  Those doing the work have a decision to make,  whether to take the advice or not,  and those doing the work have even a greater task as there is often more than one advisor.

CBM and HJW were given much credit, as you say, by being directly named as advisors in the same breath as Hugh Wilson and committee.

It would have been pretty simple,  even without any term noun such as golf architect,  for Lesley to have reworded the sentence.  
If CBM and HJW had completed the design of the course (in the modern sense),  and Hugh Wilson constructed the course,  I believe Lesley would have said as much, even given the present term 'architect' may not have been in vogue in the US.   And I can write that sentence without using  'laid out' or  'architect'.

In the other topic, with the Oakley/Wilson letters posted,  wasn't Wilson precautioned that the NGLA course was on much diffreent soils and soil treatment for Merion course might not necessitate the same treatment.   So there you go, Wilson has advice from one, a precaution from another advisor, and what is Wilson to do about soil modifications ?

The posted Oakley and Wilson letters are very interesting.  

I guess we still await more of the archives material to be posted.

It is not over yet on this Merion attribution.  

Where is the love for the Darwin quote about architect ?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

The problem with both your examples as I read them is that they misstate M&W's role.   I don't think M&W laid a course upon the ground.   Wilson and his Committee did that, but they did it following the advice of M&W.   In other words, I think that Lesley had it about right, and the problem only comes in when we treat this acknowledgment as secondary or diminutive.  

And with all due respect you did treat the acknowledgment as less importane when you wrote: "Or,  those who did not deserve the most credit would be advisors."  

You also wrote that:
I still stand that advisors advise those who are doing the work.    The advice is received and may be taken or not.  Those doing the work have a decision to make,  whether to take the advice or not,  and those doing the work have even a greater task as there is often more than one advisor.

I agree that advisors often advise those who do the work.  But in this case, M&W were not just advising the construction committee, they were also advising Merion's Board, and it was Merion's Boards decision to buy the land and approve of the final routing plan.  The two Meeting Minutes indicate that Merion's Board was obviously interested in doing what CBM advised, and followed their advice.  

So, I guess what I am saying is that I don't agree that those who do the work can always take or leave the advice.  This is one of those examples.  
 - It is unrealistic to think that the Site Committee could have reported:   "M&W have thoroughly inspected the land and have advised us that the soil and terrain are entirely unsuited for golf, and that a first class course could never fit, but while we have no expertise in the matter, we recommend to the board and members that we should proceed anyway."
 - It is likewise unrealistic to think that Wilson and his committee would insist on using a routing other than the one that M&W determined, or that  they would have simply ignored M&W's instructions regarding how to lay out the course.   "Your committee wishes to report that the construction committee thinks that their plan is better than the one suggested by C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham and asks you to ignore M&W."    

I don't think either of these scenarios is at all practical, nor is the second scenario at all compatible with Wilson's personality.

Also,  I am not sure what "work" you are referring to.   I am only talking about the planning, not the laying out of the course on the ground.    Lesley said they laid the course upon the ground, he doesn't say they planned it.   This work largely occurred AFTER the planning was completed and the Board had approved of the routing plan determined by M&W.    Surely the committee played a roll in this planning, but by Wilson's own description it sure doesn't sound like he went his own direction.   Rather, it sounds like he was thankful and indebted that he had M&W to tell him what to do.     Wilson had enough on his plate without having to trump CBM and make his own plan.    

As for the supposed conflicting advice regarding soil, you must recall that it was CBM who advised them to consult with Piper and Oakley.   So listening to Piper and Oakley was a result of listening to CBM.   As Wilson wrote, they realized the value of CBM's advice and followed it.

As for the reference to an "architect" in Darwin,  does he call CBM an architect in the same work?   I was actually thinking of the use of the term around the time the work was being  being done (1910-11) but I agree that 1914 is a better context given that this is when Lesley was writing.   An oversight on my part.    That being said, golf architect was still not a common term and may have had the connotation of a much maligned professional.  

The letters are very interesting.  They give a good insight not only into Wilson's focus agronomy, but also into his personality and general approach.    So far only a relatively small portion have been posted;  Wilson apparently wrote letters almost as often as Cirba posts.  Given how often he wrote letters to Oakley, how many do you suppose he wrote to CBM and/or Whigham?  It would be pretty shocking if he had not written many, wouldn't it?  (In fact, we can tell by some of the letters that there were more communications between the two, but who knows how many.)

[John Mayhugh]

2.  Do you think either of the following statements is any more logical than the other?
a.  Giving CBM design credit at Merion hurts the course's reputation
b.  Giving CBM design credit at Merion helps the course's reputation

3.  Why would it be necessary to have played Merion before answering questions about how the Merion debates have affected one's perception of the course?

What do you mean by reputation and are you using the word in the same way that you are using the word perception in question 3 because I don't understand the phrasing of the two questions?

Sorry for the questions being unclear to you. 

In question 2, by reputation, I mean the standing that the course has in the opinion of others.  That is, would you expect people in general to think more highly or less highly of the course based on CBM's involvement?

I asked question 3 specifically based on a comment by Mike wondering if respondents have played the course.  Since the poll was strictly based on perception (i.e. one could be completely uninformed about all sorts of details yet still have an opinion), I did not see how having played Merion was relevant.  Experience with the course might render one's opinions better informed, but are people that have played Merion the only ones entitled to have an opinion about the course?

Hopefully my response doesn't make things even less clear.  Anyway, you're welcome to weigh in on this, but the questions were really ones for Mike.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()