Desmond Tolhurst's account

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Of course your last post is an example of you browbeating us into believing that your opinion is fact.  You keep repeating things like that and smugly consider it a logical argument when it violates more rules of logic than Capers violates ethics rules, at least according to TMac.

There really is little point in this, David, since I learned long ago that you will retort every argument using faulty logic, assumption of fact, etc.

My only remaining question is that I can't recall ever hearing why a California boy took such a vehement interest in Merion in the first place?  Have you looked into the history of other courses?  Unlike TMac, I can't recall you having a broad based interest in looking at a cross section of gca history, so I am just curious.

Thanks and good bye, at least as it relates to this discussion.  I still hope to have pleasant discussions on other less controversial topics, like nuclear proliferation, child abuse by preists, and the like.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

I have one other question for you which I've never understood.

You don't believe David's theory about the course being designed prior to November 15, 1910 and don't believe the Francis Swap happened before then so whenever we go down this road and ask why you think Barker designed it instead sometime after November you answer something to the effect of "these were smart guys who wouldn't have used an untested architect" for their course, citing Wilson's lack of experience.

But, that's not what they did, actually, is it?

What they did is they did it themselves, right?   Five of the best six golfers in terms of playing ability within the club, and five guys with a load of experience in golf generally for over a decade, and five very successful men in their own fields, and five of the most traveled golfers were put on the committee to design and build the new course.

Why do you see that as unusual, considering that in 1910, ALL OF THE courses in the United States that were deemed to be of top-quality were done by club amateurs themselves?

You had Leeds at Myopia, you had Travis and Emmet at Garden City, and then you had Macdonald with Emmet and some early Travis at NGLA, which just had its soft opening tournament in July 1910 and didn't open until the next year.  

Those were the three courses mentioned in virtually every article...saying that Merion was going to create a course as good as those renowned courses designed by amateurs.

In addition, you had Fownes' place at Oakmont, you had Crump and some of his Philly friends itching to build a quality course where they could play winter golf, and you had Tilllinghast up doing Shawnee.

ALL of these guys knew each other, shared ideas, and they seemed to be coming down to the idea that if you wanted it done right, you had to do it yourself!  

Tom...as much as you want to give credit to those early professionals like Barker, the fact is that they had not come up with a top quality course after about fifteen years of effort.   That wasn't their fault...the problem was the the whole methodology and idea that for $25 you could have a pro come in for a day, walk about your property, put some stakes on the ground, leave some construction instructions, and voila!, you had yourself a good golf course.

Instead, these amateur club guys were very into it...they had time, money ,and motivation, and they shared ideas and sought each others expertise and then used top-line construction guys like Fred Pickering, who gets lost in this conversation.

So, if every top-flight golf course in the US in 1910 was designed by Amateurs from their own clubs, why in the world do you find it the least surprising that Merion would have done the exact same thing?   After all, it wasn't only Wilson, although for reasons we can only speculate at he was named to head the committee, but it was also Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, and Francis....five top level players, all with decades of experience in the game, and men motivated to build a great golf course for their club.

Compare that against a $25 walk around the property with stakes and their motivations become very clear and not surprising in the least.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff:

Here again is the post where I tried to browbeat you into believing my opinion is fact . . .

The problem, Jeff, is that whether you quote the entire thing or just link to it, there is no Wikpedia article that refutes my argument.   The only remedy for a logically fallacious argument is a logical refutation.

It isn't a pissing match for me.  I'm curious to figure out Merion's history.  You haven't answered a single question I've asked about the mystery three acres.  I wouldn't have asked if I wasn't going to consider your answer.  I've never understood the factual basis for any of the significance you and others seem to place in this mystery three acres, and given that neither Mike nor TEPaul is capable of reasonably addressing any of this stuff, I was hoping you could.  My mistake.

If you walk South on Golf House Road and see some of those mystery three acres to the right, then you might ask yourself why Merion purchased acreage for the fine homes along side the road.   That is, if your mind processes such information.

. . . perhaps you have as little understanding of "browbeat" as you do "logical fallacy."

Your attempt to change the topic to cast doubt on my motivations and intentions is yet another very good example of one of your "material fallacies."  It is aimed at influencing the outcome of the argument but has absolutely nothing to do with whether my logic is sound.   In Latin I think it was something like argumentum per mikecirbium.

I've explained my interests and motivations many times before, and given that your question was rhetorical, I believe I'll leave it to you to figure out the answer for yourself.   I know that might be cutting dangerously close to actual research and therefore it probably won't get done, but then I don't really care whether you figure out the answer or not.  

[Tom MacWood]

"Jeffery
Again you have no idea what that record shows. Only a fool would continually quote from and rely upon a record they have never seen."

And yet you quote train schedules you have never seen to establish Barker routed Merion.......

Not to mention that I simply quoted David and you say I am quoting from the record.  I take it you think DM is the authority on MCC and its history now?  Even that quote has me baffled.  David basically repeats his theory, and then tells us he was making something up to explain my theory and how stupid it was?  Either way, way to twist an argument.

Again, it just goes to show how differently we view this, and to a larger degree, what a pissing match it is, despite David telling us that is not the case and suggesting his motives are pure as the driven snow.   That in itself is the biggest lie told on these threads. Well, not exactly, since he is presenting a real snow job!

Nice try in shifting the blame. David has no idea if it's accurate either, and by the way he didn't include it in his essay. David was the person who discovered TEP's two different versions of that report. Like I said only a fool would rely upon a record they've never seen and can't authenticate.

[Tom MacWood]

...and refuse to answer direct questions such as why you think two different versions of the minutes were presented here.

I told you I'd give you my understanding if you tell me the source of your confusion.   

Do you want to know or no?

Ask TEP why there were two different versions.

[Tom MacWood]

Why do you see that as unusual, considering that in 1910, ALL OF THE courses in the United States that were deemed to be of top-quality were done by club amateurs themselves?

None of the courses designed by Ross, Barker, Findlay, Campbell, Strong, Low, Watson, Tucker, Park, White, Bendelow, and O'Neil were top quality? It is ludicrous to think those in charge of MCC and/or those in charge of the real estate venture would rely on an untested, inexperienced insurance salesman, especially when they had arguably the top designers in America at their disposal. It defies logic. 

[Mike Cirba]

Would you like to know or no?

[Tom MacWood]

No, I'm not interested. If he had a legitimate explanation he would have given it to us a year ago.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

That makes it easy.

However, I would think that if this was a big issue or something of relevance you guys would at least post what you see as inconsistency or "different versions" that Tom Paul produced here in trying to give you/us an idea of what the MCC Minutes say over the past few years.  

I can tell you what I've seen, what others like Jim Sullivan have seen and vouched for here, and I'm comfortable with that.  

I think you guys just don't like what those Minutes say about the timing, responsibility, and sequence of actual historical events and would rather not go down that road again, so that's fine with me too.  

If you prefer to try and spin it like there's still some great secret mystery out there somewhere hidden in the vaults of Ardmore that is just too outrageous to even mention, perhaps one or two here will still buy that, so I guess that's one viable strategy.  

I'm sure there's a "trust" issue too, which is why I hoped having Sully vouch for the accuracy of what I transcribed and paraphrased the other day would move us forward, as I think he's always shown himself to be an independent and objective thinker, but alas...

I'm really glad to be done here.   I hope we meet on a more productive and agreeable topic, Tom.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

It defies logic that you think that going to CBMac for assistance - designer of the best course in America to that date - as not looking for the best.

Just out of curiosity, what courses by those other designers that were complete, or nearly so, by 1910 are on current top 100 lists and better in your eyes than NGLA?  And for a group of golfers looking for the best in 1910, which course was a better benchmark than NGLA through their eyes?

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Virtually every article mentioned the same three courses as the tops of American design...Myopia, Garden City, and NGLA...ALL done by Amateurs.

What the heck had Barker completed on his own (or any of the other Foreign Pros for that matter) that was noteworthy by spring 1910?

Nevermind...no need to answer that question.

I'm sure we'll hear that Merion wanted to model their course after the much-vaunted Rumson Country Club.  

[JESII]

Ahh...four days on the beach and this conversation has advanced by immeasurable degrees...

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I forgot to thank you in advance for your non answer.

Mike,

I mean really, in 1910 there were only what, 100 courses in the US, if that?  And given the amateurism prevalent then, I doubt anyone could have really established any superiority in the professional field by that time.  Could they?  Certainly, NGLA and those two others were the stars of the day over whatever other courses existed.

And then as now personal relationships got jobs.  They knew CBM. (some of them, and all of them knew of him)  Could the same be said for the others?  Perhaps, but they chose who they chose.

[TEPaul]

"It is ludicrous to think those in charge of MCC and/or those in charge of the real estate venture would rely on an untested, inexperienced insurance salesman, especially when they had arguably the top designers in America at their disposal. It defies logic."


Tom MacWood:

Even though it may seem ludicrous to you and even though you feel it defies logic those in charge of MCC did precisely that---eg rely on Chairman Wilson and his committee to lay out and construct the East and West courses.

Matter of fact, just this morning I was reading the MCC Board meeting minutes from Nov, 23, 1914 when Wilson resigned as the chairman of the Green Committee due to business issues. The Board offered a formal written resolution to be made a part of their records thanking Wilson for his invaluable service to the club for LAYING OUT AND CONSTRUCTING the East and West courses.

You're right, these were some pretty smart and powerful men and obviously they were not in the habit of recording a resolution in their board meetings about something that never happened!  
 
 
 

[DMoriarty]

One hundred courses in the United States in 1910, if that?   Once again Jeff you establish just how little you know and understand the state of golf course design in this early era. 

And TEPaul once again foists on us another unsubstantiated, unverified, and obviously incomplete snippet from Merion's Minutes, as if it were dispositive. Given that my IMO also credited Wilson with laying out and constructing Merion East, just what is it that we are supposed to learn from this?  As Merion's minutes said, (his committee) would lay it out according the the plan that CBM and HJW chose and approved.    I suppose the only question left is how much or how little creative input Wilson contributed to this plan. 

Mike Cirba, TomM and I have set forth in detail the various changing versions of the alleged documents TEPaul has claimed to set forth verbatim.  That you tend to immediately forget all that you don't like is not TomMacWood's problem, it is yours.

Jim,

I hope you enjoyed the beach.   Do you suppose we will ever get back to Tolhurst?  These guys hijacked the thread before it ever got interesting.

[TEPaul]

It has been some times since I looked at later board meeing minutes but the committee report (known as the Special Committee on Additional Golf Grounds) offered to a Special MCC board meeting of Dec 2, 1912 mentions that the committee had looked into the option of purchasing enough land (they mentioned an additional 60 acres) within the HDC development to build a new nine hole course. They determined, at that point (1912) it had become too expensive and so they went down the road to where the West Course is now.

I suppose if they did that with HDC in the end of 1912 that must mean that the residential development in that area at that point must've still be almost completely unsold lot wise? Or could this perhaps mean Lloyd was more in control of HDC than we've heretofore suspected?

And by the way, that Special report did say that they had only made some very discreet inquiries about land down the road because they did not want to raise the sale prices on it by letting the landowners know what they were considering.

My point in mentioned that is if they actually reported that in 1912 wouldn't the same thing have been true in 1910 when HDC was still parceling together their 338 HDC project of which a part would become Merion East?

[JESII]

I've been pretty patient through these discussions...but why are you all still at it?

Can any of you name one thing you've learned about the history of Merion by a direct result of these conversations?

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

That there were probably well over 1,000 golf courses in the US by 1910 illustrates how few of those were of any quality.

By all accounts, the three best, and those courses Merion sought to emulate, were the three cited by both foreign visitors as well as locals as clearly superior and not just geometric, steeple-chase golf and they were ALL designed by AMATEURS, not foreign-born pros.

Tom Paul,

Don't you know that ALL of those early accounts in newspapers and club records and all other acclaim through the years was simply that numbnuts Hugh Wilson was able to place wooden stakes in the ground precisely where CBM and Whigham told them to stick 'em.   What a ludicrous joke!  

One idiot even called him "the genius behind both courses at Merion", in 1913.   

All for sticking some sticks in the ground in the right place.  Can you imagine?? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I stand corrected by a factor of 10X. According to Cornish and Whitten there were 982 courses in the USA in 1900, more than in GBI.  However, they note that most of them were pretty pathetic - either done by beginners, or done by pros often paid by Spalding and others to promote golf playing, if not architecture. Quality architecture came later and slowly, generally speaking.  In broad terms, its kind of surprising in an enterprising country like the USA in those days that the first great course (NGLA) in America came after 1000 attempts.

As to Wilson's creative input, we do agree, I think that most of the bunkering, etc. was done primarily by him later on.  We also know he was in charge of the committee when those five routing plans were done upon the return from NGLA, but that the final piece was provided by Francis, and the approval of such was done by CBM, right?

You know, there are some gca's (professional or otherwise) who are better at routing and others better at features.  The two skills are about as related as putting and driving in golf itself.  I sincerely doubt anyone's records would detail the strengths of the committee at various things.  They obviously felt a little cowed by routing, at least at first, by going to CBM.  

David, I will also note that I certainly don't have enough of a photographic memory to recall all your proclamations about TEPaul. I really doubt any of us do.  The only problem I have with TMac is his interpretation that Barker routed the final Merion plan, based on train schedules he has never produced.  Based on his demands of what he thinks TePaul ought to produce, that strikes me as a good tit for tat.  I presume you disagree?

[JESII]

Mike,

I'm curious then why you think they couldn't figure out a routing worthy of club approval without CBM's sing-off...

The idea that they had begun nothing until 1911 and accomplished nothing until CBM approved a plan seems a strange position to take while laughing about Wilson and his committee obviously doing everything...

[Mike Cirba]

“Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying the various holes that were copied after the famous ones abroad.”

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans.  On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans..."

[JESII]

..."picked one that would be best..."

Or something to that effect...right?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I'm curious as to why you thing CBM was involved in some kind of karoke sing off?  We will never get to the bottom of this if we keep introducing new speculation.  Besides,

1) From what I have read, CBM wouldn't be doing a lot of singing, but with enough alcohol, who knows?  Maybe that was the real purpose of the NGLA meeting in March?

2) Leave speculation to the pros here, Jim, and don't think its a good idea to try that at home!

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

CBM was the most famous golfer in the US at the time.

His long-awaited "Ideal Golf Links" had just had a soft opening in July, 1910, with an invitational tournament where he elicited feedback and suggestions for his course.    It opened to the membership in 1911.

He was iconic, and larger than life.

Getting his approval and sign off was huge for any number of reasons, not the least of which was that they wanted to emulate what he had done at NGLA, they wanted the best course they could make, they wanted to leverage his knowledge about building your own course, and he apparently was willing to help them with advice and suggestions, which is the wording EVERYONE back then used.

A more relevant question might be, why wouldn't they NOT have gone to him if he was willing to help them?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

something like that.

I paraphrased the entire paragraph nearly verbatim the other day but it got ignored because the usual protagonists only like the part about "approve", but not the parts about who actually created the routing plans that CBM and Whigham approved.

The funny thing is that CBM couldn't "approve" of something in the sense that David would have us believe and that he implicitly ascribes to them because they were not even members, much less Board Members of Merion.

Instead, they had no power to do anything beyond the standard definition;

ap·prove  (-prv)
v. ap·proved, ap·prov·ing, ap·proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.