Desmond Tolhurst's account

[TEPaul]

TePaul,

"You make an interesting point about the differences in 1910 vs 1909.  I have read and postulated that we all have a weakness in understanding the multi year time frames, and evolving story lines of times long past.  For example, we think of "World War II" as a single event now because of its label.  Those who lived through it knew it took 7-9 years (starting with Asian conflicts as early as 1936, not to mention the Nazi lead up which extends the back story further)

The label "World War II" makes it seem as it took an hour like "dinner last Tuesday."  The prevalance of one hour TV shows heightens this weakness in human perception in general, and in my probably uninformed opinion, many or our historical analysis here, including David's.

Re: this drivel, it seems incomprehensible to me that the idea of the courses being too short was NEVER brought up in the world according to David, even if some documents do not mention it.  Hell, Francis mentions it in his 1950 US Open reminiscence and he was there.  Somehow, DM keeps telling us there is NO mention of it because of a document dated XX- XXX- 1910."



Jeff:

First of all, I find most of what you said in your first two paragraphs very fascinating and I encourage you to please expand on it. In your third paragraph all I can say is that history is history and it is pretty well recorded particularly contemporaneously and even in the longer view if it really was important enough. The fact is the on-set of the Haskell ball and the perceived distance explosion in golf and the consequent perceived obsoleting of existing courses due to that back then was probably the greatest example of the movement of club courses in the entire history of architecture and perhaps by a factor of like ten. The proof is simply in the statistics even if there were some other important factors that had to do with those movements and particularly in the most significant metropolitan areas. What David Moriarty says about it or about Merion's reasons for considering moving is of about zero importance or consequence but I trust you already know that.

[Mike Cirba]

They could have copied the text to Alice in Wonderland in Tollhurst's history, and it wouldn't change the facts that CBM put in three days of time at Merion, and Wilson put in closer to three years and deserves the credit far more than old CB.



Jeff Brauer,

You ignorant twit.

There you go again spouting your gross inaccuracies, and showing precisely how little you actually know about the issue.   

Why, if you knew anything at all you'd realize that you have just misrepresented the time that CBM spent at Merion by a whopping 33%!.   What a foolish overstatement of gross proportion!! 

If you read more carefully, or perhaps had greater comprehension skills, you have recalled perhaps that CBM came to Merion back in June 1910 for a single day to look at property they considered buying, and then wrote a nice, one-page note describing a generic 6,000 yard sporty course back to the membership, as well as some words about agronomy and soils for an inland course.

He did not return until April, 1911, again on a one day site visit to look at various plans for the course done by the Merion committee and help them pick their best one.

He was never there again.

So, Mr. Brauer...where exactly are you getting your third day from??!

Perhaps you've been listening to Tom Paul again, or perhaps breaking into the wine yourself, because to make an error of that monumental nature, you have not only proven to this site that you have no business discussing this whole matter, but furthermore, you should recognize that I'm only quoting "facts" here, and you should follow suit and cease and desist your wholly speculative and hyperbolic exaggeration of CBM's true record and value to the Merion project.

33% indeed!!   

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Okay, I will accept that you were only trying to answer Jim's questions.

As to not being any facts to support it, in the other thread, Mike Cirba post 232 shows the "Merion Memories" by Richard Francis.  His first pp says that the course was antiquated.  He was there at the beginning, or shortly thereafter and he recalls course quality being an issue.  It is a first person source.

I believe that warrants acknowledgement that course conditions (most likely length) was an issue in their minds, even if the buying price ended up trumping all when it came down to the minutes.

And we can infer that the amount of acreage was important in their considerations if for no other reasons that they bought more and CBM advised on how much they needed for a first class course (from which we might infer that the original course was not, which I think is agreed)

I feel like I am only challenging your assertion that the facts you deem important are the only ones we can consider, and that we are all wrong for considering others, when you simply ignore the others when we bring them up.  And yes, I am inferring things from known facts, but to be fair, you do, too.  We have to in this line of endeavor and the question around here has always been "who is better at it?"  

Lastly, I still have the same big picture question.....lets say we agree to agree that Merion moved to their new site, 99% because of cost, and 1% because of course length.  (or 94-6%)  Would either of those ratios have affected the final outcome of Merion East architecturally, since that is what we are nominally here to discuss?  Regardless of the % reasons they moved, they moved.  Which is why I say lengthy arguments over the precise ratio of reasons for the move isn't worth it.

And yet......here I am.

Mike, you ignorant slut.  

In one version of that post somewhere (maybe my own mind) I think I typed it as "at or on" Merion and gave CBM credit for the days spent with the committee at NGLA, at least the on site portion. Drinking and after dinner cigars, not so much!

[TEPaul]

"....and then wrote a nice, one-page note...."



Cirba, you ignorant slut, Macdonald's letter to Lloyd following his one day June, 1910 visit to Ardmore at the behest of Rodman Griscom,  covered over three pages in the club meeting minutes even if the first page covered over about 10/16th of the first page, the second page being full, and the third page covering over about 4.78/16th of that last page! How dare you be a such pathetic researcher to not know that? You and your kind are the very definition of "MEANINGFULLY INACCURATE!"

[Mike Cirba]

Mr. Brauer,

I find it very odd and ironic that Mr. Francis is being selectively thrown under the bus here.

In one case, we're told to literally interpret his 130x190 statement concerning the "triangle" even though the same statement says that wee bit of triangle land was traded for "the land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road..." as Biblical truth and not a simplified summary of that land swap, yet when he states straight up the reasons for giving up their original course we are told to believe he had onset of early senility.

In fact, that "Triangle" argument was the lynchpin of David's entire essay, in which he tried to prove that Hugh Wilson couldn't possibly have routed Merion East because his committee hadn't formed at the time the November 1910 map was sent to the membership with that triangle land on it, so it had to precede Wilson's involvement, or so we were told.

Of course, we later find that even though it was a scale map by a reputable surveyor, the triangle land most assuredly did NOT measure at 130x190, not even close, so that pretty much ended any doubt on the matter for me, and I'm betting many others.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mr. Cirba,

I agree.  Mr. Moriarity moves his arguments around more than a Mel Brooks mole, and yet covers it by accusing everyone else of everything else.  At least in my humble opinion.

I believe his IMO piece has been vetted just fine by the Merion threads, and yet he ignores those facts in evidence as well and calls for someone to please look at it for the FIRST time and vet it.  I see no point.  He just likes to argue.  I hear he is actually a very fine gentleman, but as it happens, we are the ones to suffer his one vice - arguing gca until he is blue in the face.  How sad really, as its not worth the trouble. I like the debates as much as the next guy, lose my temper from time to time, etc., but we have long passed the point where discussing Merion is fun.

I suspect that after David tries to establish Francis's senility for us, he will then move on to analyzing his bathroom habits.  And at that point, I am really outta here, never to return!

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

As I said,  as far as I know Francis wasn't there.   And when their are two contradictory reasons:   Leaving the course because it was too short vs. Trying to stay there by buying the course, , then I will go with those who were there over those who weren't.

This was Merion's Board.  Didn't you say that if the position of Merion's Board was that it was a financial decision then you would accept that?  

astly, I still have the same big picture question.....lets say we agree to agree that Merion moved to their new site, 99% because of cost, and 1% because of course length.  (or 94-6%)  Would either of those ratios have affected the final outcome of Merion East architecturally, since that is what we are nominally here to discuss?  Regardless of the % reasons they moved, they moved.  Which is why I say lengthy arguments over the precise ratio of reasons for the move isn't worth it.

Of course it doesn't have anything to do with the design.  That has been my point all along.  I was just answering Jim's frigging question.   That was my purpose.  How about you?  What was your purpose, besides scolding me?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Yeah, you are right. I am just scolding you.  Really. I'm sorry for going over the top a bit.

To civilly answer your question, from my perspective, I understand the notion to go with the minutes as the official position.  At the same time, I am not sure why its important to go with one or the other?  Some first person accounts (IMHO Francis was so involved he was there early enough to know, even if not in the board room that night) say its length others say cost. 

I just don't agree with your need to go one way or the other because it seems more likely to me that both parts were a factor.  I believe your thought that the reasons are contradictory rather than complimentary is just wrong.

In agreeing that you were just answering Jim's question, I can agree that it had nothing to do with the design and that perhaps I was wrong to assume you were tying it back to calls for vetting, etc.

[TEPaul]

Jim Sullivan asked on another thread (that seems to have floated into cyberspace) about the following points that were underlined on the other thread to indicate they were "meaningfully inaccurate" in the Desmond Tolhurst history books (1989 and 2005).



“Since I'm not too into circle jerks, and do possess the rare (in here anyway...) ability to discuss these things like an adult, I'll start...


- In 1909, the golfers of the Merion Cricket club formed the Merion Cricket GC Association

- They explored the possibility of acquiring land around the old course so that it could be lengthened.

- The golf association bought the property and leased it back to the Cricket Club.


These are your first three underlines from that thread...how are they meaningfully inaccurate?”



Sully:

To go back to the the first point even though it was discussed in the other thread because you told me you would like to discuss it civilly and intelligently:

For reference to Tolhurst's book, this is what he said about that association on p. 19:

"In 1909, the golfers of the Merion Cricket Club formed the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association to examine the problems presented by the Haskell ball, namely that it had made their course obsolete. The moving spirits of the organization were Rodman E. Griscom, Charlton Yarnall, Robert Lesley, Walter Stephenson, Alan Wilson and his younger brother, Hugh."



Is that statement meaningfully inaccurate and if so why?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Having gone back through the book to put that statement into context and having checked a few other records here's what I think the accurate and factual answer is as well as why I think a few on here felt that statement in Tolhurst's book was meanfully inaccurate.

"....on Nov, 20, 1895, the Merion Cricket Club's board considered "Golf and the playing of same." The task was referred to a committee of three: Chairman Charles Williams, Rodman D. Griscom and John B. Thayer. Within a matter of months the chair passed to Griscom, who became the driving force behind golf at Merion."

      "Griscom proposed the initial report of the Golf Committee at the January, 1896 board meeting. President Allen Evans said: "I suppose it is unnecessary to state that the main clubhouse and casino with all the contents were totally destroyed by fire on the evening of Saturday, January 4, 1896." A board member then moved "in consequence of the fire and lack of affirmative responses the Committee be discharged and the scheme abandoned." Fortunately, another member proposed an amendment that the Golf Committee should be continued and the amendment carried.
       In just weeks, the Golf Committee presented an upbeat report spelling out plans for a golf course and golf program. It recommended the renting of the "Smith" farm in Haverford from the Pennsylvania Railroad and building a golf course on it. Standing on the property were a three story frame farmhouse as well as run-down barn and stable."

For the next few years the question of whether all the members of MCC should be assessed for golf or only those actually playing golf was bounced around and went back and forth.

By 1898 the original clubhouse was bursting at the seams and golf members contributed personal subscriptions toward building a new one that was built adjoining "Dolobran," a large estate owned by prominent member and shipping magnate, Clement A. Griscom (Rodman's father).

The next year, it became apparent that the nine holes were no longer enough to accommodate Merion's golfers, who now numbered nearly 300. Clement Griscom was kind enough to offer the Club free use of enough acreage from his estate (150 acres) for the additional nine holes. The Board accepted with thanks, and the new holes were completed in 1900. This 18-hole course was to serve the club until 1912 (Tolhurst said 1912 but this course was actually kept open to the members until the end of 1913).

So it seems the confusion here was that some thought the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association was formed in the early years. It wasn't. Up until 1909 it was just the golfers of Merion Cricket club that were administered by the aforementioned Golf COMMITTEE. In 1909 an actual ASSOCIATION was formed that became known as the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association that would last in various structural iterations until on Dec 7, 1941 they voted to form the Merion Golf Club and split away from MCC.

Rodaman Griscom would become the first president of Merion GC.

So it seems Tolhurst's statement is factually accurate because the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association actually was first formed in 1909 and its members were Rodman Griscom, Charlton Yarnall, Robert Lesley, Walter Stephenson, Alan Wilson and his younger brother, Hugh who were the moving spirits behind MCCGA for the purpose of examining the problem presented by the Haskell ball, namely that it had made their course obsolete.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I also suspect that Rodman Griscom had some hands-on experience with building that second nine.   Shortly after, he was appointed to a GAP committee with others who had design/construction experience and charged with desigining/building the first public course in Philadelphia, near Belmont Mansion, along with Sam Heebner of Philly Cricket, and George Fowle of Philadelphia Country Club, and one or two others..  

The articles of the time made clear that these men were being chosen for their prior golf course construction experience.

[TEPaul]

Rodman Griscom was one of the men who formed GAP itself in I think 1896-7, making that regional golf association the second oldest association in America right behind the USGA. And Rodman Griscom was the man who invited Macdonald and Whigam to come to Ardmore in June 1910 to look at the prospective land. Griscom knew Macdonald through the Lesley Cup, at least, that had begun in 1905. Griscom won the 1905 Philadelphia Amateur and I believe he was on the board of the USGA. His sister Frances Griscom won the 1900 US Amateur at Shinnecock. There is what's known as the Frances Biddle Griscom Cup, a competition among mixed teams of Philadelphia players who are also members of the same family (or I think the same club), and the Clement A. Griscom Cup, for inter-city matches between metropolitan New York, Boston and Philadelphia area clubs. I think the latter two Cups have been going on for close to 110 years.

[TEPaul]

Actually, something else just occured to me about Griscom that might help explain one of the reasons MCC turned to Hugh Wilson to chair the committee to design and create Merion's East and West courses.

In 1925, Alan Wilson, who had been the president of the so-called USGA Green Committee that had been formed with the expectation of forming the USGA Green Section, stepped down in that capacity in 1925 after the death of his brother. One of the men who was considered to take his place was Rodman Griscom but it was decided he may not have enough of an interest in golf grass. Then it occured to me that both Alan and particularly Hugh were always known to have a true fascination with flowers and plants and grasses. We can recall that Macdonald's June 1910 letter to MCC following his visit to Ardmore was as much about the development of the golf grass at that site as it was about golf architecture. For that reason, amongst others, Hugh was probably the logical choice amongst the men of Merion. But there is very little question that Hugh Wilson was a remarkably quick study in anything that interested him. He was a man with a very active curiosity, as was Alan.

[TEPaul]

By the way, Clement A. Griscom, Rodman and Frances' father (I believe there was another son, Lloyd who was the ambassador to Italy in the first decade of the 20th century) was the chairman of what was called IMM (International Mercantile Marine) or affectionately known as "The Shipping Trust." It had close to one million tons at sea perhaps making it one of the biggest commercial shipping entities in the world. It was essentially financed by Morgan, the sister company to Drexel at the time, and the two finance companies Horatio Gates Lloyd was a partner of around 1910. IMM ran both freight and passenger lines and one of the latter was The White Star Line, who's flagship was the Titanic.

Matter of fact, John B. Thayer, an unbelievably good cricket player, and one of the three who with Rodman Griscom was on the original MCC Golf Committee in 1895, sailed on the Titanic with his family (wife, two children and nurse) and became one of its heroes. He was on the board of MCC and one of the vice presidents of the Pennsylvania Railroad and when he died on the Titanic, Hugh Wilson was voted onto his place on the MCC board.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Not sure I understand the logic, but TEPaul apparently thinks that the early formation of a Golf Committee somehow precluded the creation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association.   This makes no sense to me and is inconsistent with the facts as I know them.   I don't have the exact date the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association was formed, but there are multiple reports of its existence in the late 1890s.   So the date Tolhurst provides is inaccurate.   More importantly, Tolhurst suggests that the Merion Golf Club Golf Association was formed to examine issues relating to the Haskell ball.    Not even TEPaul claims that this was the purposes of the organization.  

Tolhurst (and perhaps TEPaul) may be confusing the MCCGA with the Committee which had been appointed by Merion's Board to purchase the old site or, failing that, to find a new location.   The MCCGA was not a committee of administrators, it was an association of golfers within Merion's broader membership.   For example, one 1898 newspaper article described a tournament in which "some of the feminine members of the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association" participated.   Why would newspapers have been referring by name to the "Merion Cricket Club Golf Association" if the organization did not come into existence until 11 years later?  

Also, Tolhurst threw Hugh Wilson and Alan Wilson in as if they were part of this supposed business of examining the Haskell as well as the business of finding new land for the course.   So far as I can tell this is not the case.   If there is evidence that Hugh Wilson was involved at any time before he said he became involved then I'd like to see it.  

To my mind and as far as I know these are most definitely inaccuracies. The date the committee is formed is off by over a decade.  The purpose for the existence of the "association" is inaccurate.   The committee who actually played something like the suggested role (sans Haskell ball issue) role is not mentioned.   The implication that either Wilson brother was involved in finding the land is incorrect.   If facts exist to the contrary, I'd like to see them.

As to whether these inaccuracies are meaningful, they are to me, and are meaningful within the context of the passage.  And they were meaningful enough to Tolhurst for him to include them in his short history.   The implication that Hugh Wilson was involved in the process of finding the land is definitely a meaningful mistake because it places Wilson on the scene long before he was, and thus creates the impression that Wilson was more involved than he really was.    

One could argue, as Jeff does, that this stuff has nothing to do with who planned the course, and is therefore not meaningful. Except for the bit about Hugh Wilson.  I agree.   But this couldn't possibly be your standard for "meaningfulness" otherwise you would be writing off most of Tolhurst from the get-go.


___________________________________

To return briefly to the issue of the Reason(s) for the Move.   You and anyone else can argue that there were other reasons for the move.   I am not convinced.   But even if there was some concern about the length of the old course, and this concern could not be allayed on that site, this wouldn't end the issue.   We would still have to determine whether leaving out the financial reason was a "meaningful inaccuracy."  I argue that it is.

First, this was the only reason that Merion gave for the move.  It was what Board told the members, and was thus all many of them had to consider when they were asked to pony up for the purchase of the Ardmore Avenue land.    It was even the reason given to the general public by the press.  Messing with the narrative from the actual event effectively rewrites this significant moment in Merion's history.

Second, by offering the questionable Haskell reason and neglecting to mention the offered reason -- that the club was unable to pay the asking price -- Tolhurst creates the false impression that Merion's move was motivated purely by the desire for a better course, and not by practicalities like cost.  While those at Merion may wish that this was the way it happened, it just didn't happen that way.  Finances played a big part of it.  And acting as if finances didn't play a part of it creates a meaningful inaccuracy.

For example, take a look at TEPaul's response to my post noting that Merion was unable to pay the asking price for the land.   From his post last night which has apparently been deleted (which really pisses me off) . . .

. . . This guy has no idea at all about what was going on in the "Main Line" back then or at MCC, who essentially controlled it, who they were, what they did, and the way they operated. . . .
. . .  He has no idea at all of any of it; not the ethos of it, not the history of it; not the people who ran these clubs and the major corporations of this town who were some of the very same people--- he understands none of it. . . .
. . . To think that some of the membership of that club couldn't afford anything is patently ridiculous.. . .
. . . He's never really been to Merion except one times with his little hickory sticks . . .
. . . he probably knows no one there or no one who has ever been there, and definitely none of its history and certainly not its unique ethos, families et al going back over a century . . .

TEPaul's bizarre and righteous indignation and overreaction demonstrates just how meaningful this type of inaccuracy is.  

And this for merely reporting, verbatim, what Merion's Board wrote about the club's reasons for moving!     Imagine his eaction if I didn't have Merion's Board backing me up on the issue.

_______________________________

One more thing.   If there was a second issue at Merion that necessitated finding a new course, it may have been overcrowding.   But again, I think the history has got to cover the reason Merion itself chose.

[JESII]

David,

If you're looking to travel strictly in the black and white that's fine, just don't expect to ask for a little gray in other areas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good morning.  While logged in to discuss random bunkers, I figured, what the heck.

I actually mostly agree with your post and see some middle ground.  No doubt the main reason the move happened was that MCC wanted a golf course they could own rather than lease.  And little doubt in my mind that they would seek to build a better course than they had while they were at it.

I agree Tollhurst overlooked that fact, but understand the reason.  He was writing a generalized history on the occaision of the US Open coming to Merion.  In polite company, and in that kind of piece, for that kind of club, it is not surprising that they focused on the postive and wouldn't want to say the club history, full of such important men, was influenced by, shall we say, humble beginnings. 

Which is why I think all the emphasis on Tollhurst makes little sense, even if you are correct in the black and white sense.  And, why I can understand TePaul, as part of that polite society, going all Mel Gibson on ya.  In Philly circles, (or mostly anywhere) being pounded mercilessly about how you are wrong on some minor point in the overall context of things is just considered bad form.  They may know you are right on this point, but it is still disconcerting.

Which is why one of my posts said you can be right and wrong at the same time! There are facts and there are feelings.  In some cases, feelings trump.  Hell, in most cases, feelings trump.

[Tom MacWood]

Is there a different standard of accuracy when it comes to golf course histories and/or general histories (whatever that is)?

[JESII]

Tom,

I'm no historian, but my argument/position here is merely an effort to move the conversation along...I frankly don't care how precise Tolhurst was...I'm sure many do, just not me. It's when you say David's essay makes his look pathetic that I get into the conversation.

For example, of what importance is it, in the realm of discussing the creation and evolution of Merion's East course, if the MCCGA was formed in 1898 or 1909 if its primary (or probably more accurate, its exclusive) purpose from 1909 through 1913 was to facilitate the enhancement of the golf program at Merion?

That's why I clearly asked about "meaningful inaccuracies". Yours and David's position on this as drawing a hard line in the sand with respect to an item being fully accurate or it's deemed fully inaccurate is fine, and fair, so long as we also take that approach to the board saying Wilson and his committee designed the course with friendly assistance from CBM...

[DMoriarty]

David,

If you're looking to travel strictly in the black and white that's fine, just don't expect to ask for a little gray in other areas.

Jim,   Wasn't this your exercise?  You asked for what was inaccurate in the first paragraph of Tolhurst, so what were you expecting?    What was your point if not to explore where Tolhurst got it right or wrong?    

As for gray areas, sometimes one has no choice but to enter them based on an inexact or incomplete record.  But where the historical record is more black and white than gray, I have trouble understanding why one would choose gray over black and white.   And I don't mean Tolhurst, because I don't think he looked at most of the key stuff before he wrote what he wrote, so it was probably all pretty gray and I have no doubt he did the best he could with what he had.    We have a big advantage over Tolhurst because I found the 1910 Board Report which TEPaul and cohorts had long speculated had been lost in a flood or some such natural disaster.  

So please understand that I don't have it in for Tolhurst.  I just think that histories ought to be set straight when new information or a better analysis comes along.  

For example, of what importance is it, in the realm of discussing the creation and evolution of Merion's East course, if the MCCGA was formed in 1898 or 1909 if its primary (or probably more accurate, its exclusive) purpose from 1909 through 1913 was to facilitate the enhancement of the golf program at Merion?

"Facilitate the enhancement of the golf program at Merion?  I am not sure where you got that or what it means but it seems a bit like a catch-all so broad that it would mean that just about anything said about the MCCGA was close enough so long as it had something remotely to do with golf and Merion.

Also, Tolhurst wasn't just written about Merion East, but about the history of Merion, so I am not sure I understand why you constrain the meaning of meaningful the way you do.

My problem with Tolhurst's treatment of the MCCGA is that Tolhurst seems to think it was an organization created in conjunction with the move and to facilitate the move.    It wasn't.    He doesn't seem to get that this was, apparently, an association of the golfers at Merion.  It was not some Committee asked to facilitate the move.   I understand where the confusion comes from, and it is confusing, but to me it is the sort of thing that ought to be set straight when figured out.

By the way, my paper didn't get into this at all, and I didn't go out of my way to correct every little misunderstanding about Merion's history.  Even the bit about the reason for the move was relegated to a footnote.     My paper focused on what I considered the bigger and more meaningful issues.

But when you asked what is wrong with Tolhurst and even break it down into little snippets, then I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that you really wanted to hear what was wrong with it.  

That's why I clearly asked about "meaningful inaccuracies". Yours and David's position on this as drawing a hard line in the sand with respect to an item being fully accurate or it's deemed fully inaccurate is fine, and fair, so long as we also take that approach to the board saying Wilson and his committee designed the course with friendly assistance from CBM...

First, I think that what the board said regarding CBM was accurate.   So far as I am concerned the board is on my side.    I haven't seen the part about where they said Wilson designed the course.    I have heard about the part where they said they gave final approval to the plan that CBM had chosen and approved.  

Second, perhaps you can tell me what you think is meaningful, and then I can tell you whether it is accurate.  Because I don't get it.   It seems like you are putting things in there that aren't in there to come up with what is meaningful.   For example where does Tolhurst ever describe the MCCGA as you described it, or where do you even get that from what Tolhurst said?  

Third, see what I said about gray areas.  History is full of full of them and they need to be explored and that isn't easy.    But what you seem to be suggesting is that because Tom and I have  found the black and white here, we are barred from exploring grey areas elsewhere.  This doesn't make sense to me.    Where history is black and white, I'll go with black and white and not try to substitute in my own gray.     Where it is gray I will do the best I can with trying to figure it out, until something more black and white comes along.    

One should never substitute their own gray in just because they prefer that history over what is written in black in white in the historical record.  

__________________________________________

I agree Tollhurst overlooked that fact, but understand the reason.  He was writing a generalized history on the occaision of the US Open coming to Merion.  In polite company, and in that kind of piece, for that kind of club, it is not surprising that they focused on the postive and wouldn't want to say the club history, full of such important men, was influenced by, shall we say, humble beginnings.  

But this is really at the root of all this discussion, isn't it?   Merion's (or at least TEPaul's and Wayne's) desire to ignore what actually happened and instead create a "history" of what they would like to think might have happened?  

Which is why I think all the emphasis on Tollhurst makes little sense, even if you are correct in the black and white sense.  And, why I can understand TePaul, as part of that polite society, going all Mel Gibson on ya.  In Philly circles, (or mostly anywhere) being pounded mercilessly about how you are wrong on some minor point in the overall context of things is just considered bad form.  They may know you are right on this point, but it is still disconcerting.

Let me get this straight . . .
-- It is "bad form" for me to answer honestly when asked to explain the meaningful inaccuracies in Tolhurst?
-- So TEPaul's "going all Mel Gibson" on me is understandable, because he'd rather Merion's history be something other than what it was?

So much for polite society.

Which is why one of my posts said you can be right and wrong at the same time! There are facts and there are feelings.  In some cases, feelings trump.  Hell, in most cases, feelings trump.

Speaking of being right and wrong at the same time, you nailed it on this one!   Around here, when it comes to the history of Merion, feelings most certainly trump facts all the time.   But when it comes to understanding history, should they?     I don't think so.    

[JESII]

David,

Let's discuss Black & White...is it your contention that the single, absolute only reason that Merion sought out the land and moved the golf club to its curren tlocation is because they just couldn't afford the old location?

[JESII]

We have a big advantage over Tolhurst because I found the 1910 Board Report which TEPaul and cohorts had long speculated had been lost in a flood or some such natural disaster.  

I don't think you have it in for Tolhurst, I'm really trying to establish a baseline for understanding in the conversation. I think you would like to pick and choose which words to accept at face value and which to make assumptions from. Personally, I think there is much more gray than black & white in all of this but that won't get us anywhere...

What specifically does the 1910 Board report say about the establishment of MCCGA and/or its purpose in the 1909 - 1913 time frame?

[DMoriarty]

David,

Let's discuss Black & White...is it your contention that the single, absolute only reason that Merion sought out the land and moved the golf club to its curren tlocation is because they just couldn't afford the old location?

I think the single, absolute reason that Merion's Board stated to the membership was that they wanted a permanent location and that they were not able to pay the asking price.     

Whatever other reasons there may have been, they were not the reason Merion's Board chose as the single and exclusive reason when justifying their actions and asking for the member's approval.   

For these reasons I think the history should reflect that reason.   If the history wants to go beyond this and speculate about other possible reasons, then the history should make sure it is fact based and not just an effort to portray the club in the best light. 

Frankly I don't get what is wrong with making a financial decision. Merion's board didn't either.  So I don't see why the history should change it. 

[JESII]

I'll assume by your use of the words "...stated to the membership" in that first sentence is because you see that it's not feasible that cost was their only reason for initiating the move.

What specifically does the 1910 Board report say about the establishment of MCCGA and/or its purpose in the 1909 - 1913 time frame?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Is the November 15, 1910 letter from the Board to the Merion membership announcing the securing of land for the new course what you’re referring to as the “1910 Board Report?”

I don’t know the answer to that question but I ask for two reasons;

1) Don’t Boards of Directors issue annual reports that include more information that just that specific letter contained, specific as it was to that particular purpose?   In the case of the Merion Cricket Club, I would think an Annual Report would deal with much more than even golf, including cricket and other endeavors.

2) Heilman wrote in the foreward of his book that he was basically a pain in the rear to the lady who was responsible for getting him the MCC minutes, which he evidently reviewed assiduously and earnestly and repeatedly.   Could he not have perhaps read materials other than what was included in that November 1910 letter that talked about the Haskell ball, or other matters driving the dissatisfaction with the present golf course situation, from the Board minutes of any meeting for several years prior, or even in 1910 for that matter?

At least one news report of the time (below) seemed to indicate that other matters than financial were at play with the membership.

Similarly, might not other MCC minutes from months or years prior talk about using the MCCGA to study the question of what to do about the outmoding of courses with the new Haskell Ball, or assign people like those named including the Wilson brother's in sub-committees for those purposes?  

One thing I do know well about Robert Lesley at both Merion and as President of GAP is that he loved his committees, he loved using Hugh Wilson on them, and they were all very effective.   Do you think Heilmann and/or Tolhurst just made up these names out of thin air?

Isn't it basically true that you don't know what the MCC Minutes or any Annual Reports say in any of those regards, other than that one November 15, 1910 letter?