News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2010, 06:22:48 PM »
David,

That's why it is so pointless and such a waste of time to try and discuss any of this with you...you simply make stuff up that is completely at odds with the physical record and state it as proven fact..

There is not a shred of evidence indicationg that the committee "spent two days at ngla going over the layout".

Quite the contrary infact...both Wilson's 1916 account as well as the april 1911 minutes spell out precisely what they spent those two days doing.

Such leaps of logic, faith, and misrepresentation of what the evidence actually says is precisely why your theories have gained so little traction among anyone who has followed the discussion here.

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2010, 06:27:25 PM »
Clearly Wilson and Flynn were never involved.  In fact, every golf course in the US before 1920 was designed by either MacDonald or Barker!
 ;D ::)
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2010, 06:34:12 PM »
Mike Cirba,

You're not suggesting the that committee traveled all the way from Philadelphia to Southampton to spend two days just to have Macdonald serve them tea and crumpets and to discuss the Phillies and the Yankees, are you ?

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2010, 06:43:42 PM »
Patrick,

Nope.

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2010, 07:11:54 PM »
“He said the hole benefited, but he doesn't say how it benefited.  I don't see any reason to speculate.’



Francis may not have said specifically how the hole benefited but he did say both how and why it benefited in a way that gives us something to go on about how and why it benefited.



Francis wrote:

"While the committee was at work, Mr. Wilson went to the British Isles to study golf-course design, and returned with a lot of drawings which we studied carefully, hoping to incorporate their good features on our course. One of the holes which benefited was the third. It was copied from the Redan at North Berwick..."


From that we can tell the hole benefited after Wilson returned from the British Isles in May 1912 by the drawings he brought back that the committee studied carefully that showed good features that were incorporated into the hole following Wilson’s return.


TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2010, 07:19:28 PM »
"And let's not forget that CBM not only went over the land in 1910, he also spent 2 days with Wilson & Co. at NGLA working on the layout,"



Pat:

That remark by Moriarty that the Wilson committee and CBM and Whigam worked on the layout of Merion East while at NGLA for two days is completely factually unsupportable.

There are two known sources of information regarding what Wilson and committee did when visiting NGLA in early March 1911 with Macdonald and Whigam. One is the report that was read at the April 19, 1911 MCC Board meeting. That report went into a certain amount of detail about what they did both days. There was no mention at all of working on a layout plan for Merion East while at NGLA.

The other source of information is a March 13, 1911 letter from Wilson to Oakley in which Wilson mentioned the agronomy literature Macdonald showed him at NGLA and included the inspection of his agronomy experiments. There was no mention at all in that source either about anything at all to do with discussing the layout of Merion East.

One can always just speculate they discussed and worked on Merion East's layout plan while at NGLA but the fact is there isn't an iota of actual evidence they did that at NGLA. Yet Moriarty keeps making statements on here as if the idea they worked on the Merion East layout plan was factually supportable and supported. This example is no different from many of the other things he presented as factually supportable in his essay that are only speculation on his part and are not factually supported or supportable.

The essay is merely a series of points that look fairly logical when strung together to some people who don't know much about the details of that time and place, such as yourself. But they are pretty much all just speculation and ultimately fallacious reasoning. Some of it is some pretty clever fallacious reasoning but it is speculation and fallacious reasoning nonetheless.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 07:32:42 PM by TEPaul »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2010, 08:52:01 PM »
Yes, the reason I thought Mike's early post was so good is that it 'read' the way I too had read the Fancis snippet, admittedly in isolation from anything else. The way I read it was that after Wilson's return a) substantive/meaningful work was done on a 3rd hole that until then was, in Francis' mind, still in some preliminary form, and b) that this substantive work is what finished the hole, specifically, is what made the redan a redan.  What that work could've been I don't know; but essentially Francis is remembering them 'building up' the golf course -- no, the golf holes -- after Wilson's return. Not the way our designers would design and build and finish a golf course or a golf hole today, perhaps; but that's neither here nor there.

Peter

 

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2010, 09:26:49 PM »
As to what Wilson and Committee really spent two days doing at NGLA, which has just been characterized by David (with support from Patrick) as "spending two days working on the layout" (of Merion), presented as as historical fact...






“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."
- MCC Minutes April 1911

« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 09:50:29 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2010, 09:46:59 PM »
PeterP:

Your observations on your last post are very good ones----ie about the Redan at Merion and the Richard Francis story about it.

But you know your observation is actually just a microcosim of why the basic thesis of David Moriarty's essay on Merion entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" is wrong----eg Hugh Wilson did not go abroad in 1910 before the course was routed and designed and THEREFORE he and his committee could not have routed and designed it.

Yes, there was an historical mistake in one of Merion's history books about Wilson's trip abroad and when he made it and what it meant to the creation of the course but what Moriarty did is completely misinterpret the significance of that mistake in one of Merion's history books. Apparently when Moriarty wrote his essay he assumed that Merion had always said and maintained that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and before his committee was appointed and they began to route and design the course and that that was necessary for him and his committee to have been able to route and design the course.

Unfortunately, that was never the case and apparently David Moriarty wasn't aware of it when he wrote that essay in 2008. He therefore concocted as one of the primary premises of his essay----eg SINCE Wilson did not go abroad before routing and designing the golf course there is no way he could have routed and designed the golf course (Read; he was therefore actually incapable of routing and designing the golf course with his committee)!  ;)


Since there have certainly been a number of people on this website who have shown an interest in knowing some of the real details of Merion's history, I would now like to ask any and all of them, and certainly David Moriarty, to tell me when they think that mistake was FIRST made and FIRST reported in Merion's history about Wilson's 1910 trip abroad. And when that is finally resolved and made apparent on here, I feel most everyone will begin to see the point I'm making in this post!

 
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 09:58:45 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2010, 11:40:15 PM »
TEPaul,
With Wilson's visit to NGLA and MacDonald, I'd be hard pressed to believe that he left Southampton without knowing about the configuration, beauty and playing benefits of a Redan.
He and his committee examined the Redan at NGLA.
CBM had sketches and his personal experiences from abroad and from NGLA which could be imparted onto Wilson and his committee.
With the landform at # 3 at Merion, it just cries out for a "REDAN" like hole.
I don't think Wilson needed to visit the UK in order to be "enlightened" regarding a REDAN."



Pat:

Sorry, I missed that post of yours from earlier today. I completely agree with all of it. Wilson did not have to go abroad to understand what a redan hole looked like since they obviously went out there on the second day of the early March 1911 visit to NGLA when they studied the course with Macdonald and Whigam. And Wilson mentioned they had all looked at Macdonald's drawings from abroad the day before which probably included his drawing of NB's #15 since he studied the course in 1906.

However, whoever it was who discovered the site for the redan (#3) in the winter or spring of 1911 did have some imagination since at that time it had a Pennsylvania bank Barn sitting right on a part of it!  ;)

You can actually see it on a 1908 PRR property map.

By the way, most of you may not understand what a Pennsylvania bank barn is or what it looks like or what it is built like and including their practicality when one understands their siting and structure. It's a bit ironic that the barn/office I'm sitting in right now is the same thing and probably just as old as the one that was on the Dallas estate. In this state you almost never see an old Pennsylvania barn that is NOT a bank barn.

I could actually explain to you why the front of that massive bunker on the right of the 3rd hole was the bank wall of that bank barn. Where the green of #3 is would've been the level on which they ran the hay wagons up to the barn doors and the wall that supported that barn began at about the sand level of that bunker today and extended up two stories to include the hay loft above the barn area below. Ironically that old bank barn barnyard wall survived behind that bunker face, I believe, until it was finally removed when Fazio and Co. did the Merion bunker restoration project less than ten years ago. At least that's what I heard but thinking about it I really can't imagine why they would've bothered to remove that wall. That bank barn wall behind that bunker face could've been there for 200-250 years like the one I am sitting next to now.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 01:25:12 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2010, 02:13:36 AM »
What I find most amusing is that I've been telling you guys for years now that by focusing on the timing of the Wilson trip overseas you have missed the significance of my essay.   The key is the timing of the NGLA trip.  Sure getting the trip overseas correct was important, but much of the reason it was important is because moving the overseas trip to 1912 automatically casts the 1911 NGLA meeting in an entirely different light.  The NGLA trip wasn't about planning Wilson's vacation or some vague seminar, it was about PLANNING MERION.  Alan Wilson said it.  Hugh Wilson said it.   Whigham said it indirectly, as did Lesley, and others.   Merion's board confirmed it. 

_______________________________________________________________________
David,

That's why it is so pointless and such a waste of time to try and discuss any of this with you...you simply make stuff up that is completely at odds with the physical record and state it as proven fact..

There is not a shred of evidence indicationg that the committee "spent two days at ngla going over the layout".

Mike Cirba, you ought to be more careful when accusing people of making things up, especially when making things up. 

Not a shred of evidence?     

Alan Wilson on M&W's involvement:
They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.

Hugh Wilson in 1916:
The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member. Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half the things we did not know. Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C. B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham. We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.  The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.

And then of course there are the board minutes, which I will refrain from quoting because who knows what you guys will claim they say this time. 

And this isn't even touching on the more general accounts that don't specifically mention the NGLA meeting, like Findlay's or like Robert Lesley's in 1914:
The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman, R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.

And then there is the timing -- the NGLA meeting occurred while Merion was trying to figure out how to lay out the course.  And there is the fact that Merion rearranged the course after the NGLA meeting.  And the follow-up --M&W followed up the NGLA meeting by returning to Merion a few weeks later to choose and determine the final routing. 

This all seems like more than a shred of evidence to me.   

What "plans" of CBM's do you think they were discussing?  And why?  Why study the holes?  Why have CBM come back to Merion to chose and determine the final routing.   Did they suddenly decide they were going to leave it up to CBM in the two or three weeks between the NGLA meeting and when CBM came to Merion and chose and determined the final layout plan?

You guys make me laugh.  Really.

___________________________________________

Shivas,

Hugh Wilson tells us that the third was there before Wilson went abroad.   He also tells us what was changed later, and the 3rd wasn't included in his description of the holes that were changed.    So if the 3rd wasn't one of the "many" holes based upon the great holes abroad, then the newspaper missed an obvious one. 

_____________________________

JNC Lyon, 

You've got it half right when it comes to Merion.  I've never seen any credible evidence that has Flynn contributing to the original design of Merion.  But as for Wilson you've got it wrong.  He was definitely involved.   But so were M&W.

____________________________

Peter Pallotta,   

I think your reading of the quote is more wishful thinking than reasonable analysis.  Just like the wishful thinking that guided the understanding of Wilson's 1916 statement for years, even after I pointed out that the passage did not support the conclusions being drawn.  Same goes here, I think.    Or can you tell me where Francis explained how the Redan specifically benefited from Wilson's trip abroad?   Because as specifics go, all I see him discussing are the barn and barnyard.   

__________________________________

Mike Cirba, Did you really put up the 2nd page of the Wilson chapter and claim that it tells us what they were up to at NGLA?  Sleazy, considering the first page mentions that they were dealing with the lay out of the holes.   Nonetheless, when read in context of what was ongoing at the time, even this second page gives a very good idea that they were dealing with the layout.   

As for the agronomy brochures, I think it is really funny that the fact that CBM showed Wilson a few brochures explains what they did for those two days.  Maybe I am just in a good mood, but tonight I am finding your desperate attempts to grasp at anything to be almost endearing.  Not quite though.  Too bad wishful thinking doesn't count for much when it comes to historical analysis.

You guys should take your show on the road.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2010, 06:15:52 AM »
David,

Why the constant attitude?   "Sleaze"??   ::)

Those pages from Wilson's agronomic report to Oakley have been posted here, what...20 times previously?   I would think anyone following along would know the language by heart.   I posted the page that talks about what Wilson said they did on each day.

As far as the rest of your post, no one is disputing that CBM played a consulting role, and no one is saying his advice and suggestions wasn't deemed to be of the greatest help and value and no one is saying that he didn't help "advise as to our plans" in the words of Alan Wilson.

He did, and the Merion record has reflected that for years.

The only thing contested is your exclusionary contention that Wilson's committee didn't route the golf course or configure the golf holes, because the Merion historical record also shows they did.   Did CBM provide "advice and suggestions" as to the layout?   Yes.   Did he come down on April 6th, 1911 and after looking at the plans and the ground itself help them select the best of their remaining five plans?  Yes.  

But that is far, far different than actually designing the golf course for Merion, which is what you've stated, and try to constantly suggest through innuendo and attempts to belittle the abilities of the Merion committee.

The pages I posted frankly do not support your contention that they spent two days at NGLA working on the layout for Merion.   In fact, they tell a far different tale of looking at sketches of holes abroad, and going out and looking at the holes of NGLA, and looking at grasses, and brochures, etc, etc.  

To make that into a working session pouring over maps of the East course while Charley drew the holes for them is a ridiculous, revisionist interpretation that has no basis in the evidence.  

For years you've tried to tell us that Wilson and crew had no basis to design the holes they did because Wilson's trip abroad wasn't until after that, perhaps forgetting that not only did all of the others on the committee have extensive travel overseas, but they also had the benefit of seeing CBM's versions of those holes, as well as his detailed drawings prior to final design and construction.  They also knew lots of local people who had a great personal sense of those holes like Alex Findlay and AW Tillinghast.    In a sense, that puts Wilson's trip in the light of "finishing school".  

But it also means that Merion's committee could have been influenced by the great holes abroad at any time in the design phase, not just after Wilson's trip.

It also means that they could have tried to modify any hole on the property in an effort to cop some principle from abroad any time after Wilson's trip, usually in the form of creating the prescriptive bunker patterns of the famous holes, which is what they did for years after, and which Francis seemingly tells us they did on the 3rd hole, and others like the 6th and 10th.

We know from the historical record that all accounts say Merion had very little bunkering when opened in 1912.   Even by 1915, we read that Merion "has less bunkers than a short nine hole course", and the reasons why...it was tough enough for the members just relying on the natural landforms and natural hazards.   The only reason a major bunkering took place at that time was for the 1916 US Amateur, in an effort to stiffen the test for the best players in the country.

I think Merion started out with the idea that they wanted to do precisely what Macdonald had set out intending to do....make most holes some version of a great hole abroad.

I think they found out very quickly...for any number of reasons...that it was probably best to just create original holes using the landforms they had and then figuring out where the bunkers should go....not according to some rote strategy based on copying a template, but where they fit best on their land for interesting play.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 06:34:11 AM by MCirba »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2010, 08:08:02 AM »
Mike Cirba,

You stated:
Quote
As to what Wilson and Committee really spent two days doing at NGLA, which has just been characterized by David (with support from Patrick) as "spending two days working on the layout" (of Merion), presented as as historical fact...

Would you cite for me where I stated that the committtee spent two days working on the "LAYOUT" ?

Thanks,

However,

I think the following statements are true.

Wilson and the Merion committee traveled to Southampton for the explicit purpose of meeting with CBM and touring NGLA, in PREPARATION for routing and designing the holes/features at Merion.

They didn't travel for social or business reasons.

At the time of the visit, Wilson had NEVER set foot in the UK.
Perhaps those familiar with those in attendance can tell us what each of the committeemen's golfing experience in the UK was, along with their experience with architecture in the U.S. at the time of the NGLA meeting.

CBM presented his sketches to the committee for their education and review.
CBM was available to address and answer any questions they had.

The committee toured NGLA
CBM was available to address and answer their questions relative to NGLA and/or courses in the UK, or both.

The committee, with the combined benefit of studying the sketches and physically touring NGLA, with CBM, received a crash course in architecture, especially as it related to the great holes in the UK and the embodiment of their essence in the ground at NGLA.

If you don't think that exercise over those two days influenced their thinking and manifested itself in the design of Merion, I think you'd have to disqualify yourself as an objective observer and an objective particiapant in these discussions.

The article that YOU posted, written by Francis, stated that the committee wanted to incorporate the good features found in the courses in the UK into Merion.

So where do you think they obtained the information about the good features in/of the great holes in the UK ?
From CBM and NGLA.

The sketches of the great holes/features,, the direct conversations with CBM and the touring of NGLA, the course where CBM says that he embodied the great holes/features into the ground at NGLA, can lead to but one conclusion.  That visit and what the committee learned, had a tremendous influence on the routing and design of Merion.  So much so that Francis wrote that Merion was itself to embody the great holes/features found in the UK

The time line would indicate that Wilson's trip was after the course was "layed out", NOT before.

My question for you and TEPaul, is, had Francis been to the UK for the purpose of playing or studying golf courses/holes and features BEFORE his trip to NGLA ?



 
 

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2010, 10:14:59 AM »
Pat:

I couldn't agree more with what you say in #38. I guess it proves it is better to be late to the party than to never go at all. What you say there in #38 is what we have been saying for years about Merion's history and it's also what Merion's history has said about Macdonald and Whigam and Wilson and his committee and the East Course since the time it happened in 1910 and 1911.

The irony is that some on this website seem to think when they come to understand or discover some of those details that they are the ones who are discovering it for the first time. They don't realize that Merion or MCC has had all this information for just about a century now. I guess it is understandable that some on here think they are discovering something for the first time because most all of them have never had any research relationship with Merion GC or MCC.

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2010, 10:19:16 AM »
Patrick,

I agree with your last post, as well, and misunderstood your tea and crumpets statement as concurring with David on the purpose of the trip.   Thank you for clarifying.

Sorry about that.   I will try not to read into your statements stirring the pot.  ;)  ;D

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2010, 12:13:23 PM »
Tom and Mike,

I read Pat's remarks as suggesting CBM was THE key factor in the intial plan for Merion East based on the committee having accomplished so little prior to the March NGLA visit and the need for him to come to Ardmore 3 weeks later to pick the best course.

But as Pat has always told me...I can't read for sh*t...

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2010, 12:21:41 PM »
Michael:

You're right. Thank you.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 12:50:04 PM by TEPaul »

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2010, 12:26:43 PM »
Tom,

I think you posted on the wrong thread.

Sully,

By agreeing, I was able to avoid the coming torrent of green ink.  ;)  ;D

I think CBM provided very valuable suggestions and advice, and I think everyone at Merion appreciated his help.

Anything else is not only pointless wishful speculation, but it's also refuted by the actual historic record.  ;)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2010, 12:51:01 PM »
Tom and Mike,

I read Pat's remarks as suggesting CBM was THE key factor in the intial plan for Merion East based on the committee having accomplished so little prior to the March NGLA visit and the need for him to come to Ardmore 3 weeks later to pick the best course.

But as Pat has always told me...I can't read for sh*t...

Sully,

I think it had more to do with your reading comprehension skills  ;D

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2010, 12:57:30 PM »
Tom,

I think you posted on the wrong thread.

Sully,

By agreeing, I was able to avoid the coming torrent of green ink.  ;)  ;D

I think CBM provided very valuable suggestions and advice, and I think everyone at Merion appreciated his help.

Anything else is not only pointless wishful speculation, but it's also refuted by the actual historic record.  ;)

Mike,

I think it's more than that.

I think CBM was THE party responsible for the incorporation of the holes/features found on the great courses of the UK.

That's an expanded role, based on acknowledgements to date

The information the committee gleened from their meeting at NGLA with CBM would be Wilson's primary, if not his sole source of detailed architectural knowledge of those features and how they were integrated/embodided in a golf course in the U.S.

« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 03:33:48 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #45 on: October 01, 2010, 01:26:23 PM »
Mike Cirba,

Here is what I wrote:

And let's not forget that CBM not only went over the land in 1910, he also spent 2 days with Wilson & Co. at NGLA working on the layout, then traveled back to Merion a few weeks later to go over the land yet again, and chose the final layout plan.  So even on the off chance Wilson and/or Francis hadn't yet figured out it was a Redan (surely they had) Macdonald knew.  

I've bolded the part that apparently caused you to fly off the handle, even accusing me of "making things up" and "misrepresenting" the record.  You even claimed that there is "not a shred of evidence" to support the statement.    But even you must realize that there is plenty of evidence to support it;  starting with Alan Wilson's explicit statement, Hugh Wilson's explicit statements, the board records, the Lesley article, the Whigham article, the timing of the trip, and even Merion's golf course!     Like it or not, Mike, Wilson and his committee went to NGLA to for help planning the layout of Merion East.  

You keep telling us about how you always admit when you are wrong, so let's hear it.  Tell us you were wrong when you claimed there is not a "shred of evidence" that they were working on the layout plan at NGLA.  Tell us you were wrong for maligning me and accusing me of "making things up" and "misrepresenting" the record.    How many times are you going to falsely accuse me of lying anyway?    

And Mike, "sleazy" is the appropriate word because YOU KNOW that the first page of the Wilson chapter explicitly contradicts your claim that there is "not a shred of evidence" that they were working on the layout.    You posted the second page to mask this fact, and that is SLEAZY.   Just as it was SLEAZY for Wayne and TEPaul to surreptitiously drop the phrase "AS TO THE LAYOUT OF THE EAST COURSE" from the sentence "They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."     Notice how both you and TEPaul are playing games with source material so you can continue to pretend that they weren't discussing the lay out of Merion East at NGLA.  Sleazy in both cases.  

I agree that there is absolutely no reason to keep posting the image of the article or the images of about 20 other records you post over and over again.  But if you are going to post the image, then don't do it disingenuously to try and mask the explicit point which directly contradicts your claim.  Because that is SLEAZY.   Don't lower yourself to TEPaul and Wayne's level.

As for my "attitude," again you make me laugh.   You just accused me of "making things up" and "misrepresenting" the record when you know damn well I haven't, and you claim there is no evidence when you know damn well there is plenty of evidence, yet you wonder why I have an attitude about your sleazy tactics?   Yet I'm the one with the constant attitude? That's rich.

Bottom line is you can twist and turn the evidence all you want in your endless attempt minimize M&W's involvement.  I  don't care anymore.   Your interpretation of what happened is so incredulous it is not worth my addressing it.  But do not pretend that there is no evidence to support my theory.  Your inability to cope with that evidence does not negate its existence.

Whether you agree with me or not, at least be man enough to admit that my logic is sound and that there is plenty of evidence on which to base my interpretation.

____________________________________________

Patrick, while everything you wrote is true, it vastly underestimates what was going on here.   The time had passed for broad lessons about general principles . . .  
-  They were to start building the course the next month.  
-  M&W had already inspected the land and Merion now had the "contour maps" that CBM had referred to after his inspection.
-  The minutes supposedly state they rearranged the course after they returned from NGLA, suggesting that the NGLA meeting was the impetus for the rearrangement.  
-  According to Alan Wilson, at the NGLA meetings CBM and Whigham were advising them and making suggestions "as to the layout of Merion East".  
-  Hugh Wilson wrote that M&W gave them a good start in the correct principles of "laying out the holes" and about how M&W had taught them what they should try to accomplish in their natural conditions.  
-  Since they were working on the layout plan for Merion East, it made perfect sense for M&W to travel to Merion a few weeks later to follow up and choose and determine the final layout plan.   Otherwise, had they nothing to do with planning the layout, then WHY TRAVEL TO MERION TO FINALIZE THE PLAN?    Why would Merion want CBM and HJW finalize a plan that they had not been involved in creating???  It makes no sense.
-  Press reports indicated that many to most of the holes were based on great holes overseas, even though Wilson had never seen these holes when he and his committee laid it out.  

In short, the evidence is overwhelming that they were working on the layout at NGLA.  That is why Lesley wrote that M&W advised the committee on "laying out" the course on the ground and why Findlay indicated that CBM had planned the lay out at least some of the holes.  

So to soft shoe it and pretend that this meeting was about general stuff is too much.  It was about CBM and HJW teaching Wilson how to lay out the course at Merion, or as Wilson put it teaching Wilson and Committee "what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."  

That said, Jim Sullivan has it about right  --Even your soft shoe version leaves no doubt that CBM and HJW were integrally involved in planning the layout and that the hole concepts were theirs not Hugh Wilson's.   They needed CBM and HJW, so CBM and HJW helped them plan the layout. And when CBM and HJW chose and determined the final routing a few weeks later, this also confirmed the vital role they played.

That is why the Lesley Report emphasized that they were purchasing the land on CBM's advice, and why the April board minutes emphasize that the final plan was approved by CBM.  Think about that. CBM was responsible for the final layout plan for Merion East.  The plan, as determined and approved by CBM was sent to the board as the plan approved by CBM.    Not by Wilson.   Not by the Committee.  By CBM.    
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 01:31:20 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #46 on: October 01, 2010, 01:39:35 PM »
Also, this bit about how TEPaul has been saying this all along is nonsense.   Like most everyone else TEPaul had been claiming that the NGLA meetings were about planning Wilson's trip abroad, as if CBM was some sort of glorified travel agent.   He had not idea of the significance of these meetings and apparently still doesn't.   It is just the latest attempt of him and Wayne to take credit for my ideas.   

Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #47 on: October 01, 2010, 02:10:19 PM »
David,

I'm heading on vacation and don't have time to respond to your points but wish you would stop being so insulting.

We just don't agree on anything about this and that's fine.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #48 on: October 01, 2010, 02:29:06 PM »
 
-  According to Alan Wilson, at the NGLA meetings CBM and Whigham were advising them and making suggestions "as to the layout of Merion East".  




Tom,

Is ths statement accurate?

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #49 on: October 01, 2010, 02:44:23 PM »
Merion’s East and West Golf Courses - By Alan Wilson 1926 (Capitals for emphasis added later)

   There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about OUR plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.

   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.

   These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other. They imported bent seed directly from Germany when bent turf was a rarity and gave us not only bent greens and fairways and even bent in the rough and this seed only cost them 24 cents a pound, while it sells now for $2.25. They put in water systems for the greens and tees before artificial watering became a routine. They took charge of and supervised all the construction work as a result the two courses were built at the combined total cost of less than $75,000---something under $45,000 for the East and about $30,000 for the West, whereas it is not unusual nowadays for clubs to spend $150,000 or more in the building of one course of 18 holes.

   The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.

   We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.

   The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.

………..The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.

It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”

   Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.