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.


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #250 on: October 06, 2010, 11:08:39 PM »

But, it still doesn't explain the April letter depicting five plans being drawn after the visit to NGLA.


I'd sure like to see that April letter or account. As I said yesterday the idea that were five plans has to be the biggest red herring of this entire debate. Five routings on that site? And how do you explain Wilson preparing the ground, fairways and greens, prior to April?

Phil_the_Author

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #251 on: October 06, 2010, 11:11:51 PM »
But Tom,

You said that it was a "complete mystery" where he disappeared to. Aren't you going to thank me for helping clear up a part of it for you and give you some clues as to where to look for more? You didn't answer me on my offer to help you locate more articles like that. Would you like some help?

Also, you didn't answer me when I said, "By the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my generous email... Don't tell me you didn't read it..." Are you going to answer it? I really think you should...
« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 11:19:40 PM by Philip Young »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #252 on: October 06, 2010, 11:21:52 PM »
Phil-the-author
I know Barker was in NYC, Atlanta and Asheville in December, after that there is no mention of his whereabouts until the spring of 1911.

As far as your supposed email is concerned I could care less. As I said before I don't know what your purpose is on this thread but clearly it has nothing to do with finding out who did what at Merion.

Phil_the_Author

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #253 on: October 06, 2010, 11:59:35 PM »
Tom the Mac,

"Phil-the-author, I know Barker was in NYC, Atlanta and Asheville in December, after that there is no mention of his whereabouts until the spring of 1911..."

Maybe to be a little bit more accurate you might want to finish that statement with the phrase "that YOU know about..."

"As far as your supposed email is concerned I could care less." "Supposed?" Are you denying that I sent you an email several days ago CC'ed to Ran? At least have the whatever to admit I actually sent one to you and that you read it. It's obvious that you really didn't believe a word I "supposedly" said in it... and by the way, a man with any honor, class or dignity would have responded to it...

"As I said before I don't know what your purpose is on this thread but clearly it has nothing to do with finding out who did what at Merion..."

So, when I stated, "By the way, I am VERY interested in who did what at Merion. Of course, are you going to say I am "bluffing" once again? Or are you willing to accept my word at face value this time?" are you stating that your above statement is accusing me of lying? Or should I use the word "bluffing?"

By the way, what were those three courses he "staked out" during those three weeks in December when he was playing golf for at least one of them?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 12:10:51 AM by Philip Young »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #254 on: October 07, 2010, 12:24:02 AM »
David,

Didn't Hugh Wilson write the report presented to the Board in April 1911, as read by others?  In that circumstance, of course they wouldn't mention him, as he was doing the reporting.

It was Robert Lesley's report to the Board.  These guys have insisted on calling it the "Wilson Report" but so far as I can tell that is something they made up to try and convince us (without them having to actually substantiate the claim) that Wilson wrote the report   They have never come up with anything indicating Wilson that wrote it.   Another slight of hand on their part.

Quote
Also, they did throw that nice dinner for him and that was recorded.  I know, I know. You will say its for all the construction work he did, and of course, that is a big part of it.
   

There is no record of a dinner in the time period in question.   A member wrote to the board suggesting they throw him a dinner sometime in 1913.  I don't recall the exact date of the dinner, but they were already working on the West Course in 1913.

That you have to stretch to a dinner two years after the fact shows just how weak the record is of Wilson's actual involvement during the design stage.  

Again Jeff, your beliefs about what happen seem to be based upon misunderstandings or distortions of the record.  Honest mistakes I am sure, but perhaps these mistakes that ought to cause you carefully reconsider your beliefs about what happened.

___________________________________

Phil the Author,

With Tom and Mike Cirba here we have more than enough games being played on this thread.  Take it somewhere else.  
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)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #255 on: October 07, 2010, 01:29:15 AM »
David the Moriarity,

I am playing no games. I have responded honestly to things stated and have even tried to be helpful. I's suggest you ask Tom why he won't respond to my email. Credibility is a wonderful thing... I'll even publicly state that I give him my permission to share that "private" email with you as well as the ATTACHMENTS. With what you yourself said on the other threads I would think you'd find them most.... illuminating...

By the way, you can always exit the thread yourself...
« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 01:35:33 AM by Philip Young »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #256 on: October 07, 2010, 06:29:27 AM »

By the way, what were those three courses he "staked out" during those three weeks in December when he was playing golf for at least one of them?


Phil-the-author
I don't recall mentioning anything about the number of courses Barker laid out during those three weeks in November/December. The article claimed he would layout several...no number was given. Barker redesigned East Lake, which may be the reason he arrived a day or two before the tournament.

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #257 on: October 07, 2010, 06:48:31 AM »
It's funny....the article mentioned is one I found and posted previously.  It contained other errors and was obviously a reiteration of the Merion board report of the site committeel, only wholly misunderatanding the part about how Barker was engaged.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #258 on: October 07, 2010, 07:14:22 AM »
Mike
There was information in that article that was not in the Merion board report.

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #259 on: October 07, 2010, 07:34:47 AM »
Tom,
Yes, I know...like saying Barker was going to lay out the course when the board report specifically said that Barker was tetained by Connell.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #260 on: October 07, 2010, 08:58:56 AM »
David,

I was reading "You are the message" the other night and in the chapter on how to be likeable, Ailes gave an example of a very unlikeable guy as a reference.  It struck me how the example almost batted 100% in using the communications techniques you use here.  As you know, I agree with most of your contentions, other than the timing of the land swap, and any indication that we know any more about who and when the routing occurred (as we just don't from the existing record)  And yet.......

Seriously, you do seem a bit more agitated than normal these days and have made a lot more personal attacks to others not named TePaul (which we all understand)  If I may, its just not worth it, is it?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #261 on: October 07, 2010, 09:58:34 AM »
Jeff,
I don't know about you, but I consider a slam by David as a badge of honor.

David,
I think it's time you write a book about Merion and see how it sells.  My guess is that you'd end up on lulu.com and sell about 10 copies.  (PS - there's a book there you might enjoy - "The Hidden History of the Main Line: From Philadelphia to Malvern")
« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 10:00:42 AM by Dan Herrmann »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #262 on: October 07, 2010, 09:59:47 AM »
David,

Didn't Hugh Wilson write the report presented to the Board in April 1911, as read by others?  In that circumstance, of course they wouldn't mention him, as he was doing the reporting.

It was Robert Lesley's report to the Board.  These guys have insisted on calling it the "Wilson Report" but so far as I can tell that is something they made up to try and convince us (without them having to actually substantiate the claim) that Wilson wrote the report   They have never come up with anything indicating Wilson that wrote it.   Another slight of hand on their part.
 



I don't know that I would call it "sleight of hand", but David is correct here. It is only assumed that Wilson wrote the report for Lesley to read/document.

That said, it would be unusual for a sub-committee, operating under the auspices of the Golf Committee, to actually report directly to the Board. That's certainly a more efficient way to run an organization. If the Committee(s) tasked with finding and developing the new golf course(s) were added through a By-Law ammendment then they would present directly to the board. They were not. So it's reasonable to assume, but not proven fact, that Wilson at least helped with that report as his committee was a sub-committee to the Golf Committee.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #263 on: October 07, 2010, 10:17:22 AM »
Jim,

That could be.  But because TMac acts like he hasn't seen them, here is the passage from the minutes read by Leslie to the board.  I presume it was written by Hugh, although who knows, some other member of the committee may have been the wordsmith.  That said, it was NOT Leslie’s report:

“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


David tells me that I "Just don't understand".  I think I do.  I read that as "plans and data gathered from abroad" and DM reads it as "The routing CBM did for Merion and the data he collected from abroad."  I believe that if the committee wanted to say the plans CBM developed for MCC, they would have written it that way, whereas DM thinks nothing they wrote really meant what it says.

From David's own post earlier in this thread, here is Hugh Wilson's recollection just a few short years after in 1916 (which he can use to prove CBM's involvement, but if I mention a 1914 dinner, I am  of course stretching the record a bit):

The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and green keeping 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.

Note what it specifically says they went over.  Yes, they studied HIS plans, which I agree could have been NGLA, GBI sketches, etc.  It MAY have been Merion plans, but the two taken together says they took their plans to him, and they modified into FIVE DIFFERENT plans them based on his advice on their return.  Of course, DM takes that to mean one plan with five minor variations, and the definition of minor and major can vary among the most civil of debaters.

Also, while they never mention design, preferring and referring to everything as construction, they talk about the principles of laying out holes, and I can’t believe CBM was telling them how to use surveyor’s tools, or hammers and wood lath, as DM would have us believe.
please note that they learned PRINCIPLES of architecture.

They suggest to OTHER COMMITTEES to visit the classics like NGLA and PV.

When talking about the design and construction of their course, it is ALWAYS in the WE tense.

So, again, yes CBM was a great help.  The meetings with CBM were key to the process. But for DM to tell me the record says CBM routed the course, either before that meeting or before the Nov. 15, 1910 meeting, land swap included, I just don’t see it in what the participants wrote about it.  Sorry, maybe I am just too dense.

If DM and the Philly guys are arguing smaller details than that, then in many cases, they really seem to be arguing past each other for no apparent reason other than to keep arguing.  While all sides claim their motivation is to find out what happened, keeping up the good fight is really more important, because truly, actions speak louder than words.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #264 on: October 07, 2010, 10:35:07 AM »
Anyone still engaged in this is clearly too dense for their own good...but...why could those not have been Lesley's own words?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #265 on: October 07, 2010, 10:46:21 AM »
Jim,

Admittedly, having not seen the source documents, I am taking TePaul at his word.  I don't know that anyone has seriously challenged that aspect of the record, but as always, could be wrong.

I agree that any of us who think we are going to change anyone's mind after how many threads and posts on Merion is a bit dense, myself included.  I find it kind of odd that Pat M posted on this thread that someone was "being hasty" in dismissing some notion.  How hasty can anyone be at the end (?) of a six year debate?

On the other hand, its gone so long that many forget the actual documents that were once posted, and arguments made.  I think its time we shorten up the posts to "argument DM-32" and "argument JB 17".  Not too mention, "insult DM 2364" and "rant TP 6972".  You know, just to shorten up typing time.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #266 on: October 07, 2010, 10:50:01 AM »
I think Tom has admitted that it is only his assumption that Wilson wrote it...afterall, he was the chairman of the sub-committee...but what about that passage you type must have been from someone other that Lesley?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #267 on: October 07, 2010, 10:52:05 AM »
Jim,

I just told you. I accept TePaul's version.  If its wrong, its wrong.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #268 on: October 07, 2010, 10:55:43 AM »
You accept his stated opinion as fact?

I thought you were saying that if he said it was true you would accept it.

Fair enough.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #269 on: October 07, 2010, 11:04:01 AM »
Jim,

To be honest, I have never thought the DM word parsing or the TePaul committee structure arguments made much of a difference in interpreting what that document means.  I know others will see conspiracy theory in it.  But, whoever the committee was, they we know when and who and when they went to NGLA, and that text tells us what they did, no?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #270 on: October 07, 2010, 11:07:16 AM »
Agreed.

In total, I disagree with David's interpretation of CBM's role because it flies in the face of much of the Merion people's comments at the time. I have a hard time believing they were anything other than very generous to Macdonald.

Phil_the_Author

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #271 on: October 07, 2010, 11:10:36 AM »
Tom the Mac,

You stated, "Phil-the-author, I don't recall mentioning anything about the number of courses Barker laid out during those three weeks in November/December. The article claimed he would layout several...no number was given. Barker redesigned East Lake, which may be the reason he arrived a day or two before the tournament."

You used the word "several." The last I checked that word means more than one and almost always at least THREE.

You clearly stated that it had been reported that "the NY Tribune (and NY Times) that Barker was off on a three week trip and before he returns several new courses would be staked out."

The last I checked East Lake was already existing and so wouldn't be a NEW COURSE! So what were those "several new courses" that he "staked out" on that three week trip during which he spent at least a week in Atlanta PLAYING a TOURNAMENT at East Lake and setting a new 72-hole record by 14 shots.

As amazing as that must have been, evidently the reporter missed the truly incredible part as there is NO MENTION of his staking out the new course there in-between shots!

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #272 on: October 07, 2010, 11:54:52 AM »
Phil,

To be honest, I would give Tom a pass on this one.  There was mention of Barker's three courses in Philly somewhere, and it appears he did two and a study for Connell at MCC.  He may very well have been doing some remodels, and in this period, some were just completely new courses on former golf course land.  Either Barker didn't make the distinction for the reporter, or the reporter left out some detail.

The big picture issue regarding MCC is was the Nov 24 article Tom Mac has accurate?  Was it referring to his commission to lay out a sketch for Connell?  Of did MCC actually hire him for a routing that was done in a few days?

As you know, my belief is that it inaccurately refers to his June 1910 Connell commission, that MCC specifically didn't want to use him, and of course, there is no record of his deep involvement, esp. in the spring 1911 time frame when it was all happening, and Barker is nowhere to be found.

Tom thinks its a mystery where he went. I think its no mystery at all - he wasn't hired to design or route the course by MCC.  Maybe he went off to sulk, or maybe he was so pissed off at not getting the commission, after trying for it and losing out to an in house committee, that it provided necessary motivation to demolish a course record.  Stranger things have happened.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Phil_the_Author

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #273 on: October 07, 2010, 12:01:22 PM »
Jeff,

I would gladly "give him a pass" but after the crap he has put me through on this and the other recent threads, calling me a liar and not apologizing, he certainly doesn't deserve one.

Because you have asked me to drop it I will. I only ask that you take a quick peak at the Whiffensnoozer and Shawnee threads as it might give you more insight into my view on the matter.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #274 on: October 07, 2010, 12:09:17 PM »
Phil,

I already read them and I know what you mean.  If it means anything, I thought your insult was a lot less defamatory than the one John Capers got!  Tom MacWood has seemingly talked right by obvious answers, asked already answered questions, etc.  Its just his style here.  Presumably, he finds it amusing, but we have all been annoyed from time to time.

Frankly, this place reminds me of taking the kids to a restaurant when young.  In my mostly dysfunctional family, we could only get 4 of 5 to be in a good mood during any given outing.  Tom Mac has been very civil to Mike Cirba in the same time frame as he was getting into it with you.  DM goes back and forth.  Even mild mannered moi has gotten a bit snippy from time to time!  I try to be civil to all, even in disagreement, although I made a post to DM earlier that was kind of snippy.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back