The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[JESII]

I wonder if anyone thinks CBM was the full designer of Merion...not sure about that, but I sure am happy to take CBM at his word throughout.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that Merion as opened fit Macdonald's "ideal hole lengths to a tee"?  

Here's what CBM wrote;

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "


When Merion opened in September, 1912, Alex Findlay wrote;

"It is 6,245 yards in length with enough tee space to stretch it out to 6,500 yards at any time."


True enough, when Merion hosted the 1916 US Amateur the following were the hole lengths and par;

1 - 335 - Par 4
2 - 513 - Par 5
3 - 427 - Par 4
4 - 355 - Par 4
5 - 555 - Par 5
6 - 420 - Par 4
7 - 195 - Par 3
8 - 350 - Par 4
9 - 170 - Par 3

10 - 385 - Par 4
11 - 335 - Par 4
12 - 460 - Par 5
13 - 125 - Par 3
14 - 407 - Par 4
15 - 330 - Par 4
16 - 433 - Par 5
17 - 215 - Par 3
18 - 420 - Par 4

6,445 Yards


Here's the Findlay Opening Day article;

[JESII]

I don't know, why don't we start with the par 3's...and consider the "ground by the clubhouse"...



I thought the original routing went from #2 to #6 (as the 3rd)...what is the story behind that early change?

[DMoriarty]

Wow,  you guys just cannot leave Merion alone.  

Regarding the golf course...is it pure coincidence that the holes fit in with CBM's "ideal hole length's" nearly to a tee?

And it also must be pure coincidence that Hugh Wilson tried to build a Redan, an Alps, a Road Hole, a double-plateau green, another green with biarritz-type swale, a Long Hole with a properly placed hell bunker (CBM style) and a number of other features/holes fitting the general characteristics of CBM designs.

As for your idea of going through the holes, that might be fun, but it ought to have its own thread.  
_______________________________________________

Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer,

Obviously you both feel very strongly that my essay is wrong, has no basis in fact, is "absurd" and "asinine," and whatever other insults you have piled on it this go-around.  If that it the case, then I think you guys owe it to the rest of of the website and to all of golf course architecture to set the record straight. For the good of the website, history, and our understanding of golf course design, to advance higher learning, to avenge the wrongs I have committed, and to finally put me in my place, you guys really ought to write an IMO.

Because these endless drive-by potshots aren't going to cut it.  They just increase hostilities and they don't really advance the conversation.  And once Ran fixes my IMO, when people search for the history of Merion they will  find MY IMO.  They aren't going to dig through thousands of pages of this nasty garbage to ferret out all of your attacks and analyze them.  So write an IMO and set me straight. Correct my wrong. Avenge Merion, Hugh Wilson, Wayne Morrison and anyone else you think I have slighted.  Take me down a few notches.  It needs to be done, if only so you guys can finally quit dwelling on it.  

Of course when you try you might find that many of your conclusions don't hold up to critical scrutiny.   But if that is the case, you shouldn't be taking repeated pot shots anyway, should you?    
-- Like here, where Mike just simply pretends into existence the fact of CBM and HJW's whereabouts in June 1910.  "The fact is," Mike claims, CBM and HJW were already in Philadelphia.  I don't think any such fact has been established, and if not, then pretending it is an established fact does not stand up to critical scrutiny.
-- Or where you guys pretend that Scotland's Gift was a comprehensive and complete catalogue of everything CBM had ever done, so that you could conclude that if Merion wasn't mentioned then CBM must not been extensively involved.  We all know that Scotland's Gift isn't even close to a complete catalogue-- one need only walk across the road to SHGC to find a course designed by CBM, yet not mentioned the pages of Scotland's Gift Mike posted!  

Surely these rhetorical tricks don't amount to reasonable conclusions based on all of the source material, and surely they do nothing to advance the conversation, and they would have no place in a well-written IMO critiquing my theory.   All they do is increase hostility, especially because we have covered all this ground a dozen times!

I think you guys ought to consider whether you are really interested in advancing the discussion or not.   These pot shots consisting of already dead theories don't advance the discussion, and even if they did, no one ever will see them.   If you really have something to say, then put it in a coherent and comprehensive essay, and put it next to mine.  

That would sure cut down on the endless bickering.

[Patrick_Mucci]

HJ Whigham, in his eulogy for Macdonald in Country Life Magazine in 1939 tell us that even as early as September 1907;

"The very next year on the first Saturday of September I counted over fifty players at Shinnecock, many young people among them.  The fame of the National had spread so far beyond Long Island that golfers from everywhere came to look over the project, and Shinnecock, instead of being hurt by proximity to the National, had taken on a new lease of life."
 

Mike,

Since you're quoting HJ Whigham eulogy to CBM, do you accept everything HJ Whigham wrote as accurate and factural ?
Or, just those things that suit your purpose ? 

[DMoriarty]

I was looking at the hole distances Mike posted above for Merion and noticed he listed the 1916 hole distances instead of the 1912 distances.  Now why would he do this?   It seems he was trying to create the false impression that the original hole distances were not as close to the CBM holes as Jim Sullivan had suggested.

Mike and others have argued that CBM's suggestions would have produced too short a course for a championship course.  However, as Jim Sullivan pointed out, the hole distances fit CBM's suggestions "nearly to a tee."   This would even be more apparent if many of the hole distance listings at Merion had not been greatly exaggerated.  While it is difficult to determine an exact measure, the original course at Merion was several hundred yards shorter than listed in the scorecards and this remained the case for decades.   Somewhere there is a thread where I explain one reason this may have been the case.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm not sure I understand your post about the hole lengths?

On what holes were the yardages changed between 1912 and 1916?   Alex Findlay point out right up front that the course as opened in 1912 had back tee length to 6500 yards.   Members tees in the middle were 6,250.  

CBM recommended a maximum 6,000 yard course and they built one of 6,500, evidently.   Pretty prescient of them, I'd say.

They played the US Amateur in 1916 at 6,450.

As far as the measured length, wouldn't that whole question be about their "intent"?   In other words, if as you contend they were trying to follow CBM's ideal lengths to the "tee", wouldn't they have used whatever measuring techniques they were employing to come up with CBM's ideal 6,000 yard course, and claim that's what they built?

In other words, if they were trying to do as CBM suggested, or more preposterously, as CBM instructed them, then wouldn't they have come out Opening Day proclaiming an overall course length to their "intended" 6,000 yards, not 6,500 yards long??  

And if their technique was "wrong" as you suggest, and they measured along the ground instead of as the crow flies, wouldn't Google Earth measure that course at something less than 6,000, say 5,750?

CBM wrote to them on July 2, 1910;

The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

Why do you think they didn't do what CBM suggested they do....build a course of 6,000 yards??

As far as attempting to build some holes based on templates, there is no question that they did.   However, much of this seems to have taken place "post-routing", and certainly after Wilson and Committee had seen CBM's awesome version of those holes at NGLA.

Jim,

Can you think of any reasons why CBM would have recommended they try to get "a little more land near where you propose making your clubhouse"?   I can think of at least 3.


Shivas,

I'll see if I can get it scanned on Monday..thanks.

[JESII]

Sure Mike,

In the context of his letter, the most likely reason is that it would make a perfect place to build the hole and a half they would need in coming up from the fence line down by the creek...just in case...

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

What you are doing here is pretty typical for you, but it has little to do with determining the truth.  On the one hand stretch and exaggerate the Merion side of the equation, pretending it was 6500 yard when it was listed at 6245 and actually was substantially less. you minimize the CBM side, pretending the 6000 was a "maximum" as if he was recommending that one could never go beyond this or even design a course allowing for one to add distance later.    One need only look at NGLA to understand how CBM's thinking on length applied in a real world situation.  The "circa 1910" NGLA scorecard pictured in George's excellent book on page  68 lists the "championship length" of 6324 yards.

Did CBM Recommend Tell Merion to Build Too Short a Course?

1.  You claim that CBM recommended a "maximum 6000 yard course."  But CBM did not recommend a maximum length of 6000 yards.  This is yet  Yet another preposterous misrepresentation on your part to try and twist what really happened to suit your rhetorical needs.

2.  CBM did warn Merion and other courses against trying to make courses too long because he thought many courses were sacrificing quality in the pursuit of length, but CBM ALSO ADVOCATED FOR ELASTICITY IN HOLE DESIGNS, AND IN LEAVING AMPLE TEE SPACE BETWEEN THE PREVIOUS GREEN AND THE NEXT TEE IN CASE THE COURSE NEEDED TO BE LENGTHENED.  

3. Also, unlike some clubs, CBM was secure enough that he was designing quality golf holes that he saw saw no need stretch or exaggerate his measures.   He measured from the middle of tees and may not even have always included back tees in his measures.  For just one example, CBM's Alps hole was reportedly built with enough "tee space" for a back tee measuring 410 yards from its middle of the back tee  to the middle of the green, yet the course opened with the "Championship Length" of the Alps hole at only 376 yards.

4. Also, the your 6000 yard "maximum" assertion is ridiculous given that CBM provided Merion with suggested hole distances which allowed for a longer course than 6000 yards.   Adding up the distances, one gets a course with a range between about 5700 and 6300 yards,  with 6000 being about the middle point of that range.

5.   Findlay did not say its "members tees in the middle were 6,250" or that the course "had back tee length to 6500 yards."  You obviously are pretending that the 6245 measure was not from the back tees, but this is just more misleading nonsense on your part.  Findlay and other commentators put the length of the course at 6250.   As for your fictional creation of another set of tees behind these, YOU JUST MADE IT UP.    What Findlay said was that there there was "tee space" to make the course 6500 yards.   It is not clear whether he was referring to the added distance to the very back of the tees from the middle, or whether we meant that there was space to build additional tees if necessary.  Whichever, there is nothing indicating there was another set of tees behind the 6245 yard tees!

In sum, it is ridiculous for you (or anyone) to suggest that following CBM's advice would have boxed Merion in to a course which was so short that it was not for better golfers or future technological changes.  And it is ridiculous that you misrepresent what CBM was trying to accomplish around that time at Merion and elsewhere!  CBM suggested holes of certain distances at Merion, and Merion appears to have followed his suggestions almost to a tee.  
________________________________________________

You ask, "On what holes were the yardages changed between 1912 and 1916?"

Look it up yourself.   Surely you have the yardages for 1912 and 1916, don't you?  The listed yardage changed around 180 yards, total.  You can list out the hole by hole changes as easily as I can.    They don't matter to me much because they are both inaccurate, and I don't know if the changes were because the suddenly started measuring to the back of the tees (instead of the middle of the tees as CBM did) or whether some new tee boxes were built, or whether they replaced one bad measure with another.  

You ask, "And if their technique was "wrong" as you suggest, and they measured along the ground instead of as the crow flies, wouldn't Google Earth measure that course at something less than 6,000, say 5,750?"

Yes, and using google earth the distances are nowhere near the listed yardage.  I hate to attach exact measures because it is very difficult to tell exactly from where they were measuring, but the measures are definitely overstated by several hundred yards.  At the opening it seems very likely that Merion was less than 6000 yards.  I won't try to give an exact number of how much less.  

You wrote, As far as attempting to build some holes based on templates, there is no question that they did.   However, much of this seems to have taken place "post-routing", and certainly after Wilson and Committee had seen CBM's awesome version of those holes at NGLA.

More absolute nonsense on your part!  After years of arguing that there were no "templates" at Merion you now switch direction and admit that they were building templates,  but they were templates that just somehow fit with some preconceived routing that CBM and HJW had nothing to do with?   So they all just happened to fit the distances, and be located in perfect spots for such CBM templates?  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Here are the stated yardages hole by hole at course opening.




Who said CBM told them to build "too short of a course"?    I didn't say that....I said it was very prescient of them to build a course that wasn't the 6,000 yards he clearly recommended over a course of "6,300 or 6,400 yards", but instead built one that opened at 6250 and could easily be stretched to 6,500 for competitions, which was their intent from the git-go.

Again, CBM wrote to them on July 2, 1910;

The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

Why do you think they didn't do what CBM suggested they do....build a course of 6,000 yards??



And you didn't answer my question about "intent", not surprisingly.   However they measured it, and whether that method had flaws or not, wouldn't they have tried to measure to CBM's stated ideal 6,000 yard course if indeed they were following his instructions?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  they did build the course CBM instructed.  They built the holes he suggested way back in July 1910, almost to a tee.  And you seem to have forgotten CBM's involvement throughout the process as well.   CBM and the Committee were working on the layout plan at NGLA and then CBM and HJW returned to Merion and chose the final layout plan that was approved by Merion's Board.   Are you saying that Wilson did not build the course according to the plan CBM had chosen?   On what basis would you say that?

Your question of "intent" makes no sense to me.   So far as I can tell, Merion built the course  as CBM intended them to build ir, or at least Merion tried to build it as he intended.  Whether Merion later accurately measured and listed the distances has nothing to do with whether they built CBM's course.    

You are playing games. Again.  CBM did recommend a course of around 6000 yards, but he more specifically recommended 18 holes and those recommended holes added up to a course within a range of about 5700 - 6300.   And then he remained in the design process and he chose the final layout plan!    For you (or anyone) to pretend they disregarded CBM's instructions is preposterous.   Merion's Board approved CBM's plan - the one he had chosen - and that Merion built their course according to that plan!

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I know you want to believe that and I know you want others to believe that, but you simply have no evidence of that at all.

CBM was there on June 29th, 1910 to see a proposed site of on land held by Connell's group in Ardmore.   We don't even know what specific land he was looking at there yet as the Dallas Estate was not in control of Connell until several months later.   Frankly, he could have been looking at 100-120 acres all north of Ardmore Avenue for all we know for certain.

The next record of any communication was 9 months later, in March 1911, when Hugh Wilson and his committee went to NGLA for an overnite visit.   Hugh Wilson told us exactly what was done during that visit, as do the MCC Minutes, and it was NOT working on the design of the Merion golf course, much as you'd like everyone to believe that.

By that time, Hugh Wilson and his committee had already designed a number of different proposed courses.   After their visit to NGLA they returned and created five different plans.

CBM did come down to Merion for the second time in April 1911, 10 months after his first and only prior visit, and helped the committee select the best of those five plans.  

To say they laid it out to his plans is simple word games on your part and a bad...no, actually pathetic excuse for documented history.

If you have any other evidence of CBM's involvement at any time during the course of that year spent planning you really should produce it.


Jim,

How do you know that the "little more land near where you propose making your clubhouse" was the 3 acres of railroad land?   CBM certainly never said that.

Why wouldn't it have been some of the land of Haverford College north of there, between the creek and the railroad tracks, running up along the quarry?   I certainly see advantages from both a golf as well as a logistical standpoint in having them buy some of that acreage if it was available.

Are you suggesting that the golf course was routed in one-day by CBM on June 29th, 1910?   He wrote his letter suggesting Merion try to get a little more land near the clubhouse to Merion 3 days later and we know that letter was very general and innocuous in nature.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I know you want to believe that and I know you want others to believe that, but you simply have no evidence of that at all.

Really?  And here I thought Merion's Board was presented the plan chosen by CBM and HJW, and that they authorized Wilson and his committee to build a course according to the plan CBM and HJW had chosen!  Isn't that exactly what the minutes tell us?

Stop with the nonsense Mike.  Quit making stuff up.  There is evidence of CBM's involvement prior to March, and you know it.  You misrepresent what we know about what happened and leave out key details such as how after the NGLA meeting they rearranged "the course."  Etc.   And as always, you nit-pick at out-of-context near-irrelevancies and ignore the big picture.

Try to put it in an IMO and even you might begin noticing the inconsistencies, mistakes, misrepresentations, and fudging you so often present in these posts.   Or if you don't notice, I'd be glad to point it all out to you then.   In an IMO you won't be able to as easily pick and choose or take things out of context, and you will not be able to easily ignore the overall picture by obsessing over out-of-context snippets like the "6000 yard" statement.  At least not without looking more foolish in the process.
___________________________________________________
  

When a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile examines the finger.    - Confucius

[Jeff_Brauer]

So which conspiracy theory sounds more unlikely:

Obama not being able to produce a full birth certificate, or David not being able to produce and evidence (other than his own logic, but I want someone who was there saying it) that CBM was involved in the design prior to March 1911?

In both cases, it would seem it would just be easier to just produce the damn documents (if they exist) than spend so much time explaining why you can't!

I don't think anyone is denying what the documents say about them adopting a plan picked by CBM in April, or meeting with him in March at NGLA to learn about design, and yes, probably look at his template holes and see where they might work on their plan.


David, without your desparate attacks, please repost any document (or show us which post in any thread it already has been posted) that shows any CBM involvement between June 29 1910 and March 1911.   You tell us we "know" they are there, but we simply have never seen them. 

Thanks in advance for the civil revelations that we may have missed. Not so much if you just parse more words, or try to browbeat us into believing your assertions.

[DMoriarty]

So which conspiracy theory sounds more unlikely:

Obama not being able to produce a full birth certificate, or David not being able to produce and evidence (other than his own logic, but I want someone who was there saying it) that CBM was involved in the design prior to March 1911?

In both cases, it would seem it would just be easier to just produce the damn documents (if they exist) than spend so much time explaining why you can't!

What a strange analogy.   APPARENTLY JEFF BRAUER IS A BIRTHER!  That may be the ugliest thing I have ever said about anyone on these threads, but Jeff's revelation actually explains alot!

You guys continuing to deny CBM's extensive involvement in the design of Merion makes about as much sense as the Birther/Morons denying that Obama was born in the United States.   In both cases plenty of evidence has been produced, but like the Birthers, you unreasonably demand some additional specific piece of evidence while ignoring all that which has been produced.

Jeff,  I am not surprised that you aren't familiar with the evidence linking CBM to the process before March.  Like with your brethren Birthers, facts have never really been your forte.   But I've covered it many times, including in my essay, and I won't cover it again just because you order me to.  By now you ought to know that, unlike your friends and allies, I don't lie, twist, or make things up, and I am very seldom wrong about such claims.  

_______________________

Like his brethren Birthers, Jeff demands I produce some specific document but he ignores all the rest of the evidence, and he refuses to ask the one question anyone searching for historical documents must always ask:  Would one would expect to find the documents one seeks given the state of the record as we know it?  

He keeps demanding some specific statement of CBM's involvement between July and November of 1910, but so far as I know there is very little or no information available between July 1910 and November 1910 of any sort ABOUT ANYONE'S INVOLVEMENT.  Yet we know quite a lot happened during this period.   By his logic, no one did anything unless we can point specifically in a document to who did it and when.  But as I explained in my essay, the course was routed during this period, and given that we aren't idiots  we can draw reasonable conclusions about what happened based on the facts we have!  His demand for this particular documentation isn't reasonable given that most of what was ongoing was behind the scenes, didn't involve Wilson (he wouldn't be involved for months) and wasn't being conducted as "official Merion business."

The only documents I can think of where the exact evidence you seek might be the Drexel Documents, but so many contradictory stories and lies have been told about the Drexel Documents, I would never believe a word of it until I am able to examine the entire set.  Somehow I don't think that will happen any time soon.  

__________________________

As for the rest, Jeff, if you admit that Merion accepted CBM's plan and built their course according to CBM's plan, then I have no idea what you think you are arguing about.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Its's very simple David, and why question anyone's intelligence but your own when you can't figure it out?

I don't believe that there was much activity other than putting together the parcel, which was announced in Nov 1910, finalized in Dec 1910 (although deed was recorded later) with an announcement that they were going to get started on the routing, the January appointment of the committee, etc.

If anyone else puts forth a theory without contemporaneous documentation, they sure hear about it from you, but you don't seem to want to play by your own rules, demanding that we accept your "reasonable" analysis.

And the fact that Drexel University is conspiring against you to not show Poor David any documents.  Bwah!


Once again for the truth challenged (you) please show us any contemoraneous documents upon which you build the PORTION of your theory that Merion East was routed by CBM prior to November 1910.  Show one, other than your logic about the "Merion Triangle" which makes as much sense as the Bermuda Triangle, and is just as mysterious.

It's simple.  We want the same type of evidence you would demand of us.

Cheers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

 But as I explained INCORRECTLY AND WITHOUT EVIDENCE in my essay, BECAUSE BECAUSE I WANT TO CHANGE MERION'S HISTORY TO EMBARASS TEPAUL the course was routed during this period, and given that we aren't idiots  we can draw reasonable conclusions I CAN BROWBEAT OTHERS RATHER THAN PRODUCE FACTS about what happened based on the facts we have WHAT I WANT PEOPLE TO BELIEVE HAPPENED!

Poor David,

I fixed your last post for ya! 

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

You are free to disagree with my conclusions, but let's not pretend they aren't fact based, which is what you are doing.  My theory has contemporaneous documentation, just not contemporaneous documentation you accept.  Like the Birthers, you demand I jump through your hoops, ignoring that no such information is generally available about anyone's involvement.  

Like with your Birthers this is obviously about anger and hate for you.  Your last obnoxious post demonstrates that  tt obviously has nothing to do with the truth.
 

And the fact that Drexel University is conspiring against you to not show Poor David any documents.  Bwah!

I am very curious why you would say this?  I told you I don't think Drexel is conspiring about anything so I have to believe this is just rhetoric to you, and is very disappointing to see.  

Your pal claims that HE and his family committee control these documents, not Drexel.  Drexel doesn't have them. Hopefully they will go to Drexel, at which case Drexel will no doubt do the right thing, but Drexel doesn't have them yet.

[DMoriarty]

By the way, Jeff, I reported your post to Ran.  Such garbage has no place here.  You are really on a roll today. You should take a breather.

All this nonsense and animosity would go away if you guys would either drop it or man up and write your own IMO.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Once again, you wish us to believe the portion of your conclusion prior to Nov 1910 is fact based, and yet you have never provided actual fact to document it, and you admitted earlier there were no documents to prove it that you know of.  As such, portions of your essay wouldn't pass muster.  At least they don't with me and I presume if you presented it in a more qualified vetting forum, I doubt it would pass there.  Its not that hard. Your essay doesn't have enough evidence to draw some of the conclusions you draw.

Rather than step back, you attack everyone who disagrees with you.  You accuse us of having agendas, of being anger filled, of being disingenuous, etc.  You claim Mike started this thread only to talk about Merion, but of course, you were the one (of a few) who told us that and steered it this way, all to defend your essay, and trying to cover it up by accusing Mike of protecting his agenda.

Its all too much.  All of which describes the browbeatings you give us to try to push through your agenda.  I should ignore it, but when you try to push it through, I guess I like the fight enough to fight back.  I admit I am weak that way.......

It seems you are getting more angry, and more desparate.  A simple request not only trips you up, but sends you off the handle.

And this, at someone who agrees largely with you that CBM probably had a bigger impact than Merion had recorded in their more modern histories, but simply doesn't believe you proved a timeline intended to minimize the efforts of the Merion committee.

To use your words, its "rich" when you report bad behavior around here.

No need to respond, although I suspect you will because you usually like the last word, faulty as that word might be.  Or, perhaps you will redeem yourself by producing the documents you say prove CBM's 1910 involvement.  Oh wait, you have already admitted you can't produce those, but in the words of many politicians, you say "trust me."

and my last post simply conveys to the world what many have said here, that you have one, too.  At the minimum, its protecting your essay against all comers.  As you know, others have circulated emails around here that have you deciding to make a concerted effort to embarass other members of the website.  If it isn't true, you have sure acted like it over the years.

[DMoriarty]

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, Jeff.

You don't have to agree with my conclusions about Merion, but they are fact-based. Same goes for my conclusion that Obama was born in the US!  In both cases, I have no need to jump through your hoops to make either case, because both cases have already been made.  It doesn't matter to me whether you are convinced or not.  

As for what "passes muster" with you, nothing I write ever will.  So be it.  I am not dumb enough to think I can change the mind of a Birther.

Funny you would accuse me of attacking given your recent posts to me, especially in a post where you admit you like to fight and are fighting here.  Because I am not fighting.  I don't care if you agree with my conclusion.   I just wish you would stop misrepresenting the factual basis for my conclusions.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

As you suggested, I have reread your essay.  You shouldn’t have suggested it.  In a re-read, it looks even weaker than I remember it.  (You may recall that I was initially impressed and agreed. It was only later that the arguments and documents that turned up as a result of your essay convinced me otherwise)

Not only do I not find any attributions to nearly every section, I find a lot of suppositions where you fill in the blanks for us, and admit you have no facts, using phrases like “In all likelihood”, “Presumably”, “It is probable”, “must have” and the like for nearly EVERY MAIN CONTENTION YOU MAKE.

 A few samples that highlight my case against your essay:

 "In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best."

But where are your facts? Not in your essay!

, Macdonald and Whigham remained significantly involved even after Merion purchased the land based on their recommendations.

But where are your facts? Not in your essay!  We do know they came back twice, as per the Wilson letter four years after the fact.  But, if Wilson’s Brother says they came back twice only, why do you suppose it was more?  Why tell us that?


The Committee’s trip to NGLA probably occurred in January of 1911, the same month Merion finalized the purchase of the land and appointed the Construction Committee.

But where are your facts? Not in your essay!  See above.

The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.....To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned.

As you know, this is my personal favorite falsehood.  Your essay takes their written, contemporaneous words, and tells us approximate means required, and “nearly” means “specific!”.   But where are your facts?  Why should we accept your words over theirs?


Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion.


Is this supposed “proof” of how MCC did it?  And yet you tell us that it was Mike Cirba who brings up NGLA as a proxy for Merion, while you are pure as new snow?

While the Plan for Proposed Golf Course does not include the routing plan, when viewed in light of another crucial piece of the puzzle, it does reveal that the course had already been planned at the time the document was drawn up.

Is this supposed “proof” that MCC had the routing, but for some reason didn’t show it?

It has long been assumed that the “swap” occurred while Construction Committee was in the process of building the course. But the supposed land exchange must have occurred much earlier, before Merion

But where are your facts? Not in your essay!  


The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910[/b],


But where are your facts? Not in your essay!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/b]Francis and Lloyd had been fine-tuning the layout plan before Merion secured the land

But where are your facts? Not in your essay!


The Board of Governors also announced to the members that “experts are now at work preparing plans for the course which will rank in length, soil, and variety of hazards with the best in the country,” and the Inquirer reported the same. Unfortunately, neither the Board nor the Inquirer identified just who these “experts” were. While it is possible that the paper was referring to Hugh Wilson and his Committee, it is also highly unlikely

Is this supposed “proof” that MCC started working on the plans before January? IF so, why were their no reports of anyone working on the plan earlier?


Since, according to American Golfer, Macdonald was in Chicago for the USGA annual meeting in mid-January 1911, the Committee was most likely met with him in the second half of January 1911

Is this supposed “proof” that MCC talked with CBM in January, rather than in March and April as reported?  Speculation and/or you made it up, to use your customary parlance when others of us make statements.


  
Notably, in the February 1st letter, Wilson also wrote that he was sending Piper a contour map so that Piper could mark sections from where he wanted topsoil samples. Of course such a map would have been most worthwhile if it showed the golf holes, so that Piper would know from where to choose the soil samples. Given that the routing had been known for months, and given that experts (most likely Macdonald and Whigham) had been working on preparing the plans, and given that Wilson and his Committee had just spent three days with Macdonald and Whigham learning how to build the course, it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald, and that he sent Piper a contour map of that plan.




Is this supposed “proof” that MCC had a routing?  If I recall, the areas of soil samples were marked with letters, rather than hole numbers, which could easily suggest no routing had taken place, at least to most of us!  But that is not of concern, not in your essay!



By the time of the NGLA trip:
1. Merion already had a routing plan. Francis had been putting the finishing touches on the layout plan months before, when he resolved the routing issue.

But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
Wilson said: “Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham, 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 grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans.”
As mentioned, if the contemporaries say CBM advised twice at Merion, including the June 1910 visit and later that April visit, tell me why we should believe your contention that he was much more involved?  Where are your facts? Not in your essay!


Tillinghast did not identify who it was that showed him the plans, but he had apparently spoken to Macdonald about the course for the American Golfer article.


Speculation and/or you made it up, to use your customary parlance when others of us make statements.  But where are your facts? Not in your essay!

David, to sum up your big flaming pile of pooh essay, and your horrible behavior here over the years, your essay simply is light on facts, and long on your “logic” of putting them together, which you demand we accept, when you call BS when any hint of that is done in reverse.  You speculate, you make stuff up, and you have an agenda.  Further, you cloak your true position by attacking and browbeating others endlessly.

Your essay is not worth the band space it’s written on, although I have admitted for all the mess, it created some value, by forcing others to go dig out documents, and probably does more clearly highlight CBM’s role in assisting the committee.
But to use your favorite phrases, it’s time for the world to see that “As far as I know, in all likelihood, it is probable,  that you presumably must have stretched the truth just a wee bit for whatever reasons you may have had.
I will leave it at that, and I think we can leave it that we simply disagree on some of the major contentions of your essay.
I do agree that an IMO in point-counterpoint is “probably” more productive and lasting. I don’t think it should come from me, but if Ran or any of the Philly boys want to incorporate parts of this in any of their rebuttal pieces, they may feel free to do so.


 

[Jeff_Brauer]

PS - Sorry you have to wade through all that to sort out the quotes from David's essays, and my comments. I spent a while trying to introduce color, etc., but my edit function is still on the blink.  My comments often start with "But where are the facts? Not in your essay" to convey that I am disagreeing with David's contention that this was a fact based essay. 

As noted, all the conditional tense, and the near complete lack of attribution for many of the main points, along with Davide admitting separatlely that there is none, make this look more and more like a very substandard IMO, IMO!

But, we will leave it at that.   David and I respectfully disagree on its merit, mostly because I don't accept the conditional tense statements as anything other than speculation and made up stuff, to use his favorite phrases.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Keep making sense like that and you might get me to switch parties by 2012.

[DMoriarty]

David, to sum up your big flaming pile of pooh essay . . . Your essay is not worth the band space it’s written on

You continue to impress me with your class and dignity, Jeff.  Way to keep it above the belt!  No insults or attacks from you. And you even managed to accuse me of lying yet again.  With the company you keep, that may be the most ironic comment of all. 

And interesting timing on your change of heart (as opposed to change of mind) on my essay.  Surely it has nothing to do with your obvious anger or frustration or with you taking pot shots left and right the past week or so!  Is this another one of those unbiased attempts to set the record straight about my "big flaming pile of poo essay?"   

As I tried to make sense of the disjointed hatchet job, I just could not get past your Birther analogy/admission a few post above.  It keeps occurring to me that your approach here is the same as with that issue.
   You know how you Birthers have seen the Certificate of Live Birth with the Official Seal of Hawaii, seen the contemporaneous newspaper reports in three different papers, read how such lists were compiled and sent out by the Hawaiian Dept. of Health, seen the sworn affidivats of the Hawaiian officials verifying the long-form birth certificate, read how Hawaiian law does not allow for the release of anything else, etc?    
   Yet despite all of this, you continue ranting . . .  "Where are the facts?  Where are the facts?  These aren't the facts, and this doesn't cut it! Why won't Obama 'produce a full birth certificate?' 'it would seen it would just be easier to just produce the damn documents.'  If you don't give me the documents I demand then you must be wrong!"  That is what you are doing here.  Some of it is a close paraphrase of you, in fact.  

Obviously, by your own analogy/admission this has become a "Birther" issue for you, and as such it has nothing to do with truth or reality.  As I said above, I'm not dumb enough to think I can change the mind of a Birther.

Hopefully Ran will eventually put my essay back together again, so readers can make up their own mind and won't be influenced by endless pot shots of the usual suspects.