[DMoriarty]

Terry Lavin,

The reason this got started again is because the entire thread was about NGLA all along with Mike trying to discredit something or another that he never quite understood about my IMO.  Then Cirba and Brauer launched into name calling and attacks on my IMO with Mike calling it "absurd" and "asinine" and Jeff Brauer, who has little or no understanding of what historical analysis even is, ridiculously asserting that I had provided no BASIS for my conclusions.  And since then it has been them spewing out one repeated claim after another.

I said then and will say again that I don't care if I ever convince these two and if I did convince them it would probably mean I was wrong.  But I am not going to let them malign me and my IMO without a fight.

Also, it is worth noting that TEPaul is pulling the strings here.  These two are his lackeys.  I haven't counted them or read most of them, but I'll bet I have received over 50 emails from TEPaul and Morrison in the past few weeks alone.
___________________________________________________________________________________

As usual Jeff Brauer has never quite got his hands around who CBM was or what he did for a living.  He wasn't a professional golf course architect and so far as I know he only hired Raynor at NGLA and that was in 1906 or 1907.   They were not a design team in the way Brauer and his associate might be.  CBM was a very successful player on Wall Street, a speculator.  Golf course design was never his primary calling.  He never had a firm or a company or a business partnership or employees. 

NGLA was not a comparable project to Merion as construction and grow in were concerned but since this thread has never been about NGLA I won't go into the differences except to say that I am not surprised that Brauer has no clue as to the differences.

Again, CBM was there.  He says what he says. He doesn't say what he doesn't say.

Doesn't it take a fantastic imagination to ignore CBM, and take HJW's word over CBM's writings?

I think so, but obviously one person differs.

What a surprise! Jeff Brauer drawing faulty conclusions from a lack of understanding of the underlying source material.

Scotland's Gift was not a complete account of everything CBM had done in golf design or golf.  If it had been, it would have as long as the Faker Flynn, but accurate and well written.  Plenty of his projects aren't even mentioned.  
___________________________________

Patrick,

I've noticed they are decidedly uninterested in discussing the actual golf course.  I think you should start a thread and ask those questions.  I'd like them to explain the CBM holes at Merion to a larger audience.

[Mike Cirba]

Contemporaneous reports from Tillinghast, Findlay, and everyone else in Philadelphia at the time were "tangential"

National magagine accounts crediting the Committee are "tangential'.

An obviously erroneous blurb 30 years after the fact where Whigham essentially credits Macdonald with every US Course created after 1910 is a gem.  

I think that's enough....

It's funny...

I think the day I realized it was enough was when Joe Bausch first posted the October 1913 article where writer William Evans wrote that Hugh Wilson was Clarence Geist's designer for his new Seaview course, a course where money was no object, because he "was responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line".

Evans wrote that Wilson was resonsible for the brililant course that was Merion.

First, David argued that he meant the Merion West Course, which didn't open for another 8 months.

Failing that, he and MacWood launched an attack on the writer, never even considering the germane question which was, why would one of the richest men in America use Hugh Wilson, who was not connected to Geist by club affiliation or business association,  to design his dream course if he never designed a course prior?

It was at that point I realized that they'd say literally anything in their zeal to minimize the work of Hugh Wilson for reasons of their own that have nothing at all to do with an accurate representation of history.

Good night.

[DMoriarty]

One need only examine the reasonableness or lack thereof in Mike's arguments to tell who has the upper hand in this discussion.

Although there may be a fair question as to my sanity after I have even bothered to engage with this clown.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Sullivan,

It seems to me that CBM's style evolved from a "hands on" style, to a more distant, "concept" style.

In his writings CBM indicated that he crafted the concepts, gave the plans to Raynor, and Raynor implemented them.
Raynor carried out CBM's concepts/plans so well that he rarely had a question about them.

I've always been interested in the connection and any communications between Raynor and Francis, two civil engineers.

One would think that these two men had to be in touch with one another on the Merion project.

[Mike Cirba]

One need only examine the reasonableness or lack thereof in Mike's arguments to tell who has the upper hand in this discussion.

Although there may be a fair question as to my sanity after I have even bothered to engage with this clown.

Ditto on your last point.

As far as who has the upper hand, I rest confident that no history books will be re-written any time soon, nor have you swayed anyone here not already so inclined, like Patrick, who is now creating man-love between Raynor and Francis, although it's funny.

Richard Francis doesn't even mention CB Macdonald in his account of the creation of Merion, much less Seth Raynor.


But, that's never mattered much here apparently.

Jim,

I'll leave this thread with this last thought...

I think it's much more likely that the Francis Swap happened after April 1911 than before November 1910.

[DMoriarty]

I think the day I realized it was enough was when Joe Bausch first posted the October 1913 article where writer William Evans wrote that Hugh Wilson was Clarence Geist's designer for his new Seaview course, a course where money was no object, because he "was responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line".

Evans wrote that Wilson was resonsible for the brililant course that was Merion.

First, David argued that he meant the Merion West Course, which didn't open for another 8 months.

Failing that, he and MacWood launched an attack on the writer, never even considering the germane question which was, why would one of the richest men in America use Hugh Wilson, who was not connected to Geist by club affiliation or business association,  to design his dream course if he never designed a course prior?

It was at that point I realized that they'd say literally anything in their zeal to minimize the work of Hugh Wilson for reasons of their own that have nothing at all to do with an accurate representation of history.

Good night.

I realize some of you might not understand what I mean when I refer to the foolishness of  Mike's arguments, although if at this point you don't then there may be no hope for you.  

Nonetheless I wondered where he had gotten this bit about his supposed epiphany moment, when he realized he had have enough of me?   I couldn't recall saying any of the garbage he accuses me of, so I thought I'd go back and check it out.   It provides in interesting example of how his brain works, and a good example of how NOT to approach historical analysis:

- Mike Cirba claims that his epiphany about the horrors of my position came when Joe Baush first posted the above article by Evans.  
- Joe posted this article before I returned to the website and BEFORE my IMO had been posted.  
- Ironically, I think this makes Mike's point about the timing TRUE.  As was obvious to anyone there at that time, Mike dismissed my argument as unreasonable before I had even made it!   So he thought it "was enough" regardless of what I claimed. No matter the support.
- Also ironic is the fact the discussion wasn't about whether Merion designed the course, it was about whether Wilson went abroad before building Merion East!   (It had leaked out that my paper would make the claim that he didn't.)
- What happened was that Joe mistakenly misread and misquoted the Evans Article as saying "the new Merion course" as opposed to what it really said, which was "the new Merion courses."   He was talking about both courses, and I corrected this:

Hi Joe.  Thanks for all the legwork and old articles, especially the ones from the Ledger, most of which I have never seen.  

One thing though, I think perhaps you may have unintentionally misread the piece you copied above.  In a previous thread you quoted it as referring to the "new Merion courses."  In fact, it refers to the "new Merion course."    In Oct. 1913, the new Merion course was the West, which had been constructed and seeded earlier that year.  

I believe the correct reading complete negates the conclusion many have drawn.  

The author does not write that Wilson went overseas before he built the East Course.   Why wouldn't he have so written, if that was in fact the case?  

- It should be obvious to by now to anyone but Mike that I was correct about this.  Wilson went abroad to study before building the West Course, not the East Course.  

And there you have Mike's big epiphany, the moment where be had had enough of me and my arguments!   I corrected Joe on what I was sure was an honest error (although none of the true believers caught it) and would teach Mike and his cronies (and everyone else) that they were mistaken in their belief that WILSON WENT ABROAD TO STUDY BEFORE BUILDING THE EAST COURSE.

Never mind that it took Mike thousands of posts and various wild goose chases to finally believe this (if he does) or that he used to parade out the same lists of documents that in his mind proved beyond all doubt that Wilson went abroad before!    Never mind that this current argument parallels that one to such a degree that not even Mike can tell them apart!  

That is Mike's approach in a nutshell.

1.  Misrepresent what my views.
2.  Misunderstand and misuse the source material.
3.  Rail at me.  
4.  Dismiss my arguments no matter how sound.
5.  Stick with the legend no matter what!

[DMoriarty]

By the way, here is the link to the post

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=820784051c5b4759a96f88b3c226a750&topic=34035.msg682042#msg682042


It is interesting to read the "David Moriarty" thread again.   

Among other things, notice that Wayne Morrison and Joe Bausch bet me about whether I would prove correct regarding the Wilson trip.    I have proven correct but because Wayne Morrison's word isn't worth a piss (not even one on CBM's grave) he has never paid up. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I find it interesting that you're willing to dismiss what Francis didn't write while at the same time dismissing what Whigham did write.

Surely, even you see the flaw in your logic and intended position.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Good luck.

[DMoriarty]

Mike's last few posts reminded me of some things I left off the list above, such as the immature stunts, fits, grandstanding, renaming threads, and time after time when he has indicated he was done with the issue only to return a few posts later.  

As for the last one, I really wish he wouldn't get our hopes up like that.  

[JESII]

Yes David, I can.

Because they are in significant contradiction to the material at the time written and said by everyone else involved.

Jim I wish you would lay this all out for me because I don't think that Whigham contradicts anyone actually involved!   

 

David,

That's a fair request and I'll work on it. I don't have any of this stuff handy so it'll take some work so be patient.

One thing first; are you only looking for information directly from the committee members? And only up through April 6, 1911?

[JESII]

Jim Sullivan,

It seems to me that CBM's style evolved from a "hands on" style, to a more distant, "concept" style.

In his writings CBM indicated that he crafted the concepts, gave the plans to Raynor, and Raynor implemented them.
Raynor carried out CBM's concepts/plans so well that he rarely had a question about them.

I've always been interested in the connection and any communications between Raynor and Francis, two civil engineers.

One would think that these two men had to be in touch with one another on the Merion project.

Perhaps, but the tone of reference to CBM is different than David's suggestion that he was "calling the shots"...that's what I can't reconcile...their tone.

[DMoriarty]

That is a fair request and I'll work on it.  I don't have any of this stuff handy so it'll take some work so be patient.

One thing first; are you only looking for information directly from the committee members? And only up through April 6, 1911?

Take your time.

I was hoping you'd focus on anyone directly involved with the initial creation of the course. That includes not only the members of the Construction Committee but also CBM and HJW and Lesley.  Or anyone else so long as there is substantial evidence indicating that the person was actually involved.

Not sure what you are asking regarding the date.   I don't care if the source material is from before or after April 6, 1911 but it ought to address what happened during the planning stage of the course.   For example, I'd include the 1914 Lesley introduction the Merion courses to the golfing world in Golf Illustrated, because it discussed the initial creation of the East Course.  

Most importantly, I'd was hoping for some analysis of why you think each source contradicted Whigham's words and my claims.   For example Robert Lesley wrote, "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."

I read this statement as meaning that the Committee was responsible for laying the course out on the ground and that CBM and HJW advised them as to the layout.    I don't see this is contradicting Whigham's words or my claims.  In fact I think that it provided a pretty sound basis for crediting them right along with Hugh Wilson.   But if you see it differently, then I'd you to explain exactly how it contradicts Whigham's words and my claims.  Make sense?   Same goes for the rest of these sources you claim contradict Whigham.  
___________________________________________________________

By the way I've always found Lesley's further acknowledgements at the conclusion of the description to be particularly interesting.  To me it reads as if he is thanking three distinct groups of men, which I have highlighted in different colors:

So much for the history that led to this remarkable development in American golf. And to the men who built the courses, to the men who subscribed to the stock, to the men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem, the Merion Cricket Club owes its sincere thanks, and Philadelphia golf as a whole is also indebted.

Who were these three groups?  And where do CBM and HJW fit?  

1. The men who built the courses?  Hugh Wilson and his Committee, along with whoever they hired.
2.  The men who subscribed to the stock?  H.G. Lloyd and those who supported his financial plan.
3.  The men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem? Charles Blair Macdonald and Henry James Whigham.  

While it sounds strange now,  phrases like "working out the problem" were often used to describe planning a golf hole or golf course.  
______________________________________________

Not sure what you mean by a "tone difference" or "their tone."  Whose tone?

I will say that "tone" is an easy thing to mistake when reading these old source materials, and thus probably the easiest place for us to substitute in our own beliefs.   IMO this is what Mike, TEPaul, Wayne, etc. are doing when they insist that Hugh Wilson, Merion, Robert Lesley, and Alan Wilson were all just being modest and polite when they told us how important and valuable CBM's guidance was to the process.  

To me a more respectful and honest way to read it is to take them at their word where at all possible.  And when we do that then the tone changes from excessive and dishonest politeness (because this view holds he wasn't really all that helpful) to that of graciousness for his great contributions and sincere acknowledgement that they could not have done it without CBM and HJW.  

In other words they are all going out of their way to credit CBM and HJW.   So rather than try and parse and whittle down CBM's and HJW's contributions to a bare minimum of what is explicitly documented in the very limited record, shouldn't we give credit where they all gave credit?

For example, you keep trying to minimize CBM's and HJW's contribution to the decision of whether to purchase the land.   But Lesley's 1910 report to the Board tells us that the Golf Committee's decision to recommend the purchase was based largely upon CBM's and HJW's advice regarding  the purchase!   So shouldn't we respect this?   Or do you understand his tone to mean something different?  

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Re Whigham, in the eulogy he has CBM and himself horses riding around the NGLA property in Sept 1907 - a clear error.  Could be he was in error on CBM designing Merion too.  I agree that Mike has gone a little overboard with his characterization of Whigham.  But then the faux indignation level on both sides is really high and becoming increasingly tiresome on both sides.

Would it be fair to say that in your opinion CBM/HJW designed the initial course based on Barker's original plan with assistance from the Construction Committee?  Would it be fair to say that in the opposition's opinion that the Committee, led by Wilson, designed the course assisted by CBM/HJW?  Just trying to parse down the disagreement to its most basic element.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  I don't know how you can say that was "a clear error."  It may have been an error, but I am not so sure.  They very easily could have been riding around NGLA in September 1907.

But assuming it was an error, do you really think being off on a date by a year is comparable to being wrong about whether CBM designed a course or not?  We aren't dealing with a senile old man here, but rather the editor of a major magazine. Confusing a year is pretty common stuff, but forgetting whether CBM designed a course?  I for one don't think it reasonable to assume he was might have been wrong about Merion just because he may have been wrong by a year when describing riding around NGLA.  Especially given that the article seems to be otherwise accurate.

Would it be fair to say that in your opinion CBM/HJW designed the initial course based on Barker's original plan with assistance from the Construction Committee?

While I don't know who exactly from Merion was involved in the design besides Wilson, Francis, and Lloyd, I wouldn't reduce their role to that of assisting CBM/HJW.  I'd put them side by side.   Wilson and others from Merion designed Merion East with CBM/HJW, much like Raynor would later design courses with CBM and then build them.   But like CBM with Raynor, when it came to the plans I think that CBM/HWJ were calling the shots.

As for Barker's routing, it seems to have been a starting point, but it seems impossible to say what of it survived the process.  

Would it be fair to say that in the opposition's opinion that the Committee, led by Wilson, designed the course assisted by CBM/HJW?  Just trying to parse down the disagreement to its most basic element.

You'd have to ask them about this.  At times they haven't gone nearly that far, but have rather continued to deny that CBM/HJW had any real input into the design or that Merion followed CBM/HJW's guidance as to the design at all. I'd like to hear specifically what they say once and for all, because they've been all over the place on this issue.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Well, hopefully Mike and/or Jeff will respond to the last section.  We've become so lost in the details and the slanging back and forth that I think that perhaps everyone has lost sight of what the central issue is that's being heatedly debated.  In the end, it may make no difference if my two synopsis statements characterize the two viewpoints.  Both sides are entrenched.  You have stated many times now that your view is in your opinion, based on your analysis, but that we don't know for sure.  I suspect they would say exactly the same thing about their view.  In the end, neither matters - it is the history of the Merion Golf Club and they will publish and maintain their history as they wish.  If they revise it to include some of your good research then that is a victory of sorts.  If the real Merion Golf Club rejects your central thesis that CBM was calling the shots in the original design, then there's not much you can do about that.  It'll be interesting to see if there is a new history published for the Open and what it says if it is.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

First, I am not sure how you could call me entrenched when my actual position was substantial more toward the middle than the one you attributed to me. Plus, I have always been willing to consider new information and analysis, and unlike the other side on this I readily admit that there is much we do not know.   In contrast those opposed here have fought every single little thing tooth and nail for years.   Look at the issue of the timing of the trip for goodness sake!  Or Mike's unwillingness to deal realistically with Whigham.   One need only look at how long and bitter their battles have been about even the most obvious points to see that! As you may recall, I was first called a liar in these debates and a very long battle ensued when I accurately informed Wayne Morrison the correct yardage of Merion's 10th hole!  They couldnt not even accept something as objective as a measure!

Second, I strongly disagree with you about what matters and what doesn't.   History doesn't belong to anyone, not even Merion Golf Club.  What happened, happened.  No matter what they write in their history book.  They can publish what they wish but their doing so doesn't mean that their view is accurate or correct or the view that will ultimately prevail.  

Convincing Merion has never been my goal, nor was changing the credit.
_____________________________________

As for whether there will be a history for the Open, something is obviously in the works. In his late night rants TEPaul keeps bringing up some dastardly plan that will be hatched around the time of the Open to embarrass me good and put me in by place once and for all. Promises, promises.  Pathetic and juvenile stuff, I know. And I seriously doubt that Merion has any inkling of TEPaul's twisted view on it, but they are probably working on something.  

But I thought that TEPaul and Wayne were going to address it all and put it all to rest in their long awaited Faker Flynn pdf.  Boy was I wrong about that!

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Bryan,

Thanks for the additional information and for confirming that all Merion bought north of the 16th tee was the right half of Golf House Road and the little triangle of land to the east of it where the road swung back to the west.   Of course, that triangle pretty much had to be included, yes?   I mean, I don't think they could/would have said, oh...we'll just give that little morsel back to HDC!  Wink  Grin  Yes, I think the little triangle had to be included (and was) when the road configuration was decided and MCCGA decided they were going to buy half of it up to College Ave.  Do you attach some significance to that little triangle?   

In any case, do you really think that this isn't a "major rerouting from the Land Plan Map"?  No, I don't think it's a major rerouting.  If you look at the Land Plan, they aligned GHR with Turnbridge.  If you look at the current, as built aerial, GHR is displaced all of 10 or 15 yards to the east of Turnbridge.  As built it goes down a bit straighter than the Land Plan and then arcs west a bit wider.  In my book that's a pretty minimalistic realignment.  As I recall, you were trying to say that little tuck in here and let out there at the northern end of GHR constituted Francis' land swap.  In my opinion it is not.   Maybe it's me, but when a plan is altered by over 100 yards in length and eliminates golf course facing properties, I'd say most real estate developers would see that as significant.  I'm not sure what you mean by 100 yards of length.  The as built GHR doesn't really align with the Land Plan throughout its entire length.  It's a little bit in here and a little bit out there.  But then the Land Plan road was approximate, so it has little real meaning a s a basis point.  As to eliminating golf facing properties, where exactly would those be.  On the 1913 RR map, there is only one single solitary lot at GHR and College that would not look over the golf course.  On the land plan, how wide do you think the top of the triangle was (say, anywhere along the McFadden property line)?  Maybe 70 yards wide.  Do you really think any designer could fit a piece of the golf course in a narrowing sliver of land that is 70 yards wide at its widest?  And get the routing back out of the corner?  Jeff could comment.  Do you really think that one lot could have looked over the golf course even on the Land  Plan configuration.  I don't think so.



For Jeff's entertainment, following is a picture of the corner of College and GHR.  Doesn't look like any topographical issues here that would have weighed on where GHR would be located.  No hills, no dales, no curves.





More importantly, if this change already happened by November, 1910, why do you think Pugh & Hubbard erroneously represented it on their scaled Land Plan Map?   After all, they apparently surveyed the property, yes?

I don't think they erroneously represented it.  It is possible that Francis had his idea before November 15th, but they had not evolved the detail of the plan enough to go with more than an approximate road.  For an approximate road, it is damn close to the reality.  Perhaps the pressure was on from both HDC and Merion to get on with the subscriptions and real estate selling and hence a desire to get out the land plan.  It was only days before November 15th that HDC actually owned all of the Johnson Farm and the Dalles Estate (well, actually PALCO owned the Johnson Farm).

Sure they surveyed the property for the deeds.  I don't know if they surveyed the as built GHR.  They certainly didn't survey the Land Plan approximate road.  When do you think that P&H drew the Land Plan?  November 14th? A week before?  A month? More?  Somebody had to tell them the boundaries.  They had to draw the Plan. They had to make copies for the announcement on November 15th.  Whoever in Merion instructed P&H had done enough planning to know that they were likely to go up into the odd triangle.  It seems just as likely to me that Francis' triangle swap told them they needed that land up there, than they knew they needed to go up there and Francis just figured out that he needed to tweak it a little east at the top and a little west lower down.  I recognize that you will not be convinced.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Second, I strongly disagree with you about what matters and what doesn't.   History doesn't belong to anyone, not even Merion Golf Club.  What happened, happened.  No matter what they write in their history book.  They can publish what they wish but their doing so doesn't mean that their view is accurate or correct or the view that will ultimately prevail.

I'm not surprised you disagree.  If history is the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about past events, then yes, no one owns history.  Anyone can discover, collect, organize and present past events.  But, as we see in current (e.g. the killing of Bin Laden) or past (e.g. the assassination of Kennedy) history, the true history depends on what information you discover and how the historian chooses to present it.  As I'm sure you're aware it is known that multiple people can be witness to the same event and yet have different understandings of the event and what they think they saw happen.  And, that can happen in very public and well documented historical events such as Kennedy and Bin Laden.  In the case of Merion, I think we see this in spades - there are multiple sources that oftentime seem to be in conflict with other sources.  Which are true and which are skewed views?  Realistically we'll never know. And, worse, we have huge gaps in the information that has been discovered.

Indeed "what happened, happened" no matter what they write in their history, the same as it happened no matter what you write in your history.  But we don't know with any certainty what really happened.  So, Merion will have their history based on what they've discovered, collected and presented.  Their historian will introduce their biases on top of the biases of the original source material.  You will have your history with your biases on top of the biases of the original source material.

That's an interesting concept about whose history of Merion will "prevail".  In what forum did you envisage the true history (whatever it is) prevailing?  In the Merion history book?  I guess not.    On here at gca.com?  Somewhere else?  How will we know that it has prevailed?

On a slight tangent from these philosophical musings, since some part of the disagreement is over how much CBM/HJW were "calling the shots", could you be more specific about what that means to you around the specifics of the initial design.  I'm back to not who physically drew the 5 plans, but who provided the input and gave the direction for the drawing of the routing plan and individual hole designs.  Did CBM take the contour map and direct Francis (or whomever) to draw the first hole from here to there, and then the second from there to the next green and on.  Did CBM instruct someone on how to draw each and every hole lay out, including a concept for each hole, giving fairway widths, hazard locations, green contours, etc?  What do you mean by "calling the shots" as it relates to the initial design?

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Your questions are ironic ones considering that Richard Francis told us that the Merion Committee were "IN CHARGE of laying out and buiilding a new course."  

Of course, he doesn't mention a single word about Macdonald and/or Whigham being involved in laying out or building the new course, and the tasks Francis describes that the Committee did all involve golf course routing, strategy, and hole design.

When David tells you that he interprets the Lesley article as saying that the Merion Committee "laid the course upon the ground", that's simply his shorthand for telling you that they had nothing to do with the design, save whatever he thinks Francis's little brainstorm was.   He is teling you that they were in charge of constructing that course to someone else's design, pure and simple.

Of course, that's not true either.

In fact, right after the Merion Board of Governors approved the final routing plan, that set in motion other events, such as the hiring of a contractor to actually "build" the course on the ground.   We also know that Fred Pickering was in charge of that construction, and he had way more experience in building golf courses than anyone in the country at that time, including CBM and Whigham.

But, David knows this.

So, a good question for him might be, if CBM and/or Barker designed the course and were "calling the shots", and we know that Pickering and outside contractors were hired to lay the course out on the ground, then what exactly does he think the Merion Commttee did?   Use their business contacts to buy grass seed at discount prices?    

For that matter, can anyone find a single statement by anyone that says that the Merion Committee laid out the course "on the ground"?   What does "on the ground" mean anyway?    Why did David make up the term out of thin air when no one else ever used it?    Why is his entire theory reliant on creating terms no one used that are the product of his own invention?   Does he think if he repeats them long enough someone will think someone back then actually said that?

Further, David also knows that the Merion Committee were well-versed in how to use the term "layout", or "laid out", and referred to those multiple layouts that we know were paper course design plans, one of which was attached to the Wilson Committee report to the Board which was read by Robert Lesley.   No matter how David wants to try to apply the language, it does not fit, and make no sense.  If he wants to talk about who "laid out the course on the ground", then he should assign proper credit and responsibility to Fred Pickering, operating under the control and direction of the Merion Committee, but also, as Alex Findlay told us, given latitude to use his experience to do what was best.  We also know that Hugh Wilson told us that the Committee's charge was to "lay out and build" the golf course, indicating two separate processes.  

Finally, David knows that not a scintilla of evidence exists that shows any involvement of CBM with Merion between June 29th, 1910 and March 1911, a full NINE MONTHS later when the Committee visited him to see NGLA.   Anyone who has ever had their wife go through the birthing process knows how long that is!  

Yet, without a single shred of evidence, David would have us believe that CBM was remotely "calling the shots".  

Ask him if you don't believe me.   Ask him to produce some evidence here besides twisting of others words and his own supposedly logical arguments.

You'll be waiting forever, because they don't exist.  

There is also no evidence that CBM and/or Whigham ever returned after April 1911.   These supposedly proud papa's, who had been "calling the shots" from afar, do not even bother to come back and see their own course??

Then, when Merion needed a second course almost immediately because of the popularity of the first, who did they turn to?   The same "experts" who designed Merion from afar?    No, they turned to Hugh Wilson and his Committee.

Then, when mega-mogul Clarence Geist at the same time decided to build his dream resort/course did he go after the supposed secret creators of Merion?   No, he used Hugh Wilson.

Then, when Merion needed changes for the 1916 US Amateur to toughen the course for competition, did they bring back their deadbeat dads who evidently did a single day, slam-bam, thank you ma'am routing for Merion?   No, they used Hugh Wilson.

Why in heaven's name would they use Wilson?   Because he went to Europe for a few weeks and had Fred Pickering build the course for him?  

It's funny actually...as I said back a few weeks when this thread was unfortunately turning towards Merion...

Never has so much been written about so very little.











Fred Pickering's role and the latitude he was given is discussed in the last paragraph here in Alex Findlay's article.   We know that Findlay was there in Philadelphia during construction.



Here's Hugh Wilson telling us what the Committee was charged with.   Notice again that "lay out" and "build" were two separate processes under the purview of the Wilson Committee.   More importantly, he tells us precisely where and when he got his advice from CBM.    Notice he doesn't tell us that it's over some lengthy period of time, or that they were directed on what to create by someone "in charge", but instead is quite clear that it all happened during his overnight at NGLA.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

To answer your question, yes, that seems to be the primary difference.  I believe the committee was in charge and did most of the work on designing and building Merion East, and obviously sought input from experts like Piper, Pickering, and CBM to fill in whatever gaps they couldn't handle completely.

Contrary to David's opinions, I do not think I have ever moved all over the place on that.  I never sought to diminish CBM no matter how many times he says I did, and I understand exactly how he worked, or at least as well as anyone else.  His essay tried to prove greater involvement by CBM but I think it fails in the respect that there is no documented evidence of it, and most of his conclusions are extrapolations.  But, in the four days he did spend, I always thought his influence was substantial, and the Merion committees respect for him immense, in that they did wait for him to choose among their routings just to be sure they had the best one.

I hate to fan the flames any more here, but chuckle that David now uses the idea that CBM was a busy stockbroker to explain why he didn't like to go to Philly.  I actually said the same thing a few posts earlier and before, but find it strange that in order to insult me, David is now saying that he was more involved at Merion, with supporting "evidence" that he was too busy to go there!  Such is what we think we have been dealing with. (BTW, I can envision scenarios where DM or others would still believe CBM was more involved, but the irony of the basic argument is strking)

And, earlier in this thread, he argued that Scotlands Gift was CBM telling us how it went down and shouldn't be doubted, at least when we were talking NGLA.  Now he tells me that I misunderstood CBM and it was only a broad brush of his career.  Again, while I agree, he splits his career into two phases - assisting friends and designing cousres on his own in his arrangement with Raynor.  Given the timing of Piping Rock, if he considered Merion his first, he almost certainly would have mentioned it.

I guess I cannot know for sure, but I am not aware of any gca memoirs that start out " I sure remember the second course I designed."  I would say even in a summary of his designs, he would start at the first, no?

Listen, I agree with David that for all the arguing we might be closer than we think.  Its hard to measure CBM's influence based on fragmentary documents, and while I have no doubt that the committee put in most work, were obligated to the club to finish what they started, whereas CBM was not, etc. allows them to take credit, acknowledging an assist from CBM.  Like everyone else,  I would love to have been a fly on the wall in those meetings.

[Jeff_Brauer]

March 1911
 S  M Tu  W Th  F   S
                1  2  3  4
 5  6  7    8    9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31


S  M Tu  W Th  F  S
                       1
 2  3  4  5  6  7  8
 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30


Again, don't recall the exact dates of the CBM visits but these two 1911 calendars should show if they are on a weekend

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Wilson wrote P&O on Monday, March 13th that "I have just returned from a couple of days spent with Mr. McDonald (sp) at the National Golf Course.   I certainly enjoyed the opportunity of going over the course and seeing his experiments with the different grasses."

Given that, I think it's likely they visited him on the weekend just prior.

Later he tells, P&O;

"He is coming over in a couple of weeks to help us with some of his good advice and we had hoped that you would be up before this and have delayed sending you samples of the soil on that account.   I expect to get that this week, however, and will forward to you."


Macdonald's return visit was on Thursday, April 6th.

It was his second time on the property, his previous being ten months prior, on June 29th, 1910.

He would never return.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

Call me a romantic but I like to think that ultimately the truth will prevail.  That is all I meant by the use of the term.   Unfortunately given the sway certain Fakers have at Merion, I doubt that it will prevail an any upcoming Merion history.

As for what I mean by "calling the shots" I think that CBM/HJW were advising Merion on what to do and Merion recognized the value of their advice and did what CBM/HJW instructed.   At every stage where we have direct evidence of CBM's/HJW's involvement, we see Merion acting as CBM/HJW had instructed them to act.   
-  According to Merion, they bought the land based largely on CBM/HJW's comments about the land.
-  According to Merion, they budgeted $40,000 to build the course because Whigham estimated that it would cost about $40,000 to create the course.
-  According to Wilson, he was contacting Piper because CBM had advised it and Wilson recognized the value of this advice. 
-  According to Wilson, CBM taught them what they should try to accomplish with their natural conditions, etc.
-  According to Merion, CBM chose the plan which was submitted to the board for approval. 
-  According to Alan Wilson, their advice and suggestions as to the layout of the course were of the greatest help and value.

So it seems to me that they weren't exactly collaborating like two designers on equal footing and equal experiences might collaborate.   CBM was instructing them, advising them, telling them what he thought they should do.   And, they were doing what he told them!  Of those involved in the design, he and Whigham seem to have been the ones who were leading the process and calling the shots. 

That is all I mean by calling the shots.   Given that even Merion's minutes indicate that CBM selected the final layout plan, this doesn't seem to be an outlandish proposition to.

As for how this manifested itself in the initial design process, we obviously don't have all the details of that, but it is easy to see how it manifested itself in the initial design.
-  The hole distances match what CBM/HJW recommended.
-  They added the land behind the clubhouse as CBM recommended.
-  At the opening many of the holes were reportedly based on great holes abroad.
-  Wilson seems to have attempted to build an Alps, a Redan, a Short, a Long, a Road, a Double Plateau, a biarritz style green with a swale through the middle, and numerous other signature features and strategies of CBM courses!

That is pretty strong indication of who was calling the shots with the design to me. 

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Quixotic was the word I was thinking of more than romantic.  Your internet persona doesn't really align with what I think a romantic is like.  In any event, it would help these threads if everyone had more of a sense of humor.

Vis-a-vis "calling" the shots, thanks for the explanation.  Sorry if I'm persistent in trying to burrow in to determine what outcome exactly you or your opponents want to see.  Would you be satisfied if your dashed points were all accepted by the participants here as added color to what CBM contributed to the project?  You are not satisfied that CBM is acknowledged to have been very helpful and offered good advice.  Would the additional depth of your dashed points be enough added recognition?

As always, I am wary of some of your wording, for instance:  "I think that CBM/HJW were advising Merion on what to do and Merion recognized the value of their advice and did what CBM/HJW instructed".  The first two points are easy to accept.  But, I trip over instructed.  Is it in the sense of he taught them the principles of great holes, or is it in the sense of he told them how to do the specific routing and the hole designs.  It strikes me that the Merion men were happy to take advice and learn about golf course building, but I suspect that they would not easily take to being told (instructed) or ordered to do.  The choice of words is important.

Again, your quote: "we see Merion acting as CBM/HJW had instructed them to act" conveys the sense of boss and subordinates.  I don't think it likely that that is the way it went down.

If by "CBM was instructing them, advising them, telling them what he thought they should do." you mean in a general sense, rather than  a specific sense of routing and individual hole design within the routing, I could agree.  As long as instructing means teaching as opposed to ordering, and telling them what he thought they should do means principles and general concepts rather than again specific routing and hole designs in the routing.

"Of those involved in the design, he and Whigham seem to have been the ones who were leading the process and calling the shots."  At this point I still remain unconvinced that CBM was leading the "process", if the process is the routing of the holes over the topography and land they had, and the internal design of each hole in that routing.  "Calling the shots" is an unfortunate choice of words, in my opinion.  It is too nebulous and subject to interpretation.

"As for how this manifested itself in the initial design process, we obviously don't have all the details of that,"  I agree with this statement.  The second set of dashed points indicates to me that they listened to his advice on the land behind the clubhouse  and the principles of great holes he told them about at NGLA.  The hole distances is arguable - and has been argued to death.  No need to do it again.  The list is indicative to me that they listened to his good advice and that it was helpful to them.  They are not indicative to me that CBM was the leader of the band and giving them orders on how to lay out the specific routing and hole design within that routing.


I'm going to go watch The Good Wife.  If you've ever watched it you'll know that there is a judge that requires the lawyers to start all their arguments and statements with "In my opinion".  I found that amusing whenever I think of this and other Merion threads. So, consider everything here that I've said to be prefaced by "in my opinion".   

You also remind me of Fox Mulder - the truth is out there.

Good luck on the quixotic quest to have the true truth prevail.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()