News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

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


Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2350 on: June 07, 2011, 12:54:36 PM »
David,

Do i need to reproduce Whigham's remarks in full again?

On what scientific basis did he claim that NGLA was the "inspiration" for Pine Valley and every other good course built over almost three decades??

That is your factual proof and evidence?  That's it??

Also,

Please keep the insults coming because your evidence is so thin it at least gives you something to type..
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 02:01:56 PM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2351 on: June 07, 2011, 12:59:33 PM »
Patrick,

Jeff and i have answered your attribution question.

Where are you?

Shouldn't you be now pressing David and TMac to do the same, oh paragon of unbiased fairness and objectivity?  



As far as others who don't participate here any longer, if you want their % attribution you have their contact info, no?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 02:03:32 PM by MCirba »

Jim Nugent

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2352 on: June 07, 2011, 02:00:33 PM »

Whigham also called Merion a CBM/Raynor course.  Unless you believe Raynor also worked on Merion, the eulogy is already wrong.  

Give me a break. That is like someone calling an Alison course, like Burning Tree or Knollwood, a Colt & Alison course. Everyone knows they worked as a team for years although they did not collaborate on every design.

I disagree.  Whigham described how Raynor and CBM worked together.  He said Raynor did the groundwork, and CBM corrected the plans.  He specifically named Merion as one of these courses. 

So we know Whigham mistakenly attributed Merion to Raynor.  We know the eulogy was mistaken on at least one point.  To call it "twisted" to point up factual errors -- in a document held up for its alleged historical accuracy -- is a serious case of pot and kettle.     

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2353 on: June 07, 2011, 02:07:49 PM »
"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses.   Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."

"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect.   He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read contour maps he had brought from abroad.  Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country.   Having helped lay out the eighteen holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography.   The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America.   Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars.   From coast to coast and from Canadian border to Florida you will find Macdonald courses.   And in hundreds of places he never heard of you will discover reproductions of the Redan and the Eden and the Alps."

'Not only did the great links spring into existence by the magic of the Macdonald touch, but others were started independently with the idea of emulating the National.   Pine Valley is almost a contemporary..."

"...Here again he was right.   For the National has been much more than just a good golf course:  it has been the inspiration of every great course in this country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style.   Take MacKenzie's Cypress Point, for example.   Here is a finished product which fits perfectly into magnificent scenery; every hole is a masterpiece and pure MacKenzie.  But Cypress Point would never have been conceived at all if the National had not shown the way."

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2354 on: June 07, 2011, 03:41:08 PM »
Bryan,

Quick, and what I hope will be an easy question for you.

I believe you attempted to measure this drawing in the past and came out somewhere around 124 acres for the golf course, correct?

Were you able to tell if all of the "overage" was north of Ardmore Avenue?

In other words, there was consistency between the time of "securing" and the time of purchase a fixed amount of acreage south of Ardmore Avenue that was made up of the 21 acres of the Dallas Estate, and X acres of the Johnson Farm below Ardmore.   Those boundaries were always fixed by the historical property lines.

If you measured out the acreage south, did that match up exactly with the historical acreages of those properties or was that off as well, and if so, by approximately how much?

Also, did your acreage estimates include the eastern half of Golf House Road and/or any of Ardmore Avenue?

Thanks for your help!




As regards your question on the 17th, here's my very rough drawing although it's probably a bit generous on the front right center.   Thanks.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 04:20:19 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2355 on: June 07, 2011, 04:54:48 PM »
On what scientific basis did he claim that NGLA was the "inspiration" for Pine Valley and every other good course built over almost three decades??

I wonder if Mike ever bothers to consider a thing he writes?    The "scientific basis" for Whigham's opinion on the importance place of NGLA in the history of golf course design?

As for how Whigham could have come up with the outlandish opinion that NGLA was generally inspirational to courses that followed, perhaps it was because Whigham's opinion on the matter was commonplace.  As has been repeatedly discussed, the National had been widely acknowledged among the experts as a groundbreaking, conversation-changing, revolutionary course from its inception!   And perhaps it was because Whigham had witnessed, first hand, the incredible changes which occurred as a result of CBM's efforts at NGLA.

And who better to comment on NGLA's profound impact than Whigham?  He not only witnessed the changes first hand, he had been writing about the evolution of America's golf courses and their shortcomings since the mid-1890s --over 40 years.  Even early on, Whigham far from a complete neophyte like so many here.  He was very familiar not only with the great golf courses in Scotland, but with golf courses worldwide, and came here having grown up in one of the truly great golfing families in a home overlooking one of the great links courses.  He had designed courses himself at the dawn of golf in America, and been side-by-side with CBM at NGLA, Piping Rock, and others.  He had articulated many of the underlying concepts at NGLA in his tremendous and influential articles, and had remained active and interested enough in the evolution of American golf design throughout his life to have been at Cypress during its construction.  After CBM's death, was there anyone in America more qualified to discuss the evolution of American Golf course design than H.J. Whigham? If so, who?  

Yet Mike demands the "scientific basis" of Whigham's opinion regarding the general impact of NGLA?  Preposterous.

While Whigham did write about NGLA as being an inspiration for the courses that followed, he obviously meant it was inspiration in a general sense(my underline):  "For the National has been much more than just a good golf course: it has been a the inspiration of every great course in the country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style."  And as mentioned above, the National had been widely acknowledged among the experts as an inspirational course  from the opening of the course and for decades thereafterfter!  

From his post, Mike would apparently have us believe that Whigham held up Pine Valley as an example of a course  inspired by NGLA.  Not so.  As you can see above, CBM holds up Cypress Point, not Pine Valley.   But what of Mike's intimation that Whigham was giving CBM credit for Pine Valley?   Mike just happened to leave out the part of the quote above where Whigham left no doubt that, in his opinion, "Pine Valley was a George Crump creation and a noble work of golf architecture."   Cirba makes claims about how Whigham overstated CBM's influence over Pine Valley and then leaves out the part of the quote directly about Pine Valley?   Despicable.  
_____________________________________


I understand why Mike wants to deflect attention away from the real example, Cypress Point.   Not long ago, Mike was up to his usual tricks, and made some self-serving statement about how Whigham "was engaging in gross hyperbole and exaggeration."   Only he put it the form of a question to Neil Crafter, who knows a thing or two about MacKenzie and Cypress Point.

Mike Cirba:  Neil,  Good to see you here.   Do you agree with Whigham that NGLA was the inspiration for every great course Mackenzie designed in this country or do you think he was engaging in gross hyperbole and exaggeration?
Neil Crafter: Against my better judgement!  Mike, the Whigham eulogy mention of Cypress Point I read as being more about the inspiration of NGLA in the overall project sense, rather than specifically the course and its architecture. Whigham would have known a good deal about Cypress Point, the project, the course and its architects, far more than any of us have been able to dig out 80 years hence. Whigham specifically refers to the conception of Cypress, which as we know, belongs to Marion Hollins. . . .

So unlike Mike, Neil is capable of understanding that Whigham was speaking of NGLA's general influence, "in the overall project sense, rather than specifically about the course and its architecture," and that Whigham would have known about the project and was in a better position to comment than we are.

Rather than heed Neil's answer or consider Neil's reading, or heeding the quotations from Spirit of St. Andrews were Mackenzie largely confirms what Whigham wrote, Mike simply ignores it all  and dismisses his own question as rhetorical:  
"Neil, Deftly handled, but my question was rhetorical as Whigham's statement was so over the top as to be clearly hyberbolic exaggeration, essentially crediting his Father-in-Law with every good thing that happened in architecture in the US from 1910-1940."

This is what I am talking about when I refer to his complete lack of self-awareness and his pathological inability to exercise even the least bit of self-reflection! Mike cannot even acknowledge or even begin to deal with Neil's reasonable interpretation of the passage. Instead he ironically retreats back to his own "hyperbolic exaggeration" and misrepresentation, discussed further below.
__________________________________________________________

Jim Nugent is following the same type of reasoning than Mike.   They both seem to think that if they can come up with any sort of interpretation with any plausibility whatsoever, then they can treat their interpretation as the correct and only interpretation. This involves ignoring the overall context and focusing on particular potential ambiguities (real or perceived) to find the meaning they are determined to find.  It essentially calls for what might be termed "a bad faith reading" where instead of trying in good faith to understand what the author meant, they try in bad faith to distort the facts to suit their purposes.  

That is how Mike goes from an article where Whigham portrayed NGLA was an seminal and inspirational course, to his bizarre rantings about how Whigham was "crediting his Father-in-Law with every good thing that happened in architecture in the US from 1910-1940."  And it is the exact same sort of reasoning that Jim Nugent has used to support his bizarre beliefs about how Obama may be a non-American and an extremist Muslim terrorist.

Both require a interpretive methodology set up to skew toward their underlying beliefs, and one which ignores a fundamental precept of reasonable good faith interpretation.  In the face of vagueness or ambiguity, one must give the author the benefit of the doubt and, where possible, avoid interpreting the document in a manner which renders it nonsensical, absurd, and/or self-contradictory on its face.  

Here we have a situation where Whigham compressed a number of years of CBM's and Raynor's working relationship into a couple of sentences, and because he wasn't writing a treatise on the history of their relationship or even a history of Raynor's development, he didn't cover every intricacy of how that relationship evolved and changed from Raynor the "surveyor" who "knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links" to Raynor the "golf architect" who could take the holes at NGLA "and adapt them to almost any topography."  Given the context, there is reason to expect Whigham to have gone into it in any more detail than he did.

And Whigham's points regarding Raynor were clear.  He was not only of great help to CBM in doing the field work, he also eventually became a tremendous architect himself, and one who was building courses modeled after NGLA whether CBM was involved or not!  That is what he means by "Macdonald-Raynor courses."  Courses modeled after NGLA.   It shouldn't be so complicated, given it is the same thing we mean when we lump Macdonald and Raynor together --courses modeled after NGLA are Macdonald-Raynor courses, or as some say, "MacRaynor courses."   Makes no difference whether both were involved in their creation or just one.

If this were not what Whigham meant, then why would have listed "the two beautiful courses at White Sulphur?"  CBM was not involved in the design of the second course at White Sulphur, was he?   The second course at White Sulphur was NOT designed and built by Raynor and Macdonald, it was designed and built by Raynor alone, wasn't it?  Yet it was Macdonald-Raynor course in Whigham's eyes.  Likewise, Whigham mentions "the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia" even though Raynor at this time there is no direct evidence linking Raynor to the design or construction of the course.   Yet again, it was a Macdonald-Raynor course even though Whigham knew the extent of CBM's involvement because he was there.  

Jim Nugent's and Mike Cirba's reading is untenable because it is directly contradicted by the very examples of Mac-Raynor courses provided by Whigham.  In other words, the reading unnecessarily renders the passage nonsensical, absurd, and contradictory on its face.    While this may serve their purposes, to read it as though it was absurd, nonsensical, and self-contradictory is entirely unreasonable.   Whigham wasn't a fool and he shouldn't be protrayed as such because these guys can't come to grips with the extent of CBM's involvement at Merion!
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 04:58:59 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2356 on: June 07, 2011, 05:14:40 PM »
David,

Holy Cow...it takes you that much typing to tell us what Whigham really meant?  

His statements were over-reaching and hyperbolic, and frankly, a pussy move to mention it for the first time 30 years later after multiple major championships and after nearly everyone was dead and buried if that is what he really believed.


Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2357 on: June 07, 2011, 05:17:04 PM »

Patrick,

Jeff and i have answered your attribution question.

Where are you?

Shouldn't you be now pressing David and TMac to do the same, oh paragon of unbiased fairness and objectivity?  ;)  ;D  



As far as others who don't participate here any longer, if you want their % attribution you have their contact info, no?

Jim Nugent

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2358 on: June 07, 2011, 05:53:38 PM »
Whigham was quite clear.  He called Merion a CBM-Raynor course.  He even explained how CBM and Raynor worked together.  There is no ambiguity.  And he is clearly wrong, about this material fact. 

I see this as more than trivial.  One of the key documents offered as evidence is flawed.  In at least one important way, and perhaps several others.  That has to cast doubt on other claims in the eulogy.  Especially ones that have little to no evidence behind them.

David can bob and weave all he likes.  He can rant, rave, insult and impugn the intentions/intelligence of those who disagree with him.  But he is the one who must give his interpretation of what he thinks Whigham really meant.  He also must pick and choose what is true in the eulogy, and what is not.  It's obvious to me who has the agenda here. 

Funny thing is, I have always thought (and still think) David's essay cast Merion in a new, more accurate light.  CBM clearly played a more important role than most previous history gave him.  It would amaze me if he didn't have some ideas about the routing; and he obviously gave Wilson & Co a crash course in templates and turf management.  He clearly approved the final routing.  For all this, I commend David. 

But he did not make his main case.  In fact, IMO he did the opposite: he showed how Wilson, partly under CBM's watchful eye, designed and built Merion East into one of America's great courses.     

 


 

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2359 on: June 07, 2011, 07:05:17 PM »
Jim Nugent,

I was always intriqued by the potential Raynor-Francis connection.

It always seemed logical to me that those two men would be in communication with one another from the get go.

If Raynor was involved at Merion, it would seem to signal significantly more involvement on the part of team Macdonald.

David and Tom MacWood,

If you could post your percentile attribution it would be helpful.

Thanks

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2360 on: June 07, 2011, 07:15:19 PM »
David,

Holy Cow...it takes you that much typing to tell us what Whigham really meant?  

His statements were over-reaching and hyperbolic, and frankly, a pussy move to mention it for the first time 30 years later after multiple major championships and after nearly everyone was dead and buried if that is what he really believed.

Typically, rather than actually consider or address any alternate reading, Mike does the same thing with my post thathe did with Neil Crafter's.  He ignores it and returns to his bombastic claims, even throwing in some additional insults directed at a very important figure in the history of American golf.  Anything goes in service of the agenda.

Rather than providing an honest account of CBM's life in golf, Mike thinks that Whigham waited in the wings and tried to dishonestly distort the record by pulling a fast one.  As if CBM's reputation just wasn't incredible enough without the Merion feather in his cap.  The concept is too insulting and absurd to address substantively, but it is worth pointing out because it demonstates the lengths to which Mike will go to distort the record.
----------------------------------------------------

Contrary to Jim Nugent's claims, the phrase "Macdonald-Raynor courses" is by no means self-evident.  Fortunately all ambiguity is removed by Whigham's examples of "Macdonald-Raynor courses."   The examples inform the reader what Whigham meant, and include courses by one but not the other, as well as courses by both.  

Jim Nugent doesn't seem to grasp that, where possible, interpretations ought NOT make a liar and/or an fool out of the speaker. When a certain interpretation renders the work absurd, nonsensical, and self-contradictory on its face like in the case of Jim's reading here, then it is likely a failure of interpretation by the reader.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 07:42:37 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2361 on: June 07, 2011, 07:40:59 PM »
Patrick,

I think the question you should be asking David and Tom MacWood is this;

What percentage of the initial routing was done by Hugh Wilson?

The whole percentage of design thing gives them a convenient loophole to say that Wilson contributed something...anything...after Feburary 1911, when the whole crux of the disagreement is related to the routing that David contends (as does MacWood) took place prior to then.

Also...

Why do you think Richard Francis, in writing a fairly extensive piece about the origins of Merion East credited Hugh Wilson and his committee with "laying out and building Merion East" (note, two separate processes).

There is no mention of Macdonald and Whigham, much less Seth Raynor.

If you don't see that as telling I'm not sure why..


Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2362 on: June 07, 2011, 07:47:41 PM »
David,

I think the fact that Merion originally wanted to emulate CBM's approach of copying great holes and features from the best courses abroad and solicited his advice is why Whigham cited Merion as a "Macdonald/Raynor" course.

I really think it's that simple.   If you read the rest of his essay he's de facto crediting CBM with every redan and Alps hole built in the states, and so on.

I think the fact Merion copied, or at least originally wanted to copy, CBM's idea of creating a course of ideal holes is why Whigham wrote what he did.

I think it was really overreaching, and if he really believed that he should have written something to that effect during the previous three decades when the protagonists were alive.

There was certainly great opportunity to do so as Merion was regularly hosting prestigious national events throughout the period.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2363 on: June 07, 2011, 08:20:33 PM »
As usual Mike is simply scrambling from one thing to another hoping something, anything, will stick.   And as usual he doesn't notice the inherent contradictions in his various positions.   Yesterday and before Mike was trying to distance Merion from any influence from CBM, even denying CBM's involvement at Merion with even such obvious holes as Merion's Road Hole, Redan, and Alps.   Now he admits "the fact that Merion originally wanted to emulate CBM's approach of copying great holes and features from the best courses abroad and solicited his advice."  

Did you all get that?    No doubt he will be rapidly back-peddling soon enough, but  Mike has just conceded one of my main points: Merion originally wanted a course like NGLA, one based upon CBM's interpretations of the great holes and features from the best courses abroad, and they went to CBM to advise them how to do it.    In other words, Merion was trying to build what we commonly think of as a CBM-type course.  

This brings us back to questions I have asked a few times which have yet to answered.

If CBM/HJW weren't significantly involved in the design, then why did Merion try to build a CBM course?  

Or alternatively, if Merion wanted to build a CBM course, then would they have shut CBM and HJW out of the design process?



As for the rest of his post, more of the same ridiculousness.  Whigham was not "de facto crediting CBM with every redan and Alps hole built in the states."  Mike is just shamelessly making shit up.
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)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2364 on: June 07, 2011, 08:44:51 PM »

I disagree.  Whigham described how Raynor and CBM worked together.  He said Raynor did the groundwork, and CBM corrected the plans.  He specifically named Merion as one of these courses. 

So we know Whigham mistakenly attributed Merion to Raynor.  We know the eulogy was mistaken on at least one point.  To call it "twisted" to point up factual errors -- in a document held up for its alleged historical accuracy -- is a serious case of pot and kettle.     

Jim
Is this what you are referring to?

"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2365 on: June 07, 2011, 08:55:02 PM »
Tom,

You have absolutely no idea when Wilson's interest in architecture began, do you?

Reports tell us he also visited all of the best courses in the US as well, prior to the development of Merion East.

You have no idea when that activity took place, do you?

Such blanket statements without a hint of supporting evidence is the heart of the problem here.

There is no indication his interest occurred prior. I have not seen anything...have you? And please don't post another article about Princeton.  In 1916 he wrote about his knowledge at the time on the subject. Should we disregard it?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2366 on: June 07, 2011, 09:05:32 PM »

David and Tom MacWood,

If you could post your percentile attribution it would be helpful.

Thanks

Pat
I know David and I will differ on this, but that is fine, and neither one of us has a problem with that. I break the attribution into two parts, routing and hole designs. The routing 90% Barker and 10% CBM and/or CBM/committee. The individual hole designs 90% CBM and 10% committee.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2367 on: June 07, 2011, 09:06:14 PM »
Why do you think Richard Francis, in writing a fairly extensive piece about the origins of Merion East credited Hugh Wilson and his committee with "laying out and building Merion East" (note, two separate processes).

I just noticed more of Mike's questionable tactics.   On the Myopia threads Mike had conceded that my understanding of the verb "to layout" was the most reasonable and that it often did not include the planning process, and he readily adopted this meaning suit his purposes.  Yet here is he back to his old ways. I guess I shouldn't expect any sort of intellectual honesty or intellectual integrity from him at this point, but his sleaziness is frustrating nonetheless.

Merion's board minutes indicate that Merion would "lay out the course" according to "the plan" CBM had approved. And as Francis said, Merion laid out and constructed the course. That doesn't at all address CBM's involvement in the planning process.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2368 on: June 07, 2011, 09:13:45 PM »
David,

Are you going to answer Patrick's questions?   At least Tom MacWood has come forward with a strong, if unconvincing entry.

You talk about intellectual integrity yet you're the guy who simultaneously tries to tell us the course was fully routed before November 15th, 1910 while also telling us that CBM was working on the routing with the Committee at NGLA in March of 1911, and conceding that CBM helped the Merion Committee to pick the best of their five routings in April 1911!  

Please, which is it.

And none of this crap about a "rough routing", please.   It's clear from Francis that his brainstorm was the final piece of the routing puzzle, not some interim step.

It's also clear from Francis that laying out and building the course were two very separate steps and that he credited the Merion Committee with doing both.

It's also very clear from Francis that he knew exactly what "laying out" meant as he used the term and his examples throughout indicate design efforts, not construction.

It's also very clear from Francis that whatever CBM and Whigham's advice and suggestions, he didn't think them noteworthy to mention.


Tom MacWood,

Wilson, in an article about golf course agronomy for Piper & Oakley, told us that the Committee's knowledge in greenkeeping and construction were that of the average club member, which given advances over the years was mostly true, if modestly self-effacing.

He said nothing about whether they knew a good golf hole from a hole in the ground.  
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 09:18:22 PM by MCirba »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2369 on: June 07, 2011, 10:15:00 PM »
Mike,

You seem to rely solely on writings that favor your position while dismissing writings that refute your position.

What first struck me about the Francis article is that he couldn't remember if it was 1909 or 1910 that the old course became antiquated and it was decided to build a new course.

If he can't remember that detail, why do you maintain that his ommisions present or prove any facts ?

I don't have the time to look it up, but, when was that article written ? 

Jeff Taylor

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2370 on: June 07, 2011, 10:24:22 PM »
So what is really at stake here?
Great people got together, maybe at arms length or closer to create something beautiful. It worked. Where is the victory for those of us watching 100 years later?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2371 on: June 07, 2011, 11:23:08 PM »
Jeff,

You may be right, but, it looks like "pride of authorship" is at stake. ;D

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2372 on: June 08, 2011, 12:04:25 AM »
Patrick,

Sorry, but I am not going to pretend like I can attach exact ratios the each party's contribution.  There is no basis for it and no reasonable methodology, and I don't think it adds anything to the conversation when we pretend we are being scientific when obviously we are not.  

Cirba's petty posturing with his  100 percent proclamation may suit his agenda just fine, but I am just here to figure out what happened, not to assign percentage credit, so I will take a pass.  

Besides, I've been quite clear about what I think happened from the beginning.  
__________________________________________________

Jeff Taylor,

I originally started looking into Merion's history as part of the larger topic of the evolution of golf course architecture in America.  In this regard, have largely accomplished what I set out to accomplish in that I have a pretty good understanding of where Merion fits in to this larger story, and have largely amended the story and tried to give Merion credit for being the pioneering course it really was.  

As for victory, there is none, but the clear winner ought to be Merion and its legacy, as quite a lot of misinformation about the origin of the course has been cleared away, and some of us not only have  a better understanding Merion's proper place in history, we also better understand the foundation of Merion's lasting greatness.  
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)

Jim Nugent

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2373 on: June 08, 2011, 02:27:22 AM »

Jim Nugent doesn't seem to grasp that, where possible, interpretations ought NOT make a liar and/or an fool out of the speaker. When a certain interpretation renders the work absurd, nonsensical, and self-contradictory on its face like in the case of Jim's reading here, then it is likely a failure of interpretation by the reader.

Some other possibilities:  1) Whigham was confused.  Not the first time that has happened in a man nearly 70, recalling events that took place 29 years earlier;  2) Whigham was exaggerating.  He took CBM's important but advisory role at Merion, and inflated it into the preeminent one, where Macdonald designed the holes and routed the course, and Wilson mostly carried out his marching orders.  Exaggerations are not unheard of in eulogies, especially involving someone you idolize.  See if you can guess who these eulogies, written by admirers, are talking about...

1.  "(he) was a warrior for humankind and a preacher of the gospel of justice for all nations"

2.  "through his deep humanity, by his wise understanding, he leaves us a rich and monumental heritage....He has pointed the way to peace - to friendly co-existence - to the exchange of mutual scientific and cultural contributions - to the end of war and destruction."

The first was for Adolf Hitler, the second for Josef Stalin. 

The source of any document must be considered.  I'm imagining how the eulogy for David might read, 40 or more years from now, as written by Tom MacWood:  "He rewrote Merion history, tearing down phony walls the entrenched establishment and good ole boys network erected, paving the way to a new understanding of one of the world's hallowed courses." 

Now I'm imagining another eulogy for David, written by Tom Paul:  "The !X%@*?! needed his #!X@-ing brain examined.  Maybe medical science can finally put the damn thing to good use." 

Who would be right? 



Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #2374 on: June 08, 2011, 02:58:50 AM »
Bryan,

Quick, and what I hope will be an easy question for you.

I believe you attempted to measure this drawing in the past and came out somewhere around 124 acres for the golf course, correct?  Yes.

Were you able to tell if all of the "overage" was north of Ardmore Avenue?  "Overage" from what?  The 117 acres?  Nobody has ever posted or even claimed to have (except for TEP a few years ago) the 117 acre boundaries and their metes and bounds. 

In other words, there was consistency between the time of "securing" and the time of purchase a fixed amount of acreage south of Ardmore Avenue that was made up of the 21 acres of the Dallas Estate, and X acres of the Johnson Farm below Ardmore.   Those boundaries were always fixed by the historical property lines.

If you measured out the acreage south, did that match up exactly with the historical acreages of those properties or was that off as well, and if so, by approximately how much?  As far as I recall, the property lines from the the Johnson Estate and the Dallas Estate are the same as for the 161 acres that Lloyd bought.  So, the acreages would be the same.

Also, did your acreage estimates include the eastern half of Golf House Road and/or any of Ardmore Avenue?  Yes for GHR, and yes for the parts of Ardmore that lie partially or fully within the property boundaries.  As you'll recall (maybe), I don't think any of us felt that that map could accurately and successfully be superimposed on the current aerial to allow an accurate assessment of the acreage.  So, take the 124 acres with a grain of salt.

Thanks for your help!




As regards your question on the 17th, here's my very rough drawing although it's probably a bit generous on the front right center.   Thanks.

Thanks for outlining it.  I have no idea how either you or David can try to make intelligent assessments of that green from that picture.  If David has a better version and posts it, then we could revisit.  Off this picture I see nada.


« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 03:01:18 AM by Bryan Izatt »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back