[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

So, you believe that right after Findlay wrote;

I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of the new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it his final touches in the late fall.   It will then be time to reveal to the world it's features, etc."
On what date was that written ?
It seems to me that he's referencing the playing qualities based on the grow in.

and then said, after a discussion comparing the Alps at Prestwick to what seems to be a sorry version Wilson is building..

"But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."

he was talking about other holes at Merion?

Absolutely.
Especially since CBM hadn't crafted any other Alps holes circa 1910-11

Interesting.

I think it's beyond interesting

Besides, if Findlay really thought that Merion was laid out by CBM, wouldn't he have mentioned that in his Opening Day article instead of citing the work of Wilson and Committee (comparing it to Leeds work at Myopia) as well as Fred Pickering's construction success?

I don't know.
You'd have to ask him.
But, why do you always rely on what someone didn't say, versus what they did say ?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

So, you believe that right after Findlay wrote;

I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of the new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it his final touches in the late fall.   It will then be time to reveal to the world it's features, etc."
On what date was that written ?
It seems to me that he's referencing the playing qualities based on the grow in.

Patrick, the article was from June 22, 1910 almost three months before the course would be read to open for play. In the previous sentence Findlay had just indicated that Wilson wanted the course to be the "king-pin course of Pennsylvania" and so it seems that Findlay was understandably withholding judgment on any such pronouncements until after the course had grown in.   Mike tries to twist this into meaning that Findlay was unwilling to discuss anything about the layout , but Findlay's discussion of the Merion's Alps hole undermine's Mike's tenuous interpretation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

To my knowledge, in June 22, 1910, there was ONLY one CBM "Alps" hole in existance, the 3rd at NGLA.

Hence, there's NO other way to read/interpret the passage.

Does anyone disagree with that ?

[JESII]

The article would have been June of 1912 at the earliest, no? Don't know how that effects CBM's Alps production.

Re: interpretations of that article. If CBM had only built a single Alps Hole prior to that writing, and we assume Findlay knew that, it would be tough to argue the point...

But why would Wilson be so surprised at how far his Alps Hole was from the original in terms of quality and/or similarity if CBM had designed it? And as a follow up, if CBM had simply said this is a good place for an Alps Hole because roads make useful hazards to force an aerial shot...AND the committee decided to route and build an Alps hole there does that mean CBM called the shots?

Imagine we all take every singl person at their word in all of this.
>the committee sketches out a few routings and one (or more) of them include a green where th 9th green and they're a little jammed due to a lack of yardage to the road and CBM suggests the opportunity to build an Alps Hole across the road and they try it themselves after seeing his version and his drawings of it. Who designed the hole? He certainly provided significant advice in solving that specific problem (I'm sure there were many others he helped with) but would you then call it a CBM designed hole?




David,

I still haven't taken the time for the project we discussed and can't see when I will in the immediate future. I will say, your couple of posts in the immediate day after my offer took the wind out of my sails. You said you didn't want to argu interpretations (which is fair enough) and I realized that's all we have. I wonder, has any single outside interpretation influenced your thoughts on any of this over these few years?

[Tom MacWood]

IMO this Alps sidetrack is a complete red herring.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

If Pugh and Hubbard measured 117 acres without considering the additional acreage of the road(s), might it have been 117 acres?

Would you see that within the margin of error due to the skewed perspective of the photo of the map?

Why wouldn't they have considered the roads.  All the metes and bounds of the deeds go up the middle of roads or include the roads in their entirety if they are within the boundaries.

I don't think it would have been 117 acres.  No, I don't think it is within the margin of error.  Also, margins of error work both ways - it may be less than 124 acres, but it could also be more.  The 124 acre estimate should be taken as that, an estimate based on a skewed original map.

[DMoriarty]

The article would have been June of 1912 at the earliest, no? Don't know how that effects CBM's Alps production.

Above I mistakenly wrote 1910.  It should  have been 1912.   The article was published on June 22, 1912.  Sorry about that.

Re: interpretations of that article. If CBM had only built a single Alps Hole prior to that writing, and we assume Findlay knew that, it would be tough to argue the point...

CBM had not created "many" other Alps holes as of June 22, 1912. Aside from Merion, I believe as of that date the only one was CBM's Alps hole at NGLA.  While Piping's Rock's golf course may have been in the works, it wouldn't open for play for almost a year. (According to the April 29, 1913 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Piping Rock's golf course would open informally on May 1, 1913, and then officially open on Decoration Day (Memorial Day) 1913.)  As for NGLA, I would be extremely surprised if Findlay had even been there.

But the bottom line for me has nothing to do with counting Alps holes.  I just don't see the article as all that confusing.  Findlay wrote that Merion's Alps hole was bad, but many of the others were great.  Simple. We shouldn't behave like fools when we read these things and we shouldn't treat others, such as Findlay, as fools, either.  

But why would Wilson be so surprised at how far his Alps Hole was from the original in terms of quality and/or similarity if CBM had designed it?

Remember that this isn't Wilson speaking here, it is Findlay speaking for Wilson.  I try to take him at his word, but it isn't easy to tell where his opinion stops and Wilson's starts. If Wilson really was "surprised," we can only speculate as to why. Maybe he didn't think that Prestwick's Alps looked all that much like NGLA's Alps or Merion's Alps. Or maybe he was surprised at how much more accurate the tee shot had to be at Prestwick.  
 

And as a follow up, if CBM had simply said this is a good place for an Alps Hole because roads make useful hazards to force an aerial shot...AND the committee decided to route and build an Alps hole there does that mean CBM called the shots?

I think we may be getting caught up on the "calling the shots" terminology.   Did you happen to read the post to you a while back where I tried to reach some middle ground regarding the terminology?  If by "many of the others" Findlay meant "other holes at Merion" did Findlay think CBM was calling the shots?

Imagine we all take every singl person at their word in all of this.
>the committee sketches out a few routings and one (or more) of them include a green where th 9th green and they're a little jammed due to a lack of yardage to the road and CBM suggests the opportunity to build an Alps Hole across the road and they try it themselves after seeing his version and his drawings of it. Who designed the hole? He certainly provided significant advice in solving that specific problem (I'm sure there were many others he helped with) but would you then call it a CBM designed hole?

This is why I have always tried to avoid questions of design attribution. They end up being battles about semantics.  My contention from the beginning has been that CBM and HJW were integral in placing the holes (routing) and the original hole concepts.  In your hypothetical CBM placed the Alps hole and came up with the concept.  Whether that means he designed the hole depends on one's methodology for making such determinations.

As for me, I would have no problem crediting Wilson and Merion with working out the exact details (if they did) and I think this is an important part of the design process.  But it is really outside my focus here.  My focus remains on the routing and hole concepts.  

David,

I still haven't taken the time for the project we discussed and can't see when I will in the immediate future. I will say, your couple of posts in the immediate day after my offer took the wind out of my sails. You said you didn't want to argu interpretations (which is fair enough) and I realized that's all we have. I wonder, has any single outside interpretation influenced your thoughts on any of this over these few years?

I understand.  I asked you to go through the exercise because I knew that there were no statements by those involved directly crediting Wilson as opposed to CBM. This notion (the supposed existence of many documents by those who were there directly crediting Wilson but not CBM) gets thrown around, as if I was ignoring these piles of direct information, but no such documents exist.  

I am not sure what you mean by "outside interpretation."  Can you clarify.

Believe it or not, I have been influenced by a few of the interpretations and theories of others, but I am not sure if that is the same as being influenced by "outside interpretations" of the source material.

[Mike Cirba]

I'm not sure where we get the idea that NGLA was the first course ever that used template holes, or even the first one that CBM was involved with that used template holes.

What made NGLA unique and original is that CBM originally planned/attempted? to create EIGHTEEN IDEAL holes based on great holes abroad, but even that plan was eventually scrapped faced with the realities of doing that on any one piece of ground.   So CBM ended up with a hybrid, largely, with a few direct copies, a few close adaptations, and some wholly original holes.   By and large, he did succeed in creating almost eighteen great holes, although some may quibble with his Eden, or Long, as not being particularly stellar.

Irrespective, by 1910 holes called "Alps" existed on many courses, from Ardsley to Tuxedo.   There was a hole named "redan" at The Country Club in Brookline, so this whole idea of direct copying was not original, nor did it start with CBM.   As Niall Carlton points out, it had been done in GBI for some time.

This 1905 article below is interesting from any number of aspects, but it does point out that CBM had been interested in the whole idea of identifying the very best golf holes for some time and the whole topic had a lot of discussion from multiple parties both here and abroad.

But what I find most interesting is the statement that by 1905 CBM already "has wide experience in planning out links" and has been called in as a "friendly adviser whenever a noted course has been in construction in the east".    The article does mention that "he laid out the first course of the Chicago Golf Club", seemingly to differentiate it from those courses where he had wide experience as an "adviser".   This is particularly interesting in light of Shivas's recent finding that CBM was involved in laying out Exmoor.

So where else did this "wide experience" take place, and at what other "noted course"(s) did CBM advise while they were being constructed?

I think we have to consider that we really have only scratched the surface in terms of his architectural involvement before NGLA, and truly have no idea if he had created prior template holes at courses where we still don't know that he was involved with.

From my perspective, I still believe that the Findlay article was talking about various courses that Macdonald had opined that Wilson visit while abroad (David seems to think this is an insult to CBM somehow, but can anyone here actually imagine that CBM wouldn't have provided Wilson with an itinerary or that Wilson wouldn't have asked for one??) because the whole topic of the article centers around the trip abroad and Wilson's experiences with various courses there, but no matter....it is certainly open to a number of interpretations.

Finally, Alex Findlay in 1912 probably had more golf experience than any man in this country.    He had created courses from Florida to Maine to Nebraska (his first in 1887), but not only that...over his lifetime he claimed to have played more than 2400 courses and was one of the most traveled men on the planet.   To say that he probably hadn't even seen NGLA by 1912 is ludicrous.

In any case, we have three articles by Findlay concerning Merion and this brief, almost non-sequiter statement inserted into an article praising Hugh Wilson and describing his trip abroad is the only mention of Macdonald.  

The others...one talking about what a great set of greens Fred Pickering created as the construction man responsible for laying out the course on the land, and the third, the Opening Day article that doesn't mention Macdonald but does praise Hugh Wilson and his Committee for doing what Leeds did at Myopia...created the best courses in their respective states.

You have to wonder...

If Findlay seriously thought that CBM had designed Merion, and that Fred Pickering had constructed it...

...what the hell did he think Hugh Wilson and his committee did??      

[Jim Nugent]

Can someone humor me and tell me which templates were on the original 1911 Merion East design -- and how well done they were? 

[Mike Cirba]

Why wouldn't they have considered the roads.  All the metes and bounds of the deeds go up the middle of roads or include the roads in their entirety if they are within the boundaries.

I don't think it would have been 117 acres.  No, I don't think it is within the margin of error.  Also, margins of error work both ways - it may be less than 124 acres, but it could also be more.  The 124 acre estimate should be taken as that, an estimate based on a skewed original map.

Bryan,

Here's what I don't understand about the November 15, 1910 Land Plan.

Someone went through the trouble of hiring Pugh and Hubbard to survey the entire site and put together a Scale Map.

While the road location might be marked as "approximate" (because the road didn't actually exist yet), the map was not meant to be an approximation, it was meant to be exact, and it was meant to accurately illustrate the entire 338.6 acres under HDC control, as well as accurately illustrate the 117 acres that were planned to be used for the golf course.

Here is what the accompanying letter read, in part;

"It is proposed to form on behalf of The Merion Cricket Club, a Corporation which will buy outright, the 117 acres, shown on the plan in green, and marked ―Golf Course."

I think it would be an interesting exercise to see if the entire colored areas of the map actually measure out to 338.6 acres!   If I knew how to do it I would myself.

So, I don't think there is any uncertainty about what this map was meant to illustrate, and that it was meant to accurately depict acreages and planned divisions of property between real estate and golf.

Within about two months, we know Merion also had a contour map of the property (we know because Hugh Wilson sent a copy to Piper and Oakley), but we don't know what that map indicated in terms of either the boundary lines, or who measured and drew it. (Pugh & Hubbard or Richard Francis?)

But, what are the odds that the proposed property line on that map differed from the line drawn on this one in the form of an approximate road?

I ask because in late December we know that Cuyler wrote that the boundaries for the golf course had not yet been determined, meaning that they had not yet figured out the northwest boundary of the Johnson Farm (all the other boundaries were fixed on the original historic lines).

But, for practical purposes, they still had to have some working boundary to indicate the limits of their secured 117 acres, no?

And if they did, what are the odds that it would have been somehow different from what P&H had surveyed just a few weeks before, especially since it doesn't seem that the design efforts really got underway in earnest until the spring of 1911?

So, I don't know what it involves Brian, (or anyone who knows how to do it), but I think it would be very interesting to understand if this map actually measures out to the 338.6 acres owned by HDC at the time.

Because I'm pretty sure that was the intent, and I'm also pretty sure that the intent was to accurately show the 117 acres that were planned to be turned into a golf course.

One other thing...since they are already named roads, it appears the Tunbridge Road, Merton Road and College Avenue existed by the time this map was drawn, yes?   Could the desire to get to both ends of Tunbridge along College Avenue have somewhat dicated their choices on the northern boundary?  

In other words, it appears that one desiring to travel north by train from the Golf Club could take the short trip up Golf House Road to Tunbridge to Merton to Buck Lane to get to Haverford Train Station, which seems something fundamentally desirable to me.   (as a related point of interest, the 1908 Atlas shows the Haverford Train Station as a major station, but at that point, the station further south, marked as "Haverford College Station" did not yet exist. ***EDIT*** I have found no evidence that the station indicated on the Land Plan as "Haverford College" was ever built.  Even today, the directions to the College by train have one going to Haverford Station, which was built around 1870, and then walking the 8-10 minutes south to the campus.)   Here's a picture of the Haverford Station, which almost certainly both HDC and Merion would have wanted easy access to;  (the Ardmore Ave. Station to the south is really just an overhang along the tracks, and has no real facilities)



On the 1908 map, the only roads in existence then were College Avenue, Coopertown Road, and Buck Lane, along with Ardmore Avenue south and Haverford Avenue to the east.   It seems the creation of Tunbridge and Merton were intentional to get additional access north to highway and rail transportation by HDC and easier access to the HDC development and golf course coming from the north, and it happened prior to the golf course routing.

Which again begs the question...in selecting land originally, why would Merion EVER artificially truncate the Johnson Farm south of College Avenue if some triangle of land didn't ALWAYS extend that far north as has been argued here by David?   They would not only stymie themselves in trying to use the quarry as a hazard, but would also be cutting themselves off completely to train and road transportation to the north.

Thanks..

[Mike Cirba]

Can someone humor me and tell me which templates were on the original 1911 Merion East design -- and how well done they were?  


Jim,

I think we have agreement that there was 1) a redan (which Francis told us benefited from Wilson's trip abroad and was suggested by the location of the hole), 2) an Alps (which Alex Findlay told us Wilson agreed "would take a lot of making" after his return from abroad), and an "Eden green" (whether that refers to the bunkering strategy or the slope of the green we don't know) on the par four 15th by opening day in 1912 and 3) a Road Hole (which had its green rebuilt and bunker enlarged in 1915) by at least 1915.

To date, David has also claimed that the green on the par five second hole was a "Biarritz" (Francis called it an "interesting (re: derogatory) three-level green), claimed the 17th hole (which again had a green completely enlarged and reconstructed as well as the major bunkering added in 1916) was a Biarritz, and claimed the multi-level 14th green was a "Double Plateau" (which Francis tells us was reconstructed in the 30s).  

How close to the originals were they, or how "good" were they?

Umm...well, there was a long-debate here at one point about the redan hole because the green orientation is all wrong, there is no "kicker", and the only thing it seems to share with the original is a corner front bunker and a green built on a plateau.  

The 6th is a very good hole, but how much it shared (or ever did) in playability to the original Road Hole is questionable, and the Alps hole...well, I have a bunch of pictures of it and let's just say it wasn't Hugh Wilson's shining architectural moment.  

[Mike Cirba]

This is why I have always tried to avoid questions of design attribution. They end up being battles about semantics.  My contention from the beginning has been that CBM and HJW were integral in placing the holes (routing) and the original hole concepts.  In your hypothetical CBM placed the Alps hole and came up with the concept.  Whether that means he designed the hole depends on one's methodology for making such determinations.

David,

No battles about semantics here, but more of a straight forward factual question.

If the golf course was routed by November 15th, 1910, what is your evidence that CBM and HJW placed the holes and routed the golf course before then?

In your example you say they "placed the Alps hole", (the 10th hole) yet we know from Richard Francis that the first 13 holes were in place at the time he had his brainstorm that allowed them to fit the final five holes, which you insist took place prior to the creation of the November 15th 1910 Land Plan.

What is the evidence that CBM and Whigham routed the course prior to then?

We KNOW from multiple accounts that they had only been on the property one time prior, and we KNOW that it resulted in a pretty generic letter on June 29th, 1910.  

What is the evidential basis for your contention that CBM and Whigham routed the golf course between July and November 1910?

[DMoriarty]

[I wonder if Mike Cirba keeps posting to try and distance the thread from the inescapable conclusion that the Findlay article provides confirmation that CBM was designing golf holes at Merion?

Whatever his reasons, most of what he wrote is really beside the point.   The fact that there were holes called "Alps" in the United States has nothing to do with the Findlay quote, and the holes he mentions - two holes called "Alps" and the one hole called "Redan" - had nothing to do with CBM and were not even close to "direct copies" as Mike misrepresents. 

And again he drags out that dead horse of an article mentioning CBM's experience and expertise, as if calling CBM experienced and an expert must mean that there were dozens of other top-secret Alps holes out there.  I agree that CBM was both experienced and an expert, but where are these the many CBM Alps holes, exactly?

All this business about the Alps holes is another perfect example in the flaw in the methodology of Mike and the Merionettes.   Mike thinks that if he can raise the mere possibility, no matter slight, that there might have been other CBM Alps holes out there, then he is justified in treating it as proven fact. More than that, he thinks he can magically impute knowledge of these fictional Alps holes to Findlay to justify the untenable reading of the Findlay article.  Again, they are attempting to use the barely possible to refute what is highly probable, only this time it may not even be barely possible.

Mike further displays his illogic when discussing another irrelevancy; whether or not Findlay had even been to NGLA, Mike throws out some Findlay puffery and some ridiculous hyperbole ("one of the most traveled men on the planet?") then acts as if he has directly supported tangential (at best) conclusions. 

While I question Mike's hyperbole, I agree that Findlay was experienced and well traveled.  But this does not logically lead to the conclusion that he had actually seen NGLA.   Is it possible that Findlay had been over NGLA?  Sure it is possible.  But if he had been over NGLA it should be easy enough to figure out, as he was a golf writer, and it was the most famous course in America at the time.  In the few articles I have seen he occasionally writes generally of NGLA but nothing to make me think he had actually been there. 

I won't bore you all with the other reasons I doubt he been over the course at this point, because in the end it doesn't matter whether he had seen NGLA or not.   One alps hole does not "many . . . others" make.   
____________________________________________________

Mike mentions three Findlay articles and tries to make a big deal out of the fact that CBM is only discussed in one. 
- The one is the article where Findlay noted that CBM laid out the holes at Merion.
- Another about agronomy.  Findlay called Merion's greens as fine as he seen south of Boston, noted that Pickering "made" them, and went on about how his Pickering (with whom Findlay often worked) was considered "the greatest of all grass growers in the United States."  Findlay then continues to heap praise on Pickering for his expertise regarding a slew of agronomic issues such as soil analysis, growing grass, clover eradication, the proper use of the correct manure, rolling greens, and the eradication of worms and weeds.  In short, the article has nothing to do with who routed Merion's course or came up with the hole concepts.  Moreover, but the description ought to inform our reading of the other articles, such as where Findlay wrote about Pickering and the Committee building the course.
- The third article was was written around the time of the opening, and while it credits Wilson's Committee and Pickering for building the course, it makes no mention of who planned the course.  Again, hardly grounds for any sort of attribution for who routed the course and came up with the hole concepts.

All and all, Mike's three articles amount to little or nothing about who planned Merion.  If anything they hurt his case, because the one sheds light on the type of things to which Pickering may have been referring when he wrote of  Pickering and the Construction Committee building the course.
_______________________________

Jim Nugent,

I disagree with much of what Mike said about the Templates.   I will try to address the issue when I get time. 

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Your claim that Findlay's comparison of what Hugh Wilson and his Committee did at Merion with what HC Leeds did at Myopia doesn't hold water.

You tell us that Findlay simply meant that they both "constructed" the best courses in their states.

That isn't true at all, David, is it?

Whoever claimed that Leeds only constructed Myopia??  

He designed the course, and Alex Findlay was well aware of it, often trumpeting that fact.

Why looky-here!

Here's your new mis-interpretive tagline hero Alex Findlay playing golf with Leeds at Myopia, the same man he compared Hugh Wilson with at the time Merion opened!

I guess the praise was simply for watching Fred Pickering implement CBM's plans for the new course at Merion.    

[Mike Cirba]

Here's a bit more about Herbert Leeds "CONSTRUCTION" efforts at Myopia from an April 1899 article...seems we even have a "New Alps" hole in there;

This article should also help to clear up a lot of the misinformation that was posted here on the Myopia thread speculating on what the original course looked like and which holes Leeds was fully responsible for;

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Findlay's article is difficult, if not impossible to dismiss or refute.

His contemporaneous account is quite clear.

He stated:

Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.] But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."[/size]

The article was PUBLISHED on June 22, 1912, (propably written earlier), when there were NO OTHER ALPS HOLES built by CBM in existance. Hence, Findlay couldn't be referencing "Alps holes" with his words,  "many of the others as laid out by CBM, are really great"
He HAD to be talking strictly about the holes at Merion.

This is a contemporaneous, direct quote from the author, Findlay, NOT an article written by a third party.

Mike Cirba,

Findlay's words are irrefutable.

Is there any documentation, written contemporaneuously (1911-12), that states that Wilson routed the course and designed the individual holes, some of which were CBM templates ?  

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

"Many of the others" is irrefutable??  

Please pass me some of that hooch you're smoking!  

Your desperation is evident in your posts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree that we should take Findlay at his word.  So, yeah, there is a mention of the Alps at Merion, but also mention that other than the water hazards incorporated into the routing, that Wilson was going to place the traps NEXT Srping, after seeing how the course was going to play.  The natural water hazards are there, and the 9th green is surrounded by traps, not a CBM template.

So, given most of the bunkering is done later, after Wilson's GBI trip, I find it hard to credit CBM with providing a lot of template holes, and the one he did provide (the Alps) was found unsatisfactory, too.  And, there is no record of CBM coming back later.

So, even if he did suggest many templates, they used a few, perhaps.  And Wilson added the rest of the design schemes later, most likely including the Redan, which "benefitted" from his trip.  While certainly remembering CBM's advice, adding to it with his trip, and also perhaps using his own and maybe Pickering as a sounding board, with his 100 courses built.  And, I think most agree that Wilson's influence was greater from that time on.

However, if the holes really weren't finished out until the second year/spring, just how much can we credit CBM for the features?  That would seem to limit the discussion to CBM's involvement to the routing, largely. 

As to David and the Whigham article, this may have been pointed out before, but since even history is both perspective and fact (take Hiroshima, for example, where the basic facts are not in dispute, but perspectives sure are differing) maybe both HJW and the committee were right in their perspectives.

After years of watching CBM put in 3-4 days correcting Raynor's work, but not doing much heavy lifting on the details, yet getting the lion's share of the credit, he saw CBM put in 3-4 days at Merion and saw no difference, other than Raynor not being involved. (or maybe he thought Raynor was involved due to faulty memory, who knows)

When the committee looked back a few years later to record there memories, they recall Wilson working more than a year, and CBM working 4 days - about a 400 to 4 or 100 to 1 ratio.  No doubt they thought he merely advised Hugh, given the relatively puny time input.

We all know what happened, happened.  CBM had some influence, no doubt, and no debate there. There were not two separate alternate universes going on there.  And both interpretations can be correct. 

I guess Merion just beat Vegas to the punch on the tag line......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

"Many of the others" is irrefutable?? 

Please pass me some of that hooch you're smoking! 

Your desperation is evident in your posts .

Mike,

The desperation is all yours.

There were NO other CBM built Alps holes in existance in 1911-12, so it's obvious to everyone but you, who are in denial, that Findlay was talking about the holes at Merion and not non-existant CBM Alps holes elsewhere.

That's undeniable.

Especially with the existance of the template holes at Merion.

If you would list for us the "MANY" other Alps holes that CBM had built by 1911-12 that would be great.
But, absent your ability to list any, let alone find any, you have to take Findlay at his word.
CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion, its irrefutable.  Findlay was there and contemporaneously reported it.

The fact that you've been unable to cite one contemporaneous report stating that Wilson routed and designed the holes at Merion speaks volumes.

This must be a dark day for you, and I don't mean because of the thunderstorms

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Please refresh my memory as to why the MCC Lesley report, which is in the official club records, and said they had made many routings before going to NGLA, and rearranged them into five new plans (presumably including the Francis land swap) and which they asked CBM to review on April 6 (?) 1911 before proceeding, is not a record that the committee (of which Wilson was the head) is NOT evidence of them having routed the course?

It is a direct report to the board, and action was taken on it (buying the extra 3 acres and swapping some land to the final configuration)  I agree with TMac, most of the Alps argument is a red herring for the sake of argument.

Obviously, Mike and I and the other Merionettes believe it counts as proof enough.  Why don't you and the 3M beleive that?  Truly, I know its been explained to me, but I have forgotten.

BTW, I have never been that insulted by the Merionette label, giving it points for being clever, but you guys need a moniker, too.  Let's see, Moriarty leads the group, and says he follows the socratic ideals.....hmm.  I dub you guys the Moronics.  Not quite as clever, I admit, but we'll go with it for now until something better comes along.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I prefer "Three Blind Mice", or perhaps those three chimps who see no Wilson, hear no Wilson, and speak no Wilson but i can second your nomination as I'm not one to quibble about terminology and semantics.  

[Tom MacWood]

Pathetic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Please refresh my memory as to why the MCC Lesley report, which is in the official club records, and said they had made many routings before going to NGLA, and rearranged them into five new plans (presumably including the Francis land swap) and which they asked CBM to review on April 6 (?) 1911 before proceeding, is not a record that the committee (of which Wilson was the head) is NOT evidence of them having routed the course?

Jeff, it's a reasonable question and until additional documents are produced, will probably remain an open question.
The problem I have is, who is the "they" ?
Does the committee include CBM ?  Or does the committee exclude CBM.
And if it includes him, what was the extent of his role ?  Especially when you can't dismiss Findlay's statement.
It's hard to fathom that CBM was excluded as part of the committee, especially when Findlay declared that CBM laid out many holes.
If he had no function, no imput, why would he agree to be engaged and waste his time with this project ?
Remember, CBM was no ordinary figure.
It's hard to believe that he'd accept a position as a non-influential lackey with no imput, to be summarily dismissed at the drop of a hat like a servant.
And, from the committee's standpoint, once you invited him in to assist with the project, would you ignore and exclude him from every facet of the project ?  If so, why invite him in as part of the planning process in the first place ?

Findlay described CBM's efforts.  The only contemporaneous specific description and attribution produced to date.
There is NO documentation stating that Wilson laid out the holes, or Francis or any committee member.
But, contemporaneous reports from a highly reliable source cite CBM as laying out many of the holes at Merion.
I don't think you can dismiss his written word.

Why would you doubt Findlay's written words, his specific description of CBM's efforts and work product at Merion ?

Findlay clearly and directly attributes the design of the holes, and indirectly, the creation of the routing to CBM.

I've previously stated, that I believed, (my opinion) that it was a collaborative effort.
I was immediately villified by the Merionettes for taking that position.
But, it's my honest opinion and I make no appologies for it.
When you take a step back and view all of the component elements circa 1910-11-12, the collaborative effort makes sense.
I also referred to it as a joint venture of sorts, and I believe it was, and, so, apparently, does Findlay.

It is a direct report to the board, and action was taken on it (buying the extra 3 acres and swapping some land to the final configuration) 
I agree with TMac, most of the Alps argument is a red herring for the sake of argument.

Then you agree that Findlay was referencing the holes at Merion and not other non-existant "alps" holes.

Obviously, Mike and I and the other Merionettes believe it counts as proof enough.  Why don't you and the 3M beleive that?  Truly, I know its been explained to me, but I have forgotten.

I can see you and the Merionettes claiming that Whigham's eulogy was gratuitous.  I understand that.
But, when you have a figure, a contemporaneous figure like Findlay, directly stating that CBM laid out the holes, how on earth can you ignore that ?
You can't.


BTW, I have never been that insulted by the Merionette label, giving it points for being clever, but you guys need a moniker, too. 

I came up with the "Merionettes" title and thought it was rather clever and funny.
You do understand that this is all in good humor.

Let's see, Moriarty leads the group, and says he follows the socratic ideals.....hmm.  I dub you guys the Moronics.  Not quite as clever, I admit, but we'll go with it for now until something better comes along.

Nah, the individual and collective IQ's are too high to be called the "moronics"
There's been more than sufficient, prudent reasoning on the part of the 3M's to dismiss that moniker.
I'll try to come up with something better, something related to CBM, oh wait, that would be the fourth M.
You might want to try "the four horses asses of the apocalypse" or something of that nature.
Give me some time and I'll think of an appropriate title for the 3 or 4 M's.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

You really should read a bit more carefully before you launch into these distracting fits. I neither mentioned Leeds nor was I drawing a comparison to Leeds.  You guys have tried to make the case that Pickering was involved in the design because Findlay complimented him for creating the course. Findlay gives us a better idea of Pickering's expertise and contribution, and informs us what he might have meant when similarly complimenting others for building golf holes.

As for Merion, Findlay wrote that Wilson "built" the course.  You can go into hysterics all you like, but hysterics will not change "built" to "planned." Unless you are arguing that Leeds was not in charge of "building" that version of Myopia, your rants about Myopia are beside the point.  
___________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

You don't seem to be taking Findlay at his word at all.   Findlay does not limit CBM's contribution to having "laid out" the Alps.   He credits CBM not only for Merion's Alps, but also noted that "many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great." There are two plausible interpretations of this statement:  CBM designed all of the other holes at Merion, and many of which are great; or CBM designed many holes at Merion which are great.  Either way, you are not taking him at his word.  

As for your sketchy speculation about Whigham, it always amazes me how comfortable you are waxing away with no factual support whatsoever.  

As for the meeting minutes, you are misrepresenting what the minutes said and ignoring what happened before and after.

As for your latest insult; typical.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

In truth, we have given you and your essay far more respect than you or it deserves.  The truth is you call us sleaze and other insults all the time, when you are by far the sleaziest guy here.  If I insulted you fifty more times in this post, we would be far from even in trading insults, so get over it.  Even Patrick realizes its all good humor.

When I have time, I may answer your non responsive post in more detail, but suffice to say, I am getting tired of you telling the world that I have misrepresented something, without saying why, because you can't and you hope the casual reader will simply believe your fact adjacent post (following up your fact adjacent essay) willingly.

And, I don't think I represnted it wrong, but I expect a guy who admits in post 2248 that basically, his theory is predicated on everyone else who has ever looked at Merion being wrong, to tell the world that I am in pretty good company!

Cheers and good night.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()