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.


TEPaul

David Moriarty:

Forget then about my endorsement----consider Merion G.C's. They have amended their history to remove the Tolhurst book story that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and for seven months to study architecture before beginning his and his committee's job of designing and constructing Merion East.

That is most certainly something but it does not change in any way what the records (found at MCC in late 2008, by the way) say about what that committee did with the help and assistance of Macdonald and Whigam.

If you are trying to make this into some kind of percentage collaboration breakdown between the Wilson Committee and Macdonald and Whigam as to who routed and designed Merion East, that is not going to happen because there is just nothing at all in the MCC records or anywhere else that gets into something like that.

I told that to MacWood when he asked that question in his 2003 thread "Re: Macdonald and Merion?" He did not listen then. He should have and we may've been able to avoid this whole almost decade long charade between you and MacWood.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jeff Brauer,

Are you telling me, honestly, that if a club comes to you for help planning a course, and you are involved in planning a course, and you have final approval of the plan of the course, and if it is submitted to a golf course Board as the plan you chose and approved, that you aren't responsible for the plan and designer of the course?  That seems a bit far fetched to me.

1. I don't want to forget the double standard comments.  I'd rather you and others apply the same standard to the evidence of CBM's involvement as to Wilson's involvement. So far this isn't happening.   Wilson constantly gets plenty of benefit of the doubt, and CBM gets none.  He chose and approved the final plan for goodness sake, and Wilson isn't even mentioned.

2. As for the Ag letters, yes there are other references to CBM by both parties, and you should dig those up if you want to look at them.  I am not inclined to spend a bunch of time finding them for you right now.   As I recall, there was the Feb. 1 letter, and in another letter Wilson mentioned that he had traveled to NGLA, (I can't remember if he also mentioned he would be traveling there previously), and in another letter he mentioned that CBM would be coming to Merion, Oakley also mentioned CBM would be visiting Merion, and  Oakley mentioned that CBM spoke highly of the course, and Oakley even brought up the opening of the clubhouse at NGLA.   All different letters I think.  It wasn't about the design, but then why would it be given they were discussing Ag issues?   There is also the CBM letter to Wilson that Wilson attached to his correspondence to Oakley.  Wilson had asked CBM to inquire with a British expert about his recent visit to Merion, and CBM was doing so at Wilson's request.  The letters show Wilson's method's and also confirm correspondence between Wilson and CBM, and they also show that both parties were speaking to CBM about the project.  

2.  I don't see the contradiction you see.  First I never claimed Wilson had nothing to do with the design.  Second, Wison was charged with, among other things, constructing the course.  He had a lot to learn from CBM in this regard, especially regarding how the course ought to be arranged on the land.   fter all, that is why he went to NGLA and why Merion had CBM and HJW come back down to chose and approve the final plan.  

3. My understanding of events hasn't changed.  I still think CBM had a rough idea of how he would route the course in the fall of 1910, and that Merion (through the supposed swap) altered this plan and accessed a bit more land to get the last five holes to fit.   I think this (and the Barker plan) may be what Lesley refers to when he speaks of laying out many different courses on the land prior to going to NGLA.  I have always acknowledged that there was still plenty to do after this initial rough planning, and now that I have actually seen the Minutes,  I can see the extent of CBM's involvement in that planning right up to his approval of the final plan!  In short, my argument about CBM being the primary creative force behind the design stands whether or not you guys accept my understanding of the timing of the swap.  That is why I have always laughed at this notion that the swap argument was the lynchpin of my position.  
« Last Edit: June 08, 2012, 08:08:50 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)

TEPaul

"There is also the CBM letter to Wilson that Wilson attached to his correspondence to Oakley.  Wilson had asked CBM to inquire with a British expert about his recent visit to Merion, and CBM was doing so at Wilson's request.  The letters show Wilson's method's and also confirm correspondence between Wilson and CBM, and they also show that both parties were speaking to CBM about the project."



Indeed, that was the June 15, 1911 "Agronomy" letter from Wilson to Oakley attaching a copy of Macdonald's June 13th letter to Wilson.

However, instead of just mentioning the fact they communicated to only make that point, it might be quite instructive to also mention what the following letters between Wilson and Oakley actually said about Macdonald's and Reginald Beale's recommendations that were contained in that letter from Macdonald to Wilson that Wilson enclosed in his June 15th letter to Oakley. Both Oakley and Wilson were in disagreement with both Macdonald and Beale as to the amount of lime to apply to Merion. The difference of opinion was not insignificant as Oakley and Wilson felt they should only use 1/3 of the amount Beale recommended and Macdonald agreed with and recommended for Merion East.

After that there is no other mention in the "Agronomy Letters" of Macdonald between either Piper or Oakley and Hugh or Alan Wilson for a number of years until they begin to discuss along with the president of the USGA the problem Macdonald had become in helping them with the Green Section initiative despite them attempting to get him to participate in some way.

Following the MCC April 19, 1911 Board meeting report from Lesley in which Macdonald/Whigam were mentioned, I have found no reference again by MCC or Wilson about Macdonald or Whigam having anything to do with MCC with either agronomy or architecture and there is no question the course had a long way to go in both areas as at that point it actually had not even been built yet and would not be seeded for the next five months.

When Hugh Wilson returned from his trip abroad in the spring of 1912 (which can be timeframed into no longer than two months) Merion East began to be improved by various bunkering arrangements and architectural improvements apparently revolving around a number of surveys and drawings and ideas Hugh Wilson had brought back with him from abroad.

Frankly, the latter just might be the most interesting recent discovery and addition to Merion's architectural history through all of these discussions of Merion East on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. Before that it had not been very well known or adequately appreciated just how rudimentary Merion East was before and until after Wilson's trip abroad in 1912 and the architectural improvements that were made to the course when he returned.

As a side-bar to this even though Merion East opened for play in September 1912 it may've been under limited play due to the ongoing development of the architecture of the course. This appears to be confirmed by the fact that initially the Board reported they were going to shut down the old Haverford course simultaneously with the opening of the East course in September of 1912 but they actually kept the Haverford course open for play until the end of 1913, over a year later. By the end of 1913 they had negotiated the land for the West course and would begin to design and built it. The West course was the kind of architecture that anyone said was in the Macdonald/Raynor or Whigam type and style that is sometimes referred to as the "National School."  

As Wayne Morrison mentioned on here some years ago to some cat-calls from MacWood and Moriarty, that is when Merion East began to develop the type and style of architecture for which it would eventually become famous---eg such features as the famous "White Faces of Merion!" And it was also around that point (around the time the construction foreman Fred Pickering would begin to suffer from personal problems that affected his performance and for which he was eventually fired) that William Flynn would become extremely involved with the architectural development and improvement of Merion East and West for at least the next fifteen or more years.

Was Merion West laid out using a PRE-construction topographical survey map? As far as I know if it was I've never seen it or even heard one existed.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2012, 11:25:21 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
TEPaul's latest post contains some good examples of the kinds of specious reasoning that has plaqued this discussion from long before my IMO.  

1.TEPaul and his writing partner have long used this CBM letter about Beale as an example of how CBM was foisting ridiculous information on Merion and that Merion was ignoring or dismissing that information.  For example immediately above TEPaul disingenuously tries to saddle CBM with Beale's opinions and recommendations . . .
Quote
. . . it might be quite instructive to also mention what the following letters between Wilson and Oakley actually said about Macdonald's and Reginald Beale's recommendations. Both Oakley and Wilson were in disagreement with both Macdonald and Beale as to the amount of lime to apply to Merion. The difference of opinion was not insignificant as Oakley and Wilson felt they should only use 1/3 of the amount Beale recommended and Macdonald agreed with and recommended for Merion East.
The reality was quite different.   CBM was making no recommendation.   There was no disagreement between Macdonald and Merion on the issue.   What really happened is that Wilson asked a favor of CBM . . . He wanted CBM to find out what Beale really thought about the work being deign at Merion's Course.   Here is what actually Wilson wrote to Oakley on June 15, 1911:
"I am enclosing you copy of a letter from Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Beale who, as you know, is the grass expert of Carters & Co, spent an afternoon with us and I told Mr. Macdonald to have him talk freely and criticize the Course in any way he possibly could."
So CMB was trying to find out information for Merion at Wilson's request!   And here is the text of CBM's June 13, 1911, letter:
Dear Mr. Wilson:
I am dictating this by telephone.
I have just seen Beale and had luncheon with him and his friend.
He states that you were only putting on twelve tons of manure to the acre, and he seems to think that with the impoverished state of your soil, you are far short of the amount required. He says it seems to him thirty tons would be nearer the mark........
I give you this for what it is worth.
(signed)   Charles B. Macdonald

"For what it is worth."  Hardly a recommendation or an agreement with Beale. He was simply passing on information.   Yet because Merion didn't listen to Beale, TEPaul pretends that they didn't listen to CBM.  In short, TEPaul's interpretation is a bad joke.

The funnier joke is that this is the letter that these guys try to use the demonstrate a strained relationship!   CBM is essentially spying for Wilson and then phoning in dictation to get the letter to Wilson, and we are to believe they didn't still have a good working relationship??

The letters themselves indicate multiple communications. Wilson had asked CBM to do him a favor. and unless he did it telepathically, they were communicating beyond just CBM's letter!  And this was in June.  Two months after TEPaul would have us believe that CBM was no longer in contact with Merion.   (He is also wrong about their being no other mentions of CBM in the Ag letters after April, but then we ought to be very used to him getting this stuff wrong by now.)   And they were still apparently communicating the next year when Wilson finally got around to traveling abroad. It was CBM who was arranging things with the foreign clubs for him! Hardly the strained relationship that these guys portray.

2. Regarding the Ag letters generally, we need to keep in mind that these Ag letters do not represent all of Wilson's correspondence with everyone. They only represent Wilson's correspondence with Piper and Oakley!   We don't have any of the correspondence between Wilson and others.  We happen to have one CBM letter because Wilson sent it to Oakley! Given Wilson's extensive correspondence with the Ag guys, you can bet he was writing CBM as well.  

3.  TEPaul also claims that Merion East didn't really develop until after Wilson returned from his trip abroad, but this claim is unsupported and unsupportable. The greens, tees, and at least some of the artificial features were built prior to his trip, and it was reported before he even returned that many to most of the holes were based on the great holes abroad, even though he had not seen these holes.   No doubt improvements and changes were made, but the core of the course was in place BEFORE Wilson ever went abroad.  

4. TEPaul also claims that he brought back surveys and drawings from his trip.  I've never seen the contemporaneous proof that he brought any such documentation back with him, and if any exists I'd love to see it.  It sounds to me like TEPaul is just parroting Tolhurst!  He is wont to do that with club histories.   If Wilson did have drawings and plans, CBM would seem as likely a source.

5. I see TEPaul has substantially changed his post since I began mine.  Nothing is worth addressing.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 12:11:44 AM 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)

Patrick_Mucci

David Moriarty,

Your post # 178 is significant, for it reveals that which I have maintained for years.

Namely, that the interaction between CBM and Merion wasn't necessarily limited to written correspondence and that it was more than likely that phone conversations between the interested parties took place.

In post # 178, CBM mentions the use of the telephone regarding his dealings with Merion.

I think that validates my position.

What bothers me is that the document you quoted had to be available to Lord Valdamort and that he deliberately kept it a secret.
That's being intellectually dishonest.
That information and document should have been produced when I initially brought this subject up.
Concealing it was improper.

TEPaul

"4. TEPaul also claims that he brought back surveys and drawings from his trip.  I've never seen the contemporaneous proof that he brought any such documentation back with him, and if any exists I'd love to see it.  It sounds to me like TEPaul is just parroting Tolhurst!  He is wont to do that with club histories.   If Wilson did have drawings and plans, CBM would seem as likely a source."



No, I'm not parroting Tolhurst. Tolhurst did mention, seventy seven years after the fact in his 1989 Merion history book that Wilson came back from abroad with a pile of notes, sheaves of sketches and surveyor's maps.

But the one I was referring to who mentioned Wilson coming back from abroad with survey maps and drawings and such was Richard Francis, the man who was a member of Wilson's committee, and since he was a surveyor/engineer, the one who said he did the measuring and drawing for the Wilson committee. One can't get much more central and significant on the Wilson Committee than Francis, other than obviously Wilson himself.

Of course in your IMO piece you basically sloughed off both Francis and Wilson's brother Alan for likely engaging in hyperbole in what they reported about the beginnings of Merion East and Hugh Wilson's part in it!   ??? ::) ;)

Should I quote those sections of your essay or would you like to admit to it now?

(Oh, and by the way, when you mentioned in one of your posts above that the documents found and reported by others after your IMO piece actually made your points in that IMO piece stronger, I literally fell off my chair laughing it's so ridiculous).

You're assiduously avoiding all my pertinent questions as well; why is that? Obviously you know you can't handle them so apparently you must think the next best step is to avoid them altogether. You can't face the questions. I suppose it might be a compliment to you to say at least you probably know what answering them honestly will mean. And you are clearly becoming increasingly petty and petulant on this thread as all your posts on this thread reveal. It's a good record to have for future use!

« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 01:16:41 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

"What bothers me is that the document you quoted had to be available to Lord Valdamort and that he deliberately kept it a secret.
That's being intellectually dishonest.
That information and document should have been produced when I initially brought this subject up.
Concealing it was improper."


Pat:

That letter and frankly all the "Agronomy Letters" were first found and first revealed by Wayne and me. Maybe in the last five years or so the USGA digitized them and put them on their website so that some on here found them and used them

We found them before anyone else in the USGA's Green Section about a decade ago (they had just come in a few months before) and spent about a day copying the ones out of about two thousand that pertained to Flynn (who we were researching on and writing about at the time and others that had to do with Merion). We mentioned them on this website back then for other reasons on other threads before any of this bullshit  over the history of Merion from MacWood, then Moriarty and now you began.

That you didn't know that does not surprise me, Patrick. The fact is you never really follow any of this and you do about zero research on your own.

When we mention that to you and question you about it your fall-back response has generally been that you have had too many other things to think about like family, business, health issues or whatever. The latter may all be true, Patrick, and if it is and you have not kept up with this or done any of your own research, which you assuredly have not, then it might be best for you and everyone else involved if in the future you would shitcan those ridiculous responses of yours like the one above.

Patrick, you really are the most self-congratulatory, self-serving guy who has ever walked the halls of this DG. In person you can be a fun guy so I think most people just overlook your "know-it-all" posts and attitude and either humor you or just ignore you. As you know, I do neither----I just tell it to you like it is!  ;)

« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 01:18:38 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

David Moriarty and Pat:


Why don't you look through all the "Agronomy Letters" and list the times Macdonald was mentioned in them by Hugh or Alan Wilson and Piper and Oakley.

Why don't we qoute or scan in its entirety that correspondence between Alan Wilson and Piper about Macdonald chairing the kick-off meeting of the Green Section in New York?

Can you find that one?

Do you have any compunction about revealing what it said and discussing it?


Pat, don't worry about it----I have no doubt at all you have absolutely no idea at this point what I'm talking about because you've never read it and probably never even realized it was mentioned on this website.

TEPaul

"TEPaul pretends that they didn't listen to CBM.  In short, TEPaul's interpretation is a bad joke."


To truly understand the relationship Hugh Wilson and Piper and Oakley had with Macdonald over the years on agronomics and some other things like his participation with the Green Section, one pretty much has to read all the so-called "Agronomy Letters." Not an easy thing to do since there are close to a couple of thousand of them when you throw in their correspondence with Alan Wilson too.

I love the one when Piper returned from NGLA and Hugh asked him if CBM tried to take his head off. Piper replied----not exactly but he did allow as everyone is an idiot!!  ;)

Piper and Oakley had a number of disagreements with CBM about agronomics and even how he was going about it with NGLA. They also seemed to have many of the same disagreements with how George Crump was going about Pine Valley agronomically for a while.



PS:
When CBM signed his letter to HIW; "I give you this for what it's worth," what do you figure he meant he was giving Wilson 'for what it was worth'----Reginald Beale?   ??? ;)
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 09:56:13 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

"3.  TEPaul also claims that Merion East didn't really develop until after Wilson returned from his trip abroad, but this claim is unsupported and unsupportable. The greens, tees, and at least some of the artificial features were built prior to his trip, and it was reported before he even returned that many to most of the holes were based on the great holes abroad, even though he had not seen these holes."



David Moriarty:

I have certainly noticed that throughout these four years since you presented your IMO piece on Merion (1909-1912), you only focused on Hugh Wilson in your IMO piece, and in the discussions on the subject on this DG in the last four years you have also almost completely only focused on Hugh Wilson himself and what he didn't know about great holes abroad before Merion East was planned.

In this vein, I have never seen you acknowledge that the Wilson Committee was not a committee of one, it was a committee of FIVE!! Why do you suppose that was?  ;)  ???  ::)

In that vein, you never seem to want to acknowledge or discuss what the other members of that committee may have been familiar with abroad in architecture. Why is that?

The best and most likely candidate in that vein certainly appears to be Rodman Griscom! In the last year or so one of Merion's historians found some pretty amazing stuff about Griscom and his sister and their familiarity with golf and architecture abroad, particularly North Berwick, the home of the original redan hole! The fact is they knew it a whole lot better and for a whole lot longer than CBM did (and it's interesting that in his book CBM goes into when he first studied North Berwick and particularly the redan and with whom. His own description of that time (1906) is pretty revealing about what he said he did not know about that course and that hole before that).

When you go on and on about this on this DG telling us that Merion East had to be the holes abroad as intepreted by CBM because at that time Wilson had not gone abroad, you ought not forget about his fellow committeeman, Rodman Griscom!

But for some reason you do. Why is that?  ;)

Would you like to discuss RODMAN GRISCOM and his knowledge of holes abroad long before Merion East was created or is that just ANOTHER subject pertinent to the creation of Merion East you would prefer to avoid since it definitely does not serve your purpose or the theme of your IMO piece?

As you have done in the past so often, I expect your response will be----"I'm not interested in discussing that with you."  

It totally figures!  ;)
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 10:24:18 AM by TEPaul »

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
From Mike Cirba:



All,
 
I guess I can understand David refusing to answer my questions as I'm not a member of this Discussion Group, and that's ok.   Frankly, I'm really beginning to see some progress here on this thread and I really don't think our positions on the whole question of how Merion East was originally designed are that far off any longer...only by degrees in fact, if I'm interpreting him correctly.
 
Overall, I'm very glad that David now has access to the MCC Minutes, because I think the evidence has caused him to evolve his thinking in a number of areas.
 
For instance, I'm not sure he'd state it here given some of the acrimonious history, but it does seem he's backed off his original premise that the golf course was fully routed by November 1910.   If you recall, one of the cornerstones of his essay was that because it would appear without close inspection that the 130x190 "triangle" of land referred to by Richard Francis already seemingly was indicated on the November 1910 Land Plan (which Francis told us was the final piece of the routing), then the routing must have been completed before the formation of Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee (and Wilson's involvement at any level), which Wilson stated was in "early 1911".   
 
If I might surmise, I think David originally took that, along with accompanying documentation from H.G. Lloyd found in the Sayres Scrapbook that the land in question was bought largely based on the recommendation of CBM and Whigam, as well as his discovery that Wilson went abroad in 1912, not 1910, as strong evidence that Hugh WIlson was not responsible for the design routing of Merion East Golf Club, and I can certainly appreciate how he may have come to that conclusion.   Given the documented visit by CBM in June of 1910, and Lloyd's statement, as well as noting a previous communications from the Real Estate company (Joseph Connell) indicating that HH Barker had done a routing somewhere on their holdings in anticipation of the sale to MCC, also in June of that year, David's essay argues that probably CBM and Whigham were the ones responsible for that routing sometime between June and November of 1910, perhaps with some Barker thrown in for good measure.
 
However, at the time he wrote his essay he didn't have the actual contents of the letter that CBM wrote to Lloyd after his visit, nor did he have the other MCC Minutes that make a number of things clearer.   For instance, here again is the letter CBM wrote after his one day visit in June 1910, which Lloyd referred to in his November 1910 recommendation letter to the Board.   It is important to note that the June visit and followup letter is the only documented communications between CBM and anyone at Merion until the following year, 1911.
 
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features.  The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.  What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.

We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly.  The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

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

As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.

We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.

With kindest regards to you all, believe me,

Yours very truly,

(signed)  Charles B. Macdonald

In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.

 
 
Besides this letter, there were a number of other factors unknown to David at the time of his essay.   For instance, although the Land Plan shared with the Merion membership in 1915 appeared to have the 130x190 parcel of land mentioned by Francis indicated in the north portion, I doubt David realized at the time that the map was professionally drawn to scale and that the triangle at the top of the page hardly fit the dimensions described by Francis.   What's more, if a routing had already been done as of that date then it certainly would have been shared with the membership to garner support and interest in the new course.   As everyone knows, the Land Plan is blank.
 
Further, at the time David was unaware of a correspondence noted in the MCC Minutes from Merion's counsel, Mr. Cuyler, who advised Merion in December 1910 that HG Lloyd should purchase the land in question (117 acres secured in November) because the dimensions of the golf course were not yet determined.   In late December, Lloyd purchased the entire properties formerly known as the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estates, ensuring that Merion could have the flexibility they needed in routing and determining their golf course.   
 
In fact, the very first letter from Hugh Wilson to Piper and Oakley in early 1911 refers to the fact that Merion has "purchased 117 acres", indicating that whatever land shift occurred with the routing that created the need to expand to a purchase of 120 acres (with an additional 3 acres of RR land leased for a total of 123 acre golf course) in April referred to in the meeting minutes of April 1911, that specific routing activity took place sometime between February and April of 1911.   Of course, when David wrote his essay he also didn't have access to the MCC Minutes of April 19th, 1911, which spoke of the committee laying various courses on the ground, their visit to NGLA, their subsequent creation of 5 "different plans", the requirement to buy an additional three acres to implement the plan recommended by CBM, and that whole sequence of events which really confirm for me the fact that this work was primarily done during that timeframe.   I do hope he would concede in the interest of progress and mutual understanding that his assumption that the routing plan had been completed by November based on that misleading Land Plan was an error, understandable though it was.
 
(I also wish Tom MacWood would reply to my specific and related questions to him in post #100 on this thread, so I can see where we still differ.   He seems to me to want the Barker attribution so badly that he's ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary, but rather than taking shots at Wilson ("Insurance Salesman", etc), I really don't see much where he explains how this all fits together in his mind, or whether his thinking has evolved on this matter, as it seems David's has, but perhaps he can weigh in.)
 
Now, we can all offer our interpretations of what those April 1911 Minutes read in terms of apportioning responsibility for the routing activities, and it's clear that there was collaboration.   I really don't believe either the Minutes, nor Wilson's account suggest that much of that work took place during the NGLA visit.   I think the facts suggest that Merion wanted to build a golf course consistent with the underlying principles under which CBM had built NGLA, using concepts from ideal holes abroad, and the word that keeps coming to my mind as I study this thing is "mentor".    I think CBM and Whigham acted as "good and kindly" mentors to an eager Hugh Wilson and Committee, first coming to confirm that the land in question was going to work, putting him in touch with Piper and Oakley, later providing Merion with a primer and probably graduate course all in one evening on the strategic principles of holes abroad, then showing his applied versions of those principles on the ground the next day going over the NGLA course, and then coming down to view their various routing efforts and offering his expert opinion on which of those plans was best.
 
I may be wrong, and their role may have included suggesting specific holes in specific locations on the property, but I'm not sure there is evidence that they were involved to that level.   Instead, like any good teachers, I think they taught their students and then commented critically on their efforts, as opposed to doing their students work for them.   
 
Ironically, I think in some ways that I may differ more with Jim Sullivan than I do with David.   Jim has never been able to accept that any of these intelligent men would purchase or secure a parcel of land without first having some routing of a golf course done on it.   However, I believe that the historical record shows that this was indeed often the practice in those days, citing Crump's purchase of 184 acres at PV prior to routing, for example.  In the case of Merion, they had been told by Connell that HDC was willing to sell them "100 acres or whatever would be needed" for the golf course and I believe that it was CBM who probably told them they needed closer to what he believed at the time was a standard of around 120.   Certainly one can't walk around any potential property without seeing potential golf holes and I'm sure that also happened here, but I think once they knew they had an adequate parcel of land with enough interesting natural features, they simply went for it and figured they'd build their course over time.   I just think history shows that is the way ti was done at the time.   I won't even go into the NGLA example... ;)
 
My biggest beef with what's been argued here by David, and probably moreso by Tom MacWood, is not the elevation of CBM's role in the Merion story, but the seemingly purposeful minimilazation of Hugh Wilson's role.   I believe that belies a lack of historical understanding of what at the time was over a decade's activity by Wilson at the highest levels of the game in Philadelphia and Princeton, and an escalating role within Merion.
 
For instance, here in 1897, an 18 year old Hugh WIlson finished 2nd to eventual winner Ab Smith.in the Medal round of the first Philadelphia Amateur.   At the time, Wilson was the best player in Belmont GC (predecessor to Aronimink) and would be going into Princeton, where he became golf Captain while they were building their new Willie Dunn course.
 

 
In 1902, William Smith petitioned GAP to create a committee to rank of the best players in Philadelphia at the time, for purposes of naming a qualified team to play in the Intercity Matches, which would become the Lesley Cup.   Wilson was identified as the 8th best, quite an honor for someone who wasn't able to play in a lot of the club competitions as he was matriculating at Princeton.   The list also included fellow committeeman Rodman Griscom.
 

 

 
Speaking of Griscom, yesterday we also found evidence where he and two other men routed a proposed public course in Fairmount Park for the city of Philadelphia which was never built.   Griscom was also head of the committee that designed the second nine holes at Merion's original course around the same time.
 
Finally, it's interesting to see who represented Merion at the Annual Golf Association of Philadelphia meetings (along with GAP President Robert Lesley) during the period in question.   In January 1910, we see that Merion sent Dr. Toulmin and HG Lloyd, both member's of Wilson's Committee;
 

 
The following year, just after Lloyd completed his purchase of the property in December 1910, at the January meeting we see a new name joining Dr. Toulmin;
 

 
In 1912, a news report indicated that Wilson and his committee were very busy with the new course and I neglected to photograph the roster for that year, but it didn't include Wilson...if memory serves it was Lloyd and Griscom.   However, after the course opened, by 1913 again two of the member of the committee were representing Merion at the annual GAP Meeting.   While none of this is dispositive in any way, it does help to increase our modern understanding of how well Wilson was regarded at the time within Merion and within Philadelphia golf circes, even at these early dates;
 

 
Thanks,
Mike
 
 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jeff Brauer,

These last few posts exemplify what I mean when I talk about the gross double standards which have long pervaded these discussions. 

When it comes to anyone else involved, any distant, stretched, and irrelevant fact or artifact is provides enough to allow inferences and speculation about what might have happened, but when it comes to CBM and HJW we can infer absolutely nothing, no matter how reasonable and obvious.  Some examples . . .
    - Rodnam Griscom's sister was a top American female golfer very early on in the history of golf in the States, and she studied with Ben Sayers in North Berwick, so we must infer that Griscom was some sort of expert on architecture the courses of Scotland, on par with CBM and HJW?? (Laughably he seems to think that some mystery historian at Merion discovered this.  Those of us who are actually familiar with this early era have long been aware of it.)
    - Griscom was on a committee that sketched out a never built 9 hole public while readily acknowledging that any competent professional could do as well or better and greatly improve the course, yet we are supposed to believe the same guy would have designed Merion without relying heavily on the readily available advice of  CBM and HJW??
   - Hugh Wilson was a decent college and Philadelphia player around the turn of the century, so he is somehow on par with the likes of HJWhigham and CBMacdonald in terms of knowledge about golf architecture?   (Never mind that Philadelphia was known to be well behind the rest of the country in terms of golfers and courses.)
   -  Dr. Toulmin was one of a multitude of delegates at a Gap meeting, so he must have been a top expert as well, and willing to ignore CBM and HJW to go his own way on the design of Merion??

It is ridiculous.   The only "documented" contribution of Griscom is that GRISCOM HAD A CONNECTION TO CBM AND CONVINCED CBM AND HJW TO  GET INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT BY COMING DOWN TO GO OVER THE LAND IN JUNE OF 1910.   That is the extent of the documentation directly linking Griscom to the land.   That's it! 

We have CBM and HJW there, onsite, twice. He have CBM working on the plan at NGLA with Wilson and friends.  We even Merion's acknowledgement that CBM and HJW DETERMINED AND APPROVED THE FINAL PLAN.   And these guys have worked for years to discount and dismiss all of this.  Yet Dr. Toulmin makes it to a GAP meeting, and that is a significant find in all of this?  A farce.   

As for Mike Cirba's speculation that my position has changed, he is dreaming.  As for the rest, it is just his normal rehash of the same old stuff and wont bother to go into it.  I regret the time I wasted reading it.

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)

TEPaul

"- Rodnam Griscom's sister was a top American female golfer very early on in the history of golf in the States, and she studied with Ben Sayers in North Berwick, so we must infer that Griscom was some sort of expert on architecture the courses of Scotland, on par with CBM and HJW?? (Laughably he seems to think that some mystery historian at Merion discovered this.  Those of us who are actually familiar with this early era have long been aware of it.)"


David Moriarty:

What have you been aware of to do with Rodman Griscom's familiarity with golf architecture abroad, particularly North Berwick, when and how?

His sister Frances was over there for an extended time training with Ben Sayers, but Frances was not on the Wilson Committee, her brother Rodman was.

Why have you never addressed the familiarity of Rodman with architecture abroad? He was on Wilson's Committee. Why did you only mention in your IMO piece and in the last four years that Wilson was a novice never having been abroad to study architecture, therefore the only responsibility of the entire WILSON COMMITTEE was to merely construct the course to Macdonald's and Whigam's plan?

You seem to imply that Rodman couldn't hold a candle to CBM and Whigam on architecture abroad. Why is that? What are you using to support that contention other than apparently your ignorance and lack of familiarity with Rodman Griscoms and his career? The fact is Rodman knew North Berwick and the redan a whole lot better and a whole lot longer than CBM did!

Are you going to start answering these specific questions or are you just going to continue to try to side-track and avoid them?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 01:07:05 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

As to why the Wilson Committee did not have their names listed in board meetings and committee reports, that just another subject you've been asked about whether you know the reasons for and you've avoided it. What do you know about the By-laws and administrative operating processes of MCC or Merion G.C.? If you were interested in finding out who would you go to to ask for that information?

Are you going to just avoid these questions too?

How about anyone else on here? Who on here knows anything about the By-Laws and the administrative operating processes of MCC or Merion G?. If you didn't know the answers to that who would you go to for that kind of information?

Anybody?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 01:14:33 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

"As for the rest, it is just his normal rehash of the same old stuff and wont bother to go into it.  I regret the time I wasted reading it."


THAT is nothing but a slight variation of David Moriarty's usual time-worn excuse of avoiding answering questions he knows he cannot answer or explain!


Unlike David Moriarty, when Tom MacWood wants to avoid questions he cannot answer or explain, he generally just doesn't post at all.   ;)
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 02:24:11 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
I've long exhausted any responsibility to answer these guys' questions.  It was all addressed years ago.  I don't see that they have anything to add.

If at moments this conversation has been more productive, it isn't because of any change in my position.  I am willing to change and have changed where the facts dictate, but my main and most fundamental points remain unaltered.  They have only been bolstered by my access to some of Merion's records.  

Where the conversation has been more productive it is more likely because:
1.  I've largely ignored TEPaul.  He doesn't seem to have anything to add but insecurity, distraction, and nastiness.

2.  Jeff Brauer and I are trying to deal with each other somewhat amicably despite our past failures.

3.  Mike Cirba is (supposedly) no longer posting here so we aren't as apt to get bogged down going back over the same irrelevant and/or disproven tangents over and over again.

Hopefully Jeff Brauer and/or Jim Sullivan will get a chance to chime in and we can resume more reasonable conversation.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 02:31:42 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)

TEPaul

"I've long exhausted any responsibility to answer these guys' questions.  It was all addressed years ago.  I don't see that they have anything to add."



David Moriarty:

That's nothing more than a slightly different version of your same old excuse to avoid addressing questions that are very pertinent to this subject you know you don't want to answer honestly or explain.

It's not a matter of something new; it's only a matter of getting you to address why you made so many mistakes in that essay and to ask you what you did not have and did not know when you wrote it.

Some, but definitely not all of your mistakes include:

1. Failing to provide credible evidence that Francis was involved at all in 1910.
2. Your mistake in the timing of the NGLA trip by two months.
3. Your mistake in the date that MCC (MCCGA Corp) bought the land.
4. The fact you did not have Macdonald's letter to the site committee and what it actually said.
5. The fact you did not have a number of important board and committee meeting documents
6. The fact you had no idea when that 1910 trip abroad story first happened.
7. The fact that you did not have those agronomy letters or failed to use them for support of the truth of events and timing.
8. That you did not know how MCC is structure via By-laws and its operating process. You still don't know that
9. You did not have the Wilson Committee report to the April board meeting and did not know it even existed.
10. You'd never even heard of a very important person in this whole thing---T. DeWitt Cuyler.



Ten is enough for now but there are more.

Again, I think we all know why you are now avoiding those questions and issues and refusing to discuss them.  ;)




"Hopefully Jeff Brauer and/or Jim Sullivan will get a chance to chime in and we can resume more reasonable conversation."


Of course you would rather discuss things with them. Neither one of them ask you particularly pertinent or important questions and both of them are willing to discuss the irrelevant questions you constantly ask them, apparently in your on-going attempt to avoid discussing issues that are central to this subject and central to the mistakes you made in that 2008 IMO piece of yours.

« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 03:59:34 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Boy this guy just gets more and more pathetic, petty, and desperate.   While much of what he wrote above is just plain wrong, if that is the best he can come up with against me then I've done pretty well.   TEPaul has made more major mistakes about Merion's history in this thread than I made in the entirety of my IMO.  In fact he may have made more mistakes in that single post-- I see he is still going on about the fictional "Wilson Report."  

Imagine the length of the list if I started listing everything he and his writing partner have gotten wrong over the years. I am sure there must be some things, but on the issue of the origins of the East Course is hard to think of much of anything that they initially had correct!

Maybe the increasing pettiness is a good sign?  Maybe he finally realizes that this argument is over, and that his side didn't fare well? Perhaps he is futilely trying to figure a way to save face?  Why else would he become obsessed with such irrelevancies as "when the 1910 trip abroad story first happened?"  When THE STORY first happened.  As if when they first came up with the MYTH has any bearing on what really happened.

By the way, TEPaul's is WRONG when he claims the MYTH "first happened" or was first presented in the Tolhurst Book.  Naturally.

Let's call it TEPaul's creation of a myth about the creation of Merion's Creation Myth, or Merion's Creation Myth Creation Myth, for short.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 04:57:00 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)

TEPaul

"Boy this guy just gets more and more pathetic, petty, and desperate.   While much of what he wrote above is just plain wrong, if that is the best he can come up with against me then I've done pretty well.   TEPaul has made more major mistakes about Merion's history in this thread than I made in the entirety of my IMO.  In fact he may have made more mistakes in that single post-- I see he is still going on about the fictional "Wilson Report.""



David Moriarty:


I'm not being in the slightest pathetic, petty or desperate. And I'm certainly not being uncivil or insulting. I am merely trying to have a discussion with you about some mistakes you made in your essay which should be corrected, as well as various things you did not have or did not know when you wrote that essay. It's important to discuss so others on here can understand better why you came to various conclusions in that essay.

And I'm not trying to do anything against you. Do you actually believe that someone who questions what you say on here and is willing to point out why he's questioning you is against you somehow? That seems a bit paranoid on your part or certainly overly defensive.

And if you think I've made mistakes then just list them or point them out and tell me why you think they are mistakes and we can discuss why we might disagree or have different interpretatons of various documents or events.


But just refusing to discuss any of this seems to be total avoidance on your part. It seems like you have something to hide. You're just declaring you're right and others are wrong while refusing to discuss it.

That seems cowardly.  
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 05:19:41 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
"That seems cowardly."

Add name calling to the to the list of TEPaul's desperate attempts to save face in this discussion.  

Those who apparently advised him earlier in the thread had the right idea.  It is over.  He should quit embarrassing himself and just let it go. No need for him to keep reminding people how badly he and his writing partner screwed up the history of one of our great courses.  
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 05:30:47 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)

TEPaul

David Moriarty:

I think it is cowardly to just refuse to discuss any of this, particularly when you single only one out to refuse to discuss something with. You're willing to discuss with Sullivan and Brauer but not with me. There's not much question why that is. You're able to control the discussion with them by getting them to just prattle on about irrelvancies you come up with. Apparently you are scared of discussing anything with me and it shows.

I'm obviously asking you some questions you just can't deal with and the ironic thing is they are pretty basic and straightforward questions such as what you did not have when you wrote that IMO piece as well as the key question of the fact that the 1910 story that you based the theme of your piece on did not even happen until probably seventy five years after the fact and therefore had no bearing or influence on the events of 1909-1912. The fact that you did not know that when you wrote that piece is key!

But you refuse to discuss it and for reasons that just seem cowardly.

With you that has become unsurprising!
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 07:26:11 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
You've got some nerve to think I owe you a conversation after the crap you've pulled with me.   I want nothing to do with you. 

Fortunately for me, you've got nothing to offer in the way of Merion so there is no reason for me to bother with you.

You continue to be wrong about the timing of the myth, but that should surprise no one.
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)

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Posted for Mike Cirba:


David,

Thanks for your comments on the letter by Rodman Griscom, George Fowle, and Samuel Heebner to the Fairmount Park Commission in 1900.    Without getting into the usage of “laid out”, or whether anyone could have laid out a better course on the map in question, I do think that sometimes you mistake humble modesty among gentlemen for admission of inadequacy or incompetence.

I say that because you’ve often made much about Hugh Wilson’s very self-effacing comment that he and his committee had the experience of the average club member in these matters, and as Tom points out with Rodman Griscom, and you’ll see with others, that is hardly the case.

You also mentioned that their statement that a professional could do better for Fairmount Park than their efforts as admission that they weren’t very good at this, and I do have to say that very early on across most of the country that was indeed often the mindset.  Of course, this was also stated with their caveat of said professional spending lots of time studying the land in question, which was hardly ever the case back then. 

But for some reason, this idea that golf pros from overseas somehow were instinctively better at designing golf courses than amateurs did not last very long in Philadelphia in those days.   Tom MacWood can argue that point but it is not supported by history.   Perhaps inspired by the examples of Leeds at Myopia, Emmet and Travis at Garden City, Macdonald and his Committee at NGLA, it seems this whole idea of architecture by Committee caught on with some fervor up until the first World War, at least in this neighborhood.

Perhaps it would be instructive to consider some examples;

Philadelphia Cricket Club – The first nine holes were laid out in about 1895 by Greenkeeper Saunders Handford, but soon turned into 18 holes, designed by the Willie Tucker and the Golf Committee, led by Samuel Heebner.   In fact, one of the holes was named “Heebner’s Hell”.    This was largely the course that hosted two early US Opens.

Philadelphia Country Club – Early design efforts by Willie Tucker and Harry Gullane were soon replaced by a new 18 hole course over the same property designed by Committeemen EK Bispham, George Fowle (who is credited for drawing the new course), and Louis Biddle around 1898.   Bispham in particular put in a lot of work trying to strengthen the course over time with additional bunkering and green countouring.   Later Walter Travis submitted a rebunkering plans which was accomplished.

Merion Cricket Club – The first nine holes were laid out by professional Willie Campbell, but when the club added nine at the turn of last century, the work was accomplished by the Green Committee, led by Rodman Griscom.   I’m uncertain if HG Lloyd was also on the Green Committee with Griscom at that time, but he was on by 1903.   Of course, these men were both on Hugh Wilson’s Committee when the club moved to new land in 1910/11, as was Dr. H. Toulmin.

Aronimink – Formerly the Belmont Golf Association, the original nine holes were laid out by Harrison Townsend, Dr. Harry Toulmin, and Dr. J.A. Davis.  This is where Hugh Wilson learned the game, where he was number one man on the golf team, had the course record, and had to give a handicap advantage of 8 strokes to his next nearest competitor at the club at age 18.  The club moved twice early on, with their first course designed by amateur Alex Findlay.   When they moved again around 1912/13, the course was laid out by members AW Tillinghast, George Klauder, and Cecil Calvert.   They did ask for advice from Vardon and Ray when they were in town in evidently one or two holes benefited.

Huntingdon Valley – Original course laid out by Willie Campbell, but even by 1898 it was written that “The course as originally laid out by Campbell, has lately been rearranged and extended by the Greens Committee.   Throughout most of the next fifteen years and beyond, the course was constantly tinkered with and toughened by Ab Smith, who headed the Greens Committee.   Before Merion’s new course was built, Tillinghast credited HVGC as having perhaps the only tournament worthy course in the region, due to Smith’s efforts.

Whitemarsh Valley – Designed in 1908 by a Committee that included George Thomas and Samuel Heebner.

Atlantic City – Originally laid out by professionals HJ Tweedie and John Reid, by 1903 the course in play was credited to “John Reid and the Greens Committee”.   Later, many hands, mostly professionals like Willie Park, HH Barker, and even Donald Ross tinkered with it before Flynn essentially redesigned it in the 20s.

Many other less prominent clubs also had their first courses laid out by inhouse amateur members or Committees including Lansdowne, Ridley Park, Devon, Riverton, Springhaven, St. David’s, Wilmington, and Woodbury.

That is not to say that all of these efforts were noteworthy, or accomplished architecture.   Quite the contrary, in fact, at least judged by our modern standards.   Still, it does go to the mindset of these men, and even by the 1920s Alan Wilson seems quite proud of the fact that Merion East was designed by amateurs, and didn’t require a golf professional to design their golf courses.

Thanks,
Mike

Patrick_Mucci

"What bothers me is that the document you quoted had to be available to Lord Valdamort and that he deliberately kept it a secret.
That's being intellectually dishonest.
That information and document should have been produced when I initially brought this subject up.
Concealing it was improper."


Pat:

That letter and frankly all the "Agronomy Letters" were first found and first revealed by Wayne and me. Maybe in the last five years or so the USGA digitized them and put them on their website so that some on here found them and used them.

Then why didn't you and Wayne produce them when I was suggesting that CBM's dealings with Merion weren't necessarily confined to written correspondence, that he more than likely had phone conversations with the interested parties at Merion ?  ? ?


We found them before anyone else in the USGA's Green Section about a decade ago (they had just come in a few months before) and spent about a day copying the ones out of about two thousand that pertained to Flynn (who we were researching on and writing about at the time and others that had to do with Merion). We mentioned them on this website back then for other reasons on other threads before any of this bullshit  over the history of Merion from MacWood, then Moriarty and now you began.

"Mentioning them" in general terms, while leaving out specific information pertinent to the debate at the time was disingenuous.
You, Wayne and Mike Cirba derided the notion that the phone was used as a method of communication between the parties, practically insisting that the only communication between the parties was via the U.S. Mail.


That you didn't know that does not surprise me, Patrick. The fact is you never really follow any of this and you do about zero research on your own.

You can try to make light of this, but, your failure and Wayne's failure to reveal specific information pertinent to the debate, when you knew it harmed your individual and collective argument, is improper.
I've NEVER hidden information pertinent to these debates, so perhaps integrity is more important than the ability to conduct research.


When we mention that to you and question you about it your fall-back response has generally been that you have had too many other things to think about like family, business, health issues or whatever. The latter may all be true, Patrick, and if it is and you have not kept up with this or done any of your own research, which you assuredly have not, then it might be best for you and everyone else involved if in the future you would shitcan those ridiculous responses of yours like the one above.

So now you want me to remain silent in an effort cover up an error of deliberate omission. 
The deliberate witholding of pertinent information ?
Is that what great researchers do ?
Is that what great, self proclaimed researchers do ?  Have the information at their disposal, but only reveal it if it helps their cause ?


Patrick, you really are the most self-congratulatory, self-serving guy who has ever walked the halls of this DG. In person you can be a fun guy so I think most people just overlook your "know-it-all" posts and attitude and either humor you or just ignore you. As you know, I do neither----I just tell it to you like it is!  ;)

Yeah, well so do I, and I know a deliberate conspiracy to withhold relevant information when I see it, and David's post # 178 is proof positive that you guys withheld material information to suit your position and your arguments, and that's not right.



Patrick_Mucci

David Moriarty and Pat:


Why don't you look through all the "Agronomy Letters" and list the times Macdonald was mentioned in them by Hugh or Alan Wilson and Piper and Oakley.

Why don't we qoute or scan in its entirety that correspondence between Alan Wilson and Piper about Macdonald chairing the kick-off meeting of the Green Section in New York?

Can you find that one?

Do you have any compunction about revealing what it said and discussing it?

Pat, don't worry about it----I have no doubt at all you have absolutely no idea at this point what I'm talking about because you've never read it and probably never even realized it was mentioned on this website.

TE,

I'm not worried about anything.

You and Wayne deliberately withheld vital information that you admittedly had at your disposal.
Information that was vital to the discussion at hand.

That's intellectual dishonesty, no matter how you try to deny and/or deflect it.

False in one, false in many.

You've eroded my trust.

Wouldn't a prudent person wonder..............what else has been or continues to be withheld ?

« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 09:30:27 PM by Patrick_Mucci »