[Andy Hughes]

I'm not sure what you are driving at but it seems to me when some of the men from MCC went to Macdonald in 1910 to help with at Ardmore they were probably the first ones who ever approached Macdonald to do anything for them after NGLA, and if you think about it that really would have some pretty interesting significance. At least I'm not aware of any other group that approached him after NGLA earlier than that!

Tom, sorry, I am not sure what you are responding to or what I might have said that lead you to this?

[TEPaul]

andy:

Don't worry about it, I don't think anyone's sure anymore what anyone else is responding to on these endless Merion/Macdonald threads. We're all sort of like a bunch of ships passing in the night.

I guess what I thought you were driving at was that story that C.B. Macdonald once nailed H.H. Barker's really attractive wife behind the GCGC's pro shop while Barker was in there regripping C.B.'s clubs, and that Rodman Griscom heard about that and that was the real reason he got Macdonald to come down to Ardmore and check things out in 1910 for MCC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

This is shameful and I'm pretty disgusted and ashamed to find myself involved in this nonsense at any level.

I'm afraid that I don't understand your comment, could you explain it ?[/color]

The sad part is that the vengeful purveyors of this shit are going to get exactly what they wanted from the start...the demise of this website as anything but a joke to the rest of the golf world.

Again, I don't understand your comment.[/color]

And you know exactly what I mean by that.

I'm afraid that I don't.

However, I'm going to quote a response from TEPaul to me, on a related thread that may help you.
The quote appears below[/color]

I stated:

The answer may lie in the possibility that there were preliminary plans for the golf course.

It's possible that numerous plans/routings were created, with some having different property boundaries, perhaps, not unlike Sand Hills, and it's also possible that the powers that be, recognized that the best plan/routing was the one/s which incorporated land not presently owned by Merion.  And as such, the desire and process for obtaining the remaining piece of the puzzle might have already been underway once they recognized that that configuration was the best of all plans/routings."

TEPaul stated:

Hmmmm, Patricio, it looks like you may be getting warm!

I think the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth hopefully is going to get "out there".

Do you think it makes any difference who puts it out there?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I have no issues with discussing and debating evidence, theories, hypotheticals, etc, because it's an awesome mystery. 

Obviously, we can all do that until the cows come home and probably longer.

I think you're getting warmer too, and I think if you read the last 5-6 posts on the "Richard Francis" thread that were posted today I think you'll see that more of the mystery is becoming clearer.

[TEPaul]

Patrick and Mike:

Regarding the information provided recently and your present feeling on it, do you think, at this point, David Moriarty should consider amending his premise on the Francis story (that it took place before Nov. 15, 1910) as well as his conclusion that Macdonald offered a routing in 1910 contained in his essay, that include the following statements:

"While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes."

"But Wilson’s task was limited to building the course and preparing it for play, not designing the routing and holes."

"While the course may have been found in 1910, this is only part of the story. As is explained above, the routing was planned in 1910 as well."

"More than that, while it is possible that they used some of H.H. Barker’s routing plan, Macdonald and Whigham look to have originally conceived of the golf holes and routing, or at least part of it."


Pat, I'm proud of you, your remarks above actually fall within that magical 2 percentile in which you are actually right. What's going on there. huh?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is now clear that the Francis Land Swap happened in 1911, and not in 1910.   Combine that with the Macdonald letter from July 1910 and we can safely say that Merion bought land, and then designed the course, and not the other way around.

I believe we can also now safely say that no routing was produced for Merion East prior to the appointment of Hugh Wilson's "Construction Committee" in early 1911.

We also know that work to determine a routing began quickly, much like it did at Cobb's Creek, and was determined and finalized within about three months, done with topographical maps, surveying, and such, and that it was finalized in time for the land swap sometime before the end of April 1911.

I think that's a reasonably conservative synopsis of what we know based on the evidence that's been produced to date, and not counting anything yet you mentioned earlier alluding to 5 different "plans" etc., that have recently been found in the MCC minutes.   I'm reluctant to bring them into the discussion only because they haven't been publicly disseminated yet.

What seems still in question to me most fundamentally is;

How much did Macdonald/Whigham help with the routing, beyond helping them pick the final one of the five in April of that year that you mentioned the other day? (based on the new MCC minutes evidence).   Certainly, it seems that their window for having done so is rapidly shrinking. 

If they contributed anything more, it appears they would have had to have done it during the two days at NGLA in January, but there is really no mention of that happening in Wilson's account, or anyone else's.   Wilson specifically stated that "our (referring to the committee) problem was to layout" and credited M&W with giving them a "good start" in understandng the "principles" of great holes...nothing about providing Merion with any hole designs, much less a full fledged routing.

Moreover, whatever might have come from those meetings at NGLA, we also now know it certainly wasn't any finalized routing plan, because we now know those plans were being worked on and finalized for the next 3 or so months.

In any case, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for those meetings!     I'm wondering how much time they spent on the course, and whether they played.   I can't imagine being out there and not playing, but we don't know for certain.   After all, it was a brutal winter, at least in Philly, but Southampton doesn't get much snow, so who knows?

Also, I am still perplexed about the source(s) of the 6/7 month Hugh Wilson overseas voyage.   For some odd reason I still think it had to happen in 1910, and we know that in American Golfer that year AW Tillinghast mentions that Hugh Wilson has not been around for some time for tournament play, but also talks about Crump coming back from Europe, so it's not a clear reference.

In Jim Finegan's GAP Centennial book, he mentions;

"Hugh Wilson spent some seven months abroad.   For the most part it was the shrines of Scotland and England he was playing and studying, though on occasion he visited some less known courses, such as Stoke Poges and Swinley Forest.  After all, the new Merion course he was charged with laying out would hardly be seaside."

I find it odd that Finegan mentions specific courses...I don't recall anyone else doing this and I'm wondering his source(s).   

One possible avenue of further exploration is to see what type of archival visitor logs those two clubs might have.   

In any case, I believe more of the picture is coming into much sharper focus.

I think the key piece of the puzzle is your finding that the triangle shaped piece just didn't fit, and ironically, it's exactly what Richard Francis and the Merion Construction Committee discovered as well. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is now clear that the Francis Land Swap happened in 1911, and not in 1910.   Combine that with the Macdonald letter from July 1910 and we can safely say that Merion bought land, and then designed the course, and not the other way around.

I don't think you can say that, unequivically.

Merion might be the precursor to Sand Hills.

Sand Hills was designed BEFORE all of the necessary land was purchased[/color]

I believe we can also now safely say that no routing was produced for Merion East prior to the appointment of Hugh Wilson's "Construction Committee" in early 1911.

I don't believe you can say that either.

Haven't you been reading my recent posts ?[/color]

We also know that work to determine a routing began quickly, much like it did at Cobb's Creek, and was determined and finalized within about three months, done with topographical maps, surveying, and such, and that it was finalized in time for the land swap sometime before the end of April 1911.

I don't think that this project was a "rush job"
Can someone research the weather pattern in Ardmore/Philly between Jan, 1911 and Apri 6, 1911 ?[/color]

I think that's a reasonably conservative synopsis of what we know based on the evidence that's been produced to date, and not counting anything yet you mentioned earlier alluding to 5 different "plans" etc., that have recently been found in the MCC minutes.   I'm reluctant to bring them into the discussion only because they haven't been publicly disseminated yet.


I don't  think you can draw the conclusion that you want to draw until ALL of the information is known/revealed.[/color]

What seems still in question to me most fundamentally is;

How much did Macdonald/Whigham help with the routing, beyond helping them pick the final one of the five in April of that year that you mentioned the other day? (based on the new MCC minutes evidence).   Certainly, it seems that their window for having done so is rapidly shrinking. 

How can you say that when the first visited the site in June of 1910 ?[/color]

If they contributed anything more, it appears they would have had to have done it during the two days at NGLA in January, but there is really no mention of that happening in Wilson's account, or anyone else's.  


That's not true.
There's no proof excluding them from further involvement.
And, both telegraph and phones were in use.[/color]

Wilson specifically stated that "our (referring to the committee) problem was to layout" and credited M&W with giving them a "good start" in understandng the "principles" of great holes...nothing about providing Merion with any hole designs, much less a full fledged routing.


According to you, to "layout" the course was to route and design it.
You can't have it both ways[/color]

Moreover, whatever might have come from those meetings at NGLA, we also now know it certainly wasn't any finalized routing plan, because we now know those plans were being worked on and finalized for the next 3 or so months.

"Finalized" isn't the issue.
We all know that the plans were "fine tuned" and continued to be "fine tuned" for years to come.[/color]

In any case, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for those meetings!     I'm wondering how much time they spent on the course, and whether they played.   I can't imagine being out there and not playing, but we don't know for certain.   

In the dead of winter ?[/color]

After all, it was a brutal winter, at least in Philly, but Southampton doesn't get much snow, so who knows?[/color]



Wouldn't that preclude all the work on the golf course that you allude to between Jan, 1911 and April 6, 1911 ?[/color]

Also, I am still perplexed about the source(s) of the 6/7 month Hugh Wilson overseas voyage.   For some odd reason I still think it had to happen in 1910, and we know that in American Golfer that year AW Tillinghast mentions that Hugh Wilson has not been around for some time for tournament play, but also talks about Crump coming back from Europe, so it's not a clear reference.

You're grasping at straws ..... again ....... and desperately too.

All the evidence points to Wilson making but ONE trip and that was in 1912.[/color]

In Jim Finegan's GAP Centennial book, he mentions;

"Hugh Wilson spent some seven months abroad.   For the most part it was the shrines of Scotland and England he was playing and studying, though on occasion he visited some less known courses, such as Stoke Poges and Swinley Forest.  After all, the new Merion course he was charged with laying out would hardly be seaside."

If Wilson toured, as described above, prior to 1911, why would he need MacDonald to lay out his agenda for him, if, according to you, he never met with Macdonald in 1910 ?

And, if he toured, as described above prior to 1911, why would he need MacDonald to educate him on all the great courses of the UK ?

And, why, after he met with MacDonald after 1910 would he declare how little he knew ?

And, with Wilson competing in October of 1910, that would mean that he wouldn't have been part of any involvement with Merion from February, 1910 to October 1910, so he couldn't have been working on the design of Merion during that time span, because, according to you, he was in the UK studying.

The preponderance of the evidence points to but one prudent conclusion.
He never spent 7 months studying the great courses of the UK prior to 1912.[/color]

I find it odd that Finegan mentions specific courses...I don't recall anyone else doing this and I'm wondering his source(s).   

His source is probably MacDonald who planned his intinerary and Wilson after he returned from his lone trip to the UK in 1912.[/color]

One possible avenue of further exploration is to see what type of archival visitor logs those two clubs might have.   

In any case, I believe more of the picture is coming into much sharper focus.


For you perhaps, because you arrived at your conclusions long ago.[/color]

I think the key piece of the puzzle is your finding that the triangle shaped piece just didn't fit, and ironically, it's exactly what Richard Francis and the Merion Construction Committee discovered as well. 

Like Sand Hills, the date of the acquisition is irrelevant when it comes to determining when the routing and hole designs were either conceptualized or reduced to plans.

If TEPaul explains the chronology of events at Sand Hills you'll be in a position to better understand that the acquisition of the land didn't necessarily precede the routing and design of the golf course[/color]

[Ed Oden]

I absolutely swore to myself that I would never post on any of the Merion threads since I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about and want to stay as far away from the fray as I can.  But against my better judgment, I am going to break that promise to ask a few questions that have been nagging at me from the beginning while reading these threads.  Before doing so I want to make clear that I do not take a side and have no idea whether the answers to my questions benefit one side of the argument or the other.  Here goes:

Is it possible that in the minds of the people involved at the time the most critical part of creating a "championship" course wasn't the routing but rather the design of the greens and the placement of hazards?  And if so, aren't those the features which were not completed until sometime later?  If Wilson or anyone else went to GB/Ireland to study the "great courses" how much of that study would have been on the routing of those courses as opposed to the greens and hazards?  If you were going to create templates based on such holes, aren't most of the features which go into those templates the green complexes and the hazards which protect them?  I ask these questions because in reading the various Merion threads it just doesn't seem that at that time people placed the same supreme emphasis on routing that we do today. 

My apologies if these are stupid questions.

Ed

[TEPaul]

Ed:

That's not a bad question at all but all these Merion/Macdonald threads and such that have been going on for over five years, mostly promoted by Moriarty's and MacWood's questions and investigations are about what we sometimes call the "first phase" of Merion East's architecture (1911).

Wilson/Flynn began to change the course architecturally beginning around 1915-16 and on into the early 1930s (Wilson died in early Feb 1925) and it is all completely documented with Flynn's drawing.

As far as I know Macdonald/Whigam never returned again to Merion to advise them after their April 6, 1911 one day visit. There is a single letter from Macdonald in Wilson's agronomy letters but its only about the quantity of lyme and fertilizer application.

Also, I believe after the West course was built and opened Wilson's committee did not continue with the courses. From then on it was just Wilson and Flynn and Toomey and Pickering and Valentine. I guess if you look at it that way it probably does make sense that Wilson was, as his brother wrote from what the rest of the committee told him---"that in the main Wilson was responsible for the architecture of both the East and the West courses."

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I said, "based on the evidence that's been produced to date".

I also think what's been learned so far gives new meaning to what Alan Wilson meant when he said;

" Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton...– twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans".   

If there is additional info or evidence that anyone has that is relevant as you've inferred, why don't they just step up, be a man, and introduce it here?  Why do they need to hide behind you?

We know that Wayne/Tom are seeking permission to use what they found and have outlined how they plan to disseminate that information, clearly and upfront.   Does your source have such complicated considerations and noble intent?

Whoever it is, Patrick, this cat and mouse game of their's you're referring to is infantile, cowardly, destructive, and certainly not worthy of this forum or even remotely respectful or considerate of the participants here.     

[TEPaul]

"I also think what's been learned so far gives new meaning to what Alan Wilson meant when he said;

" Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton...– twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans"."


MikeC:

I think that remark may be Huge! Maybe the key to why The Men of Merion turned to Macdonald. That hit me yesterday and I have a thread coming on it. I've looked at those words from Alan Wilson for years now with some curiosity. Did he write about them that way because he was just being polite or grateful? A few others of the men or Merion did as well. I think it was more than that and I read something yesterday that may help explain it all.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed Oden,

Your apologies are accepted 

Without the routing you wouldn't know where to place the greens and features.

The routing is a, or, the critical factor
The Macro element comes first, the Micro elements subsequently.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It really doesn't do any good on here for you or anyone else to just speculate endlessly that there must have been a routing in 1910 that the Construction Committee essentially built to in1911. Essentially, this is most of the premise in the essay that leads to the conclusion that Macdonald must have done the routing for Merion East in 1910.

I've already told you there is ample evidence to the contrary contained throughout board minutes.

Ed Oden's question is a good one about the importance of the greens and obviously that would mean green sites. If they had those in 1910 essentially they probably would've had the routing but they didn't. It doesn't really matter what you THINK they should have done or what C&C did at Sand Hills. All that matters is what they actually did do in 1911 and what they didn't do in 1910.

If you or me or anyone else thinks it was sort of an assbackwards way of going about it (purchasing land with some moveable boundaries) and THEN doing routings until they picked one in 1911 it really doesn't matter. All that matters is to understand in detail what they did almost a hundred years ago at Ardmore and why.

There is no question at all that some of these so-called "amateur/sportsmen" designers from those early days, certainly including Wilson and Crump, did some things, certainly the progression of things, in something of an assbackwards way and the fascination of it all for people like us is to understand what they did that way and why, and still managed to work things out over time and produce some of these world class golf courses and architecture.

It should not be up to us to just torture some of the events and the progression of things into a chronology that WE THINK they should have done. It only should matter to us as historians to figure out what they did even if we think they should've done things in some other progression.

In that vein, I'm sure you realize that even Macdonald at NGLA changed up to three of his green sites bigtime for various reasons that he perhaps did not foresee when he placed and built their originals.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

It really doesn't do any good on here for you or anyone else to just speculate endlessly that there must have been a routing in 1910 that the Construction Committee essentially built to in1911.

I never made THAT speculation.

What I speculated on was the following.

That plans/routings existed prior to Jan, 1911.[/color]

Essentially, this is most of the premise in the essay that leads to the conclusion that Macdonald must have done the routing for Merion East in 1910.

I've already told you there is ample evidence to the contrary contained throughout board minutes.

Ed Oden's question is a good one about the importance of the greens and obviously that would mean green sites. If they had those in 1910 essentially they probably would've had the routing but they didn't.

It doesn't really matter what you THINK they should have done or what C&C did at Sand Hills. All that matters is what they actually did do in 1911 and what they didn't do in 1910.

It does matter in the context that courses have been intended/designed on land not initially owned by the developing party.

Just because they didn't own the land doesn't mean that routings including that land can't be drawn, as Mike Cirba keeps insisting.

It seems counter intuitive that a group of novices, only starting in early January, in a harsh winter in Philadelphia, routed and designed a complex golf course of incredible quality in less than three (3) months.[/color]

If you or me or anyone else thinks it was sort of an assbackwards way of going about it (purchasing land with some moveable boundaries) and THEN doing routings until they picked one in 1911 it really doesn't matter. All that matters is to understand in detail what they did almost a hundred years ago at Ardmore and why.

There is no question at all that some of these so-called "amateur/sportsmen" designers from those early days, certainly including Wilson and Crump, did some things, certainly the progression of things, in something of an assbackwards way and the fascination of it all for people like us is to understand what they did that way and why, and still managed to work things out over time and produce some of these world class golf courses and architecture.

TE, that's simply rhetoric, absent factual evidence of what they did that you claim was ass backwards.[/color]

It should not be up to us to just torture some of the events and the progression of things into a chronology that WE THINK they should have done. It only should matter to us as historians to figure out what they did even if we think they should've done things in some other progression.


The chronology of the events is THE critical factor in determining the history.

And, you can't rewrite history by changing the dimensions that Francis recorded to suit your purpose/s.

In other words you can't be selective in accepting information.
And, you can't make subjective interpolations.

If you want to assemble or create a historical record you can't alter the information to suit a particular purpose.[/color]

In that vein, I'm sure you realize that even Macdonald at NGLA changed up to three of his green sites bigtime for various reasons that he perhaps did not foresee when he placed and built their originals.

That doesn't change the general routing, which comes first.[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Certainly someone "could have" created a routing prior to the property being purchased, but other than Barker's discarded renderings, we have no proof that anyone else did.   Certainly Macdonald's wishy-washy July 1st letter did not, and we know that despite Macdonald's waffling, the site committee, under Lloyd's auspices with HDC moved forward immediately after anyway to purchase the Dallas Estate and create a recommendation to the Board of Governors and membership for the purchase of nearly all the land the course occupies today.

If there is proof to the contrary, someone should just step forward with that evidence.   In theory, flying monkeys could have shot out of my butt too, but that doesn't mean it happened.   

It's pretty clear that the intent was to use 2/3 of the available land for real estate, and the other 1/3 for the golf course.   The Johnson Farm was already in the "L-shape" that exists today, it adjoined the RR tracks and had a few buildings that would be useful for their purposes.  The real estate component would occupy the "inside" of the L, with golf course facing estate homes. 

You make it sound as though these guys were flippin' idiots, Patrick.   Three months is a long time, especially considering the limitations they were under with the narrowness of the property, as well as the fact that the initial routing was anything but perfect when it opened, as seven of the holes were partially or totally changed in the first 12 years.

Given that the widest part of the property on either side of Ardmore Ave was not wide enough for a medium length par four, perhaps you can tell us how else they may have routed it?

[TEPaul]

"What's the precise date of the swap in terms of the recording of the deeds ?"

Patrick:

The timing of the recording of deeds has almost nothing to do with this and if a researcher tries to go just by that he will be really misled as to what happened here.

The reason for that, just as I always suspected, is essentially Horatio Gates Lloyd was working both sides of the fence, so to speak (the golf course land configuration and the HDC land configuration contiguous to it to the west). I really hope, at this point, you've at least begun to understand what that really means.

The thing that did surprise me, however, is even if I suspected this may've been what happened, it's clear to see now that it did not just happen by accident, it was structuralized this way by Lloyd and this man T. DeWitt Cuylers beforehand.

Those two dudes were some damn bright and forward thinking men and business and legal minds (it's actually possible, Patrick, that they were a lot smarter and more forward thinking than even you think you are!!! ). Cuylers was perhaps the nation's top legal and negotiating mind in the entire reorganization of the American railroad system and we know who Lloyd was---one of the head honchos ("partners/owners") in two of the biggest financial companies of that time. This is what men like this did for a living and stuff like how they structured all of this for MCC going in was probably second nature to them.

In other words when Lloyd got that late night call from Francis at some point in 1911 about this land swap idea that involved the redrawing of the configuration of a road that did not yet exist there was likely nobody less surprised about that call then Lloyd himself. He and Cuylers and MCC president Evans had already set up a structure to basically expect it!!  .

The reason for that, just as I always suspected, is essentially Horatio Gates Lloyd was working both sides of the fence, so to speak (the golf course land configuration and the HDC land configuration contiguous to it to the west). I really hope, at this point, you've at least begun to understand what that really means.

The thing that did surprise me, however, is even if I suspected this may've been what happened, it's clear to see now that it did not just happen by accident, it was structuralized this way by Lloyd and this man T. DeWitt Cuylers beforehand (at the very end of 1910!!).

Those two dudes were some damn bright and forward thinking minds and business and legal minds. Cuylers was perhaps the nation's top legal and negotiating mind in the entire reorganization of the American railroad system and we know who Lloyd was---one of the head honchos ("partners/owners") in two of the biggest financial companies of that time. This is what men like this did for a living and stuff like how they structured all of this for MCC going in was probably second nature to them.

In other words, when Lloyd got that late night call from Francis at some point in 1911 about this land swap idea that involved the redrawing of the configuration of a road that did not yet exist there was likely nobody less surprised about that call than Lloyd himself. He and Cuylers and MCC president Evans had already set up a structure to basically expect it!! 

I guess you never really bothered to ask yourself a pretty obvious question about Francis' story which is why was it Lloyd he called in the middle of the night and then immediately rode his bike over to his house to explain his idea to him, which resulted in the front of the ridge next to the quarry where #16 green could be to be blown off by quarrymen within a day or two?

Lloyd had been put in a position to make this kind of decision immediately probably 3-4 months previous to that phone call from Francis!

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

You're forgetting that we now KNOW that the Francis Swap happened AFTER November 15th, 1910, because of a very simple FACT.

The scale drawing produced by the engineers, dated November 15th, 1910 has the base of the triangle at only 90 yards wide, not 130.

Or did they just measure wrong too? 

[TEPaul]

"If there is proof to the contrary, someone should just step forward with that evidence."

Mike:

There is no reason for anyone to continue to look for proof that's contrary to the fact there was no definite course plan in 1910. To do that would be a total waste of someone's time! We already have proof that at the end of 1910 there was no definite course plan in place at all, and this is PRECISELY the REASON that a few things were put in place structurally, the primary one being the position of Horatio Gates Lloyd with both MCC and HDC.

There is no more reason for anyone on here to go on that kind of wild goose chase because noone, including Patrick Mucci, will find that "wild goose" that there was a routing in place in 1910 for Wilson and committee to simply "construct" Merion East to in 1911.

I must say Patrick is incredibly slow on the uptake here, but that shouldn't surprise anyone---eg he just likes to argue above all else, including both reason and the obvious. I realize Pat always wanted to be a lawyer out there in the coutrooms arguing his case but still there is no reason for him to be vociferously arguing his case here to the jury and judge and opposing counsel when they've all left the darkened courtroom and are home in bed after the trial is over! 

[TEPaul]

"Or did they just measure wrong too?"

Mike:

Of course not and that is clearly why that Nov 1910 plan was drawn by those surveyors to scale and with a scale on the bottom of it!

To me it is the most logical thing in the world to assume that when Wilson and committee got their topo contour maps (to begin working in 1911 on a number of routings and design plans (referred to by MCC as "courses") of the proposed golf ground (even though I do not know when they got them, I only know the first mention of one was on Feb 1, 1911) that they were logically drawn (by perhaps the same survey company) right off that Nov 1910 plan.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Did you miss the part where Patrick stated;

Mike,

I think you'll come to find that my statement is accurate.

You'll just have to wait for the revelations to be presented, which won't be from me.


and then goes on to state that these new revelations won't come from TM or DM.   

Unless he's referring to you and Wayne somehow illogically refuting your own interpretation of events, I'm not sure what mystery "revelations" he's referring to.

[TEPaul]

"It does matter in the context that courses have been intended/designed on land not initially owned by the developing party."

Patrick:

I'm well aware of that but if you just want to talk about that which would include the way Sand Hills was created then just start another thread about that and don't put it on these Merion East threads as some possiblity with the creation of Merion East. It just didn't happen that way. How many times will I need to tell you that? I already explained the whole thing to you. What are you thinking now---that I'm totally confused or engaging in hyperbole or lying too? 

I realize that David Moriarty probably thinks that of me on here because there are a few posts on here where he definitely said that.   

And frankly, in my opinion, that very kind of thing really does show that a few people who've been on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com are just basically out to prove such things as the "legends" of clubs and the "status quo" of club histories are wrong. There's no question in my mind they do this because they feel that will make them a name as what they refer to themselves as---eg "expert researchers/writers" or "serious researchers". It's pretty interesting to me that for some reason a couple of them have almost completely singled out just Philadelphia courses and architects!   

I have no problem at all with that approach, I really don't. Matter or fact, I would encourage it but it should be done responsibly and probably in collaboration with the subject club and their historians and not as some kind of challenge that involves no collaboration. All I say is if they do that they should understand that they may be doing it at a real risk doing it with partial information only that certainly leads to the additional risk they will be proven wrong eventually!!

Face it, on this website, and amongst those who contribute and read this site, new and interesting information on clubs, architecture and architects IS THIS WEBSITE's PRIMARY CURRENCY!!

[Andy Hughes]

We already have proof that at the end of 1910 there was no definite course plan in place at all..

We do? 

[Mike_Cirba]

"The plans which led up to this transaction had their inception about sixteen months ago.   At that time Joseph R. Connell and E.W. Nicholson, who had holdings of about 150 acres on College avenue (the L-shaped "Johnson Farm" - comment mine), Haverford, received information that the Merion Cricket Club was desirous of obtaining a permanent golf course."

"The members of the club wanted a course of larger area than the one they are now using, which is leased from the Pennsylvania Railroad."

"Messrs. Connell and Nicholson thereupon began to obtain control of several tracts adjoining their holdings.   In this manner their holdings were increased to a total of approximately 350 acres, and of this they sold 130 acres to the club." (most of the Johnson Farm property)

"The balance of the property has been taken over by the Haverford Development Company." (Lloyd's group). 

Philadelphia Record - November 1910


It then talks about the entire 350 acres as being "situated..on a commanding eminence."

Any guess whose propety sat just atop this "commanding eminence" of new estate development and the new Merion Golf course? 

Here's a hint....plans were drawn for it in 1910, it was constructed during 1911, and he moved into it in 1912.   

[Ed Oden]

Patrick and Tom:

I understand that the routing is critical today to the participants in this debate.  My point is that it didn't seem to be as important to the parties at the time.  Regardless of whether you believe the routing was based on Barker's plan or M&W's advice or Wilson vision, it seems the basic routing was either (i) hastely devised or (ii) not embodied in any meaningful detail.  On the other hand, greens and hazards are delayed until Wilson can go study these features on the great holes/courses abroad.  So it appears to my untrained eye that the parties involved at the time put more emphasis on these features than on the routing.  Perhaps they felt these were more critical to creating a championship test than the routing?

And with that, I've reached my limit.  I'll try and mind my inner voice and stay out of these discussions going forward.  But thanks for humoring me during my brief spell of insanity.

Ed

[Mike_Cirba]

Ed,

You're absolutely correct on all counts.

What makes it even more of a stretch is that Macdonald's method was to try and find land forms to fit his "ideal" template holes.   

90% of those ideal template holes garner their strategy from very prescriptive, very rote, very regimented bunkering patterns.   

The fact that the course opened without much in the way of bunkering in 1912, and never had the prescriptive bunkers that make up the standard Macdonald holes is rather telling I believe.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()