[TEPaul]

"What does Baily mean by "laying out"?
We don't know, do we?"


Patrick:

No, we probably don't know with complete assurance without interviewing him and asking him but that might be hard since Frederick Baily died over eighty years ago. Would you accept what some of those who looked at Merion Ardmore's site and wrote about it back then as far as "laying out" something meant by the term?

[TEPaul]

Let's all take on Macdonald and NGLA next, don't you think?"

Tom MacWood and I debated that 5 years ago.


Patrick:

Did you really? Wow, that must have been some interesting debate?   

I, for one, think that originator of American "Gay" architecture deserves a whole lot more design attribution for that one than anyone has ever given him!

"So do I.
Who is he ?
Are you and Wayno "outing" him.
It's not Flynn, is it ?"


You claim you know something about golf course architecture and its history and you don't even know who originated American "GAY" architecture?

[TEPaul]

"Every single conclusion in my essay still stands."


David:

It doesn't surprise me at all that every single conclusion in your essay still stands in your mind. Some of the things that still stand in your mind are pretty amazing! 

Many of the premises or assumptions you use to build your conclusion that Macdonald routed and designed that course are like a "house of cards" (if one of them falls apart your whole conclusion falls apart ) and one of your primary premises or assumptions was that Richard Francis must have been engaging in hyperbole when he said:

"The land was shaped like a capital "L" and it was very difficult to get the first thirteen holes into the upright portion---with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Avenue---but the last five holes were another question."

And followed that in his report on his late night idea in 1911 with:

"....within a day or two, the quarryman had his drill up where the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so that the green could be built as it is today."


I mean, I think everyone reading these threads about your conclusion that Macdonald routed and designed Merion East understand that anyone can come up with any alternative conclusion they want to if they start off by first just assuming that most everyone present at the creation of Merion East was either glorifying, eulogizing, engaging in hyperbole and a distortion of dates and facts or just plain lying.

Most of us call that either "positivism" or "revisionism" or both!   

[TEPaul]

" Doesn’t your entire theory of the design of Pine Valley depend upon Crump starting with someone else’s routing plan, then making changes?  So I guess now you must not think he was responsible for the design?"


David Moriarty:

No it does not, not in the slightest----quite the opposite in fact. It's just incredible to consider where you come up with some of the things you do to begin to make some of your really odd assumptions and conclusions.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I spent a good couple of hours at the Historical Society and took about 100 photos of various pages.  I'll crop them and label them and send them to you in due time.  Please remember to send me the horticultural plan when you get time.
Thanks.
WSM

Great.  I look forward to seeing them.

As for the letter you posted last night, what NEW information do you think it brings to the table? 
1.  We knew the members of the construction committee.
2.  We knew that Hugh I Wilson was its chairman, worked very hard "in the construction of this beautiful course."

The gentleman who wrote the article noted that Wilson devoted most his spare time to "laying out and constructing this course."  But this is the same way that Hugh Wilson described what happened, and something that I have agreed with all along.  Hugh Wilson and his committee laid the course out on the ground and constructed it.   But according to the evidence I have seen, they did so:
1.  After the routing had already been planned by some yet undetermined combination of Barker, M&W, and the site committee, and
2.  After Wilson and the committee had traveled to NGLA to learn how to build the holes on Merion's natural conditions, and
3.  After M&W returned to Merion before construction to further advise Wilson regarding the plan.

Please explain specifically how, if at all, this latest letter changes any of this?

Pat,

Merion had a celebratory dinner for Wilson and his committee after the course was built.  Should they have held the dinner beforehand so it would fit your timeline.  According to you, seven months after the opening is too far removed from the events to be considered contemporary.  Watch that limb you are climbing out on....I hear some cracking.

You jump from when the course was built to when it was opened.   To keep the same frame of reference:  The dinner took place about a year and eight months  (about 20 months) after the East Course had  been built and seeded.   In fact it took place around the time they were finishing building the WEST course.   So by the time this dinner took place, Wilson had built and seeded the East, traveled to Europe to get ideas for the finishing work, returned and continued to work on the course for one year.    The West course had also been planned, construction was just being finished, and  it would soon be seeded. 

By the way, in Wilson's excellent essay for Piper and Oakley's book, Turf for Golf Courses,  Wilson in his manuscript removed the section on the design and theory of bunkers.  In his notes, he said that it was better discussed in another paper on construction.  I believe Wilson's definition of construction was broader than yours and most of us today.  Still, shouldn't we consider his use of the term rather than yours?

No doubt Wilson conceived of and built the bunkers and other features (including those in the 1912 photos) and no doubt he determined where to place many of these as well.    But surely he understood the difference between constructing the bunkers in a certain style and planning the routing of a course, didn't he?   

Your version of the draft of the the Wilson essay substantially differs from how TEPaul has described it in the past.  Can we all see it?   

_____________________________

"After the visit of these gentlemen Mr. Macdonald wrote a member of the committee expressing the views of himself and Mr. Whigam, as to what could be done with the property. The report, as made to the board, embodied Mr. Macdonald’s letter, but it was not written for publication. We do not, therefore, feel justified in printing it. We can properly say, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the committee based its recommendation largely on their opinion."

David Moriarty:

That is what the site committee wrote to the board.

It is NOT what the committee REPORTED to the board.  The Committee's  Report to the board "embodied M&W letter" and so the actual report described what M&W thought could be done with the property.   

It is entirely disingenuous for you to pretend that the Committee's cursory and general statement written for circulation equates to M&W's description of what could be done with the property.   In fact this version explicitly excludes any description of M&W's views on what could be with the property. 

When you have to distort things and make things up to justify your theory, it is time to get a new theory. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

What is your theory on the decision not to publish CBM's letter?  Was it the good manners of the time not to share a private letter to a friend (Grissom)  Or was it because it contains specific recommendations to buy certain properties and MCC preferred to keep that as quiet as possible to keep the price down?  Or did CBM lambast Barker or someone else to the degree that they thought it best to keep the actual report hidden, but use its recommendations? 

Also, I note that the dinner given for Wilson and the committee mentions that he has spend all of his "spare time" in building the course.  I would like to hear your take on that.  It would seem to imply that he wasn't one of the really, really, rich guys who could just take off a whole summer to build golf courses and ignore his real job.  Any thoughts on that?

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

My guess would be it was the second. There's no reason to create competition if you're trying to buy something and obviously a guy like Lloyd understood that kind of thing as well as anyone, particularly since a lot of it was going to be his money for a while anyway. I think what he did to that Stella Dallas down on the lower forty at the bottom of the "L" was pretty shameful, though, don't you?

I would just love to know what Macdonald would say if he could read some of the things David Moriaty is saying about him and Merion. I'm pretty sure he'd say to himself: "Just look at that, The Great Macdonald pulled the wool over some other damn idiot and ninety eight years after the fact, to boot."

Seriously, we have a couple of letters between Wilson and Piper in the early 1920s. Piper had just been out to NGLA to see Macdonald and Wilson asked Piper if he tried to bite his head off and Piper wrote back sayintg; Not exactly but he did say, Macdonald told him everyone was just a bunch of damn idiots."   

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne/Tom,

You mean they had a "Thank You" party for Hugh Wilson right after the course opened and not one for the real designers, CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham?!!   

Holy Shite...WHAT A TRAVESTY...CALL IN THE GENDARMES!!!  Round up the remaining bents of Le Touquet!!!       

Better yet...let's wait 100 years and have some revisionist historians come up with a new theory!!! 

David/Patrick,

Please stick a fork in it...you're overdone.   

Ran,

You might want to consider re-titleing that thread.   

[TEPaul]

"The gentleman who wrote the article noted that Wilson devoted most his spare time to "laying out and constructing this course."  But this is the same way that Hugh Wilson described what happened, and something that I have agreed with all along.  Hugh Wilson and his committee laid the course out on the ground and constructed it.   But according to the evidence I have seen, they did so:
1.  After the routing had already been planned by some yet undetermined combination of Barker, M&W, and the site committee"


David Moriarty:

Why don't you just stop this nonsense? If the "evidence" you just mentioned, is the evidence in your essay or on these threads there is no evidence at all that Macdonald provided Merion a routing and design plan that Wilson and his committee simply used to construct Merion East. It doesn't matter how many times you say that or in how many different ways, it is ALL total speculation on your part unless and until you produce a routing and design plan from Macdonald.

Futhermore, no one anywhere, at any time, around Merion or anywhere else, has ever remotely suggested Macdonald routed and designed Merion East until you came along trying to make some name for yourself! But certainly numerous sources who were definitely there when it was being created have said Wilson and his committee DESIGNED it. It really doesn't matter at all that someone like YOU infer they may all have been lying.

You really should stop this word parsing and preposterous stretching of logic. All you're really doing is wasting everyone's time and energy and making a fool of yourself in the process. Is that what you want to do on here?

Your suggestion of what the term "laying out" meant to most of those people back then is preposterous too and I can prove that by material from some of the people who surrounded the development of Merion East. But what's the point really because when I do prove that you're just going to deny that too or torture it by ridiculous word parsing and lack of logic?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

That is absolutely brilliant.  I should probably resist the urge to say, "Bully for you old chap!"   

Now, let's put your talents to something more productive like getting Cobb's Creek restored. 

We won't even need manifests, and I promise it won't matter what his middle name was.

Also, did you know that E.T Stotesbury hit the ceremonial first tee shot when Cobb's opened? 


All,

I'm sure someone else can put this up better than I can, but this aerial helps to show what Tom wrote.   Compare this against the hypothetical originally planned road configuration and you''ll see exactly what he is talking about.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/Ardmore+PA/#a/maps/l:::Ardmore:PA::US:40.006699:-75.285797:city:Montgomery+County/m:hyb:12:40.001422:-75.315599:0::/io:0:::::f:EN:M:/e

versus;

[wsmorrison]

[wsmorrison]

[JESII]

Wayne,

So I have this straight...is Tom suggesting that the tip up there where 15 green and 16 tee are was made much wider with this land swap? When we look at the two photos you just posted there and using Tom's words it seems that the whole area pinched by the "Haverford College" Parcel is where they gained their 3 acres which at the length would be close to 190 yards and at that point the width seens likely to be 130 yards added.

Just confirm for me that I have this right.

[TEPaul]

I'd say going south from College Ave where Club House Road swings west just above the 15th green to about the middle of #14 they probably picked up 2-3 arcres with the road configuration swinging west versus that 1910 plan and gave land from the 1910 course plan back to the development from about there down as the road swing backs east before coming out to about the same base along Ardmore Ave.

[DMoriarty]

JES,

TEPaul and did not really answer your question, did he?  I doubt Wayne will either, because he may have realized that he cannot honestly answer without highlighting one of Tom's many misrepresentations throughout his voluminous posts, above.

Yes, TomPaul is claiming (and Wayne is  apparently supporting him with the photos) that this corner of the property was made much wider because of the land swap.  But this was not the case. It was not made wider, because it was not part of the golf course property before the land swap.  Here is what TEPaul said:

TEPaul wrote (with my emphasis):

I submit that even if that triangle on the top of the northwest side of the upright portion of the L was there, it was not wide enough to fit the approach (the fairway) of the 15th green and the beginning of the 16th hole into it and the top of the triangle is too narrow also. In effect what Francis accomplished was to widen the base of that top triangle by around 130 yards starting about 190 yards from the 15th green and he also widened the top of the triangle (I’ll explain that below).
. . .

All this makes perfect sense because the course only has to accommodate two tees and one green west to east between #14 tee and the clubhouse. But up around #14 green the course has to accommodate west to east two tees, two greens and the 18th fairway. The road curvature between #15 and #16 as well as north of #15 green has already been explained. Note: The width between the west edge of the 15th fairway about 190 yards from the 15th green to the east side of the 16th hole bordering on what is now the range (probably the old Haverford College property line in the 1910 plan is probably more like 250 yards rather than the 130 yard wide original triangle on the 1910 plan that author David Moriarty’s essay claimed it was.

One photo ought to take care of this entire argument:



The yellow line is 130.05 yards.  Note the legend measure at the bottom of the page reads 389 feet, or just under 130 yards.   As you can see in the sketch posted by Wayne, the border next to the 16th Tee used to be straigt, and ran perpendicular to the 16th tee.  The corner has since been bowed slightly outward to account for errant drives.   

The ENTIRE section of land containing the 15th green and 16th tee measured about 190 yards by 130 yards, and it still does.   TEPaul just made up the 250 yard figure he used to support his premise.  He tends to do that.     

As we can see in the November 1910 Map, this corner was part of the  golf course land (and therefore part of the golf course plan)  before Nov. 15, 1910.   

[TEPaul]

"Also, I note that the dinner given for Wilson and the committee mentions that he has spend all of his "spare time" in building the course.  I would like to hear your take on that.  It would seem to imply that he wasn't one of the really, really, rich guys who could just take off a whole summer to build golf courses and ignore his real job.  Any thoughts on that?"


JeffB:

It's hard to say how much money Wilson had but he sure wasn't any Horatio Gates Lloyd that way. He was only thirty when he began this project and he died suddenly at 45. We feel we sort of know what his personality was like from reading so many of his letters. As I've said before he sort of reminds me of a young JFK. It just seems like most of his interest and concern was how to grow grass properly. We have very little on his thoughts the architecture of Merion. Either he just didn't write it down or whatever he wrote in that vein was lost. He was very much the efficiency expert and a very active guy with a most curious mind. In our opinion, David Moriarty and some of the others on here just have no feel at all for who Wilson was and what he was capable of. Frankly, I don't think Moriarty has much feel for Macdonald either or Lloyd and Griscom and Lesley etc.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,

You are correct.  It happens all the time.  Here though the Committee  even says so and explains why:

After the visit of these gentlemen Mr. Macdonald wrote to a member of the Committee, expressing the views of himself and Mr. Wigham, as to what could be done with the property.  The report, as made to the Board, embodied Mr. Macdonald's but it was not written for publication. We do not, therefore, feel justified in printing it. We can properly say, however, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the Committee based its recommendation largely upon their opinion.

The Committee did not want to print it, so they gave a cursory treatment.   The Committee is generalizing not M&W.

Again, Tom's premise is directly contradicted by the FACTS.
___________

As for the shifting road.  Tom is just flat out wrong that this happened later.  His conclusion depends his assertion that the land for the 15th and 16th tee started out narrow [aprox. 120 yrds] and was substantially widened by 130 yards (to approximately 250 yards) and that this addition occurred some time later, probably near the end of 1911. 

As you can see from the photo above, this was obviously not the case.   The land measured 130 yards by 190 yards when the land was purchased, and it measures about the same today.    Apparently, Tom couldn't make out the actual width while driving up and down Golf House Road.   
_______________________

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

You are correct.  It happens all the time.  Here though the Committee  even says so and explains why:

After the visit of these gentlemen Mr. Macdonald wrote to a member of the Committee, expressing the views of himself and Mr. Wigham, as to what could be done with the property.  The report, as made to the Board, embodied Mr. Macdonald's but it was not written for publication. We do not, therefore, feel justified in printing it. We can properly say, however, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the Committee based its recommendation largely upon THEIR opinion.[/color]

The Committee did not want to print it, so they gave a cursory treatment.   The Committee is generalizing not M&W.

Again, Tom's premise is directly contradicted by the FACTS.
___________

As for the shifting road.  Tom is just flat out wrong that this happened later.  His conclusion depends his assertion that the land for the 15th and 16th tee started out narrow [aprox. 120 yrds] and was substantially widened by 130 yards (to approximately 250 yards) and that this addition occurred some time later, probably near the end of 1911. 

As you can see from the photo above, this was obviously not the case.   The land measured 130 yards by 190 yards when the land was purchased, and it measures about the same today.    Apparently, Tom couldn't make out the actual width while driving up and down Golf House Road.   
_______________________

[Jeff_Brauer]

For more amplification on how the road is vs. the 1910 plan you can just go to about page 5 on this thread and look at this aerial......interesting to note that the clubhouse entry originally came off of clubhouse drive and that it seems as if it was removed to add length to 14 at some point well past the time frame we are debating here.

http://digital.hagley.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=200&CISOBOX=1&REC=16

I think TePaul has it about right comparing photo and plan.  CH road swings more quickly west right at the Haverford/Franklin property line to all 15 green to exist and straightens out more to allow 14 fw to exist.  It swings further east near 14 tee to give back the land.

If TD said the genius of the routing was using every nook and cranny, I simply find it interesting that the development process really was one that allowed the flexibility to set those borders.

Back to the main event.....

A couple of specific questions, and as difficult as it is, I am trying to phrase these things where simple, short answers will suffice:

For TePaul:

If in the routing phase CBM writes a letter suggesting "what could be done with the property" to what do you think he is referring?  Planting soy beans?

What do you think was in that letter if not some routing advice or suggestions?

Do you think he was the genisis of getting the Dallas Estate to obtain more length with new holes (3,6,7 ) and stretching out 2,4 and 5 based on where they must have been on the original Barker sketch?

Are you saying that in reality he had NO input that shaped Merion's routing just because he didn't supply a formal plan?

Or would you say he probably had at least some influence, even if not the final say?

For David M,

If Francis and Lloyd discussed the final land swaps sometime between 11/10 and summer 1911 when the course was under construction shouldn't the committee get some credit for the routing?

Or do you think they consulted CBM before continuing?

BTW, I think your posted photo proves TePaul's point more than deflects it. I don't think he said all that happened later. Just that it happened sometime post 11/15/10 and before initial course completion.

As you can tell from my questions, I just see the routing as an evolution of a lot of things where in reality, all the parties mentioned had some input, no matter where the final credit lies.  Is it possible that DM and TePaul are so caught up in single attribution that they are really closer in opinions than they suppose?

At least, I find myself tending to believe a timeline of events somewhere between the two camps. 

[TEPaul]

"JES,
TEPaul and did not really answer your question, did he?"


Yes, David Moriarty, I did answer JES11's question and quite specifically but it wouldn't surprise me if you read it and didn't understand it. Go back and reread it in the post above yours.

[TEPaul]

"For TePaul:

If in the routing phase CBM writes a letter suggesting "what could be done with the property" to what do you think he is referring?  Planting soy beans?

What do you think was in that letter if not some routing advice or suggestions?"


Jeff:

Planting soy beans??

I'm really surprised at you. First of all who said anything about routing the course? Did Macdonald's letter say that? Has David Moriarty said that because he's seen that letter? Did anyone EVER say Macdonald offered Merion a routing?? Talk about speculation. I have no idea what he said in that letter and I don't know anyone who does. For Moriarty to SPECULATE it had to be a routing is nuts? Does he even know how long Macdonald was there? Do you really think he's going to do a course design in a day or so? Maybe Macdonald said it looked like a good site to him and he felt that Merion could route, design and build a good course on it, at least that's the way every one who was there seems to report it.

Don't you think that SOMEONE might've said something about a Macdonald routing and design plan that only had to be built to? Furthermore, what was the purpose of the trip to Long Island six months later if that letter Macdonald wrote was a routing and design plan that only had to be built for God's sake? If that was the case Wilson and his committee probably could've just all gone home for good and handed the routing and design to foreman Frederick Pickering to build the course to Macdonald's routing and hole design which he'd done in a day or so!  Frederick Pickering was a very accomplished foreman but I doubt you're even aware of him at Merion.

I'm going on what the people who were around Merion all those years said about the whole thing. Moriarty has nothing to go on except some LETTER he's never even seen. This essay and campaign of his to suggest Macdonald routed and designed Merion East has gotten ridiculous, plus I believe I gave a far more plausible story of Francis' event, and one that does not require Moriarty's constant inclination to ASSUME that the person of some source material was engaging in hyperbole or lying. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

What is your theory on the decision not to publish CBM's letter?  Was it the good manners of the time not to share a private letter to a friend (Grissom)  Or was it because it contains specific recommendations to buy certain properties and MCC preferred to keep that as quiet as possible to keep the price down?  Or did CBM lambast Barker or someone else to the degree that they thought it best to keep the actual report hidden, but use its recommendations? 

Also, I note that the dinner given for Wilson and the committee mentions that he has spend all of his "spare time" in building the course.  I would like to hear your take on that.  It would seem to imply that he wasn't one of the really, really, rich guys who could just take off a whole summer to build golf courses and ignore his real job.  Any thoughts on that?

Jeff, I'll give one theory:  there is a long-standing tradition for corporate boards and committees (and I'm sure that these gentlemen were all on various corporate boards and committees and quite familiar with this line of thinking) to have minutes that do not reflect the details of these conversations.  The thinking is that board members need to be free to express their opinions in a private setting like a board meeting free from second guessing and possible future embarrassment -- without minutes coming out later and that stand for eternity and make them look like fools.  Pretty much the only time you see board meeting minutes get detailed and explicit is when the lawyer who writes them up is padding the record in defense of possible litigation.  Otherwise, when the CEO of a small tech company proposes in 1999 to buy out his Stanford buddies, Sergay and Larry, for $40MM, but Joe Boardmenber says "I think this company would be insane to take $40MM and buy Google in 1999...who needs another search engine!", the minutes say "the board considered various strategic options for the Company, including certain acquisition possibilities, examined the merits and risk of each possibility, and determined not to make any changes to the company's strategic direction at this time."

This has been going on since time immemorial. 

Shiv,

You are so right. I have been in meetings somewhat like that.  Meeting minutes are generally classic examples of understatement. Two guys could practically strangle each other (say like TePaul and DM here) and the minutes would reflect on their "spirited discussion."

[Kirk Gill]

The recommendation of the Committee was on whether or not to purchase the property, yes? And they describe the M&W letter as beng "in general terms, favorable." The logical leap that I'm having trouble with is in inferring from that that there was anything amounting to a routing in that letter. For Jeff Brauer - as an architect yourself, today is a routing typically performed before land for a course is purchased? If you were brought in to make a recommendation on whether or not a particular club might or might not want to buy a piece of land, will a "yes" recommendation on your part also contain a possible routing? It would be great of the MacDonald/Whigham letter could be found. Is there any chance at all that it exists? Merion does not have it, without doubt?

[JESII]

I think the context of the Site Committee report is very important...the club and board appointed them some months earlier to find a property and they found one...CBM certainly lends credibility to the purchase and he may have done a great deal more than just say "it looks good to me", but we seem to have no evidence of anything more...surely you can agree with that David and Tom?

Hard evidence is all we're accepting at this stage of the proceedings I presume...

[TEPaul]

" but we seem to have no evidence of anything more...surely you can agree with that David and Tom?


Sully:

That's pretty much the nut, don't you think? That's all any of us have ever said but I sure can't speak for David Moriaty. For some reason he thinks he has evidence of Macdonald doing a routing and design for Merion East and Hugh Wilson and his construction committee just building the course to that routing and design. If he has some evidence of that I sure hope it is a lot more than what he put in his essay or on these threads.

I guess it is also possible for most of you who aren't so aware of some of the significance of some of the stories in Merion's history books to be failing to understand the significance of what David Moriarty is saying with some of them here, particularly the story of Francis swaping land and everything else Francis said in that story. If you're not that familar with it you should go back and read what I said about it ALL in the first 3-4 posts of this thread.

One probably needs to treat what Moriarty said about Francis and his story like something of an investigation because it seems to me Moriarty is engaging in fairly blatant speculation with that story. I believe he is doing that and if so then his entire piece just falls apart and I can definitely explain to you all both how and why! Much of what I first said on this thread revolves around just that, Francis's land-swap story and it's not just about how he swapped land, it's very much about WHEN!

Maybe no one understands that significance very well, I guess I should never just assume they do. I guess one of the problems with Wayne and my reaction to some of this is we've been involved in the Merion history so long we tend to forget some of the things people may not know and the significance they can have to various interpretations.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()