The importance of understanding the details of Mr Francis' Merion landswap story

[Tony_Chapman]

Just for fun, if I'm still alive in 50 years and if this board is still alive and well, I'm going to start a thread called: The importance of understanding the details of Mr. Crenshaw's Sand Hills landswap.

Ok, you guys, now back to the Merion stuff.

[Rich Goodale]

Tony

Is that Tom Paul or Pat Mucci with the classic follow-through?

Ricvh

PS--I'm sure that is the young John Kavanaugh at the extreme right of the picture......

R

[Tony_Chapman]

Rihc -- That's "Nebraska's Champion" Johnny Goodman!

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Tony.  1st picture I've ever seen of Johnny G.

[TEPaul]

"Tony
Is that Tom Paul or Pat Mucci with the classic follow-through?"


Rich:

Actually, I'm the young lad on the right of the photo who's semi-holding onto his crotch so his pants won't fall off in the middle of Johnny G's swing. It looks like most of those guys back then didn't exactly believe in sun-block, huh?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,

The conclusions you reference are not contained in David's white paper.

They are David's opinion's, removed from his white paper, when he was interogated."

So what, Patrick?

What do you think this discussion group is for?  If all there was to this website was an "In My Opinion" section with no discussion section to discuss IMO pieces then no one would say anything about them would they?  

But this website has a discussion section too or maybe you've never been aware of that either which would probably mean you're right about 1/2 percent of the time instead of the 2 percent of the time I used to think you were!

I just think it's appropriate that we get the attribution correct.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony

Is that Tom Paul or Pat Mucci with the classic follow-through?

Rich,

TEPaul's follow through is better that the one pictured.

He gets over to his left side better than most amateurs I've ever seen.

If you look at the famous picture of Hogan on # 18 at Merion, and you look at his right foot, that's the position TEPaul gets to with his follow through.

[TEPaul]

Frankly, as alluded to by Bob Crosby on one of these threads a while ago, I am not aware of a single time in any resource or reference piece or material about Merion, ever, at any time, where the routing of Merion was ever mentioned. I don't believe that word was ever mentioned about Merion at any time by anyone who was around for the creation of Merion.

The most specific thing I've ever seen is when Alan Wilson mentioned in his report on Merion's creation that Hugh Wilson and his committee 'DESIGNED and constructed both courses'. He also said both courses were "Homemade", and later in that report after he gave credit to Macdonald and Whigam for their good and kindly advice he said: ".....and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he (H.Wilson) is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE both of this and of the West course.

I have always found that this fine piece of reporting from a man who was there every step of the way has been so completly ignored by so many and whenever it is mentioned, it's dimissed or ignored by most, including Moriarty to date, as unimportant or some inaccurate glorification. Most clubs never had this kind of fairly comprehensive report attached to their creation. Merion is lucky to have this one.

I think the way Moriarty treated it (or didn't bother to) is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever seen in what's supposed to pass as a comprehensive and well reserched essay as well as discussion on here about it.

I'm just going to keep coming back to this report as I always have. Alan Wilson was a very fine man with a long history in many things to do with golf. His reputation for integrity was excellent. He was a man who many and some significant people and clubs went to for advice, as his younger brother was. His report should NOT EVER be treated this way, as it's been treated on here, by anyone.

Moriarty apparently knows he can't refute it without basically implying that Wilson was also engaging in hyperbole or glorification or just untruths, so he just seems to overlook it in his quest to support his assumptions and conclusion.

Let HIM not even BEGING to offer some alternative assumption and conclusion about who DESIGNED Merion East before he completely REFUTES what Alan Wilson wrote. And, in my opinion, as apparently in most on here that would take the physical production of a routing and design plan that matches the way Merion was first routed and designed!!

In all that has gone on in these threads many seem to forget about this report and what it says, but I never will. For Moriarty to treat Alan Wilson in this way by basically ignoring him and the words and statements in his report is truly intellectually dishonest and I believe more and more people are reacting negatively to his essay for that very reason!

For Christ Sakes, Moriarty plays up Tom MacWood's bullshit research on one H.H. Barker who wasn't even gotten by Merion more than he does Alan Wilson and what he said----again, a man who was there to see it all every step of the way.

With all the other multitudinous details that are flying by most must be overlooking how intellectually dishonest this really is!

[TEPaul]

"I just think it's appropriate that we get the attribution correct."

So do I Patrick, but the first order of business should always be to first establish WHAT has been so WRONG with the architectural attribution of Merion in the first place.

And don't give me any more crap about the dates of trips abroad, and Wilson being a NOVICE, particularly when Moriarty has a guy like Francis---- 'spending hours over a drawing board and many hours running instruments in the field, and just plain talking' as well as solving a niggling routing and design problem that logically happened at the end of design or construction in 1910 before HIS committee was appointed and many months before the course was designed and constructed. He merely does this and made that illogical ASSUMPTION for his own convenience to continue to support his essay's conclusion.

I think we all who just don't buy the logic of it should just keep pointing this out over and over. 

[TEPaul]

"He gets over to his left side better than most amateurs I've ever seen."

You're right, I do get way over to my left side into the follow through but through years of practice I've developed a move of getting way ahead of the ball to such an extent it's pretty amazing I can hit it consistently at all. I think that move is one of the reasons I never could hit a driver much more than just out of my shadow. And why did I develop that consistent move of sliding ahead of the ball? It might have to do with the fact I really have very little strength in my legs and probably never did. If you could see my legs you'd understand! They are like little white match-sticks. I have never worn a pair of short pants on a golf course in my life and I never will. If I ever did I would be laughed right off the course! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I've felt that Francis was an unsung participant, and as we discussed recently, it appears that he spent a great deal of time in the pre-construction phase.

The possible Raynor-Francis connection intriques me.  

Has anyone attempted to locate any of Francis's files ?

[TEPaul]

"Has anyone attempted to locate any of Francis's files?"

We've looked everywhere---Merion G.C. and MCC for anything at all drawn or even reported by Wilson and committee on architecture in this early phase and nothing as ever been found. Years ago we certainly did become aware of the fact that Francis was perhaps the only one who ever even mentioned the existence of plans and drawings-----ie in that late night land swap story he wrote about when he said: "Other than spending many hours over a drawing board and running instruments in the field......."

So, we do know that he worked on plans but where did they go? No one in modern times seems to know. And no one we have ever heard of has ever seen any plans of that first phase.

My sense has always been that they may've just build on the ground without the use of much in the way of plans but Francis story of all the work he did for many hours over a drawing board and running instruments in the field would seem to indicate otherwise. Richard Francis was, after-all, a professional engineer.

And we know that H. Wilson mentioned to Piper (Oakley actually) in that first agronomy letter on Feb 1, 1911 that he had a topo map of the course preconstruction he wanted to send him but he never mentioned if it had anything for the golf course drawn on it at that time about 2-3 months before construction began.

[DMoriarty]

y

David,

The reason I discussed the real estate proposal was to demonstrate the likely scenario that members of Merion were deeply involved and invested in HDC and had the interests of the golf course in mind more so than to maximize profits.  How you can go from that obvious conclusion to intentionally misleading the membership is beyond me.  I merely wanted to point out that their interests were very much aligned yet you suppose the opposite.  Isn't it any wonder why we aren't in the same book let alone on the same page.

You say that I seem to be concerned with attribution.  In fact you, Mucci, Schmidt and Morrissett have shown a tendency to accuse Philadelphians of protecting legends (note your use of the Legendary Hugh Wilson in your essay) in the face of other evidence.  I am concerned about the sort of tactics and evidence you use and others accept to apply attributions elsewhere.  Not to protect our traditions but because I see faulty conclusions based on a progression of suppositions.   While you are crafty in the extent to which you attribute the routing to Macdonald and Whigham, you leave no doubt in your essay and subsequent posts that you are trying to establish that Wilson had NOTHING to do with the routing and design of the first iteration of Merion's first Ardmore course.  You limit his role to standing around waiting to receive construction instructions while others in the club are actively involved in tweaking a plan (ostensibly by Macdonald and Whigham with the possibility of some Barker).  In the essay you dance around the extent of Macdonald and Whigham's role in the routing and design concepts but you mention in no uncertain terms that Wilson had nothing to do with it.  You say that the role of Macdonald (and I presume Whigham) is not completely known but that you know much about it.  What exactly do you know about any of the initial design iteration which can be attributed to Macdonald and Whigham?  Please don't offer up the Alps and Redan hole concepts as some measure of proof.  The green may look like a Redan green but in fact it is sloped in the exact opposite way and required an aerial shot only.  How do you know that not a single design can be attributed to Wilson? 

You lack the material for conclusive proof.  I've said on another thread that it is very possible that we cannot prove everything about who did exactly what at Merion.  In fact we come up woefully short.  That is true of the design evolutions of Myopia, NGLA, Garden City and every other club of that era and many clubs that were developed later.  So we are left with one statement by Whigham that Macdonald planned Merion's course.  You say that Macdonald modestly avoided mentioning the work his entire life.  What about Macdonald leads you to conclude he was a modest man in any regard?

I maintain, not that the status quo is correct, but that you have not proved it is incorrect.  We don't have Barker's plan.  We don't have Macdonald's report.  Therefore you went on a quest ot prove, by circumstantial evidence, that Wilson could not possibly have done the planning.  You and others express the lack of talent and experience necessary within the committee to do the work.  I remain unsatisfied that you have proved any of this.  They hired an experienced construction and design man in Pickering.  They had on staff a railroad engineer trained in civil engineering in Toomey.  By the way, I have not seen definitive proof if you wish to challenge this.

As far as demonstrating which part of your timeline is shaky, it would be simpler to present which parts are not shaky.  It is all in the essay for everyone to determine for themselves.  It must be obvious by now that reviewing such an essay requires certain subjective determinations.  It is not a cut and dried history.  You think it is solid, as do others.  I do not.  Not for some protective desire but because I just don't think you come close to the necessary standard of proof for me.  This being Pennsylvania, I'll state it this way, your keystone may crumble under close scrutiny, which you requested.  If it does, I think you must accept that the remaining structure will collapse. 

Wayne, 

I think I addressed most of the above on the other thread, but I do want to address one thing.

My question about whether you thought Merion's Board had misinformed its members was largely rhetorical.  I see how you might have taken offense, and apologize.  I should have made my point in another less offensive manner.

That being said, the underlying contradiction still stands. 

You suggested that HDC was sacrificing at least some profit so that Merion aquire the course for less than market rate.  Merion's Board suggests the opposite.  According to the Board, HDC planned to more than make up the loss as a result of the added value the course brought to the development.

[wsmorrison]

Tom gets over to his left side so well because he is really just a broken down liberal.  From New York no less 

[wsmorrison]

David,

While the HDC may have made up the loss of the development value of the golf course in terms of lot value, since they were also in the business of selling improved lots and homes, I was suggesting that they may not have been able to recover the full value of a complete residential build out.  Though I really do not know much about real estate.

Thank you for considering I may have taken offense and apologizing.  No worries.  It was tame compared to Pat Mucci 

[Mike_Cirba]

Given the real estate component, and the importance of increasing the value of that land so that those acres could be sold at a very profitable margin, wouldn't it have been highly advantageous if the Merion members and HDC investors could publicize that they had a course designed by the greatest and most famous golfer and course architect in the country?   

By this time he was quite the celebrated celebrity, especially in high society circles. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't think they just built the course in the field.

There had to be a plan, a routing and individual hole designs.

This wasn't a case of blind mice in search of golf.

Francis's reference to spending many hours over a drawing board and running instruments in the field would seem to indicate that the two were related functions.

One of drafting plans and the other of bringing them to fruition in the field.

I wondered why C & W gave Francis co-design credit.

It's possible that he may have been Wilson's Raynor.

[JESII]

TEP,

You have still not convinced me that the Francis land-swap story hapened in summer 1911.

It just does not make sense that they would have been stumped that late into the process when the answer all along was so easy.

As to the points Pat was just making about the likelyhood of some plans being in existent at some point...Francis also mentioned in that land-swap story that the "swapped-out" land (where the homes on Golf House Road are now) never fit into any golf course PLAN.

My suspicion is that the committee was out looking at that land well in advance of June 1910 and had plenty of holes drawn and routing plans...my only question is why Connell would have brought in Barker in June 1910.

Can we confirm absolutely any relationship between Connell and HDC?

What are the land title facts pertaining to him? What was he part of?

[TEPaul]

"I wondered why C & W gave Francis co-design credit."

Pat:

I explained that to you the other day. I spoke with Mr. Cornish about that a few years ago and obviously one of their primary resources for their amazing tome, "The Architects of Golf", was to refer to club history books. It's just occured to me that you may be plying all these opinions of yours on here about Merion without ever having read the Merion history book.

Anyone who wants to really get into an informed and intelligent discussion on this subject should do that. It also occurs to me that one of the best source pieces Merion has and we have on the creation of Merion is the Alan Wilson report and somewhat supplemented by that Francis story. I notice that David Moriarty's essay is woefully short on and neglectful in that respect---eg he never actually quoted all of Francis' remarks on that late-night idea of land-swapping. I don't see how anyone could possibly write a comprehensive, honest and balanced essay on the architectural creation and attribution of Merion without fully analyzing particularly Alan Wilson's report.

Here he says he did all this research and he never even asked for that. That's quite amazing and he only refers to a few words of it in his essay and then mentions that I put some of it on this website and then deleted it. Like any good researcher I'm quite sure he knows where to ask for it. It's interesting he never did that as he would basically have to refute it to make a cogent point and by including it apparently he must have thought that would weaken his essay which I have no doubt it certainly would in the eyes of most.

I put the whole thing on one of these threads but of course he basically ignored it as he basically always has on these threads about Macdonald and Merion. It clearly does not serve his purpose at all.

[TEPaul]

"It just does not make sense that they would have been stumped that late into the process when the answer all along was so easy."

Sully:

I have no real idea what you mean to say by that.

"As to the points Pat was just making about the likelyhood of some plans being in existent at some point...Francis also mentioned in that land-swap story that the "swapped-out" land (where the homes on Golf House Road are now) never fit into any golf course PLAN."

I've already mentioned on here numerous times when the existence of plans were mentioned. Francis mentioned it in his land-swap story a couple of times and H. Wilson mentioned it to Piper in a Feb 1, 1911 letter that he had a topo map of the golf course. Obviously Merion had a topo survey map made perhaps off that basic November 1910 plan that was sent out to the membership.

"My suspicion is that the committee was out looking at that land well in advance of June 1910 and had plenty of holes drawn and routing plans...my only question is why Connell would have brought in Barker in June 1910."

I'm sure the search committee was doing exactly that and it's more than a bit illogical to think they would be looking at it for a golf course without even talking to the men the club would make members of Wilson's committee, which of course would include Wilson himself. Of course Lloyd was a member of both committees.

"Can we confirm absolutely any relationship between Connell and HDC?"

But of course we can. Connell and four other people were the ones who bought up most of this land including the 140 acre Johnson Farm most of which is Merion G.C. today BEFORE MCC and their search committee became involved in it.

"What are the land title facts pertaining to him? What was he part of?"

That is what is extremely hard to figure out, other than the fact that Connell was the spokesman for the other four developers. Some of the real estate maps list the Johnson Farm in 1908 as being owned by the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company. I figure that probably was Connell and his group.

On the other hand, we have a hand written quite hard to read contract (referred to as an "indenture") that was executed by The Title and Trust Company of Philadelphia that this man Nickolson was the president of. I think Moriarty referred to Nickolson, at one point, in these threads, as one of the 'ambitious developers' with Connell. I do not think he was that at all, he was simply the president of the title and trust company that acted as a "party" to this June 24, 1909 indenture.

Moriarty also mentioned in his essay that he was not sure when Lloyd and some of his investor friends from MCC got involved in investing in this land at the behest of those developers. It certainly isn't easy to figure out.

In this hand written indenture that was created on June 24, 1909, there were three "parties" to the contract:
1. The "party of the first part" was the Title and Trust Co.
2. The "party of the second part" was these five developers who were not any part of MCC.
3. The "party of the third part" was the Haverford Development Co. (HDC)

I am not at all clear what HDC's purpose was at that point. It could've been those five devolpers simply putting their individual real estate holdings into a corporate entity with their individual percentage breakdown for pay-in for maintenance purposes and payout for lease and sale purposes. This indenture also has a very detailed "metes and bounds" description that is the textual details of a land survey. Yerkes & Co was the surveyor and they are very much still in business as I dealt with them all the time when I sold real estate.

Or, HDC may very well have been formed at that point by Lloyd and his MCC investor friends who were acting at that point as financial facilitators for MCC's golf course move as well as their own real estate investment or purchase interests. We do know at some point in 1910, Lloyd appears to have either bought about half the interests of the developers through purchasing about 50% interest in HDC or else simply forming HDC himself and essentially capitalizing HDC into a stock subcription entity for both members of MCC and "others".

In a letter to the MCC membership signed by only Lloyd he does mention that HDC has been capitalized to the tune of a $300,000 stock offering of which about half had already been subscribed to by others than MCC members. My hunch is Lloyd may've taken control of all the land (338 acres) at that point by underwriting the developers with his stock offering. After-all, that's the kind of thing he did for a living as the managing "partner" at that time for Drexel & Company, one of the most powerful "financing" (underwriting) firms in the country.

If Lloyd had not done the foregoing, I can't really imagine what else could've been going on as I doubt those developers had created a stock offering out of HDC which is very clear to see from Lloyd's letter to the membership in November 1910 is exactly what HDC was at that time and basically for the benefit of MCC members. The stock being offered for subscription to MCC member is HDC!

In a financial breakdown structure in another post I'll show you how I think Lloyd and/or those developers basically did that to benefit everyone.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,   If you don't think I covered the Francis land swap, then you havent yet read my essay. 

As for Alan Wilson, he was covered as well, and has been covered and covered and covered.  Trouble is, he just does not say what you imply he says.  I think you even know this, because your references are all of a general nature, as if he had provided all the answers but he doesnt.   He excepts M&W's contributions, which essentiaily amounts to his  saying that the committee and particularly Wilson did whatever M&W didn't.   
____________________


JES, I think I wrote a post addressing some of your concerns, summarizing some of the property history,  and explaining in particular why I think your assumption about Merion being involved earlier than summer 1910 is likely mistaken.   I can find it for you if you like.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,   If you don't think I covered the Francis land swap, then you havent yet read my essay."


David Moriarty, you better start learning how to deal with this subject and the responses to it a whole lot better,  and in a more intelligent and mature way than you have to date, that's for damn sure. You are trying the patience of a whole lot of people on here over a pretty important club and course.

It may still be possible to have an intelligent conversation on this subject but you better engage or we'll write you off as Merion seemingly already has. One more day with the way you're carrying on and all of us who know anything about Merion will pull out of here and then you can just deal with a bunch of people who are uninformed on the subject and you can just wallow in your self-possessed importance and invent your own reintepretation of Merion's architectural history. Go for it, because it'll never make a bit of difference to the club or any of us who have anything to do with it.

[DMoriarty]

"TEPaul,   If you don't think I covered the Francis land swap, then you havent yet read my essay."


David Moriarty, you better start learning how to deal with this subject and the responses to it a whole lot better,  and in a more intelligent and mature way than you have to date, that's for damn sure. You are trying the patience of a whole lot of people on here over a pretty important club and course.

It may still be possible to have an intelligent conversation on this subject but you better engage or we'll write you off as Merion seemingly already has. One more day with the way you're carrying on and all of us who know anything about Merion will pull out of here and then you can just deal with a bunch of people who are uninformed on the subject and you can just wallow in your self-possessed importance and invent your own reintepretation of Merion's architectural history. Go for it, because it'll never make a bit of difference to the club or any of us who have anything to do with it.

I didn't know you were a member at Merion, Tom.  Does Merion know this?   Are you sure that they want you to be speaking on their behalf?

It is one thing to make a fool of yourself, but maybe you should leave Merion out of this.  They deserve better than this. 

As for your threat to pull out of here, don't let the door hit you on your way out.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

You say you have felt that Francis was the unsung participant.  How is it that his role is the only one that was ever detailed yet you figure he is unsung?  How much of the written history of Merion are you familiar with outside these threads and David's essay?  By your own words, you haven't done any original research.  So how much weight should your characterization of Francis's participation should we confer?

You speculate about the relationship between Francis and Raynor when there is no evidence at all that Raynor was ever at Merion.  Maybe that will be shown in The Misadventures of Those Clueless Merion Committees Who Couldn't Do a Thing Without CB Macdonald and his Piss Boy Whigham, Part Deux

Then you say that Francis may have been Wilson's Raynor.  If he was Wilson's Raynor, wouldn't Wilson take on the role of Macdonald?  So now you are saying that Wilson must have been the designer.  At last, you are making sense.  You contradict yourself, but at least one thing you propose makes sense.

By the way, Pat, the names of some of the holes at Shinnecock Hills GC included:

Crater
Plateau
Knoll

These are from a scorecard dated 1896.  Should we ring the Macdonald bell or should we ring the Davis bell?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You say you have felt that Francis was the unsung participant. 
How is it that his role is the only one that was ever detailed yet you figure he is unsung? 
How much of the written history of Merion are you familiar with outside these threads and David's essay? 
By your own words, you haven't done any original research. 
So how much weight should your characterization of Francis's participation should we confer?

You speculate about the relationship between Francis and Raynor when there is no evidence at all that Raynor was ever at Merion. 

NO I didn't.
I asked questions about their potential relationship.
A valid question seeing as how both Francis and Raynor were engineers.

Only a super defensive attitude would view my questions as speculative.
Why are you so afraid of the questions I posed ?[/color]

Maybe that will be shown in The Misadventures of Those Clueless Merion Committees Who Couldn't Do a Thing Without CB Macdonald and his Piss Boy Whigham, Part Deux

That sounds super defensive.[/color]

Then you say that Francis may have been Wilson's Raynor. 
If he was Wilson's Raynor, wouldn't Wilson take on the role of Macdonald? 


Not necessarily.
I was refering to the tasks Francis, as an engineer, might perform.[/color]

So now you are saying that Wilson must have been the designer. 


No, that's what YOU'RE saying.[/color]

At last, you are making sense. 
You contradict yourself, but at least one thing you propose makes sense.


I haven't contradicted myself in the least.
It's your false conclusions that are confusing you.[/color]

By the way, Pat, the names of some of the holes at Shinnecock Hills GC included:

Crater
Plateau
Knoll

These are from a scorecard dated 1896.  Should we ring the Macdonald bell or should we ring the Davis bell?

How about the REDAN ?

When David Moriarty writes a white paper on Shinnecock I'll be glad to discuss it, but, this is about Merion.  Try to confine your comments to issues relating to Merion.

Oh, let me guess, was Flynn involved at Shinnecock ?[/color]