News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike,

Sorry my overlay threw you, but it did show that the course could fit in there with a slight tweak to the "approximate" location GH road.  It's also worth noting that the course, as presently laid out, also encroaches a bit on what was the Haverford College property.  Did it originally? 

I did also mention then that there was a scale and it was done by civil engineers.  Ignore my posts at your peril.  ;)

However, I'm not sure I agree with your inferences from your recent understanding of the drawing.  If Francis' eureka moment only involved pushing west 30 yards on the north end of GH road and giving up 50 yards opposite the clubhouse, why did he say “land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long – the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.”?  Why wouldn't he have said we need 30 yards here and give up 50 yards there, or say "land about 30 yards wide by 190 yards long – the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.”?  Seems to me that the civil engineers thought the course was routed through the 100 X 190 triangle as of the date of the drawing, else, why call it golf course property?




TEPaul

"If Francis' eureka moment only involved pushing west 30 yards on the north end of GH road and giving up 50 yards opposite the clubhouse, why did he say “land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long – the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.”?"

Bryan:

Probably because Francis was talking about the dimensions of that area after it was done and the 15th green and 16th tee were planned or done. I guess that wouldn't be  unusual as he wrote that story around 1950. He was probably thinking about the dimension that was needed in that area.

I believe there is another factor involved here and that is from the base of that triangle to the top of it on the 1910 plan is about 275 yards. Today Club House Road basically hugs the old McFadden property on the east unlike the proposed road. Merion's property today ends on the north at around an east/west line just south of the old McFadden property on that plan. On the 1910 plan the proposed golf ground runs all the way to College Avenue.

It really doesn't matter anyway because the MCC board meeting minutes reflect this reconfiguration and swap in April 1911 and not in 1910.

Patrick_Mucci

"If Francis' eureka moment only involved pushing west 30 yards on the north end of GH road and giving up 50 yards opposite the clubhouse, why did he say “land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long – the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.”?"

Bryan:

Probably because Francis was talking about the dimensions of that area after it was done and the 15th green and 16th tee were planned or done. I guess that wouldn't be  unusual as he wrote that story around 1950.

He was probably thinking about the dimension that was needed in that area.

TEPaul,

Bryan raises an interesting question.

He cites Francis, who was clear about the dimensions, yet you dismiss his written words and explain the discrepancy in terms of "probably".

That may be a presumptive conclusion which you'd want to arrive at.

It remains puzzling to me.

We do know that these guys tended to be formal or precise, so substantive discrepancies can't be glossed over.

I'm not saying that your scenario isn't possible, only that it's not borne out by Francis's own words and measurements.
[/color]

I believe there is another factor involved here and that is from the base of that triangle to the top of it on the 1910 plan is about 275 yards. Today Club House Road basically hugs the old McFadden property on the east unlike the proposed road. Merion's property today ends on the north at around an east/west line just south of the old McFadden property on that plan. On the 1910 plan the proposed golf ground runs all the way to College Avenue.

It really doesn't matter anyway because the MCC board meeting minutes reflect this reconfiguration and swap in April 1911 and not in 1910.


What's the precise date of the swap in terms of the recording of the deeds ?
[/color]


TEPaul

"TEPaul,

Bryan raises an interesting question.

He cites Francis, who was clear about the dimensions, yet you dismiss his written words and explain the discrepancy in terms of "probably".

That may be a presumptive conclusion which you'd want to arrive at.

It remains puzzling to me.

We do know that these guys tended to be formal or precise, so substantive discrepancies can't be glossed over.

I'm not saying that your scenario isn't possible, only that it's not borne out by Francis's own words and measurements."



Patrick:

Again, it just isn't useful for people like you with limited information to speculate about what Francis meant when he said that and to then use speculation ON HIS WORDS ALONE to determine what actually happened. I realize the way he said that would lead a reasonable person to assume that the way he said it has to mean that entire triangle was created by Francis' landswap idea in 1910. The only problem with that is there is proof that the chronology of events simply didn't happen that way. One needs to use a lot more than just the parsing of the meaning of his words to unravel this, and we are doing exactly that---eg using the other facts in the chronology of events to determine it.

Patrick_Mucci



Again, it just isn't useful for people like you with limited information to speculate about what Francis meant when he said that and to then use speculation ON HIS WORDS ALONE to determine what actually happened.


That's the most contorted logic I've heard to date.

So, relying on Francis's written word is now "speculation" on my part.

And, your interpolation and interpretation is factual ?

Francis was an ENGINEER.  I'm certain he understood linear measurements.
[/color]

I realize the way he said that would lead a reasonable person to assume that the way he said it has to mean that entire triangle was created by Francis' landswap idea in 1910.

And we both know that I'm a VERY reasonable person ;D
[/color]

The only problem with that is there is proof that the chronology of events simply didn't happen that way.

What does the chronology of events have to do with an engineers description of the measurements ?
[/color]

One needs to use a lot more than just the parsing of the meaning of his words to unravel this, and we are doing exactly that---eg using the other facts in the chronology of events to determine it.

Having begun my collegiate academic career in the sciences, understanding measurements isn't parsing meanings.  Math is a precise science, not open to parsing. ;D

You must have entered college under the advanced deviate social engineering program.

[/quote]

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 before hand.

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") 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!!  ;)

Mike_Cirba

Patrick,

If Engineer/Surveyor Richard Francis was out on the property in 1910 "tweaking Macdonald's routing" and doing the "Francis Land Swap" Tango per David's IMO piece, then why was the site survey drawn to scale on November 15, 1910 created by "Pugh and Hubbard - Civil Engineers"?     ;D

« Last Edit: May 22, 2008, 11:20:18 AM by MikeCirba »

TEPaul

Mike:

I do not believe Patrick can answer that properly because I don't believe he's figured out all the details of events and chronology here. Patrick never actually analyzes any of this source material on here himself, he simply likes to argue with people about what they say about it.  ;)

TEPaul

I'll tell you what, David Moriarty, instead of just another one of your increasingly hysterical and insulting hit and run posts about what you now call 'homophobic provincials' around Merion and Philly, why don't you get back to trying to discuss architecture including some of the realities on this thread that appear to call into question one of your primary and unsupportable premises? It is critical analysis and even critical challenge to your essay you said you wanted to promote, right?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'll tell you what, David Moriarty, instead of just another one of your increasingly hysterical and insulting hit and run posts about what you now call 'homophobic provincials' around Merion and Philly, why don't you get back to trying to discuss architecture including some of the realities on this thread that appear to call into question one of your primary and unsupportable premises? It is critical analysis and even critical challenge to your essay you said you wanted to promote, right?

Let me clarify.  I meant that you and Mike Cirba are immature homophobic provincials.  Adult versions of "Beavis and Butthead."    Wayne is certainly provincial, but I doubt homophobic.    As for Merion and Philadelphia, I made no such representation.   

But I am not surprised you again twist my words to try and portray me as being disrespectful to Merion.  As I said, this is your M.O.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

"Let me clarify.  I meant that you and Mike Cirba are immature homophobic provincials.  Adult versions of "Beavis and Butthead."    Wayne is certainly provincial, but I doubt homophobic.    As for Merion and Philadelphia, I made no such representation."

No, Moriarty, I doubt any of us here need any clarifying on the things you've been saying about any of us.  ::)

Frankly, I understand why a guy like you is virtually doing it on ever post on these threads now. It's probably a lot easier for someone like you to do than to try to answer any of the posts on here recently which pretty much shoot down your entire historically revisionistic essay.

Don't worry, I think at this point, we're all pretty well aware you are constitutionally incapable of ever admitting you're wrong about anything. I think most of us have known that about you practically as long as you've been on this website. I guess instead of facing the facts and realities of how and why you're wrong about what you wrote, it's just easier for you to continuously dismiss, ignore, speciously rationalize, and if that doesn't seem to be working than just insult the people on every post who questions the things you say, which should now include why you've been saying what you have about Merion and Wilson and Macdonald.  I think this website should take a very close and serious look at your motives going back a number of years now!


Mike_Cirba

David,

Immature?   Perhaps...ok...yes..guilty as charged and sometimes I consider it a mark of pride.

Juvenile Humor?   Yes, definitely at times.  Lord, how can you not laugh at silly things in this world. Sometimes it's the only way to fend off despair.

Provincial?   I've lived in the Philly area about 25 years, but I've moved about 8 times further and further out, so I can't say that I feel particularly attached.   I do have an emotional and sentimental connection with Merion but I do believe it's genuine and big enough to include more room for Macdonald and Whigham if someone actually proves they deserve it.   I do love Macdonald's courses and NGLA, Sleepy Hollow, and particularly Mid Ocean are some of my favorite places on earth.

Mean Spirited?   No way.   Only to those who I feel are purposefully out to hurt someone else.

Homophobic?   Dude, you really, REALLY don't know me at all.    ::)
« Last Edit: May 22, 2008, 09:01:48 PM by MikeCirba »

TEPaul

Mike:

Moriarty just called Philadelphia provincial??   ???

He's admitted he doesn't know that much about Merion but wants to learn. He doesn't know that much about Macdonald or golf architecture either. But now he's calling Philadelphia provincial?!? Obviously he doesn't know much about America or its history either.

Where the hell does this guy come from anyway and where in the world has he been? Is this guy a member of that unfortunate Wathafuquawee tribe that roams the North American Plains trying to find where their home used to be? ;)

Didn't I hear at some point that Tom MacWood was something of David Moriarty's mentor in research analysis?

I guess that explains a lot.

Philadelphia provincial?  Uh huh!

Wasn't this place the first capital of the US when some of those out of control Conquistadors were chasing some of those Wathafuquawee Indians up and down the Left Coast after the Wathafuquawees got lost again and turned left out of the Northern Plains looking for their home in a warmer clime? Most of them actually drowned when they turned right thinking they could probably walk on water. ;)



"But I am not surprised you again twist my words to try and portray me as being disrespectful to Merion."

Respectful or not respectful to Merion isn't exactly the problem. Your problem is, as you've said yourself, you don't know much about Merion, its history, its people, even though you said you would like to learn. Your tact in how to learn about it by first trying to revise its architectural history is an interesting way to go about it, that's for sure. Did you say something about an adult Beavis or Butthead? ;) The fact that you know very little about it, its history and its architect, Hugh Wilson, has been patently clear, believe me. The thing that's even more interesting is you obviously don't know much about C.B. Macdonald around 1910 or 1911 either.

You really do have a lot to learn. Keep at it and you may get warm someday.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2008, 09:06:30 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

"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.

That's your opinion, and I understand it. but, I'd like to know the precise date of the deeds involved in the swap.

If, as I suspect, they're well removed from 1910-1911, it would support my beliefs.
[/color]

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.

There may be a bigger picture, one not that disimilar from Sand Hills.
[/color]

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 before hand.

TE, I think these fellows had the intellect, the means, the power and the money to structure and/or configure the land to fit the optimal routing.
[/color]

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") 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.

Agreed
[/color]

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!!  ;)


I believe that's what I've been alluding to all along. ;D
[/color]


Patrick_Mucci

Mike:

I do not believe Patrick can answer that properly because I don't believe he's figured out all the details of events and chronology here. Patrick never actually analyzes any of this source material on here himself, he simply likes to argue with people about what they say about it.  ;)


I can't deny your last statement, but, I would take issue with your first statement.
[/color]

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick,

If Engineer/Surveyor Richard Francis was out on the property in 1910 "tweaking Macdonald's routing" and doing the "Francis Land Swap" Tango per David's IMO piece, then why was the site survey drawn to scale on November 15, 1910 created by "Pugh and Hubbard - Civil Engineers"?     ;D

Because they were an independent firm, one that could provide the survey, completely at arms length.

One of the motions I brought before virtually every club board that I've served on, was that the club could not transact business with a member.

I believe that it avoids conflicts of interest.

Many organizations require every board member to sign a "conflict of interest" form stating that they have no beneficial or conflicting connection with the institution.

Why wouldn't Merion embark on the same prudent policy ?
[/color]


Mike_Cirba

Aye, but Patrick...it's pretty clear that things have become much more stringent in that regard over time.

The fact that Lloyd was on both the buyer and seller side of the equation back then is proof enough of that.   Given that reality, I seriously doubt that greater sensitivity would've extended to someone simply plotting a map. 

Patrick_Mucci


Aye, but Patrick...it's pretty clear that things have become much more stringent in that regard over time.

Mike, your desperation has no bounds ;D

The fact that an independent firm provided a survey doesn't prove anything other than the fact that that particular firm provided the survey.

There's nothing more to read into that despite your desire to do so.
[/color]

The fact that Lloyd was on both the buyer and seller side of the equation back then is proof enough of that.   Given that reality, I seriously doubt that greater sensitivity would've extended to someone simply plotting a map. 

I think you have to context each issue and I think you have to understand the ultimate goal and the path to achieve it.
[/color]


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Patrick.

Of course I haven't been allowed to see them, but my understanding of the deeds and various agreements is that they don't really tell the entire story.  H.G. Lloyd and perhaps a few other Merion members may have effectively underwritten the both sides of this deal, the provided the down payment not only for Merion but also invested heavily, as much as half the stock, into the Development company, presumably to provide the company with capital to exercise the options on the rest of the land.  To the best of my knowledge this happened in or around November 1910.   [Of course TEPaul and Mike Cirba and Wayne have long claimed  that Merion had been in cahoots with HDC for at least a year prior to this, but given that they havent made this unsupported claim in a day or two, I assume they finally know better, and will claim they never ever suggested such a thing.]

Anyway, some of the deeds for the HDC project were first conveyed to Lloyd, presumably as collateral and/or security on his investment and/or his guarantee, and despite the reports of Merion's board, I don't think any land was actually transferred to Merion Cricket Club Golf Committee until July of 1911.   

There are two documents that probably shed light on the issue, and they are of course are being screened from me.   
I've figured out these things for these guys in the past, and would gladly do it again, but it will be difficult to do without actually seeing the documents. 

Still, if past is prologue, then my understanding of what happened with the various land exchanges and swaps is probably more accurate than theirs even though they have the documents and I do not.   These guys haven't a clue as to how to read these documents, and in the past they have just assumed documents said what they hoped that they said.   
- Last year TEPaul claimed that one such deed conclusively proved that Merion had purchased the land for the golf course in June 1909.   I didn't believe him at the time, but when I asked him for details he basically said that is for me to know and you to find out.  You don't expect us to do all your research for you, do you?     
- Wayne apparently thought the same deed not only documented the sale of the golf course land, but a tract of probably over 1000 acres of land in total, stretching from the railroad almost all the way to the West Course.
-In reality the deed described a conveyance of a 70 acre parcel north of the course from one investment vehicle (a trust) to another (a corporation)  for negligible consideration ($1.)   Likely the same parties were principles of each, and none were affiliated with Merion or Lloydd.

So you are likely wasting your time if you actually expect any straight, clear, or accurate answers from them about what anything to do with the timing of the various transfers or purchases.   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike_Cirba

Mike,

I did also mention then that there was a scale and it was done by civil engineers.  Ignore my posts at your peril.  ;)


Bryan,

Touche'!   :D

Rich Goodale

Just to jump in again without a paddle, virtually anybody on this site can tell the difference between 90 and 130 yards without theodolites(sic) or GPS systems--it's the differrence between a soft sand wedge and a hard ptiching wedge, Dummies!  Why would any properly trained Civil Engineer in the 1910's make such an eggregious error?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Is this still going? ;D

While I almost hate to jump back in for any reason, lets remember that the Francis telling of the epic tale occurred about 30 years after the fact in the club history.  At that point in time, it wasn't necessary in the history interview for him to be accurate about the exact distance, was it?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Cirba

While I almost hate to jump back in for any reason, lets remember that the Francis telling of the epic tale occurred about 30 years after the fact in the club history.  At that point in time, it wasn't necessary in the history interview for him to be accurate about the exact distance, was it?

Jeff,

You ignorant fool, it was 39 years later!!   

Just trying to be precise!  ;)

Actually, as I pointed out a coupla days ago, you were the only one who understood exactly what Tom Paul meant way back on page one.

I don't know if that's a good thing or not.  ;)

In either case, you were quite correct and most of us were wrong. 

There's not enough of that on these threads.   ;D

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike,

Thanks for the kind words. Someone actually gives me props on gca.com?  And I had lost track of the thread on account of "real life."  I guess I have to keep paying attention.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

"Still, if past is prologue, then my understanding of what happened with the various land exchanges and swaps is probably more accurate than theirs even though they have the documents and I do not.   These guys haven't a clue as to how to read these documents, and in the past they have just assumed documents said what they hoped that they said.    
- Last year TEPaul claimed that one such deed conclusively proved that Merion had purchased the land for the golf course in June 1909.   I didn't believe him at the time, but when I asked him for details he basically said that is for me to know and you to find out.  You don't expect us to do all your research for you, do you?    
- Wayne apparently thought the same deed not only documented the sale of the golf course land, but a tract of probably over 1000 acres of land in total, stretching from the railroad almost all the way to the West Course.
-In reality the deed described a conveyance of a 70 acre parcel north of the course from one investment vehicle (a trust) to another (a corporation)  for negligible consideration ($1.)   Likely the same parties were principles of each, and none were affiliated with Merion or Lloydd."





We would appreciate it if anyone on these threads, including David Moriarty, could point out to us whatever the mistakes are in interpretation we've made in the last year or at any time about the financial dealings of Horatio Gates Lloyd and his MCC investor group previous to the finalization of the purchase of the Merion East ground.

To do that those mistakes should not just be referred to on a thread indirectly, the way David Moriarty did above; they should be found, and brought up and cited. That will give us the opportunity to correct them. That's the only way we can deal with them properly and correct mistakes we've made in the past. Furthermore, we have no problem at all correcting our mistakes and admitting that we made them, and more importantly, in my opinion, why we made them!!

We want to rid the Merion historical record of any and all inaccuracies and inconsistencies we can find. We want to get Merion's historical record as accurate as it can be, and certainly Merion does too despite what some people say in some accusatory ways to the contrary.

What we are trying to do at the moment is chronicle all the details of the move of MCC's golf course from Haverford to Ardmore in the years 1909 until about 1912 or 1913 as accurately and in as much detail as possible, and old MCC board meeting minutes really help in that effort.

Whatever it turns out to be---a report just to be placed in Merion G.C.'s archives for serious researchers and interested parties to access and/or an essay to be put on here in an IMO piece I can't say at the moment.

We just want Merion's history reflected accurately and so does Merion G.C. If that means Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East or whether they didn't, it matters not to Merion or us. The best proof of whatever happened needs to be produced, though, and it looks to us like MCC board meeting minutes are doing that in more detail than we at first imagined before they were recently discovered (we did not even know they still existed).

Things like IMO pieces or even the details of these threads are not necessarily accurate accounts of Merion's architectural history and they do tend to get on other entities of the Internet such as Google and can create revisionist thinking about Merion's architectural history.

I don't think anyone wants to see that. We don't and Merion doesn't. All that can do is create additional inaccuracies in the future.

At the moment we believe the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" is incorrect in its premises and conclusions of varous events such as the time Francis' call to Lloyd took place and when the consequent landswap and the creation of the 15th and 16th or the last five holes took place on a plan or in fact. At the moment we believe the conclusion in the essay that Macdonald routed Merion East in 1910 and Hugh Wilson and his committee merely constructed the course to that plan in 1911 is also historically incorrect. We would like to prove that by producing acceptable evidence that the creation of Merion East did not happen that way. The intention or a report or essay is not necessarily to prove some other essay incorrect but only to chronicle the events of this time as accurately and in as much detail as can be done. If and when that's done, then people's interpretations of what it means is just up to them.

We think the financial dealings of Horatio Gates Lloyd in this entire move to Ardmore are most important to the accuracy of Merion Ardmore's story as well and we want to get that correct in as much detail as possible.

We think we have good material to chronicle all of this as accurately as it can be done at this time. At the moment, what we do not seem to have is any evidence of why Merion golf club's two history books (two separate editons of Desmond Tolhurst's Merion history) mention that Hugh Wilson went abroad in 1910 and what's behind the story that he brought back sketches and drawings and surveyors maps from abroad. We have never seen any evidence of those things and we have never seen even a mention of them in any way by anyone present at the time of the creation of either Merion course including during Merion East's approximately 20 year architectural development.

It is certainly possible that a story like that one is simply a result of oral history and nothing more. But we will try to trace the mention of it in writing as far back as possible. It is certainly possible that stories like that found their way into the written record of Merion East as late as 25-30 years ago and if that's the case that too will be reported in and essay or report.

That's what we intend to do and I'm confident that more accuracy and more detail to Merion's architectural history will be the result. Whatever we produce will probably go into the club's really well organized archives and there is a procedure that is not exclusionary to serious researchers to access those archives. At the moment, I'm not sure what MCC's access policy or procedure is, and it's possible, at the moment, they may not even have one. But one of the world's best archivists is apparently about to work on MCC's archives as he did on Merion G.C.'s in the last 5-6 years.

As for the on-going arguments and accusations on here about access to the archives of either club, certainly promoted by one contributor on this website, I'll say no more. I don't make policy on access for either club, but I will abide by whatever it is as I would suggest everyone else on here or elsewhere do the same.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2008, 08:55:14 AM by TEPaul »