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.


Mike_Cirba

(sorry for the double post, but I think this is critical here)

Not sure what that would tell us, but knock yourself out.  Let me know if you find anything interesting.


David,

You and I both know that the 140 acre Johnson Farm property was what was originally owned by Connell and his "Ardmore Land Co." when Lloyd and Merion first considered the property for golf purposes and when "someone" tipped off Connell about the clubs plans "16 months ago", prior to the November sale announcement, which would have been July, 1909.

THAT is the property owned by "Ardmore Land Co." that Merion considered for golf...a property that was L-shaped, crossed on both sides of Ardmore Avenue, was next to the railroad station, included a large farmhouse (clubhouse) near the tracks, and it was also the property that a very opportunistic, influential, and insightful Horatio Gates Lloyd gobbled up and then quickly formed the Haverford Development Company and bought another 200 acres of adjoining land that he held out for real estate development around the course, knowing that if he sold the golf land to Merion for a song he would recoup that and more with golf-course-facing estate-housing properties.

Please give me credit for recognizing that you are way more intelligent than you're portraying yourself here.   

However, if you concede that point, then the later aquisition of the adjoining "Dallas Estate" is seen simply for what it is...a simple realization, whether triggered by Macdonald or not...that 100 acres, especially configured in that odd, narrow, L-shape, would not a Championship course make, so they bought the next adjoining 20 acres...and even then needed to add 5 acres to the northern end to make a very tight, compacted, intimate 6200 yard course work.

Of course, recognizing the obvious here also negates the importance of the site visit of M&W, and really makes very, very clear that they most certainly did NOT traverse through 350 acres to find the exact perfect 120 acres for golf, as you contend in your In My Opinion piece, and which forms the centerpiece of your argument that Hugh Wilson simply "constructed" a golf course designed by Macdonald and Whigham.     ::)

C'mon David... you should recognize by this juncture that whatever they did for the club in "advising as to what could be done with the property", it certainly wasn't routing a golf course. 
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 11:34:23 PM by MPC »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0

Before WHAT deal? Do you realize Lloyd bought what was to become the 75 acre "Allgates" in 1910 that was probably part of that Philadelphia and Admore Co or HDC land? I think one thing you need to do some more research on is Lloyd and what he was doing to the west of the course as well as for MCC. Do you see that "Hawthorne" property of 22 1/2 acres which is within the letters "o,w,n" of the word "Cooperstown" on the left of that 1908 Franklin Map? That was the beginning of "Allgates" and I'm rather sure that is exactly where Francis bicycled the one mile to at midnight to talk to him about this 15th green and 16th tee land-swap deal. For some reason you don't seem to think Lloyd was involved in this surrounding land before something like the end of 1910. I think you better seriously rethink that if you ever want to really understand this entire subject. You seem to want to continue to make Lloyd's connection with MCC's entire move to Ardmore and his interest in that land around there unconnected and irrelevant to one another. I can pretty much guarantee you it wasn't!

Before Merion's agreement to purchase the golf course property, with Lloyd underwriting, and Lloyd's (and others) investment in the stock of HDC.

Tom you said you wanted to have an objective discussion of the facts, but there are very few relevant facts in your post above.   

I have done quite a lot of research on Lloyd and Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company, and I have found nothing that would remotely suggest that Lloyd was behind PandA Land Co. or behind HDC.   

Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company purchased the Johnson farm in 1907.  Do you think that Lloyd was angling to move the course in 1907?   

I know he bought Allgates, but unless he did it through Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company or HDC, I fail to see the relevance.
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

MikeC:

We're sort of coming at David with both barrels from two directions on this particular thread. If you don't mind I would love to keep this particular thread just concentrating on that triangle area involving that Francis land-swap event, when it happened and why David Moriarty felt it was necessary to suggest that Francis mention that a quarryman was up there blasting off the top in two days was hyperbole to the tune of 6-9 months!  ;)

I think this seemingly insignifcant event has maximal importance to the whole essay.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 11:45:56 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 08:47:43 AM by MPC »

Mike_Cirba

« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 08:48:02 AM by MPC »

TEPaul

"Before Merion's agreement to purchase the golf course property, with Lloyd underwriting, and Lloyd's (and others) investment in the stock of HDC.

Tom you said you wanted to have an objective discussion of the facts, but there are very few relevant facts in your post above.   

I have done quite a lot of research on Lloyd and Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company, and I have found nothing that would remotely suggest that Lloyd was behind PandA Land Co. or behind HDC.   

Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company purchased the Johnson farm in 1907.  Do you think that Lloyd was angling to move the course in 1907?   

I know he bought Allgates, but unless he did it through Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company or HDC, I fail to see the relevance."


David:

I don't really care what you researched or what you think about Lloyd and his connection to that property to the west and PARTICULARLY the land that contained that triangle. Just because you say you researched it and can't find a connection of relevance to what Lloyd was doing over there and how it effected Merion and particularly that Francis story, do you really expect any of us to just take your word for that and drop it???

Don't you realize if we can prove or show a very strong indication that essentially Lloyd controlled that property BEFORE Francis came to see him that night then basically your triangle premise of Francis engaging in hyperbole to the tune of 6-9 months as well as Lloyd having to take the time to execute deeds or mortgages or whatever basically falls apart?

You do realize that is precisely what we are trying to show here, don't you? Do you really expect me or Wayne to stop investigating for proof of that just because you say you've looked into and can't find anything or can't understand its significance.

Let's take a rest, things went pretty fast on here towards the end of the day.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike Cirba. 

I really have no idea what you are talking about in you last couple of posts.  You apparently think I think something that is untenable but for the life of me I don't know what it is. 

You suggested that I create an overlay with your specifications and color coding.   Apparently you think this will have some special significance but I have no idea what you think that is, so I simply suggested that you do it yourself.   No need to explain.  Just do it yourself.   Or if you dont want to then just look at the map of Johnson farm property which I pointed you toward earlier and it ought to resolve whatever it is you think you have figured out.

You consider me a friend, do you?   Is that why you have spent weeks maliciously gossiping about my character and integrity, and doing everything in your power to ruin my reputation and smear and ridicule my efforts?  Is that why you have repeatedly accused me of sandbagging with my research and lying about it later?    Is that why you have been too spineless to even give me a chance to address whatever it is that you think justifies your abhorrent behavior? 

I'll continue to field your questions and address your nonsensical theories out of general courtesy, and because I'd hate for anyone to wander in here and accidentally think what you are saying has any merit whatsoever.     But DO NOT insult me further by saying that you consider me a friend. 
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 02:24:47 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
I don't really care what you researched or what you think about Lloyd and his connection to that property to the west and PARTICULARLY the land that contained that triangle. Just because you say you researched it and can't find a connection of relevance to what Lloyd was doing over there and how it effected Merion and particularly that Francis story, do you really expect any of us to just take your word for that and drop it???
You don't care what I have researched?  Then why did you just write, in the post before this one:
Quote
I think one thing you need to do some more research on is Lloyd and what he was doing to the west of the course as well as for MCC.


Quote
Don't you realize if we can prove or show a very strong indication that essentially Lloyd controlled that property BEFORE Francis came to see him that night then basically your triangle premise of Francis engaging in hyperbole to the tune of 6-9 months as well as Lloyd having to take the time to execute deeds or mortgages or whatever basically falls apart?

No I do not realize this at all.  But why don't we burn that bridge when we get to it?  What evidence is there that Lloyd and HDC were one and the same before the fall of 1910?   

Quote
You do realize that is precisely what we are trying to show here, don't you? Do you really expect me or Wayne to stop investigating for proof of that just because you say you've looked into and can't find anything or can't understand its significance.

Yes, I realized a long time ago that this is the avenue you guys would eventually get around to taking, and I welcome it.  The more information that comes out the better.

I've never suggested that you should stop investigating.  I cannot do too much more without traveling to Philadelphia, so I am glad that you guys are looking into it.  Let us know what you find out.
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

" Then why did you just write, in the post before this one:"

Quote
I think one thing you need to do some more research on is Lloyd and what he was doing to the west of the course as well as for MCC.


Because I firmly believe you need to understand Lloyd a lot better than you seem to and what he really may've been doing to the west perhaps earlier than you think for both real estate interests to help the club and for golf interests to help the club. You keep telling us that Lloyd or Lloyd and HDC and MCC are not the same thing. We realize that and we never said they were but if he was acting on both sides of the fence specifically for the club it's virtually the same thing unless you don't understand what we mean by "angel" of "financial facilitator". It just seems like you don't really understand a type of guy like Lloyd back then or else you're trying to minimize it.

TEPaul

David:

I'd like to get some clarification of this part of your essay:


"What of Francis’ description of the quarrymen blasting off the top of a hill “a few days” after the land exchange, so that the 16th green could be built?  According to Francis’ description of events, the entire matter, from the time of Francis’ late night epiphany to the time the quarrymen blasted the green site, took place within a couple of days.  But two separate legal entities could never have completed a formal exchange of titles in a couple of days, especially since Merion’s land was encumbered.   Francis’ recollection of the timing of the timing may have been hyperbole, but if not, then it makes sense only if there was no formal land exchange, but rather a change to the terms made before Merion actually optioned the 117-acre parcel in November 1910.  And if the hilltop was actually blasted a few days after this alteration, then it was when the Haverford Development Company controlled the land, not Merion Cricket Club.  Given Lloyd’s close relationship with both, this seems entirely possible."


What about particularly those last three sentences? I think they may indicate a scenario we feel may have very likely happened given Lloyd's control and/or influence on "both sides of the fence", as it were. And if it was that way what do you make of that?

TEPaul

Mike Cirba. 
You consider me a friend, do you?   Is that why you have spent weeks maliciously gossiping about my character and integrity, and doing everything in your power to ruin my reputation and smear and ridicule my efforts?  Is that why you have repeatedly accused me of sandbagging with my research and lying about it later?    Is that why you have been too spineless to even give me a chance to address whatever it is that you think justifies your abhorrent behavior? 
I'll continue to field your questions and address your nonsensical theories out of general courtesy, and because I'd hate for anyone to wander in here and accidentally think what you are saying has any merit whatsoever.     But DO NOT insult me further by saying that you consider me a friend."




Wow, and that from the guy who has been caterwauling on here for years about the incivility of others and recommended that they be removed from this website for inciviliy?? This isn't much more than a good and tough investigation of the assumptions and premises and conclusion of your essay, David. What were you expecting on here---that everyone would just agree with you or throw you some softball questions?  ;)

Try not to take it personally, it's not meant to be. If we disagree with some of the things you say that's just the way it is and is supposed to be on here. If Mike Cirba questions WHY you've said various things or have not provided various things that's just his good right as a GOLFCLUBATLAS.com Discussion Group inquisitor. I don't think calling him 'spineless' is a very good idea if we want to maintain civility, do you?   ;)
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 10:26:36 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Tom,

David is referring to the fact that I was told early on through the GCA grapevine that David and Tom MacWood had a plan to embarrass some of us by coming back with new information.   I challenged David personally on that here, and he denied it.   When a week or so later David produced the 1912 article that MacWood found, I accused them of sandbagging evidence.

Based on the way this has since played out, I know longer believe they were acting inappropriately, and have no evidence that they have been.   I believe I've been played by someone with another agenda...

As such, I sent the following to Tom MacWood and David Moriarty this morning in reply to a private email from Tom Mac.     I don't like to air dirty laundry here, but did think that it was appropriate that I apologize to them publicly.


Tom,

When I see Patrick post exactly what you sent to me via email re: Macdonald's experience prior to Merion, what am I supposed to think?

If there is proof that M&W routed Merion, or Barker did, I would be more than accepting.

I've played NGLA, SLeepy Hollow, MidOcean, Yale, and many other Macdonald/Raynor courses.   I have great respect for what they accomplished and have said so.

But, they don't need people crediting them for things that they didn't do, Tom...unless you have additional information, then I don't think what's been presented makes a very credible case, and truthfully, neither do many others apparently.

I'm sorry this has gotten personal & ugly again.   I truly wish it hadn't and I apologize to both of you for my role in that.   From this point forward, I will simply add any information I come across, such as waiting for Hugh Wilson's birth certificate to see what his middle name was, etc.   

A few weeks ago when David returnedI was told thru the GCA grapevine that this was all part of a well-laid plan and vindictive attempt to make Wayne and Tom and me look bad and uninformed.   My source is credible, and he acted in a way that was meant to protect me, so I hope you understand that I cannot betray that trust.  The fact that the 1912 article that Tom MacWood found was posted a few weeks into our discussion only heightened my already overly-sensitive lack of trust.
 
Howver, after witnessing this act play out over the past several weeks, I'm now convinced that David is and has been acting in good faith, and my calling his character and integrity into question was wrong, and based on "mis"information, that was evidently being spread by someone else (not my source) with an agenda..   

I'm exhausted and frustrated by this ongoing argument and our competing interpretation of events.  I truly feel badly for my role in elevating the emotions of these threads and for insulting both David and Tom.  I'm sorry for the way I've been played, and sorry that I've insulted both of you, and I do want you both to know that.

Regards,
Mike   


TEPaul

MikeC:

Thanks for the explanation although I'm not that aware of the circumstances. No need to apologize to me, though, and don't worry, I can roll with the punches. That might be hard, I guess, if any of this stuff was all that important and sort of life and death but it sure isn't that, at least not to me. It's just sort of an ongoing burning interest or never-ending curiosty thing. I guess I just love history and all things history, including the actual raw assets of it more than I ever knew and it comes out on here.

But I don't think some of us on here should exactly act like we are friends or need to be friends, in the sense of the physical person to person type of friends most of us think of or even a phone friend when you can hear a real voice.

This Internet World that this site is certainly a part of is pretty weird, and its very very different in a friend or personality way, particularly for a guy my age who came on it later in life. In the Internet World I don't think there's anything close to what we know as a "super-ego"----like there is person to person physically or even on a phone.

I hate to say it but the Internet World and discussing on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com with some you've never met or heard is sort of nothing more than personalities via TEXT and the only kind of message Text can convey which isn't all that much, it's pretty limited, compared to person to person or even phone.

I don't feel everyone on here should be my friend or that I should act like I'm theirs---as most of the time we're only trying to deal in information and opinion sharing. That's all the Internet World needs to be to me. There have been some on here I would not ever want to be friends with and if, at this point, they called me up and asked about that I think I would just say----Let's keep it in the Internet World only.

This Internet World is here to stay, that's for sure, and I think David Moriarty is right when he says we should just try to keep it as civil as possible with the written word. I've been bad with that sometimes but I'm trying to do better that way now and if things get tense I try to use humor which most don't seem to even recognize anyway.

Either I'm not funny or the Internet World doesn't only not have the type of super-ego mechanisms I grew up with, it doesn't have a sense of humor either!

The fact that these emoticons are necessary just proves it. Frankly, it's not that much different from the way most dress today. Do you notice most everyone has to have some designer name on all their clothes or logo or whatever? What the hell is that matter with the world that way today? Don't most people even know who they are anymore? Do they feel they have to show the world who they are on their hat or shirt?

Now, back to Merion's Richard Francis and that late night "land-swap" idea he took to Lloyd's place a mile away to create the 15th green and the 16th tee and whether that took place in 1910 or a year later in 1911 and also when that quarryman blew the top off the hill, in 1910 or 1911!? It may seem insignificant but I think it's key to David's essay.

Listen, Moriarty, you cantankerous DUFFUS, I just figured out what kind of bicycle Francis was riding that night to Lloyd's house and exactly how long it took him to cover that mile. I spent the last day and a half intensely researching at what's left of the Schwinn Bicycle Co and I've been through all their digital files and I know the model and color of the bike Francis was riding that night a hundred years ago and I even know how many gears it had.

I bet you haven't figured that out yet, have you? HAVE YOU?? And if you have why didn't you SHARE IT instead of holding off with it to try to set me up and blind-side me and embarrass me on here??

I don't even think you do have that really important Schwinn bike info anyway, and you probably weren't aware of it or even thought of it----- SO that just proves you couldn't research your way out of a medium sized paper bag compared to me!!! And that goes double for that Triple DUFFUS, MacWood! Either that or it goes triple for that Double DUFFUS, MacWood.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 02:31:59 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
" Then why did you just write, in the post before this one:"

Quote
I think one thing you need to do some more research on is Lloyd and what he was doing to the west of the course as well as for MCC.

Because I firmly believe you need to understand Lloyd a lot better than you seem to and what he really may've been doing to the west perhaps earlier than you think for both real estate interests to help the club and for golf interests to help the club. You keep telling us that Lloyd or Lloyd and HDC and MCC are not the same thing. We realize that and we never said they were but if he was acting on both sides of the fence specifically for the club it's virtually the same thing unless you don't understand what we mean by "angel" of "financial facilitator". It just seems like you don't really understand a type of guy like Lloyd back then or else you're trying to minimize it.

Tom you told me I need to research Lloyd, I told you I have researched him, you told me you dont care what I have researched, and now you are telling me to research him again?   

I have an idea.  If there are actual facts that you have bring them forward, and I will do the same.   But just assuming that Lloyd must have been one and the same with HDC is just not supported by the facts. I know you now say that this is not your claim, but if not, then your position has nothing to support it. 

Look, the Board of Merion announced that they had reached a deal in November of 1910.   In January 1911 they announced that the plan described in November had been carried out.     This is the case whether or not Lloyd underwrote the financing, and whether or not he held the entire holdings of HDC as collateral on his investment, and whether or not he was HDC.    Merion's deal was in place in Nov. 1910, and the "swapped" land was part of golf course land at that time. 

David:

I'd like to get some clarification of this part of your essay:


"What of Francis’ description of the quarrymen blasting off the top of a hill “a few days” after the land exchange, so that the 16th green could be built?  According to Francis’ description of events, the entire matter, from the time of Francis’ late night epiphany to the time the quarrymen blasted the green site, took place within a couple of days.  But two separate legal entities could never have completed a formal exchange of titles in a couple of days, especially since Merion’s land was encumbered.   Francis’ recollection of the timing of the timing may have been hyperbole, but if not, then it makes sense only if there was no formal land exchange, but rather a change to the terms made before Merion actually optioned the 117-acre parcel in November 1910.  And if the hilltop was actually blasted a few days after this alteration, then it was when the Haverford Development Company controlled the land, not Merion Cricket Club.  Given Lloyd’s close relationship with both, this seems entirely possible."

What about particularly those last three sentences? I think they may indicate a scenario we feel may have very likely happened given Lloyd's control and/or influence on "both sides of the fence", as it were. And if it was that way what do you make of that?

I have said all along that I think it possible that the blasting could have occurred while HDC still controlled the property, especially if it was around the time Lloyd became involved in HDC.  It is even still a definite possibility that the blasting occurred on HDC's watch whether or not Lloyd was involved. 

Some other circumstantial evidence that the blasting might have occurred before Merion agreed to purchase the land on :
1. Merion brought in M&W, so they were obviously trying to be careful to purchase property that was actually useful for the course, so it is not much of a stretch to suggest that they may have wanted to see if the quarry would work for the green site before they made their purchase.
2.  HDC was a motivated seller, and one who needed a substantial sum of money ($150,000 + $85,000) to exercise its options and further carry out its grand development plans (which according to the press included building houses.)   They certainly had incentive to conform the land to Merion's specifications before the sale. 
3.  Francis did not write the Merion did the blasting, but referred to the "quarryman" doing the blasting.    So Merion may not have been directly involved.
4.  Lesley wrote that the land was found adapted for golf.  A blasted green site would certainly qualify as adapted for golf,  and adjusting the property lines to fit the needs of the course would qualify as well.

But as I said, these are circumstantial, and while together they could be used to make a strong case, there is no need to rely on circumstantial evidence here.   According to the map sent to the Membership by the Board, the golf course property already contained the "swap" land before Nov. 15.   

_______________________
Mike,

Thanks for the apology Mike. 
______________________________

Tom Paul,   I disagree with your views about internet communication.   Nothing personal, but they sound like an excuse to justify otherwise abhorrent behavior.  We would not be incredibly rude in letters, would we?  So why should be so be when writing posts?    Without respect and civilility, productive communication breaks down, and we end up with the kind of fiascos we have had in the past.    In other words, the interaction you are describing does not work.  It has not worked here in the past, and will not work in the future.  All it is does is stifle conversation, chase away participants, and undermine the credibility of all of us.   Unless these things are one's goals, it is a bad idea.

And Tom, I would never blind-side you.  But if I did, it would not be with a Schwinn.
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

"Tom Paul,   I disagree with your views about internet communication.   Nothing personal, but they sound like an excuse to justify otherwise abhorrent behavior.  We would not be incredibly rude in letters, would we?  So why should be so be when writing posts?    Without respect and civilility, productive communication breaks down, and we end up with the kind of fiascos we have had in the past.    In other words, the interaction you are describing does not work.  It has not worked here in the past, and will not work in the future.  All it is does is stifle conversation, chase away participants, and undermine the credibility of all of us.   Unless these things are one's goals, it is a bad idea."



You actually talk like that about my behavior on here after you just called Mike Cirba 'SPINELESS' on a post in the last 24 hours!?! Do you even know how to spell hypocrite, much less grasp the concept of what it means? We'll do our best to have a civil conversation about Merion because we really love the place and the course but with you it sure isn't easy to do.

I know this seems like a strange thing to say but it seems like most probably feel along about now that the best way to have an intelligent and productive discussion about you recent essay on Merion is to do it without you participating. It just seems you're always trying to make this about YOU! It isn't about you---it's only about what you wrote about Merion!

TEPaul

"I have an idea.  If there are actual facts that you have bring them forward, and I will do the same."


Well, what do you think we've been trying to do?? You took how long to write that piece and produce it? How about giving us the time to do the research to support the things we feel and believe about your essay without remarks like that? 

You talk about incivility constantly. You need to learn how to respond to some our questions and remarks a bit more civilly if you expect civility from us. There has never been anyone on this website that anyone is aware of where contributors and respondents have to go through these constant incivility accusations like people do on here with you. There's never been anyone on here even close like this. Peoples' patience and equanimity can wear thin pretty fast with the way you carry on, not just on this thread or these Merion threads but on every thread you have been actively involved in as long as you've participated on this website. I don't think there's a single exception and it's all recorded on the back pages.

TEPaul

"Merion's deal was in place in Nov. 1910, and the "swapped" land was part of golf course land at that time."


David Moriarty:

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to pass that remark off as a FACT???

Have you even noticed what the title of this thread IS? 

Has it even ever occurred to you that Richard Francis could've been telling the truth in his story about that land swap and the timing of it and that it happened in 1911 and probably late in the summer of 1911?? Has it ever occured to you that he may not have been engaging in HYPERBOLE??

Do us all a favor and DO NOT try to act like something you just ASSUMMED and speculated about is a FACT!

You keep talking to us about just facts and no speculation. Do we now need to define and explain to you what the word "FACT" means too?

TEPaul

"I have said all along that I think it possible that the blasting could have occurred while HDC still controlled the property, especially if it was around the time Lloyd became involved in HDC.  It is even still a definite possibility that the blasting occurred on HDC's watch whether or not Lloyd was involved. 

Some other circumstantial evidence that the blasting might have occurred before Merion agreed to purchase the land on :
1. Merion brought in M&W, so they were obviously trying to be careful to purchase property that was actually useful for the course, so it is not much of a stretch to suggest that they may have wanted to see if the quarry would work for the green site before they made their purchase.
2.  HDC was a motivated seller, and one who needed a substantial sum of money ($150,000 + $85,000) to exercise its options and further carry out its grand development plans (which according to the press included building houses.)   They certainly had incentive to conform the land to Merion's specifications before the sale. 
3.  Francis did not write the Merion did the blasting, but referred to the "quarryman" doing the blasting.    So Merion may not have been directly involved.
4.  Lesley wrote that the land was found adapted for golf.  A blasted green site would certainly qualify as adapted for golf,  and adjusting the property lines to fit the needs of the course would qualify as well.

But as I said, these are circumstantial, and while together they could be used to make a strong case, there is no need to rely on circumstantial evidence here.   According to the map sent to the Membership by the Board, the golf course property already contained the "swap" land before Nov. 15."




David:

Thank you very, very much. With that statement above you have FINALLY committed yourself to precisely what you feel and you feel your essay says or should say about that particular event known as the Richard Francis late-night landswap idea, and which is the subject of this thread.

That is precisely what I was hoping you would FINALLY do on here.

I, or we, will get back to you, hopefully with supporting facts, on why we feel that is a totally illogical and inaccurate thing to assume, to say and to build a premise on that needs to be supportable on its own and for your other premises and conclusion to be founded on.

Generally, when anyone tries to take a fairly significant event as far out of it logical timeline position as you did that one (anywhere from 6-9 months or more) something is going to give and take that assumption and premise down, and I have no doubt that this one will be no different.

Of course, anyone can rationalize his premise by suggesting that the source was engaging in hyperbole or lying, as you've suggested or implied with much of the source material of the people present at and around the time of the creation of Merion, but most of the time it eventually will be shown for what it really is---eg basically a cheap trick of rationalization.

The problem with most of the people following this thread is they just aren't that familiar with many of the details surrounding all the source-material events but we are and even if we need to do a bit more digging to find "primary asset" proof and expose your entire very seriously rationalized premises, I don't have much doubt we will be able to do that with time!

Again, thank you very much for your remarks in the post above---they help.   

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
TePaul,

2 Questions:

Isn't DM saying the triangle was in place in Nov. 1910 because it shows on the drawing issued by Merion to its members?  While I guess thats an assumption, isn't it really just trusting the primary source docs he does actually have at his disposal?

If I understand it correctly, the Francis story came from an interview for the club history published in 1950, no?  That was almost 40 years after the fact.  If David had questioned the memory of a then senior citizen as possibly faulty, rather choosing the words "Hyperbole" would there be any justification for his views that those particular Francis words were somewhat suspect?

At the very least, a decades later interview should be less valuble than a primary document.  It would even be less valuble than the dinner invite of Hugh's brothers recollections of a decade after construction, no?

Do we know how old Francis is at the time of construction and at the time of his historical interview?

Also, someone mentioned Toomey was in the employ of MCC.  How exactly did that work, if you know?  Was he an employee of Francis, or directly employed by the club.  Did Francis have his own practice?

Apologies for asking for somewhat OT info, or if I am wrong on some of the assumed facts above. Its getting too hard to keep up with this.......
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Patrick_Mucci

Jeff Brauer,

All valid questions.

Please continue.

TEPaul

"TePaul,
Isn't DM saying the triangle was in place in Nov. 1910 because it shows on the drawing issued by Merion to its members?  While I guess thats an assumption, isn't it really just trusting the primary source docs he does actually have at his disposal?"


JeffB:

That's a very good question and I'm delighted you asked it because it can show how easily people can get confused unless they are aware of a lot of surrounding circumstances. And I started this thread specifically so more people might start to ask questions just like yours.

Yes, that triangle certainly does show up on that Nov 1910 plan that was distributed to the membership of MCC by the board with the report land had been acquired to move their course from Haverford to Ardmore. None of us here have ever disputed that, we've seen that 1910 plan before.

You say that while you guess that's an assumption on DM’s part, you ask if that's just trusting the source docs at his disposal? You'd probably have to ask him what source docs he has at his disposal, as I'm quite sure I've never really known what they are.

But I believe, as I’ve implied before, that the triangle in that 1910 plan was not something that was swapped with an entity that was outside the CONTROL of MCC, in a manner of speaking. I believe more than ever now that Horatio Gates Lloyd and a number of his MCC friends were behind this entire move, financially and otherwise, and probably going back more than a year and a half but that Lloyd essentially engineered the whole thing. I’m more convinced than before that Lloyd probably formed the Haverford Development Co (HDC), and probably in 1909.

David Moriarty says in his essay that some ambitious real estate developers (Connell et al) became aware of MCC’s desire to move and came to them and eventually interested members of MCC, including Lloyd and some other MCC members, in investing in their venture that could include a golf course next to their real estate development. It seems that the original holding of real estate developer, George Connell et al, was the Johnson Farm (a 140 acre farm that mostly became Merion G.C. but a piece of which became the Haverford Development Co). I believe at that time, Connell et al’s real estate company was called The Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company (that’s what shows up on the 1908 real estate map on the Johnson Farm).

I don’t think it matters who approached who first, I think what happened is Lloyd saw multiple opportunities to help his club, effect his future residence, and help his membership too in a real estate investment next to their new golf course.

When one considers who Lloyd was and what he did (I suspect DM may not want to hear where Lloyd worked) I think they will understand how logical all this was for a man like Lloyd. I’ll get into Lloyd’s history and who he was, what he did and why he would do something like this later.

But the point is, as Wayne said a while ago, Lloyd (and his friends from MCC) were on both sides of the fence (MCC and HDC) and the fact that Francis went to HIM (very logical) for a land-swap idea, the point is Lloyd could make it happen immediately because he was both working for the interests of MCC and HDC.

The real point here is it doesn’t matter when that triangle was drawn or for what reason—eg: for the golf course or for the real estate development, Lloyd was both and it was only a matter of changing the line (in-house) on a proposed road that didn’t even exist yet.

I think the Francis land-swap idea happened in 1911 not 1910! DM thinks it happened in 1910 because it would have to if Macdonald’s routing and design would make any sense. If one puts the Francis land-swap idea into 1911 where it logically belongs for a whole lot of reasons (including other details in Francis’story) that will be explained later, DM’s entire Macdonald routing and design theory basically falls apart like a house of cards.

And there are some other timeline factors to do with Francis’s late night bike ride, land-swap story! Where did he go? He went to Lloyd’s new place one mile away from where Francis lived (next to the Haveford station). Lloyd apparently settled on his new estate, “Allgates” in 1910 that would become famous with the Garden Club of America. It was ONE MILE away from Francis’ house! That too would make 1911 a whole lot more plausible than 1910 which was the same year Lloyd bought the land to BUILD his magnificent estate, “Allgates”. Who thinks he could build a place like that in a few MONTHS??

We’ll show you an aerial photo of it soon. You can see the lower part of the “L” in the 1930 photo.

DM will probably try to say after he sees this that it doesn't matter when Francis had that idea---in 1910 or 1911. As we will see it not only matters, it's central to his ESSAY that it happened in 1910.

And next, I will get into the total illogic of DM's premise of WHY Francis (and Lloyd) would be out in the field "tweaking" Macdonald's routing BEFORE the committee they would serve on was ever formed, AND THE CHAIRMAN of THAT COMMITTEE, Hugh Wilson, WOULDN'T BE!!!! Read Dm's essay----he says it proves that Hugh Wilson couldn't have anything to do with Merion's routing or design because his COMMITTEEE HAD NOT BEEN FORMED UNTIL JAN, 1911!!!!!!

Then why in the hell would people who served under him be out there BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WAS FORMED??? Can you explain AWAY that ILLOGIC, David Moriarty?!?

It's pretty obvious, don't you think? This is the ONLY way DM can make a novice of Wilson and ALSO put Francis' story back in a time where his Macdonald routing story makes sense.

Given all this, Macdonald's routing and design makes no sense at all. And the reason Moriarty's conclusion makes makes no sense, is because it never happened!!

But I think DM has done pretty well with his essay because he sort of made a sucker out of you and Pat. Well, let me rephrase that, he made a sucker out of you, Pat's been hopeless for years!

« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 02:50:37 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
TEPaul, 

Merion's Board and site Committee both describe details of this deal, and it all contradicts your theory. 

Not only that, but there are no facts to support it. 

What good does it do any of us for you to go on and on speculating without producing any facts whatsoever?  If you've got research to do then by all means get to it.  But this endless posturing and implying and assuming and positioning and pontificating is getting us nowhere. 

For example, you are back where you were a year and a half ago. 

You have a deed in front of you that says HDC but does not mention Lloyd or Merion.   At that time, you claimed that the deed proved that Merion purchased the property in 1909.  Now you make essentially the same claim, except not even the deed help you because it does not say what you claimed it did. 

But let's assume that Lloyd was involved, and I dont think he was.   So what?   He bought Allgates.  Does that mean that Allgates was part of Merion?   Was everything he did as an agent for Merion?   
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 02:46:08 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

wsmorrison

Would the Haverford Development Company make more money on a model that was based upon a complete residential development or as a residential development with 1/3 of the land available for use to be used as a golf course at half the per acreage price?  The HDC was also involved in the construction and sale of homes on improved lots.  There was a lot more money to be made without a golf course. 

Surely the added value of homes next to open space would defray some of the cost concessions to the golf course.  However, it would not yield the same sort of return as if the entire land acquired was used for housing, right? 

The desire to maximize profit was subordinated to a concept that compromised that profit for a better use plan for the club while still realizing a profit to the investors.  Given that several of them bought land in the tract and built houses, the interests of the club and HDC were very closely aligned.  It remains to be seen how that alignment was structured and when.  These facts should be pursued.

Yet we shouldn't lose sight of something.   An accurate determination of when the internal land swap occurred and the 16th green constructed may undermine David's timeline and conclusion that the timeline doesn't support a role by Wilson until after construction and therefore design took place.   However, David's essay and conclusions are based upon circumstantial evidence and a shaky timeline.   If it should turn out that David's portrayal of hyperbole and mistaken dates by Francis is true, it is still only circumstantial evidence.  There is no report to know if Macdonald's plans were carried out.  This fact alone prevents one from making certain conclusions.  Perhaps other plans were utilized.  Who knows if the plans used were from an outside source, Pickering or the committee?  Local newspapers and those involved in the decision making and work itself all point the credit to Wilson and his committee.   

Even if Lloyd came into the Haverford Development Company at a later date, it does not prove how much involvement Wilson had at any given time nor does it alter the attribution of Macdonald.  We know when the construction committee was formed, we don't know what they were doing before the formal announcement of that committee.  We also know that Wilson's definition of construction included design theory and aesthetics.  We know a 1913 dinner praised Wilson for his laying out and construction of the course.  We know Alan Wilson stated clearly what Wilson and committee were responsible for.  We know Hugh and Alan Wilson thanked Macdonald and Whigham for some as yet unknown role.  At this point, there is no clear evidence of the extent of Macdonald and Whigham's involvement and thus there is as yet no need for a revised attribution.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom or Wayne,

Could one of you lay out the basic idea of this land swap for me...I cannot imagine what you guys are talking about.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
TePaul,

Thanks for the answer.....or part of it anyway.  I didn't need yet another recitation of the shakiness of the DM theory that you could have cut and pasted from a dozen or more of your previous posts. 

I fail to see how you couldn't consider the official Merion map of the property a source document, for David or anyone else.

However, I also would consider the date that Lloyd moved into AllGate a source doc in figuring out when the Francis land swap idea occurred.  And, that would seem to indicate that it was a post routing, during construction time frame (i.e summer 1911)  That of course would depend on the exact meaning of your phrase "settled."  When did he buy the property?  Could he have started construction before he had the land finally secured?  You wouldn't think so, but then again, he was the type of guy who could have Merion's 16th green built before the club controlled that property......

As Wayne says in the next post, debates on when the land swap took place, when Lloyd became involved with HDC, what kind of guy Lloyd was, etc. don't really prove anything about the central point of contention - how and how much was CBM involved in the design of Merion?  While all those details fill in the back story somewhat, there are still a lot of different ways to explain them that are plausible under any scenario regarding CBM.  Really, all of it seems to be talking around the main point.

I reread the Whigham article on CBM last night.  It doesn't seem to overly promote CBM. In some ways, it kind of said if he didn't move golf forward in America, someone else might have.  The mention of Merion Cricket Club by Whigham is kind of odd in that context, because there was no need to embellish CBM in death. His life was full.

I kind of wonder if, just like the process of gca was in its infancy, the process of attribution was also somewhat ill defined in those days.  Whigham mentions CBM going to PV early, but no more.  He went to Merion (or had them at NGLA) three times.  Could it be that in Whighams (and CBM) mind, that "the third time was a charm" in their minds of deciding what they designed and what they didn't, whether that was right or wrong by current standards?

With Raynor on hand for his other designs, Bahto describes how he did all the advance work, CBM corrected all the drawings, applied the famous template holes and of course, Raynor built them.  Its quite possible (George could confirm, perhaps) that CBM didn't spend more than three days on many of his designs other than the National!  Thus, over time, he believed he had designed it. Or, at least Whigham did.

In any case, CBM and Whigham apparently spent three days at Merion.  The question to me, regardless of how modern day historians might credit the design (or older day historians) is what did CBM recommend to Merion and how closely was it followed initially? 

We know it had to be initially, because of all the subsequent changes to the course up until 1925 or so.  And for those, I think all credit Wilson.  I would like to know how much (if any) the basic routing was CBM, even if a land parcel came available later that changed the routing.  It is simply an interesting back story, and could be factual if a few more documents were found. 

OT, but I recall the Merion bunker threads a few years back.  Many were questioning whether Merion should have restored to 1929-30, the Jones tourney year, instead of going back to the very beginning. Well, given the routing changed from the very beginning, I guess it was a wise choice to restore it to no earlier than its earliest perfected routing and it makes sense to restore it to whatever they did to the course to make it tournament ready.

Wayne,

While I am applying modern day logic again, which may be flawed, the presence of a golf course now can inflate lot values by 25-100%.  If about a third of the land was given over to golf, then HDC would have come out even if land values raised 50%, I think, which is within range.

I do note that the HDC subdivision around Merion has substantially larger lots than surrounding subdivisions.  In todays world, you can always make more money on smaller lots, and most developers back then in the area must have felt the same.  The larger lots, then, would imply that the whole deal was for the ultra wealthy who wanted to live near their club, although a roster of club members addresses then would be needed to confirm.  On the surface, I think the Lloyd influence was to build a subdivision for guys like him.  Maybe total profit wasn't the only goal.  Also, with larger lots, that land swap may not have been as critical to be a 1:1 deal.  I mean, if a few lots along Golf House Drive are 2.98 acres instead of 3, (or whatever they are) then they still have greater value than a lot in a non golf subdivision.

As always, I could be wrong. But, TePaul, I am not a sucker at the hands of DM. I can read, write, and think. And there are some points in DM's essay that make sense.  I could deconstruct some of your "logic" quite easily as well, because its clear that most of it is emotional investment in the Merion legend staying status quo.  At some points, you mention being interested in truth.  At others you admit that your research is really aimed at discrediting DM's theory.  I doubt good research can be had with a predetermined result in mind.

And, to restate my current opinions one more time - I seriously doubt that any research will credit all of Merion to CBM. Too much evidence to the contrary.  I do think that the routing modified by the land swap, etc. may very well have been 50-99% MacDonalds original thinking.  But, we just don't know until we see his actual proposals.  Again, I could be wrong. But, what the hell, all of us could be wrong! ;D
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 08:55:24 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back