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

[wsmorrison]

If you are going to discuss engineers involved with the process of building Merion, why do you climb out on a slender bough and bring up the possibility of Raynor coming in to help?  You ignore the civil engineer on staff at the Merion Cricket Club at the time, 30-year old Howard Toomey.  Of course Pickering had more experience building golf courses than Macdonald, Whigham, Barker and everyone else combined at the time.

[JESII]

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.

I read it, and now read it again.

I don't think you really answered my concerns in that IM to you...you addressed them, but did not answer decisively on a couple of things.

From your essay...paraphrased...

..."The Merion board decided in 1909 they needed new land and immediately appointed a committee to find it."

And you respond to my contention that the Site Committee new of and focused on this area almost immediately and began formulating golf holes and layouts almost immediately by saying you are not sure that the Site Committee was formed in 1909...not much of an answer.




TEP,

The "land-swap' seems such an easy answer because the same guy owned that small parcel that solved the whole routing issue of the last 5 holes for the two years prior to the solution. I think the land-swap may very well have come in late 1909 or early 1910.

My point about Connell is that it was emphasized that he dealt with Barker directly and alone. Even if he were part of HDC, it seems like a ploy on his part to increase the market value of the land...nothing wring with that, but I suspect there were several plans already kicking around behind closed doors because all of the land transactions had not been effected yet.

[TEPaul]

"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."  
 

You probably need to let me worry about what I say on here about Merion or what you call on their behalf. But if it concerns you, you self-possessed little jerk, be sure to call them and ask them about it. Do you think you can find their telephone number or do you want some help? And don't you ever tell me what Merion deserves better than with the way you and that ridiculous side-kick of yours, MacWood, carry on with your "Philadelphia Syndrome" mantra toward us. You've not only made a fool or yourself, you've taken the credibility of this website down with you! I hope you're proud of what you've let this guy Moriarty (and MacWood) do with the history Merion and the integrity of some of those who created it, Ran Morrissett! Moriarty, you're a great second act to that buddy of yours out there who took the credibility of this website down about five years ago because he felt like calling one of Merion's prominent members on here the Devil Incarnate. It wasn't as if Merion, its board and committees weren't reading this website. We could've had Merion speaking for themselves on here if not for that, and that's why a few of us speak for them on here now. Believe me, they do read this site, and probably unfortunately due to people like you, and if they didn't want us saying what we do on here they definitely know where we live and certainly would have asked us not to speak for them years ago. When it comes to respect and understanding for a great American course and club you completely disgust me. The way you've carried on here isn't about a better understanding of the architectural history of a great golf course, it's nothing more than Moriarty's little fifteen minutes in the sun! You have not made it about Merion, you've made it about you, and it's incredibly transparent!

[tlavin]

Calling Rodney King, calling Rodney King:  Can't we all just get along?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

There is nothing at all wrong with any questions you ask but when you incessantly argue with the answers of someone who knows the history of Merion's architecture better than anyone in the world (why don't you call Merion itself and ask them about that) and then constantly call him defensive as those two clowns Moriarty and MacWood have for some years both on here and offline, you have officially joined their ranks in this "Philadelphia Syndrome" campaign of MacWood's. Welcome aboard, Pal, and don't forget the deal is to just constantly argue with every answer you get from the ones you ask the questions of and who know that course better than you by a factor of about a hundred.

Alternatively, why don't you get into doing about 10 years of your own research on the club and course as Wayne Morrison had done? 

[TEPaul]

See post #564, and hopefully Wayne Morrison's follow-up post on the "David Moriarty's excellent......" thread and you will see that Francis' late night idea to solve the routing and design problems with the #15 green and 16th tee and his late night bicycle ride to Lloyd's house pretty much had to have taken place in the latter half of 1911, as has been suspected, and definitely not before Nov 1910 while "tweaking" some Macdonald Merion East routing!

[Mike_Cirba]

If you are going to discuss engineers involved with the process of building Merion, why do you climb out on a slender bough and bring up the possibility of Raynor coming in to help?  You ignore the civil engineer on staff at the Merion Cricket Club at the time, 30-year old Howard Toomey.  Of course Pickering had more experience building golf courses than Macdonald, Whigham, Barker and everyone else combined at the time.

Robert W. Lesley was an engineer by trade, as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

There is nothing at all wrong with any questions you ask but when you incessantly argue with the answers of someone who knows the history of Merion's architecture better than anyone in the world

If that was the case, and he/they knew the history of Merion better than anyone in the world, why did he/they perpetuate the myth that Wilson went to study the great courses of the UK for 7 months prior to designing Merion ?

(why don't you call Merion itself and ask them about that) and then constantly call him defensive as those two clowns Moriarty and MacWood have for some years both on here and offline, you have officially joined their ranks in this "Philadelphia Syndrome" campaign of MacWood's.


I think Moriarty has raised legitimate issues.
I think his premise is well structured, factual and well reasoned.

I don't see any substantive proof, anywhere, from those that know more about Merion than anyone in the world, to Moriarty, to Wayno or anyone else, that Wilson routed and designed the individual holes at Merion.

I'v put forth my guestimate on more than a few occassions.

Should anyone have proof positive regarding what happened pre-January of 1911, they should put the evidence on the table.

Welcome aboard, Pal, and don't forget the deal is to just constantly argue with every answer you get from the ones you ask the questions of and who know that course better than you by a factor of about a hundred.

That same person insisted that # 3 was NOT a redan, yet, some of the greatest architectural minds in the last 100 years declared it to be a REDAN, but, you insist that I abide by those who "know the course better than me by a factor of about 100"

You insist that I accept their word that Wilson spent 7 months visiting the great courses of the UK prior to 1911, because, "they know the course better than me by a factor of about 100"

But, do you know what ?

They're wrong.

So, if they're wrong on two substantive issues, why should I accept everything else they say as "The Gospel" ?

I ain't buyin it, and neither should you.[/color]

Alternatively, why don't you get into doing about 10 years of your own research on the club and course as Wayne Morrison had done? 

I've had other issues and pursuits to deal with.
Some I enjoyed, some I endured.

But, just because I didn't do the research doesn't mean that I can't filter, analzye and understand the issues, and draw prudent man conclusions from the facts presented.[/color]

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Do you believe that Macdonald routed and designed Merion's East course as it opened for play in September 1912?

A one word answer if you please.  Either Yes or No.

[DMoriarty]

Wayne,

Seems an odd question.   You guys are obviously angling to cut the conversation off, and I am sure you realize there is no reason for it.

The letter does not contain a routing.  But it does say that Macdonald would not know for sure if the holes fit without a contour map.

Was there any other correspondence with Macdonald in the files?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

At the present time, I don't know who routed Merion pre 1912.

I still hold to my collaborative effort theory.

The discovery of the drafting work of Francis would be invaluable.

Any chance you'll be able to look for it ?

[TEPaul]

"The discovery of the drafting work of Francis would be invaluable."

Pat:

Don't forget that Richard Francis like Lloyd, Griscom and Toulmin and including their chairman, Hugh Wilson wouldn't be appointed to their committee until Jan, 1911 (or at least that's what the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" has suggested about chairman Wilson ).

So, there really is no longer any reason to assume (even if it was illogical) that Francis and Lloyd were out there before Nov 15, 1910 "tweaking"  Macdonald's routing and design because from the contents of Macdonald's letter it's pretty apparent there simply wasn't one in 1910.

[DMoriarty]

"The discovery of the drafting work of Francis would be invaluable."

Pat:

Don't forget that Richard Francis like Lloyd, Griscom and Toulmin and including their chairman, Hugh Wilson wouldn't be appointed to their committee until Jan, 1911 (or at least that's what the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" has suggested about chairman Wilson ).

So, there really is no longer any reason to assume (even if it was illogical) that Francis and Lloyd were out there before Nov 15, 1910 "tweaking"  Macdonald's routing and design because from the contents of Macdonald's letter it's pretty apparent there simply wasn't one in 1910.

This doesn't follow.  The land involved in the "swap" was part of the golf course land on November 15, 1910.   The CBM letter doesn't change that.   

[TEPaul]

"This doesn't follow.  The land involved in the "swap" was part of the golf course land on November 15, 1910."

David:

That's true, the triangle was there in November 15, 1910 in that site plan sent to the membership. The only problem is it wasn't the triangle itself that was swapped following that late-night idea from Francis, and his idea logically did not occur in 1910 but in 1911 and logically late in the summer of 1911 after the first 13 holes of the course had been built. 

Of course, it is also plausible, I suppose, from reading Francis' own words that the swap could've occured in the winter of 1911 which may have been a time that it is plausible to conclude Francis and the committee were developing and drawing the routing and holes. He mentioned in his story he was spending many hours over a drawing board and running instruments in the field and just plain talking (logically talking with the other four members of the committee including Wilson).

That certainly could've meant either the design of the first 13 holes to their statisfaction on paper or it could have meant the first 13 holes were built to their satisfaction that would have logically put the event towards the late summer of 1911.

[DMoriarty]

"This doesn't follow.  The land involved in the "swap" was part of the golf course land on November 15, 1910."

David:

That's true, the triangle was there in November 15, 1910 in that site plan sent to the membership. The only problem is it wasn't the triangle itself that was swapped following that late-night idea from Francis, and his idea logically did not occur in 1910 but in 1911 and logically late in the summer of 1911 after the first 13 holes of the course had been built. 

This makes no sense.  The triangle was part of the golf course land on November 15, 1910.  There is nothing "logical" about the rest of what you are saying.   Nothing at all.

Of course, it is also plausible, I suppose, from reading Francis' own words that the swap could've occured in the winter of 1911 which may have been a time that it is plausible to conclude Francis and the committee were developing and drawing the routing and holes. He mentioned in his story he was spending many hours over a drawing board and running instruments in the field and just plain talking (logically talking with the other four members of the committee including Wilson).

That certainly could've meant either the design of the first 13 holes to their statisfaction on paper or it could have meant the first 13 holes were built to their satisfaction that would have logically put the event towards the late summer of 1911.

Except that, according the the Board and the map they sent out, it happened before November 15, 1910. 

Now if there is other information, then let's hear it.   Otherwise their is no logic to what you are saying.

[TEPaul]

"This makes no sense.  The triangle was part of the golf course land on November 15, 1910."


David:

Yes it was, anyone can see it right there on that November 15, 1910 plan. The point is that plan was a proposed land plan including proposed land for a golf course juxtaposed to a proposed residential development. It was not the entire triangle that was the swapped land in that Francis idea. It was the reconfiguration of Club House Road from the way it was built compared to the way it appears in that Nov 1910 plan. The way the road was actually built was how Francis' land-swap idea occured. I guess you never bothered to read some of my posts on that or you just dismissed them before considering what they really meant. You've been pretty good at that in these discussions going so far as to admit yourself you don't even read some of them. That's too bad because you would've picked up something important in all this.

[DMoriarty]

"This makes no sense.  The triangle was part of the golf course land on November 15, 1910."


David:

Yes it was, anyone can see it right there on that November 15, 1910 plan. The point is that plan was a proposed land plan including proposed land for a golf course juxtaposed to a proposed residential development. It was not the entire triangle that was the swapped land in that Francis idea. It was the reconfiguration of Club House Road from the way it was built compared to the way it appears in that Nov 1910 plan. The way the road was actually built was how Francis' land-swap idea occured. I guess you never bothered to read some of my posts on that or you just dismissed them before considering what they really meant. You've been pretty good at that in these discussions going so far as to admit yourself you don't even read some of them. That's too bad because you would've picked up something important in all this.

I read them.  They didn't make sense either. 

The road may have changed a bit, but the triangle stayed.   This would not have been the case in a swap.   In a swap the changes offset each other.     As I said, it does not make sense.   

[TEPaul]

"The road may have changed a bit, but the triangle stayed.   This would not have been the case in a swap.   In a swap the changes offset each other.     As I said, it does not make sense."


David:

Of course the triangle stayed, that's basically the point. The triangle was just added to in width to fit the 15th green and 16th tee up into. It was added to north of the where the green is now compared to that 1910 plan. It was swung west more between what is now the Hall's house and the 15th green and that western alteration was carried down slightly to around the 14th green where the road was turned in a wide arc to the east where land was swapped back to the residential development. That was the Francis land-swap idea. It wasn't the creation of that entire triangle as you assumed. 

[DMoriarty]

"The road may have changed a bit, but the triangle stayed.   This would not have been the case in a swap.   In a swap the changes offset each other.     As I said, it does not make sense."


David:

Of course the triangle stayed, that's basically the point. The triangle was just added to in width to fit the 15th green and 16th tee up into. It was added to north of the where the green is now compared to that 1910 plan. It was swung west more between what is now the Hall's house and the 15th green and that western alteration was carried down slightly to around the 14th green where the road was turned in a wide arc to the east where land was swapped back to the residential development. That was the Francis land-swap idea. It wasn't the creation of that entire triangle as you assumed. 

No.  Not according to Francis.  This was your theory when you claimed the width was really 250 yards, after it had just been expanded by 130 yards.  No.  130 yards were added and the total is 130 yards, so you don't have to be a mathematician to figure that there was no triangle there before.


By the way you were wrong about this werent you?  Did it kill your entire version of the Origins of the course?   I didnt think so.

[TEPaul]

"No.  Not according to Francis.  This was your theory when you claimed the width was really 250 yards, after it had just been expanded by 130 yards.  No.  130 yards were added and the total is 130 yards, so you don't have to be a mathematician to figure that there was no triangle there before.
By the way you were wrong about this werent you?  Did it kill your entire version of the Origins of the course?   I didnt think so."


David:

No, you don't understand at all what I've said about that for a week or more. At one point, when I thought 130 yards of width may've been added to that triangle I did say the width from Club House Road to the east side of #16 was 250 yards, but I was wrong about that and said so the next day.

When it finally hit me how the actual road when it was eventually built differs from the way it was drawn on that plan, I realized that the triangle which existed on that 1910 plan was just added to and that created a width of app 130 yards. The width in that triangle on that 1910 plan was not wide enough compared to the way it is now, particularly north of it where Club House Road swings much harder right or west between the green and the Hall's house compared to how it did on that 1910 plan. When the road as built gets down to app 190 yards from the green it might be only 20 yards or so farther to the west than drawn on that plan. The existing triangle didn't need ANOTHER 130 yards of width. All it needed was just enough more width to fit that green and the 16th tee up into, particularly above the green.

When you said that Francis's idea was to create the entire triangle I started wondering where they gave the land gained for the course back to the residential development. You said it was the swapping of land with the College or whatever which wasn't it at all.

Then I realized they gained it and got it back by reconfiguring the road almost along its entire length by configuring it more west on most of the north half and more east on most of the southern half. Neither you nor anyone else at that point even considered the reconfiguring of the road as it was eventually built compared to how it was drawn on that 1910 plan. When I compared the road on the 1910 plan to an aerial of the course as built it was pretty obvious immediately, and it's also obvious when you drive that road between the 15th green and the Hall's house compared to the way it was drawn on the 1910 plan. 

[JESII]

Tom,

I simply cannot figure out why you keep driving this as the land swap...it makes no sense for Francis to claim the result of the land swap was for the golf course to gain a 130-by-190 yard parcel when in fact you're suggesting the result was adding only 20 yards to some portion of the width of the Merion property.

It further fails the test when a measurement of the area by satelite gps today shows the area at exactly 130-by190 yards.

The land swap was for the whole area from the south border of Haverford College.

What you have failed to pick up on is my inclination that the land swap idea did happen well before Nov. 15 1910...when these guys were just noodling over ideas about how and why and where the holes should go.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The discovery of the drafting work of Francis would be invaluable."

Pat:

Don't forget that Richard Francis like Lloyd, Griscom and Toulmin and including their chairman, Hugh Wilson wouldn't be appointed to their committee until Jan, 1911 (or at least that's what the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" has suggested about chairman Wilson ).

So, there really is no longer any reason to assume (even if it was illogical) that Francis and Lloyd were out there before Nov 15, 1910 "tweaking"  Macdonald's routing and design because from the contents of Macdonald's letter it's pretty apparent there simply wasn't one in 1910.

TEPaul,

We know there was a "Site Committee" and we know that their was a "Construction Committtee.

Is it far fetched to think that there might have been a "Design Committee" or "Project Committee" ?

It would seem to be a logical progression.

Site selection, course design, course construction.

[JESII]

Please tell me you forgot to include one of those smiley faces with that post...

[TEPaul]

"The land swap was for the whole area from the south border of Haverford College."

JES:

Where did you get that idea?

"What you have failed to pick up on is my inclination that the land swap idea did happen well before Nov. 15 1910...when these guys were just noodling over ideas about how and why and where the holes should go."

What makes you think Francis was out there before Nov, 15, 1910?

[JESII]

Did Pat hack into your computer and forget to use bold green type?