[TEPaul]

"I am afraid I don't understand, Tom.  Your post, while colorful, is entirely devoid of substance, so I have no idea why you are so upset.  

My previous post provided my understanding of what "laying out"a golf course meant back then.  I offered it because you and Shivas were discussing how the phrase was used.  Since I have researched how it was used, I thought my perspective might help.   The meaning is evasive and I could be wrong, so if you have also researched the issue and have a different understanding, then I'd love to hear your thoughts.  Provided they are factually based."



David:

Please believe me, I'm not upset in the slightest by your post #604. I'm more like totally blown away by it.  I've got to read it a bunch more times because it is just soooooo something---hard to explain really----maybe ultra colorful imagination-wise or whacked out or just plain insane. It is so confoluted it tried to grab my nose and I almost lost my nose reading it on the computer.

Again, I've got to read it a bunch more times because somehow I just know I'm going to enjoy it anyway, at the very least for the extreme labyrinth like resaoning you slide or fall into.

And the part that makes the analogy for what-all laying out could mean in architecture to how you or your wife lay out clothes or whatever for a vacation, that one just really got me going---I think I was on the other side of the room on the floor in a writhing fit of laughter.

I like eccentrics David; Didn't you at least know that by now? Hell, I'm one myself, and I just might find out yet that's what you really are. Who knows maybe we will end up best friends somehow even though I wouldn't recommend you go out and bet too much money on that yet and I won't either but one never knows how things turn out in life.

PS:
I would have to think if you tried to conduct an argument like that one in a court of law----you are a lawyer, aren't you?----the judge just might subject you to an immediate breathalizer or drug test right there in the courtroom on the spot or tell you to get the hell outta his courtroom while he took the time to unscramble his mind trying to figure out what you're talking about.

Anyway, Ciao Picito!  

[DMoriarty]

"I am afraid I don't understand, Tom.  Your post, while colorful, is entirely devoid of substance, so I have no idea why you are so upset.  

My previous post provided my understanding of what "laying out"a golf course meant back then.  I offered it because you and Shivas were discussing how the phrase was used.  Since I have researched how it was used, I thought my perspective might help.   The meaning is evasive and I could be wrong, so if you have also researched the issue and have a different understanding, then I'd love to hear your thoughts.  Provided they are factually based."



David:

Please believe me, I'm not upset in the slightest by your post #604. I'm more like totally blown away by it.  I've got to read it a bunch more times because it is just soooooo something---hard to explain really----maybe ultra colorful imagination-wise or whacked out or just plain insane. It is so confoluted it tried to grab my nose and I almost lost my nose reading it on the computer.

Again, I've got to read it a bunch more times because somehow I just know I'm going to enjoy it anyway, at the very least for the extreme labyrinth like resaoning you slide or fall into.

And the part that makes the analogy for what-all laying out could mean in architecture to how you or your wife lay out clothes or whatever for a vacation, that one just really got me going---I think I was on the other side of the room on the floor in a writhing fit of laughter.

I like eccentrics David; Didn't you at least know that by now? Hell, I'm one myself, and I just might find out yet that's what you really are. Who knows maybe we will end up best friends somehow even though I wouldn't recommend you go out and bet too much money on that yet and I won't either but one never knows how things turn out in life.

PS:
I would have to think if you tried to conduct an argument like that one in a court of law----you are a lawyer, aren't you?----the judge just might subject you to an immediate breathalizer or drug test right there in the courtroom on the spot or tell you to get the hell outta his courtroom while he took the time to unscramble his mind trying to figure out what you're talking about.

Anyway, Ciao Picito!  

So at least I now know that you don't agree with me about how they used the term laid out.     But aside from that, this second post contains no substance either.    As I said, I'd be glad to consider any other understanding so long as fact based.  I'd even consider other examples like Dan's 'laying out in the sun' example, where again, one must actually be doing the do--  laying out in the sun-- for the usage to make sense.   Planning to lay out in the sun is not the same as doing it. 

As for the rest . . .

I've don't think myself an eccentric as you do yourself,  but really I leave such things to the consideration of others. 

I havent been an actively practicing lawyer for many years.  I've mentioned that many times on here but then decided to give up with it and let you guys have your fun.

But as for what sells and doesn's sell in court, you'd likely be surprised.  Some judges are smarter than what you are giving them credit for.   

[TEPaul]

David:

I apologize, I thought I checked spelling and such but I said----many different golf course----eg doesn't make a lot of sense does it? I meant to say many different courses on the new ground (not golf courses just courses). That's more better.

When they returned from NGLA they said they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans.

Do you think there is any possiblity they also meant they rearranged Hugh Wilson's head when they returned from NGLA because they noticed it was screwed on backwards for some reason? Spending a couple of days with Charlie in Southampton was known to do that to some people you know? Charlie was known for some pretty high times out there and his "hen house" with the revolving show girls was right on his property. God only knows what it may've done to those novice committee guys and particularly Hugh who never had all that much physical stamina anyway. We may never really know the extent of the education they got out there that time during those two days.

[DMoriarty]

David:

I apologize, I thought I checked spelling and such but I said----many different golf course----eg doesn't make a lot of sense does it? I meant to say many different courses on the new ground (not golf courses just courses). That's more better.

"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......"

Thanks.

When they returned from NGLA they said they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans.

Sorry, but I don't understand.  Is this an answer to one of my questions, or is it a new snippet?   

Did they rearrange the course or courses? 

And what of the "numerous plans?"

What about the part about them discarding their previous plans?

This seems to be getting more confusing.  What am I missing here?

[TEPaul]

"So at least I now know that you don't agree with me about how they used the term laid out."



David:

It's hard for me to answer that because I'm never too sure what you mean at any particular time by "laying out."

But I can certainly tell you this with complete assurance----if you mean by "laying out" what you said in your essay you think it means and means in this case of Merion East----eg actually ONLY BUILDING or CONSTRUCTING architecture on the ground to a plan (you suggested in Merion East's case to Macdonald's or even Barker's plan, then no, I don't agree with you.

You'll remember you even cited the Oxford English dictionary definition of "laying out" as some reason for your belief that "laying out" means ONLY building to a plan (which plan (routing and/or design) you assumed in your essay was not from the Wilson committee).

These fellows used the term "Laying out" in their report in the winter of 1911 many months BEFORE any building or constructing of architecture was done and BEFORE the club had even approved a plan to BUILD or CONSTRUCT on the ground so how in the world could they be using your definition for "laying out" at that point? The building and construction would not come for a number of months.

I certainly hope you don't think that putting stakes in the ground constitutes the same thing as building golf course architecture on and with the earth because I surely don't. But if you do happen to think that or mean that then I really can't see how you can also think Macdonald had anything to do with it since that was before they went to NGLA (if staking the ground was what they were doing at that point) and they hadn't even seen Macdonald in about 7-9 months and they certainly hadn't yet got any education from him yet they said they got while at NGLA for two days.

  

[TEPaul]

"This seems to be getting more confusing.  What am I missing here?"


You sure got me and I've definitely never understood where in the world you think you are going with all this.

How about this:

1. BEFORE NGLA.

 They said---after laying out many different courses on the new ground..they went to NGLA

2. AFTER NGLA

They said they---rearranged the course and laid out five different plans


You think you've got it now?   


And I never said they discarded plans at any time. You've been saying you think I said that but I never did. You're going to need to read what I say very carefully, I guess, which you've said on here a number of times you don't do, and not just assume I said something or meant something I never wrote, never said and never meant.

 
 
 
 

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Now that it seems we have gotten somewhere today with what the Wilson Committee was really referring to when they used the term "laying out" in their report to the board to describe what they had been doing on site throughout the winter months of 1911 and a number of months BEFORE actual building or construction of the course begun, it's probably the time now to go back and completely reanalyze a far more important premise or two or three in your essay than what the term "laying out" meant (another premise in your essay) to those men who used it at Merion.

A new thread should probably be started because this one doesn't pertain to it at all and it will take us through the important events at Ardmore and THEIR REAL timeline with which I strongly believe we can show the differences from your timeline of the same events in your essay, and what that all means ultimately.

This seems to be what Pat and a few others on here recently suggested and I think it's a good idea. Let me know when you're ready and we might be able to wind this this long-running Merion/Macdonald subject up soon.

[Bradley Anderson]

I am not sure I totally get this conversation about "laying out" or why this is the phrase we are currently parsing, but my brain is a bit fuzzy right now, probably because  I am in shock with TEPaul's revelation from the MCC Minutes.  I won't get into it at this point except to say that I can certainly see why they refused to give us the text for so long.

But to the latest discussion of "to lay out."

First, let me say again that I want to clarify that portion of my essay, and will if I ever get the chance to update it with accurate and confirmable information.    Generally I think my understanding was correct, but it is certainly is susceptible to misunderstanding and that is my error.  The meaning of "lay out" and "to lay out" were not definite terms and were used quite differently by different people in different circumstances, and one must look at the circumstances to figure it out.  Also, some what we know about the circumstances surrounding Merion's creation has slightly changed and that may (or may not) alter what I think it means in the context of Merion.  That being said . . .

"Laying out" was used very similarly to "staking out" a course, or otherwise marking it out on the ground.   My understanding is that "to lay out" usually (but not always) described some interaction with the actual land, as opposed to solely on paper.   

- Sometimes a designer would plan a course by "laying it out, "staking it out," or otherwise marking out a course on the land.   In other words the designer would go on site,  look around and decide where the green, tee, feature locations, etc. were to be located, and actually mark them out on the ground then and there.    Later (or at the same time, I suppose) the designer might transcribe the create a written plan.     

- But "laying out" and even "staking out" did not necessarilyinvolve planning where the holes and features would go.  "Laying out," "staking out," or otherwise marking out a course on the ground could be done pursuant to a seperate plan.   For example, Barker drew up a rough plan for a proposed lay out.  Had Merion taken his plan and then laid out the course on the ground without his further involvement, then Merion at the time it would have made sense to write that Merion"laid out the course" on the ground, even if it was done pursuant to Barker's plan. 

- Now we oftentimes refer to the written plan as the "lay out" especially if it is the final plan.  While I don't think this was the norm then, there are probably instances (can't think of any offhand) when the written plan would be referred to as the "lay out."  But I submit that it would have been more accurate to call it a "plan," a "lay out plan" a "planned lay out," "a plan of the layout," maybe a "proposed lay out,"  or something else along these lines,  because the plan was on paper not on the ground.   For example, the written Barker plan was a "planned lay out"  or "lay out plan" (I don't remember the terminology he used) but drawing it out on paper was not the same as laying out the course.   

Think of how one might pack for a vacation (which I could use.) 
 - One might go to the closest and dresser and physically "lay out" cloths on the bed in in the bag order to see what is needed and to consider if it is too much or too little for the bag and trip.    This is analagous to planning while "staking out" or "laying out" a course. 
 - Someone (like my wife) knows what she has, and will first make a detailed list of items to be packed.   One may then  then "lay out" the cloths from the list, maybe making a few adjustments in the process.    This would be the equivalent of first planning a course paper and then "laying it out" "staking it out" or otherwise marking it out on the ground.

Hopefully this helps clear this up.   

David,

It is my impression that Bendelow was the only architect whose method of planning, staking, or laying out a layout leaves much, and not much at that, to modern interpretation. This was because Bendelow prefered to work alone on his projects. He did a lot of adapting and he had many ways of getting the deal done.

[Bradley Anderson]

David,

These are just a few samples of how the words "layout" and one of how "laid out" where used. There is remarkable clarity here.


JOSHUA CRANE 1926
In analyzing the layout of a hole, the obvious elements are, in their natural order, though not in the order of importance: teeing grounds, rough, fairway, traps and greens. Of these, the fairway and the green are certainly the most important, the traps, rough and teeing grounds following in value; so each of these obvious elements is assigned a certain value. These elements apply to both the main divisions; that is, layout and upkeep. There are also elements which are not as physically obvious, and not in most cases as important, yet have a vital bearing on the result. These are (under layout), visibility, parallel holes and distance from each green to following teeing ground and (under condition), parallel holes, caddies and surroundings. Other elements, which, though they might be placed under the two main divisions, are more wisely grouped together, as will be shown, and applied to the course as a whole, in the final summary are length of course, exposure to winds, order of holes (and this includes the classes of holes, such as one-shot, two-shot and three-shot holes), and difficult walking. It is plain that in a perfect golf course, that is a course for the best test of skill as well as pleasure, these have a certain value which must be considered.

PIPER 1926
The best possible layout of a golf course is highly important. An individual hole can be modified at relatively small expense, but to change the layout is a formidable task, and one that is rarely undertaken. The highest service that a golf architect can render to a club is a really good layout, a task that requires considerable time and study. One of the best amateur architects in America has spent a whole year in determining the best possible layout for a course on a complex rolling terrain.

RAY PEBBLES  1924
The new section of the course, laid out by Charley Hymers, pro at the Kahkwa Club, and Jimmy Gay, greenskeeper at the same club, is an ideal layout and the Erie Club is expected to develop into one of the best public courses in this section of the country.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

You asked where I am going with this?  I am just trying to understand what the documents actually say.

I thought that either you or Mike said or implied that they discarded the pre-NGLA plans, but it is possible that I assumed it from something else.  But I don't think it matters and will take your word for it that this is not in there. 

As for your second post, I think you might be getting ahead of yourself.   Before I reconsider my essay or start a new thread, I first need to understand these documents, which is why I have been asking questions.  As you know, I haven't been afforded the opportunity to see the actual docs, and this puts me in a very difficult spot, but I am nonetheless trying figure out enough to come to some sort of tentative understanding, but it has to be my understanding, and based on what the docs actually say.

The portion you provided this morning definitely addresses some of my questions, but not all. And frankly they creates some questions as well.  Honestly, I don't understand at this point why, with as much as is out there, can I not read what these documents say, especially about NGLA. To come to my own understanding I need the same level of specificity and detail as the document itself, and short of providing direct quotes, your descriptions do not necessarily provide all the information in which I am interested.

- For example, according to you, the minutes say that on the second day they studied NGLA.  But of the second day do the minutes ONLY say:  "The next day we spent on the ground studying NGLA" and nothing more about the second day?  Nothing else? Not what holes? Not why?  Not what they were learning? Not what they thought?

- You wrote that after returning from NGLA they “rearranged the course and laid out five different plans.”  In the past you have quoted the MCC minutes as saying this, so I take this as a direct quote. Is it?  Anything about why the did this?  Or their conclusions about the NGLA visit?

- You have not answered my question about your past indications that the MCC docs said that there were "numerous plans" before NGLA.  I take it that you were referring to the part about them laying out a number of courses?   Is this a correct reading?  Are there any such references, or not?

- You have indicated that the documents say happened the first day and the second day.  Other than what you have said, do the documents say anything else about the NGLA meetings? For example (and without limitation) do the documents say anything why they went?  What they learned? Why the rearranged the course when they got back?

- Do the documents make any mention of M&W other than what we have discussed?  And not just for regarding the NGLA meeting, but any mention?

On a related topic, I think you must have missed my question regarding the Francis land swap.  I understand one might come to the conclusion that the swap must have occurred shortly before April 6, 1912, but is there anything about the land swap in the records?   

Thanks. 

[DMoriarty]

David,

These are just a few samples of how the words "layout" and one of how "laid out" where used. There is remarkable clarity here.

Bradley

Thanks for the quotes.   I agree that all three are clear.   All three refer to what was on the ground, as opposed to merely a plan or idea. 

I should note though that all three come about a decade or more past the time on which I am focusing, and things were changing pretty fast back then.

Is there something about my understanding of the term that does not ring true to you?   If so, I didn't make it out from your posts.


Likewise, I am not sure I understand what you are saying about Bendelow.

[TEPaul]

Off and saved

[TEPaul]

Off and saved

[DMoriarty]

I've read your last few posts and understand some of the concerns mentioned, which is part of why I was trying to cooperate behind the scenes with Wayne regarding anything that he or Merion might have been sensitive.  I don't think any of the public circus aspect of this was necessary, but once the back channel communication was cut off and the only explanation provided in a public post, this became the only forum. I don't think it productive to go into this now, especially in a public forum.

Have you had a chance to look at my questions listed above?

[TEPaul]

"Have you had a chance to look at my questions listed above."


David:

Yes, I have had a change to look at your questions listed above. But I feel that some things (see below) need to come before other things (see above).


"I don't think it productive to go into this now, especially in a public forum."




So, just let me know (and on here) what you'd like to do about it and then we can decide how to proceed on any front to do with Merion.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

I am not at all sure what you mean or what are asking me your last post.   Could you clarify?  Feel free to IM me if you'd like.   

Thanks

DM

[TEPaul]

“TEPaul,
I am not at all sure what you mean or what are asking me your last post.   Could you clarify?  Feel free to IM me if you'd like.”


David:

Yes of course: I was referring in that last post you mentioned above to two posts this morning that began with the following from you which I was responding to in those two posts this morning:   



“Honestly, I don't understand at this point why, with as much as is out there, can I not read what these documents say, especially about NGLA. To come to my own understanding I need the same level of specificity and detail as the document itself, and short of providing direct quotes, your descriptions do not necessarily provide all the information in which I am interested.”




Those two posts this morning explain what I meant. I’ve since removed them as I said I would when you confirmed you’d read them. If you didn’t understand them and didn’t copy them I’d be glad to send them to you. They contained what I think needs to be dealt with on here by both you and me and perhaps even others too if I’m going to continue to discuss Merion with you or anyone else on here or provide you with any of the answers to your questions to me either now or in the future.

[Joe Bausch]

Here is a neat article that I've had for awhile (perhaps I had posted it somewhere else, but I can't remember!) and it took some cleaning up to make mostly readable.  It talks about changes that have been made for the upcoming 1924 US Am at Merion, and the role Hugh Wilson played (this from the Feb 24, 1924 edition of the Philadelphia Public Ledger).

[DMoriarty]

Those two posts this morning explain what I meant. I’ve since removed them as I said I would when you confirmed you’d read them. If you didn’t understand them and didn’t copy them I’d be glad to send them to you. They contained what I think needs to be dealt with on here by both you and me and perhaps even others too if I’m going to continue to discuss Merion with you or anyone else on here or provide you with any of the answers to your questions to me either now or in the future.

Not exactly sure what you are driving at Tom.  As I said above, I understand some of your concerns. 

I have no quarrel with either Merion or MCC and never have.  My understanding is that he documents in question belong to one or both of the clubs, and they can do with them as they see fit.  Likewise, the clubs are free to limit and restrict access and use of the documents as they see fit, and anyone granted access should comply with the letter and spirit of those limitations, or decline to access the documents at all.   I also understand that the practical limitations and challenges that accessing these documents creates, and the additional burdens and demands that might place on the clubs.  Again, as with the issue of access itself, the clubs themselves decide how to manage these issues as they relate to research and access.   

As you may or may not recall, my essay relied entirely on public domain material, so I had no obligation or limitation on its use.  Nonetheless, my aim was to treat the subject matter and source material respectfully, and I believe I did.   For example, I was respectful of the clubs' potential  sensitivities  about certain documents, contacted Wayne about the issue, and at his request I agreed not to post or publish them but to produce their contents in a manner acceptable to Merion.   So far as I know I have consistently abided by any such representations I have made to Merion through Wayne or directly.   Similarly, I have said repeatedly that if private clubs wish to limit or restrict access to or use of their document, then that is their choice, and I would abide by spirit and letter of any such limitations or restrictions, or I would decline their offer of access. 

My frustration is simply that I have been shielded from reviewing the very documents being used to undermine my analysis, and this is unacceptable under any reasonable standard of discourse.  In productive discourse, opinions must stand or fall based on their merits.  So while clubs are free to allow their documents to be selectively used for rhetorical purposes if they so choose, I have no idea why they would, given that unvetted source material is of little or no probative value.  Real discourse and understanding is not possible unless some reasonable vetting is allowed to take place. 

Wayne and I generally agree on this, or at least we have in the past, such as when he wrote:

I would do your report a lot more justice in a peer review process if I had access to your primary materials in their complete form.  I'm not out to embarrass you or to be confrontational.  I want to get at the truth as well.  I don't have an emotional investment in Hugh Wilson's role at Merion.

As I said, I don't think getting into this in too much detail would be productive at this time.  I just want to be up front with my views on this issue.

[Mike_Cirba]

Anyhows....

In trying to get this thread back to something historically valuable, I hope to pick up on Joe Bausch's lead and post two (fragmented) articles that describe changes to the course for the 1916 and 1924 (a more readable copy than the one Joe just posted) US Amateur championships.   I do know we have another 1916 one laying around somewhere that I've posted before, but I can't find it at the moment.   Joe..perhaps you are familiar with the one I mean and have it readily handy?

In any case, sorry for the overlap in the photos/scans, but they do provide some rich information and are certainly both worth a read;

p.s....

If anyone finds the picture of the original 13th green at Merion looking anything like a green at Cobb's Creek, please see me to collect your UCBP.   (Useless Cirba Bonus points )

[Mike_Cirba]

Here's a bit of a juicy article found by Joe Bausch from March 1910.

The article describes re-bunkering work being done by H.H. Barker at Atlantic City CC, which was the winter playground for Philadelphia golfers.   Three months later we know one Mr. Connell who owned the land brought Barker into the mix, although there is no further word of any involvement on Barker's part with Merion.

At least we now can speculate better on where probably Connell found him, or was turned onto him.

More interesting to me, however, is the fact that the 11th hole at Atlantic City at that time was called "Alps".       It was a par three, but it's simply another example of these early guys doing holes that were based on something they had seen overseas or heard described by their friends, or by a homesick Scottish pro, perhaps.   

It also seems pretty clear to me that what was important to these guys was not trying to copy the hole overseas...hell, the old 10th at Merion has as much in common with 17 at Prestwick as to be only a distant relative.   No, what was important was "the principle", as Robert Lesley described, which to him meant a crossing bunker in front of the green that required a full carry, probably partially hidden.   In fact, as I now think about it, today's 10th hole at Cobb's Creek was probably intended to be an Alps!

The earliest one I heard was built by Ardsley in 1897 on a Willie Dunn course.

[Mike_Cirba]

The original 16th green at Cobb's Creek (today's 10th), which was a real "one-off", even in its day;




Versus the original 10th at Merion;

[DMoriarty]

Mike I think I pointed out the similarity between the two when I first came back to the site, but I recall that there was quite a bit of mounding in the fairway.  I don't see it in your photo.   Did you crop in or is it a different photograph?    I don't know the numbers, isn't this the short par 4 sort of in a corner that played straight uphill on the clubhouse side of road?

Haven't you and others been arguing that Merion's attempt at an Alps was an obvious mistake and was soon rectified?   So why the second attempt?   How long was this hole like this? 

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike I think I pointed out the similarity between the two when I first came back to the site, but I recall that there was quite a bit of mounding in the fairway.  I don't see it in your photo.   Did you crop in or is it a different photograph?    I don't know the numbers, isn't this the short par 4 sort of in a corner that played straight uphill on the clubhouse side of road?

Haven't you and others been arguing that Merion's attempt at an Alps was an obvious mistake and was soon rectified?   So why the second attempt?   How long was this hole like this? 

David,

Yes, that's a cropped, blown-up photo trying to get a better view of the particulars of the green surrounds.

The "mounds" you mentioned that populate the first portion of that hole are actually mostly pimply rock outcroppings.    There is very little in the way of formal mounding up to the green, which is then quite contrived.

The hole is actually in a corner as you described but on the side of the course across the street from the clubhouse, running from a tee perched above Rte 1 (City Ave) along the northeast part of the property.

I have aerials until 1955 that show the green very much like this.   Even Arnold Palmer and Billy Casper played to this odd green configuration.

Today's greensite still has the front and back bunkering, but the green has shrunk, their is no large back mound, the mounding on the right is gone, and the mounds on the left look to be a shadow of it's former self.

I don't think you've quite represented my position about the original 10th at Merion accurately.   I don't think they changed it because it's sort of ugly and contrived, although it kind of was, even if charming in an old-school architecture way.

What I said is that much like Cobb's Creek, this type of green was very, very different from anything else created there either before or after, where almost all of the greensites on both courses are very lay of the land, low-profile minimalist.

Perhaps they were created simply for that very purpose?   To create variety, or something a bit daringly different...who knows?

In either case, I do find both holes fascinating. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()