[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

If Jeff doesn't try it...the poor guy has been through torture yesterday, believe me  , then I'm thinking of giving it a shot.

It has to be a fun exercise.   Why don't you try it, as well?

Here's your aerial...for anyone else who wants to play at home it's the area in brown, less the area marked "RE".

Sure, I'll give it a try, but it'll be a couple of days. I thought Jeff might enjoy a break from the water boarding doing what he does best - design golf courses.   For those playing at home, I want to exclude the Area F and north from the exercise.  If Francis is to be believed that area wasn't part of the plans.  He stated the he needed to swap for it. You could include the RR land since CBM recommended getting it, and it was initially used.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

I understand your point. However, I think historians like to rely on "primary source documents" i.e., things in the record that are contemporaneous to events.  IMHO, that throws out the Francis statement of 39 years later as being the most important.  It was a generalized, condensed statement of events either for the club history, the 1950 Open program or both. It was not meant nor is it really part of the timeline record as much as the plan and letters.

We could further surmise that he was an old man, didn't recollect entirely and/or was trying to burnish his contributions to the project, being one of, if not the last one alive! But, I won't go there.....those are just the types of things that have been known to happen in second hand and distanct historical memories.

It still leaves reconcilation of the 117 acres and a map showing 122 acres.  It would make sense that this map would show 117 acres, but it doesn't and it is also an official part of the record.  If we found an interim boundary plan, your theory would be believable.  Right now you are drawing that line on conjecture which is even a lower form of reliability than way past the fact statements and memories.  Mine is based on what is really there.

One last point - the land deal was finalized on Dec 16. The construction committee was formed (according to tepaul) Jan 1911.  Xmas was in between.  Not that it couldn't have happened over the XMAS season, but its unlikely time wise.  If, for whatever reason that plan was drawn wrong along that approximate road line, what would be the point of changing it if work was going to start nearly immediately on a routing?  I can see them saying, "Configure your golf course and THEN we will put the road on, since we know its moving anyway"  Why hire an engineer to redraw a line that will move in a month anyway?

I will now speculate - the bane of this thread - about the possible reasons that map showed 122 acres:

A mistake or hurried rendition

They all knew from some interim routings (unofficial of course) that the cousre had some problems with the 117 acres and purposely gave MCC more land on the graphic

The rendering was also for HDC investors.  They wanted to make sure that whatever land the golf course took, it was less than what was on the rendering to avoid any unpleasant surprise of reduced land, but insteand showed MORE development land when the final was drawn.

The FACTS are that we simply do not know why that rendering was off in acreage compared to the agreed upon net purchased acreage.  But, we do know that drawing existed and was used to close the deal, we know it was 122 acres, and we know (approximately by our measurements) that when the new road was actually built, that the MCC acreage ended up at 120.01 acres and THAT matches up with the final deed.

IMHO, that is reconciling the contemporaneous facts as well as we can.  Interpreting acreages with Google Maps and CAD is an exact science.  Interpreting words is not.

That said, punch away at my theory. If I am wrong, I will readily admit it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Geez,

Well this is a ten minute routing without the property, but this is absolutely my last post today. I am being a slacker!

It appears that the narrowest neck is just a bit too narrow to get the four holes wide that would be required.  Those centerlines are 140-180 feet apart. You will note that I also did an altternate 18th across the creek on RR property not acquired.  It might have made a nice creek hole, but apparently wasn't available, or sat too low, etc.

It also appears that the Quarry is not used to well, which may have been their major stumbling block.  It does show that 5 slightly narrow holes might have fit in that land, but IMHO not well. It also disregards the need for a maintenance facility.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Of course that wouldn't work well which is simply more evidence that the Francis Swap almost certainly never happened in the way David suggests and which you seem to as well.

The whole point of creating a routing is to do it on.the full 119 acres of Johnson Farm that both Barker and Mac saw on their site visit in June 1910.

There is absolutely no evidence or other reason to believe that the property was subdivided below College ave at that time and the property was described in club docs and news articles as running north to College.

I think it also goes to my long held contention here that it would have been ridiculous for them to only secure land 65 yards beyond the quarry, particularly since more was available, part of the historic property, and M+W recommended that much could be made of the quarry.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You haven't produced the actual routing of Barker.


You're either kidding, or, obtuse.
I produced the ACTUAL LETTER dated June 10, 1910, from Barker to Connell in which Barker describes the submission of a routing along with his letter.

A copy of which appears below.

If that's not proof positive, you wouldn't recognize proof if it hit you in the face..


You just make speculations that support your point of view based on the word

Well, you've eliminated my reference to "kidding"

You call the production of Barker's letter to Connell "speculation" ?
Are you out of your mind ?
Have you guys in Philly had your water supply checked recently ?

Barker's letter is crystal clear.
The authenticity of Barker's letter is undisputed.
It's factual.
How you can claim it's content is "speculation" is beyond me.

I'd be surprised if a moron in denial could claim that the Barker letter to Connell dated June 10, 1910  doesn't refer to the submission of a routing.
But,  you and others have surprised me before 
There is NO SPECULATION that Barker submitted a routing

Mr. Joseph R. Connell,

Dear Sir:

Philadelphia, Pa., June 10, 1910.

I today have inspected the property at Haverford, south of College Avenue, where it is proposed to to lay out a golf course: and beg to submit to you my report.

I am enclosing a sketch of the property in question on which I have roughly shown in pencil a proposed lay out of the course.[/color]

We know that to "lay out" a golf course means to "ROUTE" a golf course.
At least that's what Mike Cirba and others have told us.[/b]

I would say that the land is in every way adapted to the making of a first class course, comparing most favorably with the best courses in this country, such as Myopia and Garden City.

In the past few years I have laid out upwards of twenty (20) courses in this country, and from my experience I believe the proposed course could be constructed at less expense than any I have heretofore gone over.
If the work was commenced at once, the course could be ready for play by the fall of 1911.

Very truly yours,

H. H. BARKER,

Garden City, L. I., N. Y.


And you claim that the production of this letter, and the assertion that Barker was refering to a routing is "speculation" because the actual routing wasn't included ?  ?

Should we dismiss all documents that fail to include their attachments or enclosures ?

While TEPaul remains "At Large", please stop by Happy Dale Farms and have your head examined.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

There is no proof whatsoever that Barker's routing ever made it onto the Site Committee's July 1st report to the Merion Board.   All that is copied is the content of his letter to Connell in the body of a larger document.    There is no mention of any attachment, which was certainly standard operating procedure for business organizations at that time (as it is today), especially given all the paper to keep track of before electronic media.

For that matter, there is no proof that the routing made it past Connell, although I can't imagine he wouldn't have shared it.

Furthermore, it is even more remote to assume that Barker's routing ever made it to the Merion membership, because there is no indication that it was attached to the November 15th bond solicitation either.

A mention that someone produced a routing for the Land Developer had little to do with Merion and their desires and plans for the property.

In fact, the July 1st letter seems to go to pains to point out that Barker was brought in at Connell's initiation, not Merion's.

They must not have thought much of it, frankly.

In fact, it's almost certain that whatever pencil sketch drawing visit he did in a single day on June 10th, 1910 was based on strictly the Johnson Farm property, as the Dallas Estate was not mentioned in that correspondence, and wasn't purchased by HDC until October of that year.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

There is no proof whatsoever that Barker's routing ever made it onto the Site Committee's July 1st report to the Merion Board.   

The letter is INCORPORATED into the site committee's July 1st report to the Merion Board.

There is NO PROOF that the Merion Board didn't see the routing.



All that is copied is the content of his letter in the body of a larger document.    There is no mention of any attachment.

For that matter, there is no proof that the routing made it past Connell, although I can't imagine he wouldn't have shared it.

There's NO PROOF that it didn't make it past Connell.
Common sense would seem to dictate that the letter and the routing were placed in front of a broader audience.

Furthermore, it is even more remote to assume that Barker's routing ever made it to the Merion membership, because there is no indication that it was attached to the November 15th bond solicitation either.

Is it your position that the letter and routing were "hidden" from all parties, including the membership ?

This sounds like more flawed reasoning on your part.
Another attempt to jump to a false conclusion to further your position.
How much personal experience do you have in terms of your familiarity with the depth and details of presentations made to various memberships ?
[/size]

A mention that someone produced a routing for the Land Developer had little to do with Merion and their desires and plans for the property.
I'd suggest that you have your water checked as well.
Barker's 06-10-10 letter was incorporated in the Site Committee's July 1, 1910 report to the Board.

You would also have us believe that the club NEVER attempted to craft routings from July 1, 1910 until 7 or more months later.
[/b][/size]
In fact, the July 1st letter seems to go to pains to point out that Barker was brought in at Connell's initiation, not Merion's.
Here's Barker's July 1, 1910 letter, it is INCORPORATED into the report to the MERION BOARD.



They must not have thought much of it, frankly.

That's wishful thinking and conjecture on your part.

In fact, it's almost certain that whatever pencil sketch drawing visit he did in a single day on June 10th, 1910 was based on strictly the Johnson Farm property, as the Dallas Estate was not mentioned in that correspondence, and wasn't purchased by HDC until October of that year.



Your ability to draw flawed conclusions without substantiating evidence remains flawlessly intact.
Is it your position that the Dallas estate was never considered until the day of purchase ?

[Mike_Cirba]

There is NO PROOF that the Merion Board didn't see the routing.

Patrick,

Thanks for using the documents I provided here...I'm glad they found some misuseful purpose.  

You don't see any irony in using an original source document that I originally posted here in full weeks ago while simultaneously accusing me of withholding information and playing fast and loose with evidence??  

Other than that, I think your comment speaks for itself.

There's no proof that winged monkeys won't fly out of my butt either.

Barker's letter was incorporated into the report.

Barker's routing was NOT.

What does that tell you?

Did these letters and correspondences excitedly discuss the wonderful opportunities and insightful creativity that Mr. Barker's routing brought to light?

Did anyone at Merion even mention Mr. Barker, except to say almost apologetically;

"Mr. Connell, on his own account, obtained from H.H. Barker, the Garden City professional, a report, of which the following is a copy."

Can't you just feel the enthusiasm and excitement jump off the page?!  

My lord, I bet they jumped right out there based on his recommendation and bought the land, started construction and had it open for play according to his brilliant routing in the fall of 1911!  

Right??!?   Oh...wait...

[Mike_Cirba]

by the way...

H.H. Barker was also already in town to play in the US Open when Mr. Connell brought him over to file his comprehensive, individualized, detailed breathtaking study and report.

[Mike_Cirba]

I've long contended that one of the strongest pieces of evidence against the Francis Swap incorporating ALL of the land of the triangle is simply that it makes no rational sense.   Francis described how the committee was pretty easily able to locate 13 holes south of the clubhouse but had trouble fitting the last five.   The bottom line to me is that there is no way they would have routed 13 holes in the first place KNOWING that they were so restricted in the land available to place their five finishing holes if the northern boundary stopped abruptly 65 yards past the quarry.   It would have been an exercise in absurd futility.  

What makes it even more preposterous from a believability standpoint is Francis's contention that he swapped land west of the present course that "wasn't part of any golf layout".   The fact is if the northern boundary was truncated at the Haverford College line, only 65 yards beyond the quarry, there is simply NO land available that wouldn't have been part of any golf plans...they would have had to try and squeeze every last morsel from the property.  

What makes that contention even more absurd is that there was no historical sub-division of the northeastern quadrant of the Johnson property anywhere short of College Avenue.   Early news accounts talked about the course property running north to College Avenue and we know the Johnson Farm boundary land ran to there.   So with M&W advising that much could be made of the quarry, and land available for Merion north of the quarry for another 400 or so yards, it's completely illogical to think that they would have short-sheeted themselves in such a manner.

So, when we came up with the exercise of doing a routing, my contention all along is to try and come up with a routing that took in only the land that Barker and M&W almost certainly looked at in June 1910, which was simply the 119 acres of the northeastern and southern quadrants of the Johnson Farm.   This was the only land that HDC owned outright at the time, and the Dallas Estate wasn't even under option yet.  

It also matches exactly the Site Committee's report that "it is probable that nearly 120 acres would be required for our purposes".

So, with that being said, and with apologies for the crude drawing, here is my attempt to route a course on the Johnson Farm.   Obviously I've used a few existing holes, but I think it shows a few things;

1) Anyone can do a one-day routing, for better or worse.   This took me about 2 hours total.   I'm now going to change my name to Mike Barker.  

2) The Johnson Farm plus the 3 acres of RR land M&W recommended would easily accommodate M&W's hypothetical, ideal 6000 yard course.   This one measures 6494.

3) We know that whatever Barker came up with for Connell in June 1910, there is no evidence of it being used or even presented to Merion and we also know that the Committee worked on many plans of their own from Jan-Apr 1911 and that M&W helped them select the best one.

I'm quite sure critics of my brilliant routing will come along here and I welcome any and all comments.  




Yardages

1 - 328 Par 4
2 - 416 Par 4
3 - 180 Par 3
4 - 477 Par 5
5 - 382 Par 4
6 - 110 Par 3
7 - 438 Par 4
8 - 342 Par 4
9 - 450 Par 5

3126 Par 36

10 - 200 Par 3
11 - 285 Par 4
12 - 430 Par 4
13 - 326 Par 4
14 - 444 Par 4
15 - 452 Par 5
16 - 546 Par 5
17 - 240 Par 3
18 - 445 Par 4

3368 Par 36

6494 Par 72


p.s.   The crossover of my "Edien" 10th hole and my "Road" 11th is my ode to St. Andrews and the classic influences I learned on this website, so all of you should clearly be credited with my actual design.    

[Rich Goodale]

That is great stuff, Mike!  Have you been channeling HH Barker?

[JESII]

Mike,

I skipped the last couple of days / pages and I'm not sure I can wade through it but I did have a thought about the debate here...

I think there are a couple a couple of axis' that have divided the debate. David and his side think CBM deserves more credit than he is getting because it is logically impossible for Hugh Wilson to have donw much prior to being appointed to chair the construction team...I have my problems with that logic.

You and Tom think the opposite because all of the technical timeline stuff supports this taking place in early 1911 when the committee, including Wilson, was formed.

I'm not the least bit interested in solving for who gets what portion of the credit, I am interested in the timing...probably in large part because the side you are on has claimed to have THE ANSWER 8 or 10 times in the last 6 months, and it's somewhat different each time and none of them seem logically sound to me.

I think the Francis Swap is a key to the timeline and the differing beliefs of how and when are another "axis" dividng this debate...and I'll try to identify the two camps.

You believe the Francis Swap had to have occurred after the November 1910 Plan was complete because the holes along it (when completed later) do not fit. If they already swapped this for that and had all the holes routed they wouldn't have needed to label the road approximate...so they didn't have a clue where anything was going to go and they needed a plan to sell to the membership so they added an aesthetically pleasing road with no consideration for where or how it divided the property. You then contend that it was this randomly placed road that became the working boundary which had to be shifted once they began the routing process and realized the guy in the engineers office hadn't given them enough width for 15 and 16.  In essence, the way I have read your argument (and Tom's as well before he moved to the little Tiki Hut in Hawaii) is that the road was randomly placed on the Land Plan in 1910 and then immediately incorporated as a working boundary. Jeff Brauer hypothesized that the December Cuyler letter suggesting Lloyd take ownership to ease the process of moving boundaries is also proof that the routing happened after the fact stumped me because they clearly left one boundary (just one) labeled "approximate", which clearly implied it is not exact and will likely need to be shifted.

I believe that the "approximate road" was shaped the way it was because they knew they needed that general shape.They knew where the holes were going to go but did not know how much room they were going to take. It's really that simple in my mind. The road could have been labeled "arbitrary" or "random" but was not.

Why would a completely arbitrary road, drawn with no consideration for a golf course become the working boundary when these guys had 340 acres to work with?

[Mike_Cirba]

That is great stuff, Mike!  Have you been channeling HH Barker?

Rich,

I'm taking it on the road.   

In these new, tough economic times, I'm offerering my routing expertise at the low, low, low price of $2,500 a day. 

Inflation you know.   

Did you know I'm 1/4 Irish??     

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I skipped the last couple of days / pages and I'm not sure I can wade through it but I did have a thought about the debate here...

I think there are a couple a couple of axis' that have divided the debate. David and his side think CBM deserves more credit than he is getting because it is logically impossible for Hugh Wilson to have donw much prior to being appointed to chair the construction team...I have my problems with that logic.

You and Tom think the opposite because all of the technical timeline stuff supports this taking place in early 1911 when the committee, including Wilson, was formed.

I'm not the least bit interested in solving for who gets what portion of the credit, I am interested in the timing...probably in large part because the side you are on has claimed to have THE ANSWER 8 or 10 times in the last 6 months, and it's somewhat different each time and none of them seem logically sound to me.

I think the Francis Swap is a key to the timeline and the differing beliefs of how and when are another "axis" dividng this debate...and I'll try to identify the two camps.

You believe the Francis Swap had to have occurred after the November 1910 Plan was complete because the holes along it (when completed later) do not fit. If they already swapped this for that and had all the holes routed they wouldn't have needed to label the road approximate...so they didn't have a clue where anything was going to go and they needed a plan to sell to the membership so they added an aesthetically pleasing road with no consideration for where or how it divided the property. You then contend that it was this randomly placed road that became the working boundary which had to be shifted once they began the routing process and realized the guy in the engineers office hadn't given them enough width for 15 and 16.  In essence, the way I have read your argument (and Tom's as well before he moved to the little Tiki Hut in Hawaii) is that the road was randomly placed on the Land Plan in 1910 and then immediately incorporated as a working boundary. Jeff Brauer hypothesized that the December Cuyler letter suggesting Lloyd take ownership to ease the process of moving boundaries is also proof that the routing happened after the fact stumped me because they clearly left one boundary (just one) labeled "approximate", which clearly implied it is not exact and will likely need to be shifted.

I believe that the "approximate road" was shaped the way it was because they knew they needed that general shape.They knew where the holes were going to go but did not know how much room they were going to take. It's really that simple in my mind. The road could have been labeled "arbitrary" or "random" but was not.

Why would a completely arbitrary road, drawn with no consideration for a golf course become the working boundary when these guys had 340 acres to work with?

Jim,

Rather than type it all out again, I trust if you go back and read the following posts Jeff's theory and our support for it will become very clear.

1800, 1801, 1805, 1827, 1830, 1849, 1854&55&56, 1859, 1863, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1911, 1914, 1921, and 1929.

That should really be a good cliffs note version.

Obviously, you can skip all of the GREEN type that is just an attempt to divert discussion as the M&W crowd saw their house of cards falling in.      

[JESII]

Mike,


You believe the Francis Swap had to have occurred after the November 1910 Plan was complete because the holes along it (when completed later) do not fit. If they already swapped this for that and had all the holes routed they wouldn't have needed to label the road approximate...so they didn't have a clue where anything was going to go and they needed a plan to sell to the membership so they added an aesthetically pleasing road with no consideration for where or how it divided the property. You then contend that it was this randomly placed road that became the working boundary which had to be shifted once they began the routing process and realized the guy in the engineers office hadn't given them enough width for 15 and 16.  In essence, the way I have read your argument (and Tom's as well before he moved to the little Tiki Hut in Hawaii) is that the road was randomly placed on the Land Plan in 1910 and then immediately incorporated as a working boundary. Jeff Brauer hypothesized that the December Cuyler letter suggesting Lloyd take ownership to ease the process of moving boundaries is also proof that the routing happened after the fact stumped me because they clearly left one boundary (just one) labeled "approximate", which clearly implied it is not exact and will likely need to be shifted.

Why would a completely arbitrary road, drawn with no consideration for a golf course become the working boundary when these guys had 340 acres to work with?

Mike,

Do I have your position correct with respect to the Francis Swap?

[Mike_Cirba]

Actually Jim, that is not it at all.

I'm not sure why you're having a tough time with the fact that they secured/purchased two adjacent properties and were theefore inherently restricted to route the golf course within the historic property boundaries of those properties for 75 pct of the course.

Because the golf course routing and dimesioins had not been determined yet, they simply and smartly created a flexible working boundary at the only place available; at the juncture of the Johnson Farm property and the rest of the HDC Holdings to the west.

Every other boundary was up against non-HDC land, so there was no flexibility for them to work with there.

Keep in mind that the goal was to both have enough land for the course as well as maximize the value of real estate holdings.  They were trying to keep it to what they thought they needed for a modern, championship golf course at the time...around 120 acres, which left the desired bulk of the land uninterrupted and dedicated to the real estate component.

Why would any of this have required an existing routing in November 1915?

If one existed, why wouldn't they just draw it on a to-scale on the Pugh and Hubbard November Land Plan??   It should have been a piece of cake if all of this was drawn up prior and boundaries already determined.

Its because nothing yet existed but the historic property boundaries and a boundary drawn as approximate between real estate and golf.

They had to work with something as a boundary;  if they had all the acreage in the world at their disposal none of this would have been an issue and they wouldn't have needed to swap anything.

Its just that there was a working boundary and Francis needed to go beyond it to accommodate the routing!

I'm not seeing how that's difficult to understand?

[Mike_Cirba]

And Jim...I have to say I'm a little hurt...

Cmon man...give it up for the routing, would ya?  

Where's the love?!?   

[Mike_Cirba]

Sadly, I've decided to make a routing change and I know it's going to upset many of you.

Despite your urgings to keep this golf course very purely based on the classic and ideal holes abroad, I've decided that my "crossover" Eden 10th and Road 11th holes don't work very well.

I know that I should try to keep the same bunkering strategies as on those great old holes, but I'm even starting to wonder about that, as well,

In any case, call me a pagan, call it blasphemy, but I think I'm going to reconfigure those two holes to just use the what the land offers.  



That changes the yardages as such;

Yardages

1 - 328 Par 4
2 - 416 Par 4
3 - 180 Par 3
4 - 477 Par 5
5 - 382 Par 4
6 - 110 Par 3
7 - 438 Par 4
8 - 342 Par 4
9 - 450 Par 5

3126 Par 36

10 - 180 Par 3
11 - 375 Par 4
12 - 430 Par 4
13 - 326 Par 4
14 - 444 Par 4
15 - 452 Par 5
16 - 546 Par 5
17 - 240 Par 3
18 - 445 Par 4

3458 Par 36

6584 Par 72

[Patrick_Mucci]

There is NO PROOF that the Merion Board didn't see the routing.

Patrick,

Barker's letter was incorporated into the report.

Barker's routing was NOT.

What does that tell you?

It doesn't tell you anything.
You don't know that the routing wasn't viewed by the committee.

Ask yourself, if a letter was incorporated in a report and the report described a routing, do you think the Board reviewed the routing.

Do you think the Board had the individual and collective wisdom to analyze the merits of the routing ?

Do the Merion Board minutes EVER acknowledge and include the eventual routing in 1911 or 1912 ?

If not, what does that tell you ?

Think about it before you answer.

Did these letters and correspondences excitedly discuss the wonderful opportunities and insightful creativity that Mr. Barker's routing brought to light?

Do ANY of the Board minutes in 1911-1912 include the final routing and discuss the wonderful opportunities and insightful creativity that any routing brought to light ?

If not, what does that tell you ?

Think about it before you answer.

Did anyone at Merion even mention Mr. Barker, except to say almost apologetically;

"Mr. Connell, on his own account, obtained from H.H. Barker, the Garden City professional, a report, of which the following is a copy."

Can't you just feel the enthusiasm and excitement jump off the page?!  

Mike, I asked you before, and you failed to respond, so, I'll ask you again.
How many Golf club Boards have you sat on ?

Do you find ANY Board minutes exciting ?

I've been on a variety of boards for over 20 consecutive years and none of the hundreds of Board minutes I've read could ever be described as exciting, irrespective of the merits of the topic or project being discussed.
Board minutes don't contain drama, they're not for entertainment purposes.
But, you wouldn't know that.
Instead you negatively characterize something you know nothing about, choosing to put forth your absurd spin on it.  

My lord, I bet they jumped right out there based on his recommendation and bought the land, started construction and had it open for play according to his brilliant routing in the fall of 1911!  

According to you, the Board and committee went into hibernation for the next seven months, effectively freezing the project with no additional activity.

Right??!?   Oh...wait...

Right !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Anyone can route a golf course over an existing golf course.

As to your pathetic attempts to dismiss Barker's routing because it was done in a day, how is it that Donald Ross was able to provide routings based on a single day's visit ?

Are you going to denigrate Ross's work in an attempt to salvage your misguided, erroneous position ?

Why is it that you never answer direct questions ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim Sullivan,

I think the only reasons that the one area was the flexible boundary were:

It was decided to use all land south of Ardmore for golf.
It was predetermined that the Johnson Farm House was going to be the cluhouse, keeping the golf course down there hugging the creek.
I doubt the concept of integrating golf and housing was established then (putting golf in front yards, rather than back yards was the order of the day back then) so MCC was contemplated as a basic core course, not one that would be strung out between houses.

Pat Mucci,

Geez.  You are really silly in how you are trying to distract the debate. I wouldn't give your post the dignity of an answer if I were Mike, and I wouldn't do it either, but its an easy add on to my answer to Jim Sullivan.

Among the things I find the silliest is your double negatives - there is no proof that it is not true, basically.  To anyone schooled in logic, it does not follow that there is proof that it is true.  You are pounding the table again Johnny Cochran. I guess you figure if it worked once...............

Mike,

Given Barkers description of a "rough routing" I bet it was graphically very similar to yours, only not drawn on an aerial photo, just on a map.  When a gca describes his own work as "rough" you know its nothing special or final.  Yet, Pat and a few others take it as gospel that it was a virtuoso masterpiece.  I susbscribe to your toilet paper fate for that routing!  Actually, since Connell paid for it, I wonder if any of you Philly boys could track down successor companies or descendents who might have records of it.  We know  MCC doesn't have it.

[Bryan Izatt]

Geez,

Well this is a ten minute routing without the property, but this is absolutely my last post today. I am being a slacker!

It appears that the narrowest neck is just a bit too narrow to get the four holes wide that would be required.  Those centerlines are 140-180 feet apart. You will note that I also did an altternate 18th across the creek on RR property not acquired.  It might have made a nice creek hole, but apparently wasn't available, or sat too low, etc.

It also appears that the Quarry is not used to well, which may have been their major stumbling block.  It does show that 5 slightly narrow holes might have fit in that land, but IMHO not well. It also disregards the need for a maintenance facility.

Jeff,

You were a slacker.  I was hoping for all 18 holes to be laid out according to CBM's list of lengths.  I assume you're saying by implication that the first thirteen holes were laid out over both the Johnson and Dallas properties.  I'd agree with your conclusions in the last paragraph. 

Now, IF Francis recollected the swap dimensions accurately and IF we accepted that the land at the north end of the Johnson property wasn't initially part of the golf course property so that Francis could swap for it, THEN, based on your routing we can see how he felt it would be difficult to fit the last five holes in with any resemblance to a championship course.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Of course that wouldn't work well which is simply more evidence that the Francis Swap almost certainly never happened in the way David suggests and which you seem to as well.  I'm just trying to find a way to accept literally what Francis said happened, regardless of what you think David has suggested.  Assuming that the northern acreage wasn't part of the initial plan does two things for me:  it allows me to understand why he would say it was difficult to fit in the last 5 holes; and secondly, it allows me to accept that he said he swapped to get 130 x 190 yards up there, because it wasn't initially part of the acreage.

The whole point of creating a routing is to do it on.the full 119 acres of Johnson Farm that both Barker and Mac saw on their site visit in June 1910.  How do you know what Barker and CBM saw?  Why not the full Johnson Farm or the Connor Estate?

There is absolutely no evidence or other reason to believe that the property was subdivided below College ave at that time and the property was described in club docs and news articles as running north to College.  No doubt the property ran up to College, and even beyond into the Connor Estate.  But, equally there is no evidence of where exactly the 100 acres or whatever was required were, or even where the exact boundaries of the 117 acres were.

I think it also goes to my long held contention here that it would have been ridiculous for them to only secure land 65 yards beyond the quarry, particularly since more was available, part of the historic property, and M+W recommended that much could be made of the quarry.   I've lost track of where this 65 yards north of the quarry thing comes from since I'm not able to see the bounds of the quarry from 1910.  Nevertheless, are you saying that Francis was "ridiculous" to say that he swapped for the land beyond 65 yards north of the quarry?  If we take him literally at his word that's exactly what they did.

I see you've done two routings.  I kind of noticed the X routing in the first attempt.  In the second, I'm impressed with your second hole.  Looks like a litigation magnet hole.  I noticed that you managed to get not two, but three holes into the area north of the Dallas Estate, where Jeff basically said it wasn't wide enough.  I think that to get 110 yards out of the par 3 you'd have to have one foot on the pavement.   .  And, of course you stepped outside the bounds of my mind exercise by using the northern 10.5 acres.

I would draw the conclusion that it was damn near impossible to get the CBM course on the section of the Johnson Farm that I designated.  I think the Dallas Estate was part of the early planning.

[Bryan Izatt]

Another thing I find perplexing about the acreages bandied about is, on July 1, 1910:

1) it is reported that Connell offered 100 acres ( a nice round number), or whatever would be required ......

2) and, in the next paragraph the Committee says it is probable that nearly 120 acres (another round number) would be required.


By November 15, 1910 they have a deal done to secure 117 acres, not a round number, but in fact, seemingly precise to the acre.  It's not 116 or 118, it's precisely 117.

Does that not suggest that in those intervening 4.5 months that someone did some more planning of the layout of the course.  How else would they have gotten from a round 120 acres to a precise 117 acres?  Of course, then they got it wrong and had to increase it back to a precise 120.01 acres on July 26, 1911.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

It merely suggests that the other three acres were to come from the RR property.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()