[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

After your lead up to your 5 questions, I was expecting more than this.

Bryan,

If you want to figure out what really happened then I'd advise you to stick with factal information.  And, here I thought I was the champion of factual information.  I suspect that you have ignored more factual information (c.f. Francis land swap) than I have.

The related news articles from the time as I showed the other day are chock-full of factual errors and inconsistencies.      As are the "factual" MCC records (c.f. the two circular letters of Nov 15, 1910) I also suspect there was some speculation, some positioning, some misinformation being fed, and other backroom maneuvering as negotiations took place.  And, maybe it's a fact that the 13 acre option was a backroom maneuver that got public, but was never meant to be part of the official MCC record.

There is NO record of a 130 acre option.  None.  There is no record of a 117 acre boundary.

There IS a 117 acre offer sent by Micholson in early November, 1910.  But no record anywhere of what the 117 acres offered was.

There IS a Nov 15th letter soliciting bonds from Merion to members sent 11/15/1910 that states the club has secured 117 acres.   Which same letter says the land plan shows the 117 acre course when it doesn't.

There IS unaniminity in the subsequent news articles that 117 acres had been secured, except for one that had a plethora of other information wrong such as the total among of acreage HDC held, as well as the price per acre Merion paid which was vastly overstated.  So, all information in all news articles must be discounted.  Unless of course it supports our pet theory. 

There IS a December purchase by Lloyd of the entire 161 acres of combined TOTAL Johnson/Dallas properties per Cuyler's advice regarding moving the boundary to suit the needs of the course.  Which letter is now reputed to be earlier than previously stated as a fact.

There IS January 1911 club documents talking about lawn tennis courts and skating rinks being on the new site.  And, ?

There IS Hugh Wilson's writing P+O in Feb 1911 that they have 117 acres for their new course.  Hugh correctly toed the party line on that one,  Of course we don't know where the 117 acres was.  But, maybe it was on the topo map/blueprint that he sent P&O.  But, ooops, we don't have that map/blueprint.

There IS the Thompson resolution of Apr 1911 that approved the purchase of 3 acres as well as a swap for land  adjoining for land already purchased.  Neither of which we  know factually what they were talking about, because they commit to expenditures and swaps without actually minuting exactly what the hell they were for.

There IS the purchase by Merion of 120 acres in July 1911.  Well thankfully, we have one stake in the ground (no pun intended).  We have a deed that seems to mach the rest of the record.

The rest is smoke and mirrors.  There appears to be smoke and mirrors all around.  Those MCC guys certainly weren't born yesterday in their land dealings.

Also, Joe Bausch can concur if he wishes, but we've regularly seen top area golfers referred to as "experts", particularly if they were involved in some aspect of planning or advising on new course building and or significant changes to existing clubs.  I haven't seen Joe corroborate this, but it doesn't matter.  What struck me was if they were describing Wilson et al as experts, it is in stark relief with Wilson's own words from months later when he says essentially we didn't know nothing.

Consider also that this document was going out to a general membership, many if not most of whom were non-golfers in 1910.  .  So, they could be hoodwinked more easily that someone who self-admittedly didn't know anything about building golf courses was an expert?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I would be more than happy to take everyone of these guys exactly at their word...to the letter...not sure I have any compadres with me, save the Canadian moonlighter...Bryan Izatt.

Bryan wrote:
The moonlighter returns.  I'm with you compadre.  The trouble I'm finding with taking these guys exactly at their word is that their exact words even conflict with themselves.  For instance, in the two November 15th letters, one says HDC have acquired 338 acres, while the other one says that 338 acres will be acquired.  Both written by Lloyd at the same time.    So much for taking them exactly at their word.

Bryan,   I am not sure Lloyd wrote both letters.  Wasn't one of the letters written by Evans?

David,

One letter was signed by Lloyd.  The other was the report from the Committee of which Lloyd is listed as the first member.  It ends with "By order of the Board,  Allen Evans, President"  I think that is a standard tack on to the minutes, not an indication that Evans wrote it.

Now that I have your attention, could you point me to the posts where I can find the quotes, where it says that "Macdonald and Whigham had determined the final layout plan", or that "the Committee's recommendation (to purchase the property) is based largely on M&W's opinions". I'd like to review the quote before amending the timeline.

[Bryan Izatt]

At Tom Mac's request I have created a new thread where I have posted chronologically all the P&O letters that he has provided me.  Hopefully this will reduce the clutter a little bit on this thread.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Sorry if my response disappointed you but as the posts roll in and the fresh manure and verbal gymnastics gets spread here thicker and thicker (Hugh Wilson reported 10 car loads...he had no idea how prescient he'd be!), it occurred to me that the only time progress was made here was when we stuck to known facts.

As much as you'd like to see a 13 acre option and 130 acre overall scenario, there is no record of it at Merion.

Have you considered that this may have been land considered in Jan 1911 for the lawn tennis courts and skating facilities they were still planning to build at that time?

Did you watch any of Wimbledon?

David,

Sorry, but Nov 27 is the date I was given for the Cuyler letter,  I guess it saves going thru train schedules though.

Btw...do you guys have any new evidence or are we all just going to regurgitate the old arguments?

You're an old farm boy, right.

You know damn well that when spring comes you have to turn over ALL of the soil.

[Tom MacWood]

     A single phrase certainly seems to be causing much disagreement. “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground…” The author RW Lesley was chairman of the golf committee. He was not a member of the construction committee.
      What could this possibly mean? How does one go about “laying out many different golf courses on the new ground” especially after the committee that wrote of this followed it by stating that “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
      What could they have possibly meant?
      Some have argued that to “Lay Out” a golf course at that time required that it was being constructed. Others have argued just as hard that it refers to the design of the course and not the building of it.
      Why, though, is it not possible for both sides to actually be at least partially correct?
      David Moriarity wrote, “I think that, generally, "to lay out" a golf course meant arranging the golf course on the ground, whether staking it out, marking it out, or even by building it.  This is distinguished from planning a golf course, which can be done on the ground as one marks, stakes, or lays out the course, but can also be done on paper…”
      Now whether one agrees with David’s interpretation of what a proper definition of the phrase “Lay Out” means in regard to a golf course is correct or not, he is right in stating that “laying out” a golf course can be done by “staking it out.”
      Isn’t it simply most reasonable to believe that the “committee” of Merion men STAKED OUT a “golf course” of their own design on the ground? And that after doing so they made changes, rearranging holes and lengths and sites and even routings? After all, the only thing that would have been required was a bunch of wooden stakes and energy.
      Especially that makes sense because of what the entirety of that portion of what they wrote states: “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
      They didn’t state that they laid out five “variations” but rather “five different plans” and this in a single day. The only way this would be possible is if they simply moved stakes to different locations. A lot of work and a daunting task; that goes without saying, but they certainly could have had enough committee men and others there to do it. They certainly had the motivation for it.
      Now Mike wrote that, “It is not clear which committee ‘laid out many different courses on the new ground…’”
      Again, whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, the FACT is that SOMEONE LAID OUT five different plans ON THE GROUND after visiting with CBM & Whigham. What can be stated UNDENIABLY is that it WASN’T CBM & WHIGHAM! So you don't think they re-arranged the course they had prior to the NGLA visit? They scrapped it and laid out five new courses. Why would they do that? Is there anything in the Wilson letters that indicates that drastic a change in direction?
      Did they advise the “committee” including Wilson and the other members when they visited on how to go about properly “laying out” a golf course. Assuredly so! But that “advice” could NOT have been the final word since if it was they would have simply returned and staked out what they were told to; this they did not do. How do we know this? Because they wrote that, “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…” Not a mention of the “plan that CBM just gave us” nor any mention of even “as he advised, simply that they “laid out five different plans.” Five different plans could mean many different things. As minor as five different combinations of grass to five plans to incorporate CBM's pet holes to laying out five uniquely different golf courses. You chose to interpret it in the most drastic way (five completely new routings), and in mind most unlikely scenario. I'm not even sure you can get five distinct routings on that narrow L-shaped property, with a fixed clubhouse location and a road bisecting it. Add to the equation the committee producing these 5 distinct routings is inexperienced and unqualified, and up to their eyeballs in agronomic issues.
      For me, and I am sure that I will face an onslaught of arguing against this, I must conclude then that the “Committee” designed Merion and that the SIMPLE proof is staring at all of us in that single paragraph…Which committee? The account you are referring to was written by the chairman of the golf committee and does not mention the construction committee by name. In fact the construction committee and Wilson are not mentioned in the minutes at all according to TEP. Strange don't you think?
      

I think you reading too much into TEP's disjointed excerpt. What would TEP's reasons be for giving us these few sentences and cutting out the rest of the paragraph? The first clue that something is amiss is the shifting between first and third person. "THEY went to the NGLA"..."on OUR return."

[Tom MacWood]

Phil - that makes sense to me. Tom M (in post 2417) says that a course was staked out in December 1910, but I don't understand that.  In a previous post (the one that included the letter from Merion to its members, and then the newspaper article), Tom noted that the first was from January 1911. The newspaper article (which I assume must've come out AFTER the Merion letter, since Merion would presumably tell its members first before making the news public) mentions that work would soon begin on laying out the new course. So the course couldn't have been layed out/staked out before, say, mid-January 1911 at the earliest, and since that was in the cold part of winter, maybe not until the early part of spring.

Peter

Peter
I don't follow you. What first in January 1911?

The numerous newspaper articles that said work would begin immediately were in mid-November. I said the first known action of the Wilson committee was February 1. Wilson said the committee was formed early in 1911. I told Phil the most generous reading would have the committee formed on January 1, or a month and half after they said work would commence immediately. I don't believe the committee was formed on January 1, I just said that satisfy Phil. It is more likely the committee was formed closer to the date of its first known action.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

One needn't satisfy me, but it was a nice gesture!

You stated, "It is more likely the committee was formed closer to the date of its first known action." Once again I MUST disagree with you. As reasonable as that may sound, it is entirely inaccurate.

The date a committee is formed has NOTHING TO DO with the date of its first "KNOWN ACTION", even where that "KNOWN ACTION" is agreed upon. It CANNOT be construed, figured out, arrived at or any other phrase one may want to use in an exact manner based upon that information.

It MIGHT be hinted at, but when one actually KNOWS the date of a first action only then can a date for a FORMATION be surmised. Yet if that is all that is known, an exact date will still elude.

No Tom, You want to believe that the date the committee was formed was the very end of January and therefor you interpret what is written as proof of that.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

The other reason my answer might be disappointing is because both you and Jim ducked the question of where the 117 acres were located.

If your contention is that there was a straight line right angle boundary drawn thru the Johnson Farm at the border of the Haverford College rectangle, and you need a 13 acre "remainder" at the end of the exercise, I think you both realize that there is only one place that could be, and you also both realize that it would be highly illogical to have subdivided the Johnson farm with an artificial boundary not once, but twice, with the second bound running parallel, but just inside by some arbitrary number, the actual historic bound of the property.  It also is completely at odds with Macdonald & Whigham's June 1910 advice that much could be made of the quarry.  The truncated "130 acre theory" Land Plan provides neither width or depth around the quarry for golf holes.   Note in the following illustration it is not drawn to scale and the western boundary could be straight or curved, but the point is the same;

We know that under the "130 acre theory" there was 117 acres secured and we know that the news article said that another 13 acres was optioned.    For LIFS to hold true, this is the only possible configuration that would have permitted both items to be true at that same time.





The single boundary seperation indicated on the 1910 Land Plan between golf and real estate is much more elegant, practical, flexible, and realistic.  
Also note that the following illustration is not drawn to scale and the western boundary is meant to simulate the curving road drawn on the 1910 Land Plan.  Please also excuse the messy double line up top.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
Your logic aludes me. The longer the committee is standing the more opportunity there is for activity. The shorter the committee is standing the less opportunity there is for activity. There is known activity between January 1 and February 1, therefore the shorter duration is more likely.

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

Of course you're correct.

What is so difficult about either staking out multiple plans on the ground and/or on paper?  Wouldn't they simply color code the stakes or otherwise identify them?  These guys are trying to make it appear that they'd have to dig up a whole freaking golf course to change anything because they discussed seed options with P+O and turned the ground over during the spring thaw, which is ridiculous.

Tom MacWood,

Could you describe for us in detail what you think the "golf course" looked like that you contend existed on the ground between Nov 1910 and mid-Apr 1911?  Thanks.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

The reason my logic eludes you is because you simply keep reading too much into it. That is also why I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of what was written here.

You stated that, "The longer the committee is standing the more opportunity there is for activity. The shorter the committee is standing the less opportunity there is for activity. There is known activity between January 1 and February 1, therefore the shorter duration is more likely..." I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST WROTE!

The problem though, is that you DON'T! You just used the phrases "opportunity" and more likely" in your response, but then you state that it is a FACT that the committee was formed on a particular date when you simply CAN'T do so. It isn't stated or even inferable.

The ONLY thing that should be stated is that you believe that the committee was formed on 2/1 or very close to it. Now if someone disagrees with your saying that I'll argue tooth and nail with them, but there isn't a single place where one can stae as FACT that the committee was formed on 2/1.

[Niall C]

Regarding the contour map that Wilson sent Piper of 2/1/1911, is it logical to believe Wilson would send him a blank map of the property and blindly ask him which sections of the property he would like samples for testing? What would he expect Piper to do, put the map up on a dart board and begin throwing? Round and round we go and where ever the dart lands that's a sample I'd like.

Wilson was inexperienced, but he was bright enough to know Piper needed to know where the fairways and greens were in order to know where to take samples.

I know that the discussion has moved on since Tom posted this but as I only dip into this site every other day please forgive me, but I simply had to respond to Toms contention.

Tom,

Why would P&O have to see a layout of the proposed course ? They were agronomists. The purpose of the blueprint (I'm assuming blueprint in this context mean't simply how the plan was produced) was to identify where on site the samples came from, nothing else. Also it was Wilson who was taking the samples, not P&O. As I understand your contention a routing must have been done as the samples were for parts of the intended holes as already designed, no ?

That is certainly one possible/plausible scenario.

Another might be that before laying/designing the course they wanted to know what areas were likely to be easier than others and what areas might be best left out as being unsuitable. I tend to go with the second scenario but either way I see nothing in these letters which suggests either scenario is definitely correct. All they tell us about is the agronomy issues and when the were planning to start.

Niall

[Mike_Cirba]

Niall,

It's very clear from reading the letters that P&O were simply asking Wilson to provide soil samples from general areas, and it also seemed Wilson was wishing and suggesting they might look at the topo and on the basis of their expertise, perhaps indicate specific areas of concern (i.e. low-lying areas, areas of steep slope).

Your other point about it being a blueprint simply showing locations of where turf samples were taken and not golf holes drawn is very valid.   There is not a single reference in any of the letters to specific fairway or green locations, not even in general (such as, the area around your proposed #4 hole looks to be very acidic.), and Tom would have us believe that their use of the term "golf course" instead of typing over and over "PROPOSED golf course", or "FUTURE golf course", or whatever is somehow meaningful when we KNOW construction didn't begin until late April 1911.    

This would be actually rather funny if it didn't take so much time dispelling new attempts at propogating uncertainty.

Read what they actually SAY about where to take the soil samples.   Also, of course Oakley generally refers to fairways and greens...Merion is building a GOLF COURSE!  

Please also note the dates and time elapsed...

















....and so on....

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
It would look like every other staked out golf course. Stakes placed in the ground at the location of green, tees, turning points and bunkers. One would presume there would also be a more detailed plan on paper.

Naill
If you read through the letters you will see the recommended treatment of Green areas was different than the recommended treatment of Fairways which was different than the lack of treatment for the Rough areas. Why would Wilson want to test areas not intended for fine grasses? The first mention of the rough areas and potential grasses for the rough areas was not until the middle of September, after the fairways and greens had been seeded. The fairway and green areas were their obvious priority, which is why Piper would need to know.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Half the golf course was a corn field.

Would they have been able to leave the stalks standing in the non-fairway areas and hope they just disappeared, or would they have plowed them all over and turned the soil?

[Phil_the_Author]

David, you stated:

Phillip wrote:
      A single phrase certainly seems to be causing much disagreement. “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground…”
      What could this possibly mean? How does one go about “laying out many different golf courses on the new ground” especially after the committee that wrote of this followed it by stating that “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
Not sure that it was the same committee in both cases, Phillip, or even if it was a committee in the first place.

      Sorry David, but this is a case of you can’t have it BOTH ways. You have made a point of stating that we should go by what was written. Well, what was written here says that it WAS the same committee. “Your committee desires to report laying out many new golf courses on the new ground…” It is followed just a few lines later with, “"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
      Once again then it is the SAME COMMITTEE who laid out many new courses, then went to NGLA and then came back and rearranged the course and then “LAID OUT five different plans…”

      They didn’t state that they laid out five “variations” but rather “five different plans” and this in a single day. The only way this would be possible is if they simply moved stakes to different locations. A lot of work and a daunting task; that goes without saying, but they certainly could have had enough committee men and others there to do it. They certainly had the motivation for it.
Note that this also leaves open the possibility that they are staking out these courses based on someone else's plans.  One need not have come up with the plan to stake out a golf course.

That is true, but where in what I wrote did I state that they had laid out THEIR OWN PLANS ONLY? Where does it even mention that they even laid out THEIR OWN PLANS AT ALL?

      Now Mike wrote that, “It is not clear which committee ‘laid out many different courses on the new ground…’”
      Again, whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, the FACT is that SOMEONE LAID OUT five different plans ON THE GROUND after visiting with CBM & Whigham. What can be stated UNDENIABLY is that it WASN’T CBM & WHIGHAM!
I think you are confusing two things here.   It could have been CBM who laid out one of the many courses on new land.  While CBM and Whigham could not have staked out the five different plans, they could have provided the plans or at least helped create the  plans that CBM gave them.

      Sorry David, but once again, simply LOOK AT WHAT THEY WROTE! They “REARRANGED” the existing course they had left behind. THIS course could NOT have been done by CBM or Whigham or BARKER because even if we accept that the first course laid out was their’s, which I can’t based upon what was written, then what they left behind was distinctly different by their own words, “after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground…” The course they left was one of these MANY DIFFERENT ONES!
      Also, if we accept that the first course laid out was according to CBM & Whigham, we must ALSO ACCEPT THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE IT WHEN STAKED OUT! Why? Because they proceeded to then “lay out many different golf courses.”
      Now as far as CBM and Whigham “providing the plans,” the plans FOR WHAT? It certainly couldn’t have been for variations on the plan they just REJECTED if the original one laid out was theirs. That you contend then that the COMMITTEE “could have helped create the plans that CBM gave them…” is also disingenuous on your part. First of all, if you are now saying that the Committee had the ABILITY to ADVISE CBM & WHIGHAM how can you possibly maintain that they DIDN’T have the ability to design the course on their own. In addition, your statement now is that they brought back with them golf course plans done by CBM during the meeting at NGLA? On what do you base that conclusion  
  
      Did they advise the “committee” including Wilson and the other members when they visited on how to go about properly “laying out” a golf course. Assuredly so! But that “advice” could NOT have been the final word since if it was they would have simply returned and staked out what they were told to; this they did not do. How do we know this? Because they wrote that, “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…” Not a mention of the “plan that CBM just gave us” nor any mention of even “as he advised, simply that they “laid out five different plans.”Why do you require that they must have said something like this.  I think it may be clear from the context that they were talking about CBM's plans.  Whether either one of is correct, we are not Necessariliy so.

      I don’t require it. I pointed out that they DIDN’T and that they made no mention of either rearranging the course they left behind nor laying out any of the five different plans based upon a single thing that CBM & Whigham said at NGLA.
      Do I believe that CBM & Whigham gave them much to think about? YES! Do I believe these men on their journey back to Philadelphia talked and discussed what CBM & WHIGHAM had spoken with them about? DEFINITELY SO!
      Do I believe that CBM & Whigham gave them plans for the course that had to be followed or even were suggested to be followed? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Why? Because there is not a single mention of that anywhere at all.

      For me, and I am sure that I will face an onslaught of arguing against this, I must conclude then that the “Committee” designed Merion and that the SIMPLE proof is staring at all of us in that single paragraph…

Phillip, I am surprised you'd come to this conclusion as if it were a NECESSARY conclusion, especially after warning us recently and repeatedly on not confusing fact with opinion.  You state that the advice at NGLA "could NOT have been the final word . . . "  Of course it could have been the final word, at least as to the plans that were laid out.  M&W could have given them five different variations to stake out, so M&W could later inspect these options on the ground.

Also, you are reading to0 much into this paragraph.  

1.  Recall that the source is well less than reliable and has only provided us what he wants us to see.  The reality is, we don't know what this paragraph consists of, or whether it is complete or accurate.   In fact, it has internal inconsistencies and ommissions that suggest that it is PROBABLY NOT ACCURATE OR COMPLETE.  

2.   You  base your conclusion on your observation that there was not "a mention of the 'plan that CBM just gave us' nor any mention of even, 'as he advised' . . .
    -  It is YOUR OPINION that the paragraph would have contained this language if CBM came up with the plan.  It is  by no means necessarily so.
    -  They had just mentioned going over CBM's plans, and these could be the plans to which they refer.  

3. Lastly Phillip, you overlook the fact that the staking out of the five different plans was definitely NOT THE FINAL WORD.   M&W returned to Merion to go over these five possible layouts and to chose the best one, possibly even altering it in the process.  If you are looking for the final word, it was  the plan determined by M&W that went to the board and was approved.

      I completely agree with you that all of the above is simply MY OPINION. But then again, your disagreement with it is simply your own…

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, in quoting me and commenting on it you stated:

   A single phrase certainly seems to be causing much disagreement. “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground…” The author RW Lesley was chairman of the golf committee. He was not a member of the construction committee.

      That is true and so what? He participated in the laying out of the original course and the many others including the one left on the ground when they went to NGLA. He was also involved in re-arranging this course and laying out the five different plans when they came back. (See my response to David)

      What could this possibly mean? How does one go about “laying out many different golf courses on the new ground” especially after the committee that wrote of this followed it by stating that “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
      What could they have possibly meant?
      Some have argued that to “Lay Out” a golf course at that time required that it was being constructed. Others have argued just as hard that it refers to the design of the course and not the building of it.
      Why, though, is it not possible for both sides to actually be at least partially correct?
      David Moriarity wrote, “I think that, generally, "to lay out" a golf course meant arranging the golf course on the ground, whether staking it out, marking it out, or even by building it.  This is distinguished from planning a golf course, which can be done on the ground as one marks, stakes, or lays out the course, but can also be done on paper…”
      Now whether one agrees with David’s interpretation of what a proper definition of the phrase “Lay Out” means in regard to a golf course is correct or not, he is right in stating that “laying out” a golf course can be done by “staking it out.”
      Isn’t it simply most reasonable to believe that the “committee” of Merion men STAKED OUT a “golf course” of their own design on the ground? And that after doing so they made changes, rearranging holes and lengths and sites and even routings? After all, the only thing that would have been required was a bunch of wooden stakes and energy.
      Especially that makes sense because of what the entirety of that portion of what they wrote states: “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
      They didn’t state that they laid out five “variations” but rather “five different plans” and this in a single day. The only way this would be possible is if they simply moved stakes to different locations. A lot of work and a daunting task; that goes without saying, but they certainly could have had enough committee men and others there to do it. They certainly had the motivation for it.
      Now Mike wrote that, “It is not clear which committee ‘laid out many different courses on the new ground…’”
      Again, whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, the FACT is that SOMEONE LAID OUT five different plans ON THE GROUND after visiting with CBM & Whigham. What can be stated UNDENIABLY is that it WASN’T CBM & WHIGHAM! So you don't think they re-arranged the course they had prior to the NGLA visit? They scrapped it and laid out five new courses. Why would they do that? Is there anything in the Wilson letters that indicates that drastic a change in direction?

      Tom, how can you arrive at that conclusion. I clearly stated and quoted SEVERAL TIMES up to this point that upon coming back from NGLA they first “re-arranged” the course they left on the ground. Did they “scrap it?” apparently so because he wrote that they then laid out five “different” plans. Again, not variations on what was there… DIFFERENT!
      Why would they do that? SIMPLE! Because they didn’t like what they saw on the ground. If they had they would have left it!

      Did they advise the “committee” including Wilson and the other members when they visited on how to go about properly “laying out” a golf course. Assuredly so! But that “advice” could NOT have been the final word since if it was they would have simply returned and staked out what they were told to; this they did not do. How do we know this? Because they wrote that, “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…” Not a mention of the “plan that CBM just gave us” nor any mention of even “as he advised, simply that they “laid out five different plans.” Five different plans could mean many different things. As minor as five different combinations of grass to five plans to incorporate CBM's pet holes to laying out five uniquely different golf courses. You chose to interpret it in the most drastic way (five completely new routings), and in mind most unlikely scenario. I'm not even sure you can get five distinct routings on that narrow L-shaped property, with a fixed clubhouse location and a road bisecting it. Add to the equation the committee producing these 5 distinct routings is inexperienced and unqualified, and up to their eyeballs in agronomic issues.
     
      Now as far as it meaning five different combinations to five plans, who is now interpreting it to the EXTREME LEAST? If my “interpretation” lacks validity for being on the far extreme end (at least according to your view of it) then how should we approach the veracity of yours being at the extreme end of the other side? And the fact that the committee was inexperienced and unqualified (that last word is your own belief by the way) means nothing at all.
      For the sake of this singular argument, if the original course laid out on the ground was done by CBM, Whigham & Barker, and they were so well respected by these men that their inexperience would disqualify them from attempting their own design(s), WHY did they then IGNORE the MASTERS and go out and lay out “many different golf courses on the ground?” That certainly ISN’T the action of a group of men whose inexperience and lack of qualifications had caused them to turn to outside experts!

 For me, and I am sure that I will face an onslaught of arguing against this, I must conclude then that the “Committee” designed Merion and that the SIMPLE proof is staring at all of us in that single paragraph…Which committee? The account you are referring to was written by the chairman of the golf committee and does not mention the construction committee by name. In fact the construction committee and Wilson are not mentioned in the minutes at all according to TEP. Strange don't you think?
     
      Tom, it was the committee made up of the men who had laid out the “many different golf courses on the ground” and then went to NGLA and then came back and “re-arranged” the one they had left and then “laid out five different ones.” Not only was the “Construction Committee” not mentioned in the minutes, but they weren’t mentioned ANYWHERE in what I WROTE!

I think you reading too much into TEP's disjointed excerpt. What would TEP's reasons be for giving us these few sentences and cutting out the rest of the paragraph? The first clue that something is amiss is the shifting between first and third person. "THEY went to the NGLA"..."on OUR return."

      If I am reading too much into anything it is into what YOU & DAVID WROTE as everything I’ve quoted from comes from posts that the two of you have made!

[Mike_Cirba]

This is approaching new levels of comedic absurdity.  At this rate we can parse words for another 100,000 posts on GCA!

Tom and David....do you have any new evidence or are we just going to discuss the same old BS?

Is this it?   The Piper & Oakley Farmer's Almanac and HH Barker's Midnight Train to Georgia theory?  

Follow that with another round of Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison bashing, a heaping helpful of tortured logic, a pinch of twsted verbiage, and add a dash or two of Smoke and Mirrors...

Please tell me you guys didn't come back after all this time with only this as new evidence??  

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Half the golf course was a corn field.

Would they have been able to leave the stalks standing in the non-fairway areas and hope they just disappeared, or would they have plowed them all over and turned the soil?

I'm not an expert in corn farming/cultivation but I've seen plently of cornfields in the winter, and unless Philadlephia is differnt than Ohio, and you're able to grow corn year round, I don't think the stakes in December would be a problem. If you were a golf architect in 1910 would you recommend painting the stakes white or red or some other bright color?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

You have to admit that's pretty funny!  

I have no doubt they could stake out a corn field, that's my point.

I also have no doubt that they'd need to plow the whole frigging thing and turn over the soil come spring, that's my point, as well.

And it would take about 2 minutes to pull a stake, plough around it, and re-affix the post.

also...

Why does this letter seem to me to be the most prescient and relevant of the whole bunch?   I think Oakley might have sent it to the wrong guys.    

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

In your most recent set of letters posted by Bryan Izatt, Wilson indicates that he's going to put down about 70% of the seed in the rough as in the fairway.

Are you contending that he wouldn't have prepared those areas for growing first, by clearing, ploughing, and harrowing it?

[Tom MacWood]

I'm contending the areas he plowed and treated with manure & lime in March were fairways and greens. I'm contending the locations of the fairways and greens was obviously known at the time, that the golf course had been routed, in fact had been routed before the committee was even formed. Have you read Wilson's account in P&O's book?

Was Wilson on the green committee at the old course? When was he appointed chairman of the green committee of the new course? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

On what basis do you contend that, other than the basis that if that is the way it happened, it makes your Barker routing theory more plausible in your mind?

It has never worked out for me to seed part of an area, go back, and seed the rest.  Usually, once you seed a hole, you seed the entire hole.  Besides, even if they knew where the prelim routing was in Jan, or whenever, the obviously changed it come March and April, even waiting for CBM to come out there.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

The other reason my answer might be disappointing is because both you and Jim ducked the question of where the 117 acres were located.

...........................

I'll let Jim answer for himself.  I didn't duck the question of where the 117 acres was located.  I don't know where it was located because there is no evidence either in the official MCC records or in the press about where it was.  You want to speculate, be my guest.  But, I'd ask you three questions in return:

Where do you think the 117 acres was located?

What documentary evidence (not speculation) do you have to support your location?

Why do you think that MCC never bothered to document the boundaries of the 117 acres that they were paying $85,000 for?

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
That is the way I read it, but you have the professional experience. Based on your professional experience I take it you agree with Mike's contention that they plowed the entire property? And the wall to wall plowing was then followed by manure and lime treatment over the entire site? Would you not recommend treating the greens and fairways differently than the rough areas?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()