[TEPaul]

"That is why they did the swap. They thought they could fit the holes, but the holes didn't fit, so they got some land and it not only made the course fit, they made it better."


I think we all know they did the swap for #15 green and #16 tee, and we all have known that for a long time. But that is not what Mike Cirba asked you. He asked you if you think the Francis idea and land swap created the WHOLE triangle that shows up on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan? 

That, at least, is what your essay on this website says. Do you deny that now or wish to change your essay?

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,
As to your second question to Jeffrey above, I'll be glad to explain to you your mistake, but only if you finally allow me to vet your numerous claims. 

"I think we all know they did the swap for #15 green and #16 tee, and we all have known that for a long time. But that is not what Mike Cirba asked you. He asked you if you think the Francis idea and land swap created the WHOLE triangle that shows up on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan?


That, at least, is what your essay on this website says. Do you deny that now or wish to change your essay?"

It was the land measuring about  130 x 190 yards - the location of the 16th tee and 15th green.  Same as it says in my essay, and as Francis wrote about 59 years ago.

When, exactly, was the construction committee created?  Surely you understand the question. 

[TEPaul]

"It was the land measuring about  130 x 190 yards - the location of the 16th tee and 15th green.  Same as it says in my essay, and as Francis wrote about 59 years ago."


I see. What does land measuring ABOUT 130x190 YARDS mean? 130x190 is a rectangle. Is the 15th green and 16th tee a rectangle? If so that's a helluva big rectangle for a green and a tee!

So, in other words, you are saying that triangle that appears IN GREEN in the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan is land measuring around 130x190 YARDS that is basically about a rectangle? Would that be a correct interpretation of what you mean in your essay and what you believe your essay says?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
As to your second question to Jeffrey above, I'll be glad to explain to you your mistake, but only if you finally allow me to vet your numerous claims."


You can vet as many of my numerous claims as you would like. You don't need my permission to do that. My second question to Jeffrey was to "Mr. Jeffrey Brauer, Esq, Sir" not you, but if you want to answer my questions to Mr. Jeffrey Brauer, Esq, and particularly some mistake in my second one, knock yourself out; I'm all ears. Is there some mistake in my question or are you going to just try to tell everyone again why you think I asked him that question?   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Gents,

Sorry for leaving a wrong impression. I had to leave the computer quickly to allow my daughter to do homework.  As I said, a few days ago, I thought we were actually getting closer to some closure, but we never will, alas, with people continuing to ask questions that have already been answered.

The other documents I refer to are nothing new in the argument. I am referring to those that TePaul has recently shared parts of with us.  As an example, he mentioned certain letters and dates of deeds on land transfers, which were new documents to this discussion as far as I knew.  

TePaul,

Once again, you seem to have me confused with David.  I have said I think the land swap took place about when the deeds were recorded and the swap approved.

As to the topos, I presume Lloyd or McConnel had a survey done when they bought the property (all 338 acres) and may have contracted the same surveyors to prepare a topo map either at the same time, or perhaps as a separate contract.  McDonald alludes to them after his June 1910 meeting (saying he doesn't have them in front of him) so I presume it would have been right up front, which would also be typical for subdivision work.  Barker may have used it, CBM probably saw it, and the committee sure used it.  The time it was prepared probably has no bearing on this discussion.

My guess is also that the metes and bounds survey in your possession shows only the final boundary, right?  There was probably no need to survey the interim land arrangements until the final design was complete under their arrangement.

I can see the logic tree for both sides of this argument on the land swap - sliver vs tirangle, but each is a few branches short of a full tree. I will say no more because I hate to sound like a tuna flopping around on the dock. And I sure don't want to be called either a California lawyer or Philly Main Line Butt Boy.

[DMoriarty]

When, exactly, was the Construction Committee created?

[TEPaul]

"TePaul,

Once again, you seem to have me confused with David.  I have said I think the land swap took place about when the deeds were recorded and the swap approved."


Jeffrey:

Is that right? I'm sorry, I didn't understand you said that. I couldn't agree with you more given the fact we have a club governor offering a resolution at a board meeting asking for approval of an exchange of land that has ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED. I see no reason why he would do that if the exchange (land swap) had already happened BEFORE the land was purchased by or for the club.

When you speak of deeds with this issue there is really only two we need to be concerned with----eg when Lloyd took the land into his own name for MCC (Dec. 19, 1910) and when he passed it back out of his name to MCC (actually MCC's corporation that had been created to own the land and lease it to MCC) on July 21, 1911.

Of course, the timing of board member, Thompson's resolution is most important to consider since he offered it on April 19, 1911.

I think this is the way to consider issues like this Jeff. What I have just given you are provable recorded FACTS! There is zero speculation of any kind in them.

[TEPaul]

"When, exactly, was the Construction Committee created?"


I don't know because in the entire administrative records and board meeting minutes of MCC there is no mention at all of any committee called "The Construction Committee."

That seems to be the name that perhaps some of its members such as chairman Hugh I. Wilson gave it after the fact (in an article) and perhaps his brother did as well many years later (in a long requested letter from the MCC historian). But there never was a committee ever referred to that we know of at any board meeting known as "The Construction Committee."

Of course, we certainly know it existed and who was on it. That is all over Merion's history but when it reported it apparently did so under a "standing" committee or even what may've once been ellipticially referred to before the fact of the purchase of the land as "The Special Committe on Golf." In this sense, the so-called "Wilson Committee" or even "Construction Committee" may've just been the ultimate far reaching "Ad Hoc" committee that operated under a permanent committee such as the Golf Committee or even what emanated out of what was referred to at one early board meeting as "The Special Committee on Golf." That one mentioned in Nov. 1910 the board meeting said was chaired by Horatio Gates Lloyd.

I believe when we get to the end of day that man is going to be completely key, and given that particular one time mention of the "Special Committee on Golf" was in Nov. 1910 I think we can see just how much he orchestrated this entire thing that involved the entire 338 acres of the golf course and the rest being a residential development.

[TEPaul]

Here's perhaps some other facts to chew on in the vein of the above post.

"Standing" or "Permanent" committees are sometimes very key in the structure of clubs and in board meeting minutes and in understanding them. Often committees that may have tremendous impact and power over the history of a course or club are not permanent or standing committees but basically "ad hoc" commitees (meaning when their duty or charge is done they simply pass out of existence).

Permanent or "standing" committee chairmen are almost always also members of the Board of Governors or board of directors of a club. Throughout all this Horatio Gates Lloyd was always a board member. So was Lesley and I believe Griscom and Baily and perhaps Bodine, Evans, Cuylers etc. and a few others whose names have been seen on these threads.

In 1910 and 1911 Hugh I. Wilson was not on the board of governors of Merion and so he apparently didn't go to board meetings during the original work of the Wilson Committee but he gave his reports through the Golf Committee (a permanent committee) that was chaired by Robert Lesley through this time.

Eventually Hugh Wilson did become the Golf Chairman, apparently replacing Robert Lesley and that meant he was also on the board of directors.

But here is something remarkably ironic about that regarding the history of Merion.

There was a long-time rumor that on his return from Europe, Wilson almost took The Titanic home (I think that can be documented). He stayed abroad for some reason for about two weeks and that apparently saved his life.

John B. Thayer, an truly impressive young man who was a vice president of the all powerful PRR at that time did take The Titanic home with his wife and son. Thayer was on the board of directors of MCC. He was one of the recorded heroes of The Titanic disaster, saving lives to the very last minute and losing his own.

In June 1912, Hugh Wilson took the board position vacated by The Titanic death of John B. Thayer on April 15, 1912.

[DMoriarty]

When exactly was  Hugh Wilson's first recorded involvement with the project?  Are you aware of any involvement before the February 1, 1912 letter?

[TEPaul]

"When exactly was  Hugh Wilson's first recorded involvement with the project?  Are you aware of any involvement before the February 1, 1912 letter?"


From the records of the club itself there is a brief mention in the late fall of 1910 of Wilson going onto what appears to be a special committee, or perhaps a morphing of the former "Special Committee on New Golf Grounds" that we have known as the "Search Committee" that clearly was an "ad hoc" commitee that was passing out of existence as their work was done when the club board approved the soon to come purchase by Lloyd of the land that Lloyd appears to have almost single-handly negotiated and arranged the deals of and for and that would become Merion East in a year or so.

That morphing of the former "Search Committee" into what may've been called for a time or in a board meeting or so, the "Special Committee on Golf", was at least temporarily chaired by Lloyd in Nov (perhaps because he was a board member anyway and attended board meetings), not to even mention he alone had engineered the entire 338 acre arrangment himself for MCC with Connell of HDC, according to board minutes). It looks to me sort of like an "ad hoc" committee that had essentially completed its work by the fall of 1910 and was beginning to morph into a new "ad hoc" committee that was populating up for their charge of a new responsibility in the coming months (years actually) of designing and building of the golf course. That there were clearly cross-over members on the former "ad hoc" committee with the next one makes perfect sense to me in a club like that---that's the way my own club works in the committees I've been on going from one responsibility to another or new one----if one tried to look back on all that a century from now the evolution of those committees may seem a bit vague via board meeting minutes or whatever.

Throughout the entire time from early Nov. 1910 until July 1911 there was not a single mention in club records or correspondences about Richard Francis. There is nothing at all from the club's records to suggest that Francis was out there a number of months before being appointed to the so-called "Wilson Committee." But if he had been out there in late 1910 which I most certainly wouldn't necessarily doubt or deny (since there is nothing factual I'm aware of to suggest he wasn not ) there is no logical reason I can see that the other members of the "To Be" appointed "Wilson Committee" (Griscom, Toulmin and certainly chairman Wilson) were not as well. 

[Mike_Cirba]

"
Is that right? I'm sorry, I didn't understand you said that. I couldn't agree with you more given the fact we have a club governor offering a resolution at a board meeting asking for approval of an exchange of land that has ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED. I see no reason why he would do that if the exchange (land swap) had already happened BEFORE the land was purchased by or for the club.

When you speak of deeds with this issue there is really only two we need to be concerned with----eg when Lloyd took the land into his own name for MCC (Dec. 19, 1910) and when he passed it back out of his name to MCC (actually MCC's corporation that had been created to own the land and lease it to MCC) on July 21, 1911.

Of course, the timing of board member, Thompson's resolution is most important to consider since he offered it on April 19, 1910.

Tom,

I'm assuming you mean April 19 1911, not 1910, correct?

[TEPaul]

Correct. Thanks for picking it up or tomorrow some historical revisionist might try to pass if off as a FACT to try to slide some event back a year before it actually happened to make some fallacious revisionist point about Merion! 

I guess I'm just getting a bit weary with all this and getting a bit like poor Hugh Wilson himself when he happened to write in one article or correspondence that they were building the West Course in the year before they even bought the land for it.   

[DMoriarty]

"When exactly was  Hugh Wilson's first recorded involvement with the project?  Are you aware of any involvement before the February 1, 1912 letter?"


From the records of the club itself there is a brief mention in the late fall of Wilson going onto what appears to be a special committee, or perhaps a morphing of the former "Special Committee on New Golf Grounds" that we have known as the "Search Committee" . . ."

1.  Could you please clarify?  When in the fall?  Was he appointed to a committee or not?   And what committee?  I'd much rather not have your speculation on what happened, but would prefer if you would give us the facts so we can figure it our ourselves.  Thanks.

2. I meant February 1, 1911.

[Mike_Cirba]

I guess I'm just getting a bit weary with all this and getting a bit like poor Hugh Wilson himself when he happened to write in one article or correspondence that they were building the West Course a year before they even bought the land for it.   

Tom,

Hang in there...I think we're all getting much closer to a mutual understanding.   

Whether we're all ready to accept that understanding is another question, but we're closer than any time before I believe.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

I'm weary as well but have no control over how long this process takes.  I don't have the information I need to come to an understanding, and this is the process you have chosen to make that information available.  If you are tired of it, then lets try something more productive. 

[JESII]

Mike,

It would be education for me to see you route the final five in the land on the 11/15/1910 land plan.

They were struggling between 5 routings weren't they?

[TEPaul]

"1.  Could you please clarify?  When in the fall?  Was he appointed to a committee or not?   And what committee?  I'd much rather not have your speculation on what happened, but would prefer if you would give us the facts so we can figure it our ourselves."  



"The Missing Faces of Merion" essayist:


In the future, if you want me to even consider responding to some request or demand from you for additional information on Merion, I insist each and every request Of YOURS only be coupled closely with statement that you are thanking Wayne Morrison for taking the time and making the effort that took days and weeks and months TO PROVIDE YOU with the information that YOU should HAVE HAD yourself before launching into this bizarre and "access demanding" campaign of yours about the history of Merion. Nothing else will suffice and perhaps even that won't, at this point.

You try to categorize what you've done and continue to do on here as some attempt at "civil discourse" but I think anyone viewing or studying these threads can see without question from numerous of your own posts that what you are doing and saying does not even sniff the concept of civil discourse!  

Furthermore, if you'd prefer not to have what you refer to as "my speculation" perhaps you should stop making demands for additional information on Merion OF ME and just come over here and spend the time and make the effort to do it ALL YOURSELF as we have been for a number of years. That's what most all actual club and course historians have always done with clubs like these and with the help of others from them such as us with Merion or Phillmont or Springhaven et al. The best example of that was the hugely valuable historian and sadly recently departed Bob Labbance!

I don't see a single other participant on these threads making these demands of me. The rest seem perfectly happy with what I have been providing on Merion that no one else on here obviously has to provide. The one who really was the best source for any and all of this was Wayne Morrison OF MERION but he has given up on these threads and on GOLFCLUBALTLAS.com as well solely because of his disgust over the way you have carried on and continue to carry on with you lame claims of interest in the true history of Merion and your other lame cover of interest in "civil discourse." I believe Merion itself completely shares his feelings and so you alone have probably done and continue to do one of the greatest disservices to this entire website and certainly to everyone else's continued understanding of the history of Merion and the great East Course.

[Mike_Cirba]

Please give it shot yourself, I'm willing to learn more about how Macdonald and Whigham first short-sightedly recommended only 65 yards of land above the quarry and then seemingly painted themselves into a corner like this with the final five championship finishing holes still to come.   

Mike, in reading these last couple of pages, it's pretty clear to me that this idea you have that it was foolhardy to only buy 65 yards of land above the quarry is a red herring.

It seems perfectly logical to me that Merion may have wanted to have had more than 65 yards, but you're completely ignoring the fact that they were constrained in obtaining more than that north of the quarry because (1) they'd already determined most of the course (the 13 holes that Francis said fit in pretty easily) and (2) they had a fixed budget and fixed amount of acreage to buy ... therefore, the swap had to be an exact match and they couldn't have obtained more without cutting into some of the land upon which they'd decided the other holes were going to be built. 

Look, I'd love to have my neighbor's entire back yard in return for a small portion of my side yard, but the fact is, that if I've only got, say, 400 square feet of side yard to swap him for it, I'm only going to get an equivalent 400 square foot sliver of his back yard in return.

 

Shivas,

I don't think you're understanding my point.

Besides the Haverford College Land, which was off-limits, they had option to use land that was part of the original Johnson Farm all the way to College Avenue up north.

THey had Macdonald and Whigham down to look at the land and make recommendations.   Their report indicated that "much could be done" with the quarry as a hazard.

They could have opted for any amount of acreage...Connell told them they could have 100 or whatever it would take.   Someone decided on around 120, but there was nothing stopping them from going north as far as they wanted.

The 65 yards was a restriction that didn't need to be....somebody f'd up big time if David's theory is correct.

Of course, I don't believe that...I believe they optioned land in that triangle from the get go and that the Francis Swap wasn't to create the whole triangle.

I don't think any of the men involved were that stupid, frankly.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

It would be education for me to see you route the final five in the land on the 11/15/1910 land plan.

They were struggling between 5 routings weren't they?

Jim,

Yes, they were, and I believe that Francis's Land Swap idea really was the breakthrough idea that narrowed it.

Frankly, and this is simple speculation on my part, but I believe they already had a favorite among the five by the time Macdonald arrived April 6th 1911 and validated their assessment.

My contention is that there is NOT enough room in the November 1910 Land Plan to create five solid championship course finishing holes because of the quarry and the need to create an alternative route around it on 16..

As it is, the original #15 was only 330 yards, and if you had to move it further right you'd have limited the impact of 16 greatly, reducing that one to a drive and pitch, as well.

David is the one who is saying it all fits, and it clearly doesn't all fit.

I'd love to see HIM do that exercise, or anyone else frankly.

[JESII]

Mike,
 
Why don't you throw a couple ideas against the wall? I'd be curious what routings you think they could have been struggling with. You asked for some ideas on what could be done without the triangle and I threw something up and you shot it down...is there any possible routing without the use of the triangle? Forget the dimensions of the triangle...is there any way to fit 5 holes up there without a green and a tee in the triangle?

Why would they option the triangle (thereby sacrificing 2.5 acres on an already limited property) if they hadn't planned on using it for golf?

[TEPaul]

"... therefore, the swap had to be an exact match and they couldn't have obtained more without cutting into some of the land upon which they'd decided the other holes were going to be built."


Shivas:

What land are you thinking of that you say they had decided the other holes were going to be built on?  

[DMoriarty]

I'll not play your games regarding the source material any longer. 

"1.  Could you please clarify?  When in the fall?  Was he appointed to a committee or not?   And what committee?  I'd much rather not have your speculation on what happened, but would prefer if you would give us the facts so we can figure it our ourselves." 



"The Missing Faces of Merion" essayist:


In the future, if you want me to even consider responding to some request or demand from you for additional information on Merion, I insist each and every request Of YOURS only be coupled closely with statement that you are thanking Wayne Morrison for taking the time and making the effort that took days and weeks and months TO PROVIDE YOU with the information that YOU should HAVE HAD yourself before launching into this bizarre and "access demanding" campaign of yours about the history of Merion. Nothing else will suffice and perhaps even that won't, at this point.

You try to categorize what you've done and continue to do on here as some attempt at "civil discourse" but I think anyone viewing or studying these threads can see without question from numerous of your own posts that what you are doing and saying does not even sniff the concept of civil discourse!   

Furthermore, if you'd prefer not to have what you refer to as "my speculation" perhaps you should stop making demands for additional information on Merion OF ME and just come over here and spend the time and make the effort to do it ALL YOURSELF as we have been for a number of years. That's what most all actual club and course historians have always done with clubs like these and with the help of others from them such as us with Merion or Phillmont or Springhaven et al. The best example of that was the hugely valuable historian and sadly recently departed Bob Labbance!

I don't see a single other participant on these threads making these demands of me. The rest seem perfectly happy with what I have been providing on Merion that no one else on here obviously has to provide.

TEPaul,

The reason I am the one making these demands is simple.

You and Wayne have made a number of false claims about me and my essay in a public forum, and have used the MCC records as the supposed basis for your false statements.  Your doing so has not only undermined my work, it has damaged and continues to damage my personal reputation and my reputation as a researcher and writer.   You need to come clean with the source material so I can vet your claims.   My demands on you two are no more than what civil discourse requires of you.  Indeed my demands of you are no more that what civil law requires when one defames another in a public forum as you two have me here.   In our society those who are defamed must be given the change to defend themself.  Its your burden to prove your defamatory claims are true, and you cannot meet that burden without producing the source material that is supposedly  the basis for your claims.   The time for your gossip, insults, and character assignation has passed.  It is time to back up your claims.

In addition,  I know how you guys have dealt with the source material in the past, and know better than to take yor word for anything.

I'd gladly come to Merion to review the documents myself,  but at last check you and Wayne have made that impossible.   

[TEPaul]

"The land that Francis said the other 13 holes fit really nicely into.  It just seems logical to me that if you're Merion, and you've only got so much money and approval to buy [X amount] of acres for your course, and if you want more because you're maxed out as it is, to get the new land, you've got to give up some of the old..."

Shivas:

I'm not aware of anything at all that would lead one to conclude that Francis said they were giving up land that the first thirteen holes, or any other holes for that matter, fit into nicely. Where have you gotten that idea?

Francis actually said:

"The idea was this: We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some we could use. Mr. Lloyd agreed."

[DMoriarty]

I think we're saying the same thing.  On the existing property that they, at the time, had to work with, they could get 13 holes but the last 5 were a squeeze.  They didn't need some of the property they had (the land where the really nice homes ended up), so they traded as much of that as they didn't need for as much of the triangle as they could get.  All I'm saying is that the dog (how much they've got) wags the tail (how much they can trade for).  The amount of land they could afford to spare up by where the nice homes ended up going dictates how much of the triangle they could obtain.  In other words, if they'd have had more to give where the nice homes ended up, they'd have acquired more triangle, going further north toward College Avenue.

Shivas

This logic applies only if the swap occurred after they had decided on 117 acres for the sale.    I doubt this was the case. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()