David,
Earlier you mentioned an article written about the 6th hole where it describes it in ways we both agree sound like Road Hole principles could have been used. If you're not willing to identify your source yet, could you at least date that article for us?
I'm also assuming that you have additional evidence of your land claims besides "taking Francis at his word". We know the Johnson Farm was 140 acres, so quite large enough in and of itself to hold the golf course, including primo land up above the quarry that you claim that whoever advised them on which land to choose somehow never identified.
It just seems rather convenient to me that your western boundary is movable...for instance, if I move it eastward a half inch, I probably have 105 acres, or westward and I have 130. Something isn't passing the sniff test here for me, honestly, and meaning no offense, if you have more evidence and info, I think we should keep moving forward with the discussion. But I have to think that one of the primary things anyone laying out a course has to keep in mind at all times is how much land they have left to work with. I can't imagine laying out 12 holes, already having to cross Ardmore Avenue 3 times to fit things in, and then coming over and thinking..."oops!". "Perhaps I can squeeze a par three over behind the clubhouse, but then what? I've already said I'm not using any land northwest above Ardmore Ave. for reasons I can't yet fathom, but if I have my mind made up to only use this narrow section, I don't see it happening!?! LLLLOOOYYYDDDD!!!!!"
Seriously, I can't imagine any designer worth his salt making such a novice mistake.
You also seem to be largely writing off Macdonald at this point, or perhaps simply think he made revisions to Barker's plan, am I correct? Would I also be correct to assume that we are largely writing off the Nov 15, 1910 Land Plan as evidentiary at this point, even though you used it in your White Paper to assert that the existence of a triangle meant that the swap must have happened before then?
I would think that you'd have to, because at this point we see that the dimensions of that triangle on the Land Swap map are not 130x190 as Francis claimed; as Tom Paul points out they are about 95X300! If Francis did his work before then this evidence certainly doesn't back up his claim any longer.
If you'd rather not continue to debate what holes could fit into which land I would simply state that the four questions I asked in my first post on this thread still remain completely unanswered. Could you give them a shot?
Thanks
Bryan,
I think you misunderstood me. I don't have the metres and bounds either. When I was talking about property boundary under the trees I was referring to the fact that I believe the original dimension of the triange from the inside of the road to have been about 130 yards, (as opposed to 95 on the 1910 Land Plan) and with the additional "triangle" sold to them by Haverford College in 1928 that made the bottom of the triangle 155 yards, and there are in fact stakes under and along the treeline on the left of 16 as you come off the tee for the first part of the hole.
Yesterday I tried to map from Haverford Ave., and from the Railroad tracks back to that line using the dimensions on the 1910 map. I don't know if I screwed up something but I couldn't get close.
I'll look at it again today.
Hope tihis helps explain things.
Thanks