[Cristian]

Has anyone ever changed opinion on this thread?

If yes, continue! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Sometimes I wonder if you read anyone's responses even as you interject your green type between them.

I read them carefully.

In fact, I did agree with your presumption that CBM most likely saw Barkers routing.

It's a reasonable conclusion.

That said, I was also recently in a similar meeting where the client refused to show me the other consultants routing, which also happens.  If they call in an expert, they don't want their opinions skewed by others opinions.  It could have happened either way.

Again, I think you're viewing the issue in a present day context and not in the context of events in 1909-11, when few golf courses existed and Barker and Macdonald were held in very high regard.  

What couldn't have happened either way is the ACTUAL timeline of events.  I have no problem using facts to narrow down the possibilities and get frustrated at someone like you who simply wishes to keep all possibilities open.

Possibilities, probabilities or certainty ?
Mike Cirba declared that NO ROUTING existed in 1910.   We KNOW that he was WRONG about that.
Mikd Cirba declared that NO ONE could route a golf course with just one site visit.  We KNOW he was WRONG about that.

You may choose to ignore his pronouncements in his quest to "cleanse" the record, I don't.  Those items are relevant.

And, the timeline I posted, with the huge 7 month gap is another relevant issue that you, Mike and others want to ignore.

You and Mike may want to close the book on further discovery and discussion, I don't.


The point of this excersise (for me) is to get to the ACTUAL time line of events, period and with 99% certainty, knowing 100% is out of the question at this point. 

How can you eliminate the Barker routing from the timeline.
We know of its authenticity.
And, how can you ignore the 7 month gap in your quest for a timeline ?
Do you really believe that the project was frozen for 7 months ?

But, I see no need to argue a 1% possibility endlessly other than if that happens to be your hobby, which sometimes, I suspect it is!

We view things differently.  You WANT to accept a particular version, whereas I want to pursue more facts before accepting ANY version.
You may recall Mike Cirba's staunch defense in claiming that Wilson did in fact sail to the UK prior to 1912.
Should we have accepted Mike's position, or pursued additional research ?
The answer is self evident.

This isn't about arguing.  
I've taken NO position with respect to whose routing was initially/finally crafted on the ground, but, I'm not about to have the supposed crafter shoved down my throat solely by constant repetition.

I see no evidence that "Barkers routing was accepted" by MCC.  Like you, I can envision CBM's reactions, given his legendary ego.  It is fun to contemplate.

Once again, even if CBM saw it and used it as TP as suggested by Mike earlier, subsequent events rendered whatever Barker did mute. 
I don't know how you can conclusively deduce that.

Even if CBM did some kind of routing that day (which I doubt, but lets move on) the record shows it was superceded by other events - the purchase of the Dallas Estate, the committe prepared many routings, and then visting CBM, which somehow caused them to work up even five more routings. 

Jeff, absent source documentation I don't know how anyone can draw a definitive conclusion.

At some point, all the earlier work, whatever that was, was rendered moot by the final routing, the land swap, etc. perhaps even including CBM's good advice in March and April 1911.

Again, until Barker's routing turns up, I don't know how you can draw any definitive conclusions, including variations from the initial theme.

If you are asking if CBM did some routings at that point in history (1910) just to complete the record, you can ask away.  I know David has been looking for more documents between CB and MCC for quite a while now.  I know they don't exist or haven't been found in any MCC collection and Wayne and TePaul are still looking after over a year. 

Certainly the production of any additional documentation would be helpful.
But, a critical document would be Barker's routing.  Production of that document should clear up a number of questions.

For a while, a few of us were simply trying to connect the dots on a timeline based on documents and known facts. 

Jeff, you can't be serious.  Mike Cirba declares that NO ROUTING existed in 1910 and you accept that without protest ?  ?  ?
If your connection of the dots  was to establish a timeline on documents and known facts, how can you blandly overlook the eradication of Barker's 06-10-10 visit and routing ?

I personally think all that has been discovered is all that is going to be discovered. I was particpating in this thread based on that assumption and even said that if more info came out, I would be glad to revise my opinion. 

I know one thing, if no effort is made to find additional documentation, it's doubtful that any will be discovered.
Like others, I don't fear further discovery, whether it proves Wilson or Barker or Macdonald or Francis or anyone else, including the committee routed Merion.

At this point I can't rectify the missing activity in a 7 month time span and other items.
I'm not prepared, in my own mind, to close the book on this and related issue.

Based on that, we are currently simply trying to figure out how the land parcel bought went from 117 to 120 acres. 
That is why your posts seem like such a distraction to me.

Jeff, you're entitled to focus on your objective, but, your objective isn't the only objective and your objective isn't mutually exclusive to all other issues, positions and perspectives.

I would like to keep this one focused on what the main participants have generally agreed to and narrowed things down to.  Of course, I understand that I have no control over anything.  But, it just seems to me that if you wanted to, you could again start another thread to drum up support for your CBM speculation about his routing efforts if any in June 1910 and see where it goes.

My issue isn't about speculating on CBM's routing efforts.
My issue was to point out that Mike Cirba's statement that NO ROUTING existed in 1910 was false.
My issue was to point out that Mike Cirba's contention that NO ONE could visit and route a site in one day was false.

Mike Cirba has continuously and constantly drawn irrational conclusions and made false statements.

IF YOU seek the truth, how can you accept false statements about any of these issues ?

Thanks for your consideration.

And you for yours.

[Patrick_Mucci]

One last topic that I wanted to touch on related to CBM doing a routing.  To that date, he had only routed his own courses.

Who elses courses would you route but your own ?  ?  ?

My question is how did his amateur status affect his work? 
Was the his amateur status a factor in him being vague, in their not publishing the letter wihch might appear to make him look like a professional, etc.

Jeff, how many professional "architects" do you think there were in 1909-11 ?
You may be looking at this in the context of 2009

Would he undertake to route a course for another client at that point or would that have affected his amateur status?

There was a thread or threads about that subject some time ago.
I believe that TEPaul may have provided some insight on the subject, along with others like Tom MacWood.

Like most of the other stuff talked about regarding MCC here, I vaguely recall this being discussed but with Pat bringing up the CBM routing card again, perhaps a refresher course in how that affect things might help some of us

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Pat has zero evidence, has contributed nothing of value to this thread, and is trying to divert attention from the real facts while personally calling me a liar.

Mike,  YOU LIED.
You stated that NO ROUTING existed in 1910, yet, you knew that Barker had tendered a routing.
It was part of the Merion records.

Its sad and pathetic and he;s not worth discussing this with,

Between Pat here, with David feeding hin info,
and 0tom Macwood ob email you've been barraged with enough babble and misdirection in one day than all of Muhammad Ali's opponents conbined!

If you could point out errors in my facts, or faulty reasoning in my logic, I'd be happy to review it with you.

Throughout this thread you've attempted to stifle discovery, continually and constantly claiming "victory" for your position.
You even retitled the thread on numerous occassions.

Your perspective has been driven by a conclusion you previously reached.
Dave Schmidt, Bryan and others have pointed out the flaws in your reasoning.
To take the position that you've been an objective moderator or participant is beyond sheer folly.

But ask yourself at the end of the day; did anyone of them introduce a single new factual piece of evidence into the discussion or did they just speculate that barker or n+w had to have done something!

Perhaps you overlooked the introduction of Barker's 06-10-10 routing and the fact that he crafted and presented that routing after JUST ONE DAY on site, something you said couldn't be done.  Yet, the facts proved you wrong.

I'd say that's hard core evidence and something of value

Nacwood even goes so far in email to conclude that 1ilson invited @iper down to see the course in early FEb 1911 wheb it is clearly documented in multiple places that construction didn't even commence til April!

I'm not responsible for Tom MacWood's, Wayne Morrisson's, or anyone else's emails.

These guys are so desperate to try and prove Tom and Wayne wrong that its become a pathetic personal vendetta.

I see it as a two (2) way street, and, I believe it was TE and Wayno who were desperate to prove David Moriarty wrong.
However, you can't overlook David's pointing out the substantive and glaring ommission in either Wayno's or TEPaul's post regarding a Merion report.
David might have started an entire thread on that subject.
Leaving out critical information is dirty pool and you know it.

This is bullshit and Patrick should be ashamed of himself for his role in all of this.

I've played NO ROLE.
I'm an equal opportunity disputer.
I've disputed some of David's info, TEPaul's, Wayne's and your info.

Unlike you, who wants to shut this thread down, a thread you started, I seek more information, information that would allow me to make an informed, intelligent opinion.

Neither Tom nor Wayne want to have any of their research here any longer, much less the supposed infamous Cuyler letter, which is another red herring, because they are tired of dealing with the same nonsensical, non_factual, erroneous, vendetta_driven,and totally speculative bullshit you've been dealing with all day from these jokers.

First of all, how do you know the Cuyler letter is a red herring ?
You've already told us that you've NEVER seen it.

As to your other comment, you can't be serious.
IF TE or Wayne had conclusive evidence that proved their point they'd post it in a heartbeat, either directly or through you.

The hiding and/or hording of information and documents can only be viewed in a negative context by ANY prudent person.

[mike_malone]

 If we haven't actually seen Barker's routing how we judge its importance?  Isn't it likely an estimate of the ability to place 18 holes of some variety on the proposed property?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If we haven't actually seen Barker's routing how we judge its importance? 


Well, if you're trying to establish a bona fide time line, you can't exclude it.

As to judging its importance, you certainly can't dismiss it as others tried to do.

Isn't it likely an estimate of the ability to place 18 holes of some variety on the proposed property?

I don't believe it's an estimate.
I take Barker at his word that it was a routing on the property.

As to an "estimate" I believe that the statement that "100 acres or whatever is necessary for the course" is an estimate.

[mike_malone]

Pat,

   You  crucify people for speaking of something they haven't seen. Why should we accept your speculations about the Barker routing?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You  crucify people for speaking of something they haven't seen. Why should we accept your speculations about the Barker routing?

Would you be kind enough to point out where I speculated in my response to your speculative post ?

[mike_malone]

 You haven't produced the actual routing of Barker. You just make speculations that support your point of view based on the word
 "routing".

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Thanks for being a real timesaver. I say that because I am outta here for now.  I am watching my 3 year old grandson tonight and frankly, the conversation with him is more intelligent and the questions are the same reptitive...."Why grandpa, why?" With him its cute. With you, its just BS pure and simple.

[Mike_Cirba]

*

[Mike_Cirba]

Despite repeated attempts to divert this conversation everytime it gets productive by those who evidently can't live with the reality of the results, I want to get back to Jeff's theory..

Jeff and Bryan,

I'd like both of your input.

Jeff mentions that he believes the land Merion would need to procure that deviated from the 1910 Land Plan included;

1) About 1.5 acres made up of the area near the 1st green, and the area running up 14/15 on the outside of the dogleg.

2) About 1.5 acres made up of their half of GHRoad.

I'm not sure...I certainly don't know how to do acreages of curves and non-linear forms, but I drew the black lines on here of where about I estimate crudely that the golf courses needed to be extended outside the Land Plan (drawn in black line) and it seems to me bigger than 1.5 acres overall.

Am I not placing that line correctly?   Just eyeballing it, I'd imagine it to be greater than 1.5 acres??




I'm basing it on where you have the most eastward dotted line running through the golf course on you overlay, Bryan.   I know it's not perfect, but it's pretty close, yes?

Actually, in looking at it I think my drawing might be a little conservative.


This one is probably a little closer...

The easternmost lines represent where the original Land Plan placed the boundary.




Doing some Google Earth measurements and using some online acreage measuring tools, I'm seeing the top measurement being about 2.3 acres and the bottom part near the first green at about 0.8 acres.

Are you guys getting roughly the same measurements?

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Before we go any further, I was hoping to get your opinion as to the following drawing.

I tried as best as I could to stay to the exact dimensons of your overlay, just above, and in the thin purple line one can see the inner boundary of the "Approximate Road" of the November 15, 1910 Land Plan.

Basically, I am trying to follow the dots on the overlay that show the easternmost boundary of the road.

Please forgive my screwup towards the bottom, as I first went in to the west too far.   THe easternmost corrected line represents what I think is consistent with your overlay.   One thing that pops out at me most interestingly at first glance is that the 15th green doesn't really fit...at least the bunkering and possibly even some of the front of it doesn't.

In any case, I've tried to be conservative in what I drew here.

I think this view is different than what we've looked at prior, because our other attempts have sort of obfuscated the view of how much golf course was outside that boundary line.

So, please either give me the ok to use this for further measurements, or if you could do sort of the same thing more exactingly, it would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I get 2.57 and 0.7 acres to MCC on that drawing, after measuring a little more carefully.

I get 0.675 up north to HDC and 4.775 near the clubhouse to HDC.

Actually, these last few drawings sort of confirm my theory IMHO, providing Bryan's "just over122" acre originally delineated road is correct:

Original MCC delineated acres - 122.3
New Road (As Built)

To HDC 4.775 + 0.675 = 5.45
To MCC 2.57 + 0.699 = 3.26

122.3 - 5.45 + 3.26 = 120.1 acres

I will concede that with three of us measuring, and tracing roads on Google or in CAD, that the numbers are only approximate.  Some may not buy this idea without the numbers working out exactly.

That would especially go for Pat, who has been arguing that just because the facts say something, we can't expect it to be true, and just because there is no proof, it doesn't mean it isn't true, and no one can infer otherwise.

If I have time later, I will begin a thread on the existences of the Easter Bunny, which should be fun!

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Thanks for all of your help with this.   I think it makes complete sense, from a timelines analysis, an evidence-based analysis, and from the sniff test and common sense analysis of what Francis actually said.

It's clear from this overlay that there is no way to fit the 15th tee/16th green as Francis spoke of, and he widened that corridor.

I've sent a note to Bryan, as well, asking for his objective analysis and measuring.

We know we won't get that from many others here.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Your "simplest explanation is usually the best" started my thinking.

I had always been troubled by the land swap, especially after TePaul posted the Johnson Farm boundary as the original working boundary AND disclosed the documents that said MCC had to obtain a little over 3 more acres.  On the surface, that initially suggested to me that DM was right about the entire triangle.  So much for the idea that TePaul never posts documents that might hurt his case! 

In truth, from the JF boundary they did nothing but give land back to HDC under that scenario, so there had to be a western boundary that differed.  But, when Bryan measured that Nov 15, 1919 road delineation at over 117 acres, it got my mind working.

Now, I can understand that it makes sense to have had a 117 acre boundary, but in fact, they simply didn't.  We know that from the plan, although we don't know why exactly.  From there, the numbers work out pretty close, although it would take a while to nail them exactly.

I wiil say one other thing to some of Pat's rants.  There really wasn't a 7 month gap in the process.  Things just take longer than most people think.  If TePaul was in real estate, he could probably confirm that buying the Dallas Estate, or putting together 3 way contracts (HDC/Lloyd/MCC) etc. all take weeks, if not months.  And, without email and Fed Ex to speed along documents, etc. it could have taken longer in those days, as would surveying 338 acres for topo of the entire development.  Throw in the Xmas season, other businesses, and all that and I think MCC came together about as quickly as it could from inception in June to construction the next April.

[Mike_Cirba]

I wiil say one other thing to some of Pat's rants.  There really wasn't a 7 month gap in the process.  Things just take longer than most people think.  If TePaul was in real estate, he could probably confirm that buying the Dallas Estate, or putting together 3 way contracts (HDC/Lloyd/MCC) etc. all take weeks, if not months.  And, without email and Fed Ex to speed along documents, etc. it could have taken longer in those days, as would surveying 338 acres for topo of the entire development.  Throw in the Xmas season, other businesses, and all that and I think MCC came together about as quickly as it could from inception in June to construction the next April.

Jeff,

I don't even see an issue with this, either, and think it's more misdirection and blown smoke.

As of June, 1910, when Connell first brought Barker down, and then Griscom brought M&W over, all HDC owned outright was the 140 acre Johnson Farm.   They had option on "about 300 acres" total, but that did not include the Dallas Estate.

We know that the Site Committee's report in July 1910 recommended that the board move forward.   At the time, we also know that the Site Committee reported "it is probable that nearly 120 acres would be required for our purposes" which might be just coincidental, but the northeastern and southern portions of the Johnson Farm measured out at 119 acres.

In any case, it wasn't until October that the purchase of the Dallas Estate took place, and not until early November that Connell and his partner could even formally offer the total package that now included the 21-acre Dallas Estate to Merion.

At that time, they sent a formal offer letter to Merion asking for a decision by early December.

Merion acted by sending out the bond solicitation to membership, telling them they had secured 117 acres, and including the now infamous "Land Plan" that showed the proposed boundary between real estate and golf.  

This is interesting because if they were looking at 119 acres of the Johnson Farm in June, the addition of the Dallas Estate would take them to 140 acres, or much more than they needed or desired for the golf course, especially given the real estate component.

It is written in the MCC minutes that Lloyd worked solely with Connell during this time to negotiate terms, and it is almost certain that they deducted the over-acreage gained from the aquisition of the  Dallas Estate from the northwestern boundary of the Johnson Farm, in the form of a loose, working-boundary, drawn on the Land Plan as an "Approximate Road".

During the month of December, Cuyler recommended to Lloyd to take title of the eintire 161 acres of the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate, as the boundaries of the golf course were not yet "definite"ly defined.  Lloyd promptly did as Cuyler suggested.

Earlier in January, Hugh Wilson's committee was appointed and plans began to be drawn and by February 1st were sent to Piper & Oakley.

The committee worked on any number of plans, and in the second week of March went to NGLA.  Upon their return they drew up "five different plans".

On April 6th, Macdonald and Whigham came down and helped them to select the best plan.

On April 19th, The Merion Board approved that recommendation and construction work commenced.

And there you have it...

It's over.

Thanks Jeff.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

No problem. I think I will spend the rest of the day doing something more relaxing, like being waterboarded.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

No problem. I think I will spend the rest of the day doing something more relaxing, like being waterboarded.

If nothing else comes of this Jeff, I'm am very certain that the L-shaped property you are working with at Firekeeper in Topeka will have a kick-ass routing! 

Relax...you've earned it! 

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

I get 2.57 and 0.7 acres to MCC on that drawing, after measuring a little more carefully.

I get 0.675 up north to HDC and 4.775 near the clubhouse to HDC.

Actually, these last few drawings sort of confirm my theory IMHO, providing Bryan's "just over122" acre originally delineated road is correct:

Original MCC delineated acres - 122.3
New Road (As Built)

To HDC 4.775 + 0.675 = 5.45
To MCC 2.57 + 0.699 = 3.26

122.3 - 5.45 + 3.26 = 120.1 acres

I will concede that with three of us measuring, and tracing roads on Google or in CAD, that the numbers are only approximate.  Some may not buy this idea without the numbers working out exactly.

That would especially go for Pat, who has been arguing that just because the facts say something, we can't expect it to be true, and just because there is no proof, it doesn't mean it isn't true, and no one can infer otherwise.

If I have time later, I will begin a thread on the existences of the Easter Bunny, which should be fun!

Jeff,

Those numbers look plausible to me.  I suppose that I wouldn't run them out to hundredths of an acre, because clearly the source material doesn't support that level of accuracy.  And, by the way the correct final answer is 120.01, not the 120.1 that Tom posted some time ago.      But, I'm not sure what, if anything, this proves, other than the difference between the two alignments of the road is 2 acres +/-, with some going to HDC and some going to MCCGA.


Thanks for sticking with the thread in the face of some adversity.  Seeing as you played the I'm-a-professional-architect card and seeing as I wouldn't want to see you waste time doing an Easter bunny thread, or have semantic arguments with Patrick and waste your valuable time both ways, could I ask you again if you could do your One Hour Brauer routing of CBM's sporty course.  I really am curious to know if it could be laid out on the Johnson Farm, excluding the northern 10.5 acres up west of Haverford College, and the area north of the Dallas Estate that you've said several times is too narrow for two holes.  We know they were going to use the old farm house as the club house, so that gives you a starting and finishing point.  And, I promise that I will not nit-pick your routing.  I just want to know if it could have fit.  I'm still not persuaded that the Dallas Estate wasn't part of the mix at that point in time. 

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "

[Mike_Cirba]

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".

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

Thanks for all of your help with this.   I think it makes complete sense, from a timelines analysis, an evidence-based analysis, and from the sniff test and common sense analysis of what Francis actually said.

It's clear from this overlay that there is no way to fit the 15th tee/16th green as Francis spoke of, and he widened that corridor.  It's been clear for quite a while on this thread that the 15th tee/16th green didn't fit inside the "approximate" road.  I still remain unconvinced that Francis widened the corridor.

We have three "facts" that we're dealing with that I don't think anybody has satisfactorily reconciled:

1)  The November 15, 1910 letter said they had secured 117 acres;

2)  The land plan shows 122+/- acres;

3)  Francis said he swapped (not widened to) 130 x 190 yards.

So, in your theory, you choose to throw out the Francis swap statement and substitute it with a Francis really meant "widened" statement.  And, you throw out the statement in the letter that they had secured 117 acres, in favour of the land plan map.

An alternate theory is to throw out the land plan map that's in conflict with its attached letter and substitute an alternative "approximate" road configuration as I had previously done (see below), and put in Francis' 130 x 190 yard swap in its entirety.  At least this theory reconciles with two "facts" rather than one..

 

I've sent a note to Bryan, as well, asking for his objective analysis and measuring.

We know we won't get that from many others here.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

A few posts back you said you were going to look into the RR lease.  I, for one, would like to nail the RR land down one final time.  Do we agree that it was not part of the swapping and reconfiguration between the land plan and the final 120.01 acres of July 26, 1911?

Second, I asked if the Lesley Report was posted anywhere in these threads?

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

It's Jeff's theory, not mine.  I just agree with him.

The doppelganger road theory is one of the premises I came up with.

The only downside of it (other than the obvious in that I just dreamed it up)  is that there is zero historical evidence that things were configured that way, and it makes you wonder why they would take so little land up by the quarry in the first place.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

A few posts back you said you were going to look into the RR lease.  I, for one, would like to nail the RR land down one final time.  Do we agree that it was not part of the swapping and reconfiguration between the land plan and the final 120.01 acres of July 26, 1911?

Second, I asked if the Lesley Report was posted anywhere in these threads?

Bryan,

As per the rail lease, here's the details.  I agree it wasn't part of any swap.

1. One dollar ($1.00) per year
2. The payment of the land taxes on the 3 acres
3. The maintenance by the leasee of the fences and guardrails of the property
4. The release of the right of way across the land and the $2,000 bond supporting that right of way (a right of way established by the Johnson farm family).
5. Agreement that the year to year lease will endure provided that land is used for golf or some golf club related use.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()