Merion's Early Timeline

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

The 3 acres they were going to purchase in April was NOT the railroad land.   It was the 3 acres that fell outside the approximate road drawing and thus outside the agreed working boundary that Lloyd and Connell had drawn up.  How do you KNOW that?



The railroad would not have charged them $2500 an acre for $7,500 to buy but leased in perpetuity for $1 a year.

$2500 an acre was the price of HDC real estate land at the time.  How do you KNOW that?  You asked me some posts ago what the price of HDC real estate was.  Have you now found out?  How?

So, you're saying that they proposed to buy 3 acres from HDC.  There is no record of such a purchase actually happening.  And, in April Lloyd on behalf of MCC owned the 161 acres of Johnson and Dallas land, so if they were buying it from HDC then it must have been outside of the Johnson/Dallas tracts.  Is that what you're saying, that they bought 3 acres from HDC that was outside the Johnson/Dallas tract? 

I don't know who ate that cost, but that's what it was.

Mike,

You haven't answered this question yet.  Or, the one further down on the same purchase.  Are you going to?

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Just for the record:

1.  I haven't "proven that the triangle was 4.8 acres (roughly 5)  in size".  that's what it measures today.

2.  I haven't "mathematically proven that this would not have been possible".

3.  You need to stop pontificating that David's theory is "Mathematically Impossible".  It is mathematically possible.  You just don't agree with it. 

4.  What Jeff has demonstrated with his calculations is that the difference between 122 acres in November and 120 acres in July following, is 2 acres.  And the adds and subtracts that make up the difference of 2 acres.

5.  There is nothing in the documentation that I've seen that says that the swap couldn't have been 5 acres for 14 acres or any other amount.  Francis said 5 acres on one side of the equation.  He said nothing about the other side other than they were covered in fine homes along GHR. 

6.  You and, now Jeff, are apparently partly basing your arguments on deep background information that Tom and Wayne are providing, that hasn't seen the light of day here. I can't discuss those things, since I haven't seem them.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

The reason it's mathematically impossible is because the factual documentation shows us that  Merion thought they needed 120 acres, secured 117 of HDC land, and eventually purchased 120 acres of HDC land.

To swap 14 acres of land back to HDC in return for a different 4.8 acres they would have needed to have secured 129 acres of HDC land in the first place which we know never happened.

You HAVE proven it Bryan!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

Who put a bee in your bonnet compared to a few weeks ago?  Just asking. I hope I didn't piss you off! (although you might be the only one I haven't!)

I would agree that maybe no one has proven anything, but I think in terms of likelihoods.  That triangle hasn't changed from then til now - if it was 4.8 acres in its finished form, it still is!

The way the acreages we KNOW work out, it almost had to be that the Nov 10 plan was the working western boundary.  There is nothing in the documentation, other than the amount of acres they agreed to buy from HDC (117, but never delineated until the final deed in July 1911) and the deed that says they did buy 120.01.  Howe can you say there is nothing in the record about that?  its in the deeds?

Using our various measurements my theory is a very likely explanation or how 117 became 120 because the acreages do work out using the November plan and the final alignments and deed.

The reason I posited my theory was that David's acreages didn't work out.  Niether did TePaul's mythical line or Mikes various mythical lines.  If they were using any bigger a parcel than the Nov 10, 1910 plan, after the realignments they couldn't have ended up at 120.01 acres.  If the road had been drawn at 117 acres, then MCC would have ended up at 114 acres. Had it been 137 acres (basically the Johnson Farm west boundary) it would have ended up at 134 acres.

In short, I have seen no other explanation that shows how any other land swap could work out to the acreages stated in the MCC deed and the acreage shown on the Nov. 10 MCC exhibit.  Until I see something like that (and its based on some actual document, rather than someone hoping a document exists AND that it says exactly what they need it to say, I side with Mike that DM's plan IS mathmatically impossible.

BTW, while TePaul has read me a few Oakley letters and the Cuyler letter I am not using any secret information.  In fact, I believe the Cuyler letter has been posted here hasn't it?  Or, was it just TePaul's version and many don't trust that he didn't leave out statements implying that Barker or CBM had been there again to route the course?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

The reason it's mathematically impossible is because the factual documentation shows us that  Merion thought they needed 120 acres, secured 117 of HDC land, and eventually purchased 120 acres of HDC land.  Mike, you are saying it's logically impossible, not mathematically impossible.  Get over the "mathematical" thing.  And, it's your logic not mine.

To swap 14 acres of land back to HDC in return for a different 4.8 acres they would have needed to have secured 129 acres of HDC land in the first place which we know never happened.  If the swap happened before November, then we don't know what they had "secured" at that point.  We do know that Lloyd ended up holding 161 acres, so it's not so hard to imagine that they swapped 5 for 14.  How many fine homes do you suppose they could have fit in the 4 acre crescent opposite the clubhouse that Jeff has identified on his map?  Maybe one very wide and shallow lot?  Of course, that's what Francis said and in the glossy version, so it's probably not to believed.

You HAVE proven it Bryan!  When I believe I've proven something, I'll let you know.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

The reason it's mathematically impossible is because the factual documentation shows us that  Merion thought they needed 120 acres, secured 117 of HDC land, and eventually purchased 120 acres of HDC land.  Mike, you are saying it's logically impossible, not mathematically impossible.  Get over the "mathematical" thing.  And, it's your logic not mine. Bryan, how about this...your numbers prove that my logic is correct!   And it IS mathematically impossible, based on the physical evidence.   There is no record that Merion ever considered a land aquisition of greater than 120 acres from HDC in all of the documentation.   They secured 117 acres.   If I subtract 14 from that I have 103 acres.   They could NOT have done the Francis Land Swap in the manner that David suggests.  It IS mathematically impossible.
 
To swap 14 acres of land back to HDC in return for a different 4.8 acres they would have needed to have secured 129 acres of HDC land in the first place which we know never happened.  If the swap happened before November, then we don't know what they had "secured" at that point.  We do know that Lloyd ended up holding 161 acres, so it's not so hard to imagine that they swapped 5 for 14.  How many fine homes do you suppose they could have fit in the 4 acre crescent opposite the clubhouse that Jeff has identified on his map?  Maybe one very wide and shallow lot?  Of course, that's what Francis said and in the glossy version, so it's probably not to believed. EXACTLY BRYAN!!!   RING RING RING RING RING!!!!!   HOW MANY ESTATE LOTS INDEED COULD THEY HAVE SOLD IF THEY SWAPPED FOR 4.8 ACRES!?!?!?!   ONE??      It's because the Francis Swap involved transferring land to and from HDC and Merion ALL THE WAY along GHR from well below the 14th tee FOR OVER 1000 YARDS NORTH up beyond the 15th green!!!  

But to be specific, Francis was almost certainly talking about the homes across the street from the clubhouse, that run from just north of the 1st green to just below the 14th green as seen below.  It runs for well over 400 yards.

You HAVE proven it Bryan!  When I believe I've proven something, I'll let you know. Please don't be dissuaded by what I'm imagining is a flurry of private email coming your way, Bryan.   You should take a lot of credit for helping to solve this because it's freaking nailed!!  




p.s.   Happy 2000th Post!!       We must all be insane!!  

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Who put a bee in your bonnet compared to a few weeks ago?  Just asking. I hope I didn't piss you off! (although you might be the only one I haven't!)  What good eyesight you have to see the bee across the ether.  No, it's not you, I'm just frustrated with Mike's 42nd claim that it's been proven, and his statement that it was my doing. And, his continuing restatement of facts that are wrong - such as Lloyd held the land for HDC and they purchased 3 extra acres from HDC. 

I would agree that maybe no one has proven anything, but I think in terms of likelihoods.  That triangle hasn't changed from then til now - if it was 4.8 acres in its finished form, it still is!  agreed, and it just happens to be the same area that Francis said it was in the glossy 1952 article.

The way the acreages we KNOW work out, it almost had to be that the Nov 10 plan was the working western boundary.  There is nothing in the documentation, other than the amount of acres they agreed to buy from HDC (117, but never delineated until the final deed in July 1911  The 117 acres was never delineated in any deed we know of.  This is why it's so frustrating of late.  ) and the deed that says they did buy 120.01.  Howe can you say there is nothing in the record about that?  its in the deeds?  No, it's not.  There is a deed for the 161 acres and one for the 120.01 acres.  The 117 is a statement in the letter and the 122 is what we measured on the land plan.

Using our various measurements my theory is a very likely explanation or how 117 became 120 because the acreages do work out using the November plan and the final alignments and deed.  The November plan was 122, not 117.  As far as I can see your numbers work out to explain going from 122 to 120.  But, how could they not?

The reason I posited my theory was that David's acreages didn't work out.  Niether did TePaul's mythical line or Mikes various mythical lines.  If they were using any bigger a parcel than the Nov 10, 1910 plan, after the realignments they couldn't have ended up at 120.01 acres.  If the road had been drawn at 117 acres, then MCC would have ended up at 114 acres. Had it been 137 acres (basically the Johnson Farm west boundary) it would have ended up at 134 acres.  I'm not defending David's acreage.  His theory as best I understand it was that the swap happened before the land plan.  Based on that we don't know what acreages they started working with before the swap.  It could have been anything within 161, I guess.  But, David can argue his own case, if he ever returns.

In short, I have seen no other explanation that shows how any other land swap could work out to the acreages stated in the MCC deed and the acreage shown on the Nov. 10 MCC exhibit.  Until I see something like that (and its based on some actual document, rather than someone hoping a document exists AND that it says exactly what they need it to say, I side with Mike that DM's plan IS mathmatically impossible.  I agree that we need further documents.  It'd be nice to start with the ones that are known to exist, that have never made it here - like Cuyler's letter(s). and the Lesley/Wilson report and the minutes.  But, Tom doesn't want to play out in public because David offended him.  Too bad.

BTW, while TePaul has read me a few Oakley letters and the Cuyler letter I am not using any secret information.  In fact, I believe the Cuyler letter has been posted here hasn't it?   No.  Or, was it just TePaul's version and many don't trust that he didn't leave out statements implying that Barker or CBM had been there again to route the course?

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

There is a huge Legal difference between Lloyd owning 161 acres and Merion having secured 117 acres.  Lloyd took title under his name for HDC, as Cuyler advised.   Lloyd did not take title under his own name for Merion Golf Associaton.

For Merion to change the terms from 117 acres to 120.1 acres, they needed Board Approval for securing the addiional 3 acres of HDC Land.   That's what happened in April 1911.

I'm sorry if you find this frustrating.   I do at times, as well.   I think you've done a great job here and your work has proven what could NOT have happened, if nothing else.

The Francis Land Swap could NOT have happened in the way David outlined.  It is not supported by any of the historical evidence and is both historically and mathematically disproven.

As Jeff just explained, the only theory that works both historically and mathematically is the one he outlined.

[Mike_Cirba]

The Cuyler letter is another red herring, perpetuated by those who first argued that the Macdomald letter had to include a routing.

As more and more physical evidence was unearthed and displayed here that proved nearly all of those contentions were baseless, the perpwtuators called for more evidence, even though the person who researched and discovered all the evidence has been booted from GCA for months noqw and has no interest in contributing to this site, much less trying to defend Hugh Wilson and Merion against what is essentially and electronic post-moetem witch hunt veiled as some search for the truth.

As I said earlier, now that their theories have been disproven, I'm not sure what's left to discuss?

Its very clear to me that if Tom or Wayne found an original, dated drawing of the course signed by Hugh Wilson there are a few here who would either call it a fraud or contend that it had CBM or Barker's fingerprints all over it so they had to be the true author's or probably both.

The same folks who claim Wilson was too much a novice to route Merion have no problem hypocritically giving Francis credit for some of the routing!?!

There is no evidence that would ever satisfy them.

So e it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Yes

[Mike_Cirba]

Just skip the green typed attenpts at diversion and you should be fine.  ,)

Brauer's theory is dead on and even proves out mathematically

[Jeff_Brauer]

One word: Seance!

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

During our seance, perhaps we can also call back the ghosts of industry titans Ellis Gimbel, Clarence H Geist, and Robert Lesley of Merion to ask them why they would go to lowly construction foreman Hugh Wilson in early 1913 to ask him to re-design Philmont, design Seaview, and design Merion West immediately after Merion East opened to considerablei acclaim..

In the case of Merion in particular, if they were so pleased with Barker's or CBM's design of the east course, why not just have Slam Bam Barker or Big Mac back for a day to do it again?

Instead some of the richest, most prominent men in the world hired a novice with no more design experience than buying seed and hiring Italian laborers? 

[Andy Hughes]

Mike, I know you are making a strafing run at some posters, but the reality is some of the richest, most prominent men in the world did hire a novice.  Its one of the things that has confounded me the most throughout the Merion threads.

[Mike_Cirba]

Andy,

Yes, but he was their novice. 

Seriously, Lloyd, et.al., must have seen something special in him.  Don't forget Lloyd was on Wilson's committee, as was Griscom and Francis and Toulmin, all who had been highly active in the game for over a decade.

I think we underestimate their knowledge of what constituted a good vs bad golf hole.

They also had Tilly and Findlay in town and about...

[JESII]

Mike,

Are you of the opinion that Wilson's involvement is limited to the timeframe after January 1, 1911?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike and Andy,

In 1910, building architecture and other fields had been clearly established along with professional standards.  In contrast, golf had usually be designed and built by the clubs themselves, perhaps, dating back to Old Tom Morris, with a pro or the best golfer in the club laying it out and even constructing it.  In America, golf had only started 20-25 years earlier and most courses were pretty rudimentary. I don’t think the sophisticated business model had developed for golf course architecture yet.  

My take is that MCC probably candidly discussed the Barker (professional) Model and the CBM (sportsman) model before deciding. It certainly wasn't taken lightly.  We don't know who thought what, but I still believe that then as now, relationships get the job.  CBM came in as a friend of Griscom, and Barker came in “on the account” of Connell, who was not a MCC guy, he was the developer.  I always thought that MCC going out of its way to mention “on the account of Connell” was a hint that they didn’t ever plan on using him – he just wasn’t their guy and they obviously DID have some kind of problem with him, or more accurately, just liked CBM better.  Even with well qualified golf course architects today, Fazio loses to Nicklaus, etc.  And, right now, Brauer has the only job in America despite a bazillion guys wanting it, etc., etc.  clearly demonstrating that in some cases, gca selections go beyond rational explanation, at least from the outside!

And I am not speculating about this.  That is what they did.  They brought in CBM because of Griscom and his reputation and stayed with him.  Not only do MCC records confirm this, but CBM, Whigham, Far and Sure, and others said it.

If they were going to use the best, according to the theory of some, then it makes sense that they used CBM as a guide and one of their best men on site day to day.  

It seems to me that they were smart enough to cover themselves all along the way with quality people for golf, development, construction, etc and DID use the best in CBM – the father of American golf course architecture, the designer of what has been publicized as the greatest course in America, and friends to the rich and famous of MCC – was clearly the best they had to choose from.  While Barker did have some work under his belt, CBM was clearly the crème de la crème in golf course architecture at the time.  And, in hiring Pickering for Construction, they continued the “use the best” trend.

In essence the selection of Hugh Wilson would:

•   Emulate the CBM/NGLA model, which was THE trend/influence at the time, and even if it wasn't, was probably suggested by CBM who was Griscom's friend – vs using a professional designer. Now, this IS speculation, but if the pros were first allowed in the clubhouse for the US Open in 1920, the idea of using an amateur vs. a pro might have been more appealing in those times.  
•   Use the “Father of American Golf Course Architecture” – the best reputation in America for design (among a few others attempting it - Barker and Travis to name two)
•   Use CBM on as needed basis to steer them the right direction.
•    Use Pickering, turf guys, etc. throughout construction to avoid mistakes.

The most important point to remember is that most gca's of the time DID route a course in a day and mabye provide a bunkering plan and then make one or two site visits.  Look at the record!

CBM’s services consisted of a day on site in June, A two day meeting in March, and another follow up day in April after they have routed and incorporated his suggestions. In essence, they got about the same service from CBM as they would from Barker or ANY OTHER professional golf course architect of the time.

IMHO, MCC did decide to use the best, and they followed a pattern that was established at that time for building a quality golf cousre. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

No, not at all.

Wilson had a solid 14 years or more in the game at that time, including a stint on the green committee while the new course was being built at Princeton.

There is no way on earth he went from oblivion to head of the a committee whose members included Lloyd and Griscom; he was simply extremely modest and self-effacing which some have taken to mean he was an incompetent dunce.

If he was a "novice", so was virtually everyone else in America at that time including foreign pros doing one-day course routings.

There is a reason that the 3 best courses in the US at that time were designed by amateurs, and it was mostly because as Jeff mentioned, the art of course design in this country and inland golf in general was very much in its infancy.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

If I could, permit me to expand on my answer of last night.

First, the main reason the few really good courses in the US at that time were the works of amateurs at that time was because men like Leeds, Emmett in the beginning, Travis, and Macdonald (soon followed by Fownes, Wilson, and Crump) is each of them put enormous time, study, and energies into their endeavors.

I'd contend that most of the men who were excellent golf players at the time, including all of the men listed above, were also considered golf "experts", and were referred to as such in various news and other accounts.   This included both amateurs and profeessionals and the thought was that by extension of their expertise in playing, that it extended to related areas such as course creation.

I think because of the early study of guys like Leeds, Emmett, and Mac, and Whigham as well as some of their writings, the evolving knowledge of what constituted a good golf hole was becoming much more ubiquitous among the cognescenti than we think.

In Philly, for instance, the early writings of Tilly and Findlay helped in that illumination, and we know that Crump and his friends virtually worshipped the writings of Fowler.

The pros of the day didn't produce much in the way of greatness because they couldn't afford, nor were clubs willing to pay, for more than a day or two of "service".  Obviously, greatness required much more.

Where almost all of these man, pro and amateur, were complete novices were in the area of agronomy and construction, particularly on inland soils.

If you go back and read Hugh Wilson's 1916 reminisce, you'll note that when he says that he and his committee only had the knowledge of the average club member, he was speaking strictly about those two areas, and was thrilled and appreciative that M+W put then onto Piper+Oakley, shared what they had learned, and likely got them Pickering as well.

[Niall C]

Mike

If I could add to what you say above, all of which I generally agree with, and say that there was a lot more tinkering with courses back then and that even when they opened they were often considered work in progress. I think I'm right in saying that Merion was a case in point.

We tend to think of golf course construction in todays terms which is in comparison to 1910 a huge construction and engineering project. Back then construction of courses was relatively modest in comparison and the designers really did use the lie of the land to create interest. I appreciate that most on this site won't be professional GCA's (and neither am I) but I have had the opportunity to plan some routings, purely as an academic exercise, and I have to say its not that difficult or time consuming to come up with a basic routing. Any competent, or indeed incompetent golfer, who has experience of various golf courses and some rudimentary knowledge of ideal hole lengths etc could do it. Certainly to the extent of satisfying themselves that there was enough ground for 18 holes. What takes more time and expertise (IMHO) is refining the routing and the individual hole design.

Wilson and his committee didn't need to be architectural genius's (should that be geni ?) to produce a golf course, even a good one. As Mike says, having the time and the money certainly helps in producing a better result. We now think of Merion as being a great course but was it born a great course or did it subsequently evolve into a great course over the decades with each change that was made ?

Niall

[Mike_Cirba]

Niall,

You're very astute.

Thanks for your input.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike:

Now that the Open is over and I'm all Bethpage'd out, I decided to catch up on my reading of the Merion thread and something jumped out at me that I haven't seen asked or dealt with yet and am hoping that you can help me.

You wrote the following:

"Sadly, we don't have Cuyler's words; we only have Tom's summation of them.  We're parsing words that are second hand at best. While we do only have Tom's summation of them, the area I repeated yesterday is a direct quote of the germane part of the letter as I understand it.   Because there was no course yet, nor any routing established, nor even the boundaries of the course determined, Cuyler recommended that Lloyd take title over the entire 161 acres so that he could move the boundary between the real estate components and the golf course as needed.   There is no disputing that as the contextual content of the letter.

I think the land committee (or whatever it was called) wrapped up there work on Dec. 10, 1910.

I think Lloyd commissioned Pugh and Hubbard or others to prepare a topo map upon acquistion of the property.  This today even takes several weeks.  I believe it was delivered to MCC in late January 1911, mostly because Wilson's first letter on 2--1-11 to Oakley says he is "sending our topo maps immediately."  He does not say "We are sending our routing" so (while speculating a bit) I believe the maps are new and the routing has just begun.

I really doubt these important men did a lot the weeks between XMas and New Year.  When they returned in January, they found that Hugh Wilson ahd asked Santa for the chairmanship of the Construction Committee and they made his wish come true on their first meeting of January 11, 1911.  They start to work, and await the topo maps, which because of the Xmas break, show the 11-10-1910 approximate road as their boundary.

After a month of work on it, they take their 5 plans to CBM at NGLA in March.  He/they approve 1 of those plans.  

Five plans developed in a month?  From a bunch of novice designers?  Didn't these guys have day jobs too?

Actually, Jeff is slightly mis-stating this but I'm not sure why this is evidence we're even contending at this point?   We know that the Committee report as read into the MCC Minutes by Robert Lesley on April 19th, 1911 stated;

""Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course....."

We don't know when they started laying out many different courses exactly, but we do know that the Committee went to visit Macdonald at the National Course the second week of March, 1911.

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."  

My question is this, if they had yet to route the course or do any building, WHAT COURSE was re-arranged when they came back?

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

They came back in mid March.

They had been working on routings since at least January.

The course they rearranged was either on plan, or staked.

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

Jeff's synopsis above is slightly incorrect.

The minutes say they did many plans prior to the NGLA visit and upon their return "rearranged the course and laid out five different plans".

[JESII]

Jim,

No, not at all.

Then why are you working so hard to keep any planning of the golf course in the post 1/1/1911 timaframe?

In terms of real true indisputable facts I don't think this conversation has advanced an inch in the last month...yet you've stated many times that Jeff's GUESS at what happened is the undeniable truth and mathematically and logically infallible...I disagree.

Just for starters, the mathematical "proof" falls apart because you have absolutely no idea where they were considering their boundary lines, if they were at all...this hypothetical road could have initially come straight across from the bottom corner of the Haverford College ground and rounded off as it moved west to limit the area to whatever number they wanted...