[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim, Jim, Jim........aaaah

The whole point of my theory is that people have been saying that for while. It could have come anywhere.  But, there is no evidence that there was some other boundary other than the Nov 15 Map.  People were inventing hypothetical roads.  I think there were none, since no records of such has been found.  My guess contains the least speculation of all and works out mathmatically.

But, you are right, if you want to say that just because there is no evidence of some other boundary doesn't mean it doesn't exist, then no, we have not advanced.  Mike and I (perhaps as lone soldiers) have moved on to figure that there was no other boundary.  Believe what you want and throw out a few more boundaries that come from your mind, but not the MCC record.  Then, we can continue debating.

I won't answer for Mike, but really, if the MCC documents we do have show the committee formed in Jan 1911, and the "many plans" by the NGLA visit, and the 5 plans after, and of course, the Francis Land Swap by its voted approval on April 19, 1911, I don't think we are desparately trying to "Keep it back in 1911".  We are just admitting that this is what known documents show.

I can understand those who believe that some work occurred prior to the finalized land purchase in Dec. 1910 in order to make sure that it would fit in the property about to be bought.  I have posited that those guys weren't dragged out of the bar and put on that committee.  While not on the land committee, I suspect they showed some interest in the whole process and that is why they got formally selected in January 1911 at the next schedlued meeting/opportunity.  That doesn't mean Wilson wasn't out there (despite no record of it) in November/December when things started heating up, or maybe just hanging around in June.  No one knows.   

Tom MacWood still maintains that they hired Barker right after the Nov 1910 plan was approved.  Even if they did, it would be a hollow victory for the guy he has such a man crush on, since a few months later they were going right back to CBM for advice.  That would make TWICE that Barker was jilted fpr CBM - in June and in November 1910!

But, we do know that the actions that led to the final routing had to have taken place in the first quarter of 1911 from the record of known events.  And we do know that the committee and CBM had the most say in the final routing and initial form of the course because he was advising them.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Two things;

1) What Jeff said.

2) We have a professional survey done just over a month before the committee began drawing plans, according to what Hugh Wilson indicated.  That Land Plan proceeded Lloyds purchase of the land by a few weeks.   We also know the historical boundary.

Why are you working so hard to come up with some imaginary, make-believe boundary that doesn't include any piece of the triangle was owned by Merion prior to the Land Swap!   You guys are the ones having to make up things out of thin air that aren't supported by any of the physical evidence simply because you can't get past a literal interpretation of Francis.

Do you also believe he's being literally correct when he states that he trade 4.8 acres for the area covered in fine homes along GHR?

I'd really like to hear you tell me what you think he traded for, because it doesn't work out mathematically, historically, or logically.

Only Jeff's theory does that.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Better yet, I'd like to see any factual basis you're using to determine that a routing by or for anyone at Merion took place prior to Nov, 1911, or where the boundaries of the land they were limited to might have been drawn to make the Francis swap mathematically possible.

I'd also prefer you and others address Jeff's theory on a factual basis if you're looking to refute it because frankly, its the only theory out there that stands up to historical and factual and mathematical scrutiny.

Why would 0cuyler advise Lloyd to take title in his name to create a flexible boundary in Dec 1911 if the routing was done.

It seems to me that you and others are the ones who have to ignore or try to explain away all of the facts that are known to try and make a literal interp of Francis make any sense at all. .

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

What you said. I did have some sympathy for DM's original arguments, and my recent post actually sort of implies that maybe CBM should have gotten a wee bit more credit originally, but its MCC's choice or course.  But what really turned the tide in my mind was your simplicity comment, and just trying to look for a solution that did fit existing facts.  And, it turned out to be pretty simple to do!

That said, you and I have been dealing with some off line chatter.  To listen the various conspiracy theorists, and believe that some of their theories are true, we have to first accept that:

All historical references - MCC, Cornish and Whitten, Bahto, etc. cannnot be relied on and are wrong.
Casual, one time mentions of events in newspapers are always accurate
Words spoken or written 39 years later MUST be accurate.
Reputations of others (i.e., Barker) were greater in the day than CBM but are no suppressed through a conspiracy of history
That these intelligent men "Had to" act a certain way

Yeah, its much more likely that all of that happened just the way they had to in making other theories work, rather than my theory, where the numbers, dates, etc. all jive pretty easily with the legal documents showing what land was transferred when all was said and done.

I also go back to the "pound the table" argument.  Most of the theories require their advancers to nit pick at unrelate facts, typing errors, etc.  And, when that doesn't work, resort to endless repeitition and occaisional name calling, some of which, sadly, I have succumbed to a few times in frustration as well.  I am sorry for those few incidences.

But, I have concluded that we will never convince those folks that there is no conspiracy to hide the truth.  While the perception is that you may have had an agenda in this, I certainly never did.  While I could be wrong, I did not participate in any of this at the behest of anyone other than the good lady truth.  I am satisfied that I have realized what it is - basically MCC timeline is correct, and its still unknown just how much CBM helped them (I mean at the detail level, like "the 10th must be an Alps, boys!") and its still a matter of opinion as to whether that constitutes some kind of official credit.  I think DM did a lot to help others flesh out more of those kind of details, even though this has been a messy process. 

In the end, I hope it wasn't enough to permantly sever bonds of those of us interested in the history of gca.  I mean, its really not all as important as one would guage from the battles of Merion, is it?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff.

My understanding is your theory ignited the greatest flurry of email out of Columbus and LA than a uCLA - Ohio St. Rose Bowl!

Must have struck a deep nerve, simply because its wholly reliant with the known facts.

The only thing anyone disputing the theory has left to cling to is LIFS, which makes no sense once facts are examined.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

A UCLA-Ohio State Rose Bowl where there were allegations of corrupt referees!

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Rumor has it that the mailboxes of Sully, Bryan Izatt, one Jee Brauer, and some other impartial contributors are now full past capacity as literally billions of typed characters outlining lots of "could have"theories have filled your respective in-boxes these past few weeks...

Can you confirm or deny?  .

[Peter Pallotta]

I think Jeff's post 2012 is a very good one.

I've been thinking the last few weeks (and have mentioned this notion a couple of times, but clearly no one feels it's as insightful as I think it is) that the middle ground here is accepting the traditional merion timeline/version (and the background to it as supplied by Jeff in 2012) while acknowledging that during the one day CBM visit, his contribution could have included suggesting the possible location of 2 or 3 template holes (for lack of a better word).  A general "now, an alps might go there, and a redan might go here" is far from routing a golf course.

Peter 

[henrye]

........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.  

Jeff, not to stir things up too much, but my interpretation of the "on the account of Connell" was documented by MCC to show their appreciation to Connell for making the effort to hire, bring in and pay for Barker.

[ed_getka]

One word answers only, please:

Are the last 6-7 pages of this thread worth reading?  Yes/No.

No

[Jeff_Brauer]

........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. 

Jeff, not to stir things up too much, but my interpretation of the "on the account of Connell" was documented by MCC to show their appreciation to Connell for making the effort to hire, bring in and pay for Barker.

Henry,

That is certainly possible. But what kind of historical charlatan are you?  You think when they wrote this stuff they were just recording the facts and not trying to create some historical mystery?

I can go with you on that one. What I have even more trouble with is the tendency for many to believe that the official explanation just has to be tainted.  Look at all the MJ coverage today - the family has asked for a second autopsy.  Or watch any drama on TV - 99% of them are based on "things not being what they seem" whereas most cops solving crimes, or historians writing history would tell you that in real life, its 99% of the time that the simple, obvious and recorded explanation is what ends up being the truth.  As they told a rookie cop on an episode of Law and Order tonight, "You don't go looking for zebras."  I think we have spent five years here looking for zebras at Merion. 

They must be hell on the greens!

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

As I was looking through old posts looking for "factual" information for the time line, I came across this quote from one of your posts (#489).

What was the source of the quote? 

Did you ever determine where the 13 acres optioned by Lloyd were?


"Also, it was reported in January 1911 that;

"The Merion Cricket Club has purchased for use as a golf course about 117 acres of ground between Ardmore Avenue and College Avenue, Haverford, adjoining the large tract owned by Haverford College.   The purchase was made by HG. Lloyd...on behalf of Merion Cricket Club, from the Haverford Development Company, which was represented in the transaction by Joseph R. Connell and E.W. Nicholson.   The company owns 221 acres adjoining the tract purchased by the club.   Mr. Lloyd has also obtained from the company an option on 13 acres additional, which will probably be taken up by the club.  This will give the club a new golf course of 130 acres instead of the tract of 60 acres at Rose Lane and Gulf Road, which it leases from the Pennsylvania Road as a golf course."

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Real life is generally mundane and often boring and factual details sometimes lie on the floor like snipped threads from a larger whole.

I think it's when we start trying to weave those stray threads into some meaningful  entity on their own without recognizing they came from a larger more relevant whole that we come up with the type of specious, fallacious arguments we've been seeing here lo these many years.

Anyway, I've yet to see anyone either factually put a ding in your theory or offer any alternative theory actually based on the historical facts and timelines we now KNOW, have you?

I'm also not seeing any forthcoming real soon, but perhaps I'm wromg
.
Some here have tried to quell discussion or cause major distractions, or just say its not worth reading, but I sense that's only because they don't like the way the real life story ends, and perhaps would rather go on believing in their respective CBM and Barker mythological hero worship.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

I'll look...I'm sure it was a news article and it seems they not only got wrong the total acreage Lloyd secured in Dec 1910, which you already KNOW for a fact based on the deed in your possession, but also they must have been pretty cramped playing on 50 acres previously.    

Besides, if the routing was already completed before November 1910, why the heck would Merion be looking to option an additional 13 acres (a net add of over 11% to what they secured)  in January 1911?!?!   I thought the whole conspiracy theory was predicated on the belief that the golf course routing was set in stone by CBM and/or Barker, and/or ANYONE except Hugh Wilson prior to November 1910??  

If that's the types of scraps of leads you're being sent as someone hopes to topple Jeffs's factually based theory, I think we should perhaps break out the broom and sweep this place up cuz the show is over.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Should someone come up with something that topples my theory, I will be the first to congratulate them and admit I am wrong.  I think we are ALL hoping some document or another surfaces that really ties the knot.  However, another snippet will most likely just throw us all into more of a tizzy, as it MIGHT be interpreted different ways.

Specifically, for those who think Barker designed MCC, they will most likely look for ways to fit new info into that theory. 
For those who think CBM or Barker routed the course BEFORE 11-10-1910, they will find ways to fit that into their theory, and for those who think the committee did it, they will look for ways to fit that into their theory.

I guess I agree with those who think we really are a bunch of amateur historians who like to argue more than we like to find the truth, despite all of us protesting that truth is all we want!  So, let them have at it. I am only too glad to be proven wrong. 

Actually, my little piece of the puzzle probably isn't all that signifgant anyway. All I did was posit that there was no interim boundary line of 117 acres.  The fact that there is no legal deed of such, which would surely be recorded in the plat office is one indication. The math is a second.

[Andy Hughes]

Yes, I am sure they knew him well and thought quite highly of him--of that I have no doubt.  After all, not only was he in charge of creating their course but it is likely their development investment hinged on the potential success of the course. Who would want a fine home along Golf Course Road if the course was junk?

Still. Would an honest assessment of his resume really inspire confidence?  Perhaps it did for them at that time and it all turned out well, clearly.  But I can't help but think Mike, when you you get right down to it that you, at this moment, are far more qualified to design a world-class course.  You have seen many more wonderful courses than Wilson ever did, you have participated on gca.com for years, you have had the chance to interact with working gca's and you have read countless books by experts through the years. And yet (this is going to sound snarky and that is not the intent, truly), who would hire you to head a committee to design a top-notch course?

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...

[Mike_Cirba]

This article might be helpful.

Notice that it is written about a year into the process, and the course would open nine months after the article was written.

Does anyone notice what the Committee was actually called??

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Only problem is, that says both Wilson and Leslie are chairman of the golf committee. Many will argue that Wilson was chair of only the Construction Committee, which I think is technically true, no?

It also uses the words secure and procure for the land, both of which are going to cause numerous debates.

Andy,

I hear what you are saying, but go back and read my post 2012.  That is at least my take on it. I think they got more help out of CBM than they would hiring Barker, Travis, or anyone else claiming to be a gca at that time.  With Wilson's interest and CBM's help and advice don't you think they might have had a comfort level? 

For all the debate here about this and that, at this point in history, more courses were laid out by amateurs than pros, and even the pros basically just routed courses and left construction to the clubs.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Yes, it's strange isn't it.   I think I heard something from talking with Tom Paul once about "Committee on new golf grounds", which certainly doesn't roll off the tongue.  

Perhaps we can come up with a new Conspiracy Theory that Robert Lesley is the actual architect, but didn't want his wife to know the real reason that he was spending so much time away from the Lesley household.   

As far as "secure" and "acquire", thankfully, the records of deeds, which Bryan has, and the lease of the railroad land should make that a moot point.

We KNOW that Merion "secured" 117 acres of HDC land in December 1910, we KNOW they purchased 120.1 acres of HDC Land in July of 1911,  and we KNOW they leased 3 acres of railroad land for a total "acquisition" of 123 acres for their golf course.

In any case, even contemporaneous newspapers seem to be a less than perfect source, admittedly.


Andy,

Yes, in my 2-hour routing of the Johnson Farm the other day, which only needed to cross Ardmore Avenue ONE TIME,  I already have staked claim to being a superior course router than Big Mac, Slam Bam Barker, and that novice Hugh Wilson!!  

Thank you for concurring....evidently Jeff Brauer remains unconvinced, but Pine Valley, Cypress Point, ANGC and other pretenders to being the top course in the country or world are just fortunate that I wasn't around at the time Merion was being routed.  

Seriously, I think you're making a mistake by trying to go back to that time with a modern mindset.

What realistically were there options?

The best courses in the country at that time were being designed, and built and modified by their amateur friends and competitors, NONE of whom has a wealth of previous experience...you had Leeds at Myopia...Emmett first at Garden City, but then vastly updated by Travis, you had Oakmont being built and evolved by Fownes, you had Shawnee just designed by their friend Tillinghast, and you had Macdonald...who had just spent four years trying to get NGLA open, which was almost at fruition.

Then you had the one-day-wonders the pros like Dunn, and Barker, and Bendelow....they had been instrumental in furthering a growing game but their courses and model for development of courses hardly reached anything close to the excellence these men wanted to achieve.

[Niall C]

Yes, I am sure they knew him well and thought quite highly of him--of that I have no doubt.  After all, not only was he in charge of creating their course but it is likely their development investment hinged on the potential success of the course. Who would want a fine home along Golf Course Road if the course was junk?

Still. Would an honest assessment of his resume really inspire confidence?  Perhaps it did for them at that time and it all turned out well, clearly.  But I can't help but think Mike, when you you get right down to it that you, at this moment, are far more qualified to design a world-class course.  You have seen many more wonderful courses than Wilson ever did, you have participated on gca.com for years, you have had the chance to interact with working gca's and you have read countless books by experts through the years. And yet (this is going to sound snarky and that is not the intent, truly), who would hire you to head a committee to design a top-notch course?

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...

Andy

You are quite correct, Mike possibly does have a better resume than Wilson and the individual members of his committee, and if he were alive in 1910 and a member of Merion then it might have been Mike Cirba and his committee. That really was how it was done back then. The fact that a lot of the great courses were designed by amateurs highlights the fact that they remained after the design stage to oversee the construction and future tampering to make the course better.

With regards to whether this would sell real estate let me make 2 points;

1 - if in 1910 an established club says that it is going to make a great course and it would therefore be a great idea to buy a house next to the course, is that any different than today when people buy into a golf course housing development on the back of so and so tour player having designed it when in fact most people who are savvy enough know he couldn't tell one end of a pencil from the other and neither could he spell CAD.

2 - whether a course is good, bad or indifferent, what difference does that make to the view ?

Niall

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

Real life is generally mundane and often boring and factual details sometimes lie on the floor like snipped threads from a larger whole.

I think it's when we start trying to weave those stray threads into some meaningful  entity on their own without recognizing they came from a larger more relevant whole that we come up with the type of specious, fallacious arguments we've been seeing here lo these many years.

Anyway, I've yet to see anyone either factually put a ding in your theory or offer any alternative theory actually based on the historical facts and timelines we now KNOW, have you?

I'm also not seeing any forthcoming real soon, but perhaps I'm wromg
.
Some here have tried to quell discussion or cause major distractions, or just say its not worth reading, but I sense that's only because they don't like the way the real life story ends, and perhaps would rather go on believing in their respective CBM and Barker mythological hero worship.

Mike,

It would appear from this post and others recently that you feel that there are persons unnamed who are trying to quell discussion or cause major distractions, or just say its not worth reading.  It would be helpful if you'd name names so that those who are the subject of your innuendo could respond.  If you feel that I fall into the quelling, distracting or saying categories, let me know and I'll try to explain to you once again what I'm trying to do.

You've also stated directly to me: "If that's the types of scraps of leads you're being sent as someone hopes to topple Jeffs's factually based theory, I think we should perhaps break out the broom and sweep this place up cuz the show is over."  Speaking of people trying to quell discussion, you appear to be one of the leaders.  You appear to believe that I am part of some backroom cabal trying to subvert the truth as you know it about the early creation of Merion.  I am not.  I take it from previous posts by you and Jeff, that there is a lot of back channel chatter going on that you and Jeff are involved in.  I'm not.  Was it Jeff who was recommending discounting the conspiracy theories and going with the simple approach.  I am not part of an conspiracy.  I'm trying to gather and assimilate as much factual information as I can to understand what happened back then.  I could care less about whether Barker, CBM or Wilson or someone else should have got more or less credit for the initial design of Merion.  It's like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  It depends on your perspective.  I'd just like to see what the factual information says.  Any attribution I'll leave to others. 

To show my ignorance of your conspiracy theories, is Columbus where Tom MacWood lives?  Has he been pushing the Barker as Merion designer theory on you, or Jeff, or Tom?  I know that David Moriarty lives in CA.  I had the pleasure two years ago of having him take me around Rustic Canyon and show me the architectural merits of it.  He was passionate about that, as he is about this.  But, I have no more affinity to his conjecture about what happened at Merion than I have for yours or Tom's.  Both sides make leaps to conclusions that baffle me.

Nobody fed me that scrap I was inquiring of.  It's your scrap, and I came across it while looking for something else in the previous thousands of posts.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Should someone come up with something that topples my theory, I will be the first to congratulate them and admit I am wrong.  I think we are ALL hoping some document or another surfaces that really ties the knot.  However, another snippet will most likely just throw us all into more of a tizzy, as it MIGHT be interpreted different ways.

Specifically, for those who think Barker designed MCC, they will most likely look for ways to fit new info into that theory. 
For those who think CBM or Barker routed the course BEFORE 11-10-1910, they will find ways to fit that into their theory, and for those who think the committee did it, they will look for ways to fit that into their theory.

I guess I agree with those who think we really are a bunch of amateur historians who like to argue more than we like to find the truth, despite all of us protesting that truth is all we want!  So, let them have at it. I am only too glad to be proven wrong. 

Actually, my little piece of the puzzle probably isn't all that signifgant anyway. All I did was posit that there was no interim boundary line of 117 acres.  The fact that there is no legal deed of such, which would surely be recorded in the plat office is one indication. The math is a second.

Jeff,

Thanks for this summary and simplification of your theory.  I also thought you post #1202 was good.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

I'll look...I'm sure it was a news article and it seems they not only got wrong the total acreage Lloyd secured in Dec 1910, which you already KNOW for a fact based on the deed in your possession, but also they must have been pretty cramped playing on 50 acres previously.      Any luck in the looking for your source for your quote?  How did they (whoever it was) get the total acreage wrong, 117 acres and 221 acres add to 338 acres which is correct, is it not?  As for "50 acres" for the original MCC course, I believe it says 60 acres, not 50.  (Speaking of people trying to distract from the discussion at hand  ) 

Besides, if the routing was already completed before November 1910, why the heck would Merion be looking to option an additional 13 acres (a net add of over 11% to what they secured)  in January 1911?!?!   I don't know.  You published the quote.  I thought it was worth exploring, first by knowing where it came from.  If it's a "fact" then I suppose we should incorporate it in our fact list and try to understand what it means.   I thought the whole conspiracy theory was predicated on the belief that the golf course routing was set in stone by CBM and/or Barker, and/or ANYONE except Hugh Wilson prior to November 1910??      If you're implying that I'm a believer in a conspiracy theory along these  lines, you are wrong.  Nor do I speak for anyone who might have that theory.  Are you speaking for anyone who might have alternate theories?

If that's the types of scraps of leads you're being sent as someone hopes to topple Jeffs's factually based theory, I think we should perhaps break out the broom and sweep this place up cuz the show is over.  Nope, I found that little quote that you posted, all by myself.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

As I've said before, I think the work you've done on this thread is of the utmost value and I really appreciate it.   If it appears I was implying otherwise then I regret that error because I think you've been instrumental in helping to solve this case..  

I did find the snippet where that quote about 13 acres came from.   It's from a brief article in January 1911 in a Philadelphia newspaper that is unattributed, and I'm not sure which paper it came from.

One other item of interest is that it states that CBM, Whigham, and Barker all inspected the property prior to purchase.   You'd think it would say that either or all of them designed the course by this stage, wouldn't you?  Or at least just call it a Lloyd/Francis design.  

Boy...for someone you say is trying to stifle debate I'm sure spending a lot of time putting source material out here.    

[JESII]

Mike,

Are you sure that was 1913?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()