[Tom MacWood]

"Please disregard Mike's unending mantra about Barker being a one day wonder. He was a three day wonder. From what I've been able to piece together Barker normally spent about three days, give or take a day, routing and staking out a course. Mayfield was three days, CC of Atlantic City was three days, Myers Park was two days, CC of Virginia four days and Winnetka, in collaboration with HS Colt, three days. In 1910 this was not unusual. Who knows how long it took to produce and submit detailed plans. No doubt topo maps were useful before, during and after the site visit."

Mike
In response to your post 2274. The quote above is what I posted a couple of days ago. I'm not sure why you constantly mention "one day routing" when referring to Barker, well actually I do know why. I have to say, however, its an advancement from your previous habit of always mentioning Dark Ages when referring to Barker.

There a numerous example during the golden age when architects routed great golf courses in a matter of days. See those examples I gave of Mackenzie, Alison and Colt.

What date do you have Barker arriving in Atlanta?

I do not believe it is impossible or improbable for Barker to have found three or four days in Philadelphia based on the 21 day window of time. He could have accomplished that very easily, either going or coming from Atlanta.

Regarding the abandonment of this early routing I have yet to see convincing evidence Barker's golf course was abandoned or significantly altered.

[Tom MacWood]

Bryan
In response to your question in post 2277. When I originally read the 11/24 article I wondered the same thing, but after comparing it to the articles on or around 11/14 I found the information is quite different.

The earlier articles refer to the 130 acres and the total of 350 acres. The earlier article mentions Lloyd had the property inspected by Macdonald, Whigham and Barker. There is no separate mention of Barker. We have no idea if we have three distinct experts or one group. The earlier articles also mention no effort/money will be spared, and leave the impression the goal will be a course to rival GCGC or Myopia. And last but not least they say work will begin at once.

The 11/24 article mentions the individuals involved within the syndicate: Lloyd, Atterbury, Griscom. Lelsey and Huston. Those names do not appear in the previous articles or 11/15 MCC report. The 11/24 article goes into the arrangement at the old course, the breakdown of acres owned by PRR and those owned by Griscom. It mentions the annual rent paid to the PRR ($800). It mentions 117 acres as opposed to 130 acres. It has the accurate purchase price and cost per acre (unlike the earlier articles). It joins Macdonald with Whigham and segregates them from Barker. It mentions that Barker is the former Irish Am champion, which is not mentioned in the previous articles or the MCC report. The information in this article came from a very knowledgeable inside source within MerionCC. The dateline of Lakewood, NJ may be a clue - Lesley was a member of the golf club at Lakewood.

The one fact that continually gets brushed aside (along with inability to explain why Wilson would be selected to design the course) is the consistent drum beat that work will commence immediately. There must be half a dozen different reports in November that say work will begin immediately, and that no effort will be spared.

Regarding your timeline I don't believe the 1/11/1911 date for the formation of the Wilson committee is accurate. That comes from Jeff B. who said it came from TEP. I think they may have gotten their wires crossed. TEP has always maintained the minutes do not mention when the committee was formed, in fact he has said the minutes never refer to Wilson's committee by name. The earliest documented action of Wilson's committee is the letter to Piper dated 2/1/1911.

Why did you change the April 19, 1911 entry? Didn't you originally have information about the timing of CBM's 2nd visit to MCC and a quote about him making the final selection?

[Tom MacWood]

“Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......"

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

Peter, Jeff & Niall

What is Lesley referring to when he says..."five different plans"?

Are those five distinct routings? Lesley says they already have a golf course (or routing if you wish), one that apparently needs re-arranging, why would you completely scrap that current routing (on which Wilson is actively preparing for seed), create five new routings, choose one, and then start the whole process of preparing the ground over again? Is that a logical interpretation? What would be the reason for such a drastic reversal?

If true, how many days would it take Wilson & Co to create five new routings?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Barker was already in Atlanta by December 6th, although I'm not sure how long prior.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

There was no "golf course" on the ground prior to construction beginning in late April 1911.  

Asking Piper & Oakley questions about seeds by Feb 1911  is simply due diligience by Wilson because as mentioned a few hundred times here, EVERYONE was having difficulty growing grass properly, including Macdonald.   Why wouldn't Wilson have initiated contact with P&O over the winter after he was assigned Chairmanship of the Committee?

At the time this was written, they were dealing with routings on PAPER, and you know that.   It is not difficult to imagine that they worked out five separate routings, particularly as relates to the configuration of the final five holes they were struggling with.

Actually, the April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes state that the propsed, final PAPER plan was ATTACHED to the Board Report.   Unfortunately, no one has been able to locate a copy.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Does an arrival in Atlanta on 12/6 preclude a three or four day visit to Philadelphia prior to the 6th or after the 10th?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike
Does an arrival in Atlanta on 12/6 preclude a three or four day visit to Philadelphia prior to the 6th or after the 10th?

Tom,

Do you have evidence that either happened beyond that news article?

Do you have evidence that any of his original June 1910 routings or any subsequent routings were ever used?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

There was no "golf course" on the ground prior to construction beginning in late April 1911.  

Actually, the April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes state that the final PAPER plan was ATTACHED to the Board Report.   Unfortunately, no one has been able to locate a copy.

Why then did construction begin the week of 3/27 when Wilson said they began plowing the ground?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Where does Wilson say that and what is the context?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Wilson already told us that they ploughed up ALL of the land for the golf course, less three fairways of pasture-land they thought might provide adequate turfgrass on their own.

Why would this work of basic turning over the soil (harrowing) across the entire property not have begun as soon as the ground thawed?  Bryan asked earlier about spring in Philadelphia, and it's often pretty cold right into March.   In fact, some of our biggest snows often occur that month.

In any case, this turning over of the soil on the property is work that had to be done no matter where the holes were located, right?   How is this basic gardening work dependent on some routing being previously completed?

We also know that Francis told us that they already had 13 holes routed, and were only struggling with the last five when he had his brainstorm.   We know that about 10 days after March 27th, M&W came to the property and helped them select their best routing of the five final options.   So, starting ploughing work as of March 27th really tells us nothing much, does it?

It's like when you say that Piper and Oakley and Wilson refer to the topographical map Wilson sent in February 1911 as a "blueprint".  I think you're reading way too much into it, frankly.

Why wouldn't the Committee have drawn one of their early, tentative "plans" on that topo map prior to sending it to P&O?   It only makes sense as they had already obviously begun that planning work.

Is there some additional evidence that Barker was involved in the creation of any of those plans?


p.s.   I refer to "one-day routing" for Barker because that's precisely what we know he did for Joseph Connell in June 1910.   That's not an insult...that's the way the early British professionals worked and really all that most clubs would pay them for.   Thus, the Dark Ages of Design, which was not really their fault.   They simply weren't paid to put enough time investment into their "designs" to ensure any quality.

However, you're also ignoring history if you don't recognize that the methods of Macdonald and others were in direct contradiction to this earlier methodology that had spawned such poor results that the entire soul of golf shrieked, in Macdonald's brilliant words.

[Tom MacWood]

On March 16 Wilson sent Oakley soil samples from different sections of the golf course, along with a blue print marking the exact location from which the sample came. (Wilson had originally sent the blue print on 2/1/1911, at which time he asked Piper if he could help them analyze their soil. "I am sending you, under separate cover a contour map, and if you could arrange to analyze the soil and advise us what fertilizer it needs, please say what sections you would like samples of soil from and will send them to you." The 2/1/1911 letter is the first known action of the Wilson committee.)

On March 23rd after analyzing the samples Oakley tells Wilson how to treat the soil. He says section B appears to be pretty stiff clay, and they have found that barnyard manure in connection with lime is a good treatment that will sweeten the soil materially, but at this time of year the use of manure on your fair greens (aka fairways) is impracticable. Later in the letter he goes on to say they can deal with the greens later. "I judge, however that this feature of the course [greens] is not the important one at the present time, and that you are mostly interested in getting the fair greens in playable condition."

On March 27th Wilson tells Oakley, "We are starting in this week to plow and do some rough work." He also tells Oakley they will follow his advice regarding treatment, and asks what proportions they should use per acre.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Wilson already told us that they ploughed up ALL of the land for the golf course, less three fairways of pasture-land they thought might provide adequate turfgrass on their own.

Not only did he not say that, it would make no sense. It would be a total waste of time, effort and money. Their treatment was focused on the fair greens.

Why would this work of basic turning over the soil (harrowing) across the entire property not have begun as soon as the ground thawed?  Bryan asked earlier about spring in Philadelphia, and it's often pretty cold right into March.   In fact, some of our biggest snows often occur that month.

In any case, this turning over of the soil on the property is work that had to be done no matter where the holes were located, right?   How is this basic gardening work dependent on some routing being previously completed?

We also know that Francis told us that they already had 13 holes routed, and were only struggling with the last five when he had his brainstorm.   We know that about 10 days after March 27th, M&W came to the property and helped them select their best routing of the five final options.   So, starting ploughing work as of March 27th really tells us nothing much, does it?

It's like when you say that Piper and Oakley and Wilson refer to the topographical map Wilson sent in February 1911 as a "blueprint".  I think you're reading way too much into it, frankly.

Why wouldn't the Committee have drawn one of their early, tentative "plans" on that topo map prior to sending it to P&O?   It only makes sense as they had already obviously begun that planning work.

Is there some additional evidence that Barker was involved in the creation of any of those plans?


p.s.   I refer to "one-day routing" for Barker because that's precisely what we know he did for Joseph Connell in June 1910.   That's not an insult...that's the way the early British professionals worked and really all that most clubs would pay them for.   Thus, the Dark Ages of Design, which was not really their fault.   They simply weren't paid to put enough time investment into their "designs" to ensure any quality.

Barker was asked to inspect the property in June. Most inspections of this type are one day affairs. I've sent you at least two articles that reported Barker laying out golf course during a three day period. You obviously are attempting to paint Barker in the worst possible light you can.

However, you're also ignoring history if you don't recognize that the methods of Macdonald and others were in direct contradiction to this earlier methodology that had spawned such poor results that the entire soul of golf shrieked, in Macdonald's brilliant words.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am not trying to tweak Tom MacWood here, but if that Dec. 7 article says Barker had entered earlier, and many more are expected, does that perhaps imply his travel plans were already set?  Would he be able to change his plans that quickly in those days to squeeze in a trip to MCC?

I know that if he made a last minute change to his itinerary with today's airlines, it would cost a bundle, but I don't know if the Pennsyvania RR had implemente "maximum revenue" price structures back in those days! (wink)  

Tom,

I appreciate seeing snippets of the Oakley letters.  Those kind of details are fasinating.

I would answer your question, but it would be just speculation. No one has facts to say whether those five plans upon return were feature designs incorporating CBM design principles,  total re-routings, tweakings of the last five holes, variations on one basic routing with a few twists on each one (from experience those would be typical, but perhaps running the holes backwards in similar corridors, etc)

I do have to side with MIke C ground plowing theory.  When I show up early in the process, I have seen many people plow the land first. I think its mistake in most cases, because plowed land holds moisture longer than solid ground, slowing construction after each rain.  And, if CBM visited April 6, maybe they were just trying to get the corn, weeds  and stubble down so he could see what he was looking at.  I do know that is typical today, since most of us gca's like to look at more than old corn stalks.  (they had to plow portions of Firekeeper for us to walk)

I also think that we have established the gap between actual events and when they were recorded in Board minutes.  Even if plowing started 3/27, and the minutes are April 19, that might be as contemporaneous as those events got recorded.  
  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

A HEARTY welcome back!

You wrote, "(Wilson had originally sent the blue print on 2/1/1911, at which time he asked Piper if he could help them analyze their soil... The 2/1/1911 letter is the first known action of the Wilson committee.)"

I must disagree with your interpretation here. Didn't the committe produce the blue print? It certainly wasn't made on 2/1/1911. So their first known act, which is different from saying their first act, was the preparation and production of the blueprint which was sent to Piper. This certainly took a number of days to do, and so REASONABLY takes the committee back to the beginnings of January 1911 or late December 1910 at the very least.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

TePaul will disagree with me on this, and I do agree that the committee was at least considered well in advance of the actual appointment date, but that topo map was probably prepared by Pugh and Hubbard, makers of the plat map and November exhibit.  I think it could have been commissioned as early as when HDC took over the entire property, but they may have done a separate topo of just the golf course after Lloyd took control of the land in December.

The old fashioned survey process for topo maps would have taken several weeks in its own right.  It could have been handed over to Wilson at any time in January, if the latter was true, but not much before that.  If HDC had it surveyed, then perhaps they could have had it earlier.

However, back in the ink on linen drafting days, I suspect that if they had the topo surveyed on Nov 10, 1910, that would have been included on the base map.  I also suspect that if they had a routing, it would have been included on that exhibit, but that would not be a given. Usually, the topo and boundary lines were included on one and the same map, copies made, and then routings put on top of those copies.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom & Mike,

Tom asked the question, "Does an arrival in Atlanta on 12/6 preclude a three or four day visit to Philadelphia prior to the 6th or after the 10th?"

So that the adtes may be firmed up a bit better, according to articles in the Atlanta Constitution, Barker was already practicing on the 5th which means he arrived by at least late on the 4th.

Lest it get lost in the shuffle, he also set a new 4-round course record at East lkae for the tournament! The man could play...

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

The problem here is the use of the word "probably." It is the same problem as caused by my phrase "reasonable takes us back to..." Yet whether the physical preparation of the blueprint was done by Pugh and Hubbard or others on the committee (we've already seen quoted one referencing that he [I can't remember which one by name but it is in this thread] spent many hours drawing prints for the committee), the production of this, as you noted, took some time in creation. It also was sent by Wilson on behalf of the committee and so would have had to be presented to them and agreed by them to send. This too was not reasonably done on January 31st.

My sole point wasn't as much the date, but in defining what is actually known, in this case, the FIRST act of the committee. It wasn't the 2/1/1911 sending of the letter and blueprints. It also MAY NOT have been the receiving or preparing of the blueprints. WE simply don't know.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

Yeah I was busting your chops a little!

I was just showering, getting ready to go out for the day, and I started thinking along the lines you did about Barker's Atlanta trip.  I think the timeline kind of does preclude Barker going to MCC, at least on the way down.

While there is no evidence that MCC called Barker back or tried to contact him, and TMac has only one piece of evidence that suggests he did go back in December (I think he needs a corroborating piece to really push his theory) here is an alternate timeline of what MIGHT have happened, had the tried to contact them.

MCC, somewhere after Nov 15 presentation, and likely later after a formal vote writes HHB asking him to come back because they are ready to proceed immediately. 

Barker (if the letter doesn't sit on his desk because he is already off to GA) replies that he would be happy to assist MCC, but as luck would have it, he is leaving in just a few days for an important tournament in the south for which he has already signed up, and is also planning to stay around there for a few weeks to layout some golf courses, another portion of the trip which has already been planned, and dates set.  IF MCC would be so kind as to delay the start of the project until his return, he would be thrilled to assist.

MCC replies that their contract requires them to start immediately, and decide to go a different direction in the name of expediency, using a local committee and the kind assistance of CBM.

Yeah, its speculation, and speculation on a series of letters I don't think were ever actually written.  I believe CBM was their guy from the beginning. But, if they called Barker, I think that his previous committments from winter tournaments to existing design contracts may have been a stumbling block for MCC, to whom time was of the essence.

Just MHO, based on similar experiences in more modern times, i.e., sometimes bragging about how busy you are works against you as a gca!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Other than in the bowels of the quarry, of the 120 or so acres of farmland that was just coming out of winter's grips into spring thaw, where exactly do you think ploughing down corn fields, or turning soil would have been a costly waste?

Relatedly, what areas might Wilson have taken soil samples from in March and sent to P&O which would have proved useless, or unnecessary, as those sections were clearly not being used for any golf course?   









The following photo from the 1916 US Amateur looks across today's 6th green to land across Ardmore Avenue that is Johnson Farmland that was not purchased by Merion and should give a pretty good indication of the type of land they were dealing with at the initiation of clearing, ploughing, and subsequent construction.



Here's some other bordering farmland above today's 7th fairway as viewed from around today's 3rd green looking at the 4th tee and beyond;




I'm still not seeing why turning over the crops and plouging the land was an unncecessary and wasteful idea?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I should also say welcome back, even though we've been having some private emails between us off and on for some time now, I am pleased to see you here.

Thanks also for sharing some of the P+O info with us; it should help our understanding.

In that regard, is it mentioned how many soil samples Wilson sent in March?

[Tom MacWood]

I am not trying to tweak Tom MacWood here, but if that Dec. 7 article says Barker had entered earlier, and many more are expected, does that perhaps imply his travel plans were already set?  Would he be able to change his plans that quickly in those days to squeeze in a trip to MCC?

I know that if he made a last minute change to his itinerary with today's airlines, it would cost a bundle, but I don't know if the Pennsyvania RR had implemente "maximum revenue" price structures back in those days! (wink)  

Tom,

I appreciate seeing snippets of the Oakley letters.  Those kind of details are fasinating.

I would answer your question, but it would be just speculation. No one has facts to say whether those five plans upon return were feature designs incorporating CBM design principles,  total re-routings, tweakings of the last five holes, variations on one basic routing with a few twists on each one (from experience those would be typical, but perhaps running the holes backwards in similar corridors, etc)

I do have to side with MIke C ground plowing theory.  When I show up early in the process, I have seen many people plow the land first. I think its mistake in most cases, because plowed land holds moisture longer than solid ground, slowing construction after each rain.  And, if CBM visited April 6, maybe they were just trying to get the corn, weeds  and stubble down so he could see what he was looking at.  I do know that is typical today, since most of us gca's like to look at more than old corn stalks.  (they had to plow portions of Firekeeper for us to walk)

I also think that we have established the gap between actual events and when they were recorded in Board minutes.  Even if plowing started 3/27, and the minutes are April 19, that might be as contemporaneous as those events got recorded.  
  

Jeff
Based on the fact they planned on seeding in the fall, Oakley recommended applying manure and lime in late March, and then second plowing and treatment in mid-summer. He also said the part of the course that had pre-existing good turf should not be plowed. He recommended ten tons of manure per acre and two tons of lime. On July 14th Wilson wrote Oakley regarding the second treatment: "We have manured and limed the ground and practically completed our fair greens. I am writing to ask what fertilizers you think are the best to use before seeding, both on the fair greens and putting greens, also what ones afterward."

In his later account in the P&O books, Hugh Wilson wrote: "Our problem was to layout the course, build and seed eighteen greens, and fifteen fairways. Three fairways were old pasture turf." The treatment of the rough non-playing areas was not a priority. It defies logic that they would treat the entire 117 acres as it was going to be fair green. That would be very expensive and time consuming. I know of no contemporaneous example where they went to the kind of extravagance.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom & Mike,

Tom asked the question, "Does an arrival in Atlanta on 12/6 preclude a three or four day visit to Philadelphia prior to the 6th or after the 10th?"

So that the adtes may be firmed up a bit better, according to articles in the Atlanta Constitution, Barker was already practicing on the 5th which means he arrived by at least late on the 4th.

Lest it get lost in the shuffle, he also set a new 4-round course record at East lkae for the tournament! The man could play...

Does that preclude him from spending three or four day in Philadelphia prior to Dec 4 or after Dec 10?

[DMoriarty]

If I missed that attribution then I apologize.   Your essay posted on this site seems to have been updated; would that be a correct assessment?  If so, just one time since initial publication, or multiple times?

If you missed the attribution?   Mike, you have really turned out to be a complete jerk.  You throw a bunch of false innuendo at me about how I was disingenuous in my treatment of the Wilson report, and when it turns out to be completely bogus on your part, you keep right on going, pretending that I might have changed the essay out from under you.

I made a single change to my essay, to correct a spelling error and add a missing word or two, and did so within a few days of first posting my essay.   You have a lot of nerve to continue to try and attack it with nothing but made up garbage that shows you either aren't capable of understanding it or you never read it in the first place.

The question of why Wilson's paragraphs weren't copied for the reader's perusal and understanding still stands however.  Like you're doing with Alan Wilson above, where you tell us that Alan Wilson said that "Macdonald and Whigham were "PLANNING THE LAYOUT OF MERION EAST", here again you insist in your essay that Hugh Wilson's words aren't sufficient but instead need your edit, your characterization, your representation, and your interpretation.  

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you have some sort of authority to tell me how I should have written my essay.  This is laughable given the amount of irrelevant and nonsensical tripe you post on a daily basis.   You've posted somewhere around 800 times on this thread alone.    What are you accomplishing?  How have you advanced the discussion?  Why are you here but to act as a conduit for TEPaul's UNVERIFIED ramblings?

Rather than throw out your latest lame attempt to malign my reputation, why don't you go line-by-line in the Wilson essay, and tell me EXACTLY what I failed to address or accurately convey?  

If you ever bother to read my essay carefully you will notice that I copied and addressed everything in the relevant section of the Wilson Essay, but did it piece by piece, so there could be no misunderstanding about any of it.    To me that is a much better approach than just throwing up something that you and everyone else had misunderstood for years.

But you can't even accurately cut and past my discussion of the Wilson Article, so why would I expect you to be able to understand my treatment of it?

I'd also ask yet again why;

1) If you knew when you wrote your essay that the land for the golf course measured 122 acres, not 117 as represented in the accompanying letters with the November 1910 Land Plan why did you choose to not mention that?  . . .

Why would I?  The plan said APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE ROAD and I noted this.   This kind of irrelevant distraction has no place in a coherent essay.  I tried not to deal in irrelevant and unsupportable assumptions, so why would I make a big deal about an exact measure of a road that obviously wasn't meant to be measured exactly.  That kind of nonsense is your bailiwick, not mine.  

2) If you knew when you wrote your essay that the triangle of land on that November 1910 Land Plan didn't measure 130x190 as Francis had stated, but instead measured 100X327, why did you choose to not mention that, especially as you used it to offer the only physicial proof in your essay that the Francis Swap had to have happened prior to then.   . . .

Again, why would I?  See my answer immediately above. And I think you are wrong about your measure, by about 15-20 yards.

Finally, I'd simply ask, how do you interpret Hugh WIlson's statement that he and the others were appointed to a committee in early 1911 as him saying that he wasn't involved prior?   Why do you think Merion would appoint someone who according to your essay had no involvement or knowledge prior and put him in charge of the Committee, OVER Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, and Toulmin?

Because all of the sources, including Wilson himself, say that  he became involved in early 1911.  NOT A SINGLE CONTEMPORARY SOURCE SAYS OR IMPLIES OTHERWISE.   If you want to pretend otherwise WITHOUT BASIS, be my guest.  I'll stick with the source material.  

Why do you think they put Hugh Wilson in charge of the committee if he supposedly had no prior involvement.   Just because you've found no evidence that he was involved prior to then, do you really believe that's reason to say the historical record indicates the Wilson had involvement prior to 1911 given his immediate appointment as Chairman immediately after the land purchase by Lloyd?

Probably because he was on the greens committee at Princeton, and they weren't giving him the level of responsibility that you think they gave him.  And Yes, I do think that by noting his appointment, he was noting the beginning of his involvement.  And I have no reason to believe that they immediately appointed him chairman.  Do you?

IN FACT I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT MERION'S BOARD APPOINTED HUGH WILSON TO DO ANYTHING INVOLVING THE DESIGN OF THE COURSE.    MAYBE THE BOARD APPOINTED HIM ONTO A GREEN COMMITTEE, BUT I HAVENT SEEN EVIDENCE OF THIS.  HAVE YOU?    WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT MERION'S BOARD APPOINTED HUGH WILSON TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN OF MERION?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Other than in the bowels of the quarry, of the 120 or so acres of farmland that was just coming out of winter's grips into spring thaw, where exactly do you think ploughing down corn fields, or turning soil would have been a costly waste?

Relatedly, what areas might Wilson have taken soil samples from in March and sent to P&O which would have proved useless, or unnecessary, as those sections were clearly not being used for any golf course?   









The following photo from the 1916 US Amateur looks across today's 6th green to land across Ardmore Avenue that is Johnson Farmland that was not purchased by Merion and should give a pretty good indication of the type of land they were dealing with at the initiation of clearing, ploughing, and subsequent construction.



Here's some other bordering farmland above today's 7th fairway as viewed from around today's 3rd green looking at the 4th tee and beyond;




I'm still not seeing why turning over the crops and plouging the land was an unncecessary and wasteful idea?

Where did you read they plowed the entire property? Why would they lime and manure the entire property?

[DMoriarty]

Mike, once again, if you actually understood the source material, you'd know that your talk about what they plowed and didn't plow is total nonsense.    Do you just type whatever comes into your mind?  Ever thought of trying to figure it out and then typing?   Now that you finally know where the Hugh Wilson article came from, why don't you bother to read it?


For a Hugh Wilson sycophant you sure don't know much about him.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()