[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

You know full well where the 130 acres are in your theory and you know where 3 of the 4 boundaries are since you contend that the northern boundary is at Haverford College.

So you simply need to figure where to draw the western boundary to leave 13 acres that Merion could have still as an option while retaining 117 acres that all of the records reflect.

LIFS boxes you into that corner, not me!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Wilson simply tells us he seeded less in those areas.

Where do you see him applying manure and chemicals in March?

He only talks about doing some plowing and "rough work" in March, while trying to gather seed, soil, and chemical info.

[DMoriarty]

Now that I have your attention, could you point me to the posts where I can find the quotes, where it says that "Macdonald and Whigham had determined the final layout plan", or that "the Committee's recommendation (to purchase the property) is based largely on M&W's opinions". I'd like to review the quote before amending the timeline.

I haven't been able to locate it, and am not sure we ever got "exact" language. 

- TEPaul repeatedly wrote that CBM and Whigham were brought back to Merion and spent the day going over the course and reviewing the plans, and that they approved of one plan that would give Merion seven the best inland holes anywhere, and that the plan of which they approved was the one presented to the board and approved by the board.   
- TEPaul also wrote that it is possible that the plan M&W selected (he sometimes uses that word instead of approved) could have been subtantively altered by M&W before it went to the board. 
-  TEPaul also wrote that M&W reiterated their suggestion that Merion needed to aquire the land behind the clubhouse and the layout plan that was presented to the board utilized this land. 

I'll keep looking but these threads are pretty dense.

_________________________________________________________________________________

David,

Sorry, but Nov 27 is the date I was given for the Cuyler letter,  I guess it saves going thru train schedules though.

Btw...do you guys have any new evidence or are we all just going to regurgitate the old arguments?

You're an old farm boy, right.

You know damn well that when spring comes you have to turn over ALL of the soil.

The date you were given?    I hope this means we can stop pretending that TEPaul and Wayne are not participating on this board.     

Did Wayne or TEPaul explain why they have been telling us that the Cuyler letter was Dated Dec. 19, 1910?


As to your other question, I guess I would qualify as a farm boy, at least in comparison to this crowd.  But not corn. Whether or not the soil is turned over in the fall, spring, or at all is dependent upon a number of factors, including the farmers preference, the nature of the soil, the fertilization schedule, and the planned use of the farm for the next year.  Generally, unless the farmer is trying to use the dead stalks to prevent wind erosion, the farmer will do whatever he can in the fall so as to make life easier and seeding quicker in the spring.   The timing can be difficult in the spring and it doesn't pay to have a bunch of stuff to do when the timing is right for seeding.  Where I come from the fields are oftentimes burned in the fall and then plowed under.   Some crops are seeded in the fall.  Just ask Hugh Wilson about the advantages of doing this.

[JESII]

Bryan,

You know full well where the 130 acres are in your theory and you know where 3 of the 4 boundaries are since you contend that the northern boundary is at Haverford College.

So you simply need to figure where to draw the western boundary to leave 13 acres that Merion could have still as an option while retaining 117 acres that all of the records reflect.

LIFS boxes you into that corner, not me!

Mike,

The logic that led you to make this statement explains your inability to view any of this with a receptive open mind better than anything else...the 130 acres can be very clearly defined. Merion wanted to spend $85,000 on 117 acres. The 13 acres Lloyd may have optioned enables the club to define the exact parameters of the 117 later...so if the 130 acre theory holds any water, it precludes a firm 117 acre boundary...and it fully supports the everything in Francis' story, especially the fact that Lloyd was the one to approve of the idea. By the time Wilson was Chairman, he would have been the one to ask.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

You know full well where the 130 acres are in your theory and you know where 3 of the 4 boundaries are since you contend that the northern boundary is at Haverford College.

So you simply need to figure where to draw the western boundary to leave 13 acres that Merion could have still as an option while retaining 117 acres that all of the records reflect.

LIFS boxes you into that corner, not me!

Mike,

The logic that led you to make this statement explains your inability to view any of this with a receptive open mind better than anything else...the 130 acres can be very clearly defined. Merion wanted to spend $85,000 on 117 acres. The 13 acres Lloyd may have optioned enables the club to define the exact parameters of the 117 later...so if the 130 acre theory holds any water, it precludes a firm 117 acre boundary...and it fully supports the everything in Francis' story, especially the fact that Lloyd was the one to approve of the idea. By the time Wilson was Chairman, he would have been the one to ask.

Jim,

I'm not philosophically opposed to the 130 acre theory, and I fully I agree with you that there is no reason to preclude that Hugh Wilson or anyone at Merion might not have been working out routings prior to the actual purchase of the land in December 1910.

But, much as I try to embrace it, I keep running into brick walls, and the facts in the way are stubborn things.

For instance, if the routing was already settled, and Francis had his brainstorm, why the 117 acre "securing" and need to option 13 more after November?   Why the Cuyler recommendation in November at all then that Lloyd should buy all 161 acres land so that he could move boundariesl??   Why the multiple plans reported thereafter, including the revisions to the plans after the Macdonald visit?    Why the mention of the lawn tennis courts and skating rinks in January...where were they supposed to go???    Why is there no mention of 130 acres in any of Merion's materials??  

Lloyd would have been the one to go to even in 1911.   He owned the land outright until July, and he only lived a mile from Francis.   Wilson lived 6 miles away.

I think the difference between our understandings is simply timing.   You believe all of these things happened way before November 1910 and the more I see the more I think things were reported quite timely, both internally and externally.  

Frankly, I even think these Wilson/P&O letters confirm that timing.

[JESII]

Mike,

I don't think any of this had to happen that early, just that it could have and more than likely some of it did.

I've said a few times, and would like to flesh it out...if I am correct about the basic routing being completed before the November Map was drawn, but the holes were not designed up to determine the exact placement of the first green or width of the 15th fairway/green wouldn't it be to the committee's advantage to have a soft boundary? When you consider that the Johnson Farm line was the limit to what Lloyd did buy in December, it just makes sense to me in the grand scheme of things. Can you understand that perspective?

Also, please read Francis words about the first 13 holes again, he doesn't say they were completed first, just that they were easier...which would be pretty clear considering the different parcels of land...North and South of Ardmore Ave.

[Tom MacWood]

March 16: Wilson sends a 'blue print' marking the location from which he took soil samples. He asks Oakley to give suggestions on how to treat the soil. He asks if it is better to put down manure before plowing or plow first and then put on the fertilizer, and then repeat in August before seeding.

March 23: Oakley goes over the results of tests. He tells Wilson the whole 'course' needs liming. He says section B is pretty stiff clay and that lie is badly lacking. He suggests a treatment of manure and lime, but then says it would not be practicable at this time of year to use manure on your 'fair greens' and suggests waiting. Section B is fairway. He suggests grasses for the fairways. He suggests grasses for the greens, but then says 'however, that this feature of the course is not the important one at the present time, and that you are mostly interested in getting the fair greens in a playable condition.'

March 27: Wilson says he will following Oakley's advice regarding lime and manure and asks what proportions. He then tells Oakley he has begun plowing and doing rough work, evidently ignoring what Oakley told him.

March 29: Oakley reverses himself and tells him its OK to plow and manure & lime now. He gives him the proportions. He tells Wilson the plan to plow & treat now and then again in mid-summer is a good one.

March 29: Wilson asks if Bark Ash is suitable for liming.

April 5: Wilson tells Oakley they will plow the soil at once and then manure & lime

July 14: Wilson discusses the mid-summer 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."

Clearly the manure and lime treatment in March/April and July was intended for the fairways and greens, and Wilson wouldn't have started the process in late March/early April if he did not have fairways to manure & lime, and therefore he had a routing.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip wrote
      Sorry David, but this is a case of you can’t have it BOTH ways. You have made a point of stating that we should go by what was written. Well, what was written here says that it WAS the same committee. “Your committee desires to report laying out many new golf courses on the new ground…” It is followed just a few lines later with, “"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
      Once again then it is the SAME COMMITTEE who laid out many new courses, then went to NGLA and then came back and rearranged the course and then “LAID OUT five different plans…”

Phillip,  I said we need to take the source material at its word.  I NEVER said we need to take TEPaul at his word. And the source of the snippet you are quoting is TEPaul.   We'd be foolish to take it at full face value.

Plus Phillip, even TePaul's version raises doubt about your "same committee" theory. 

-  Lesley said "Your Committee desires to report that after laying out many new golf courses on the new ground…”" which would imply that it was the Site Committee acting there.
-  You left out the part where it then says that "they" went to NGLA, implying that someone else went to NGLA besided the Committee informing the Board.
-  Then it switches to "we."  "We laid out five plans . . .  "  

In other words, it makes no sense.    Obviously TEPaul got it wrong or is leaving something out.    Either way, you cannot conclude it was the same committee because the "they" conflicts with the "we."   "They" went to NGLA. "We" laid out five plans.     

I completely agree with you that all of the above is simply MY OPINION. But then again, your disagreement with it is simply your own…

Terrific.  But I don't think it was presented as opinion, which is why I objected.

[Phil_the_Author]

David, you wrote:

Phillip wrote
      Sorry David, but this is a case of you can’t have it BOTH ways. You have made a point of stating that we should go by what was written. Well, what was written here says that it WAS the same committee. “Your committee desires to report laying out many new golf courses on the new ground…” It is followed just a few lines later with, “"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
      Once again then it is the SAME COMMITTEE who laid out many new courses, then went to NGLA and then came back and rearranged the course and then “LAID OUT five different plans…”

Phillip,  I said we need to take the source material at its word.  I NEVER said we need to take TEPaul at his word. And the source of the snippet you are quoting is TEPaul.   We'd be foolish to take it at full face value.

      David, once again you are attempting to have it BOTH ways. You cannot argue that the quote is not acceptable because you don’t trust Tom and then tell me that my logic is lacking because I left out a portion of WHAT TOM WROTE!

      As far as your  belief that my theory “doesn’t make sense,” you wrote, “Plus Phillip, even TePaul's version raises doubt about your "same committee" theory.
-  Lesley said "Your Committee desires to report that after laying out many new golf courses on the new ground…”" which would imply that it was the Site Committee acting there.
-  You left out the part where it then says that "they" went to NGLA, implying that someone else went to NGLA besided the Committee informing the Board.
-  Then it switches to "we."  "We laid out five plans . . .  "   

      It is you who doesn’t understand the language used. Both the word “your” and the word “we” speak to the exact same group of men. It is perfectly proper English grammar that when FIRST ADDRESSING the governing body one is answerable to that the “proper” form “your committee” be used and that when subsequent statements are made the “relaxed” form “we” can be used in its place. In addition, referring to the committee also as “they” is also proper and the sue of the word is not meant to imply that the person writing is not part of that collective known as “they.”
      Therefor, writing that “your committee” did something and that “they” went somewhere and came back resulting in “we” doing may be confusing, but it is proper English grammar and of a type that isn’t used today by most people.

In other words, it makes no sense.    Obviously TEPaul got it wrong or is leaving something out.    Either way, you cannot conclude it was the same committee because the "they" conflicts with the "we." 

      Again, it DOES make perfect sense and the individual words do NOT conflict or contradict. Did Tom Paul get it wrong or leave something out? Not based on anything that I have seen. But again we have different opinions on that.


I completely agree with you that all of the above is simply MY OPINION. But then again, your disagreement with it is simply your own…

Terrific.  But I don't think it was presented as opinion, which is why I objected.

      Here again you failed to take note of the last thing I wrote in the original post – “For me, and I am sure that I will face an onslaught of arguing against this, I must conclude then that the “Committee” designed Merion and that the SIMPLE proof is staring at all of us in that single paragraph…”

      Note that I stated that “I must conclude…” I never used the word “We” or stated that this was anything more than a theory. In fact I began it by stating why can’t BOTH SIDES be at least partly correct? If you took it that I was stating it to be fact, although I do believe it to be a correct interpretation of what occurred, I apologize; it is a theory, in the same vein as your essay.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip wrote:
 David, once again you are attempting to have it BOTH ways. You cannot argue that the quote is not acceptable because you don’t trust Tom and then tell me that my logic is lacking because I left out a portion of WHAT TOM WROTE!

Huh?   With all due respect, Phillip, you seem to be saying that since I think the snippet is nonsensical I cannot comment on your logic.   That is absurd.   I can comment on your logic because you ignore the nonsensical contradiction in the passage.   It exists, and if you are going to take this snippet at face value you must take it all at face value

So phillip,  I am not having it both ways.  You are.  

I don't take anything in this snippet as necessarily true or accurate.  I reject its usefulness in determining who did what. TEPaul and Wayne are the source, and they are inherently unreliable.  It is an incomplete snippet and out of context.  And, it makes no sense because it contains internal inconsistencies such as  the use of "we" and "they" when referring to that should be the same committee (based on other information.)

Your logic is lacking because you cherry-pick two of the pronouns and ignore the third.    We know that Wilson's committee went to NGLA but the snippet says "they" went to NGLa.   This conflicts with your understanding of what was meant by "we."   Wilson's committee cannot be both "we" and "they"  and you cannot ignore "they" just because it doesnt fit.   And Lesley cannot be both "we" and "they"either.   SO THESE SNIPPETS DO NOT HELP US FIGURE OUT WHO IT WAS WHO CREATED MANY DIFFERENT COURSES.
I am having it one way.   TEPaul very likely did not give it to us truly and accurately, so it is a mistake (and internally inconsistent) to rely on it as you do.

         It is you who doesn’t understand the language used. Both the word “your” and the word “we” speak to the exact same group of men. It is perfectly proper English grammar that when FIRST ADDRESSING the governing body one is answerable to that the “proper” form “your committee” be used and that when subsequent statements are made the “relaxed” form “we” can be used in its place. In addition, referring to the committee also as “they” is also proper and the sue of the word is not meant to imply that the person writing is not part of that collective known as “they.”
      Therefor, writing that “your committee” did something and that “they” went somewhere and came back resulting in “we” doing may be confusing, but it is proper English grammar and of a type that isn’t used today by most people.

No Phillip,  It doesn't make sense.   You render all the pronouns meaningless.  Plus, Wilson is not the speaker.   Lesley is.  Even by your strange theory about the transative nature of the speaker, Wilson (not the speaker) cannot be both we and they.

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

The language is only confusing if you're fully invested in creating confusion in lieu of facts when the words are understandable to a two-year old.


Jim,

I can understand that perspective, and like I said, I don't think there is a big gap between our viewpoints.   I just think the odds are greater that it happened later, which seems to me more consistent with all of the evidence we know except for LIFS.   

I'm also not sure if Bryan as the same interpretation that you do about the chain of events.


Tom MacWood,

The exchange of letters between Wilson and Oakley I posted above make very clear that they are talking about taking soil samples from general areas.

In the very first letter Wilson even asks Oakley to tell HIM where he would like Wilson to get samples from based on the contour map he's sending.  Oakley responds with some uncertainty to what Wilson wants, while agreeing that if Wilson can get some typical samples with general characteristics they'll be glad to look at them.

How you see this indicative, much less proof of an existing routing is mind-boggling to me.

[DMoriarty]

Phil,

The language is only confusing if you're fully invested in creating confusion in lieu of facts when the words are understandable to a two-year old.

Lesley was a bright man.  He knew the difference between "we" and "they."      But if I am incorrect then produce the document and prove it.  

Anyone who trusts TEPaul to give us accurate information at this point is deluding himself.  

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Why would they test samples of soil not intended for fairway or greens? Are you still under the impression they plowed and fertilized the entire site?

The letters make it very clear they are treating fairways and greens, and in order to treat fairways and greens you must have fairways and greens identified and if you have fairways and greens identified you have a routing. Its very simple.

March 23: Oakley goes over the results of tests. He tells Wilson the whole 'course' needs liming. He says section B is pretty stiff clay and that lie is badly lacking. He suggests a treatment of manure and lime, but then says it would not be practicable at this time of year to use manure on your 'fair greens' and suggests waiting. Section B is fairway. He suggests grasses for the fairways. He suggests grasses for the greens, but then says 'however, that this feature of the course is not the important one at the present time, and that you are mostly interested in getting the fair greens in a playable condition.'

Note Wilson's continual reference to the golf course through out his letter writing exchange - from the first letter to the last letter.

It is interesting Wilson refers to the map in his first letter as a contour map, in his response to Wilson Oakley calls it a blue print, and from that point on they both refer to it as a blue print. A blue print is a plan.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Oakley tells Wilson he needs to lime "the whole course".

What would you suggest they call it?  Should they type "proposed" or "future" as an adjective before the noun "golf course" in every sentence.

Wilson called it a contour map...Oakley responded calling it a blueprint.   Wilson referred to it as such from that point forward.   He was literally begging Oakley to help him...he would have called it "Oscar" if he thought it would help the communications.

How are you determining that Section B is fairway?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Oakley tells Wilson he needs to lime "the whole course".

You just made my point. There was a golf course and it needed liming. Are you still under the impression they manured & limed the entire property?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Oakley tells Wilson he needs to lime "the whole course".

You just made my point. There was a golf course and it needed liming. Are you still under the impression they manured & limed the entire property?

No, I'm under the impression that they plowed the entire property.

They limed the entire property.

They seeded the entire property.

They laid out the specs for how much grass seed needed to be put on the greens.

They laid out the specs for how much grass seed needed to be put on the fairways.

They laid out the specs for how much grass seed needed to be put on the roughs (70% of what was on the fairways).

They were building a golf course.   Discussion of "fair greens" "roughs" and "greens" were implied by the nature of the topic.

Is there one mention in ANY of the letters of any specific green, fairway, or rough area, anywhere?

HOW would Oakley know they needed to Lime the whole course if Wilson only provided specific samples from targeted green and fairway areas?

[Mike_Cirba]

By the way, in case anyone missed it in the scintillating Wilson/Oakley letters...


The letter of April 28th, 1911 from Mr. Oakley to Hugh Wilson states as follows,

"Mr. C.B MacDonald called at the office today and spoke very encouragingly of your work at the Merion Golf Club."


At that point, Hugh Wilson had not even begun construction.   If all he was at Merion was the Construction Foreman per David and Tom MacWood's theories, what the hell was CB Macdonald talking about?   

[Tom MacWood]

By the way, in case anyone missed it in the scintillating Wilson/Oakley letters...


The letter of April 28th, 1911 from Mr. Oakley to Hugh Wilson states as follows,

"Mr. C.B MacDonald called at the office today and spoke very encouragingly of your work at the Merion Golf Club."


At that point, Hugh Wilson had not even begun construction.   If all he was at Merion was the Construction Foreman per David and Tom MacWood's theories, what the hell was CB Macdonald talking about?   

Mike
We have the P&O letters, do you think there were similar exchanges between Macdonald and Wilson? Do you think there were similar exchanges between Patterson & Wylde and Wilson?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

How are you determining that Section B is fairway?   I don't  have my glasses at the moment.   Seriously.

[DMoriarty]

At that point, Hugh Wilson had not even begun construction.   If all he was at Merion was the Construction Foreman per David and Tom MacWood's theories, what the hell was CB Macdonald talking about?   

What is your factual basis for stating that, as of April 28, 1911, Merion had not even began construction?   

You again misrepresent my views by claiming I think Wilson was nothing but a construction foreman.    If you ever start treating my position seriously, I will stop taking you as nothing but a complete partisan joke. 

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Oakley tells Wilson he needs to lime "the whole course".

What would you suggest they call it?  Should they type "proposed" or "future" as an adjective before the noun "golf course" in every sentence.

Wilson called it a contour map...Oakley responded calling it a blueprint.   Wilson referred to it as such from that point forward.   He was literally begging Oakley to help him...he would have called it "Oscar" if he thought it would help the communications.

How are you determining that Section B is fairway?

I have done quite a bit of research over the years; I've read a lot of old letters, reports and articles. When I first began reading these letters I assumed it was virgin property, untouched, with no formal routing. What really stood out as I read the letters was Wilson's constant reference to a golf course, I thought that is a new one. I've not run into anyone before who referred to a blank site as a golf course, very odd. But after reading the letters a few more times, all the letters from 1911 to 1914 (a few hundred), and seeing how he used the term throughout those years, I became convinced there was a golf course, a staked out or mapped out golf course, but a golf course none the less. After that the other pieces of the puzzel began to fall into place, and the likelihood Wilson designed the course became more and more remote.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Oakley tells Wilson he needs to lime "the whole course".

What would you suggest they call it?  Should they type "proposed" or "future" as an adjective before the noun "golf course" in every sentence.

Wilson called it a contour map...Oakley responded calling it a blueprint.   Wilson referred to it as such from that point forward.   He was literally begging Oakley to help him...he would have called it "Oscar" if he thought it would help the communications.

How are you determining that Section B is fairway?

I have done quite a bit of research over the years; I've read a lot of old letters, reports and articles. When I first began reading these letters I assumed it was virgin property, untouched, with no formal routing. What really stood out as I read the letters was Wilson's constant reference to a golf course, I thought that is a new one. I've not run into anyone before who referred to a blank site as a golf course, very odd. But after reading the letters a few more times, all the letters from 1911 to 1914 (a few hundred), and seeing how he used the term throughout those years, I became convinced there was a golf course, albeit a staked out or mapped out golf course, but a golf course none the less. After that the other pieces of the puzzel began to fall into place, and the likelihood Wilson designed the course became more and more remote.

Tom,

I'm still not understanding.   How are you determining that Section B was fairway?

Also, are there any specific instances in all of the pre-construction letters that reference a particular green, fairway, rough area, tee, or any specific landmark even in a general way?

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

Oakley tells Wilson he needs to lime "the whole course".

What would you suggest they call it?  Should they type "proposed" or "future" as an adjective before the noun "golf course" in every sentence.

Wilson called it a contour map...Oakley responded calling it a blueprint.   Wilson referred to it as such from that point forward.   He was literally begging Oakley to help him...he would have called it "Oscar" if he thought it would help the communications.

How are you determining that Section B is fairway?

I have done quite a bit of research over the years; I've read a lot of old letters, reports and articles. When I first began reading these letters I assumed it was virgin property, untouched, with no formal routing. What really stood out as I read the letters was Wilson's constant reference to a golf course, I thought that is a new one. I've not run into anyone before who referred to a blank site as a golf course, very odd. But after reading the letters a few more times, all the letters from 1911 to 1914 (a few hundred), and seeing how he used the term throughout those years, I became convinced there was a golf course, albeit a staked out or mapped out golf course, but a golf course none the less. After that the other pieces of the puzzel began to fall into place, and the likelihood Wilson designed the course became more and more remote.

Tom,

I'm still not understanding.   How are you determining that Section B was fairway?

Also, are there any specific instances in all of the pre-construction letters that reference a particular green, fairway, rough area, tee, or any specific landmark even in a general way?

I don't know if it is posted as of yet, but there is at least one reference to the type of grass they should use in the rough, which I believe they refer to as the land bordering the course.    By your understanding, MIke, there would be no land bordering the course, unless they were grassing the neighbor's property.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'd be interested in the date of that comment as I don't recall reading it.    

For discussion purposes, I also don't think it's beyond possibility that 13 holes had been finalized for some time and the variations they were working out were mostly on the final five, and as I mentioned yesterday, the MCC Minutes say that the Committee worked out many plans for the new golf course prior to the second week in March, so I'm also not finding it impossible that one of the early routings was indeed on the contour map Wilson sent to P&O on February 1st.

I just don't see anything specific in the letters to date that would lead me to believe there necessarily was..

[Tom MacWood]

I'll go slow.

1) Oakley says the sample marked section B on the blueprint is pretty stiff clay and the lime is badly lacking

2) He suggests a treatment of manure and lime

3) But not now, it would not be practicable this time of year to use manure on your 'fair greens'

4) Section B is 'fair green' aka fairway

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()