News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1175 on: August 30, 2010, 11:04:46 PM »
"Jim
It seems innocuous enough...why not post it then?"


Tom MacWood:

We have been over this so many times I find it hard to contemplate that you'd ask a question like that AGAIN, so I'll ask if it's possible that you and I could have an intelligent Q and A about this, at least one time?

The Q is-----Do you think it is reasonable or proper for you to be treated differently from others as far as access to original documents are concerned and if you do think so can you try to tell us why you think so?

Thank you.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1176 on: August 30, 2010, 11:10:51 PM »
"TEP
Why not post the document in order to prevent more confusion?"


Tom MacWood:

Just how slow on the uptake are you really?

How long have you known me on this website? Ten years, eleven years?

Have you not even noticed in all that time I do not post documents on this website???

The reason is I don't know how!!!


TEP
Do you think that is reasonable explanation when there are several hundred others on this site who could post it for you? And there are a number of other official MCC documents that some how got posted with or without you.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1177 on: August 31, 2010, 01:53:30 AM »
David,

I think you should operate on the assumption that Tom, Mike and Wayne do not have anything of material that would change the current positions...there's no smoking gun currently in their posession.

Unfortunately for Jeff, alot of this conversation does come down to word splicing...if we're looking to figure out what happened...fortunately, as Jeff suggested...we're not dealing with lives or money...

Of course there is no smoking gun, at least not one that helps them, and at least not one they can figure out.  So all this crap about how they have records that prove when and who designed Merion was just that. Crap. Nothing but a huge multiyear bluff.   The problem is that these guys have shown a real knack for not being able to figure out what they have, and surely there is more to what they have than what they have disclosed or even understand. This has been going on for years now, they pull someone aside and show them enough of select documents to hopefully convince them to agree with them, and then go onto the next guy. But until they come completely clean, this isn't going away.  

And Jim, I will not discuss my conversations with Merion, but TEPaul's description of my dealings with Merion is complete and utter bullshit.  I hope you and others realize that.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1178 on: August 31, 2010, 06:51:06 AM »


Please point to where you read they treated every inch of the property excepting 25 acres? Are you referring to Wilson's account in P&O's book? This is what he wrote regarding treatment:

"We used an average of fifteen tons of horse manure to the acre on the fairways and eight tons of various of various kinds of manure to a green, the greens averaging about 10,000 square feet in area."


Tom,

I think you're not following the process or the timing.

First, they turned over all of the land (less the 25 acres) and treated the whole property with lime, based on Oakley's recommendations.   This was March/April 1911.

Then, later that year, well after the course had been routed and the holes had been finalized, they spread manure as you describe and turned over again.

Finally, in the fall, they planted seed and that included seeding the roughs with the same seed as the fairways, only in a less dense spread.

David/Tom,

I had hoped by a very accurate paraphrasing of the passage about Macdonald in the MCC Minutes that perhaps we could move on to more productive discussions about their meaning, and the effect on the proposed timing of events.

All I hear in response is a cry for more documents....that the club neither knows what they have or has the intelligence to analyze it properly??  

What is the expectation??  That Merion or someone acting in their behalf would post all of their club documents on=line for your review and approval??

I already feel odd posting things here that have been shared with me because of my interest for decades in Merion.   I certainly don't have the permission of the club and am not sure how they feel about it, but I can't imagine they feel good about this ongoing saga on GCA.

In any case, that's all there is to my knowledge related to the origins of the East course, at least that has been found.   Hopefully, some other avenues may yield more information or source documents like Wilson's Topo map but that's a long shot.

It is what it is.  

If you think the evidence and facts presented to date bolsters your theory, there may be some who concur.   I doubt it.

But, I can only speak for myself saying I have a much better understanding of events than I did before, and a MUCH deeper understanding of Hugh Wilson overall, and your efforts did help spur additional research from folks like Joe Bausch and others that added greatly to the picture and which had additional residual benefits in ways that none of us foresaw.

So for that, thank you for your efforts.

Finally, do you think it's just pure coincidence that;

Hugh Wilson in 1911
A.W. Tillinghast in 1912
Far and Sure in 1913
Robert Lesley in 1914
Hugh Wilson in 1916
Alan Wilson in 1926

All summed up Macdonald's contributions to Merion using the same word..."ADVICE".   ??

Does the "PRIMARY DRIVER" or "PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT" of a project give "ADVICE" and "SUGGESTIONS"??   ::)
« Last Edit: August 31, 2010, 07:14:47 AM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1179 on: August 31, 2010, 09:29:49 AM »
Tom,

I think you're not following the process or the timing.

First, they turned over all of the land (less the 25 acres) and treated the whole property with lime, based on Oakley's recommendations.   This was March/April 1911.

Then, later that year, well after the course had been routed and the holes had been finalized, they spread manure as you describe and turned over again.

Finally, in the fall, they planted seed and that included seeding the roughs with the same seed as the fairways, only in a less dense spread.



If you could please provide the quote where it says they treated the entire property.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1180 on: August 31, 2010, 09:45:07 AM »
Tom,

In Oakley's first letter after testing the soils on March 23rd (see my post #1127) he states, "I think the whole course needs liming."

He also mentions that Wilson has 25 acres he will not be plowing, which we know were the original 10th, 11th, and 12th holes, which at the time were deemed to contain good enough grassing that they didn't need to plow it under, but Oakley did recommend spreading lime and seed in those areas, as well.

Later, towards the end of April, (see my post #1135) Oakley recommends that Wilson use "30 pounds of seed per acre" in the roughs.

What makes you think they didn't plow, harrow, treat , or seed the roughs?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1181 on: August 31, 2010, 10:04:10 AM »
Mike
I don't read 'golf course' as the entire property. I read 'golf course' as golf course (fairways and greens), which is consistent with what Wilson wrote:

"We used an average of fifteen tons of horse manure to the acre on the fairways and eight tons of various of various kinds of manure to a green, the greens averaging about 10,000 square feet in area."

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1182 on: August 31, 2010, 11:05:56 AM »
"And Jim, I will not discuss my conversations with Merion, but TEPaul's description of my dealings with Merion is complete and utter bullshit.  I hope you and others realize that."


David Moriarty:

My description of your dealings with Merion is complete and utter bullshit, is it?

What about my description of your dealings with Merion is complete and utter bullshit?

Do I think you are willing to answer either of those questions on this website? Of course not, because if you did it would only serve to prove you did not bother to follow up on their research process they asked you to follow as they do anyone else, but I'm still going to ask you to answer those questions on here if that's the way you choose to characterize my description of your dealings with Merion!

So, again, what about my description of your dealings with Merion is complete and utter bullshit?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2010, 11:55:12 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1183 on: August 31, 2010, 12:16:41 PM »
"TEP
Do you think that is reasonable explanation when there are several hundred others on this site who could post it for you?"


Tom MacWood:

Yes, I think it's a very reasonable explanation or I wouldn't have offered it on here. Of course I could've had any one of a number of people post copies or scans of MCC documents but I tend to follow Merion's process since I've had a good working research relationship with them for many years and I respect them and my many friends at that club.


"And there are a number of other official MCC documents that some how got posted with or without you."

Then I suppose I'm not aware of what they are unless you're referring to Merion material that has been reposited in some place other than Merion GC or MCC. One of those would be the so-called "Sayer's Scrapbook" which is reposited at the Pennsylvania Historical Society that apparently has a different research process than Merion GC and MCC. 
 
 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1184 on: August 31, 2010, 12:34:35 PM »
TEPaul,

Not only are your descriptions of my dealings with Merion complete and utter bullshit, they are none of your business.  You aren't a member of Merion and don't speak for Merion and have no business pretending that you do.  Your petty gossip belongs in a sewing circle, not here.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1185 on: August 31, 2010, 12:50:09 PM »
Mike
I don't read 'golf course' as the entire property. I read 'golf course' as golf course (fairways and greens), which is consistent with what Wilson wrote:

"We used an average of fifteen tons of horse manure to the acre on the fairways and eight tons of various of various kinds of manure to a green, the greens averaging about 10,000 square feet in area."

Tom,

Why would you make that assumption?   Is rough not part of the golf course, especially at a place like Merion where the rough is/was cultivated, and not just natural wild off the fairways?

Wilson did his manure job months later, after all of those features had been long since determined by the final routing in April 1911, prior to seeding the whole golf course in the fall.

Why would they only plow ground where they intended fairways and greens...that would have been pretty shortsighted, especially after Oakley told them the whole course needed liming.

Why would he spread seed on ground they never even bothered to turn over, especially considering that half the property was a cornfield??   Now, THAT would make an unusual hazard indeed!!  ;)  

No, instead Oakley makes clear that there are only 25 acres that won't be plowed, and those are the acres deemed at that time to have sufficient coverage with fine grasses to make for fairways/roughs as they were, although Oakley did suggest some lime and additional seed there too.   That decision by Wilson turned to be a bit short-sighted, as they ended up plowing and planting those as well in 1915.

I'm not sure I see a whole lot of differentiation between fairways and roughs early on besides perhaps cutting length, do you?

« Last Edit: August 31, 2010, 01:01:11 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1186 on: August 31, 2010, 03:05:22 PM »
"Not only are your descriptions of my dealings with Merion complete and utter bullshit...."


David Moriarty:

Again, what about my descriptions of your dealings with Merion do you feel are complete and utter bullshit?


".....they are none of your business."



How do you know that? Did Merion tell you they were none of my business?




"You aren't a member of Merion and don't speak for Merion and have no business pretending that you do."


No, I'm not a member of Merion. But how do you know I don't speak for Merion or that I'm not aware of things that go on with them and other people that interest or concern them that they may speak with me about? Did Merion tell you I don't speak for them or that they don't speak with me about various things, an example being, you, for instance?  Do you think Merion never speaks to their friends who are not members of Merion about things that have to do with their club? What do you think Merion GC is, something like the CIA?  ;)


"Your petty gossip belongs in a sewing circle, not here."


I'm sorry you think the things Merion speaks to me or any of their friends about, including you, is like petty gossip in a sewing circle. When I see them next, I'll be sure to tell them that's what you think of the things they speak to their friends about.

Again, what about my descriptions of your dealings with Merion do you feel are complete and utter bullshit? Apparently I said something on here about your dealings with Merion that you don't appreciate. What was that? What is it that I said to you that you think is utter bullshit? Why don't you find what I said about that and just quote it? Otherwise I have no idea why you would say such a thing.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2010, 03:11:23 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1187 on: August 31, 2010, 03:18:04 PM »
"Quote from: Tom MacWood on Yesterday at 07:04:10 PM
Mike
I don't read 'golf course' as the entire property. I read 'golf course' as golf course (fairways and greens), which is consistent with what Wilson wrote:

"We used an average of fifteen tons of horse manure to the acre on the fairways and eight tons of various of various kinds of manure to a green, the greens averaging about 10,000 square feet in area."



Tom MacWood:

What is your point about Wilson's remarks you quoted above? He wrote that in 1916, not in 1911 before the course was built.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1188 on: August 31, 2010, 10:04:59 PM »


My theory is based on:

1) Allen Evans' letter that states work will commence in December 1910
2) Hugh Wilson's many letters to P&O which show the course was routed at the time he started with project (2/1/1911) and explain what exaclty their purpose, i.e. construction.


Tom,

So you don't believe David's theory either?  

Can't say I blame you.   There is absolutely no factual evidence to suggest that any routing or other work was done on the course prior to December, 1910.  

I also have to give you credit for recognizing that the triangle on that November 15th, 1910 Land Plan is not at all what it is represented to be in that essay.   After all, it is 100x310 on that map that supposedly shows the 117 acres Merion secured at that time...not anywhere near the 130x190 Land that Francis mentioned he swapped for.

At least you're getting warmer, although I think if you drop your belief that somehow Barker was brought back in December 1910 our theories would be a lot closer than you probably imagine.

What do you make of the summary of the minutes I provided?   Jim has vouched for their accuracy to what is written...does it have any impact on your overall understanding of the events and their timing?

What about the items I posted earlier today where I think it's pretty clear that Merion plowed the entire property less the 25 acres, and then limed, and seeded the whole shebang.?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2010, 10:08:35 PM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1189 on: August 31, 2010, 10:06:20 PM »
TEP
The letters from Wilson to Oakley and Oakley to Wilson in February/March 1911 are consistent with Wilson's account five years later. Their focus was on "what was needed to fertilize the ground, with a view of getting the best short growing grasses." The focus was on the fairgreens and the fairways. My point is the golf course was already routed in February 1911 when Wilson became involved, and was focused on preparing the "golf course."

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1190 on: August 31, 2010, 10:11:23 PM »
Tom,

Absolutely the Wilson report in 1916 is consistent with his 1911 letters, but the work you mention didn't take place until the summer/fall of 1911, well after the final routing took place.

The earlier work of turning and liming the entire property happened in the spring, followed by seeding the entire property in the fall, as the letters I mentioned indicate.

You'd have to plow corn fields even to create rough areas, wouldn't you?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1191 on: August 31, 2010, 10:21:28 PM »
Wilson began discussing the preparation of the fairgreens and fairways in February and March; he did not wait until the Autumn of 1911. He submitted the contour map to P&O in February 1911, which presumably had the plan on it. He never mentioned or alluded to another plan or mentioned a need to change the plan at any point. If he was focused on routing he sure kept it hidden from Oakley. What evidence do you have that there was a final routing made after P&O were sent the contour map?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2010, 10:27:59 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1192 on: August 31, 2010, 10:30:52 PM »
Tom,

Let's explore this because I think we have some commonalities here.

Absolutely Wilson began preparing the site as soon as he was able, once the snows cleared in the spring of 1911.   He had LOTS to do, and task #1 was to get the soil analyzed so he knew what actions had to be done before he could plant seed by the fall.   

I don't necessarily disagree that the February contour map had some early routing plan on it..it may have, but we're not sure.   But, we also know that Wilson sent him ANOTHER contour map in later March, this time designating various areas of "the course", or the property by alphabetic designation.   

As far as what evidence I have that a final routing was decided after this contour map was sent to P&O, I'd refer to the MCC Minutes, which tell us that Macdonald & Whigham came on April 6th, 1911, and after spending the day going over the 5 plans, and the grounds, stated that if Merion did the one he approved, they'd have the finest seven finishing holes of any inland course Macdonald was familiar with.

That tells me that no final routing existed prior to that time, but the Committee report that they created numerous golf courses prior to their visit to NGLA also tells me that they had working routings, and I'm not entrenched enough to not consider that any of them might have made it onto a map sent to Oakley.

Hope this helps.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1193 on: August 31, 2010, 10:34:51 PM »
Did he request a soil analysis in preparation of routing the golf course or constructing the golf course?

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1194 on: September 01, 2010, 06:55:16 AM »

Wilson began discussing the preparation of the fairgreens and fairways in February and March; he did not wait until the Autumn of 1911. He submitted the contour map to P&O in February 1911, which presumably had the plan on it. He never mentioned or alluded to another plan or mentioned a need to change the plan at any point. If he was focused on routing he sure kept it hidden from Oakley. What evidence do you have that there was a final routing made after P&O were sent the contour map?


Tom,

As I mentioned, I don't discount that there may have been a plan on either the first contour map that Wilson sent Oakley in early February, or on the second one in late March, but I don't see any proof of it, nor do I think it was a prerequisite.

I would think the value of a contour map to a agronomist, or whatever fancy title held by Oakley at the time would be simply to see areas of heavy slope, areas near water, etc., and to give them common reference points for samples taken from various portions of the property, which Wilson designated with an alphabetic scheme.

Why I say I see no proof of a routing is very simple.   Although they talked in conceptual terms about fairgreens and putting greens, not once in the numerous letters they sent each other during this phase did either of them actually refer to a specific golf course feature....not once.    Not once did Oakley write, "the soil down where you propose putting the 6th hole putting green is very inconsistent...", or even, "the fairgreens on the north side of the property could use a bit more manure".  Nothing.

Given that Oakley already had been working with Macdonald, even if he wasn't a golfer I'm sure he had a conceptual idea of what each was, and what it needed from an agronomy standpoint.   It was a given that something being prepared and later planted was going to be a golf course, and thus had certain fundamental features and requirements.    Oakley even speaks to that early when he compares the soil issues Wilson is dealing with to Macdonald's very sandy soil, saying they have much different requirements.

Did he request a soil analysis in preparation of routing the golf course or constructing the golf course?

Clearly they were talking about analyzing the property overall, Tom, at that phase, and as mentioned, were turning over (plowing) the entire plot less the 25 acres mentioned.   Oakley also mentioned that it all needed liming, and later we know that not only the greens and fairgreens were seeded, but also the roughs.

That was the phase they were in during spring 1911...preparing the grounds for a golf course that they were both planning and building.  

You'll also notice that Oakley at one point talks about putting greens, but then says, "but I understand that's not as big a concern to you right now", and you're more interested in getting your fairgreens in shape", or something to that effect.   I think that indicates two things...1) No course features were under "construction", or "shaping" yet, and 2) they were still at the early stage of just making sure they could get a good, consistent strain of grass growing on the property and doing whatever they could to the soil to ensure that result.

I also think it's possible that they were using the term "fair green", as defined in the rules of golf as "through the green", but I really think we can both do without more word parsing and made up definitions on the fly here, so let's just stick to the common usage.  ;)

Given the need to at least turn over the entire property (less the 25 acres), given the need to treat the entire property with lime, (and knowing the entire property was later seeded in the fall) and given that they wanted to begin that work as soon as possible after the snow melted, I see no reason why this preparation of the land couldn't have run parallel with the seemingly lengthy routing and design effort, and I think the MCC Minutes that I paraphrased here the other day clearly indicates that they did run parallel.

Given what they were talking about at that time period...simply preparing the property to grow consistent short-leaved grasses (the exact same seeds were planted in the roughs as the fairways, only presumably cut less often), I see no reason Wilson would have mentioned any of his design efforts to Oakley, nor am I sure Oakley would have cared much if he did.   These men were focused on soils and samples and sod, and it really didn't matter much to Oakley I'd gather if the sample in question was from where Wilson was going to put his 3rd green or his 14th fairway.  

It was the strength of the seed mixture that varied by location, and that was a good six months away.

One question for you, Tom.   Now that you know what the MCC Minutes say in regard to the course design efforts, the committee's NGLA visit, as well as M&W's one day visit on April 6th, as well as the land swaps mentioned, do any of your theories or time frames change based on that document?
« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 07:03:44 AM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1195 on: September 01, 2010, 07:33:25 AM »
" The focus was on the fairgreens and the fairways. My point is the golf course was already routed in February 1911 when Wilson became involved,"



Tom MacWood:


There is no material evidence at all the golf course was already routed in February 1911 or before Wilson became involved but there is very good material evidence from MCC records that it was not.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1196 on: September 01, 2010, 08:13:29 AM »
I don't think much can be proven one way or another from Wilson's letters simply because they refer so little to architectural work, even during the period when they were undeniably doing architectural work...the main item to keep in mind regarding the course was not finalized prior to April 1911 is Lesley's own words to the Board in April regarding the rearranging of the course after the March visit to NGLA and the subsequent visit by CBM and Wigham. M & W's approval of a particular plan at that point should make it clear that the committee was not locked into a specific 18 holes prior to that.

My position has always been that the routing process began well before then, and I've become more convinced of this after thinking about Lloyd's role in HDC through the summer/fall of 1910.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1197 on: September 01, 2010, 08:34:44 AM »
On what basis is anyone claiming that Wilson was not involved with the new course prior to 1911?

I keep hearing that presented as fact, yet am missing the evidence on which that assertion is based.

Can anyone point me to it?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1198 on: September 01, 2010, 08:38:47 AM »
I think it's a little unrealistic to think they would have plucked this guy out of the insurance business with no prior experience if he hadn't demonstrated a real interest and ability in this area during the months and maybe years before.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 09:53:53 AM by Jim Sullivan »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1199 on: September 01, 2010, 08:55:43 AM »
Jim:

Sometimes it gets frustrating for some of us to see the things we say get misinterpreted from what we think we say or think we mean.

I cite your last post as an example of that kind of frustration. I do not remember ever saying or even suggesting that there is no evidence that Wilson was doing something on that land in preparation for a golf course in 1910; all I've ever said is as far as I know noone has ever produced an iota of actual and factual material evidence that he was. You have presented a whole lot of speculation that he might have been but not an iota of actual and factual material evidence that he ever actually was. And frankly, the same is true with others. They have speculated that the likes of Lloyd and Francis and Macdonald and Barker were doing things in 1910 with the routing and designing of the course for MCC but yet there is not an iota of actual and factual material evidence that anyone else was doing anything on that land in 1910 for MCC as far as developing an actual golf course----eg routing and designing.

The only exception in 1910 is HH Barker who did what he called a rough sketch of some part of that property but not for MCC but for Connell of HDC. That Barker sketch was mentioned by MCC at the end of June and beginning of July 1910 but never again and either was Barker ever mentioned again by MCC directly.

But even with that I never said on that basis it precluded Wilson or anyone else from doing anything for the course prior to that----I only said that there is not an iota of actual and factual material evidence that I'm aware of that he did or anyone else did with the exception of HH Barker in June 1910 and not for MCC but for Edward Connell of HDC.


And there certainly is evidence that the Wilson Committee was formed in the beginning of 1911. That evidence is Wilson said so himself. He wrote that even if in 1916.

And there is also actual and factual material evidence that MCC itself wrote to its members in the beginning of 1911 that 'experts' had begun to work on creating a golf course. Unfortunately they were not specific in who they were as they did not list their names. But considering that Wilson did write that his committee was formed in the beginning of 1911 and at the same time MCC told its members that experts had begun to work on the development of the course, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to assume or even presume that MCC was referring to Wilson and his committee.


I have no real problems if others just continue to speculate on here about all kinds of things but without some actual and factual material evidence to support it I don't really want to get into it except to continuously point out I think it is pretty non-productive and prone to historical mistakes in interpretation and presentation.



« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 09:20:44 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back