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.


Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #200 on: August 11, 2010, 05:20:02 PM »
Jim,

I'd ask you the same question I asked David.

Which historic property boundaries did Merion adjust for the course prior to purchase that is evidence of a pre-planned routing looking to minimize expense and maximize real estate?

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #201 on: August 11, 2010, 05:25:37 PM »
"More to the point, Jim, is that frankly Tolhurst seems pretty confused about all of this."

He does? What did Tolhurst say that seems pretty confused about all this?



"He seems to think that MCCGA was a committee created to study the Ball' and find a new site. It wasn't"



He does? Where did Tolhust ever say the MCCGA was a "COMMITTEE" that was formed to study the Haskell ball and find a new site? What Tolhurst said was: "In 1909 the golfers at Merion Cricket Club formed the Merion Cricket Club Golf ASSOCIATION to examine the problem presented by the Haskel ball, namely that it had made their course obsolete. The moving spirits of this ORGANIZATION were Rodman E. Griscom, Charlton Yarnall, Robert Lesley, Walter Stephenson, Alan Wilson and his younger brother Hugh."

This was on page 19 in his first history book (1989). On pages 13 and 14 and 15 Tolhurst talks about how golf began at MCC under a "GOLF COMMITTEE" that originally consisted of Chairman Charles Williams, Rodman Griscom and John B. Thayer that was formed on November 29, 1895. Tolhurst says within a matter of months the CHAIR of the GOLF COMMITTEE passed to Griscom. He goes on to say the original "GOLF COMMITTEE REPORT" was presented at the January 1896 BOARD MEETING that was held at Charles Williams' house. That is only page 13, as well as a listing of a basic accounting of golf at MCC. On page 14 Tolhurst goes through numerous discussions that took place on this MCC GOLF COMMITTEE about various aspects of golf at MCC and who should pay for it and so forth. Tolhurst even provides detailed infomation and quotations from the meeting of this MCC GOLF COMMITTEE through 1897 and 1898 when the course increased from a nine hole course on the "Smith Farm that was owned by the PRR to the new nine that was built on Rodman's father's 150 acre estate "Dolobran" that was contiguous to the Smith Farm.


So no, Tolhurst did not say the MCCGA was a committee. What he did say was in 1909 Merion Cricket Club formed an ORGANIZATION that was called The Merion Cricket Club Golf ASSOCIATION! If Tolhurst meant to say the Merion Cricket Club Golf ASSOCIATION was just another COMMITTEE he probably would have said precisely that but he never did say that. The only one I'm aware of who said Tolhurst said the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association was a "COMMITTEE" is David Moriarty; and I just can't imagine WHAT David Moriarty is referring to as "verifable fact or information" that supports what David Moriarty said since he has never seen MCC's committee or board meeting minutes because he has never been to Merion or Merion Cricket Club to look at them, and it is not the policy of either club to mail out that information on request so he couldn't have gotten it that way. With both clubs anyone has to follow their procedure and go to these clubs. That's what some of us have done and that is not what either David Moriarty or Tom MacWood have ever done.  Is anyone aware of anyone who calls himself a researcher/historian/essayist who ever tried to write a comprehensive fact based research/analysis essay on the history of a club or the history of a club's golf course without at least going to that club?

THIS is not a trivial question or an unimportant one; and it isn't in the slightest bit argumentative. It is, frankly, a very fundamental question and it should not be overlooked and neither should its answer----if, in fact, there ever is one, and particularly from David Moriarty and Tom MacWood!  ;)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 05:35:54 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #202 on: August 11, 2010, 05:41:53 PM »
Mike,

I think the winding nature of Golf House Rd. is a clear indication that they had the holes planned before the line was drawn, and not the other way around.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #203 on: August 11, 2010, 05:58:57 PM »
Jim,

I agree  that the road was built after the routing was finalized and that its dimensions reflect the final routing.

But I'd ask why the parallel road on the nov 1910 map is also a curving road?  Isn't this simply aesthetic design?
 
I would say that GH road has more extreme curves and bends because of the land swap that took place along it.

I'd also ask why no other historic boundaries of any of the other plots of leased/purchased land show any evidence of reconfiguration based on any routing decisions?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #204 on: August 11, 2010, 06:15:59 PM »
Mike,

Don't know for sure about the other boundaries...maybe they were viewed as "hard" boundaries because of the desire to have the golf course in one area and the homes in another as opposed to todays common plan for a real estate/golf facility. Following on that line, in my highly logical mind, is that the developers would have preferred the golf course occupy the quarry area as well as the lower areas near the creek which became holes 9 - 12. That CBM endorsed the value of these features for golf added a notable exclamation to the idea.

I know you'll ask soon enough about the 120 yards, or whatever, above the quarry and I'll say you're only looking at it in the context of the current routing. The walk from 13 to 14 is the only one on the property more than about 20 yards, and it's about 200 (from the original 13th green...where do you think the course would/could have gone if you started right next to the old 13th green?

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #205 on: August 11, 2010, 06:19:18 PM »
"I think the winding nature of Golf House Rd. is a clear indication that they had the holes planned before the line was drawn, and not the other way around."

Sully:

And I think they did not have holes planned before that line was drawn on that Nov 1910 map even despite the fact the road curves somewhat on that Nov. 1910 plan and in reality. The problem is that neither one of us have anything particularly specific to point to as proof of how we think. The only thing I have to point to as an indication of why I think holes were not really planned before that Nov 1910 map was drawn is because the dimensions of that triangle and the curvatures of that road are not the same in reality as they look on that Nov 1910 plan, particularly the top 100 plus yards or so between the Van Arkle and Hall properties on either side of Golf House Road that also border College Ave.

And of course I also have the so-called Wilson Report as delivered by Robert Lesley to the MCC Board meeting of April 1911 in which the report states that the committee had laid out many courses, then went to NGLA in early March, 1911, and then came home and rearranged those many courses into five different plans. The latter report, in my opinion, is one of the most significant informational assets into the creation of Merion East and the fact is David Moriarty was not even aware of it until well AFTER he put his essay on here and not until the historians of Merion GC went to Merion Cricket Club and found it in not Merion Golf Club's archives but in Merion Cricket Club's archives.

The only thing you seem to have to point to for why you think holes were planned before the line was drawn (on that Nov 1910 plan) is that you just can't seem to imagine that they would actually agree to buy 117 acres BEFORE they had golf holes planned on it. Of course you may be forgetting that MCC (under the aegis of the MCCGA) did not actually buy the 117 acres until well after they had holes planned on that land and even began to build holes on that land. ;)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 06:25:35 PM by TEPaul »

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #206 on: August 11, 2010, 06:37:47 PM »
Jim,

Plus, they needed six more acres, 3 purchased, 3 leased.

Adding six acres sometime after final routing would qualify as a bit of a big whoops!, don't you think?

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #207 on: August 11, 2010, 06:58:11 PM »
There was also what seems to have been a very practical (financial) reason MCC may not have done much on that land with the planning of a golf course, or even to have an actual contour survey map done (the one that was sent to Oakley by Wilson on Feb 1, 1911) before I believe Dec 17, 1910. Apparently most have forgotten about that or just continue to overlook it. And then of course they continue to overlook the interesting position Horatio Gates Lloyd put himself in around the middle of Dec. 1910 and particularly the specific reason why, that was given in the Merion correspondence of that time----correspondence, I might add, David Moriarty did not have before he wrote his essay or was even aware of before he wrote his essay since he neglected to do the appropriate research at either Merion GC or Merion Cricket Club.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #208 on: August 11, 2010, 08:08:03 PM »
Tom and MIke,

Do you think the 5 different plans were wholly different routings around the property? Or do you think it's possible they were just slightly different details on very similar foundations (routings)?

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #209 on: August 11, 2010, 08:32:58 PM »
Sully:

I have no idea since all the report said is they 'laid out numerous courses' (before early March 1911), and then 'rearranged them into five different plans' (just after that). By the way, that report did say that they laid out numerous courses before going to NGLA and rearranged them into five different plans after returning from NGLA, and I mention the date of early March 1911 not because that report mentioned it but because I found that information in one of those "Agronomy Letters" that was dated March 12, 1911 and Wilson mentioned they had just returned from NGLA. Moriarty was apparently not even aware of anything like that BEFORE he wrote his essay because as you can see in his essay he thought the Wilson Committee must have gone to NGLA sometime in January, 1911.


The plan that they constructed was picked from the 'five different plans' within the month of returning from NGLA. However, I just don't see the using of terms like that to mean just really minor changes or iterations and we also now know they really did nothing with hazard and bunker schemes for a few years (apparently that's essentially what Wilson must have gone abroad in the spring of 1912 to study) so that would probably not have been applicable to things like hazard and bunker plans and designs when they referred to "numerous courses" and "five different plans" in the winter and early spring of 1911. I think just due to the process of elimination in architecture they were talking in that report about different routings (even if that term was virtually never used back in that day). Essentially, the way they referred to most everything, routing and "designing up" and building the course was "laying out" or "constructing." In a fall 1910 letter on the subject long term Merion president, Allen Evans, even used the term "laying up a course."  :o

So, I have no idea how different those "numerous courses" were they referred to before going to NGLA or how different the five different plans they referred to that they evolved after the first week in March were. I suppose in the beginning it's possible they may've done something like try to go in the opposite direction on some to many holes. We just don't know, do we? But I just think it makes no sense for a report to make those kinds of statements and descriptions after the committee was formed in January and before March and then the statement and description about the five different rearrangements after the first week of March, 1911 if they were only minor variations on some set routing and design done by Macdonald or HH Barker.  ::)

That sure doesn't seem to me that it sounds like all the Wilson Committee did was just act as constructors for someone else's routing or design as Moriarty maintains in his essay.  ???  But I suppose in fairness to David Moriarty that very well may be the assumption, or God Forbid, the conclusion someone may draw if all they are dealing with is far less than the most relevent assets and information before they write an essay, including the fact they would have no idea at all about what things like all those board meeting minutes and reports (like the Wilson report to the April 19, 1911 board meeting) he never knew about actually said.

But again, we just have to remember and appreciate that he was not even aware of this kind of information when he wrote that essay. He knew nothing about all the old MCC board meeting minutes that were not contained in what is called "The Sayers Scrapbook" which he apparently found ONLINE in some digitized form at the Pennsylvania Historical Society; not at Merion GC or Merion Cricket Club. Maybe he was under the assumption that the Pennsylvania Historical Society had as much information or all the same information in it about Merion or the Cricket Club that Merion GC and Merion Cricket Club has in their archives.

I'm afraid The Pennsylvania Historical Society doesn't even come close because Wayne and I and Merion's years long primary historian have poured through Merion information from the Pennsylvania Historical Society years ago, and long before David Moriarty tried that or even became aware of the Pennsylvania Historical Society for Merion information. We didn't just do it online either, some of us spent days down there in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania Historical Society. We actually found some stuff on Oakmont they'd never seen before that was ironically labeled as GMGC.  :o

I also think if David Moriarty had been aware of that Wilson Committee report to the board on April 19, 1911 and what it specifically said about what Wilson and his Committee did after being formed in January 1911, I doubt even he would've tried to write the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" or anything like it----or at least something that said anything like what it did.  ;) I think even he would've realized the assumptions and premises and conclusions he made in that essay would've been patently self-contradictory to that information we found later, if he presented it as it is written.

The same can be said for what Macdonald's actual June 1910 letter to the so-called MCC Search Committee. Moriarty did not have that either when he wrote his essay. Wayne found that later. All Moriarty had before he wrote his essay was an MCC Search Committee report to the board that mentioned Macdonald's letter-----and certainly not what was actually in it (that report actually said it was not to be transcribed into that committee report).
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 09:28:02 PM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #210 on: August 11, 2010, 08:42:12 PM »
This is an idiotic exercise. Did Tolhurst mention anything about incorporating? Has anyone presented any proof that it was incorporated? Why is Jim Sullivan's opinion respected...he is hardly objective?

"In 1909, the golfers of the Merion Cricket club formed the Merion Cricket GC Association to examine the problem presented by the Haskell ball, namely that it had made theri course obsolete. The moving spirits of this organization were Rodman E. Griscom, Charlton Yarnall, Robert Lelsey, Walter Stephenson, Alan Wilson and his younger brother, Hugh.

They explored the possibility of acquiring land around the old course so that it could be lengthened. However, no such land was available. They eventually settles on a 120-acre tract, located a little south of the Phila and Western Railroad tracks on both sides of Ardmore Avenue. The golf association bought the property and leased it back to the Cricket Club. Much of the land had been part of a William Penn grant. Since 1744, it had belonged to the Johnson family. Originally a farm, the place was now neglected. On the property stood a stone farmhouse, built in 1824, and large bank barn.

The Annual Report of 1910 informed Merion Cricket Club member of these developments.

The MCC Golf Association appointed a committee to lay out the new course. Its chairman was Hugh Wilson. The other members were Rodman E. Griscom, Dr. Henry Toulmin, Richard S. Francis and Horatio Gates Llloyd, who originally acquired the land.

This was a fine Committee for the job. Griscoms' accomplishments have been outlined in the first chapter. Francis was an officer of a construction company, an engineer and a surveyor, and his skills were invaluable. However, the chief burden fell on Wilson, who was the principal architect of the course.

Hugh Wilson was an excellent golfer, and learned the game on Merion's Haverford course. At Princeton, he was captian of the university's golf team. Graduating in 1902, Wilson returned to Philadelphia and joined his brother Alan in the insurance business. Eventually, Hugh became the president of the business.

A golf pilgrimage
In 1910, the Committee decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for thr new course. Before he left, he visited the site of the NGLA, America's first modern golf course, then under constrcution in Southampton, NY. While there he discussed his itinerary with Charles B. Macdonald, the designer of the National and winner of the first US Amateur in 1895. Macdonald had made a similar journey for the same purpose some eight years earlier.

Wilson spent about seven months abroad, playing and studying course and sketching the features that struck him most favorably. When he returned, he carried a pile of notes as well as sheaves of sketches and surveyor's maps of outstanding holes and features. All of these avidly studied by the Committee.

One mystery still surrounds Wilson's trip to Britain, and that is the origin of the wicker flagsticks now so much a part of Merions' mystique. For years, it was said Wilson first saw them at Sunningdale Golf club located in Berkshire, England. However when the Captain of Sunningdale visited Merion in September, 1987, for the 75th Anniverserary, he averred that Sunningdale never had wickers! So where did Wilson see them?

Some say that it was another course near London with a similar name to Sunningdale. Others tell the story of a lady member of Merion who married an English lord and then put in a nine-hole course on his estate, using flower decorated baskets instead of flagsticks. Since she was a Philadelphian, Wilson is said to have visited her on his British trip and borrowed the basket idea. However, so far both the 'other course' near London and the lady from Merion have proved elusive.

When Wilson returned from England, both Macdonald and his son-in-law HJ Whigham (an Oxford player and 1896 and 1897 US Am Champion) freely gave him their advice. So the Club had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill and knoweldge of the committee.

Francis takes a hand
An interesting sidelight on the design of the new course comes from Richard Francis, who wrote the following in 1950:
"Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the layout of the course.
 The land was shaped like a capital “L” and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion – with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore avenue – but the last five holes were another question.
 I was looking at a map of the property one night when I had an idea. Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr. Lloyd on the telephone, found he had not gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him. (Richard Francis lived next to the Haverford Station of the PRR) The idea was this: We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some good use?"

A great team
Besides the expertise of Francis, Wilson also had a first-class crew. Supervising construction was Merion's first greenkeeper William S. Flynn, who had been groundskeeper with the Cricket Club. Also involved was Howard C. Toomey, another groundskeeper at the Cricket Club, and civil engineer. After World War I, the pair formed the golf course architecture firm of Toomey and Flynn and designed such outstanding courses as Rolling Green in Philadlephia, the Cascades course at the Homestead, Hot Springs, VA, the James River course for the CC of Virginia, and Cherry Hill Country Club in Denver. The firm was also chosen to finish and revising the bunkering at Merion after Hugh Wilson's untimely death. Flynn appointed Joe Valentine as his construction foreman. Valentine had also worked as a groundskeeper at the Cricket Club, and as an immigrant from Italy, his knowledge of Italian was invaluable in supervising the largely Italian-speaking constrcution crew with their horsedrawn roadscrapers.

Flynn and Wilson were close friends and thought alike on the subject of golf architecture. For example both agreed that hazards should be plainly visible and abhorred the invisible pot bunker so often encountered on older British courses. 'A concealed bunker has no place on a golf course,' Flynn declared. 'When concealed, it does not register on the players' mind as he is about to play the shot, thus loses its value.' He added, 'The best looking bunkers are those that are gouged out of faces of slopes, especially when the slope faces the player. They are much more effective in that thaey stand there like sentinals beckoning the player.' When the course was under construction and later, during revisions, Valentine would spread bed sheets on the sire of a proposed bunker so the Wilson, standing on the tee or the area from which the shot would be played, could be certain that the hazard could be plainly seen by the golfer.

Merion, a masterpiece
The payout that Wilson fashioned at Merion was masterly. It was even more remarkable considering it was his first effort in course architecture. He fitted the holes onto the land as compactly as jigsaw puzzle. As a result, player only had to step a few yards from each green to the next tee. The trip to the Old country had certainly paid off.

While Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England--the third hole was inspired by North Berwick's fifteenth hole (The Redan) and the 17th, with its swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrews' 18th hole--none of the holes at Merion is an out and out copy. They are all original holes in their own right. Wilson had absorbed the principles underlying the great hole, then applied them to the terrain at his command.

It has been said that Hugh Wilson grasped these principles of Scottish and English course design and conveyed them in his work better than Charles Blair Macdonald. However, to compare Merion to the NGL is somewhat of an 'apples and oranges' proposition. Macdonald set out to 'model each of the 18 holes (at the National) after the most famous holes abroad.' that is, to duplicate these holes. Wilson never intended to design Merion under such constraints. His objective was to build a course that would rival the finest British parkland course in beauty and shot values. He succeeded admirably.

If it were possible to physically lift Merion and set it dons at an appropriate site Britain, the native golfers would feel right at home on it in not time at all. they would appreciate the artfully set tees, aligned toward trouble rather straight down the fairway, and the sloping fairways, which so often present a hilly lie that makes the best shape of a shot doubly difficult, the naturalness of the bunkers and their plantings of dune grass and Scottish broom, the variety of green shape and the subtle contours of the putting surfaces, which sometimes almost defy reading, as well as their fast pace. The British love a course where you have to use your head, place your tee shots and hit precise shots with every club in your bag; that's Merion East, exactly.

Construction of the new course began in the early spring of 1911. By September, the grass seed, a German variety chose after much investigation and tests, had been sown. It was allowed to grow that autumn and the following spring and summer. On September 12, 1912, the old course at Haverford was closed, and on the 14th, the new course and the clubhouse were opened to members.

Incidentally, that date work started on the new course lays to rest an oft-told, rather romantic story that Wilson, on his return from Britain, miraculously avoided a planned sailing home on the pride of the White Star line, the SS Titanic. The liner struck an iceberg and sank on the night of April 14-15th, 1912. Obviously, if work started on the course in the spring of 1911, Wilson was already safely back in the United States before the ill-fated ship ever set out on its maiden voyage.

A report of the opening said that the course was 'among experts considered the finest inland links in the country.' This was the assessment that has been echoed down through the years."

[/quote]
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 08:45:09 PM by Tom MacWood »

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #211 on: August 11, 2010, 08:42:46 PM »
If you're interested in 1911's weather:  http://www.fi.edu/weather/data2/1911.gif

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #212 on: August 11, 2010, 09:00:47 PM »

This is an idiotic exercise. Did Tolhurst mention anything about incorporating? Has anyone presented any proof that it was incorporated? Why is Jim Sullivan's opinion respected...he is hardly objective?


Tom,

You're a peach!

How am I anything but objective? Provide an example.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #213 on: August 11, 2010, 09:02:20 PM »
Jim,

I would accept a simple yes.   There is nothing that says we have to agree on all of this or even any of this.  Not all discussions end in agreement.  It is enough for me to listen and consider your perspective and for you to listen to and consider mine without changing the subject, flying off the handle, or constantly questioning my blue-blood credentials.  Whether we ultimately agree or not, I appreciate your willingness to discuss it, especially given the constant rude interruptions and distractions.

I am a bit baffled by what seems to baffle you.   Above it was my willingness to rely on the Board's statement as true and accurate.  Now it is my unwillingness to accept that there is "a very big difference and distinction between an intra-club association/committee of golfers and a formal corporation."   Not if they are the same Association there isn't.  The original Association of golfing members and the incorporated Association of golfing members seem to have been the exact same Association of golfing members.  I get that incorporating made sense at this point (corps are generally better entities for property ownership and related liability issues) but I don't get why you consider the incorporated Association as being a completely different entity as the same Association before incorporation.
- What exactly is the very big difference and distanction?  
- How does the incorporation of this Association of golfing members justify writing what appears to be the same Association out of existence for its first dozen years or thereabouts?  

It seems to me to be pretty misleading to act as if the golfers at Merion hadn't organized themselves into the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association prior to 1909, or to ignore the connection between this early organization before and after the purchase.  

As for your view that the November records were merely sales solicitation, I disagree.  This was a Merion's Board communating with its Members regarding the purchase of real property.  Intentionally misleading the Members would have been a very bad idea on many different levels.  That doesn't mean that they couldn't put it in a good light, or that they needed to mention every single little thing they considered, but I cannot imagine that they would have given anything but the main reason for the move.  Plus, given what what was ongoing around the this area at this time, their reason rings true to me.  Much truer than the bit about the Haskell, which had been in wide use for about a decade.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

In his zealousness to twist this into who I know instead of what I know, TEPaul seems to have forgotten that until after my essay came out they didn't have the correspondence or minutes either.   And they didn't even have the November 1910 records or many other documents until I emailed them to Wayne at his request, so he could prepare his often promised but never produced rebuttal.  In fact, TEPaul had long been spinning yarn about how it had all been lost in a flood, or some such disaster.  Even after my essay came out, I almost had to draw Wayne a map get him to finally go over to MCC and pull the minutes.  

In short, TEPaul's continued claim that I needed what they had is not only patently false, it is ridiculous.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 09:04:17 PM by DMoriarty »
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)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #214 on: August 11, 2010, 09:12:59 PM »
I'm not worried about Tom's claims or Wayne's efforts...but I can't expect you to ignore them...(just trying to prove my)objectivity...


I think the use of the word "formed" by Tolhurst is synonymous, in this instance, with incorporated...I'm not arguing that it makes his statements accurate, just not deserving of the word pathetic.

Re: the 11/15/1910 circular that was specifically asking for membership subscriptions after they had purchased the land they were moving to, how is it anything other than sales material? Seriously, think about the context of the letter.

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #215 on: August 11, 2010, 09:36:59 PM »
"This is an idiotic exercise. Did Tolhurst mention anything about incorporating? Has anyone presented any proof that it was incorporated? Why is Jim Sullivan's opinion respected...he is hardly objective?"



Tom MacWood:

No, it seems Desmond Tolhurst mentioned little to perhaps nothing about the actual incorporating of the MCCGA in Dec. 1910.

Has anyone presented any proof it was incorporated???

Are you joking? We presented reams of proof of its incorporation and all the details of it in those voluminous Merion threads that followed David Moriarty's essay and counterpointed most to all his points. I even went to the County Seat's Recorder of Deeds in Media and found the deed transfers under the names of a bridge buyer, H.G. Lloyd and his wife and then the MCCGA some seven months later.

And you have the lack of commonsense or perhaps intelligence to tell me I never do research and only read C&W? Honestly, how preposterous and unknowingly comical can you get, MacWood?!?

A lot of people on here say you don't read other people's posts (actually both you and Moriarty have admitted that from time to time). That's too bad if the intention of either of you two is to actually learn something about the recorded facts of Merion's history and not just Tolhurst's history book but the actual and factual history of Merion's history that is contained in its (and MCC's) archives. Archives, I will add AGAIN, neither of you have ever seen and even at this point seem completely unaware of.

REALLY AMAZING, actually, for a couple of people who try to call themselves researchers/writers/historians and such and try to pass themselves off as that even despite voluminous documentary evidence to the contrary. ;)

Yeah, right, now it's time for you to go after Jim Sullivan too, huh? Why is that; because he comes from Philadelphia too and therefore must be part of this silly "Philadelphia Syndrome" thing of yours you coigned on here years ago and continued to mention on here until I made a complete joke out of you for it?!
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 09:47:00 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #216 on: August 11, 2010, 09:46:40 PM »
Here we go again with the constantly evolving minutes of the Merion Cricket Club.

TEPaul claims the minutes say they "'laid out numerous courses' and then 'rearranged them into five different plans' (just after that.)"  Did you get that?  The five different plans came from the "numerous courses" laid out before NGLA.   It's almost as if NGLA never happened, or at least that it had little impact on the plans.  

Unfortunately, TEPaul is once again twisting and misrepresenting the source material for rhetorical gain.    After NGLA they "rearranged the course and laid out five different plans."    So the five different plans came from the rearranged course, not the previous courses.

But this is only if we can believe what he said in the past on this issue.   Who knows?   These changes don't exactly instill confidence that the earlier ones were accurate either.

What a joke.

But then that is the problem when you have two guys hiding the same documents they are also using rhetorically.  There is no check on what they might do with them, other than their own integrity.   Or lack thereof.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 09:56:01 PM by DMoriarty »
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)

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #217 on: August 11, 2010, 10:04:00 PM »


"I'm not worried about Tom's claims or Wayne's efforts...but I can't expect you to ignore them...(just trying to prove my)objectivity...

I think the use of the word "formed" by Tolhurst is synonymous, in this instance, with incorporated...I'm not arguing that it makes his statements accurate, just not deserving of the word pathetic.

Re: the 11/15/1910 circular that was specifically asking for membership subscriptions after they had purchased the land they were moving to, how is it anything other than sales material? Seriously, think about the context of the letter."

   






Sully:

Come on, Man, try to follow this stuff better than that. We have put all this detail on here in those Merion threads last year.

Tolhurst SAID, in his book that MCC formed an organization known as MCCGA in 1909!

Don’t you remember from those threads that the so-called MCC Search Committee did not even talk about an incorporation possibility until around July 1910? Don't you remember, they mentioned in their July 1 report to the MCC board that even if they were not charged with making such a recommendation they were making it anyway?

And don't you remember that C. DeWitt Cuylers letter to MCC president Allen Evans we found in the MCC archives at the Cricket Club that laid out all the details of how a second class Pennsylvania Corporation registered in Delaware County needed to be formed using the name MCCGA Corporation as well as WHY it needed to be formed?

Look Sully, these guys were just not simple men----they were in fact the biggest of the big back then, some of them were really rich and powerful and then tended to arrange their affairs and do their business like this. They were powerful and rich people and their MOs were very clearly part and parcel of that old saw and adage-----"How do you think they got that rich?"

Apparently the likes of Moriarty and MacWood take some kind of offense to the revealing of that kind of actual and factual history of people like that. Moriarty has even said on here he isn't even interested in that kind of information or history and that he thinks it's boring or irrelevant or just some other "anecdote" of mine on here! ;) MacWood has said on here numerous times the fact that I even mention these things is because I must have stayed in the Holiday Inn Express last night. Apparently the realities of this kind of history turns both off you two off for some odd reason----and you two  actually call yourselves historians?

Heaven Help Us All on here!
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 10:20:22 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #218 on: August 11, 2010, 10:10:32 PM »
I think the use of the word "formed" by Tolhurst is synonymous, in this instance, with incorporated...I'm not arguing that it makes his statements accurate, just not deserving of the word pathetic.

Not sure why you think I am arguing for a conclusion of "pathetic."   I am just trying to explain some of the many inaccuracies and why I think they are important.    Besides, MacWood didn't say they were pathetic in an absolute sense, but rather just in comparison to my essay.   That is a pretty high standard for Tolhurst to meet, and not really fair to him, since I had a much better documentation and deeper understanding than he did.  [insert smiley here]

Quote
Re: the 11/15/1910 circular that was specifically asking for membership subscriptions after they had purchased the land they were moving to, how is it anything other than sales material? Seriously, think about the context of the letter.

In the context it was written, the Board had a fidicuary duty to not misrepresent the transaction to the Members.  You guys keep calling it just a letter as if it was casual correspondence.  It wasn't.  It was a record of the Board's action, just as are the minutes, but even moreso than the minutes because items in the minutes might or might not have been acted upon.  Even setting aside the underlying transaction, this letter in and of itself was an official action of the Board of Merion Cricket Club.  
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)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #219 on: August 11, 2010, 10:22:07 PM »
It was called a letter by Edward Sayers.

You may think it covered everything the board spoke about, but I can guarantee you that unlike minutes, it did not.

It was summary of actions the board had taken to generate this investment opportunity and an invitation to invest in the new venture...not a solicitation for membership as I said before. Even moreso, a sales pitch.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #220 on: August 11, 2010, 10:26:46 PM »
Jim,  

I didn't say it covered everything they talked about, and I  don't think the Minutes necessarily cover everything they talked about, either.

And didn't Sayres call it a circular?   But whatever he called it, it was an Order of the Board.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 10:28:57 PM by DMoriarty »
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)

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #221 on: August 11, 2010, 10:30:47 PM »
"It seems to me to be pretty misleading to act as if the golfers at Merion hadn't organized themselves into the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association prior to 1909, or to ignore the connection between this early organization before and after the purchase."



BUT, what can you actually point to from anything from the MCC records or the Merion history books that leads you to believe that the MCCGA was actually FORMED as an ORGANIZATION prior to 1909? If you can't point to either of those then what have you got?

You're the one who keeps harping on others to provide "proof" or "verifiable fact."

Your own "opinion" or phrases like "it seems to me" sure ain't that.

So what have you got, David Moriarty, that proves the MCCGA was actually FORMED as an ORGANIZATION (not a committee  ??? ::) :o) PRIOR TO 1909??

I suspect you'll just ignore this post and these questions. You always do if they seem to imply you and your logic and your essay are wrong in any way at all. It's a damn shame, a real waste of everyone's time, and a perfect example of the fact that the last thing you really do want to do on here is LEARN anything about Merion's real architectural history from anyone else than apparently yourself!!  ;)

Is it any wonder why I have every single good right and reason to call you and intellectual fraud? Every post you make on the subject of Merion virtually confirms it.

« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 10:36:01 PM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #222 on: August 11, 2010, 10:32:50 PM »
Jim
Did Tolhurst mention anything about incorporating? Has anyone presented any proof when it was incorporated, if it was incorporated?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #223 on: August 11, 2010, 10:35:58 PM »

This from the Philadelphia Inquirer 7/3/1898.

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #224 on: August 11, 2010, 10:37:42 PM »
"Jim
Did Tolhurst mention anything about incorporating? Has anyone presented any proof when it was incorporated, if it was incorporated?"



One more time, MacWood----to the first question----no he didn't and to the second question, yes we have---at ton of it. I don't think Jim has because he may not even understand it or much of the sequence or reasons for any of it.

I'm beginning to suspect that with you and Moriarty, you don't really even want to discuss any of this with the people on here who really do know this subject and who also have the proof of it. You two aren't interested in learning anything.  It seems like all you two want to do is argue with people on here who really don't understand it that well.

What do you think THAT accomplishes? Do you think it makes you two look smarter somehow or makes you look like good researchers or something?  ??? That's what it looks like to me and to Wayne and to Merion and any others who really do know this stuff because they've actually seen it and carefully considered it.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 10:44:07 PM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back