[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

How could there be a singular "course" if construction hadn't started yet?

It makes it sound as though something already existed on anything but paper, and that wouldn't have been the case prior approval from the Board of Governors, correct?

I agree that the language is confusing but what if I told you the next sentence was that Macdonald approved one of the "plans" which he said would yield the best seven final holes of any inland course he'd ever seen?

That to me would indicate that more than just a tweak to a hole or two was the difference between the five plans, don't you think?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

If I understand your last post and your logic, and your numbers, I think you are basically contradicting yourself and your apparent logic.

IE---a triangular shape in that north section of the top of the "L" formed by a road (particularly the left or western curving part of that triangle) versus a rectangular road in that area would definitely yield HDC more valuable lots for the simple reason more lots would look out on the golf course over a longer linear run compared to a rectangular road in that area!

This is why I think that "approximate road" (Golf House Road) on that Nov. 1910 Land Plan was more the work and planning and thought of HDC than MCC and I remind you to notice the curvilinear shapes of the other roads inside that residential development on that Nov 1910 Land Plan (a land plan that was proposed for land at the time that was totally undeveloped and basically pre-existing farms).

Clearly the golf course architects of MCC did not design or contemplate those curvilinear roads INSIDE the HDC development to the west. So the question is----why did the "approximate road" on that Nov 1910 Land Plan (on land that was ultimately slated to go to HDC development lots anyway) match those curvilinear roads inside the residential develpment to the west?

My feeling is because HDC was primarily responsible for them and not the golf architectural designers of MCC, because, at the time, Nov 1910, MCC had really not gotten around to routing and designing a golf course---they had merely gotten comfortable with the fact they had enough land to use for a golf course (117 or 120 acres) and if, for some reason, that was not the case, they had Lloyd in place and in a position to alter the boundaries because at the time he owned 161 acres (the T. DeWitt Cuyler letter to Evans of 12/23/1910 (a letter and actually a MAN that David Moriaty had never even heard of when he researched and wrote his historically unfortunate essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion").

This stuff isn't that easy to figure out but it's not all that hard either and it ain't the complex rocket science logic someone like Moriarty is trying to make it by taking people and events and just shuffling them around in a timeline where the facts indicate they just don't fit.

Personally, I'm convinced with all the available supporting evidence extant that Richard Francis did not even begin his participation with the routing and design of Merion East until AFTER January 1911 when the record shows he was first appointed to the Wilson Committee appointed----his actual words in his 1950 article was that he was 'added' to it!

WHY did David Moriarty, in his essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion," try to put Richard Francis out there at Ardmore in 1910 when he cannot produce a scintilla of factual evidence that he was out there then? Is it merely because he thinks Francis meant in his 1950 article that he created an entire triangle out of a rectangular piece of land? Moriarty above said that Francis actually said he created and entire triangle out of a rectangle when anyone can see Francis never said a think in his article about a rectangle. So why is Moiarty putting words in Francis' mouth?

Does Moriarty deny that he said Francis SAID HE created an entire triangle out of a RECTANGLE?

[JESII]

Jim,

It makes it sound as though something already existed on anything but paper, and that wouldn't have been the case prior approval from the Board of Governors, correct?

I don't know Mike, how many days are you giving Francis for his "within a day or so..." comments?

I really don't know what it means, but it doesn't absolutely mean there were five routings in my opinion.

[JESII]

Tom,

You should ask me what I mean when you don't understand because I'd be happy to explain it.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

In my opinion, when both Wilson spoke of a 'course' to Oakley in Feb. 1911 and when Cuylers spoke to Evans about a 'course' in his letter of Dec. 23, 1910, they were both referring to what was or would be the entire property of what would be Merion East, Ardmore, a component of Merion Cricket Club.

I suppose they both could've said "club" instead of "course" but I think they both understood that would not have been an accurate description as MCC as a whole was a lot more than a golf club or golf course back then.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim Sullivan,

In response to your post 821 where you said

Sorry for the random one-off post in the middle of a bunch of doozies, but I think it's important to realize that if GHR were originally planned as David and I suggest -

From the College Ave. intersection, go straight South to the end of the Haverford College boundary and then turn West and go out to the end of the Johnson Farm boundary. From there you turn South and create a similarly curving road to reduce the acreage considered all the way to Ardmore Ave.

I did a rudimentary measurement on Google Earth...admittedly rudimentary...and found that the current configuration of GHR provides 1,156 yards of frontage and the "decapitated" Johnson Farm has 1,095 yards. 60 yards difference if you don't strain for it.

Now, my real question is, do you really think Merion would agree to buy that triangle, which is at least half useless, in the hope of fitting a golf course within the overall constraints of this property?


Jeff,

I think you should reconsider what exactly Lesley said in April 1911 Board Meeting. Was there a definitive start date in his comments?

Jim, my only response is:

1.  Is there any evidence they actually DID plan it that way, or are we enduring speculation that they might have, solely, it seems, to support a theory of the Merion creation?  The plan shows what they wanted it to show, doesn't it?  If they wanted to design it some other way, they would have.

2. I agree that as you describe, the frontage could have been similar. Moreover, if you look at what they ended up doing on Google Earth, they didn't exactly line up the half dozen houses to max out that extra frontage anyway, so the point is moot.

3.  I agree that those minutes show no start date.  However, another Hugh Wilson document shows the committee was formed in Jan. 1911.  Francis is mentioned nowhere in Merion records except as a member of that committee.  So, by the records, we would limit his land swap idea from the period of Jan to April 1911 at the earliest, coincident with the known routing processes going on with CBM prior to and in March and April. 

Given the quote about the Quarry blasting right afterwards, and the official deed change in July 1911(?) both of those suggest that the swap occurred after construction started, which would go a long way to explain Francis rushing to Lloyds house in the middle of the night.  It is quite possible that he was trying to prevent the blasting crew from blasting in what could be the wrong place and time was really of the essence, since blasting may have been scheduled the next day. 

Is that not more plausible than Francis, as an unnamed member of a yet unformed committee waking up a very important man in the middle of the night even before the land was purchased and when they probably had more time to make a decision?

This is the problem I have with David's theory (as I understand it, but he now says the timing is not so much an issue)

The MCC records show or imply routing from Jan-April 1911.  The Francis account was written 40 years later, and David is interpreting what parts of that are important a grand total of 100 years later!  (and in another hundred years, maybe this thread will die, but that is another story altogether )  How, from that distance does he and sometimes, seemingly he alone, determine that the Paul Revere ride is the important component, but the blasting story is fabricated?  We ALL talk about the importance of primary sources and after 115 pages or so last time out, in the end, I came to believe that the preponderance of the primary sources pointed to a 1911 routing, not a 1910 routing.

David,

If the timing isn't the critical point, and that is a red herring by TePaul, then I was mistaken in many respects.  I have agreed that CBM probably should get more credit than he was given by MCC.  It is a tough problem to resolve, and with all the new focus, it doesn't get any easier.  They acknowledged his contributions and I gather you would like the official record (if there was such a thing) to add CBM as a co-designer, or maybe the only designer.  I would support co-designer, in the sense that Freddy Couples is listed as my co-designer on a course and never saw the property, so CBM should be listed as co-designer or at least consultant for his contributions of being on property a few times! Furthermore, I don't think I have ever seen a co-design credit listed as Brauer,(89.2%) Couples (10.8%) even today when computers could probably sort that out, much less back then.  He either contributed or he didn't.  But, he did.

But if MCC doesn't, then I figure its their call.  Maybe there ought to be a law, and IMHO, the guys in Washington will hit a slow day sometime, and eventually we will have one! 

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

[I am responding to just your post right after my last one. I haven't even read anything after that and will try to look at it later.   If I missed something that comes up later, sorry for the confusion.]

As to the Francis land swap, it seems like we agree on all of the key facts except for one-- the accuracy of the Francis description of the swap.  
--  I believe Francis when he described having an idea that actually lead to an important breakthrough, an idea worthy enough that young Richard Francis saw fit to bother the great H.G. Lloyd in the middle of the night.    I also believe that he accurately described the land that was eventually swapped.
-- In contrast, you sense that Francis might have been engaging in hyperbole and dramatic license, and that it wasn't really that big a deal.  Here is what you wrote:

As to the Francis "Paul Revere Ride" story, as you know, I have always sensed some of that was hyperbole on the part of the author or Francis, over dramatizing the story a bit for the history.  In reality, the first part of his message seemed sort of understated and then it got more dramatic later.  

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here.  I  doubt continuing to argue about it would be worthwhile unless new information emerges.  

That said, it seems like even in disagreement we do agree on the basic issue at hand. If the swap was as big a deal as Francis described, and if he accurately described the land eventually swapped, then it is extremely likely that the swap must have occurred before the Nov. 1910 plan.    The reason I say this is because if the plan was drawn up before the swap, then his statement (read literally) wouldn't make much sense at all.  In other words, a literal reading of the Francis statement conflicts with your understanding of the chronology.  And the opposite would also be true.  If Francis was exaggerating the swap and the land involved, then his statement would not support my contention that the swap must have occurred before the November 1910 map was drawn.  

So it really comes down to whether or not we believe the Francis statement was literal and accurate, does it not?

Moving on.  You raised a number of other issues and I am tempted to not go into at all, for the reason that I think they are all heavily speculative (on both our parts) and somewhat tangential, and probably are no place we'll find any agreement.  I will briefly touch on a few, but hope we can agree to set them aside and focus on the main points.
--  You think that as of the swap the map would have had a stick routing.  I disagree for a number of reasons, one of which is that I think that HDC probably drew up the map.  Why would MCC bother to include the borders of lots not even near the golf course?  Another reason is that they handn't formally secured that RR land yet, and submitting a 16 1/2 hole course to the members doesn't seem like a great idea.   Also, we agree that they were still working out the details.  
-- You put stock in the quarry blast and suggest I think he must have gotten this wrong.  To the contrary, I think it is very possible he got it right and that the land was blasted on HDC's watch.  Seems a small price for a developer to pay to prove the land worthy.    Also, H. Wilson gives a detailed description of building the course and never mentions anything about blasting off a green site.

I am not trying to say that I am right and you are wrong, I am just saying that these are issues that are open to different interpretations and they cut both ways.  Fortunately they also seem a bit tangential so I am not sure they are worth getting stuck on.

The last thing I want to mention involves your description of what happened in April 1910.   I really don't want to go in an entirely different direction, but your chronology is a bit off. From what has been selectively leaked, it sounds like Wilson and his committee traveled to NGLA for help planning the course in March 1910. Upon returning to Merion, they "rearranged the course" and came up with five different plans.   Three weeks after the NGLA meeting, CBM and HJW returned to Merion, re-inspected the property and the examine the plans, then determined the final routing.    CBM approved the final layout plan and then that plan was submitted to the Board as the one that CBM approved.   So far as I know, there was no mention to the board of Wilson's thoughts, whatsoever.  (We'd have heard about it if there was.)  The Board then voted to build the course according the the plan  CBM had chosen, and then construction begun.  

[DMoriarty]

Okay, I read your other post.    A few comments and clarifications on your response to Jim and to me . . .

3.  I agree that those minutes show no start date.  However, another Hugh Wilson document shows the committee was formed in Jan. 1911.  Francis is mentioned nowhere in Merion records except as a member of that committee.  So, by the records, we would limit his land swap idea from the period of Jan to April 1911 at the earliest, coincident with the known routing processes going on with CBM prior to and in March and April.

Not necessarily.  While Wilson's description of his involvement begins when the committee was formed in January 1911, we know that at least two on the committeemen had been active earlier.  Lloyd obviously was.  So was Griscom, who was responsible for getting M&W to come down and go over the property.  So we cannot eliminate the possibility of  Francis' involvement before the Committee was formed.   In fact Francis, who was young and relatively new to the club, may have been put on the committee precisely because he had been helping Lloyd all along. And  had Francis had his epiphany before the Committee had been formed, shouldn't Francis have been contacting Chairman Wilson, and not Lloyd?

Is that not more plausible than Francis, as an unnamed member of a yet unformed committee waking up a very important man in the middle of the night even before the land was purchased and when they probably had more time to make a decision?

This is the problem I have with David's theory (as I understand it, but he now says the timing is not so much an issue)

The MCC records show or imply routing from Jan-April 1911.  The Francis account was written 40 years later, and David is interpreting what parts of that are important a grand total of 100 years later!  (and in another hundred years, maybe this thread will die, but that is another story altogether )  How, from that distance does he and sometimes, seemingly he alone, determine that the Paul Revere ride is the important component, but the blasting story is fabricated?

But I am not saying the blasting story was fabricated.   I think HDC may have done the blasting.  Note that it was the "quarryman" who did the blasting, not the construction crew, thus suggesting that this was still being used as a quarry when the blasting was done!  If so, would MCC have been operating a quarry while trying to build a golf course?   Seems more likely that a developer would have been allowing the quarry to operate (or operating it for their own purposes) while they were sitting on this land.  (Remember they had controlled it for at least a few years by this point. (See 1908 atlas.)

HDC was pulling out the stops to get Merion to buy the land --they Hired Barker, they went out and acquired the Dallas Estate so they could sell it at an apparent loss to MCC.  In October 1910 (or anytime) if MCC had said, we'll do it if you blast us a greensite, do you think HDC would have said no way?  Remember HDC wanted Merion to get this thing going so they could start selling some lots!

David,

If the timing isn't the critical point, and that is a red herring by TePaul, then I was mistaken in many respects.  I have agreed that CBM probably should get more credit than he was given by MCC.  It is a tough problem to resolve, and with all the new focus, it doesn't get any easier.  They acknowledged his contributions and I gather you would like the official record (if there was such a thing) to add CBM as a co-designer, or maybe the only designer.  I would support co-designer, in the sense that Freddy Couples is listed as my co-designer on a course and never saw the property, so CBM should be listed as co-designer or at least consultant for his contributions of being on property a few times! Furthermore, I don't think I have ever seen a co-design credit listed as Brauer,(89.2%) Couples (10.8%) even today when computers could probably sort that out, much less back then.  He either contributed or he didn't.  But, he did.

But if MCC doesn't, then I figure its their call.  Maybe there ought to be a law, and IMHO, the guys in Washington will hit a slow day sometime, and eventually we will have one!  

Jeff, the timing of the swap is NOT a critical point in determining whether CBM played an extremely significant role in the design of the course.  CBM's fingerprints were all over the course.   I've never suggested that CBM came up with the swap, and my paper explicitly credits Francis and Lloyd as having done so. In fact, because almost all the evidence which has been brought out sent my essay supports my main contention about CBM's involvement, I am not sure that the timing of the swap matters much at all to my case at all. That said, I do think it important enough to worry about getting it right.  That is what we are doing here, isn't it?  I'm trying to get the story right, whether or not the truth wins, loses, or has no impact on these arguments is secondary.

As for "official credit" that has never been my issue.   My issue is figuring out Merion's place (as well as CBM's place) in The Story of Golf Course Design in America so it matters more to me that an accurate depiction of what happened emerges.  

By the by, I understand what you are saying about Fred Couples, but don't think it the best analogy.  It doesn't sound like Freddy had much if any influence on what happened.    In contrast, I think CBM had a tremendous influence on what what happened at Merion, especially what was on the ground.    I am just disappointed that we'll probably never even get to that part of the conversation.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

That was a really terrific series of posts yesterday.  

David,

Your essay argues that Hugh Wilson couldn't have been involved with the routing because his committee wasn't formed until 1911 and now you tell us there was a committee in 1910 because Griscom got his friend CBM to come down and look at land they were considering and because Griscom and Lloyd were involved on the Site Committee, pretty transparently trying to retroactively sneak Francis back in time to fit your interpretation of events.    

Your essay further argues that because it was named the "Construction Committee" their role was simply to build the golf course, without any design role, neglecting the fact that George Crump's committee responsible for design and construction of the course at Pine Valley was also called the "Construction Committee", formed well before Colt's visit, and already having a number of holes routed and laid out before he arrived.

So, by the very evidence with which you seek to exclude Hugh Wilson you now try to include Richard Francis, even though he himself has told us that he was  "added" to the committee that included Wilson, et.al.?

I don't see how any of that washes...

Similarly, you were just arguing yesterday that HDC was simply protecting their fiduciary responsibilities and real estate potential by artificially decapitating the Johnson Farm property at the Haverford College Line and trying to box Merion into specific land they wanted to sell them, and yet today you're back to arguing that the routing was what determined the land they used...that Merion only bought the land they needed for their finished golf course and that HDC would have done anything short of buying the land themselves to convince Merion to buy a course there.

This neglects that fact that Merion didn't at first buy the land they only needed for the golf course.   In fact, in December 1910 H.G. Lloyd, under the advise of Cuyler, purchased the ENTIRE 161 acres of the Johnson Farm as well as the Dallas Estate for Merion.

THAT certainly doesn't sound to me like a club buying only the specific land they needed for a previously routed golf course, does it to you??

It was only after the planning and design exercises that took place in the spring of 1911, with the help of CBM's one-day visit to look over their plans and help them select the best one, that the land was finally subdivided between golf course and HDC land (land not used for the golf course was given back to HDC by Lloyd) in July 1911, because only by then did they know what they needed.

Similarly, I've yet to hear anyone offer any remotely plausible reason why HDC would have sub-divided the 140 acre Johnson Farm prior to offering it to Merion to develop a golf course on it, much less a wedge shot away from one of the major features, the quarry, that CBM had identified as grand for golf.   This would make no sense, and furthermore, is based on a mythological, hypothetical "100 acres" that HDC supposedly offered Merion for their golf course; a myth you created in your essay and which you seem to still want to perpetuate even though it's clearly untrue as illustrated below;

The FACT is that HDC never subdivided the Johnson Farm before offering it to Merion and there isn't a single shred of evidence that they did.

In fact, they only really had about 120 total acres to realistically offer Merion from that 140 acre Johnson Farm as 1) that was the only property they owned at that time, and 2) there were about 21 acres on the farm that were clearly unfit for golf, we all agree.

So, they offered Merion "100 acres OR WHATEVER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO LAY OUT THE COURSE and Merion in the same report said they thought they'd need "nearly 120 acres", which certainly upped the ante when that was all the viable golf land HDC had at that point.

So, why in the world would HDC then cut 10.5 acres off the top of the only property they had to offer Merion at the critical point?!?   It's ludicrous, on the face of it.




This would have been doubly insane since HDC already stated and committed that "ALL HOUSES ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY WOULD FACE THE GOLF COURSE"!    


 

This is not nearly as complicated as you try to make it.

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

Yesterday you were on such a roll and your #814 was magnificent, but it seems you may’ve destroyed your entire debating line on #830 with an egregious mistake by presenting a central fact in the architectural history of Merion East in a way that is clearly INACCURATE AND INCORRECT!

Here is what you said in #830 which could destroy our side of the debate and might even change the interpretation of the architectural history of Merion!


You said on #830:
“Given the quote about the Quarry blasting right afterwards, and the official deed change in July 1911(?) both of those suggest that the swap occurred after construction started, which would go a long way to explain Francis rushing to Lloyds house in the middle of the night.  It is quite possible that he was trying to prevent the blasting crew from blasting in what could be the wrong place and time was really of the essence, since blasting may have been scheduled the next day.  

Is that not more plausible than Francis, as an unnamed member of a yet unformed committee waking up a very important man in the middle of the night even before the land was purchased and when they probably had more time to make a decision?  ”



Let’s assume this is a classic debating forum and this is a classic debate and we are all the teams on either side of the debated question.

To Wit:
 “Did Richard Francis’s land swaps idea and late night bicycle ride occur BEFORE or AFTER Nov. 10, 1910?


Let’s further assume that our side that consists of you and me and Cirba has been given the side of the debate that must argue the side of Goodness and Light (The side of Merion GC actually) and the “AFTER side” of the question-----that the Francis story happened after Nov. 10, 1910---AND---the other side consisting of Moriarty, MacWood and Sullivan has been given the side of Darkness and Evil (the side that is out to destroy Merion GC actually) the “BEFORE side”----to argue that the Francis story happened BEFORE Nov. 10, 1910.

You made a point in the debate yesterday that had I known you were going to make it I would’ve stopped you and had I been on the other side of the debate I would have destroyed you for making such a bone-headed and FACTUALLY INCORRECT point that just could be one of the central points in the entire architectural history of Merion.

You mentioned that Francis WOKE UP a very important man in the middle of the night!!!

You didn’t check your FACTS Jeffrey! Look at this from what Francis said in his own story:

“I was looking at the map of the property one night when I had an idea. Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr. Lloyd on the phone, found he had not gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him.”

THIS could set back our debating side irreparably; perhaps even as much as ten pages and two days! You said Francis WOKE UP the great man but Francis said the opposite and the other side will pick up on that and crush us with your mistake.

So you better take a day or so off, Jeffrey, and let me handle this.

The other side will say that Francis said that Lloyd had NOT GONE TO BED because Francis told us in his story he had not gone to bed and if we do not take what Francis ACTUALLY SAID literally and accurately then we are, IN FACT, or at least in essence, calling or at least strongly implying that Richard Francis is a LIAR, and, THEREFORE, we are fundamentally wrong in our entire position since we aren't even believing Francis, and/or we claimed Francis WOKE HIM UP when in fact Francis TOLD US Lloyd was NOT ASLEEP!

AAHAH!! But I will counter with:

“YES, Francis DID TELL US Mr. Lloyd had NOT GONE TO BED but he did not tell us if he was asleep or not, DID HE?

THEREFORE, what if Mr. Lloyd, since Francis tells us he had NOT GONE TO BED, was just dozing in his leather chair in his den when Francis called him and the phone rang?? Would that not IN FACT technically constitute WAKING HIM UP?

This is why I’m here Jeffrey; to cover your back! But if you want to redeem yourself I will let you do some research into a point that we must now assume the other side will come at us with in cross and we must be ready for it----eg; Are we certain, and can we prove it with some "Verifiable Fact" that Lloyd did have a leather chair in his den. Take the day off and research that, would you please, Jeff?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Once again, good morning. I don't have much time to get sucked into this thread today (if I know what's good for me!) but will reply before starting work.

Yes, it is a matter of interpretation on a maddeningly vague record of events which have drawn all our interest, but such is the nature of much history research.  IF all the things you suppose are true about the Francis story are true, then you might be correct, and if all the things I suppose about it are true, then I would have to be correct.  I am not sure what that tells us, but I suspect its that maybe niether one of us is correct, since our opinions depend so much on each of us filling in the blanks a certain way.

I note your (and TePaul's) corrections to some of my memory lapses. I seem to get it about 90% right, but perhaps that is like me being able to remember 9 of 10 phone number digits - what good does that do me?

Actually, in this case they don't bother me as I have often felt that the deeper you, Mike C, and Tom Paul go into details, the more likely you are to be off track.  Its the flip side of my "simplest explanation is likely correct" theory when it comes to historical research.  As an example, when researching the history of the railroad yard where my grandfather used to work, one document mentioned some riverfront property they had acquired, and I searched deeds all over Toledo, OH for where that might have been, only to find out it was the property that I knew about all along.  Now, I did have to deduce that from some deeds and money transfers that just happened to happen the same day as a bankruptcy and stock transfer and the coincidence was just too much to ignore.  I am not sure I see enough "extraordinary coincidences" in the record to support your theory of the land swap happening early, and probably don't have enough to support my idea either!

I'm sorry to be taking up your time in telling OT research stories, but if it helps you to understand my take on the committees, blasting story, etc., it may be worth it.  In essence, I believe that when you surmise that Francis and Wilson might have been active earlier because Lesley, Lloyd and Griscomb were there is nothing to back it up.  Why?  They were active on a different committee (the search committee) and their names are on letters.  I may also be influenced by TePauls (and my own experience with club committees) that they are provincial and probably wouldn't ask in many club members to help, although it is possible. 

That isn't a matter of interpretation like the Francis story, its conjecture to support a portion of your pre-existing theory, is it not?  I guess I am saying there are some details we will never know.

Anyway, if looking at the big picture, perhaps the discussion really ought to focus on theories of how CBM's footprints are all over the course based on gca features.  There is no doubt he at least guided the routing process, approving the plans.  The real debate is how much he influenced features.  Only some of the holes look like CBM holes, which given he was only on site for construction a day, and they didn't use Raynor to build the course, combined with the fact that they added a lot of the bunkering later on, only to revamp many holes within a few years to avoid the road, suggest that Wilson earned his title of gca well after the initial routing, at least to me.

Cheers!

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

I will gladly take the day off on this one!

[TEPaul]

"Not necessarily.  While Wilson's description of his involvement begins when the committee was formed in January 1911, we know that at least two on the committeemen had been active earlier.  Lloyd obviously was.  So was Griscom, who was responsible for getting M&W to come down and go over the property.  So we cannot eliminate the possibility of  Francis' involvement before the Committee was formed.   In fact Francis, who was young and relatively new to the club, may have been put on the committee precisely because he had been helping Lloyd all along. And  had Francis had his epiphany before the Committee had been formed, shouldn't Francis have been contacting Chairman Wilson, and not Lloyd?"


David Moriarty:

If we cannot eliminate the possibility of Francis's involvement before the committee was formed, then why should we eliminate the possibility of the involvement of Chairman Wilson before the committee was formed? Or even the fifth member, Dr. Harry Toulmin?

In your essay you explained away the involvement of Chairman Wilson before the committee was formed by merely mentioning that you could find no evidence that he was involved. That is not fact at all or even the implication of fact----it's totally speculation based on your statement that you just haven't found anything that says he was involved before the committee was formed.

But actually the funniest thing of all in your essay and apparently in your present position is that you have found no evidence that Francis was involved before the committee was formed either, except for the very THING you are trying to PROVE he was INVOLVED with----eg That Nov. 1910 Land Plan that just happens to show a triangle on it that is a part of his story!  

You have in fact taken the "Effect" (the Nov 1910 Land Plan with a triangle on it) and attempted to make it appear as the "CAUSE" (that Francis must have created the whole thing with his idea)!  

And THAT really is a definition of fallacy or "Classic Fallacy," just one of many of a number of useful tools of fallacious reasoning!  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I will gladly take the day off on this one!"


Jeffrey;

You better take the rest of the week off as well. After a spectacular day on your part yesterday I noticed this morning in reviewing your presentation you made another mistake in fact in your presentation. You said or implied that the Wilson Committee discussed their Merion plans with CBM during their trip to NGLA.

How the Hell much cleaning up do I have to do with you the next morning, Jeffrey? What's the matter with you? Were you drunk last night? Were you laying on the street yelling at cars about Wilson at NGLA with his Merion East plans and/or babbling as DM said I must have been the other night before changing his mind and editing it?  

There is NOTHING that states that or even implies it. The Wilson report did not say a thing about Merion or its architectural plans when they visited NGLA and Wilson did not mention a thing about that in his letter of March 12, 1911 to Russell Oakley when he talked about his trip to NGLA with him. The Wilson report and that letter do talk about a number of things they did do and did talk to CBM about when up there for two days but the plans of Merion East was definitely not one of the things they said in that report or letter was discussed with CBM while at NGLA in the beginning of March.

David Moriarty just assumed that too----eg speculated! He was not even aware of that Wilson report or that March 12, 1911 letter when he wrote his essay and if he says he was now one wonders why he never mentioned a thing about either in his essay or on here.  

[Mike Cirba]

This idea of CBM's footprints being all over the course is indeed a somewhat humorous one, and one that will elicit nothing more here than endless debate that will be as productive and elucidating as the chicken and the egg.

We know as fact that Merion wanted a course of ideal holes based on those abroad, and we know that getting those ideas is why Wilson went abroad in the first place.

We know as fact that Merion when routed and originally opened had very few bunkers in place, "less than a short nine hole course" in the words of one wag, and we know that was the case for the first three years of play at Merion.   It was basically just 18 tees, fairways, and greens and natural hazards.

We know that Richard Francis told us that one of the holes that benefited from Wilson's travels was the redan 3rd, which Francis told us was really suggested to them by the location of the hole.   You'll notice the difference...Francis didn't say that they located a redan hole on a particular site on someone's (CBM's?) urging...no, instead he says the hole's location, (and I'm sure the elevated green) led to to create a bunkering strategy there modelled after the redan.

We know that Findlay told us that Wilson thought, after his return from abroad, that the 10th Alps hole would "take a lot of making", to get right, and that was certainly the case as Wilson built ramparts and cross bunkers and other features to try to emulate the original.

On another thread yesterday David tried to make the case that the 17th at Merion was based on a Biarritz concept, which is interesting, but again, seems unlikely.   We know that Wilson completely rebuilt that green in 1916, enlarging it and adding the bunkering scheme.  

So, if CBM's fingerprints are all over the course...you'd have to be a magician to identify them, or perhaps coming at it from a clear agenda.  

[TEPaul]

"From what has been selectively leaked, it sounds like Wilson and his committee traveled to NGLA for help planning the course in March 1910."


David Moriarty:

Who do you think selectively leaked THAT?

[JESII]

Jim, my only response is:

1.  Is there any evidence they actually DID plan it that way, or are we enduring speculation that they might have, solely, it seems, to support a theory of the Merion creation?  The plan shows what they wanted it to show, doesn't it?  If they wanted to design it some other way, they would have.

Jeff,

I carved out this one piece...

Of all the uncertainty/lack of clarity in these records, Francis' words about trading land they owned for the land where the 15th green and 16th tee are is the least ambiguous. Only when other data is attempted to be interpreted do his words seem questionable...also, I think it's a mistake to put more weight on the interpretation of, and timing of, the quarrymen blasting away than on the result of his primary contribution. I see no reason why Lloyd wouldn't have been the guy to approve that in 1910 when he was recapitalizing HDC by 100% as opposed to in April 1911 when Wilson was the man in charge.

[JESII]

I think a strict reading of the committee formation in January 1911 is odd...Tom and I discussed these type of things and agreed that it is most common for the people that become the committee do begin the process of figuring what to do and how to do it well before the formal establishment of the particular committee.

[TEPaul]

"I think a strict reading of the committee formation in January 1911 is odd...Tom and I discussed these type of things and agreed that it is most common for the people that become the committee do begin the process of figuring what to do and how to do it well before the formal establishment of the particular committee."


Sully:

That's true but we should stick to whatever factual evidence we have which in any way bears on this issue and stay away from speculation that has no indication of factual evidence. If some who are arguing this issue of Merion ask us to limit our posts and discussions to facts rather than speculation we should do the same.

As far as I can see we have these factual statements that bear on the issue of the formation of the Wilson Committee:
1. Wilson's mention in an article in 1916 that his committee was formed in January 1911
2. Francis' mention in his 1950 article that he was 'added' to this committee
3. The mention by MCC to the membership in Jan 1911 that 'experts' were now at work with the creation of the course.

And when we did discuss examples of those committees I think we also mentioned that some may never have recorded work they did previous to their committee being formed UNLESS someone asked them later to discuss what they did which is the case with both Wilson and Francis. Therefore since they did discuss it later I see no reason to assume they would not have told the whole story, do you? Unless you think they had something they thought they should hide from posterity. Do you think that was true with Francis and Wilson?

[JESII]

Did you put 'added' in quotation marks because Francis was not initially on the committee?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

I don't blame you for wanting to take some time off.  Being on the other side can be almost as bad as being on my side for those who dare fall out of step with the party line.  I'm lucky that way in that I don't have to put up with the phone calls and behind the scenes arm twisting.  

Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion with you the past few days.   I know I can be infuriating and appreciate your efforts to keep the tone civil and the subject focused on the substance.  I feel like I have a better understanding of your position and hope you have a better understanding of mine.  

Just a few comments on your post of today.
-- Lloyd was, but Griscom wasn't on the Site Committee.  
-- I still think you may be overplaying the amount of "filling in the blanks" that I am doing regarding the Francis statement.   What he said isn't all that complicated.  He described coming up with a swap, the land involved in the swap on both sides, and it being a pretty big deal --big enough to bother H.G. Lloyd in the middle of the night.   About the only difference I see in our interpretations is the level at which we take him at face value:    

I think the Francis statement was accurate.  You do not think the Francis statement was accurate.  

Other than that, we seem to be in agreement about the facts.  It is just that this particular difference controls the conclusions we draw.

Your point is well taken on perhaps missing the forest through the trees.  I've felt that this conversation has been lost in the forest for a very long time now.  We even constantly circle back to the very same trees (Like the bogus claim that the April records verify the swap happened then.  We've covered that over and over again in the past, and there is little doubt that those records are referring to an entirely different swap altogether.  One involving land that was NOT already purchased.)

I agree that there are some details that it would be nice to know but will probably never be known --like the timing of the blasting.   My point is only that we cannot assume the blasting happened during construction and under Wilson's watch.  There are plenty of facts suggesting that this was not the case.   Overall though I think the best approach is to focus on what we do know.  And I include the Francis description of the land swapped and the reasons for the swap in what we do know. You do not.

I agree that Wilson earned his title of gca after the course was initially routed.  I've never denied that!   In fact I think the second biggest travesty in the history of Merion may be the efforts of some to steal credit from Wilson for all those changes you mention.  But then that is another story for another day.   My focus has always been on the initial routing and planning and the initial course

In closing I agree with you regarding the following:  

"There is no doubt [CBM] at least guided the routing process, approving the plans."

But others surely don't agree.  And they seem a bit worked up this morning.   The level of sarcasm and indignation is a bit too high for productive conversation, so I think I'll join you in taking the day off.  Or perhaps the week.  Or . . .

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Jim,

I agree with you regarding pre-January 1910 involvement of Committee members so far as the record supports it.  It supports it with Lloyd, Griscom, and I think Francis.   It doesn't support it with Toulmin and Wilson.   You can speculate all you like about it, but without some indication that these guys were out there, I'll stick with the record.

Otherwise we get into a situation like we had with Wilson's trip abroad, where even after it was proven the trip took place later, some still insisted that he just must have taken a trip earlier, even it that meant they had to invent the second trip!   My point is that I don't think we ought to move into what we would have liked to have happened.   I understand that may would have liked Wilson to have been out there earlier, but that kind of  backwards analysis (starting with our desired conclusion and then reasoning backward from there) causes all sorts of problems and has in the past.    

In short, give me any evidence that Wilson was out there, and I'll be glad to accept that he was!   But until then, it is just wishful thinking.  

[JESII]

David,

I don't think there is real evidence anyone was out there from July 1 1910 until sometime in 1911, is there?

[TEPaul]

"Did you put 'added' in quotation marks because Francis was not initially on the committee?"

I put in those quotation marks because that is what Francis said in his 1950 article and because at least two who have been part of these discussions have accused me on this website of 'altering original Merion documents' as well as 'leaking information.'  

[JESII]

Do you think that means he was not on the committee as initially established?

[DMoriarty]

Did you put 'added' in quotation marks because Francis was not initially on the committee?

Not sure what you mean by "real evidence" or why you want to box the dates,  but I think there is evidence that some of them were involved prior to 1911, and those include Whigham, CBM, Lloyd, Griscom, and I think Francis.   And there is evidence that CBM was dealing with Wilson prior to February 1, 1911, but this is the first evidence we have of Wilson's involvement. 

Got to go. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()