[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

No disagreement there, but the even given that, I can see how we might differ on when the land swap occurred, with you thinking the curving, but not final road shows the idea was hatched earlier, but needed tweaking and me thinking that it shows the general idea for a curving road, and somewhat useless resulting trianglular sliver going to MCC, and Francis widening it later and swapping excess width at the clubhouse to nearly balance the acreage.

To me, all the details (from both sides) about who was the straw man buying the Dallas Estate, etc. are just made up arguments to support a point of view.  Again, deeds were drawn up based on that Nov 15 drawing, and deeds were altered about 8 months later.  To me, those documents show what happened when, do they not?  If the land swap had occurred, why wouldn't the plan in Nov 1910 show it, and even if that was approximately drawn in a hurry for the meeting, why wouldn't the deed in Dec 1910 show it in the final configuration?

Again, I am speaking from memory and TePaul can correct me if I am wrong, but TePaul, where was the road line on the deed/transfer document drawn up on Dec 16, 1910?  Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree here.

[TEPaul]

By the way, I was just over at Merion and I found the monument stone in the ground behind #16 tee that was the result of the 1928 land transfer between MCC and Haverford College to create road access for Haverford College into their property for which MCC received a trianglular sliver of land just to the east of the original southeastern corner of the Haverford College property. It lined up right in the middle Golf House Road on its app. 140 yards run straight to the MIDDLE of College Ave, which was the starting point on the metes and bounds survey of the original Johnson Farm as well as the Pugh and Hubbard survey metes and bounds that was included in the deed that Rothwell passed to Lloyd on Dec. 19, 1910.

Even more interesting is down near the end of the right side of that old triangle (formed by the southeastern corner of the Haverford College land and the base of the triangle over to the Taylor property and later Golf House Road) were two identical monument stones just lying under a tree!  

I recognize those monument stones having seen plenty of them on the old Pennsylvania farms during land transfers. I even stopped to talk to Peter, the maintenance guy who takes care of the range. He said he loves history. I asked him if he knew what old monument stones look like and he said he definitely did. He was the one who told me to look for the monument stone behind #16 tee.

[TEPaul]

"Let's talk about Freeman's Auction House.
What is typical in auctioning off land with regards to allowing access to the property?"


Sully:

What's your point?

I don't know it but I doubt the Dallas Estate was sold at auction just because Freeman owned a well known auction company. From the only newspaper account I've heard of it seemed to say in August that Freeman intended to buy the Dallas Estate to put his personal residence on it. That doesn't sound like somebody who intended to auction the place or have it go to auction, even if he owned an auction company. It sound to me like the HDC guys (and perhaps with Lloyd's help) encouraged Freeman to act as a "strawman buyer." You know what that is don't you?

But who really knows---maybe the HDC guys with Lloyd got Freeman to go talk to the Dallas Estate probate people to ask if they wanted to auction the farm with his company just to take any suspicion off HDC (and Lloyd?) about what they were really up to at the time.

One of the realities of any smart or sensible real estate person or buyer, is if you have your eye on a place you do not go out first and try to drum up other buyers that the seller notices. That generally just ends up costing you more money to ultimately buy the place.

But to answer your specific question---what is typical about auctioning property is for auctioneers to do the best they can to advertize the auction and give all potential buyers as much opportunity as possible to see the place before the auction. Some top flight auctioneers may actually ask you to show some bona fides that you are a serious buyer.

[TEPaul]

"David,
What do you have that proves Lloyd was out there on the property in 1910, after the July 1 meetings and letters?"


Sully;

What you should be asking David Moriarty is not what he has to prove that Lloyd was probably out there after the July 1 meeting and letters but what evidence he actually has that proves Francis was actually out there at that time?  

Don't you see?? What Moriarty did in his essay and continues to do is to take the very THING he is trying to prove, and use IT as evidence of its own PROOF!

THAT is basically called a Fallacy or fallacious logic or fallacious reasoning!!

It is essentially taking an "Effect" and trying to turn that "Effect" into the "Cause" of that "Effect." It just doesn't work that way and again that is a classic Fallacy!  

And what he has done to try to continue to get away with this fallacy or to have it not noticed is to try to LIMIT this subject and the discussion of it by continuously MAINTAINING that HIS interpretation of what Francis MEANT in his 1950 article is the ONLY possible interpretation there can be!! He even goes so far on here as to tell some of us if we don't agree with HIS interpretation of what Francis meant we are basically calling Francis himself a LIAR!!    

That is just not the case ANYWAY, and frankly all the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE surrounding 1910 to 1911 at MCC with Ardmore seems now to be pointing to the fact that Francis' idea did not create an entire triangle out of an existing rectangle, it just added enough width to an already existing triangle that was probably HDC's idea anyway, and idea that may've gone as far back as HDC's original involvement with this area----actually very likely with the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company which were pretty much all the same HDC guys.

Much AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, I might add, that Moriarty just did not have when he wrote that essay. All the evidence that contradicts his essay and his thesis about Macdonald and Francis and Wilson et al was found later and not by Moriarty, that's for damned sure!  

But as Peter Pallotta said much earlier in this thread---it seems Moriarty (and apparently MacWood too) just can't give it up, can't admit to his mistakes and can't begin to face the truth here about what really did seem to happen back then at Ardmore with HDC, MCC and Wilson and his committee.

Pretty interesting, don't you think, for a guy who said in his essay and continues to say that all he really wants to do is LEARN Merion's architectural history?

And also pretty interesting for a guy who would say the following at the beginning of that essay in his "Author's Note." Apparently he must have had in mind some soft-ball challenge to his essay and not a stiff challenge to it that involved a whole lot of new evidence and material he just did not have or was even aware of when he wrote that essay. And when he got that stiff challenge to his essay his reaction was to take it personally and to just attack and insult his challengers and constantly question their motivations for challenging his essay.

"I encourage you to look at this essay in a similar light. While by no means a great work like Merion, it too is a work in progress. The core of my thesis is in place, but I hope and expect that my analysis will evolve as I continue to study the topic and as others challenge my ideas. Thank you in advance to those who will read, consider, and constructively challenge the work."

[JESII]

From the only newspaper account I've heard of it seemed to say in August that Freeman intended to buy the Dallas Estate to put his personal residence on it. That doesn't sound like somebody who intended to auction the place or have it go to auction, even if he owned an auction company. It sound to me like the HDC guys (and perhaps with Lloyd's help) encouraged Freeman to act as a "strawman buyer."

Let me get this straight...The guy that bought it and flipped it right to HDC who then immediately flipped it to Lloyd said in August that he was going to buy it and you suggest MCC wouldn't have considered that land prior...and I thought David interpreted the exact wording of the reasons for the move to Ardmore in a strict reading...

I think it's reasonable to say that MCC and HDC jointly and cooperatively created the November 15 Land Plan. I'll agree that this does not prove the routing, or even stick routing, was done prior to that but it seems very unreasonable to say MCC was not involved in the creation of the map based on what we know about the people and the process involved.

[JESII]

Maybe I'll take back some of that last paragraph...if it's reasonable to think MCC had a hand in the drawing of that map, how could they do so without that triangle being considered for golf? In other words, why would they agree to buy the triangle essentially sight unseen?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

You seem to be asking me all kinds of questions on facts from the material from MCC lately. Are you just interesting in trying to fit it any way you can to maintain what you've called your "thesis" that the Wilson Committee was all out there in 1910 or do you really want to consider what the progression of events from those MCC materials say and seem to mean?


"Maybe I'll take back some of that last paragraph...if it's reasonable to think MCC had a hand in the drawing of that map, how could they do so without that triangle being considered for golf? In other words, why would they agree to buy the triangle essentially sight unseen?"


It looks like you're treating your questions and answers with me and your ideas about this as some kind of negotiation---ex maybe I'll do this if you agree to that!

Did I ever say it is unreasonable to think MCC had some hand in the drawing of that map? Are you aware of what it says about the negotiations of Connell and Lloyd in the beginning of the letter that was the offer from HDC to MCC (from Nickolsen to Evans) to buy 117 acres?

Did I ever say a thing about MCC agreeing to buy the triangle essentially sight unseen?

All I've said and am saying is that it seems to me from ALL the evidence that HDC may've been the ones to propose that curvilinear "approximate road" on that Pugh and Hubbard Nov 1910 land plan. It also seems to me it was very likely HDC had that plan drawn up by Pugh and Hubbard. I say that because it now appears HDC had them do the metes and bounds survery of the 161 acres that went from Rothwell to Lloyd in the same day (Dec. 19, 1910).

I just believe that the available evidence seems to support the fact that the Wilson committee really was not formed until January 1911 (when MCC reported to the membership that 'experts were now at work') at which point they got to work really routing and designing that course and I do not think it is reasonable to assume that Francis was out there before Nov. 10, 1910 making any changes in that triangle at that time. I think the triangle already existed and it was apparently agreed to by Connell and Lloyd even before the Nov. 10 1910 offer was made by HDC to MCC.

I think Francis' idea very likely occured around the end of March, beginning of April, 1911, almost six months after that Nov. 1910 land plan was shown to the MCC membership.

This is not exactly some radical idea and thesis since all the available evidence from MCC and everyone else around back then seems to support it.

And furthermore if one wants to do some strict reading of what Francis MEANT TO SAY when he mentioned that triangle in his 1950 article the first thing anyone should do is very carefully read Francis' entire 1950 article and not just one part of it. Moriarty did not have that entire article when he wrote his essay; he only had the part of it that Desmond Tolhurst put in his 1989 Merion history book.

Francis' article is posted on this thread but yet I don't think the entire article is even posted on here. Since it is the most important asset on this thread right now, it should be. Furthermore, I think this thread has gotten far too long and it has also been used to discuss too many different issues for close to a year and a half. I even question why Tom MacWood brought it back to the front page a few weeks ago after it had been in the back pages for almost a year and a half. It seems he brought it back to contend that much of what Tolhurst wrote in his history book was "meaningfully inaccurate." 

 

[JESII]

Tom,

Do you think MCC had any input into the 11/10.1910 map?

If so, what do you think their contribution may have been?

If not, why do you think they would agree to buy an area of land they hadn't determined ideally suitable for their needs?

[JESII]

I think progress can be made with patient question and answers...progress would mean coming closer to agreement of what the documents say.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I am going to take some time and really answer those three questions of yours with all the actual material from back then I have in my possession that bears on those questions in any way. We've been through all this so much on here I really don't see the necessity of these constant questions but at least all my answers will be in one place. I'm going to answer those questions by supporting them only with that material and I'm not going to speculate at all as everyone else on here seems to want to do and be doing. And when I'm done with those answers I really don't want to go over them again and again.

If you feel you are in any way unfamiliar with some of this contemporaneous material then come back over here and I'll go through any and all of it with you.

Frankly, I think every bit of it is basically on this website but unfortunately it is all so spread out over so many threads and over so much time nobody seems to understand how it fits together chronologiclly, sequentially and historically---or else they just don't want to know or don't to admit it for various reasons.  

[TEPaul]

"I think progress can be made with patient question and answers...progress would mean coming closer to agreement of what the documents say."


I'm sure that's true depending on who it is you think progress can be made with by patient questions and answers. So far I doubt anyone would say we have had patient questions and patient answers on these threads that involve Merion in this way. At least not when Moriarty and MacWood have been involved in the questions and answers of these threads. A good example of that is that I have asked Moriarty a number of really fundamental questions in the last few pages that only have to do with his essay, his thinking at this point with it and questions about things he has said on this thread about this subject and he has ignored them all. Have you ever stopped to wonder why that might be?

My sense is he ignores them or diverts them off as some personal insult or some wrong that has been done him by me or Wayne or Merion because he knows he can't answer them, and certainly not successfully. MacWood seems to have ignored this thread now for a number of days for the same reason!

Let me ask you something Sully. Would you have the interest you seem to have in the details of the things this entire thread has been discussing for so long if it was not for Moriarty's essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion," and if it was not for the participation of Moriarty and MacWood on these threads about Merion?

[TEPaul]

Tom,
Do you think MCC had any input into the 11/10.1910 map?
If so, what do you think their contribution may have been?
If not, why do you think they would agree to buy an area of land they hadn't determined ideally suitable for their needs?


Sully:

I can’t say if MCC had input into the November 15, 1910 Land Plan showing the course in green with the “approximate road” on it because I have no actual evidence from MCC records or any other legitimate source at the time that specifically says they did.
l
However, what I do have is the Nov. 10, 1910 letter from E. W. Nickolsen, secretary of HDC to the Board of Governors of MCC that makes the initial offer to MCC of 117 acres for a price of $85,000, contingent on the organization of a corporation (MCCGA Corporation) to buy the 117 acres by Dec. 10, 1910, and I have all the MCC records leading up to that offer.

The Nov. 10, 1910 letter of Nickolsen, (the initial offer---ie formal offer in writing) by HDC to MCC says:

“Board of Governors
Merion Cricket Club,
Haverford, Pa.
Gentlemen:

In accordance with the terms of a letter from Mr. H.G. Lloyd to Mr. J.R. Connell supplemented by several conferences with Mr. Lloyd acting on behalf of the Merion Cricket Club, would say,

That this Company has in its possession either the title to or options in writing (assigned in blank) for the purchase of the following tracts of ground on College and Ardmore Avenues, Haverford, Pa.,

63.6 acres Haverford Development Co. property,
140 acres Phila. And Ardmore Land Co.     “
21 acres Dallas Estate property
56 acres Taylor property
58 acres Davis property
_________
338.6

Out of the said total of 338 acres a tract of 117 acres as agreed upon with Mr. Lloyd, we agree to sell to a corporation to be formed on behalf of the Merion Cricket Club for the purpose of establishing Golf Links thereon within reasonable time, clear of encumbrance, for the price or sum of Eighty-five thousand dollars payable in cash on or about December 10th, 1910.

Kindly forward us your written acceptance of this proposition,
Very truly yours,
(signed)  E.W. Nicholson”
 


From that Sully I find actual and verifiable proof that Horatio Gates Lloyd, acting as MCC’s representative to negotiate an offer and agreement for a golf course for MCC of 117 acres (The Lesley Search Committee of which Lloyd was a member suggested 120 acres on June 29th in a report and again on July 1, 1910 at a board meeting), and I see a drawing of Nov. 15, 1910 by Pugh and Hubbard surveyors (likely HDC’s surveyors) that shows the golf course in green demarked at the top of the “L” of the old Johnson Farm by a curvilinear road labeled “approximate road.”

Other than that I have seen absolutely no actual evidence of fact and no proof of any kind that anyone else was working on an agreement or a golf course on that land in 1910. There is various evidence from those people back then that the Wilson Committee was formed in January, 1911 with five members; Wilson, chairman, Griscom, Lloyd, Toulmin and Francis. There is no evidence I’ve ever seen or heard of that suggests any of them other than Lloyd was doing anything out there or with HDC other than Lloyd.

The first person I’ve ever heard suggest such a thing is David Moriarty in his 2009 essay, “The Missing Faces of Merion” when he suggested that Francis was the only one working with Lloyd out there in 1910 on a prospective course because he believes that Francis meant in his 1950 story that he created an entire 130 X 190 yard triangle out of an existing rectangle (your “decapitation” theory). I don’t believe Francis said that or meant to say that in his 1950 article. He never said a thing about a pre-existing rectangle even though Moriarty claimed on a post on this thread that Francis did say that.

I believe Moriarty attempted to use the very thing he was trying to prove (that Francis' idea created that entire triangle on that Nov. 1910 Land Plan even if it does not look like or measure like what Francis actually described dimensionally) as evidence of its own proof and I’m afraid one just cannot do that and should never try. In my opinion, that is the use of a Fallacy, and I consider it to be sneaky and tricky and clever logic and reasoning if in fact the one doing it was aware that is what he was doing.

I will also post for you all the MCC evidence leading up to that initial offer from HDC to MCC on Nov. 10, 1910.

The above and what is just mentioned are the actual evidentiary facts from MCC at the time; the rest is speculation, in my opinion.




  

[JESII]

Let me ask you something Sully. Would you have the interest you seem to have in the details of the things this entire thread has been discussing for so long if it was not for Moriarty's essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion," and if it was not for the participation of Moriarty and MacWood on these threads about Merion?

Thank you for that post 911.

This question here is a good one...I think the best, most concise answer is that without that essay and David's participation in these threads, no I would not have the same level of interest I do...but don't read that as agreement with him. As we have discussed on here and off, I disagree with him on a whole lot more than I agree with. In fact, the timing and nature of the swap is about the only thing I strongly agree with.

David and Tom have carried the opposition side to you, Wayne and Mike so without their participation, this topic would not have gotten 5% of the air time it has, so I owuld not have learned nearly as much as I have.

[Dan Herrmann]

Jim - You got me thinking - I wonder what historical tidbits could be discovered if one were to pick any other of the Great courses at random from about the same time.  Even focusing solely on the way clubs went about acquiring land is fascinating.

I'd also love to compare and contrast the North American experience with the GB&I experience in the acquisition and initial design areas.  But that's another topic for another thread...

[TEPaul]

Well, that's something of a consolation for you and GOLFCLUBATLAS.com I guess even though I doubt it needs to take this long to discuss every detail of the history of Merion. This has been going on for years and it just goes back over the same old arguments, most of them highly speculative.

But I agree about new information. Moriarty did figure out about that 1912 trip abroad for sure and the essay does have some things that are interesting about the move to Ardmore that he primarily got out of what is known as "The Sayers Scrapbook" which was actually not at Merion or MCC which he's never been to but at the Pennsylvania Historical Society in Philadelphia even though the club has always had all the copies of what's in it (Sayers was not just MCC's longterm secretary he became the president of MCC after Evans). The club has never much looked into all the details of the move to Ardmore and the business end of it and Lloyd and HDC and such, and Moriarty does not seem to understand that or is unwilling to admit it. And MacWood, whose logic really is bizarre on here seems to think since the Merion history books didn't record every single detail of it that that makes those history books "meaningfully inaccurate." 

Now they probably will look more carefully into that part of their history and write about it or at least that's been my proposal to them but it sure isn't "The Missing Faces of Merion" they're using or going to use. They're using all the material that was found at MCC by Merion's historians and they will write a factual account of it using all those MCC records and hopefully avoid all the speculation that goes on in these Merion threads on here.

[JESII]

Tom,

Why does that essay burn you so bad that you need to mention it, David and also Tom M, and your opinion of each in the majority of your posts on this thread? It really detracts from the conversation I'm trying to have with you. As I've said a few times, I'm neither speaking for or defending Daivd or his essay.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Here is MCC's president Allen Evan's Nov. 15, 1910 letter responding to HDC secretary Nickolsen's Nov. 10, 1910 letter to the Board of Governors of MCC making the offer for the amount of land, the price and the terms given in Nickolsen's letter. This would complete the agreement between the two parties that would move forward over the next 8 1/2 months and culminate in Lloyd transfering 120.1 acres of land to the MCCGA Corporation of which he was the president and at the same time a lease was instituted between MCC and MCCGA Corporation for all the land of Merion East that would remain in effect until 1942.


"E.W. Nicholson, Esq.,
Secretary of the Haverford Development Co.,802 Land Title Bldg., Philada

Dear Sir:

Your letter of November tenth, advising of the purchase of certain tracts of ground on College and Ardmore Avenues, Haverford, by the Haverford Development Company, has been received.  I note that you agree to sell a tract of one hundred and seventeen (117) acres, as agreed upon with Mr. Lloyd, to a corporation to be formed on behalf of the Merion Cricket Club, for the purpose of establishing Golf Links thereon within reasonable time, clear of encumbrance, for the price or sum of Eighty-five thousand dollars, ($85,000.00), payable in cash on or about December 10th, 1910.

In accordance with instructions given me by the Board of Government of the Merion Cricket Club, I beg to state that a Corporation will be formed on behalf of the Club, which will purchase the tract of land above mentioned one hundred and seventeen (117) acres, at the price or sum of Eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000.00), in accordance with the terms of your proposition, as quoted above, and that as soon as this Corporation obtains possession of the property, we will at once proceed to lay off, and put in shape a Golf Links.

Very truly yours,
(signed) Allen Evans,
President Merion C.C."


There was no actual real estate sales contract as we know today with these kinds of things. Shortly after the Nov. 15, 1910 board meeting that formalized this agreement on the MCC Board and in the MCC meeting minutes there was another board meeting on Nov. 23, 1910 in which the particulars of the formation and organization of the MCCGA Corporation was discussed and particularly via a very detailed letter about how to set up the MCCGA Corporation submitted to the MCC board by their lawyer and board member T. DeWitt Cuyler, a man who may've been one of the most powerful in the American railroad industry as he was the president of the American Railroad Owners Association.

At that next meeting, Lesley stepped down as the Chairman of the Committee on New Golf Grounds and Lloyd took over as the new Chairman of that Committee.

Throughout all of this record keeping and meeting minute taking about what MCC and HDC was doing in 1910 there was not ever a single mention of Francis or Wilson or Toulmin or anything to do with the committee that would be appointed in the beginning of January to route (lay out, or as Evans said "lay-of" ), design and build Merion East----eg The Wilson Committee.

Of course we can all SPECULATE until the cows come home that one of them or some of them or all of them must have been out there involved in creating a golf course with Macdonald or Barker's sketch or whatever.

 I'm just telling you not a thing about any of that was ever mentioned by MCC or via any records they ever kept, as far as I know and I have them all, and there must have been a pretty good reason for it, don't you think?  

In my opinion, that pretty much indicates they were either not out there to any significant degree that MCC felt was worth mentioning and recording or else they were all being pretty secretive about it for reasons that should be fairly clear to anyone who has followed this story and these threads.

I've got to go to bed, get up early to officiate so I'll talk to you on Friday.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Why does that essay burn you so bad that you need to mention it, David and also Tom M, and your opinion of each in the majority of your posts on this thread? It really detracts from the conversation I'm trying to have with you. As I've said a few times, I'm neither speaking for or defending Daivd or his essay."


Sully:

Because I firmly believe that essay is the biggest piece of fallaciously reasoned garbage imaginable. I have felt that way since the day I first read it. And I do not in any way feel it is that way by some accident or unforseen or unexpected happenstance. I think it was done for a very recognizable agenda that had a history to it on here; still does, and MacWood was part of that agenda driven history longer than Moriarty has even been on here, I think.

I'm no fan of either of them even though I definitely look at MacWood differently than I do Moriarty. I think MacWood has a redeeming aspect to him in that he's a very good raw researcher even though he seems really bizarre to me as an analyst of history relating to golf architecture.

And I feel that way about them because I love Merion, have known the place really well and probably about two hundred of their members over the last thirty years really well and not just from being at Merion but from all kinds of other things like the the tournament circuit, Gap, Pa Golf Association, Baily Cup, the Lesley Cup and just general social stuff and such and I care a lot about them and I just don't like to see a couple of guys come at them and their golf course and golf club and all of us around that club the way those two have on here, and continue to. And if you don't recognize that on here Sully, that agenda and its history, I've got to tell you I think you must be semi-blind.

But you're a friend of mine for sure as is you dad and if there is anything I can tell you about or help you with in understanding the history of Merion, you know where to find me.

That's why I mention that essay and those two on these threads as much as I do. I wouldn't do it anymore on here if they would just give it up on Merion and their criticism of Wayne and me and the club and its history, particularly Moriarty but also MacWood, but that doesn't seem very likely. It's probably the only way he (or they) can keep the attention he wants on himself. I guess they think they need to compete with us on anything to do with research to make themselves look better somehow. Pretty insecure on their part, if you ask me.


I bet you're happy you asked me that question, HUH, Sully? What did you expect---that I wouldn't answer it honestly?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Thanks for sharing those documents.

Did you know that in the Oxford New English Dictionary of 1910, the term "lay off" means "to physically construct or cultivate or otherwise...."

Oh, nevermind!    

[JESII]

No Tom, I expected the truth, and probably knew most of that answer...but I also expected you to understand why I asked...I asked because the constant inclusion of your feelings about them and David's essay don't advance the conversation about what happened at Merion at all. I think the conversation and the website would benefit if you cut back on it a little (or alot...).

[TEPaul]

Mike:

What you should really thank me for is typing all those things because as you may know I don't even know how to post those actual documents on here. I thought about not typing them though because as you probably also know when I have before those two jerks have actually accused me of 'ALTERING ORIGINAL MERION OR MCC DOCUMENTS.'

Can you imagine THAT???  

And Sully actually just asked me why I keep mentioning those two and that ridiculous essay on here etc, etc, etc, not to even mention when Moriarty wrote a post on here the other day telling everyone I reminded him of some pathetic car-yelling, drunken babbler laying on the street out there in that crazy town he's from that is bound to disappear, one of these days, into the center of the earth through the San Andreas Fault or would it be the San Andreas Fallacy or perhaps the San Andreas Mistaken Inaccuracy!?   

"Come to Hollywood, where all your dreams can come true and anything's possible." (Or is it "Anthing's NOT IMPOSSIBLE?") 

[TEPaul]

"No Tom, I expected the truth, and probably knew most of that answer...but I also expected you to understand why I asked...I asked because the constant inclusion of your feelings about them and David's essay don't advance the conversation about what happened at Merion at all. I think the conversation and the website would benefit if you cut back on it a little (or alot...)."


Well, Sully, you tell me honestly---in your opinion who's got the most and the best actual evidentiary material on this subject and whose supplied you with it?

If your answer is what I think it is and what I think it should be, I'm afraid you are just going to have to put up with the chaff and the wheat!  

But frankly it looks to me like this is winding down. MacWood seems to have thrown in the towel because he obviously knows he doesn't have anything left, not even any no-count question respones, I guess, and Moriarty is now seemingly in one of his evasive, diverting and ignoring modes because he apparently knows the noose is just about tightened completely around his brand of fallacous reasoning, argumentation and petty dialtetics on this subject of Merion and its history.

[Mike Cirba]

To me, the overwhelming piece of evidence I have to keep coming back to is the November 1910 Land Plan.

The accompanying letter, as well as the documents Tom just shared with us here all refer to the fact that Merion acquired/secured 117 acres, yet that Land Plan is drawn generously to 124 acres, and is shown with a curvilinear road flowing north to south along the entire length of the Johnson Farm's western boundary, as one would expect, because all of the other boundaries for the golf course simply occupy historic borders that don't touch on HDC Land, or have fixed boundaries such as Ardmore Avenue.

That tells me clearly a few things;

1) The western boundary wasn't settled for golf at that time.

2) The curvilinear road was an HDC idea for aesthetic and real estate value, just like the parallel road within the real estate component that was constructed as planned.   (What if, for instance, the Merion club routed holes 14 and 15 in a dead straight south to north direction...does anyone here really believe that Golf House Road would then be a straight road??!)

3) Richard Francis did NOT have his idea to acquire land that is 130x190 by this time or the map would have reflected it.   Instead, the map in that area is 100x310, not even close.

4) HDC was not "pinning in" Merion to buy some configuration where land width for the holes was unsuitable for golf.   They simply drew a freaking curved road up through the Johnson Farm.   Beyond that, they drew it up in a way that gave Merion SEVEN MORE ACRES than they had secured, almost certainly to simply reflect the fact that as Cuyler said, "lines can be drawn subsequently".   What's more, the land measured 100 yards wide at the base of that triangle and as Jim Sullivan pointed out previously, that is enough to fit in two holes almost anywhere else on the course.

5) Believing that Francis had his idea prior to this map means he...a surveyor and engineer...supposedly out there in the latter half of 1910 with levels and transits...had to do it twice because he screwed it up the first time.   One would have to believe he somehow traded some land down below for that 100x310 triangle, only to then months later realize he needed to make it wider, and went back to the drawing board to another 30 yards of width and foreshortened it by 120 yards.

6) Believing that Francis had his idea prior to this map means he...a surveyor and engineer...would have had his own maps he created through long hours in the field scrapped, and not used for the mailing to the Merion membership, only to be supplanted by a map drawn by Pugh & Hubbard, who evidently were working at the same time as Francis, mapping out the exact same area.

7) Believing that Francis had his idea prior to this map means that Merion Cricket Club would have neglected to include that incredible routing they were all working on at that time in any of the maps or literature they provided to their eager membership, who had to be wondering as we all would what the golf course would look like.    Instead, they fed them a picture of a blank green field.

Believing that Francis had his idea prior to this map means that at the time all the HDC owned was 140 acres of the Johnson Farm (July 1910), of which 119 acres were viable for golf, they would have summarily, arbitrarily, and capriciously chopped off the top 10.5 acres, reducing it to 108.5 acres, when Merion at that time said they needed 120, and at the time HDC themselves said all housing adjacent to the golf course would be built facing it.

[JESII]

I'm sure glad speculation is a thing of the past...

[JESII]

Jim - You got me thinking - I wonder what historical tidbits could be discovered if one were to pick any other of the Great courses at random from about the same time.  Even focusing solely on the way clubs went about acquiring land is fascinating.

I'd also love to compare and contrast the North American experience with the GB&I experience in the acquisition and initial design areas.  But that's another topic for another thread...

Dan,

I hope what I said didn't offend anyone, just stating my own interests.  The land acquisition period is what really became interesting to me about Merion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()