[DMoriarty]

Jeff, I really do appreciate your willingness to admit that my theory is logical, and that it possibly could have happened that way.   I know around here even that admission is heresy.  However, I hate to nitpick, but you still seem to be avoiding that which I was hoping  you would address; the illogic of thinking that these savvy businessmen would have unnecessarily boxed themselves in without knowing whether a golf course would fit into the property!

Here again is what we are being asked to believe:
-- In November 1910 - almost six months after CBM wrote he would need a contour map to see if the course would fit - Merion agreed to buy 117 acres even though they hadn't even bothered to follow up with CBM or to come up with their own workable routing on their own.  
-- No routing - not even a rough one - was necessary because (while most of the border locked MCC in place) MCC had wiggle room to tweak the west border above Ardmore Avenue a few yards here or there.  

Without a routing in place how could they know that this single accommodation would give them enough flexibility to guarantee that their yet-to-be-determined routing would work at all, much less give them a first class course?  

When you write about them having to determine whether two or four holes would fit on the other side, and how to deal with the quarry and clubhouse, these things sure sound like routing considerations to me, and the considerations of a golf course designer!   Yet we are asked to believe that these sound businessmen never even bothered to consider how the holes might fit.   Aren't these things that reasonable men would have considered before they agreed to purchase the property?   Especially when they had plenty of time and opportunity to do it and when someone like CBM had already told them that he'd need to see how the course fit on a topo map before he could know how it would work.  

Despite my experiences with some from Philadelphia, I find it extremely unlikely that these great men were so arrogant and pigheaded as to ignore the advice of CBM and not bother to at least roughly fit the holes before locking themselves in the way they did.

  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Actually, CBM never told them "he'd have to see how the course fit on a topo map...".  

He said; (caps mine)

The most difficult problem YOU have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that IT CAN BE DONE, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

More specifically;

We don't really know what land Macdonald specifically looked at in June 1910, do we?    At the time, we know that HDC was offering "100 acres or whatever will be needed for the golf course", and we know the only property they owned was the Johnson Farm.   How do we know Macdonald's letter wasn't reflecting only seeing the 100 acres that you theorize the property was subdivided into at that point?

Could that be the reason Macdonald advised on only a 6,000 yard course for Merion?

We also know that Merion came back and asked for 120 acres at that time, possibly seeking something longer.

We also know that originally Macdonald thought he could design NGLA using only 110 of 200 acres he purchased, even with the large swampy areas on that property as opposed to Merion's mostly open farmland.


Jeff,

Hopefully, the word "untimely" won't be part of that epitaph.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim and David,

Here is the rub:

I READ documents saying they were working on it in 1911 and would start in December when they secured the land.

You THINK they did something else, based on logical arguments or other assumptions, word parsing, etc.

See the difference?

It isn't that I don't see your point, but I do recall that part of the 115 page thread was that some of us (all of us depending on who was assessing) were using 2007 goggles to view a 1910 event.  Maybe routing on a gently rolling piece of ground wasn't viewed as all that difficult 100 years ago.  After all, Bendelow, Old Tom Morris, and others had been doing one day routings for many, many years.   And, CBM told them it could be done, and he was gospel, no?

Again, just a guess, but only made to counter your suppositions to the contraray as to what "they must have done" on both your parts.

So, yeah, if you look at the record as it is written, and look at the context of 1910 a certain way, yeah, I can believe that they didn't have a routing in place, even if you think it was more logical than they did.

Of course, that is even a separate question as to when the triangle came to be.  I can see how you connect the dots simply by saying the triangle existed on the Nov map, so it must have been created before then.  But, I can also see it as being a result of the land and street planners needing to match an intersection at College Ave and using curved roads.  Either way, that triangle was not really fully thought out in November of 1915 from either sides point of view.

[DMoriarty]

Jim and David,

Here is the rub:

I READ documents saying they were working on it in 1911 and would start in December when they secured the land.

We read the same document, or at least I did.   And like the Francis document, you spin it in a way that takes your understanding in the opposite direction as the words suggest.  In Francis' case, you dismiss his description as hyperbole and dramatic license.  In the case of the Evans later, you assume a "hopefully" a typo existed where none likely existed and also write off any ambiguity as written by one who likely didn't know the proper way to describe designing a golf course?   Well that is what is at issue here, and it seems a bit much to just assume that he meant what you want him to mean even though he didn't say what you read him as saying.    If he didn't know how to describe it, then how can you be so sure that he didn't mean to lay it out on the ground according to their plan? 

Also, Jeff, you ignore that this was an acceptance of an offer, and as such he was accepting the conditions that HDC had imposed on them, and one of these conditions was that time was of the essence.   That is what he is getting at. They would get it done quickly.  That is what they agreed to in order to get this great deal from HDC.   

[Mike Cirba]

How can you "lay off" a golf links?   

How can you "lay off" a golf links and then subsequently "put (it) in shape" a golf links?   

Aren't we getting a bit...umm...

Oh Nevermind!!   

[Jeff Fortson]

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Only you say I ignored something. I know exactly what it was.  I spun nothing, and admitted I can see ways where you come to your conclusion.  In reverse, you can only spiel that I am spinning something.  It is your M.O., along with not accepting a simple typo explanation (which is very likely, they happen every day) in favor of an interpretation that includes words like "it seems a bit much to just assume that he meant what you want him to mean even though he didn't say what you read him as saying". 

Huh?  I quoted him in this instance.  He said what he said, but your argument (again) depends on him not saying what he said, but saying what you say he said.  To create that deflection you need to focus on the typo or vague words, and ignore the most basic "we will proceed when we have the land" part, which is hard to argue.

Please, other than your interpretation of Francis document, show me a document that places Francis out on the scene prior to being appointed to the committee.  EVEN IF we count your understanding of things as one credible source, wouldn't most researchers ask for a secondary source to back things up?

We can leave the rest of it alone, because my basic point is we aren't going to agree and we will never know.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

A typo is a clerical error.   Using improper terminology because of a lack of understanding or knowledge is not a typo.  

You wrote that his words contain a typo and/or are the "words of someone who had never even thought what phrasing is appropriate for golf course design and building."  Yet you read this same statement as precluding the possibility that Merion had even bothered to come up with a rough routing?  Huh?   If Evans doesn't know or use the appropriate phrasing, then what are you looking at to find your meaning?

What in that statement precludes the existence of an earlier rough routing? What in his statement indicates that they hadn't even considered the location of the golf holes?

I am trying to understand your meaning, but I see you taking an extremely vague and ambiguous and almost comically worded statement as some sort of conclusive proof of what what MCC had and had not done up to that point.  And the frustrating part for me is that when you do this, you claim that we are the ones who are speculating, and you are the one relying on the documents.  
--  Writing off the validity of the Francis statement is pure speculation on your part.
--  Relying on this Evans statement as precluding a rough routing (or a detailed one for that matter) is purely speculative on your part.

Neither are relying on anything  close to a literal reading of the documents!

_____________________________________________

Other than the francis statement?  I would no sooner throw out the Francis statement as the Whigham statement or the Hugh Wilson statement.  Of course these statements have been disregarded just like you are doing with the Francis statement; Whigham's statement was dismissed because he was supposedly grief stricken,  Hugh Wilson's praise of CBM has been disregarded as just being polite, and Lesley's praise dismissed for the same reason.

There sure seems to be an unwillingness to take literally the words of anyone who says anything that might challenge the Legend.   Yet take a comically confused and ambiguous statement like Evans' and that is treated as a literal and  proclamation of a fact  that he obviously isn't even addressing.   Go figure.  

So I will not be throwing out the Francis statement.  He was there.  And he was not the kind of guy to not understand the importance of details.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

In the case of Evans, mine is a very literal translation.  He said they would "proceed" to lay out (off) a golf course.  If you are correct, he would would have said "continued to lay out "off" a golf course if he was being literal.

I NEVER discounted the Francis statement.  NEVER.  I believe everything about it, including the Quarrymen blasting to build the 16th green.  I do wonder if it was overly dramatic in its written form but never said it wasn't true.  I did say that IF there was that big a rush, it probably occurred either a few nights before the Nov 15 plan was presented (your theory) or sometime during construction (because of the blasting) to avoid going to the expense of working in the wrong place for the new plan.

As to the Francis statement I didn't ask you to throw it out. I never said he didn't undertand details.  The fact remains that Francis did NOT put a time frame on his midnight ride.  

So, I asked you to corroborate it with some other written fact from the era to strengthen your point.  We know he was there in January (and that comittee was probably formed in December and the January report was their first one after about a month of work) but there are simply no documents that say he was there before that have been produced here, have there?

That is in fact, NOTHING like dismissing the Whigham statement.  And yes, since you are the one who is disputing the seemingly clear meaning regardint time frame and process that the few documents availalbe show, and you were the one publishing a supposedly scholarly piece, then yes, I think it is your responsibility to do so.

You really have deflection down to an art form.  Faulty and double negative logic are also in your repetoire.  You have again assumed that the Evans statement is vague and comical, seemingly coming from a real dufus, but in earlier posts, you praise these guys as saavy.  I mean, every third post you twist yourself around just, it seems to make an argument. 

You tell me I don't know the difference between a typo and a vague statement.  Thanks, I really, really, didn't know the difference.  I will refrain from telling you the meaning of and/or.   I really do think you know, but just like to argue about Merion.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

You still haven't explained how the Evans statement can be both the ambiguous words of someone who apparently didn't understand the topic about which he was discussing as well as a specific statement about what Merion had and had not done up to that point.

Even if he had said lay out, you are reading in your 2010 understanding of that statement.   These guys often spoke of planning the layout as different from laying out the course.  So begin laying out did not mean that they hadn't already planned.   

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

David will not even answer direct questions, so it's really pointless, isn't it?

Like I said...when the evidence is not on your side, pound the table, blame the opposition, curse your luck, deflect, divert, and do anything but admit the truth.

We're down to picking the last scraps and slivers of meat off the brittle bones of a fragile theory, and you're wasting your time.

I think there are interesting points to discover and even debate about the Merion course origins, but as I mentioned, they all take place in 1911 and beyond.

This insistence that some routed golf course existed in 1910 is a dry hole without a shred of any factual evidence to support it.

Of course, I said that about 50 pages ago, but....


We have now reached a new low on the Merion threads where we're actually having a discussion about an obvious typo, when there isn't a frigging chance in a billion that Evans meant anything other than "lay out".  

It's a smokescreen to hide the fact that a semi-reasonable theory based on the evidence he had available has been swept into the dustbin of history by the evidence that has surfaced since it was published.

You'll just never get him to admit it though.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Mike is right.  You are hopeless to discuss things with, although I will credit you with staying relatively civil in tone despite the thrashing you take here.....but you (or at least this topic) is hopeless to discuss.

I hate to sound rude, but I really do get exasperated at you putting ever so slightly different words in my mouth.  Evans made a typo, or his secretary did and he either failed to sign his own letter, failed to catch it, or didn't have time to have it retyped and let it go.  While no one can be certain of which, I place the probability of one of those scenarios at 99% or higher.

As you said in an earlier post, (also telling me I didn't know what the letter was) this was a letter of acceptance of the HDC offer and an acknowedgement of what they were obligated to do (build a course)  No where did I say he didn't understand the primary topic of the letter - the acceptance of a business deal.  I suggested the other 1% possibility that he simply didn't know the proper term for golf course design which was NOT the subject of the letter, nor his primary responsibility since he was never named to the construction committee.  He was Prez.

But, you use a letter confirming a land transaction as some sort of example of how golf guys may (I don't recall your point about those terms ever having been widely accepted here or anywhere either) used a certain term.  So, you are using a bad and unrelated example to further a bad and useless word play theory that was ONLY forwarded by you to change the basic history of MCC as others construct it. 

To me, you appear to be so far removed from "finding the truth" that it would be easier for you to see a gnat's ass at Merion from your California home.  And, I see no reason why you will change, or this will ever stop, since your logic is poorly wired.

But, since I promised to be civil, and you have done a remarkable job of that, I will close by saying, other than that, I hope you have a GREAT day!  It really is nothing personal, its just a collosus waste of time until and unless we find some other documents and/or (oh, oh, there is that phrase again) we really want to discuss the Merion issues, find truth, and possibly, admit we may be wrong about some things. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just got back from a long walk with my Corgi.  I got to thinking about TePaul's post on fallacious logic used by certain folks here.  I got chuckling as I thought of the typical logic diagrams:

I am walking my dog
She dissapears behind a truck
I don't see a dog
She must be a cat.

Sound familiar?

How about:

Evans says "we will proceed when we have the land"
Evans does NOT say "we have not done any work yet on routing" (the old double negative)
Therefore, we cannot exclude work on routing
Therefore, we must conclude routing took place
And, by saying routing took place in 1911, we must conclude that it took place in 1910.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And these corrollaries:

Francis doesn't tell us when he had the land swap idea
The routing proceeded before they had the land
Francis doesn't know when he had the idea
He had the idea before Nov 10, 1910

And:

The Evans document is wrong because there is a typo
All Merion documents are wrong
As such, when a Merion document proclaims "X" it always means "Y"

David,

As you know, I think your triangle theory is on better, if not completely proven ground.  If it looks like a triangle in 1910, maybe it was a triangle in 1910 and not a rectangle.  There are some ideas to flesh out there, but it is a reasonable premise, even if not proven conclusively.

But, there have been just enough of the debate about things like the meaning of lay off to make me think your logic tree is hilariously similar to those examples above.  I would need a real logic expert to deconstruct those and make them either truer or funnier, but when TePaul mentioned fallacious logic, it gave me just enough impetus to flesh out those instances when I got frustrated with you.  Again, its not personal, but I simply had a vague sense that something was terribly wrong with some of your argument (and I know there are far too many of them, some conflicting).  Those simple logic constructions (which I happened to come across in some other reading last night) sort of summed up my frustrations.

Cheers and good night.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Yep...yep...yep.

Interesting topic to discuss, pointless to continue.

I feel your pain.

[Jeff_Brauer]

No pain, just having fun with it.  I can actually see a logic tree thread on other hot topics around here....

Its a Doak Course.....

You fill in the blanks!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Oh this could be fun...

Its a Doak Course.....
Most Doak Courses are Great....
I want Doak to design every course I play
Every course I play is great........

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

There goes the civil debate, again.  I suppose that is my fault.  I did become frustrated above and perhaps I let that frustration show in my posts, and also put words in your mouth. I apologize on both counts.  I assure that there was nothing nefarious intended. I apparently didn't understand what you meant. In fact I am not sure I do now.  But rather than try to put words in your mouth, or to address the off-topic editorial comments about what you dislike about me, I'll try to stick to my own words and views regarding this Evans letter.

1.   I do not believe that "lay off" was a typo.  While it may seem strange to us, the phrase "lay off" was sometimes used in the context of creating golf courses.  It seems to have been  synonymous with "lay out" (as the phrase was used then) and generally meant to mark off the course on the ground.   In fact, as compared to how we sometimes use lay out (to plan) now, "lay off" may have more in common with the phrase "mark off," as in 'Before they began the game, the kids carefully marked off the playing field by scraping lines in the dirt.'   While "lay off" seems gone from the language in that sense, we see a similar structure and meaning with "pace off," "measure off," and 'mark off."

Here are a few examples of how "to lay off" was sometimes used:

From the Daily Record, April 14, 1911 (Greensboro NC.)
EXPERT SAYS ITS FINE.
He Comes to Lay Off Golf Course for the Country Club.

John Peacock, the well known golfer and golf-course expert, who has been spending the winter months in Pinehurst, is in the city and will remain here for several days.  He came here for the purposes of laying off the golf links on club property.  Mr. Peacock is an expert in country clubs as well as golfing and he has declared that the location of the home of Greensboro's club is little short of ideal and that an excellent golf course can be laid off on it having many advantageous features. . . . .
_____________________________________________

The next day the Charlotte Observer reported this as well, adding that "Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds of a number of golfing clubs of importance . . ."
______________________________________________

From the Columbus (Ga.) Daily Enquirer Dec. 21, 1909:
WILL MAKE IDEAL GOLF COURSE, SAYS EXPERT
Work of Laying off Golf Links at Country Club Begins This Week.

Conditions at the grounds of the Country Club of Columbus are simply idea for the game of golf, is the verdict of Mr. Nicol Thompson of Birmingham, who came to the city yesterday for the purpose of supervising the laying off of the golf course there . . .
. . . Mr. Thompson [a scottish pro], on account of his practical knowledge of the subject, has been engaged to lay off a number of courses in the south . . .
"'Mr. Thompson has taken the preliminary measurements for the  . . . course . . . The first work on the grounds will begin tomorrow and Mr. Thompson will visit the city at intervals to inspect and supervise . . . .
_________________________________________________________

Morning Star (Rockfor, Ill.) April 7, 1900.  
TO HAVE FINE GROUNDS
EXPERT LAYS OUT THE LINKS
. . .
Herbert Tweedie, a golf expert from Chicago, was in the city yesterday to lay off the grounds for golf.  He visited the place . . . state that he had seldom seen . . . enthusiastic . . excellent links.  
. . . His long experience makes him able to lay off a course that is excellent for all classes of players.  The club decided to place 9 holes this season . . . increase to eighteen . . .
[Article goes on to describe the first 9 holes.]
___________________________________________________________________________________

2.   According to my understanding of how the term  "to lay off" was used in the context of creating golf courses, I think that when Evans' wrote ". . .  we will at once proceed to lay off, and put in shape a Golf Links" he meant that they would mark the golf course off on the ground and prepare it for play.   In other words, they would arrange the course on the grounds and built it.  

3.  Given that "to lay out" was basically synonymous with "to lay off" in this context, I would have the same opinion had Evans written that they would  "proceed to lay out and put in shape the Golf Links."   I've read hundreds of articles about the formation of these courses, and, generally, "to lay out" a golf course meant to arrange it on the ground.  Likewise regarding "to lay off" a golf course. To "plan a lay out" didn't necessarily mean the same thing as actually "laying out" a golf course.   For example, HH Barker planned a lay out for Merion East, but I don't think it is entirely accurate to say he laid out Merion East.

[If I recall correctly, long ago Mike Cirba and/or Joe Bausch indicated that they would do their own comprehensive survey of the articles and refute my thesis and my proof.  No such comprehensive survey was ever forthcoming.  Since then, I have read many more of these articles and remain convinced that "to lay out" generally meant to arrange the course on the ground.]

In short, when Evans wrote that Merion would lay off and put in shape a golf links I don't think he was commenting one way or another on any planning that Merion might or might not have done up to that point.  He was most likely just assuring HDC that MCC would get busy and get the course finished and ready for play.  

Whether or not you agree, does that make sense?

Now I hope you don't mind a few questions because I am still trying to understand your reading of Evans.

1. Do you think "proceed to lay off . . . the Golf Links" meant begin to plan the routing?  
2. Do you think that Evans is indicating that, up until this point, MCC had done no planning and no routing whatsoever?    If so, what in the statement indicates this?

As for your exercises in "logic" I realize you are trying to have fun, but some seem to be more exercises in putting words in my mouth.  For example, one of your logic examples went as follows:

Evans says "we will proceed when we have the land"
Evans does NOT say "we have not done any work yet on routing" (the old double negative)
Therefore, we cannot exclude work on routing
Therefore, we must conclude routing took place
And, by saying routing took place in 1911, we must conclude that it took place in 1910.

My point is somewhat similar to the first three lines.  I don't think the  Evans statement tells us much of anything one way or another about whether Merion had been working on a routing.

But the rest seems to be just putting words in my mouth.  I don't recall trying to use Evans to make my case.  All I am saying is that I don't think Evans bolsters your case. As for your last point, I don't even understand it, so I doubt I'd say it.  

Did MCC say that all the routing took place in 1911?   If so, then that would go a long ways toward settling these issues.

Perhaps you could identify the documents which you think establish that all of the routing took place in 1911?  Because I don't recall any such documents.

Please forgive me if the following puts words in your mouth, but just so I can get in on the fun, here is one of your puzzles . . .

Jeff lays out golf courses on paper.
Jeff thinks that golf courses have always been laid out on paper.
One hundred years ago, golf courses were laid out on the ground, not on paper.
Therefore, Jeff thinks that one hundred years ago golf courses were laid out on paper..

Of course the trick is that you apparently don't believe me when I tell you that one hundred years ago golf courses were laid out on the ground, not on paper.  

[Tom MacWood]

Nov. 15, 1910 letter responding to HDC secretary Nickolsen's Nov. 10, 1910 letter to the Board of Governors of MCC.


"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."


The series of letters from Hugh Wilson to Piper & Oakley beginning 2/1/1911 clearly indicate (IMO) there was a golf course on the ground when he first became involved. Probably only a staked out golf course, but a golf course none the less. You combine those letters with this letter and I think it is pretty clear the golf course was physically staked out sometime in December (and likely designed on paper weeks before that). This would have been prior to Wilson's involvement. The question is who routed the golf course. Macdonald or Barker would be my guess. I give Barker the slight edge because it was reported on December 1, 1910 that he was about to leave NYC on a 3-week tour in which several new courses would be "staked out." There is no record of him going to Philadelphia in December, but we do know he headed that direction.

Also a couple of years later the local golf writer Verdant Green wrote that Barker was involved in the design of three courses in Philadelphia. What three courses?

[TEPaul]

“Jeff and Jim,
Surely the two of you understood my point about Francis not necessarily being out working on the golf course, but rather looking at maps, in 1910, so I'll leave it at that.”


Here is what Francis said in his 1950 story about being out working on the land to route and design golf holes;


“Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in THE FIELD and just plain talking……”

Apparently some on here only see what they want to see and purposely ignore the rest if it doesn’t square with some point they’re trying to make.

[Tom MacWood]

The circumstantial evidence pointing to CBM routing the golf course is pretty strong too. The course as built had a number of his prototypical holes and features, and he clearly was guiding the construction process. I think it is unlikely he would not have also been involved in routing the golf course.

There is a third somewhat far fetched possibility as well, and that is Barker & CBM collaborating. On his three week tour one of Barker's destinations was a big tournament in Atlanta, it was announced prior to that CBM was entered too, although he did not play. If I'm not mistaken CBM was a prominent member at GCGC prior to the NGLA.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I think we understood that, but were referring only to the brainstorm, which occurred late at night.

David,

I appreciate the post. I'm sorry I got sidetracked with the comedic potential of the illogical logic tree while walking the dog.  I also appreciate those quotes on "laying off the golf links" which to me, means quitting for a while after shooting anywhere near 100.  Certainly, language differences over time is one legit factor in making interpretations so necessary in historical endeavors.  (I still believe it can be over done but no one knows when that occurs)

I am pretty certain that the reality of the paper vs ground debate is somewhere firmly in the middle, not the romantic version of Old Tom carrying around some stakes, at least by 1910.  CBM even mentions the need for a topo map in front of him to assess Merion's possibilities, and Wilson later refers to topographic maps, so we know they at least understood the concept of using maps for some of the work.  

Perhaps overlooked in the triangle debate is the fact that if the topo maps had been available at that time, the engineers probably would have put them on the Nov 1910 map, although of that I can not be 100% certain.  

Is it possible that a lot of things dragged for a while and then came together very, very quickly after the Dallas Estate got put in the mix in October?  They ordered topo maps, began to refine the nature of the golf property, hired the surveyors to produce the approximate map, etc?  And, of course, did some basic routing, with Francis having his brainstorm?  Given old survey techniques, it is certainly probable that it took all of the Oct to Nov time frame to finish them, and if they just missed, the map could be approximate for that reason only.

If it didn't start happening fast then, it certainly started happening fast in December. I once speculated that they took a break and started the committee after the holidays, but thinking about it now, I bet they took only a few days for Xmas and got back at it hard.

TMac,

I am running to the airport and can't type any more.  But, I am having trouble squaring the swap with anyone else doing a routing, especially in the October-December time frame but also given the CBM refinements in March and April 1911.  I will probably fall asleep dreaming about what it was like back in the day......

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
IMO there is far too much attention given to the swap....in the greater scheme of things it really was not a very important event. Focusing on it and not on the bigger picture has led many astray IMO. Especially when you consider Francis's account was written almost forty years after the fact. I can barely remember what I did yesterday much less decades ago.

My guess is the swap happened sometime in 1910 when they (CBM or Barker) were working on the routing. Being an engineer, a surveyor and member of the green committee Francis would have been useful to the golfing experts and real estate experts.

There is no mention of the swap or routing change in Wilson's letters to P&O beginning 2/1/1911. Almost immediately Wilson began analyzing the soil and conditioning the ground in preparation for seeding. If there had been some major change in the routing I'm sure it would have been mentioned because it would have required additional analysis and conditioning.

[DMoriarty]

I am pretty certain that the reality of the paper vs ground debate is somewhere firmly in the middle, not the romantic version of Old Tom carrying around some stakes, at least by 1910.  CBM even mentions the need for a topo map in front of him to assess Merion's possibilities, and Wilson later refers to topographic maps, so we know they at least understood the concept of using maps for some of the work. 

I agree with you that when it came to the planning a golf course, the reality of the paper vs. ground debate is somewhere in the middle, and not carrying around stakes.  As you note, CBM mentions the need for a topo with Merion, and Whigham described the Raynor/CBM relationship (after a certain point) as one in which Raynor was in the field and working up the plans,and CBM was not in the field working off those plans.  [That's always been a possible irony to me about the Merion debate, where CBM visited the site twice.  Given that CBM sometimes worked off a topo, I wonder if perhaps Merion got more of his onsite attention than did one or some of his own courses?]

But unfortunately I think I need to make a semantical distinction, since this issue is is after all semantics.  By my understanding of how the terms were used:
-- Planning a golf course could have been done 18 stakes on an afternoon style while the planner walks around and marks off the course on the ground, in which case it would have been done while the course was being laid out. 
-- Planning a golf course could have been done by drawing that plan on a piece of paper before anything was actually marked off on the land, like HH Barker presumably did when he came up with his proposed lay out plan for Merion.   Planning in this manner was not generally called laying out the golf course because nothing was actually laid out (or marked out, or marked off, or even laid off) on the grounds.
-- I suppose also that there could be a hybrid approach, where some aspects of the course were planned by marking off the course on the ground, and some of it planned by putting a plan on paper. 
-- But generally, laying out a golf course involved laying out (or staking out, or marking out, or marking off, or laying off) the course on the ground.   One could plan the layout on paper, but only layout the course on the ground. 

Let's say I had a small back yard garden.   
-- I could go outside in the spring, eyeball the space, and then stake out where I wanted certain types of vegetables and plant them straight away, in which case laying out my garden would have been all I had done-- I would have planned as I laid it out.
-- Or I could sit inside and draw a diagram of the space and plan, on paper, and figure out how I want to arrange my garden before I actually do so.  I could call this a lay out plan for my garden, but I would not yet have laid out my garden, because I would not have actually arranged my garden on the ground.   

I think as time went on and construction of golf courses became more elaborate, complicated and detailed, then the description of  "laying out" or "marking off" or "staking out" a golf course on the ground became less meaningful and blurred at both the planning stage and the constructing stage.  Laying out a golf course was sort of somewhere in the middle, and imprecise meaning followed. But in 1910 it generally still made sense that laying out involved arranging on the ground.

Perhaps overlooked in the triangle debate is the fact that if the topo maps had been available at that time, the engineers probably would have put them on the Nov 1910 map, although of that I can not be 100% certain. 

I don't think I've overlooked it.  I think they probably got a topo-map made straight away, and then sent it to M&W and tried to figure out a routing themselves.  But unfortunately there is no proof about this one way or another (at least no proof that is being shared.)   All we know for certain is that in June when CBM visited they apparently did not have one, and by  February 1, 1911, they apparently had one.   I've never dwelled on it in these threads because while I think it reasonable and likely that they would have had one made, I cannot prove when they actually did it.

As for the 1910 map, from the looks of it I think HDC created it, and purely for illustrative purposes, and so I don't think we can read much into the fact that it is not a topo.  But again, this is speculation on my part as well as yours.  (I may be wrong though, since who created this thing might be the only thing TEPaul and I agree on.)

Is it possible that a lot of things dragged for a while and then came together very, very quickly after the Dallas Estate got put in the mix in October?  They ordered topo maps, began to refine the nature of the golf property, hired the surveyors to produce the approximate map, etc?  And, of course, did some basic routing, with Francis having his brainstorm?  Given old survey techniques, it is certainly probable that it took all of the Oct to Nov time frame to finish them, and if they just missed, the map could be approximate for that reason only.

It is possible I guess, provided that the timing was such that the Nov. 1910 map generally reflected the Francis brainstorm.

But one clarification.   TEPaul and Mike admitted long ago that the MCC records indicate that the Dallas Estate was in play beginning in the summer 1910, either June or July.  This new timeline trying to push the Dallas Estate toward November is fishy at best.   But since the Dallas Estate deal look like it was being done on the sly, it is possible that this pushed back the date by which they could get a complete topo map created.   Again, all speculation all the way around.

If it didn't start happening fast then, it certainly started happening fast in December. I once speculated that they took a break and started the committee after the holidays, but thinking about it now, I bet they took only a few days for Xmas and got back at it hard

.

Doing what?  I am not so sure what they were doing prior to the NGLA trip.  True to his studious nature, Wilson started writing letters and trying to figure out how to do things that wouldn't be done for months.  Pursuant to CBM's advice he contacted Piper/Oakley regarding soil issues.   But  even here it is not as if things were rolling along on Merion's side. When were the soil samples actually sent?  I recall some weren't even sent until after the NGLA meetings, but I can't remember off hand whether these were the first ones.   Surely Wilson may have written other letters to other experts as well (including CBM) but we have no record of any of this so we are left to speculate.

What exactly did they get busy doing after Christmas?   Whatever it was, we have to speculate, don't we?  Because there is no proof they did anything until Wilson's February 1, 1911 letter indicating he had been in contact with CBM. 

[Mike Cirba]

[If I recall correctly, long ago Mike Cirba and/or Joe Bausch indicated that they would do their own comprehensive survey of the articles and refute my thesis and my proof.  No such comprehensive survey was ever forthcoming.  Since then, I have read many more of these articles and remain convinced that "to lay out" generally meant to arrange the course on the ground.]


Not sure which of the billion or so articles that exist where "laying out" or "to lay out", or "lay out" means planning the golf holes, but this one should do.




Apparently Merion wasn't the only club in those days where CBM did friendly consulting on courses;

[Mike Cirba]

There has been more pure, unsubstantiated speculation en masse on this thread in the last 12 hours than probably in the last 5 years combined.

Nice to see that after avoiding answering every single direct question, we're now shooting for the fences, and nice as well to see Mr. Barker's Midnight Train to Georgia back in the frey.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()