News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

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


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1275 on: September 03, 2010, 02:38:33 PM »
1. According to Bryan's measure, not mine, that "sliver shown on the Nov 15, 1910 plan" was 115 yards wide at the location of the 15th green.    Surely 115 yards wide was wide enough for a tee and a green built in 1910, was it not?  So this idea that they were boxed in by an approximate line up in the corner doesn't wash with me.  

2.  Francis worked for a construction company, building buildings, I think he probably understood the difference between an approximate, imaginary boundary and an real one.   To assume Merion couldn't tell the difference between an approximate boundary and a real boundary seems beyond speculation.  Jeff, no disrespect to your young associates, but this seems a bit much.  

3.  This theory doesn't explain why the land used for the fine homes along ardmore avenue was excluded on the Nov. 1910 map or why land at the location of the 15th green and 16th tee is included, or why Evan's letter indicates that Merion would buy a parcel of land measuring 117 acres.   Why is it again that we've never been told what this parcel was?

3.  Whatever Jeff's practices are today, the best practice of the time was to find your golf course before you bought the land.  That is what M&W did at NGLA and that is what Merion brought M&W to Merion to do as well-- to make sure a first class golf course could be built upon the land  before they purchased the land. Merion could not have come up with a course which fit so perfectly and tightly on their parcel without having found the course first and shaping their purchase around their course.  


Jeff, I am still interested in your responses to my questions above.  Thanks.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1276 on: September 03, 2010, 06:05:14 PM »
David,

While I feel that Mike and Tom continuously using the Map's Triangle dimensions of 310X100 against my argument on the date was a red herring, I've always been curious; if our theory on the timing of the swap is correct (pre-November 10, 1910), why wouldn't they (MCC and/or HDC) have drawn the "approximate road" in a more similar manner to the resulting road? They would have known they weren't going up all 300 yards...why not show something at least a little closer to what it became? Leave the "approximate" tag on it but remove the possibility of someone thinking they could buy the lot cornering College Ave and be on the golf course...

I still think this stuff was going on in 1910 because I think Lloyd geared it that way, well in advance.



Jeff,

Would your young associates be able to route and re-route several courses in the snow in such short order? I have no idea how long this takes...Tom Paul tells me his pet project here locally took him 2 years to route and he had the guidance of a professional.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1277 on: September 03, 2010, 06:39:38 PM »
With all due respect to Bryan Izatt for his help and objectivity, if the bottom of the triangle measured more even 100 yards I'd be very surprised.

Also, the land containing fine homes on Golf House Road was not excluded on the Land Plan, not by a long shot.

It was a gently curving road drawn through the length of the Johnson Farm to approximate 1) The desire to have such a road as the border between golf and real esates, exactly the same as the parallel road drawn within the real estate section (note...EVERY rode built on the real estate side was gently curving) , and 2) to approximate about where they thought 117 acres of the golf course might fall along the only uncertain boundary of the entire land transaction..




« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 06:42:52 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1278 on: September 03, 2010, 07:06:22 PM »
"While I feel that Mike and Tom continuously using the Map's Triangle dimensions of 310X100 against my argument on the date was a red herring, I've always been curious; if our theory on the timing of the swap is correct (pre-November 10, 1910), why wouldn't they (MCC and/or HDC) have drawn the "approximate road" in a more similar manner to the resulting road? They would have known they weren't going up all 300 yards...why not show something at least a little closer to what it became? Leave the "approximate" tag on it but remove the possibility of someone thinking they could buy the lot cornering College Ave and be on the golf course..."



Sully:

Well precisely. That has ALWAYS been one of our primary reasons why we just don't think this theory that the entire triangle was created by Francis OR particularly by Francis before Nov. 10, 1910 makes much sense but it is by no means the only reason. There are others.

It's not a matter of someone THINKING they could buy a lot cornering on College Ave and be on the golf course. Someone did exactly that and it's a rather large lot. The front of the house looks right down #15 and #16 and today that place is owned by good friends of mine. The reason they look right down #15 and #16 is the road swings sharply west right below their property and passed their front driveway. That would not have been possible if the road's direction in that area was what was on that Nov. 15, 1910 Land Plan.

Furthermore, the base of that triangle is probably a good 150 yards from the 15th green. The only fixed boundary of the old Johnson farm on that triangle was the existing border with the Haverford School property and the McFadden place in 1910.

The only real red herring I can see in this entire subject is the scenario that that was an existing rectangle that was not considered for golf before Francis' land swap fix.

To get another good take on the real difference between the way that road appeared on that Nov. 1910 Land Plan and the way it actually got build after the Francis land swap fix is on that Nov. 1910 land plan the width between the corner of the McFadden property and that "approximate road" to the west is probably 50+ yards; today it is no more than the width of the easement of Golf House Road---eg about 10-11 yards! This is a case where the best way to tell is not to try to measure those old maps but just go right there and look at it. The remarkable difference is when I realized what really did happen back then when I drove down that stretch of the road well over a year ago. Just one more good reason why if anyone really wants to understand Merion and its history it's pretty imperative they go to Merion and study it very carefully as we have been now for many years!

« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 07:18:54 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1279 on: September 03, 2010, 07:16:46 PM »
Tom,

The rectangle theory is not a red herring, it's a suggested initial offering from HDC. One which does not preclude 4 acres from golf course use on an already very tight purchase. Buying the triangle from the map resulted in buying 4 acres of unusable land...as I've said for a very long time, the primary error in your theory of swapping back and forth multiple parcels up and doen Golf House Road is that it requires Golf House Road to have been a fixed boudary line prior to the swap...which I think the word "approximate" sort of eliminates...


Mike,

What are you assuming the numbers on that scale are? 50 - 100 - 150 - 200?

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1280 on: September 03, 2010, 07:17:56 PM »
Jim,

The numbers on the scale are 200, 400, 600, 800 feet.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1281 on: September 03, 2010, 07:27:51 PM »
Thanks Mike.



Tom,

How many acres is that lot? How large were the individual lots?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1282 on: September 03, 2010, 08:06:42 PM »
Here we go again.  Conveniently forgetting that he has already acknowledged Bryan's Izzat's measure and methodology, Mike is trying to reinvent the facts with yet another primitive cut-and-paste con job.   It is their way.  When the facts don't support the desired answer, just change the facts.

The road was marked APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE ROAD, ande even going by the APPROXIMATE LOCATION, there was plenty of room - 115 yards according to Bryan -  for a green and a tee!   Even if we accepted Mike's disingenuous measures (and we shouldn't) there is enough room for a tee and green. 
_______________________________________________________________________________


David,
While I feel that Mike and Tom continuously using the Map's Triangle dimensions of 310X100 against my argument on the date was a red herring, I've always been curious; if our theory on the timing of the swap is correct (pre-November 10, 1910), why wouldn't they (MCC and/or HDC) have drawn the "approximate road" in a more similar manner to the resulting road? They would have known they weren't going up all 300 yards...why not show something at least a little closer to what it became? Leave the "approximate" tag on it but remove the possibility of someone thinking they could buy the lot cornering College Ave and be on the golf course...

I agree that it is a red herring, but would add that this is about all they've got.  This is very good indication of just how weak their position really is.   It doesn't even make sense, does it?  The shape created by the APPROXIMATE ROAD is too wide at the top, so therefore we must ignore what Francis said.   If there is logic in there I don't see it.

I haven't gone back and checked the property records, but if I recall correctly Merion did purchased land all the way up to the top of the Johnson Farm.  I believe they own at least 1/2 the road all the way up to the College Avenue, all three hundred ten (310) yards or whatever it was.  But at some point the narrowing lot would have become worthless for golf, and it was wisely narrowed to a minimum for the road (although I'll bet if they had it they'd have a tee butt against College Ave now!) 

I don't know for sure the exact reason the top part hadn't already been narrowed by November 1910.  Short answer is, though, is probably that the location of the road was Approximate and the map illustrative, not exact.  While the map expresses the general deal, it does not provide the exact dimensions.  As we've discussed, Merion may have had the he ability to tweak the western border a few yards here and there even after 1910, so as to narrowly the land bought to the golf course, and they may not have done this yet.  (Remember, the 190x130 yard measure is where they finally ended up, they may not have known exactly how much land they needed up there yet.)

Also, recall that even TEPaul agrees that this map was likely drawn by HDC, and they may not have known exactly how Merion planned to use the land they had traded for. 

Also, at the time the map was drawn, neither Merion or HDC may have yet considered that leaving a space between the road and the existing border would have left Haverford College with no reasonable access to their property, a real estate practice generally frowned upon.  In other words, it is probably not a coincidence that Golf House Road ended up running along that property line until about where the Haverford College property begins, and then veers away.  (The trade with the college in 1928 enabled Merion to push the tee back further back, but they had to give Haverford access to the road and secure the right to golf over the little swath they had to give to Haverford college for access.)

On the more speculative side, it is also possible that that this Nov. 15, 1910 Map was a quick, last minute job by HDC's surveyors (or MCC's,) based on a rush by MCC to get information about the purchase out to the members.    One fact that I have always found odd is that the first article(s) about this sale appeared in the paper on Nov. 14, 1910, the day before Merion sent out the letter and information to their members.   That first article(s) (I can't remember off hand if there were one or two) had some facts about the purchase wrong and had a definite real estate bent, so it seems that someone (probably on HDC's side) may have let the cat out of the bag before Merion had even notified its membership!    Remember that the packet of Merion documents are all dated November 15, 1910.  Even Evans' letter is dated November 15, 1910, the day after the articles began to appear.   There may have been some surprised members who woke up on November 14, 1910 to read in the papers that they had just bought a large chunk of land for a golf course, and it is at least possible that this map was hastily created on the 14th and 15th, probably from an earlier land plan of HDC's.   It always struck me as odd that the map was created the same day as these Merion documents are dated. 

So that is a long answer to a question that I think we both recognize as not all that crucial.  The simplest answer, that the road was approximate, is probably the best.  But I hope you found some of the other information interesting at least.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1283 on: September 03, 2010, 08:07:47 PM »
whoops.  Duplicate.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 10:13:51 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1284 on: September 03, 2010, 08:52:46 PM »
David,

Measure it yourself if you don't believe me.

Thanks.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1285 on: September 03, 2010, 09:33:37 PM »
Sheesh...

When someone has to type that long to answer a question...

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1286 on: September 03, 2010, 09:38:56 PM »
The triangle on the map means something, it means nothing, it means something, it means nothing, it means something...

My lord, do you even try to follow your own logic?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1287 on: September 03, 2010, 09:49:14 PM »

As to why they were stuck until April 6, 1911 on the routing....well speculation but


Why do you say they were stuck on a routing?

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1288 on: September 03, 2010, 09:57:36 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Why do you think David summarily dismisses the Nov 1910 article that says Barker is going to design the course?

You know my reasons, because I believe the vast majority of evidence suggests the routing wasn't done until April 1911, but since David believes it happened in 1910, why do you think he so cavalierly dismisses what you see as proof of Barker's heavy involvement?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 09:06:07 AM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1289 on: September 03, 2010, 10:00:11 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Why do you think David summarily dismisses the Mov 1910 article that says Barker is going to design the course?

You know my reasons, because I believe the vast majority of evidence suggests the routing wasn't done until April 1911, but since David believes it happened in 1910, why do you think he so cavalierly dismisses what you see as proof of Barker's heavy involvement?

Nice try.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1290 on: September 03, 2010, 10:07:09 PM »
Tom,

Deny it all you like, but basically the entire essay says the work Barker did was superseded by M+W.

How can that be if Barker came back right after the property was purchased?

David just said there were a bunch of factual errors in the Nov 14th article, and clearly implies that reports of Barker's return were simply bogus, yet that is the report you hang your entire theory on.

Frankly, I think you believe this land plan swap is a bunch of crap, and are probably closer to a real understanding of the timeline and players than you'd admit here.

But, you are also smart enough to realize BS when you see it, which is why I give you credit cuz I know you're not buying that load of manure either, no matter what you'll admit here!  ;)
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 09:05:48 AM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1291 on: September 03, 2010, 10:13:08 PM »
Mike
If David Moriarty told you he discovered a document that said CB Macdonald created five separate designs for MCC before they collectively arrived at a final routing would you accept his word without proof?

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1292 on: September 03, 2010, 10:33:52 PM »
"Tom,
The rectangle theory is not a red herring, it's a suggested initial offering from HDC. One which does not preclude 4 acres from golf course use on an already very tight purchase. Buying the triangle from the map resulted in buying 4 acres of unusable land...as I've said for a very long time, the primary error in your theory of swapping back and forth multiple parcels up and doen Golf House Road is that it requires Golf House Road to have been a fixed boudary line prior to the swap...which I think the word "approximate" sort of eliminates..."



Sully:

In my opinion, and for a very long time, the "approximate road" on the Nov, 1910 Land Plan meant the road was not built and the routing of the course wasn't done either when that Nov. 1910 Land Plan was done, therefore the road was labeled "approximate" on that Nov. 15, 1910 Land Plan.

As for your "decapitated" rectanlge theory I have not seen a a single bit of evidece from that time to suggest that.





DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1293 on: September 03, 2010, 10:57:58 PM »
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel, Mike.  

First you try to rewrite facts you've already conceded.  

Now you are making stuff up to try to get TomM and I battling.  I didn't "summarily dismiss" anything in those November 1910 reports.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1294 on: September 03, 2010, 11:06:37 PM »

As to why they were stuck until April 6, 1911 on the routing....well speculation but


Why do you say they were stuck on a routing?

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1295 on: September 03, 2010, 11:25:41 PM »
"I don't know for sure the exact reason the top part hadn't already been narrowed by November 1910.  Short answer is, though, is probably that the location of the road was Approximate and the map illustrative, not exact.  While the map expresses the general deal, it does not provide the exact dimensions.  As we've discussed, Merion may have had the he ability to tweak the western border a few yards here and there even after 1910, so as to narrowly the land bought to the golf course, and they may not have done this yet.  (Remember, the 190x130 yard measure is where they finally ended up, they may not have known exactly how much land they needed up there yet.)"



The top part of that triangle on the Nov. 15, 1910 Land Plan hadn't been narrowed by November 1910 because the Wilson Committee had not yet begun routing and designing the golf course. That would not begin until perhaps up to a month after Lloyd bought 161 acres (the entire Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate) on Dec. 19, 1910.

And yes, the land of the Johnson Farm to the west of that approximate road was adjustable because Lloyd owned it all and that is precisely why he put himself in the position of personally owning it for seven months.  MCC lawyer T. DeWitt Cuyler informed presidient Evans of this and the exact reason for it (so Lloyd could adust boundaries for the course) on Dec. 23, 1910.









« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 11:49:44 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1296 on: September 04, 2010, 12:27:03 AM »
"1. According to Bryan's measure, not mine, that "sliver shown on the Nov 15, 1910 plan" was 115 yards wide at the location of the 15th green.    Surely 115 yards wide was wide enough for a tee and a green built in 1910, was it not?  So this idea that they were boxed in by an approximate line up in the corner doesn't wash with me."


David Moriarty:

I think this has been explained to you about half a dozen times already over the last year or so but you still don't seem to understand it.

If you measure from Golf House Road directly across the 15th green and straight to the old boundary of the Johnson Farm and Haverford College land it's a bit more than 90 yards wide.

The dimension we've been discussing as the bottom of the triangle that some have said was 100 yards wide on that Nov 1910 Land Plan, or 115 yards as measured by Bryan Izatt on that Nov 1910 Land Plan or 130 yards as mentioned by Francis in his 1950 article and today a bit more than 130 yards wide due to a land exchange with Haverford College and MCC in 128 is approximately 140 yards from the 15th green!!

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1297 on: September 04, 2010, 01:01:42 AM »
"3.  Whatever Jeff's practices are today, the best practice of the time was to find your golf course before you bought the land."


That is just another remark by the author of "The Missing Faces of Merion" that seems to be offered as a given (a fact) that has no factual support. He does that far too often for some odd reason.

One course that was certainly bought before a routing was done was Pine Valley and since it's been listed as the #1 course in America and the world it can certainly be considered a good example of some "best practice" where the land was bought before a routing was done.

Another statement, assumption, premise, conclusion stated as a given by Moriarty, and frankly the fundamental premise of his essay, was that since Wilson called himself a novice before he did the Merion East project with his committee that it's a given he and his committeemen were incapable of doing the routing and design of Merion East-----and THEREFORE, he and his committeemen were only the constructors of Merion East to someone else's plan----eg Macdonald in Moriarty's opinion, and HH Barker in MacWood's opinion.

That is not a given at all for all kinds of reasons. If someone has never done a routing and design before it most certainly is not a given they are incapable of doing one and even a very good one.


The other given Moriarty continuously foists on this discussion and has for over a year and did again today, that is also a major premise and conclusion of his essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" is that if we do not accept his interpretation (that it was Francis who created that triangle on that Nov 1910 Land Plan out of a pre-existing rectangle) of what Francis meant by that 130X190 yard triangle in his 1950 article then we are essentially calling Francis a liar.

Even if he'd apparently like everyone to think so Moriarty's interpretation of what Francis meant to say when he mentioned that 130X190 yard triangle and that it was him who created a triangle out of an exising rectangle is most certainly not the only interpretation of what Francis meant to say in that 1950 article.

Matter of fact, in one post on this thread Moriarty said Francis mentioned something about a rectangle in his article. Francis said nothing of the kind and he never mentioned the word rectangle in his 1950 article. Apparently the reason Moriarty said Francis mentioned a rectangle is because Moriarty wants everyone to take it as a GIVEN that his interpretation of what Francis said in his 1950 article is the only possible interpretation there can be.

Moriarty should delete that remark (that Francis wrote or even implied an existing rectangle in his 1950 article) from that post that he appears to want to pass off as a given.

But what really is a given is that Moriarty was aware of far less than the accessible research evidence at Merion GC and MCC when he wrote that article.

Just so we can begin to understand how that lack of research information may've influenced his analysis of this subject, I would recommend that the author of the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion," supply a detailed list of what we have now that he DID NOT have before he wrote that essay in his next post!

Will he supply a list of what qw have now that he did not have and if he won't then why would that be? If anyone does not think that's relevent I would love to hear why they don't think it is.

« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 01:14:56 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1298 on: September 04, 2010, 01:16:13 AM »
As I said, I am not interested in rehashing this stuff with Mike or TEPaul.    It has all been covered before.  Their opinions are contrary to the facts as I understand them.  

If you guys ever come up with anything relevant let me know.   A good start would be coming clean with the documents referenced in the Evans letter, including the Nov. 10, HDC offer and the Lloyd letter(s) confirming just what tract Merion agreed to buy in November 1910.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 01:18:27 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1299 on: September 04, 2010, 01:22:20 AM »
"As I said, I am not interested in rehashing this stuff with Mike or TEPaul."

Post #1248, #1254 and #1255 would most certainly contradict THAT!