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.


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #100 on: August 09, 2010, 11:16:45 PM »
What does that have to do with the accuracy of Tolhurst's account?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #101 on: August 09, 2010, 11:19:06 PM »
Jim,

To the extent that MCCGA was the entity the used for the sale, that was 1911 and 1912, not 1909.   I can't remember when exactly they incorporated. I think I have that somewhere but don't remember where right now.    I don't really care if Tolhurst was considered meaningfully wrong or right.  I'd just like to set the record straight.

I gave a quote from an 1898 article re MCCGA above, where female members are referred to feminine members of the MCCGA.   There are other similar articles, but they aren't handy so that'll have to do.  It isn't a major issue for me, and I am not going to break my back to dig them up.

I've got nothing more to say about the substance of this bit of Tolhurst.  Those that haven't yet convinced never will be.

Before we move on though I'd like to pause and reflect upon what seems to me to be the insanity of this all, and the apparently unending deference some seem ready to give this Tolhurst book.  I mean here we have Merion's Board speaking directly and unequivocally to the issue, yet still people seem unwilling to even give fair consideration to the possibility that the Merion legend as spelled out in Tolhurst is not entirely accurate.  No offense to you Jim, or anyone else, but I feel like I am trying to argue evolution to fundamentalists.  The minds are so set from the get-go that there is no way anyone will ever be convinced of anything, not even if Merion's Board said it was so!


...And while Lloyd did ultimately step up and bridge the deal, his actions weren't necessarily purely altruistic in that that he held the land as security, had his investment in the land company to protect, and had the potential to make a lot of money if things went well.  I don't know of any such factors at the old course.  


David,

This is really close to my point, Lloyd was able to make the deal work in Ardmore, and I have a hard time believeing that if they really wanted to stay in Haverford they couldn't have come up with something creative. That's it from my perspective of the multiple motivations for the move. Money is always a better selling point than the other more superficial possibilities.

What can you give me about the early newspaper accounts of MCCGA?

It seems wholly logical to me that MCCGA, or something similar was formed to represent/facilitate the golfing membership of Merion Cricket Club. My argument about the establishment date being meaningfully accurate is that in 1909 it was the vehicle used to facilitate the whole golf course transfer process...not the committees that found and built the course, but the corporate vehicle that facilitated the deal. Whether or not it functioned as a golf committee prior to that point means virtually nothing in this context.
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 #102 on: August 09, 2010, 11:20:37 PM »
What does that have to do with the accuracy of Tolhurst's account?

I'm hoping we'll find out.  

I just saw that mention of the "area in green" illustrating the location of the 117 acres Merion secured in the November 15th, 1910 circular letter and thought folks might want to see exactly what that was referring to, so I posted the map.

The letter mentions that Merion "will buy outright the 117 acres shown on the plan in green, and marked "Golf Course"."  

Since they didn't later buy those exact 117 acres, but instead some variation of it with major changes evident along today's Golf House Road, it does beg the question which I'm sure we'll get to later.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:16:57 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #103 on: August 09, 2010, 11:22:08 PM »
Tom,

Have you offered any input on the "pathetic" inaccuracies in the Tolhurst account?

In th eopening post (and a few posts ago) you have 12 or 15 distinct underlined sentences that you seem to think are pure fantasy. I am trying to go through them with you and David and you haven't responded yet. David is being amazingly obtuse regarding the reasons for moving...but we can move on from that one point...do you think it's likely that the single absolute reason the club moved to Ardmore was because of the cost of the land on their place in Haverford?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #104 on: August 09, 2010, 11:27:27 PM »
Well then David, you'd be surprised at the argument I had with ETPaul this morning in which he accused me of falling for your brainwashing...

I am not ruling out the financial consideration being one of many factors motivating the move...but you are ruling out any other factor, which illustrates your obtuse position here...which makes it really tough to make progress...

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #105 on: August 09, 2010, 11:48:55 PM »
Just noticed something...don't want to sound like Columbo, but as of January 1911, Merion was still intent on putting lawn tennis courts on the 117 acres they had secured that they illustrated in Green in that initial November 15, 1910 announcement letter to their members.

Aren't lawn tennis courts pretty big, especially if you have a goodly number of courts?   Wouldn't that also include some space for spectators?

Since we're talking black and white here, where exactly does anyone think they were those going to be located if the course had already been routed prior to then?




« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:01:33 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #106 on: August 10, 2010, 12:12:09 AM »
In the quarry underneath the tee shots of 17 and 18.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #107 on: August 10, 2010, 12:18:17 AM »
In the quarry underneath the tee shots of 17 and 18.

Jim,

That was the location of the skating rink...not the proposed lawn tennis courts for a burgeoning membership already in the hundreds.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:20:23 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #108 on: August 10, 2010, 12:20:59 AM »
Mike,

Are you looking for a serious answer?

Why not just tell us where you think they were going to go?

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #109 on: August 10, 2010, 12:26:05 AM »
Jim,

They simply had not routed the golf course prior to March/April 1911, at least not in terms of a fully fleshed out routing where they could fit in the last five holes..  

I know you think that's taking a too literal interpretation of the evidence, but I can't see any other reasonable answer to that question, and others, such as why they'd subdivide the northeastern portion of the Johnson Farm not only along the western border, which was obviously flexible along HDC's other holdings, but also inexplicably along the northern border at the Haverford College line, which makes absolutely no sense and which would have hamstrung them with a mere 130 yards north of the quarry to work with.

Given M&W's advice about using the quarry as a hazard, only optioning the Johnson Farm land to the Haverford College southern boundary when they could have gone north another four hundred yards would have been simply stupid, and we both agree these were not stupid men.

My point is simply that it's obvious that the golf course that was built could not be contained in the 117 acres of land that was secured and intended for purchase in November, 1910, and the addition of intended lawn tennis courts and associate facilities simply would have exacerbated the problem.   The fact that lawn tennis was even still under proposal in January 1911 says to me that the golf course was not routed yet, very clearly.   Otherwise, where the heck would it have gone?

But, let's not get too diverted here.   Let's get back to the main points of discussion because there's plenty to cover, and I'm hoping we can all do it in a productive fashion.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:36:39 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #110 on: August 10, 2010, 12:36:17 AM »
You think it's more likely that they bought a piece of land that was unusable?

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #111 on: August 10, 2010, 12:44:09 AM »
Jim,

No, they bought much of the land that M&W told them would be very good for golf, only when they later tried to actually fit in the eighteen holes they wanted they found they needed to make adjustments, primarily (I believe) because they didn't realize how much the quarry compromised the width they wanted/needed along the northeastern part of the property.    

When all was said and done, they ended up buying 120 acres, not, 117, and also ended up leasing another 3 acres from the railroad to fit in the 12th approach/green, and the entire 13th hole for a total of 123, not the original 117 acres they had optioned that they thought would work for their golf course.      

Recall also that when M&W visited, Merion/HDC didn't yet have the Dallas Estate under option (that would happen five months later), so we don't know exactly which HDC acreage M&W viewed when they expressed some concern that it might not be quite big enough for a great golf course, but instead suggested a "sporty" 6000 yard course for the club.  


« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:48:35 AM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #112 on: August 10, 2010, 01:06:25 AM »
Mike

I wrote that Heilman may have called the Nov. 15 documents an Annual Report (not MCC.)  According to TEPaul the annual report didnt go to the members, yet Heilman wrote that the report informed the members.  Also, if there was anything in the actual annual report which could have been spun to undercut my position, then TEPaul would have already used it.

As for the continued vague implication that there are documents out there that might prove me wrong, that is the bottom of the rhetorical barrel and absolute horse puck.   If such documents exist, then let's see them.   You guys need to prove me wrong or quit implying that TEPaul and Wayne have some secret documents would prove me wrong if only these guys wanted to.    Because that is ridiculous.  

I know quite a bit about these documents that are being hidden from me.   For one thing, I know that there is nothing in there that could be used against me.   They've repeatedly leaked anything they thought they could spin to use against me.  For another thing, I know that there must be plenty that helps me.   They wouldn't be hiding this stuff unless it helped my case.    

And Mike, why are you taking this thread in a different direction?   There was plenty of room for courts where the parking lots and maintenance builds are now. Remember the entrance to the club was in the front then.


_________________________________________

 
Well then David, you'd be surprised at the argument I had with ETPaul this morning in which he accused me of falling for your brainwashing...

I am not ruling out the financial consideration being one of many factors motivating the move...but you are ruling out any other factor, which illustrates your obtuse position here...which makes it really tough to make progress...

I can see why he'd say that.   From his perspective, anyone who would try to discuss this stuff with me in a reasonable manner has gone way to far.  You have to remember that he isn't trying to prove me wrong.   He just wants to shout me down and smear me so no one takes the essay seriously.   Any actual discussion presents a huge threat to TEPaul.  

But really I didn't have you in mind when I wrote my aside above.  It is just tiring and frustrating to have to work this hard to try and communicate what, from my perspective, seems to be a very simple and straightforward point.  

If anyone was obtuse about the reasons for the move it was Merion's Board.  I'm just the messenger.   I said a while back that it is possible that there were other reasons, I even suggested one.  But a history which ignores such an unambiguous statement of purpose by a Board is meaningfully inaccurate.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 01:08:29 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)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #113 on: August 10, 2010, 06:18:06 AM »
Tom,

Have you offered any input on the "pathetic" inaccuracies in the Tolhurst account?

In th eopening post (and a few posts ago) you have 12 or 15 distinct underlined sentences that you seem to think are pure fantasy. I am trying to go through them with you and David and you haven't responded yet. David is being amazingly obtuse regarding the reasons for moving...but we can move on from that one point...do you think it's likely that the single absolute reason the club moved to Ardmore was because of the cost of the land on their place in Haverford?

I thought the original deal was to have TEP go through and defend each point. What happened to that idea?

Is this the quote you are having problems with? "They explored the possibility of acquiring land around the old course so that it could be lengthened."

I've been out of town over the weekend, was TEP able to affectively prove the club looked to purchase more land around the old site in order to lengthen the old course?

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #114 on: August 10, 2010, 06:24:15 AM »
"Quote from: Bill Brightly on Today at 05:10:17 AM
David,

As a totally impartial observer, I think you may be taking a too literal meaning of the phrase "able to pay."

If that phrase was changed to 'willing to pay" you would come to a totally different conclusion, right? But it is quite possible that the speaker simply chose the word "able" as a polite way of saying that the club did not want to meet the railroad's price."




"Bill, to me it makes no difference to me whether it was "willing to pay" or "able to pay."  These are both financial decisions and both are perfectly legitimate as far as I am concerned.   I am not trying to cast aspersions on Merion of old.   My point is that they wanted to stay put, but whether they were unable or unwilling to pay, they didn't get the deal done.  

Besides, while TEPaul and others are obviously uptight about the very notion of cost or price ever being an issue at Merion, but I don't think those there at the time had the same concerns.

I agree that one must read carefully and consider the context to get an idea of how differently they may have used certain words and phrases, but fortunately in this case there are more than one source and they are all saying basically the same thing."





Since these Merion thread discussions are about as productive and efficient as discussions between the Arabs and Israelis, what may seem like a small admission or small step-------eg Moriarty's admission (or should it be considered a concession on this thread) that "unable to pay" and "unwilling to pay" is pretty much the same thing (financial) in the context of MCC's move of their course from Haverford to Ardmore, in his opinion----I actually view that admission or concession by Moriarty as a potentially large break-through in these sorrowful Merion arguments. Thank you Bill Brightly!  ;)

Since I used to sell real estate around here for about fifteen years, and primarily big places like large farms (like the Johnson Farm or the Smith Farm (The PRR's property contiguous to Clement Griscom's 150 acre "Dolobran" in Haverford that made up the two nines of the old MCC Haverford course)), I think I know some of the differences between "Unable to pay" and "unwilling to pay," and they definitely ain't always one and the same even if someone (like Moriarty) tried to make them look like they are just to maintain some illusion for the sake of a fixated, limited argument! ;)

In my real estate experiences, generally "unable to pay" meant somebody just couldn't afford to buy something, while "unwilling to pay" mostly meant although you could afford to buy something, you really didn't want it for some reason such as it didn't fit  or suit your needs, present and future.

The latter was apparetly the case with MCC in 1909 with the Haverford course that Tolhurst mentioned the newly formed Merion Cricket Club Golf Association felt was obsolete due to the Haskell ball (unless Tolhurst just completely made that up without any contemporaneus to 1909 MCC research information).

And this is not even considering the seller or a potential or propsective seller; it's just considering the potential or prospective buyer. But if one wants to consider the sellers of the old Haverford course in 1909-10 they would need to consider very carefully both who they were and that there were two of them----The PRR that owned the "Smith Farm" on which MCC put their original nine, AND Clement Griscom who owned the land they put their second nine on (both essentially leased even if Griscom really didn't even charge MCC for most of the duration).

I don't see any evidence at all in 1910 that Clement Griscom who was a most preeminent force in Merion with his son (Rodman) and daughter (Frances who won the 1900 US Amateur) had any intention of selling to ANYONE something like a third or a half of his own personal residence (the 150 acre "Dolobran") because he was alive and well then, he lived there, and it had taken him fifteen years (1881-1896) to expand and put together a place that size right and magnitude in the heart of the most desirable residental area of the so-called Main Line, an area that at least David Moriarty has said on here he doesn't even care to hear the history and ethos of!   ::)

If one wants to understand something like MCC's move of their golf course from Haverford to Ardmore, and research and write about it, that is a pretty good place to start. But apparently Moriarty didn't think so when he researched and wrote his essay ("The Missing Faces of Merion"), and he doesn't think so now, and it shows in these Merion threads as they continue.  






« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 06:59:14 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #115 on: August 10, 2010, 06:43:15 AM »
Sully:

I'm going back over to Applebrook to officiate the second day of the Pa Open. Since that is the site of your PA Mid-Am win where I handed you the trophy, why don't you come on over (just ask anyone with a radio and eye-phone to radio me)? The golf course is just totally tuned up to a very cool high whine and you'd appreciate it. Or else you could call me about 7am and you and I could have another argument, like we did yesterday, as I stand in the parking lot! ;)

By the way, one of the things you said yesterday to Moriarty on this thread about the move to Ardmore is pretty much right on the money, in my opinion.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #116 on: August 10, 2010, 08:08:49 AM »
Gentlemen,

I'm leaving for Arizona for a few days, but before I go I'm going to finally put to rest the notion that the golf course was already routed by November 15th, 1910, the date that Pugh and Hubbard drew their now infamous map of the property.



If you recall, the theory went like this;

Because Richard Francis wrote that his role in the routing was the property swap for the also now infamous "triangle" of land in the northeastern quadrant of land, David's essay looked at the P&H November 15th, 1910 map, saw what looked to be that triangle, and concluded that the "Francis Swap", and therefore the routing of the golf course had to have taken place by then.   Since Hugh Wilson's committee had not yet formed, there is no way that Hugh Wilson could have routed the golf course, or so the theory goes.

From David's essay;

While the Plan for Proposed Golf Course does not include the routing plan, when viewed in light of another crucial piece of the puzzle, it does reveal that the course had already been planned at the time the document was drawn up. This piece of the puzzle was not hidden in archives or lost to history, but is another commonly known yet misunderstood component of Merion’s creation story...

...According to Tolhurst’s excellent history, in 1950 Merion’s Richard Francis recalled his major contribution to the layout of the course. Francis, an engineer, would serve on Wilson’s Construction Committee, and later become a foremost expert on the rules of golf, writing a groundbreaking book on the subject and serving for many years on the USGA Rules Committee. But most importantly for our purposes, he was also the mastermind behind a crucial land exchange that enabled Merion to better fit the last five holes into the routing.
According to Tolhurst, Francis wrote:

The land was shaped like a capital “L” and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion – with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore avenue – but the last five holes were another question…. The idea was this: We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some good use?

Francis immediately ran the idea by H.G. Lloyd, proposing that Merion exchange land west of the routing for the land now used for the fifteenth green and sixteenth tee. Lloyd agreed, and “a few days later the quarryman had his drills up where the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so that the green could be built as it is today.”

Given Francis’ description of the timing of the quarryman’s blasting, and given that he eventually served on the Construction Committee, it has long been assumed that the “swap” occurred while Construction Committee was in the process of building the course. But the supposed land exchange must have occurred much earlier, before Merion secured the land, which was before Merion appointed Wilson and his Construction Committee.

As quoted by Tolhurst, Francis wrote that Merion gave up “land west of the present course which did not fit in with any golf layout;” land which was later “covered by fine homes along Golf House Road.” In exchange, Merion received a small section of “land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long – the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.” No doubt Francis was describing the land between the present practice area and Golf House Road, a small triangle of land that perfectly matches Francis’ description. More importantly, the land was acquired while Merion was putting the finishing touches on the routing plan for the course. So the date of the supposed “swap” will allow us to determine when the final touches were being put on the initial routing plan.

[bold mine]Surprisingly, as one can see in the land plan above, Merion acquired this small projection of land as part of the 117-acre parcel designated “Merion Golf Course” in the Plan. Merion optioned and purchased the land for the 15th green and 16th tee as part of their option and purchase of the bulk of the golf course property. Property records confirm this. The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910, when Merion obtained an option from Haverford Development Company. This was six weeks before the purchase was finalized and the Construction Committee appointed. The “swap” was not a swap at all but actually a small but significant reshaping of the large parcel Merion intended to purchase from Haverford Development Company. Before the purchase, the parties must have agreed to shave off a portion on the right side of the parcel and added the projection of land for the 15th green and 16th tee.

Francis and Lloyd had been fine-tuning the layout plan before Merion secured the land. Francis described his epiphany as having occurred while he was looking over a “map of the property.” He also noted that the land Merion gave up “did not fit at all in any golf layout.” So by this time the planning process was well underway, and the “swap” allowed them to better fit the last five holes into the plan for the routing. “It was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion – with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore avenue – but the last five holes were another question.” The Francis land “swap” allowed them to complete the routing plan. All before November 10, 1910.

So, by mid-November 1910, the layout had already been planned. I have found no evidence that Hugh Wilson had been at all involved in the purchase or the planning at this early date. To the contrary, as will be discussed below, the historical record indicates that Wilson became involved in early 1911, after the purchase was finalized.


It's a good theory, and one can understand why he came to that conclusion.  

But let's look again at what Francis said.   It's clear his solution was the final piece to the routing puzzle.   The first 13 holes had already been located south of Ardmore Avenue, and they were simply looking for how to situate the last five.   Francis even goes so far to tell us that right after he came up with his idea workmen were out there blasting off the top of the quarry for a greensite.

So how could this have happened before November 1910 if construction didn't begin until April 1911?  

Because it didn't.




In all of the hundreds of pages of debate, in all of the theories and counter theories, no one has ever asked this most basic of questions;

If the golf course had already been completely routed by November, 1910, then why did Hugh Wilson and his committee need to travel to NGLA in March of 1911 to spend a day or two with Charles Blair Macdonald?

From the MCC Minutes;

"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf course on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying the various holes that were copied after the famous ones abroad.  On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…

Hugh Wilson later told us that they looked at sketches of holes that Macdonald had from overseas the first night, and then went and toured NGLA the next day.

So if the golf course was already routed in November of 1910, why did they need to "re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans..." in March/April of 1911?   Even if we take the idea that "laid out" means physically staking out the course, why would they do it five times, and why would they have to do it again if they'd already done it five months prior?

Furthermore, and more significantly why then would Macdonald and Whigham need to then come back down to Merion in April, 1911, to go over the proposed plans, on the ground, and at that time recommend that if Merion selected the one plan they liked best they'd have the seven best finishing holes of any inland course Macdonald had seen?    Why would M&W need to select or recommend a plan in April 1911 if the course had supposedly already been completely routed by them (supposedly with Francis and Lloyd's help) five months prior??   They weren't here overseeing construction because construction hadn't yet begun.   In fact, it wasn't until later in April 1911 that the now finalized routing plan created by the Committee and approved by Macdonald and Whigham went to the Merion Board of Governors for final approval, and construction commenced.


It makes no sense, because it didn't happen that way.  

The golf course was not routed prior to the securing of the 117 acres in November 1910.   That Pugh and Hubbard map does not represent the land in question that Francis told us he swapped for, and the entire routing process for the golf course at Merion East happened between January through April, 1911, with Hugh Wilson and his committee doing various course routings, and getting significant advice and counsel from CBM and HJ Whigham, just as has always been the story.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 11:18:02 AM by MCirba »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #117 on: August 10, 2010, 08:20:49 AM »
Mike,

I presume you will be looking for a suitable insane asylum for your ownself for getting sucked back into this one? (insert smiley)

You present a nice summary......I thought all of that had been solved to the satisfaction of most here.  You forgot to post the date of the actual final land transfer, with the additional 3 acres from 117 to 120, which also helps solve the mystery.  Oh God, I have quite a mind for useless detail!

And I gotta ask......is the "excellent Tollhurst history" DM refers to in his original piece the one he is now thrashing as materially inaccurate?  There are times when I have suggested that David picks and chooses and changes.  Now, I am sure he has a ready answer for this one, but it seems to me to be an example of him arguing out of both sides of his mouth, mostly, as far as I can tell, just to argue about Merion.

Everyone needs a hobby! ;)

Enjoy AZ.  Hey, have we ever discussed the history of Troon North?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #118 on: August 10, 2010, 08:25:47 AM »
Mike
Which of my underlined points are you trying to address?

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #119 on: August 10, 2010, 08:29:50 AM »
Jeff,

I think we can all talk about how much M&W influenced the final design as a legitimate topic for exploration, but I think we need to agree collectively that all of this activity happened between January and April 1911, with Hugh Wilson and his Committee's involvement.

Continuing to pretend that the golf course was already routed back in November 1910 when the boundaries of the property hadn't even been established is non-productive, and an inaccurate reading of history and the events as they happened.

It's a non-starter, frankly, and has been an impediment to moving this discussion forward to understanding what really happened.

As far as AZ, I'm going there for work but hope to study the origins of TPC Scottsdale one afternoon, while trying not to fry to a crisp.   Thanks for the kind words.  

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #120 on: August 10, 2010, 08:34:05 AM »
Mike
Which of my underlined points are you trying to address?

Tom,


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


Richard Francis told us the same thing;

« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 08:36:12 AM by MCirba »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #121 on: August 10, 2010, 08:35:53 AM »
Mike,

To be honest, I thought we had.  At least the preponderance of evidence on the last 100 page thread indicated that to me.  

I am not sure that I have heard David or TMac (or other proponent of the November, pre purchase routing) say otherwise since that thread.  Which is why we are debating the accuracy of the Tollhurst account (formerly deemed excellent by DM, although I think we all agree it has one big boo boo, and a few slightly off generalizations) instead of the creation of Merion on this thread.  As a group, we like to go to the stuff we can argue about, ignoring its overall irrelevance to the Merion creation story.

If AZ is anywhere as near as hot as TX, then drink a lot of water.  We don't want anyone accusing you of a heat stroke induced crazy ass post!

PS, not sure the point of either TMacs intervening question or your response....are you sure you are not already out in the heat?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #122 on: August 10, 2010, 08:40:57 AM »
Jeff,

I thought David had asked us to point out any accuracies in his essay, so I pointed out that his interpretation of the Pugh & Hubbard November 1910 drawing, which was the lynchpin and foundation of his theory that sought to negate Hugh Wilson's contributions to the original routing, was/is in error.  

If David or TMac still disagrees with me, and still thinks the course was completely routed before November 15th, 1910, based on Francis's locating the final five with his land swap idea and midnight bike ride, I'm sure they'll chime in.  ;)

I also think my post is relevant to some of Tom MacWood's underlined points, particularly those related to the value of Wilson's trip abroad.

At this point, I think my work here is done.   Thanks for your helpful comments.   ;D
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 09:16:33 AM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #123 on: August 10, 2010, 09:16:13 AM »
Mike
Aren't you jumping the gun a bit? Its already been conceded Tolhurst was wrong about the MCGCA being form in 1909, now we're discussing if "they" explored the possibility of acquiring land around the old course. Are you conceding Tolhurst was wrong about that too?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #124 on: August 10, 2010, 09:18:55 AM »
Tom,

Why would we go through all of that when we already now know the ending to the story?

Either the course was routed when Hugh Wilson was there as head of the committee in the January-April 1911 timeframe, or it was routed as David's essay contends prior to then, and prior to the securing of land in November 1910.

Which one is it, Tom?   It's not a tough question.  ;)  
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 09:22:10 AM by MCirba »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back