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.


Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #425 on: October 11, 2010, 02:53:17 PM »
Jim,

I agreed that Merion was trying to negotiate for land south of the boundaries of the Johnson Farm before the course routing was decided, where today's 11th green and 12th tee sit, as described in this 1923 article.   That piece of property down there was owned by Clarence Gest, and part of a much bigger tract.  

I also think that Francis' statement, "we thought the road would make a good hazard", was probably true enough, but likely as a second choice.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 02:55:10 PM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #426 on: October 11, 2010, 02:54:51 PM »
Is that documented?

What happened that kept them from getting it initially?

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #427 on: October 11, 2010, 02:57:54 PM »
Jim,

This article is all we know, but the Gest property was very huge, and perhaps he wasn't interested in selling any of it, or the price wasn't right.  Perhaps Gest saw what was afoot and realized he was in for a windfall of increased property value!

The author of the article was actually J.E. Ford using a pen-name ,who wrote a lot of course and club histories in the 20s and seemed very well connected.   Joe Bausch can tell us more about him.  

I'm pretty sure he didn't just make it up, right?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 03:00:22 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #428 on: October 11, 2010, 03:02:19 PM »
Jeffrey:


I have definitely considered what you said in your Post #422 for about two years now but to date have hesitated to mention my opinion because there is no actual and factual evidence to suppoort it and there are enough on here who are very touchy on anythng to do with the subject of Macdonald.   ;)

But Macdonald surely did seem fixated on that 3 acre P&W land where the original 12th green and part of the 13th (not the green) was located.

And after all he did say to MCC on April 6, 1911 that he felt the plan he approved contained the best last SEVEN holes of any inland course in the world, and so that included the original 12th green and part of the 13th hole across the creek from the Johnson property on the P&W land which was later leased.

And it is definitely not lost on me that within ten years Merion gave up on those two holes (the original 12th green and 13th hole).

Actually, Jeffrey, if those two holes were part of any of the five different plans that Wilson and his committee wanted then why did they wait until April 19, 1911 to ask the MCC board to lease them? Maybe THAT was something CBM insisted on again on April 6, 1911 and maybe the Wilson Committee had holes there that were something like what is there now (the present 13th) and just wanted to go back to that and did ten years later. That would've made #12 pretty short though but who really knows when they first had their eye on that 7 1/2 acres that eventually became the second half of #11 and the first half of #12?

I also note that if any architect back then seemed inclined to use roads and cross them it sure was C.B. Macdonald!!  ;)

But I do qualify all of what I just said on this post by saying I have no actual factual evidence for it and so it just falls into the category of speculation but at least I'm not trying to pass speculation off as fact as a couple of others on here try to do so often.

But back in the old days when things were friendlier on here and Wayne Morrison was on here I do also note that he put a thread or post on here that it was his distinct impression that it sure didn't take Merion or Wilson and Flynn long to basically separate themselves and their Merion East golf course from Macdonald's National Style and even from the idea of template holes with their actual names from abroad.

I think one of the reasons this whole debate came up about Merion's 3rd is that those who know the history of that course do know that hole was once referred to as Merion's "redan" but frankly it isn't anymore and hasn't been for many, many decades.

I personally think Wayne was very right back then when he said it was his opinion that Merion was pulling away from both Macdonald and his style and very much going with its own style that included a pretty novel  bunker style for an INLAND (meaning clay based soil) American golf course of that age and era!
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 03:11:13 PM by TEPaul »

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #429 on: October 11, 2010, 03:14:44 PM »
Sean Leary/Tom Paul,

Here's a snippet from the larger 1905 article with the note about Macdonald's "Friendly adviser" role that he apparently often did in those days, so his one day looking at the property and one day onsite helping them pick their best routing does not seem in any way exceptional.




Jim Sullivan,

You can start to get a sense of the size, location and strategic value of the Gest property in Orange below the Johnson Farm in this 1908 Map.



« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 03:32:31 PM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #430 on: October 11, 2010, 03:19:08 PM »
Jim,

One further point that I didn't realize until I saw this map.

I had heretofore believed that the RR company owned the land all the way up and down the track along the Johnson Farm.   Apparently, they only owned those three acres.   The rest of the land north of there belonged to Haverford College.

I think it would have been a no-brainer to advise aquiring it, especially with the creek flowing through it and it's proximity to the clubhouse, routing or no routing.

Personally, I think this thing is really coming together, Jim, and I think the contemporaneous record and additional findings by Joe Bausch and others over the past few years have really clarified a number of previously somewhat confused matters.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 03:22:13 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #431 on: October 11, 2010, 03:23:00 PM »
"Tom,
Are you under the impression that the recorded information paints a thorough and complete picture of what happened and who did what?"




Jim:

Of course not! I think you need to pay closer attention to some of the nuances of what gets said on here and who says what.

God knows how many times I have stated on here that I think this entire Merion argument began on here in Feb. 2003 (THAT is over SEVEN YEARS AGO!!) when MacWood came on here with a thread entitled "RE: Macdonald and Merion?"

In that thread he said he had just found an article that Macdonald and Whigam had advised Merion East and did that mean they had designed it or whatever? Obviously MacWood knew nothing at that time that MCC and Merion recorded from the very beginning that Macdonald and Whigam had helped Merion in 1910 and 1911. Apparently he thought he had discovered something Merion never knew and that meant their architectural history was wrong.

I told him first on that thread that Merion has always recorded that CBM and Whigam helped them back then. Then Wayne came on and told him the same thing and he apparently took offense at that claiming Wayne seemed to be telling him how to research or whatever. Look it up for yourself as I believe that is precisely the time and place where this adversity over Merion began with MacWood and Morrisson (and others here in this town).

Then MacWood wanted to know basically who came up with the designs and concepts of virtually every hole of Merion East and I told him noone knows things like that because they were never recorded and basically never are in architecture with the occasonal exception of a story on a few holes like the Francis story.

But as usual he just wouldn't listen to that and just kept at it all these years apparently trying to prove that another club got their history wrong again.

Too bad he didn't listen to me on that thread that was begun in Feb 2003 or we may've avoided all of this. I think that was before Moriarty even got on this website but I might be mistaken about that. All I know is both of those two have been conducting this ridiculous charade about Wilson and Merion's history for far too long now.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 03:32:17 PM by TEPaul »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #432 on: October 11, 2010, 03:33:13 PM »
TePaul,

Starting in November, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Merion presentation, purchase, layout, construction.

I am sure someone will start a thread on signifigant days to mark the occaision!

My question is, will Merion threads on gca.com have a 100th anniversary celebration in 2110?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #433 on: October 11, 2010, 03:37:49 PM »
"I had heretofore believed that the RR company owned the land all the way up and down the track along the Johnson Farm.   Apparently, they only owned those three acres.   The rest of the land north of there belonged to Haverford College."



Not just that but the original 13th green was not on the P&W land as so many people still believe; it was actually back across the creek on the original Johnson Farm land that was part of the initial 117 acre offer.

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #434 on: October 11, 2010, 03:53:24 PM »
"TePaul,
Starting in November, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Merion presentation, purchase, layout, construction.
I am sure someone will start a thread on signifigant days to mark the occaision!
My question is, will Merion threads on gca.com have a 100th anniversary celebration in 2110?"




Mr. Jeffrey:


I don't know about that, but I will tell you something I sure do have a distinct impression about---and that is shortly Merion will probably begin writing at least for their archives their own very detailed presentation of all of this from this particular time. I think it has recently occured to some that the very last thing Merion would want to see is some situation coming into the 2013 US Open when there will be 500-800 press people at Merion looking for some story lines and to go into Google and only find that ridiculous crap of Moriarty's on this website on there.

One of the recent realizations is unfortunately some things never leave Google and consequently do not get corrected for historic accuracy. Just look at that essay of Moriarty's. It has never been updated or altered and the amount of factual errors on it given what has been found and produced since he put it on here is really shocking.

I think a thread should be started to put what he said in that essay on here piecemeal that could not help but show just how inaccurate so much of it really is, despite what the author continues to say on here!

But what is even more shocking is he still continues to try to defend those errors he made and just rationalize away what the factual evidence from Merion and MCC actually says that has been found since and which he never even knew existed when he wrote that thing.

If I were him I'd try to correct it soon just to avoid future embarrassement when Merion records the true story and hands it out to the press in 2013!  ;)

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #435 on: October 11, 2010, 03:54:38 PM »
Tom,

That makes complete sense as the 13th green was north and west of the creek, which fronted it and ran along the right side.

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #436 on: October 11, 2010, 04:02:00 PM »
What's funny is that a new alternate tee now exists on the "right" (far) side of the creek on #13.  It's a very cool shot, having to cross the creek and a huge bunker to a very tight target.  They're probably using it to save wear on the "real" #13 tee.

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #437 on: October 11, 2010, 04:05:45 PM »
"Personally, I think this thing is really coming together, Jim, and I think the contemporaneous record and additional findings by Joe Bausch and others over the past few years have really clarified a number of previously somewhat confused matters."




Michael:

I'll tell you one thing----if that contour survey map that the Wilson committee referred to in 1911 and obviously used to route and design courses and the final plan on is found and it has a date on it such as Dec. 1910 or January 1911 as well as hole drawings and it has a scale and measurable line on it for Golf House Road that shows, and most importantly SHOWS when it was too narrow or wide LATER THAN, this charade of these two guys over Merion will be over with once and for all. At that point probably all we will then be left with is their pathetic excuses to try to explain away their mistakes.

That's when I will really be laughing!    ;D ;)

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #438 on: October 11, 2010, 04:09:28 PM »
Here's the original 13th green taken looking from the front (non pro-shop side) of the clubhouse.

Note that the RR tracks are in the background, and note that there is not a heckuva lot of land for any purpose between the clubhouse and the creek (boundary) if Merion had not acquired those additional 3 acres.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #439 on: October 11, 2010, 04:10:41 PM »
Tom,

What would it tell you if the contour map has a July 1910 date?

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #440 on: October 11, 2010, 04:21:29 PM »
Jim,

It won't.

If there was one at that date, I have no doubt that the November 15, 1910 Land Plan sent to the membership would have included the intended routing of their brand new golf course.   Instead, it simply shows a big, green blob, which is essentially what it was at the time.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #441 on: October 11, 2010, 04:25:12 PM »
Why?

I asked about a contour map, not a routing.

Also, nobody has argued that the routing was completed by then, the April minutes refute that.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #442 on: October 11, 2010, 04:27:08 PM »
The point is, Tom keeps talking about finding that thing and what it will mean to him if the date is December or January...well, what if it's not December or January? What would that mean? Even if it were July 1910, it wouldn't mean CBM routed the course. As I've said before, the later all this work was done, the more of it was done by CBM.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #443 on: October 11, 2010, 04:28:14 PM »
Jim,

Really? I know two folks who have argued just that, despite what the minutes say.

I am now interested in the idea that they were looking for other land parcels, obviously prior to Nov 15, 1910, I think.  Or maybe not. Maybe the consideration of those new variations of holes 10-13 occurred as one of the five routings.

I know TePaul has looked for that controur map Wilson sent Oakley, to no avail.  It would be a nice little find and miracle if it showed up somewhere.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #444 on: October 11, 2010, 04:53:15 PM »

I am now interested in the idea that they were looking for other land parcels, obviously prior to Nov 15, 1910, I think.  Or maybe not. Maybe the consideration of those new variations of holes 10-13 occurred as one of the five routings.



How could that be?

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #445 on: October 11, 2010, 05:00:36 PM »
The point is, Tom keeps talking about finding that thing and what it will mean to him if the date is December or January...well, what if it's not December or January? What would that mean? Even if it were July 1910, it wouldn't mean CBM routed the course. As I've said before, the later all this work was done, the more of it was done by CBM.

Jim,

I don't understand your contention there at all.   We know he hosted them at NGLA and that he helped them select the best of their routings.  

Why would omitting the period from 7-10 - 12-10 from consequence increase his level of involvement?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #446 on: October 11, 2010, 05:04:54 PM »
Because it greatly reduces the amount of time they worked on anything at all, concentrating it all around their two visits with M&W.

Phil_the_Author

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #447 on: October 11, 2010, 05:20:19 PM »
Jim,

I understand your point, "Because it greatly reduces the amount of time they worked on anything at all, concentrating it all around their two visits with M&W." But when one considers it, doesn't it also mean two things:

1- That M&W were still imited to those very few days that evryone references.
2- That even limiting the time that Wilson, et.al. (and I have no idea who "al" is  ;D), spent doing their routings, etc..., they still would have spent many, many more days on the site and personally involved in the question of routing and design than M&W.

And that's only if they didn't do anything of that nature during the time you mention. I don't then see it as an argument that supports M&W in this, but is rather a "Red Herring" so to speak.

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #448 on: October 11, 2010, 05:20:50 PM »
Because it greatly reduces the amount of time they worked on anything at all, concentrating it all around their two visits with M&W.

Jim,

You don't think 90-105 days give or take on site is enough to come up with "numerous golf courses" and "five different plans"?

Compare this to Tom MacWood's argument that Barker routed it during a train-stop, or David's that CBM did it via remote control with a single site visit before the property was purchased and I don't understand your contention or rush to give CBM more credit than the historic documentation indicates.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 08:13:30 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #449 on: October 11, 2010, 07:58:51 PM »
"Tom,
What would it tell you if the contour map has a July 1910 date?"



Sully:

I guess it would tell me something like Wilson and his committee were doing what they referred to as "numerous courses on the land" in the second half of 1910 that was reported in the report they offered to the Board on April 19, 1911. But if that were the case one wonders why Wilson said his committee was appointed in January 1911 and one also wonders why MCC reported to the membership in January 1911 that "experts" had begun working on the creation of the golf course.

Or I suppose alternatively it could mean they just held the contour map until January of 1911 before being appointed and starting working on the routing and design of the course with the contour map at that time.

I don't really know, Sully, because you're now asking me to comment on YOUR speculations which I haven't really seen the material evidence from MCC ever mention.