The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

At this juncture, I'm not sure what to call it, but it wouldn't be nice.   

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul/Brauer,

You have no idea how this project came about for me. It is and always has been a big picture project, based on a better understanding of the "big picture" of what was going on during this early time period.  You continue to misrepresent the views of those who were there.  And Jeff, you should really do try to do a better job of hiding TEPaul's input given that he is not supposed to be posting here.

Brauer/TEPaul/Cirba,

You guys are like drowning men flailing and trying to get a grip on anything.  It is quite clear that after years of this nonsense you have nothing really to add to productive conversation.   At its core, Merion East was intended to be a CBM golf cours.  This is nothing of which to be ashamed, but you guys can't let go of your legends and your antipathy towards me.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I speak for myself, think for myself.

More lashing out, more accusing.

If you had it, you would provide some documents that proved your point.

What document from MCC or other contemporaneous accounts says it was intended to be a CBM course?  PLease provide one, because we have provided many that say it was intended to be a committee designed course.

I agree it would not be anything to be ashamed of to be a CBM course, its just that you have provided no proof of it, period.  If we missed it, please show us one contemporary person who said it was "at it's core, intended to be a CBM golf course?"

No need to tell us we are flailing.  We have history on our side, documents on our side.  If you want productive conversation, please provide some proof of your latest contention, which actually sort of ups the ante from your earlier positions that CBM was more influential than already believed by MCC.  Once again, that is easy to accept, but rather than that, you strike even further afield with your new statement of "Merion's Intent" that you have devined.

[DMoriarty]

Another silly Brauer challenge, where you demand just ONE example?   Gee that's a tough one.  I don't know how to limit it to just one.

Uhhhh let's see . . . . how about the one where an EYEWITNESS with a depth of experience and knowledge of these things stated that MERION WAS A CBM COURSE? . . . or how about the one that puts CBM/HJW in charge of choosing the final layout plan? . . . . Or the ones documenting that a few weeks before he was helping a novice committee with that layout plan? . . . and how about the ones from the opening that describe most of the holes on the course being based on the great holes abroad?. . . and the various ones describing many features on the course typical of his courses? . . . and the ones where Merion says they are basing their purchase of the land largely on his (and HJWs) advice . . . and the ones indicating they realized the value of his advice and were following his directions throughout . . . and the ones acknowledging and thanking him for his help . . . and the ones crediting along with the committee for the course?  

It is the "Just give me a sign" joke again and again.   You guys have been struck down by lightening time after time and yet you are still saying, "just give me a sign, any sign, and I'll believe you."

As for TEPaul's input, we both know that you and TEPaul are corresponding about this on a constant basis.  Mike too.   Others get the emails and know.   Plus, for every group email there are many more.

If I were you guys I wouldn't distance myself from his input.  But then I wouldn't want to take responsibility for coming up on such foolish things on my own!

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

As to the picking the final routing, we have always agreed on that.  And yet when I posted that if that was all you were saying, you replied (and I quote)

YOU - And I never claimed CBM did a routing nearly by himself in an earlier time frame.   My theory was that Merion started with Barker's routing, that CBM may have changed it (the extent to which we do not know) and Francis and Lloyd changed it further. All before Nov. 15, 1910.     You agree that they were likely working off of Barker's routing early on, so what is your problem?   

As usual, you just make shit up about my position to make yours sound more reasonable.  My argument is much more nuanced that you realize or give credit.


Quote

ME - If (for now and barring more documents becoming available) we agree the routing was done at NGLA and beyond, and that CBM was invaluble in ways we can't quite measure and detail out, then I am all for a Mary Tyler Moore style group hug!No thanks.  You cannot negotiate what really happened, but then that is obviously not what this is about for you!

Your essay CLEARLY says the routing was done pre Nov 1910, and your posts above say BOTH that he did it pre Nov 1910 and that YOU NEVER CLAIMED HE DID IT IN A PRIOR TIME FRAME.  In all seriousness, nuance seems garbled on my computer screen, but I doubt that I am the only one.

Maybe you think I am thinking of some other prior time frame, but I reference the MCC records that talk about starting in December (Culyers) and minutes regarding the March and April CBM visits. 

So which is it David - CBM, Francis and Lesley routed it Pre- Nov 1910 or CBM and the committee routed it at NGLA and beyond.  Or is your "nuanced position" that he started early, and it continued for a long time with refinements? 

You know, some days I actually wake up thinking about whether it was intended to be a CBM course.  Could the lack of mention in the contemporaneous records  be at CBM's request because of the amateur status or related issues?  But, they do mention his assistance, although that could be a reason for downplaying it, and after he started designing more the very next year at Piping Rock, and particularly in the remembrances of Tilly and Wilson and Francis after his death, wouldn't it be likely that someone fessed up?

[DMoriarty]

You of all people should understand that it was a process.   I do think they had the basic routing before mid-November but a lot remained to be done.   You guys always seem to forget that CBM was in the middle of revolutionizing the way golf courses were created, and was doing things quite differently than the way things had been done and for much different reasons.  These guys at Merion were novices, especially when it came to creating first class golf courses based on the underlying fundamental principles of the great golf holes, and if Merion was to have a truly first class course - one based on CBM's ideas and advice  - then they certainly needed more than just a rough routing.  

I think that they started with a Barker routing and I think that CBM's and HJW's advice (and while we don't know the extent of their advice we do know their advice extended further than that letter) changed that.  I think that Merion was having trouble fitting the course on the property and changed it further through the swap.   We know that Merion went to NGLA for further help and guidance on the layout and CBM gave them further guidance.   I think they came back to Merion and rearranged the course (my speculation is that CBM had tentatively signed off on what they had figured out with the swap and they rearranged the course accordingly) and that they had several iterations, options, or versions either because they left NGLA with these various options in mind or because whatever they came up with at NGLA wasn't quite clear so they tried things different ways.  Whichever it was, CBM was coming back anyway to reinspect the land (while he most likely had a contour map long before then, it should be of no surprise if he wanted to see the land again before finalizing anything)  and to choose the final routing.   It is not clear whether he chose one of the plans or some combination thereof or even something different from all five, but whatever he chose Merion went with the plan he chose and apparently BECAUSE HE CHOSE IT.   And the apparent intent was the BUILD THE COURSE ACCORDING THE PLAN CBM CHOSE.

No doubt throughout this process those at Merion had significant input, especially Lloyd who was involved throughout, Francis who came up with the swap, and of course Wilson who was not only involved in the planning at NGLA and the follow-up iterations, he was involved in executing the plan CBM chose - building the course according to plan - and there was certainly much creative input in that process.  

Disclaimer for Bryan:  The above is a rough, off the top of my head, summary, it is my opinion of what happened.  The basis for that opinion is in my IMO, in the hundreds of pages of threads, and in other information and knowledge I have gleaned from spending thousands of hours looking into this period of history at Merion and elsewhere.  But it is still my opinion and should be taken as such.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Thanks, and I better understand your opinions.

It is fascinating to contemplate what the Barker routing might have looked like.  As you know, I believe it almost had to be four holes wide south of Ardmore, but perhaps shorter (pre Dallas Estate) than desired and maybe flipped and flopped.  It was a one day sketch, so its value might be much less, but it could have been pretty good for the property looked at.

Likewise, while CBM didn't have a topo map at the meeting or at least upon his return, he was able to determine that they needed the RR land and I beleive they looked at Barkers map and determined the need for the Dallas Estate that day as well.

I agree it was a long refinement process, and that some work could have been done all along the way, irrespective of official dates listed in the records.  I do recall getting lampooned by someone (seriously don't recall who) for suggesting that Wilson, knowing in Dec that he would be appointed to the committee might have started routings during Xmas day.  While I don't know that, anyone on that committee might have done the same if they had maps.  We don't know their process - sitting in a room together, or each independently bringing in a plan (hmmm, five committee members, five plans?) to take to NGLA or prepare for CBM's return.

And no doubt that CBM picked the final plan.   We know it had to be some iteration of the one with the Francis land swap, but having been involved in the process at many other places, I agree it could have been "one from column A, one from column B" type deal for CBM.

Why didn't they keep those plans?  As you and I discussed off line, keeping documents or trashing them is an interesting sujbect for gca's.  Traditionally every Xmas, we would pare our files, often throwing out many design iterations and just keeping the final plans.  I may be causing a debate 100 years from now, should anyone get interested in one of my courses!

I just got my new issue of Landscape Architecture and it implores LA's to keep all their files, saying architects tend to, but landscape designers do not.  They mention the dilemma of landscape architecture historians, and I didn't even think there were such a thing. 

[DMoriarty]

There are such things as landscape architecture historians.  In fact I provided Merion's archives with a very early landscape plan for the plantings around their clubhouse at the Merion East site.  I had obtained it from a repository of such things in Northern California.  I was of course looking for a different type of plan.  It was a neat drawing, though, and I paid for it, and wish I still had it.

Unfortunately this was when I though Wayne Morrison was at least somewhat honorable and honest.  I had obtained what is known as a "research copy" as opposed to an "archival copy" suitable for archiving. Wayne was quite excited about seeing it, so I sent him my copy (I cant remember exactly, but I think it was too large for me to make him a copy) along with the information on where I had obtained it and what it was, and I specifically requested that he return my copy to me after he obtained a suitable archival copy for Merion's Archives or made a copy of mine.   Rather than so doing, he just kept it.

Part of the terrific experience I had trying to deal with Wayne Morrison as if he was a person of integrity.   Oh well, my fault for ever believing that he had the authority to speak for Merion or act on their behalf.  

[Mike Cirba]

Avid,

I understand your opinion and simply don't agree with it.  Everyome back then told us it was primarily Hugh Wilson yet strangely your synopsis neglects to mention any of that.

Still, it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

On a week of closures, unless Jim or Bryan have any responses related to the questions that came up in the past day or so around the triangle, I think this is as good a spot as any to say adieu.d

[DMoriarty]

NOBODY who was actually there credits Wilson as being primarily responsible for the initial layout plan.  Not Hugh Wilson, not Lesley, certainly not H. J. Whigham! And not even Alan Wilson, unless you twist his words to include CBM where Alan Wilson explicitly excludes him.   

As for your thousandth claim that your done with this conversation, I wish I could say "good riddance" but I know we won't be so lucky!

[Mike Cirba]

David,

You have no idea if anyone who credited Wilson was there or not, but we do know Tillinghast saw the plans prior to construction and we know he talked extensively about the project with CBM yet saw fit to name Hugh Wilson as the architect.

In fact, his opening review of the course in American Cricketer doesn't even mention CBM at all.

Also, we KNOW ALL the members of the Merion Committee credited Wilson, and they did it at repeated times.

[JESII]

David,

Why on earth would you take on the task of suggesting HJ Wigham was closer to the action at Merion than Alan Wilson was? I know what your primary premise is, but without the mother lode of correspondance the "Drexel Letters" may have been it's pointless.


Mike and Jeff,

Why would the developer draw a line that has no meaning and label it "approximate"?
Why would a developer create a boundary that unecessarily eliminates access to Haverford College's land?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim, why in heavens name would they care about access to Haverford College?  I mean, good school and all but...

They already owned the Johnson Farm land UP to College Avenue, approx. 150 x 327 and we know certainly very good for golf.

Why truncate that plot artificially?  

If both parties desired golf course fronting lots how would that possibly make any sense?

Can you show me on that land plan what you think the plan looked like prior to November?  Remember, however you slice it you are telling us they originally thought it worked best to meet golf and real estate needs.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I agree its pretty hard for David to sell HJW's recollections as an eyewitness while simultaneously discounting Alan Wilson's, AWT, or even Francis's in 1950.  If that is all the evidence David has from his now unseen footnotes, I personally think its not a game changer for Merion.

I think I answered your second question, but its not uncommon for a developer to not give another property owner access, especially if they aren't paying for any of the road!  I would guess the college had a cumbersom process to decide such things, or just wasn't interested so they left that little gap specifically to not give them free access.  Just think of the "fine home" that might be affected by who knows what coming out of the college property entrance.


As to approxmiate, I think we all have the same understanding - at the time it was drawn, it was understood that it would change subject to golf course needs, as per the land agreement.  It just says what everyone knew.

The only debate between the parties is why it is siutated in that location and with the gentle curve.  As you know, I believe it was potentially to give McFadden access, because of topo/intersection alignment and sight line considerations, and to tie into whatever they had planned for Turnbridge Road across college ave and to provide a nice road alignment suitable for fine homes.  The old maps show some apparently existing lots that Turnbridge touched, and that might have been a factor in the location of that road, which then affected the intersection for Golf House Road.

While none of us knows for sure, based on my experience in land planning and routing, that is the most likely scenario.  And, as I have said, I suspect that the developer drew that plan, with general agreement from MCC, to use the general land specified, and to meet the 120 acre sale, along with considerations above.  I do not think a routing was done, but I bet when members saw that triangle, even without a routing, they knew they had a problem dimensionally, and that was part of the reason for the December letter saying they needed the flexibility to move the road.

However, that is just one possible scenario.  Others might have happened, too.

Hope that helps.

[Mike Cirba]

It's sort of funny actually.

For those who are buying David's latest "Long process" theory that suggests CBM started by using Barker's June 1910 routing and then worked from there, you also have to believe that these supposed "experts" didn't have the slightest clue how to use the quarry, as evidently none of them was bright enough to suggest purchasing land north of the quarry for purposes of golf!  

Apparently they needed a rank novice to help them out of the incredible "paint ourselves in a corner" mess the supposed combined expert efforts of Barker, CBM, and Whigham had produced.  

Of course, that's preposterous but it is what some here would have us believe.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

When I was answering either David or Jim the other day, I was going to mention the probability of using Barker's routing for anything.

I have seen it both ways.  For example, when I won the Fortune Bay job in a competition, the Owners showed me the other routings, and while I had a free hand and had to connect the dots, showed me a few holes from another plan (really more of an area they wanted used somehow).

Right now I am sitting in the office preparing a prelim routing plan on a project where other architects have tread and the client refuses to "taint" my process with the older routings, although they did give me the clubhouse location.

It might have gone either way on whether they showed CBM the Barker routing and whether any of it survived into the final plan.  I am just guessing that  the committee would have at least looked at it, even if they did or didn't show it to CBM.  As newbs, I would guess the more starting info the better, but I could be wrong.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Why on earth would you take on the task of suggesting HJ Wigham was closer to the action at Merion than Alan Wilson was? I know what your primary premise is, but without the mother lode of correspondance the "Drexel Letters" may have been it's pointless.

Seriously?  Among other reasons . . .
1.  Because Whigham was an EYEWITNESS of what went on at Merion and also a participant.  
2.  Because Whigham was extraordinarily knowledgeable about the process of creating golf courses.
3.  Because Whigham was a trained and well respected reporter, writer, and editor.
4.  Because given CBM's extraordinary accomplishments and course list, he had little reason to falsely exaggerate CBM's accomplishments.
5.  Because HJW's comments about Pine Valley suggest that he was not one to credit CBM with a course were only some of CBM's advice was followed.
6.  Because Alan Wilson was NOT AN EYE WITNESS.
7.  Because I have never seen any source material even suggesting Alan Wilson was there or had anything to do with the early creation of Merion East.  No one even mentions him!  
8.  Because even Alan Wilson - in his own letter - makes it clear that he is relying on second hand information!  
9.  Because Alan Wilson was not just addressing the initial creation of Merion East but was talking about BOTH COURSES over time, after things had "evolved."  
10.Because the errors in Alan Wilson's letter cast doubt on the accuracy of his account regarding this very early period.
11.Because Alan Wilson was attempting to secure a place for his recently deceased younger brother in Merion's history.

As if that weren't enough (it is more than enough) I DON'T THINK THAT THE ALAN WILSON LETTER MEANS WHAT THESE GUYS CLAIM IT MEANS!  

1.   The letter described CBM's and HJW's contribution and then excepts them from further consideration! With my bold: "Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee . . . "  - The Committee is responsible for everything that CBM and HJW didn't do!

2.  The letter then divides the division of labor amongst the Committee. Again with my bold:   "On his return [from overseas] the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course."
- The entire committee contributed, but of the committee Hugh Wilson was the person in the main.
- Note that Alan Wilson didn't even seem to know when this is happening!  He thinks it was after the trip when we know the course was built before the trip!   Yet you think he is a more reliable source than the person right there than one of the foremost experts on golf courses and the person right there at Merion with CBM advising them!  

Far from excluding CBM/HJW, Alan Wilson's letter confirms that they involved.  Their contribution to the layout plan was "of the greatest help and value."  The contributors were CBM/HJW on the one hand, and the Committee on the other hand.   But of the Committee, Hugh Wilson was the person in the main responsible.  

In any reasonable conversation, such a statement by a man of the stature of H.J. Whigham in golf and journalism would close the issue unless the facts were overwhelmingly to the contrary.  But there is nothing reasonable about this conversation.    This was H.J. Whigham for goodness sakes.  His family was golfing royalty in Scotland, and he was one of the pioneers of golf here.  He had been building courses in the United States since the mid-1890's and had been working with CBM on CBM's courses since since the late 1890's.   He not only knew CBM well and was his son-in-law, he was working with CBM on his designs and had been for years, and was eve a co-author of the article where CBM/HJW discuss Merion's Redan!

And, above all else,  HE WAS THERE. HE WAS AN EYEWITNESS WITH A STRONG BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS ONGOING.   HE WAS AT MERION WITH CBM BOTH IN THE SUMMER AND IN THE SPRING.  HE TOO WAS ADVISING MERION!  

These attempts to minimize him and his word are just a continuation of the nasty crap Mike, TEPaul, and Wayne have been writing about this guy for years.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

" I DON'T THINK THAT THE ALAN WILSON LETTER MEANS WHAT THESE GUYS CLAIM IT MEANS!"


David,

Of course you don't!  It seems to be an integral part of your method, determining that what people say isn't really what they say.

FWIW,

Since AW used the term "evolved" I think he was likely referring to all the bunker additons, etc. known to be done after Hugh got back from Scotland.  It does presume the routing had already been done (and built) but it doesn't read to me as if AW was confused at all.

Also, I agree on Whigham being a stout individual, but those involved in Merion, AWT, and others were in the same company.  The Whigham eulogy, while interesting, given CBM never claimed credit for MCC, is not that convincing to me given other equally impressive individuals (including Alan Wilson, no slouch and long time member on many committees) said  something different, and many years closer to the events.

Just saying.

Hope you had a good Mothers Day in your family. 

[DMoriarty]

Typical Brauer.  Never stops misrepresenting me so he can throw out another cheap-shot insult.   I didn't misrepresent what AW said at all.  I quoted him exactly.  I don't sneakily change quotes like you do.  You guys just keep twisting it try and make it mean something else.

It matters not to me whether he was describing what happened later or if he was confused about what happened initially. Either way,the bit about HW being the person in the main is about his work relative to the Committee, and not about CBM's involvement.  And even while insulting me you inadvertently conceded my main point. Good thing you didn't the fact that you agree with me get in the way of your insults, or you might have changed your position!  

And AWT was NOT INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL CREATION OF MERION EAST.   Ironically, according to him, whatever he knew of the initial project - and whatever plans he saw - came from CBM!    Yet you guys try to twist some statement he made 20+ years later (after the course had been changed significantly at HUGH WILSON'S DIRECTION) as a direct statement about what happened in 1910-1911?  

You guys need to step back and and look at how desperate your position has become.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

And I quoted you exactly, so the same applies. I didn't misrepresent you at all.

I understand that AWT got info on the early days of MCC from CBM, and then still wrote his article about Hugh Wilson designing the course!


As to your claim of never adding words to quotes, the actual Wilson quote was:

They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value.

Your quote was:

Their contribution to the layout plan was "of the greatest help and value."  

Not sure if that changes the meaning in anyone's mind but there you have it - inadvertant slip we all make, or attempt to change the nuance, you changed a word.  I have actually noticed it many other times, as well as slipping in your opinions as accepted fact.  I generally let it go as human foible, but of course you point out every instance of it, all while declaring your total purity and ethcial nature because that is how you roll.  

And we have recently seen articles by Hugh Wilson and Robert Lesley (who were very active partipants) which say the committee laid out the course with the assistance of CBM.  Why would you shift the argument to a passionate defense of HJW's stature, especially, when, as I pointed out, the Merion guys were of equal stature over the biggest participants?

The participants all say clearly that the committee designed the golf course.  Again, the eulogy is an interesting twist, but far from convincing.  Certainly no more than Alan Wilson's letter, who spent many years at MC ,vs 4 days for HJW.  I stand by my statement that most of your position on MCC comes from cherry picking the most obscure points.  

For that matter, while you seem to think everyone is dissing CBM by only giving him credit for assistance rather than full routing/layout, whatever, you actually are really dissing the history of Merion.

After all, with you saying so many documents don't say what they seemingly say, either the old MCC guys were (in your opinion) dumber than a stump, in a long time conspiracy to hide the truth of CBM's involvement, or just all coincidentally mistaken.  Could any reasonable historical theory really think any/all of that happened?  Really?  And yet you think we are desparate just because we read the most contemporaneous documents and take them at their word.  (another thing you DONT do, and they scream that  you are the only one who does.

Its time to move on if your only evidence of more involvement by CBM is the eulogy.  Hopefully, more documents will come to light, but rehashing that one after three to five years is really a waste of time and we have come the full circle - again!

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

Sorry for not responding earlier.  I see some further posts on your query, but wanted to respond anyway.

......................................


Bryan,

A day or so ago you and Mike were discussing the last measurement on the July deed and it's 76 yard straight shot up to College Ave. The immediate prior measurement was a 62 yard curving stretch (Tom Paul sent an email about this, not sure if you were copied) and that this was proof that the total length from College Ave was 138 yards and not the 120 we've been assuming. My question from the deeds is two-fold; does the Eastern portion of that 62 yard stretch track the western part with the same 3.667 yard width? Or does it continue straight South which would obviously add to the width of the top of the triangle well North of the 16th tee? Second, how many yards does that arching 62 yard stretch of road cover in a straight line continuing down to the 16th tee?

Hope those were clear and if you don't have time to look and figure it out, no sweat.

The dimensions from the July 1911 deed are as follows.  The first measurement is from the middle of College Ave going south (all directions approx.) along the Haverford College boundary for 983.48 feet (328 yards).  It is initially along the eastern edge of GHR.  The metes and bounds track clockwise along the boundaries of the MCCGA property.  The third last measurement is a curve to the left with a radius 200', a chord of 209' and an arc of 220'. The second last measurement is 230 feet (76.6 yards) going north up the middle of GHR and parallel to the first measurement and ending in the middle of College Ave. The last measurement is then east 11 feet along the middle of College Ave to meet the beginning of the first measurement.

On the following map the first measurement of 328 yards is in red.  The second last measurement of 76.6 yards is in purple.  The 190 yards dimension of the Francis triangle is in blue.  Tom subtracted the 190 yards and the 76.6 yards from the 328 yards and came up with the 62 yard dimension in the middle.  He was referring to the quasi-triangular area in yellow.  He said it hasn't been a functional part of Merion for a century.  Nevertheless MCCGA owned it when they were deeded the property in 1911.  They also owned half (11 feet) of GHR.  GHR was built by the time the survey for the deed was done sometime before July 1911.

This deed provides no further insight into when exactly GHR was planned in this configuration.  I agree with you that it was not a major rerouting from the Land Plan map.

For those pondering access to the Haverford College property, have a look at the 1908 or 1913 RR maps.  There is clearly a road into that property off of Haverford Road.  There was no need for one from GHR.

[JESII]

Mike,

No need to get hysterical, just askin'


Jeff,

Thanks, makes sense.

David,

Yes seriously. I didn't say anything about Wigham's writing, rather the likelihood that Alan Wilson didn't know what was going on. More importantly, I see that debate as a diversion so why introduce it?


Bryan,

Thank you. Is there any reason to think the extra 3 acres purchased in July is just Merion's share of road space? This has probably been covered through the years but I don't remember it. I did a rough estimate of GHR and their half was about 1 acre, do they also have to buy their share of Ardmore Ave?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim, why in heavens name would they care about access to Haverford College?  I mean, good school and all but...

They already owned the Johnson Farm land UP to College Avenue, approx. 150 x 327 and we know certainly very good for golf.

Why truncate that plot artificially?  

If both parties desired golf course fronting lots how would that possibly make any sense?

Can you show me on that land plan what you think the plan looked like prior to November?  Remember, however you slice it you are telling us they originally thought it worked best to meet golf and real estate needs.


Jim,

I'm sorry, but how is this hysterical?

I'm not sure why you won't answer my questions, particularly the one about what you think the Land Plan looked like prior to November?

Here's the Johnson Farm property north of Ardmore Avenue (seeing the Haverford College road the Bryan mentioned) in 1908.

How do you think HDC and Merion had that tract subdivided roughly prior to Francis's brainstorm and what do you think their thinking was, since CBM had already told them that "much could be made" of the quarry as a hazard?

By the way, for everyone...CBM told them that he and Whigham thought it could be done provided the acquire a little more land near where they propose making their clubhouse.   How do we know he isn't talking about the land of Haverford College along the tracks north of the clubhouse extending up past the quarry or perhaps THAT land as well as the railroad land southeast of the clubhouse??

We don't really know, do we?   Yet, it would certainly seem logical to want land on both sides of the creek all along that stretch running to the railroad along the entire Johnson Farm.

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Yes seriously. I didn't say anything about Wigham's writing, rather the likelihood that Alan Wilson didn't know what was going on. More importantly, I see that debate as a diversion so why introduce it?

Jim,  You asked why on earth I would take on the task of suggesting that HJWhigham was closer to the action at Merion than Alan Wilson was?

I didn't introduce the comparison but was rather responding to the claims that somehow a second hand account by AWilson ought to be given more weight than an expert eyewitness!   

But in answer to this revised question, it is unlikely that Wilson knew what was going on.  He wasn't there.  He was obviously relying on what other people told him and his account of the timing either makes no sense or it only deals with H Wilson's accomplishments from spring 1912 on!   

This is in sharp contrast to Whigham who was not only there, he was an expert on the subject matter from a variety of angles.   

So when Brauer and Cirba dismiss and ignore and minimize Whigham's account, or try to raise their other question intepretations of various accounts to the level of an expert eyewitness, I need to bring attention to it.    There approach is all about twisting.  Like above how Brauer implies there was a hierarchy of who did what in the articles by Lesley and AWilson.  That is his twisted reading.   There was no hierarchy.  CBM was right there with the Committee.  The question is who was the one actually guiding the process and calling the shots.   And various documents - Merion's minutes, Hugh Wilson's statements, Whigham's article - all strongly suggest that it was CBM/HJW.   Mere secondary and peripherally involved assistants aren't put in the position of CHOOSING THE FINAL ROUTING PLAN.   

[Mike Cirba]

And AWT was NOT INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL CREATION OF MERION EAST.   Ironically, according to him, whatever he knew of the initial project - and whatever plans he saw - came from CBM!    Yet you guys try to twist some statement he made 20+ years later (after the course had been changed significantly at HUGH WILSON'S DIRECTION) as a direct statement about what happened in 1910-1911?  


David,

Why do you continue to make blanket statements that have no bearing on reality?

You have NO IDEA whether Tillinghast was there or not at any time prior to the course being built.   Not a clue.

In fact, in late April 1911 when he tells us he has already seen the plans for the new course it wasn't even under construction yet.    And, the article strongly infers that he saw them in Philadelphia AND, more importantly, had already been in direct communications with Hugh Wilson's Committee.



In fact, it's very clear that Tillinghast was directly tapped in to the entire Planning process, as he reported again the next month that CBM was "aiding" the Committee  


By the way, if Tilly got all his information from CBM, why did he neglect to even mention CBM in his Opening Day review of the course for American Cricketer magazine, instead citing the work of Wilson and his committee?

If CBM had indeed designed it, as arguably the most important man in golf in America in 1912, don't you think that little tidbit might have been important?