[DMoriarty]

Misunderstanding and mischaracterizing my essay is hardly "breaking it down" whether you include quotes inapt to your point or not.

This has become personal and petty for you.  You have become nothing but a shill for your buddy, who sends you instructions daily, and when you follow them you make a fool of yourself and the website.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Oh yes, I will add that in contradiction of your assertions, I can think for myself, form my own opinions, etc.  And while I have seen others post his email comments verbatim, I have not done that as you suggest.

And lastly, I find it hard to think I am mischaracterizing your essay. It says what it says. It provides the evidence it does or doesn't.  I actually find it funny that you not only parse the words of Merions minutes to tell us what they really mean, but now you parse your own essay to tell us what it really means.  It means what it means in the big picture.  That you can only find details to call out in my posts, but never really address the big picture is as telling as anything.

I suppose we can argue all day about who looks more the fool.  I would wager more think you do, but who cares. I agree its petty on both sides, and I agree with you, its probably time to let it drop.  Actually, I agree with TMac that the whole Merion issue should drop until there are new facts.  I know you have spent some time looking for those Drexel documents, and I hope either you or Tom Paul find them, and that he actually finds the contour map that Wilson sent, etc.

I think we all would love to know more details about the creation of Merion, sans acrimony, just to know them. I have never doubted you were a gca history enthusiast, just like the rest of us.

[DMoriarty]

Oh yes, I will add that in contradiction of your assertions, I can think for myself, form my own opinions, etc.  And while I have seen others post his email comments verbatim, I have not done that as you suggest.

 Did I say you were copying your creepy buddy's comments verbatim?  No.  But you cannot deny that he is extremely active behind the scenes and constantly feeding you directions and information.  

He has been pulling your strings behind the scenes you have become nothing but a shill here doing his dirty work.  You are TEPaul's lackey.    

And you are mischaracterizing my positions in and out of my essay, almost daily.   As for the essay itself I have explained to you repeatedly that the version you are viewing is garbled and incomplete, without proper notations and quotations. So no, it doesn't say what you say it says. Yet despite this you continue pulling out little out of context snippets.  Petty.

But the main thing you have done is repeatedly draw inaccurate, unsupportable conclusions about my positions based on out of context snippets from the essay, and then you spew out caricatures and/or mischaracterizations of my position.  And you pretend this crap comes straight of my essay when in fact it is a figment of your ever-more vindictive mind.   Among your many mischaracterizations are your BS claims were:  
-  You claimed that I believed there were more than than two Merion trips.  False.  
-  You claimed that I believed that Wilson was communicating with CBM between June and January.  False.
-  You claimed that I believed MCC was out there blasting green sites on land they did not own.  False.
-  You claimed that my essay contained no factual basis for believing that Wilson was in contact with CBM in January.  False.
-  You claimed that my essay contained no basis for suggesting that CBM remained significantly involved with Merion after June.  False.
-  You claimed that my essay contained no basis for a number of other conclusions in my essay. False.
-  You claimed that I argued that HDC wanted to build the houses facing away from the golf course.  False.  
-  You even accused me of lying about what was in Wilson's February 1, 1911 letter.  False.

That isn't all of it I am sure, but that is a hell of a list of false statements about my position just for a weeks work, don't you think?   Yet you are apparently unfazed.   Apparently you and your creepy pal figure if you throw enough mud and shit at me some of it will stick, whether anything is true or accurate or not.

And now you have the nerve to accuse me of parsing my own essay, after what you have done with it? I assure you Jeff, I have a better understanding of what my essay says and means than you ever will.   You are becoming as big a joke as your creepy pal.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I have no doubt you have a better understanding of your essay than I do. I just cannot keep up with all the changes you have made in it.  The only real question is not who understands it best, but whether its worth understanding at all.

To be honest, I know I have probably gotten as much concession out of you as I will ever be able to given your attachment to your own hard work.  At one point, you said you didn't care when CBM routed it, in another post you admitted that evidence of CBM's involvement pre Nov. 1910 was probably the weakest part of your essay. 

And, I have said that if you take away the less or unsupported CBM routed it prior to them buying the land, I sure do understand your point - while contemporaneous Merion documents gave CBM what they felt is due credit, it might not be enough, and until your essay came out, at least one generation of Merionistas (like Tollhurst) had downplayed or sort of forgotten that role.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I have no doubt you have a better understanding of your essay than I do. I just cannot keep up with all the changes you have made in it.  The only real question is not who understands it best, but whether its worth understanding at all.

This is absolutely and completely bullshit, and you know it.  Just your latest effort to undermine me and my essay without actually putting forth the time or effort to really undermine anything at all.  

The "changes" in my essay are minimal if at all.  As ought to be expected after the years of intensive scrutiny since my work has received since Ran first posted it, there are a few things I would change, but were I to rewrite my essay today it would state the case even stronger than originally.  The vast majority of what I concluded has been confirmed, and the case is extremely strong for the few issues that have not been confirmed.  Certainly none of the dozens of smoking guns your cronies have come up with over the years has touched my essay, despite their proclamations!

If anything I could change the focus.   You forget that before my essay came out your cronies were held all sorts of ridiculous beliefs about what happened at Merion and were hotly disputing all sorts of issue which have now been accepted as fact.  Because of my essay.  So I wouldn't need to focus so much of my IMO on refuting ridiculous aspects of the legend to which your cronies were clinging.  (You guys are still clinging but have nonetheless been forced by my essay to let go most of your past pathetic rhetoric.   Besides, I know much more than I did when I wrote the essay, essay, and could probably provide plenty more novel and interesting information and details.  

To be honest, I know I have probably gotten as much concession out of you as I will ever be able to given your attachment to your own hard work.  At one point, you said you didn't care when CBM routed it, in another post you admitted that evidence of CBM's involvement pre Nov. 1910 was probably the weakest part of your essay.

You've become so petty that you cannot help but twist even these points.   I do care when CBM routed the course.  You falsely claimed that the main point of IMO had to do with the timing, but is absolutely foolish.  I explained to you that the main hypothesis of my project has always been to document CBM's extensive contribution to the original design of the course, and in this regard the exact "when" is much less important that the what.  

In fact, if you ever actually bothered to try to understand the essay you'd have noticed that in the early period I don't credit CBM but rather some combination of Barker, CBM/HJW, and Lloyd/Francis.  As the project progressed, CBM/HJW's extensive involvement's more evident --the NGLA meetings working on the plans, the return to Merion to reinspect the land and choose the final routing plan, that the plan was presented to the board was presented as CBM/HJW's plan and approved on that basis, the apparent COMPLETE ABSENCE of mention of Hugh Wilson as compared to the repeated mention of HJW/CBM in Merion's documents.   And then there is the course, where most of the holes were reportedly based on holes abroad - holes which Wilson had not seen at the time he built the course; the attempts by Wilson at building at a Redan, an Alps, a Short, and Road, a Double Plateau, a Long, a green with a Biarritz swale, another hole with Biarritz characteristics, and many other features and design concepts commonly present  on CBM's courses, and then of course there is the Findlay article, the Wilson chapter, the Alan Wilson letter, the Whigham article, etc.  

As for your next bogus claim, I think what I said was that the timing of the routing is about the only issue that has yet to be unequivocally confirmed.  That is a far cry from "admitting" the IMO was weak on this point!  It was not.  It is just not a completely closed issue.   Many of the other points were were so well documented that they are today unquestionably considered fact or should be! (e.g., unravelling the Wilson trip, unravelling the HDC real estate development connection,  unravelling the various real estate exchanges and the RR land, unraveling the timing of Wilson's involvement, unraveling the general timing and purpose of the NGLA meeting, unravelling who brought in CBM and why, unravelling Merion's reason for moving, unravelling Merion's reliance on CBM's recommendations regarding the purchase of the land, unravelling the supposed "circular" and bringing forward the Nov. 15th plan, exposing that the course was largely considered to have been based on holes abroad at the time of the opening, and much more.)

Only you guys would try to condemn one portion of my IMO by lording over me the overwhelming success of the rest of the essay!

Now Jeff, I really don't want anything to do with you, so please go join your pal and the both of you can leave me the hell alone.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I hear there are drugs for your condition. Really.  The last post is getting borederline delusional.  I think you are too close to it, really.  And going too far. I don't see any groundswell of support that your IMO piece as been an overwhelming success.  Again, you trumpet your own conclusions to prove your own conclusions.

Even looking at it from your POV - its an opinion piece, not a historical research document which it has morphed into in some of our minds because of the endless debate - which should give you some leeway (such as stating which parts of the piece you are more or less committed to) its still a tough sell, but thats okay.

Since its an opinion piece, as we have agreed many times before, you certainly are entitled to believe it, defend it, modify it, and celebrate the successes within it and I am certainly entitled to disagree for the reasons of insufficient factual evidence that I have cited concerns about.

It would be nice, BTW, if you got that essay fixed, if the citations are truly muddled and gone.  I don't see more than a few instances of essay muddled.  Won't Ran do it?  Wouldn't you want to send him a fresh digital copy to repost?

[Tom MacWood]

I hear there are drugs for your condition. Really. 

That is pretty funny coming from someone in bed with TEP.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can't we all just get along ?

Seriously, I don't know which is more boring, the constant name calling or Mike Cirba posting the same newspaper article 50 times.

Can we stick to the subject matter AND ONLY THE SUBJECT MATTER.

We know that your mothers wear army boots, we accept that our mothers wear army boots.

Just stay on topic without all the sniping.

Thanks, from the voice of reason and compromise !

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Yes, when you are the voice of reason, and Osama is dead, its a world turned upside down and inside out.

Alien vixens must agree with you!

[Bryan Izatt]

Re your point 2 below, to be factual, the 310 yard dimension did still exist in the spring of 1911 when Golf House Road was built, and in July 1911 when the 120.01 acres was deeded to MCCGA.  The 120.01 acres included a rectangular strip that was 3.667 yards wide by 76.667 yards long that ran south from College Ave.  South of the 76.667 yard long strip the east-west dimension broadened rapidly following the curvilinear arc of GHR as built at the time, and the same as it is now.  That broadened area is 233.333 yards long.

Bryan,

I believe if you look carefully you'll find that the ONLY land on that deed Merion purchased north of the 16th tee for about 120 yards is the 3.667 yards (11 feet) that makes up the right side of Golf House Road (HDC owned the left half), giving them access north to College Avenue.   The road was later gifted to the township.

There was no 310 yard triangle beyond what was drawn on the initial November 15th, 1910 Land Plan before the golf course was routed.

That triangle that was drawn at about 95 yards at the base with 310 yards in length on that Land Plan was changed once the course was routed.   After the Francis Swap, it was widened at shortened to the now infamous 130x190 we know and love.   

The anticipated right side dimension for the golf course that extended north to College Avenue for 310 yards was the most obvious change from how far north they originally intended the golf course in November 1910.

Mike,

I have looked closely at the deeds.  Have you? The northern 11 foot strip is 230 feet (76 yards), not 120 yards.  You are factually incorrect.  I am factually correct.

Consequently the triangle is 233 yards by 130 yards.  And, it's not really a triangle.

Not sure what you are trying to get at in the remainder.  The land plan you've posted is distorted and bounded by an approximate road.  IMHO it is useless as an indicator of where or whether there was a routing at that point in time.  IMHO it may be indicative of Francis' land swap idea, but I don't think it is conclusive.  Unlike David, I don't feel that logical factual analysis leads to factual conclusions.  I guess, based on what you've written I don't agree that the hypotheses you have come up with are factual conclusions either.

On the matter of when the swap took place (if it even really took place as described) how would you reconcile your "March/April" timeframe with the fact that the road as it now exists was surveyed and built before July 1910?  Is it possible, probable, likely or certain that the land swap idea took place in March/April and the the road was surveyed in and constructed before July 1910?  It falls in the unlikely category to me.  Nevertheless the road was there when the deed to MCCGA was drawn up.  Do you know how long it took to build three quarters of a mile of road in 1910?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

For context, I am not:

1) from Philadelphia

2) part of the Phillie mafia

3) on anybody's email list (thankfully)

4) a moron (despite Patrick the peacemakers sometime assertions),

5) trying to be petty

6) trying to twist or misrepresent your position, or

6) a birther.

I'd like to question the "logical factual analysis" approach that you seem to generally use.  When you do this kind of analysis do you assert that the conclusions you draw are "factual" and "true"?  Or do you attribute a likelihood to them?  What level of confidence do you place on likelihood, if that's what you are using?  Are you 95% certain?   Or 99%?  Do you accept that others might not agree with your logical factual analysis to the same degree as you do?

As a case in point, in this quote from one of your recent posts:

I explained to you that the main hypothesis of my project has always been to document CBM's extensive contribution to the original design of the course, and in this regard the exact "when" is much less important that the what. 

In fact, if you ever actually bothered to try to understand the essay you'd have noticed that in the early period I don't credit CBM but rather some combination of Barker, CBM/HJW, and Lloyd/Francis.  As the project progressed, CBM/HJW's extensive involvement's more evident --the NGLA meetings working on the plans, the return to Merion to reinspect the land and choose the final routing plan, that the plan was presented to the board was presented as CBM/HJW's plan and approved on that basis

I'd like to ask a few questions.  I've highlighted some sections in the quote.

Are the three points in your list indicating CBM/HJW's extensive involvement complete or just representative?

If just representative, what are the other points?

Who do you think drew the five routing plans that CBM chose from?  In your opinion, did CBM draw them?  Did he instruct somebody else on how to draw all five of them?

When you say that the selected plan was presented to the Board as his plan, are you saying that it was presented as a plan that he personally drew up?  Or, was it presented as one of five plans that someone else drew up, from which he selected one and gave it his stamp of approval?  In other posts you have described the routing plan as CBM's plan, not just that it was presented as his plan.  Do you see a difference between it being his plan vs being presented as his plan?

You've used CBM/HJW  collectively.  Do you feel that HJW deserves more recognition too?  On a par with CBM?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I'd like to question the "logical factual analysis" approach that you seem to generally use.

That's fine, but I hope you aren't quoting me with your mention of "logical factual analysis."  Is that as opposed to 'illogical factual analysis?'   Regardless, I doubt I would have written that.  But whatever you call it, I don't think there is anything particularly novel about my approach to historical analysis.  So far as I can tell is quite similar to your general approach, at least when I am not exchanging insults with these guys and when you aren't taking shots at Patrick or setting out lists "for context" as above.

When you do this kind of analysis do you assert that the conclusions you draw are "factual" and "true"?  Or do you attribute a likelihood to them?  What level of confidence do you place on likelihood, if that's what you are using?  Are you 95% certain?   Or 99%?  Do you accept that others might not agree with your logical factual analysis to the same degree as you do?

I think you may be presenting a false choice here.  While my goal is to figure out what happened, I generally don't think of conclusions as "factual."  And while I may indicate the level of confidence I have in my conclusions, I don't assign specific numerical probabilities.  Doing so would be unjustifiable pseudo-science so far as I am concerned.  

I guess you haven't noticed that I have been roundly criticized by Brauer, TEPaul, and Cirba for failing to state my conclusions as absolute facts.  Words like "likely" or "unlikely" or "probably" or "possibly" are dirty words to these guys, I guess because they know it all for certain.

Here is an example from my essay:

The Board of Governors also announced to the members that “experts are now at work preparing plans for the course which will rank in length, soil, and variety of hazards with the best in the country,” and the Inquirer reported the same. Unfortunately, neither the Board nor the Inquirer identified just who these “experts” were. While it is possible that the paper was referring to Hugh Wilson and his Committee, it is also highly unlikely, unless the Board was engaging in pure hyperbole. Hugh Wilson was by no means an “expert” when it came to planning or building golf courses. Rather, he and his Committee were complete novices. In 1916 Wilson wrote . . . .

As you can see, I did not assert my conclusion as fact.  Rather, I wrote that I thought it "possible" but "highly unlikely" that Merion's board was referring to Wilson and his Committee as the experts preparing plans for the course.  I then went on over the next three or four paragraphs explaining some of the reasons why I thought it was "highly unlikely" that Merion's board was referring to Wilson or his committee.

I'd like to ask a few questions.  I've highlighted some sections in the quote.

That's fine as well, but there are no highlights that I can see.

Are the three points in your list indicating CBM/HJW's extensive involvement complete or just representative?

They are representative.

If just representative, what are the other points?

I provided a few representative points because listing them all would be tantamount to another, longer IMO.  I am not willing to do that at the moment.  

Who do you think drew the five routing plans that CBM chose from?  In your opinion, did CBM draw them?  Did he instruct somebody else on how to draw all five of them?

I don't think there were five routing plans. Beyond that, see the answer above.

When you say that the selected plan was presented to the Board as his plan, are you saying that it was presented as a plan that he personally drew up? Or, was it presented as one of five plans that someone else drew up, from which he selected one and gave it his stamp of approval?  In other posts you have described the routing plan as CBM's plan, not just that it was presented as his plan.  Do you see a difference between it being his plan vs being presented as his plan?

See above.

You've used CBM/HJW  collectively.  Do you feel that HJW deserves more recognition too?  On a par with CBM?

It isn't about recognition as it about understanding what happened.  Beyond that see above.
______________________


These are good questions Bryan but there is no way I can answer in them in a sentence or two.  You started off questioning me about my methodology but have moved into asking me to provide you with an IMO broader than my first.  

Don't get me wrong.  If you really want to go through it all, we can, even though most has been covered repeatedly before.  But if we do so you are going to need to patient and we need to do it in more manageable bites.   And before we get into any of these substantive issues, I'd like to make sure we are on the same page regarding my methodology.

Thanks.

[Mike Cirba]

If you guys want to exit the conversation, fine. If you figure getting no feedback from me for a day means I'm out, sorry. So let me know if you're done and I'm OK with that.

A couple questions for you to consider if you're interested.

1) Was the "committee" that was formed in January 1911 under the chain of command of the MCCGA? Or just the old MCC?

2) When do you guys think Lloyd found himself "with decision-making authority"?

3) Assuming when Francis says "we had some land to the West" that "WE" he was referring to was Merion (or the committee), do you realize they didn't "HAVE" any land until July 1911? Lloyd took title FOR HDC...not for Merion. It was still under HDC's umbrella until Merion bought it the following summer.

Just some items that might be worth discussing regarding the timeline...



Jim,

I was hoping to bow out, but probably the only reason I'm still in this thing is because I'm hoping to still convince you of the error of your ways.    

Seriously, let me have a shot at your questions;

1) I don't know, but do know that ultimately the Committee's report and recommendations needed approval from the Merion Cricket Club Board of Governors.   My understanding of the purpose of the MCCGA initially was to create a separate corporation that would lease back the golf course to MCC in perpetuity, so I don't know that it had it's own administration and committee reporting structure, at least initially.   What's your thought there?

2) Legally, Francis found himself with decision-making authority after he purchased the land in late December 1910.   It was a little tricky if you think about it.   Merion announces in November 1910 that they've secured 117 acres and releases that Land Plan we now know and love so well, but it really doesn't go down like that, does it?  

Instead, no 117 acres is purchased at first...instead, at the urging of Merion's counsel DeWitt Cuyler, specifically citing the fact that the boundaries of the golf course aren't determined yet...Lloyd goes ahead and purchases the entire 161 acres of the Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate.   Talk about uncertain borders!  

3) Legally, you're correct, but we also know that once Lloyd purchased the 161 acres in December 1910, he was essentially positioned to work both sides of the transaction, and in the position to represent the best interests of the overall project as he saw fit.  

I'm sure Merion, for instance, felt comfortable that he wasn't going to sell off their previously secured 117 acres to someone else for his own personal gain, and felt that their interests were covered and represented, and that the land under question was now "theirs", at least some 117 acres of it.

Interestingly, by April, the committee decided they needed a bit more of that 161, and asked the Board of Governors  to authorize the additional purchase of 3 acres, bringing to total of their purchase to just over 120 acres, which was formalized in July 1911, as you note.

Still, I'm sure the Committee, of which Lloyd was a member, would have been very comfortable with saying "we had some land" anytime after Lloyd's purchase in December 1910, and really not comfortable saying the same thing at any time before November 15th, 1910.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike,

I have looked closely at the deeds.  Have you? The northern 11 foot strip is 230 feet (76 yards), not 120 yards.  You are factually incorrect.  I am factually correct.

Consequently the triangle is 233 yards by 130 yards.  And, it's not really a triangle.

Not sure what you are trying to get at in the remainder.  The land plan you've posted is distorted and bounded by an approximate road.  IMHO it is useless as an indicator of where or whether there was a routing at that point in time.  IMHO it may be indicative of Francis' land swap idea, but I don't think it is conclusive.  Unlike David, I don't feel that logical factual analysis leads to factual conclusions.  I guess, based on what you've written I don't agree that the hypotheses you have come up with are factual conclusions either.

On the matter of when the swap took place (if it even really took place as described) how would you reconcile your "March/April" timeframe with the fact that the road as it now exists was surveyed and built before July 1910?  Is it possible, probable, likely or certain that the land swap idea took place in March/April and the the road was surveyed in and constructed before July 1910?  It falls in the unlikely category to me.  Nevertheless the road was there when the deed to MCCGA was drawn up.  Do you know how long it took to build three quarters of a mile of road in 1910?

Bryan,

A couple of things, in response.

I could look at a deed's metes and bounds and it may as well be Latin so I appreciate you bearing with me.  

What can you tell me about the average width of the land for the last 44 yards going southward towards today's 16th tee boundary from the initial 11 foot wide 76 yards going south from College Avenue?

Also, I would wholly agree with your statement;

"The land plan you've posted is distorted and bounded by an approximate road.  IMHO it is useless as an indicator of where or whether there was a routing at that point in time."

And isn't that what this whole debate is really about?   The contention by some that since this Land Plan indicates that the golf course goes north above the Haverford College southern boundary (and to College Avenue) that it's somehow representative of a fully routed golf course, even though every other single bit of contemporaneous evidence tells us clearly that the course was NOT routed at this time??

Isn't this the whole premise of David's argument that attempts to exclude Hugh Wilson from the original design of the course...the idea that this otherwise "to scale" land plan somehow represents a finalized routing completed prior to it's publication (Nov 15th 1910) despite the obvious facts that;

1) There are no holes indicated on it.

2) It does not reflect the golf course land that the course was eventually built on.

Isn't the entire conspiracy theory based on this single bit of admittedly flawed evidence??


David's theory attempts to negate Wilson's design efforts by trying to move back in time the work to route the course and his entire theory excluding Wilson hinges on this Land Plan, which he argues is proof positive that the course was routed before November 15th, 1910.


As far as the road...I would think that once Merion's Board approved the final plan work on that bordering road could/would commence in the same time frame....around late April 1911.

I have no idea how long it took to build a road in 1911, whether it was asphalt or chip and tar, or even gravel initially.   I do know that many of the Merion men like Robert Lesley were engineers (he actually owned a Cement factory) and had access to local labor, so it doesn't seem on the face of it to be preposterous to have it completed in 2-3 months time.

[Mike Cirba]

Who do you think drew the five routing plans that CBM chose from?  In your opinion, did CBM draw them?  Did he instruct somebody else on how to draw all five of them?

I don't think there were five routing plans. Beyond that, see the answer above.


When you say that the selected plan was presented to the Board as his plan, are you saying that it was presented as a plan that he personally drew up? Or, was it presented as one of five plans that someone else drew up, from which he selected one and gave it his stamp of approval?  In other posts you have described the routing plan as CBM's plan, not just that it was presented as his plan.  Do you see a difference between it being his plan vs being presented as his plan?

See above.


David,

I know I'm going to hate myself for asking this question, but once again, here is what the MCC Minutes tell us about the activities of the Merion Committee during the period leading into April 1911;

Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:

Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.

On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans (bold mine).
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.


When you say you don't think there were five routing plans, would you care to elaborate?

I would also point out that in response to your long post above, Hugh Wilson and Committee did indeed see the template holes prior to designing Merion...they saw CBM's version of them at NGLA as well as his scale drawings of the originals during his overnight stay.   It is also virtually certain that other members of the committee like Rodman Griscom were very familiar with the originals from their own overseas visits, as well.

[JESII]

Mike,

My thought in asking about the Wilson Committee's reporting chain is that if it were through MCCGA, which Tom has admitted is a real possibility, then of course it wasn't formed until January because MCCGA wasn't formed until about then. It would be unreasonable to think they would sit on the sidelines until the legal paperwork incorporating MCCGA was complete before setting foot on the property. As I've said all along, it's my belief that they began the process of figuring out how to build the course in the summer of 1910.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I don't know the answer to that question about reporting, but would note that you've clearly been listening to David too long when you use phrases like "they began the process of figuring out how to build the course...".      

Me...I'm sticking with "design".  

[JESII]

Does anyone else find it interesting that they had CBM look at only one parcel of land? To say he selected the site is more than a stretch when he only had one option. Excuse me sir, would you like the steak or the steak?

Along those lines, clearly Lloyd was in charge in the summer of 1910...well before your December date. I think the committee would feel comfortable saying "we had some property" as soon as they had a handshake to buy X amount of land. Considering Lloyd's recapitalization of HDC at this same time, this was likely several months prior to Lloyd's December contract date. At a minimum, we know MCC was comfortable making the purchase public by November 1. None of this proves the swap happened then, agreed, but the dates are not hard and fast boundaries defining when something could have happened before or after...IMO.

[JESII]

Jim,

I don't know the answer to that question about reporting, but would note that you've clearly been listening to David too long when you use phrases like "they began the process of figuring out how to build the course...".      

Me...I'm sticking with "design".  

I see the smiley faces so I trust that post was in jest because my scenario gives a whole lot more design credit to Wilson and committee than your Fabruary - April scenario...

[Mike Cirba]

Does anyone else find it interesting that they had CBM look at only one parcel of land? To say he selected the site is more than a stretch when he only had one option. Excuse me sir, would you like the steak or the steak?

Jim,

I find it even more interesting that Merion's Site Committee didn't see fit to reproduce CBM's letter (which is really a half-hearted endorsement, at best) in their Board presentation.



Along those lines, clearly Lloyd was in charge in the summer of 1910...well before your December date. I think the committee would feel comfortable saying "we had some property" as soon as they had a handshake to buy X amount of land. Considering Lloyd's recapitalization of HDC at this same time, this was likely several months prior to Lloyd's December contract date. At a minimum, we know MCC was comfortable making the purchase public by November 1. None of this proves the swap happened then, agreed, but the dates are not hard and fast boundaries defining when something could have happened before or after...IMO.


I'm not really sure about that one.   Certainly the Site Committee urged quick action due to rising land prices.   And in truth, that "handshake" agreement really didn't happen until November with the exchange of letters between Nicholson of HDC and Merion's President Allen Evans.

Interestingly, Nicholson's November 10th letter lists all of HDC's 338.6 acres (holdings) in itemized fashion by parcel and then states that out of said 338.6 acres a tract of 117 acres "we agree to sell to a corporation to be formed on behalf of the Merion Cricket Club", which is not what happened at all.

Why?

Well, because no boundary was determined at that point because the routing wasn't done.

So instead, Lloyd just bought the whole 140 acres of the Johnson Farm and the 21 acre Dallas Estate under his own name in late December as Cuyler advised. 

[Mike Cirba]

I see the smiley faces so I trust that post was in jest because my scenario gives a whole lot more design credit to Wilson and committee than your Fabruary - April scenario...


Jim,

I think we agree that various members of the Committee were out on the property in the June to December timeframe and I think we agree that they would certainly be envisioning possible golf holes and features that could be utilized.

Still I don't think they really got that ball rolling officially until after Lloyd's purchase in December 1910 with the formalization and appointment of a committee in charge of those activities.

I think the MCC minutes make clear what happened...the Committee created various routing plans prior to March 1910, they visited NGLA which certainly had an impact on their thinking...came back and created five different plans, and then enlisted CBM and Whigham to come back down for a day to help them pick the best one.

I don't think that interpretation minimizes the efforts of authorship of the Committee in the least, and is clearly consistent with everyone reporting at the time (including Hugh & Alan Wilson, Robert Lesley, AW Tillinghast, and others) that the course was designed by the committee with the most helpful advice and suggestions of those two fine amateur sportsmen and gentlemen, CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham.

[JESII]

Mike,

You're muddying the waters on that point...the November letters were not the handshake, they were much more formal than that. The handshake would have come well before that.

And when you say "Interestingly, Nicholson's November 10th letter lists all of HDC's 338.6 acres (holdings) in itemized fashion by parcel and then states that out of said 338.6 acres a tract of 117 acres "we agree to sell to a corporation to be formed on behalf of the Merion Cricket Club", which is not what happened at all.

Why?"

It did happen that way...in July 1911. You're stuck on Lloyd buying the land for Merion in Decemnber and that's not what happened. He "took title for HDC". This is an important fact you need to accept.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Why do you think that Lloyd didn't just purchase the 117 acres of land that was supposedly representative of a finalized routing at that point?  

I also think taking title "for HDC" is misunderstood here.

I think 1) Cuyler wanted Lloyd to take title into his own name THEN rather than waiting until they could go through the trouble of creating a corporation for the purpose, and 2) since the boundaries of the course were not finalized, it would be simpler to eventually untangle if it was just Lloyd operating within/for HDC than bringing Merion's proposed Corp into it at that point.    

[JESII]

When was MCCGA incorporated?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

One other thought on Cuyler advising Lloyd to take title "for HDC".

Remember that Cuyler was representing Merion's interests here, not necessarily HDC's.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()