[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

I agree with TMac.  This is a colorized photo. Go to Arcadia Pulbishing,and they have a series of books called Images in Time, and Postcards.  Even on line, you can browse through their books and see many selections

So, its a photograph, and I think anyone can see that these a turf grass varieties planted rather than corn.  And yes, if HDC had a cornfield across its road, they probably seeded something to stop erosion and make their lots more attractive for sale.

BTW, seeding technology really hasn't progressed a lot in 100 years, and I note in those letters that Oakley tells
wilson to make sure the soil is firm, for what we would call today good "seed soil contact.'  The other pariticulars, other than manure in place of commerical fertilzer are really the same, too.  So, if anyone questioning how different seeding then and now is, go ahead and bring your evidence, even though you haven't seeded anthing in your life, and perhaps are familiar with stool samples, but not soil samples.  How odd it is to have someone who knows nothing cast aspersions based on nothing.

Also, certain someones keep asking when the routing was in place.  Again, and in no uncertain terms, the Merion record tells us CBM approved their routing from among five about April 13 (don't recall exact day) and the board officially approved it on (I think) April 19, 1910.  Even if Wilson had sent a routing to Oakley in Feb, it was as inaccurate as a blank map.

And again, on most jobs, there are about six to eight soil sample areas.  I often letter them because numbering them might make someone assume they came from the hole of the same number and it could be confusing.  Either way, how many letters did Wilson assign?  He really doesn't need one from each fw, he needs one from the good bluegrass areas, the cornfields, and some other key areas.  As a novice, it makes nothing but sense for him to ask an expert where the soil samples could be taken from.

This is and always has been absurd.  The Moronics have an agenda to prove Merion wrong, for whatever their motivations may be.  When the documents (which they actually refuse to go see) aren't available, the start looking for every inconsistency (and there are some) every possible 1% chance of something being amiss, and of course, insult anone in their way.  Its really no different (other than how mean spirited David is) than the Kennedy conspiracy folks, or those who have maintained since 9-11 that Dick Cheney bombed the towers to drum up more business for Haliburton.

Those conspiracy theorists have continued to ply their trade for 38 and 10 years, and I have every confidence that these jackasses will have similar staying power.  On the advice of my doctor, I am trying to reduce my daily ingestion of jackass, scumbag, lying content, which, my logical analysis tells me is this thread.

I hope they get their comeuppance someday, but I amobviously not the one to do it.  I sincerely hope Merion, or the USGA, or the national magazines take some time to study this thread and highlight what idiocy this is. 

I shall try my best to stay away.  Really not worth it.  But, carry on.

[Tom MacWood]

I don't think there is any question there was routing in place in January 1911, and IMO Barker is the most likely candidate. For me the question is what happened. If Barker did lay out that early version why was he completely out the picture by February, and CBM the expert in charge. I've done a lot of research of both men, and the odd thing is Barker seems to disappear from the golf scene after his three week architectural trip in December. In his few years in America occasionally he would go back to the UK during the holidays, but there is no record of him leaving around this time. He was in Atlanta in mid-December and did not reappear until April the next year. It was a fairly big story that he had resigned Garden City to become the new pro at Rumson.

[DMoriarty]

How about our unbiased agronomy expert, going on about stool samples and calling me and/or TomM scumbags, morons, liars, and mean-spirited jackasses and conspiracy theorists, and looking for us to get our comeuppance?  Obviously this isn't personal for him.  

Not worth comment, except to clarify one thing.

Like Mike Cirba the other day, Jeff Brauer doesn't know what the hell he is talking about when he claims I refused to go to Merion to review their documents.  I don't know why he thinks he is in a position to speak for Merion, but he is probably parroting the latest nonsense from Wayne Morrison and TEPaul.  Speaking of whom, if the USGA, the National Magazines, or even Merion wants an interesting story, they may want to look into how far those two self appointed defenders of Merion will go in order to protect their legends.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

How far do you live from Merion ?

[DMoriarty]

David,
Do you mean this literally?  Do you suppose that someone at Merion called Charlie and said that they had some land near College and Ardmore in lower Merion and would he drop by to take a look at it, but sorry can't meet you there?  And, that they bought the land without actually going out there?  That seems very unlikely to me.  Sometimes you overreach in your zealousness.  As does Mike.

Bryan, if you read the sentence in context, you know exactly what I meant.  Perhaps sometimes you overreach in your efforts to dismiss my arguments without really considering them.  I think that they did go over the land (or at least the plans) and tried to make sure the course Barker and/or CBM/HJW suggested would fit, and it didn't, thus the infamous "swap."  But other than that, what specifically were they doing out there?  If it is so overzealous to even ask, it you ought to knock it out of the park with your answer.  

Aside from from my analysis of the swap, what is the evidence that anyone from Merion had anything to do with planning the course (or laying it out) in 1910?  

Just because there is no document that we've found that says who from Merion went where and did what in this timeframe doesn't mean that they weren't there and doing things.  It seems highly unlikely that they weren't doing something, or a lot of things.  It was after all their baby.

Boy, talk about overreaching.  It sounds to me like you are just assuming them out there, whether there is any evidence.  If it was Merion's baby, it sure seems like they wanted CBM/HJW to deliver the plan.  Otherwise why have them down, travel up there, bring them back down, and let them choose the final routing plan?  I see no reason to think anyone from Merion would have had been doing much independent planning during 1910, other than trying to figure out if what Barker/CBM/HJW had suggested would fit.  That after all was the biggest issue according to CBM.  

And what about the double standard?  I don't recall you seeing much merit in a similar (but IMO more sound) line of reasoning when Patrick, TomM, and I pointed out that there were very likely more communications between CBM and Merion than just those few we happened to find.  Why is it okay to make these sort of assumptions when it comes to those at Merion, but not when it comes to BCBM and HJW?  At least with CBM/HJW we know they were directly involved, had been over the land, and considered its merits for a golf course, and were a contour map away from routing in in June of 1910!

But let's here your facts and analysis.   Beyond my swap analysis, what specifically do you think those at Merion were doing?  And when were they doing it?  And who, exactly, is they?  Because I think it highly unlikely that Hugh Wilson was out there layout on many courses on the new land in 1910.  Since the record indicates he was not involved until early 1911, I assume you agree.  So who at Merion was out there trying to lay out many courses on the new land?  And when?

Surely these are reasonable questions.  I have been fielding these questions for years now, and now that I am asking them, no one seems willing or able to answer.  Why do you suppose that is?
__________________________________________________________

Patrick,  

I live in Los Angeles which is not close to Merion.  

Anyone who tells you that I have been granted access to the MCC Minutes but that I refused to travel to Merion to review them either doesn't know what they are talking about, or is intentionally misleading you.  Or both.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Tom thinks that Barker routed it.

You think CBM did.

Mike thinks Wilson did.

You mistakenly seem to think that I'm advocating on behalf of Wilson.  I don't think that there is enough evidence to conclusively say that any one of them was responsible for drawing the 5 plans or the one that CBM approved (of) and the Board approved and got built.  I don't see much point in advocating a most likely scenario.  So, I'm not going to try to answer your challenges about evidence supporting Wilson and Merion in 1910 or early 1911, because simply put, there is insufficient information to draw the conclusion. 

Your methodology of "likelihood" satisfies you that you are closest to the truth.  Others interpretations of the available data suggests to them that they are closest to the truth.  I doubt that you guys will ever coalesce on one truth, absent some new information, and probably not even then.

I've had enough for now.  I guess whoever lasts the longest can claim victory for their truth.

[Tom MacWood]

You might be right, we may never find the evidence that ultimately proves beyond a shadow of a doubt who did what, but I know one thing there are at least two people who are still looking despite the efforts of others to stifle them.

[Mike Cirba]

Yes, I'm sure they only plowed the tees, fairways, and greens, and simply spread grass seed among the stalks.

This is what was on half the property prior to construction;

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

How you can gleen what was on any property prior to construction with a post construction photo is beyond me.

What is interesting is the swing on that fellow, full turn, hands high over the left shoulder, weight on the left side, chest to the target.
Some things never change

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Who is stifling you guys?

You're in Ohio...make arrangements with the club and go to Ardmore.

Patrick is a 2 hour car-ride away...if he's so interested why doesn't he go down and look at the scans of the original documents?   He has played there regularly.

This idea that someone is stopping you all....other than playing martyr, why don't you just go?   I offered you dinner and a round at Cobb's Creek.   David can come too, and Patrick (although there is no CBM connection there so I'm not sure if he's interested).  


Hell, those of us here still entertaining your theories are giving you a public forum.

That just probably proves we're collectively insane, of course, but hey, it's all good.


Patrick,

Wilson tells us in his letters that corn had been planted on half the property.

btw...why don't you go down to Ardmore and look at the original documents?

[Tom MacWood]

Also, certain someones keep asking when the routing was in place.  Again, and in no uncertain terms, the Merion record tells us CBM approved their routing from among five about April 13 (don't recall exact day) and the board officially approved it on (I think) April 19, 1910.  Even if Wilson had sent a routing to Oakley in Feb, it was as inaccurate as a blank map.

I don't know what the five plans were, but five distinct routings seems unlikely to me. The minutes report they re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. Why would you go from many different routings to one routing to five routings at the last minute (April 19), and then back to one? Especially when you consider they began doing rough work in March. It sounds to me like the came up with five plans to re-arrange the course (singlular)...whatever that means.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Plowing and rough work means they plowed the freaking corn fields.   Sheesh, oh man....

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
There is no mention of clearing corn fields in Wilson's accout or in any of the letters. Where did you come up that idea?

How far do you live from the Merion Cricket Club?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Why would he mention that?   He told P&O that half the property had corn planted on it.   ALL existing vegetation would be turned under in that plowing effort.

He makes very clear that he's going to plow and harrow the land as a first step, except in the 25 acres of turf he designates as not requiring plowing.   In that area he's simply going to harrow, treat, and add seed.

On the rest of the land he is going to plow first.   He would have been crazy not to.

I live about 1.5 hours away from MCC at present.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, since everyone seems to be asking, I live 1475 miles from Merion and have been there three times, although never made it to the archives.

TMac,

I don't place any meaning on the rearranging the course phrase, believing its a general statement, followed by the more descriptive laid out five routings comment.

As I have said before, I thimk whatever chicken scratches they took to NGLA were, what they saw there convinced them to scrap them and start all over.    We can speculate all day, and it might be fun in certain groups if we kept our strong feelings in check.  We do know that Francis thought the first 13 holes, West of Ardmore Ave were pretty easy, the last five hard.

That might suggest that you are right and those five variations were mostly or all attempts to work on the last five holes, or variations on the basic theme.  I understand that variations is a bit semantic, as we have discussed.  Would one routing with the 4th and 5th flipped from how they got built be a variation or a distinct routing, for instance.

That is the kind of thing I think all of us interested in Merion would like to know.

BTW, looking at the colorized photo, I believe I see a difference in the front of the fw on 14, suggesting a difference in Wilsons 30 lbs per acre seeding rate in the rough vs 100 lbs in the fw.  BTW, for those wondering, it is quite possible to get a stand of grass that thick from Sept to November, although it was harder pre irrigation.  Kentucky bluegrass (other than some new genetically engineered ones) is not different from then to now, so I hope no one suggests that I don't know about seeding in 1910......

And, knowing this picture is Nov 1911, I think we can all agree with Findlay's assessment that their Alps 10th was nothing compared to the original.  I still wonder how Wilson, having seen CBM's version at NGLA would have attempted that, or not seen just how far short it was going to fall in trying to build an artificial hill on flat ground. And, I am pretty sure CBM would have seen that, with all his experience, if he was deeply involved in construction.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
The Johnson Farm was sold to a developer in early 1907, so at the very latest it was an active farm in 1906. I doubt there were a lot of corn stalks to be removed in 1911, and there is no indications in the Wilson account or the letters that corn stalks needed to be cleared.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Have you been out to the MCC to go over the minutes?

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Here in the distance at the top of the hill you can see the monstrosity that was built BEHIND the 10th green, the so-called Alps Hole.

It isn't pretty, and you can see if from behind on the colorized photo which is even uglier.






Tom,

So, are you suggesting that this 160 acre farm property just sat fallow for 4 years prior?   Nobody planted anything there?

Have you seen what happens to fields (or golf courses for that matter) that are left to nature after 4 years?  

I would imagine it being wildly overgrown, and not at all consistent with what Wilson wrote in the last sentence below four years later.   How would Wilson know that it had been a corn field if there had been no planting for 4 years?;

[Bryan Izatt]

You might be right, we may never find the evidence that ultimately proves beyond a shadow of a doubt who did what, but I know one thing there are at least two people who are still looking despite the efforts of others to stifle them.

I, in no way, was trying to stifle the two of you or anyone else from unearthing further information about the early design and routing of Merion.  Please, keep at it.  I will be most interested in anything new that is brought forward.  It is less interesting to continually debate the interpretation of the same information.  Of what possible use is it to know if the course was a cornfield immediately before the course was built or whether the rough was plowed or just harrowed? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Thanks for the historic photos.  Keep those coming.  

I think Wilson knew it was a farm because it was called the Johnson farm, the house and barn were used, etc.  As to whether there was corn there when they plowed, I guess we don't know.  The fields could have been let go, but I have also seen cases where the farmer or other tenant is allowed to farm until the developer needs the land.  

It is often better to manage the land, and allowing it to stay in farm land as long as possible is pretty common after a change of ownership.  Don't know if it happened at Merion, though.  Wilson's last sentence "at present....." suggesting they did leave it in farm until they were ready for construction.  Only problem is, in 1911, knowing crops get planted in spring and that construction would start in spring, they certainly wouldn't be in freshly planted corn.  It would most likely be the stubble from the year before as you suggested.

And for those who would lambast me for not knowing farming methods, my grandfather was an Ohio farmer. Maybethey planted corn differently in Philly, or mayb  he got the whole corn planting thing wrong just to screw me up many years later on a merion thread, as a way to preserve the legend of Hugh Wilson.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

So, are you suggesting that this 160 acre farm property just sat fallow for 4 years prior?   Nobody planted anything there?

Have you seen what happens to fields (or golf courses for that matter) that are left to nature after 4 years?  

I would imagine it being wildly overgrown, and not at all consistent with what Wilson wrote in the last sentence below four years later.   How would Wilson know that it had been a corn field if there had been no planting for 4 years?;

Mike
Is there any evidence to suggest it was an active farm after 1907? On the 1908 real estate map the property is called Haverford Terrace, owned by the Philadlephia and Ardmore Land Co. Haverford Terrace hardly sounds like a farm. I believe Mr. Johnson died in 1904, so it could have been inactive for more like 7 years. As I've said before there is no mention of stalks having to be removed in Wilson's account or any of the multitude of letters. This sounds like more wishful thinking on your part.

[DMoriarty]

You mistakenly seem to think that I'm advocating on behalf of Wilson. I don't think that there is enough evidence to conclusively say that any one of them was responsible for drawing the 5 plans or the one that CBM approved (of) and the Board approved and got built. I don't see much point in advocating a most likely scenario. So, I'm not going to try to answer your challenges about evidence supporting Wilson and Merion in 1910 or early 1911, because simply put, there is insufficient information to draw the conclusion.

Bryan you go in and out of advocating for Wilson and/or Merion, don't you?  And don't you often do so "with insufficient information to draw the conclusion."  For example, above you wrote:  "Just because there is no document that we've found that says who from Merion went where and did what in this timeframe doesn't mean that they weren't there and doing things.  It seems highly unlikely that they weren't doing something, or a lot of things.  It was after all their baby." Isn't this speculating, and advocating, for a certain reading of the facts?  Do you really think that your conclusion that they were doing "something, or a lot of things" is justified by your statement, "It was after all their baby?"  Because I don't.   And rather than asking you to tell me who you think routed the course, I was simply asking you to back up your speculation.

Your methodology of "likelihood" satisfies you that you are closest to the truth.  Others interpretations of the available data suggests to them that they are closest to the truth.  I doubt that you guys will ever coalesce on one truth, absent some new information, and probably not even then.

I thought we were on the same page regarding methodology, but apparently we are not, especially when it comes to likelihoods.  To review, not long ago you were criticizing me because you thought I was stating things with certainty that I might not have known with absolute certainty.  Now you seem to be critiquing me because I am not stating my positions with absolute certainty.  I understand the first criticism and have endeavored to try to avoid certainties where none can possibly exist, but this second line of critique is a bit harder to figure.  
     First, absolute certainty may be the ultimate goal, but it is also an impossible standard. In other words, if I said I knew for certain (like Mike constantly does) I'd be wrong. This Socratic duality has long formed the foundation for philosophy, science, and almost every other intellectual pursuit.  No matter what we think we know for certain, there is always a possibility we will learn something which will reshape our views.  But this impossibility of absolute certainty ought not dissuade us from trying to figure things out, and it ought not to dissuade us from sorting through various theories and explanations and throwing out that which doesn't make sense and keeping that which does, questioning all the while and trying to come up with relative certainties.

Second, you are rather selective and one sided in your application of your standards. In fact it seems you have different standards for yourself.  

1.  When it comes to Merion's involvement supposed planning, you seem okay with all sorts of speculation and basing your analysis on what is "likely" or "unlikely."  Like above when you write that suggesting Merion only had limited involvement in the planning in 1910 "seems very unlikely to me."  Or in the same post when you wrote, "It seems highly unlikely that they weren't doing something, or a lot of things.  It was after all their baby."  

2.  When it comes to me, what is "most likely" or "unlikely" are apparently no longer good enough.  

The reality is that what is likely and unlikely is really all any of us can offer, and that is the beginning, not the end, of the discussion. I don't agree with what you think is "very unlikely" and I can explain why.  You are free to do the same.  

We've discussed my theories at great lengths my theories, and whether they are reasonable, supported, and likely and/or unlikely.  But we haven't even begun to discuss the alternate theories.    Isn't about time those theories were challenged with the same vigor as mine have been challenged.

Let me put it this way . . . Given your claim to not have a horse in this race, I understand why you don't want to back up the speculation that it was Merion who came up with the plans for the "many courses" Merion reportedly tried to lay out on the new land.    

But don't you think it is about time that someone - anyone - tried to back up their affirmative theories (such as this one) with some actual evidence and analysis?

Because no one has.   And I don't think anyone can.   But I'd like to see them try.  And I think they should be held to the same standards of proof and detail to which I have been held.   I want to know the who, when, what, where, why, and how of the routing.

Let's start with the laying out many different course on the new land.   Who did it, when did it occur, how did they do it, why did they try it, and why were there many routings, and who came up with the plans, and all the same questions about those plans, etc.

Everytime I ask questions looking for some support for the other side's position I get silence, followed by various posters  threatening to leave the discussion.   Why can't you all be honest and admit  that you cannot even begin to support your affirmative theories?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick is a 2 hour car-ride away...if he's so interested why doesn't he go down and look at the scans of the original documents?   He has played there regularly.

Mike,

When I have the time, and with the understanding that I'd have unrestricted access, I may avail myself of the offer.

I'm not so sure that the MCC minutes and all other documents would be available to me and I'm not so sure that you can speak with unerring authority on this subject.

But, since you live so close and are so interested in this subject, have you been given unrestricted access to all records at MCC and MGC ?

This idea that someone is stopping you all....other than playing martyr, why don't you just go?   I offered you dinner and a round at Cobb's Creek.   David can come too, and Patrick (although there is no CBM connection there so I'm not sure if he's interested).  


Hell, those of us here still entertaining your theories are giving you a public forum.

That just probably proves we're collectively insane, of course, but hey, it's all good.


Patrick,

Wilson tells us in his letters that corn had been planted on half the property.

btw...why don't you go down to Ardmore and look at the original documents?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I thought we were on the same page regarding methodology, but apparently we are not, especially when it comes to likelihoods.  To review, not long ago you were criticizing me because you thought I was stating things with certainty that I might not have known with absolute certainty. Yes, I was critiquing you in  that way.   Now you seem to be critiquing me because I am not stating my positions with absolute certainty.  I don't know how you interpreted what I said to mean that, but I certainly didn't intend anything I wrote to be taken in that vein.  I understand the first criticism and have endeavored to try to avoid certainties where none can possibly exist, but this second line of critique is a bit harder to figure.  No figuring needed on your second line of critique.  That isn't my critique of your approach.  

But don't you think it is about time that someone - anyone - tried to back up their affirmative theories (such as this one) with some actual evidence and analysis?   I don't think that either side has enough actual evidence to draw a definitive conclusion as to who specifically routed the 5 designs and who specifically drew up the designs of the individual holes precisely because there is no documented back-up.  You have a theory.  Mike et al have a theory.  I suppose I would critique either of you if you suggest that your theories are definitive.  I suppose if Mike posted here that Wilson or the Committee definitively drew the 5 plans and did the hole designs, I would critique the basis of his claim.

No response required.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Just a couple of points....

First, I have offered up the basics, including the Merion document that are germain to the case and a point by point discussion of exactly what CBM contributed in his four days of advice.  You ignore them and ask the question again.

Your theory presumes the MAJORITY of what the participants wrote to be incorrect.  Maybe it started when you discovered the fact that Wilson's trip was not in 1910, and you figure that everything else must be wrong, too.  IMHO, it makes most sense that this portion of the record may be flawed (and truthfully, the flaws seem to have come later, not in the contemporary record) but nearly everything else should be right. 

And you presume you are the only one who can interpret a complicated chain of events over the last 100 years.   

Your "analysis" is really like a defense lawyer trying to keep his client from the chair.  You question all authority in an effort to cast doubt, since only a shadow of a doubt is required to free your guilty client.  Nice lawyering, questionable history, when your alternate theories of the case depend on presumed and made up definitions of many words, of you being the only guy in a 100 years to know what all those words meant, etc. 

As an unbiased participant in this, I read your theory, and read the documents as they became available.  For one who reads the Merion record (most of which you hadn't even seen when you wrote your vaunted essay) at face value, I see a mostly logical flow of events that seems to make sense.  Its only when you start your essay with the bias that they are not correct, or that every omission or antiquated phrase means something else happened, or that CBM "just had to" have designed, rather than just helped Merion as he apparently did at so many other clubs,  that you can even come up with your alternate theories of the case.

To be honest, how much "analysis" does the truth require? In most cases, it usually surfaces pretty quickly.  Its only your "alternate theories of the case" with one intended outcome of exhonerating your essay that require all the analysis. 

Time to make your closing arguments and we can all move on. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()