Mike, I am not sure what point if any you are making with the sketch with the green and red lines on it. Neither the underlying map or the lines are remotely close to scale. The 1910 land plan is not perfect, but it it pretty close to accurate regarding the the relationship of the road to the HC land.
“Mike,
Please don't tell me that you are going to get indignant about what I do and don't understand.”
David:
Please let’s not have any talk from you or from us about indignation again. We have a new “suite” on here now thanks to Ran and let’s turn over a new leaf and just stick to the facts. That’s what you’ve always said you wanted after-all.
“TePaul
Thanks for the information but that was not my question. What do the records say about the swap?”
The records say precisely what I just told you they said but if you want them word for word I don’t have a problem with that.
However, in my opinion, perhaps the most conclusive evidence of all comes from the afore-mentioned T. DeWitt Cuyler, who I am quite sure none of us had ever even heard of a year ago. What he said in a December 21, 1910 letter, in the opinions of many people from and around Merion is massively significant, particularly in how it affects the timing and facts of the “Francis story.”
On that note, if you want to know what he said you are pretty much going to have to agree to some of my requests of you that were on some of these threads recently and that in my opinion you sort of slough off or ignored as you seem to do so often with pertinent information and important situations from sOME of us here in Philadelphia that may disagree with your notions or your essay and particularly with the way you seem to come at this entire issue of ACCESS to Merion Golf's or MCC PRIVATE records and your demands to have them made available to you. We are going to need to get into that and on this Discussion Group and publicly. If you ignore this or try to rationalize it away again, I see no reason at all why I should consider cooperating with you with this information I have that should clear up to most anyone’s satisfaction what really happened back then with the Wilson committee and the creation of Merion East.
The ball is now in your court, and so, if you really do want to get to the facts of the original creation of Merion East which you have for so long claimed is your ultimate interest, you are going to have to cooperate with me this time if you expect me to cooperate with your requests of me. This time to do it you are going to need to deal with us as we would like to deal with you fairly and civilly, and as I think most realize, at this point, you should have with us long ago; I’m even sure you realize this to be true! I very much consider the foregoing to an olive branch and the best facilitation possible of these long-running Merion subjects you have been involved in, and have, in fact, promoted and perpetuated over the last few years!
"And the more tepaul explains, the less sense it makes."
David:
You've made some requests of information from me today. If you want me to supply it for you I'm going to need to have a retraction and apology from you on that remark of yours above.
The ball is in your court!
David,
What you're failing to understand about the Francis Land Swap is that the "Johnson Farm" included all the land between Ardmore Ave. and College Ave. west of that little block of land owned then by Haverford College that is part of today's driving range. It's not like they decided to only buy the Johnson Farm land going north halfway up the 15th fairway hill and then stopped 190 yards short of the whole kaboodle, and then had to buy that triangle-shaped plot later after realizing they had an oopsie.
That road as drawn on the land plan in 1910 was simply the original proposed boundary. The only reason it shows as a triangle is because someone decided the aesthetic of the road should be long, slow, sweeping curves. Once Lloyd assumed control of all that property they could move the line or the boundaries as they wished.
Mike:
There is no need to go through any explanation with this future road redelineation with me since I'm the one who figured it out in the first place around a year ago. As far as convincing David Moriarty of the truth and significance of it----well that is a whole different subject that has nothing to do with what really hapened at Merion in 1910 and 1911.
OK, David, I will definitely make the effort one more time to find those posts on those other threads that asked you to consider such things as the information access you've demanded of Merion and Wayne and me and PUT THEM BACK ON HERE. I will definitely do that one more time but after that if I get a response from you like the one above---THEN I guarantee you that your requests for information will be ignored and never be forthecoming again. Do you understand this even a little bit and if not why not??
Do you even understand that Merion's true history is not about DAVID MORIARTY's interest and education in learning about what really happened at Merion in 1910-11, it's only about what really did happen back then? And do you even understand and appreciate that it has been essentially undisputed for close to a century for seemingly very good and factual reasons?
T. DeWitt Cuylers Dec. 21 1910 letter could pretty much seal this whole deal but Moriarty ain't gettin' that from me if he's going to continue on the way he's going on these threads.
"It is not yours to give or withhold Tom. It is MCC's. What kind of game are you playing now?"
No game at all. If you want the information from me you're going to have to deal with me. But if you don't want to deal with me you could always try to get it yourself from MCC! ;) Apparently that didn't work for you in the past, did it? I wonder why that was?
Look, Moriarty, I'm pretty sure you ain't dumb and you understand perfectly well that if you stop playing these ridiculous games you have been with us and the truth comes out, your entire essay will go down in flames with everyone on here who's even capable of a modicum of reading re; Merion East.
Timelines are indeed valuable things when trying to reconstruct events...
When we last left off some were requesting to see an "alternative" timeline related to Merion, and while I have neither the expertise and internal knowledge of either Tom Paul or Wayne Morrison, I do wish to put my thoughts together in what I hope will be a constructive manner towards a greater overall understanding for all of us.
Remember that, far from being stress-reducing, it's stress-producing and a real drag to be around someone who is always irritated at something you're doing and always picking a fight over some stupid thing. Why would you even want to be around someone who is always a second away from starting a fight? It's no fun, and it's incredibly stressful.Richard Carlson
Thanks for the timeline. The first 5-10 post of this thread pretty much cleared up what I wanted to know.
At this point in these threads it seems to be a case of David provoking the two of you, and the two of you responding. It appears that David enjoys provoking and that you two are responding out of passion for the History of Merion.
As regards the land of the Francis Swap, I can see clearly how David would have been confused when Francis described a 190x130 plot of land, and thought that the whole triangle with today's 15th green/16th tee running north to College Avenue must be the land they swapped for. It's not, though..
. . . It's not, though..
. . . that land was always part of the Johnson Farm and always part of the land the Merion Club originally bought for their course. That misunderstanding really is the premise of his theory, and it's very understandable in retrospect to see how he came to his conclusions.
Sorry to feel that way. I wasn't trying to provoke anyone, and I certainly am not enjoying these threads. Perhaps you are confusing my frustration with what you see as attempts at provocation. My reasons for posting on this thread are very simple, and I don't think inappropriate.
Mike,
I am not confused. Here is what Francis said, with my bold:
"The land now covered by fine homes along Golf Course Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards by 190 yards long - the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee."
Nothing at all to be reasonably confused about. Francis specifically described the exchange of that corner, which at that time measured about "130 yards by 190 yards."
David,
I have one question for you, . . .
How do you decide which writings to trust?
I understand that an old line club feels no obligation to post its historical documents for a group of architecture enthusiasts. As TePaul hints, no matter how the rest of the world acts, its just not the way its done at some of these old institutions.
Mike (Cirba and Sweeney):
If we are getting technical about what actually went on in 1910 and 1911, they (that is MCC) did not buy anything in Nov. 1910. What they had in Nov. 1910 was a basic understanding (agreement in principle with HDC) that they would buy a certain amount of land for a certain amount of money out of a larger HDC tract from the HDC eventually if they agreed to get to work doing a course.
When they had that (agreement in principle) via two letters between Nickelson of the HDC and president Evans of MCC in Nov. 1910, then MCC got their lawyer and board member, T. DeWitt Cuyler, to swing into action and create what was known as The MCC Golf Association Company. We need to take very careful note of the company part of that because before that MCC had been operating at Haverford for golf with what was known as the MCC Golf Association which was formed in 1909 by a group of golfing members including Alan Wilson and I believe Hugh and a few others. I doubt that former MCC Golf Association was a separate registered company but it may've operated through a corporate entity within MCC known as the Haverford Land Co (not the same thing as HDC).
(Do you think these MCC "captains of the universe" like Lloyd, Scattergood, Griscom, Cuylers, Thayer et al were corporation freaks and geeks with all the complex financial shit that went along with all that or what?? I guarantee you if these bigtime business honchos could borrow a nickel for 5 1/4 cents on this side of the street and lend it out on the other side of the street for 5 1/2 cents or save a dollar in taxes somehow they would do it in a heartbeat with some kind of labrynthian corporate structure no matter how rich they were! ;) ).
It would take Cuylers who was apparently one of the most powerful men in the American railroad industry and an expert on corporate law and corporate registration a number of weeks to get the MCC Golf Association Company set up with officers, with a certain amount of stock and registered. That would not get done until around the third week of Dec. 1910.
At that point 161 acres was transfered from HDC to a man by the name of Rothwell (probably a title and trust company employee) for $1.00. Three days later Rothwell transfered the property to Lloyd and his wife. At that point Lloyd was the president of the newly set up MCC Golf Association Co.
Lloyd would hold the land for the golf course (120 acres) until July 19, 1911 at which point he transfered it back to Rothwell who transfered it to the MCC Golf Association Company the same day, each time for $1.00. Within a year or so the MCC Golf Association Company would lease the land and course to MCC, the club.
One might wonder what-all the 161 acres was that was initially transfered through to Lloyd and his wife in Dec. 1910. It was the entire 140 acre Johnson Farm and we believe it was the 21 acre Dallas estate. When Lloyd transfered the 120 acres back through Rothwell to the MCC Golf Association Co. in July 1911 we assume he kept about 40 acres of the old Johnson Farm across Ardmore Ave from the second hole that became part of the residential development to the west that was known as HDC. We feel pretty confident that for about the last 7-8 months (from Dec, 1910 to July 1911) Lloyd and his MCC syndicate had essentially been in control of HDC too and probably through a stock underwriting/offering he engineered and just a basic preconceived real estate sales management arrangement with the former owners of HDC and probably primarily MCC members et al many of which would be residential buyers and builders on the HDC land (221 acres). We've begun to track the real estate development sell out to the west over the next 7-12 years into the 1920s and a lot of them were MCC members including interestingly enough Hugh I. Wilson on the corner of Exeter Rd overlooking the 14th hole.
But the most fascinating and impressive thing to me is obviously there were a number of preconceived reasons Lloyd took control and ownership like that in the end of Dec. 1910 and according to a letter from Cuylers to Evans on Dec. 21 1910 one of those reasons was so Lloyd could move boundary lines for the course around at will because the boundaries of what would become the course had not been definitely determined upon at that point according to Cuylers.
And we also know because it is recorded in the administrative records of MCC that within a couple of weeks or sooner (the beginning of Jan. 1911) the Wilson Committee would be formed and according to their April report to the board they would spend the next three months between January and April first laying out many different courses on the ground, then going to NGLA for two days in the second week of March, then home to hone their course layouts down to five different plans, get Macdonald/Whigam back on April 6, 1911 for a day, go over the grounds and five plans, select one to be approved by the board and that was done on April 19, 1911.
That's what the records show, those are the facts, and in the course of all this at some point in 1911, Francis who was then a member of Wilson's committee had his idea of how to finally fix #15 and #16 which he said in his story had been a problem getting in all along with the last five holes (again obviously because that triangle that shows up on the plan back on Nov. 15, 1910 was just too damned narrow to fit the 15th green and 16th tee up into). Francis certainly knew to go to Lloyd and just get his permission on the spot to redelineate that road on the plan which wouldn't even be built for a couple more years and it was done (no deed or land transfer necessary at that point) and they probably did get quarry men to blow the top wall off the quarry in two days as his story said. The thing I think is so interesting is Francis's midnight visit to Lloyd could hardly have been a surprise in the slightest to Lloyd----he was ready for it because he and Cuylers and MCC had put him in position to do something precisely like that back in the end of Dec. 1910. In other words, they all saw the possibility of something like that coming and they said so in writing back in the end of Dec. 1911 because at that point no course or precise land figuration for the course had definitely been determined upon as they said in Dec 1910.
Had MCC had "a plan", a routing and course or anything like it in place in 1910 or certainly before Nov. 15, 1910 as Moriarty's essay contends they sure wouldn't have had to do all that and go through all that, would they? And what in the world would it have been all about then that the Wilson Committee was doing all those three months in the winter of 1911 with what they reported were their "numerous different courses on the ground" and then "five different plans" that would be used to select one to be approved on April 19, 1911?
Anyway, at least one piece of MCC correspondence also indicates throughout the time from the middle of June 1910 until well into the fall they all felt it not prudent to be too obvious about what they were doing which I suppose primarily meant having their eye on the Dallas estate.
I'm quite sure this will not be the end of all this on here, at least not from the essayist who seems to think again that this is now more about some threat from Philadelphians and others to impugn his reputation rather than about the truth of what really did happen at Merion in 1910 and 1911, and when and why and how thoughout that entire timeline of events, but in my opinion and most everyone else around here including Merion itself it sure should be the end of it!! It seems all that's left now is bickering over the meaning of a few words and sentences and the constant demands of a single person that everything available, even private club records that have never been in the public domain, be shown to him for his review because he decided, well over a year ago, to write with far less than complete information, an essay which turned out to be highly inaccurate, and apparently highly inaccurate because it lacked so much of the resource information that became available about the subject he chose; and has been criticized since because of all its inaccurate premises and conclusions about what Macdonald/Whigam must have done and what Hugh Wilson and his committee couldn't have done.
Add to that in nearly a century since this took place at Merion at Ardmore noone ever thought to question who the designers of the course were because there never has been any reason to question it. It was all recorded by the club and any historian seemed to understand that. There never was any mystery about it and never some puzzle that this essayist sometimes refers to on this discussion group. Apparently the only puzzle for him with Merion was he just didn't understand Merion's history very well, and by his own admission on here, when he began this campaign to contend someone else was the router and designer of the course or the driving force behind it. Still today he doesn't seem to understand it very well or at least he doesn't seem any more willing to admit that because of his lack of resource information when he published his essay his premises and conclusions in it were wrong.
"In a case like Francis I try to take the entire thing at face value if I can, and if it can be read entirely consistently with what else I know, then I trust the entire thing. But when I say "what else I know" I don't mean what I think or hope, I mean hard fact."
David Moriarty:
In a case like Francis you say you mean "hard fact"? What hard fact have you ever seen that puts Francis back in 1910 helping to create a routing with Macdonald/Whigam as your entire section on Francis in your essay contends?
"I understand that an old line club feels no obligation to post its historical documents for a group of architecture enthusiasts. As TePaul hints, no matter how the rest of the world acts, its just not the way its done at some of these old institutions.
I understand as well, but if the clubs feel this way, then TEPaul is putting them in a horrible position. He is the one making claims based on their records. All I want to do is vet his claims, and surely they need to be vetted before we accept a single one of his claims as fact."
What are you talking about David Moriarty? What horrible position am I putting Merion in? These people are my friends; I've known them for decades, and they've known and understood my interest in the history of Merion for years. If I'm saying something on here they don't like and they feel puts them in a horrible position, believe me I would be the first one to hear about it, not you! You don't no anyone there; you know nothing about the club or its membership and so it would be fairly suitable if you'd refrain from telling me or anyone else on here what kind of position I'm putting them in.
David, then why are you asking, some would say demanding, a private club to publish their private documents on a public forum? The GCA Double Standard lives on!
"I am glad to hear this, Tom. Given that MCC and Merion are fine with you divulging the information, then lets get to vetting your claims.
Where to you want to start? "
David Moriarty:
I'd like to start by having you answer the question in the last paragraph of Post #41.
However, if we are even going to attempt to have this discussion again I'm going to ask you first to consider that your interpretation of what Francis meant when he mentioned the dimensions of that triangle in his story thirty nine years after the fact is not the ONLY interpretation of what actually happened.
Mike Sweeney.
Good on Merion for being obsessive about pace of play. I am the same way about my pace own of play, which is why I found your false gossip so offensive. As for my use of hickories, I am glad that after all these years my round continues to provide you and your high school buddies with entertainment. Must be pretty quiet on the Main Line these days.
Timelines are indeed valuable things when trying to reconstruct events...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3410/3507874496_c5547cbfba_b.jpg)
Here's another attempt at overlaying the current course over the 11-15-10 drawing. I've highlighted in red GH Rd on the old drawing and highlighted in black the train line, Ardmore and the Haverford property to help match the overlay.
The old drawing has a scale on it and is therefore likely accurately drawn. The relative locations of Ardmore, the train line, the club house the southern boundary of the Haverford College property and the wiggly eastern edge of the golf property all align perfectly with the current Google overlay, so I'm going to say the old drawing was accurately to scale.
What's obvious is that the course as currently laid out fits in the property as drawn on the 11-15-10 map with perhaps a sliver of land added up near the 15th fairway and green. Some land to the west of the clubhouse appears to have been given up to allow the current GH Rd to arc closer to the club house.
I'd draw the conclusion that when Pugh & Hubbord, Civil Engineers, drew the map on November 5, 1910 they were already encompassing the Francis land swap.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionRoutingOverlayModernOverlay.jpg)
If you want the exact wording of the Cuyler letter rather than my opinion of what it says go back and address what I said to you in my post #41 and again in my post #52 and get back to me about whether you're willing to have a discussion on here about demanding access to a private clubs material. You can just disregard this post too and ask me again but I'm going to tell you the very same thing I have on three posts now.
I think we hit a snag in the time space continuum yesterday, and a mirror thread split off into a parallel universe. Both the mirror and this one existed simultaneously and independently. I blame Dan Herman, as I believe his was the last post before the apocalyptic chaos ensued.
Mike,
Didn't the committee say they 'ended up with 400 feet' as opposed to "needed 400 feet"?
Mike and Tom,
Why couldn't those two holes fit, at least pretty well?
My whole question arises from the fact that a green and the following tee could most definitely fit into that space, especially when you think about the constricted nature of so many golf holes in those days. the line you have drawn (however accurate it might be) doesn't even touch the green, it just moves the line of play to the right, which is obviously less than ideal, but would hardly seem to constipate the routing plans.
Tom,
The approximate size of that triangle in the November land plan.
Good point Mike. Except for your conclusion. We know from awt that 1910-1911 was a late winter and that the weather was not yet nice enough for working on courses, so the idea of any midnight ride seems rather inlikely.
The three acre number I used was an approximation based on 100 yard width X 220 yard length = 22,000 square yards converted into acres...
Was the original 15th tee on the road side of the 14th green?
Mike,
I'll be honest, that post confused the hell out of me.
One thing I would note is that your drawn line in any of these pictures doesn't seem to match the course of the Land Plan sketch of Golf House Rd...coming up off of Ardmore Ave. the Land Plan has more width and then swings more East and then more West than does your orange line.
David,
I'd hardly call Mike's photo a Mercator projection.
Mike Cirba,
1. Error of 1 percent? The top of the rectangle around the map is about 15% narrower than at the bottom. At the the top of the Haverford land, it is about 11% narrower. This doesn't include the bowing, which would increase the error.
2. THIS LAND WAS MEASURED FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. Wasn't Francis in construction? He knew this, even if you don't.
3. Francis did not write that they used the entire 130 yards, and they did not. Support your claim or quit making it.
4. It is mistake to assume that the road is the same width now as it was in 1910.
5. The drawings I have seen place the 14th tee behind the green, not between the green and the road. Look at the drawing you posted! And wasn't the back of the 14th green changed years later?
You assume and/or just make up way to much, Mike. These are factual issues but only if one applies proper methodology to determine the facts, which you refuse to do.
As for your use of mine, is that a joke? You don't even come to either border, even if you use the wrong reference point. Plus, that isnt mine.
1) How in the hell would they have ever thought they could get 5 holes up into the northern quarry part if they hadn't already been operating with at least some of that land under consideration.
2) Other land that was owned to the west of the course might have been it, but what part would you see as excessive and "not part of any golf plan"?
3) Why would they only have taken a little slice of land above the quarry, especially after M&W had already told them that they might be able to exploit that hazard to their advantage?
Tom, I just read Reply #103 and that must have somehow beat me to my agreement with Sully that it's a hell of a question why someone would go to Lloyd instead of Wilson about the land swap ... But I'm not sure it answers the question. Why would Francis go to Lloyd in 1911 about the land swap if at that time, Wilson was "the man"? Logically, if I take Reply #103 as true, that means that Francis went to Lloyd because he was "the man" at the time of the land swap idea, and if that's the case, why is Hugh Wilson getting all the credit because the resolution appears to say that whatever plan was presented to the Board requred a land swap that required Lloyd to say "yes".
Mike Cirba,
They measured from the middle of the road. Instead of mocking this, why don't you call a surveyor and ask him. Or have Wayne or TEPaul interpret the metes and bounds for you. I assure you I did not make it up.
As for east boundary, TEPaul writes that the carve out was very narrow, but at the the bottom Merion gained 80 ft. of land.
Give it a rest Mike.
As I said in my first post to you, arguing this is a waste of time. This is a factual question. It can easily be determined by looking at the facts.
So how about it Tom?
Mike, I am done with your sarcasm and righteous indignation. If you want to discuss anything further, grow up.
Jim,
Don't have time to track it down, now but will later if no one else will bother.
David,
With all respect to Bryan Izatt for his attempt at the overlay, and to your own, they are crude, inaccurate, and misrepresentative.
.............................
"With all respect (I hope you weren't trying to be sarcastic when you said that), Mike, my overlay was neither crude, inaccurate nor misrepresentative. Following is a clearer overlay using your 1910 map. It needed some massaging to account for the photographic distortion. What it clearly shows is that holes 15 and 16 as presently laid out come very close to fitting in the triangular piece of land on the 1910 map. The white line ending with red dots is 130 yards on the Google Earth map."
Bryan Izatt:
If you have an better electronic version of the 1910 map, I'd be happy to use it. Mike's map is admittedly distorted.
Secondly, did you even notice you have that red dot on the left of the 16th on that white line about 15 YARDS inside the Haverford College property lines (Yes, I did notice that. What's your point? Does the current course not extend a little to the east of the old Haverford College property line on the 1910 map? A few posts back you said that Merion added land on the east side, a "triangle transfer was 403/1000th of an acre" in 1928. Are you suggesting that whatever triangle was added there was all east of the tee blocks?) AND you have the underlay of the golf course shifted so far TO THE EAST we can only see about six feet of the GOD-DAMNED 16th tee??? I just walked that very area accross the 16th tee today and there is about 20+ more yards of the golf course to the east of the way you have that ridiculous mapquest or Izatt overlay or undelay set up. Could you describe where on the current Google map the original 1910 property line was, and where the current property line is. Is the tree line on the current property line? The 1928 property line? I'm a little confused about where you're saying there is 20+ more yards to the east of the 16th tee. As a point of reference, there appears to currently be a small building associated with the driving range that's about 8 yards east of the edge of the 16th tee. Where is the 20 yards relative to that, or is it more down near the bginning of the 16th fairway? The current tree line curves to the east, while the 1910 map show a straight property line.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionGoogleupperL.jpg)
Do us all a favor and start by accurately measuring ALL the dimensions of that Nov. 15, 1910 plan FIRST and then measuring what's on the ground today as I did because I can guarantee you there is nothing that has changed out there from 1911 other than that 1928 land transfer with Haverford College and MCC in 1928 I mentioned just above. Hmmm, I thought everybody more or less agreed that the edge of the road to the property line is around 95 to 100 yards on the 1910 map. As I asked above, if you could locate where you think the 1910 and 1928 property lines on the east side are on the Google map, that might help move the discussion along. Also. are you saying that nothing on the location and size of the 16th tee and 15th green has changed since 1911?
My God you amateur architectural analyzers who are not from around here and who don't understand this club's and course's entire detailed evolutinary history are a bunch of brainfarts! I didn't notice that I was doing any amateur architectural analysis. I was merely trying to provide a reasonable mapping of the current course on the 1910 plan. Perhaps you mistook me for Moriarty. In any case, the "brainfarts" comment is a little over the top, don't you think?
AND, by the way, Bryan, the guy's name is not FINDLAY, it's RICHARD FRANCIS. Of course. It was late. Duly noted and corrected. In case you're not aware of it, at this point, the architect of Merion East was HUGH I. WILSON and not CHARLES BLAIR MACDONALD! :P Not everyone out here is Moriarty, you know. I never said or implied that CBM was the architect for Merion. ???
Sorry Tom...
When a professional surveyor uses the term "APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ROAD", is it understood that some points along the road are fixed and accurate?
Bryan, thanks for the overlay.
The eastern boundary then is difficult to determine based on what we see now. In 1928 Merion expanded east starting from just below the then existing tee at a south east angle, taking 80 feet of property at the widest point. But they also gave up land east of the then existing tees and behind the tees. So the border was effectively rotated around a point that was about even with the front of the tee as it existed then, with Merion gaining some ground in front of that point and losing some ground behind it. Plus they gave up some additional ground behind the tee. I think Merion may have gained back some of the ground behind the tee since then.
Note that prior to 1928 the east edge of tees appear to have been set well west of the property line, probably 10 or 15 yards. So there was apparently ample room to fit in the 15th green and the 16th tee, by the standards of safety as existed then. But is by no means certain that the east edge of the tees is the same as today as it was then.
One side note, when I lined up the 1910 drawing with the RR atlases, I don't get a perfect fit. I can get a number of preexisting mutual points to line up, but as you can see on my overlay, the west border of the Haverford College property is not a perfect overlay.
______________________________________
Mike...why couldn't the 14th hole have gone up the 18th hole, finishing before the quarry...from in front of, or behind the clubhouse (coincidentally, right near the 13th green)? From there you could do a number of things over and around the quarry before coming back down to the current 14th tee / 18th green neighborhood...
But what does that have to do with this thread and the Francis land swap and when it happened? Nothing really, this is just background on how it evolved to that point and will very likely show us when that Francis land swap idea took place and how the club did it and when.
Wait a minute! Excuuuuse me. I did hear something about THE working plan they had back then in 1910 for Merion East. I heard about it from this crackpot yahoo-like essayist from California who at first admitted on here he really didn't know that much about the history of Merion, had been there maybe one time but then allowed as how he was convinced there were pieces of some puzzle he thought existed about how Merion inaccurately created an architectural icon and idol out of their young novice architect, Hugh I. Wilson. He claimed the club and its friends were conducting some kind of an on-going campaign to minimize C.B. Macdonald's influence in routing and designing the course and to disregard the fact that Macdonald was the "driving force" behind world famous Merion East. He also claimed that his expert friend in Ohio told him H.H. Barker who was arguably the second best architect in America at the time, right behind Macdonald, may've created the Merion East routing too.
I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to withold information----not even for a minute. So, yes, I did hear about THE working plan they had back in 1910 for Merion East. There were even two guys from MCC (Francis and Lloyd, as I recall) who actually reversed time and went back into 1910 and even BEFORE they'd been appointed to the Wilson committee that would be charged in the beginning of 1911 with designing the course and those two quark-like guys did a lot to help out Macdonald and Whigam and Barker while the future chairman of their committee sat on his ass doing nothing other than perfecting his extreme Novicehood.
"One more question. What did you leave out after adjoining?"
If you would care for my cooperation on the actual wording following "adjoining" you will have to start a thread on here about all the reasons why you alone on here have been making constant demands for years on a private club's member and friends for their private records and discuss to my satisfaction why noone should do that and certainly why you should never do that again.
Again Tom, I think we need to clarify here. I haven't made any demands of Merion or MCC. I've made demands of you."
Why do we need to clarify? What is there to clarify? I understand that as you've said the very same thing to me about twenty times on here and I've told you about twenty times the exact same thing about what I think you need to do about those demands you've made of me for years about a club's private records. You can keep asking but what I'm going to tell you won't change. You are the only person on here who's ever made those kinds of demands (other than your Ohio fellow researcher occasionally). As much as you've tried to encourage others to do so I have never seen anyone else share your opinion or your demands. Everyone else interested in this subject seems fine with my opinion of information I have. I see no reason why you shouldn't be the same. If you never feel that way, then that's your problem, not mine.
"Also Tom, the reason that I do not accept what you tell me is that for years you guys have been passing your opinion off as fact, and have tried to shut down anyone and everyone who questioned you. And for years you guys haven't had the slightest idea what you were talking about. In other words, I know better than to take your word for it. If others are fine with you dictating your skewed Merion story that is up to them. But I won't accept it without facts."
I understand all that too; it is no mystery to me, particularly as you've said it so many times before. Maybe you think we haven't had the slightest idea what we are talking about but we feel you're close to a minority of one that way or else pretty inconsequential . . .
"The reason I have made demands of those who have ceaselessly attacked my essay, my intelligence, and my character for the past year or more, yet have refused to back up their attacks with the facts they claim exist. That isn't Merion or MCC. That'd be Wayne, you, and Mike Cirba. And while you may be friend of Merion, and Wayne is a member, my demands are only of those of you who have talked the talk for a year, but have thus far refused to walk the walk."
That fact is---and this is a fact, you can say something like that on an INTERNET website, but you have no idea at all what is or isn't MCC or Merion. You know noone there and you never have so how could you possibly know what is or isn't MCC or Merion and what those places and memberships think of either you or me or Wayne? But we here do and the reason is obvious. You can say you do or you can think you do, but the fact is you just don't. How could you? Wayne belongs to Merion G.C. and he knows enough members now. I've been here for over thirty years and I probably know 200-300 people at those two places over those years and they know me. You're probably a pretty smart guy, you do the math, and the commonsense of it; I don't see why I should have to explain it to you day after day after day.
I couldn't agree with you more. And that's why I think we need to look at some of them so much differently than some on here are or tend to do. In other words, I just think it is the total height of ignorance and arrogance for some couple of guys on here who try to crack themselves up as researchers and historians on architecture to write off the likes of Hugh I. Wilson and his committee of four members as just a bunch of novices who could never have done what everyone knows they did do without being completely given a total plan first. Those two don't understand history or architecture, in my opinion. I guess they think it's some kind of rocket science or something. But can you blame them? All they do is read stuff and try to find some mistake someone once made in a history book and neither one of them has ever taken the time or had enough interest or initiative to get out there in the field and learn the ropes and the nitty gritty, itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny stuff that goes on out there that nobody ever records that is generally the essence of it all and how one really learns it! ;)
Tom Paul,
I have to say that I think those guys back then knew a lot more than what we give them credit for."
Bradley:
I couldn't agree with you more. And that's why I think we need to look at some of them so much differently than some on here are or tend to do. In other words, I just think it is the total height of ignorance and arrogance for some couple of guys on here who try to crack themselves up as researchers and historians on architecture to write off the likes of Hugh I. Wilson and his committee of four members as just a bunch of novices who could never have done what everyone knows they did do without being completely given a total plan first. Those two don't understand history or architecture, in my opinion. I guess they think it's some kind of rocket science or something. But can you blame them? All they do is read stuff and try to find some mistake someone once made in a history book and neither one of them has ever taken the time or had enough interest or initiative to get out there in the field and learn the ropes and the nitty gritty, itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny stuff that goes on out there that nobody ever records that is generally the essence of it all and how one really learns it! ;)
"Bradley,
I know you like to pop in occassionally with the they had it right all along argument, and I hate to burst your bubble, but this thread has been about whether or not to take one of those on Wilson's committee at his word. TomPaul and Mike refuse to take him at his word. In fact, I am the only one standing who is willing to take all of the parties who were actually there at their words."
Bradley:
It's not that we aren't taking Francis at his word. We just aren't taking what Moriarty contends happened because of Moriarty's agenda-driven, preconceived-scenaro and INTERPRETATION of what a single remark in a longer story from Francis really means so he can fit the poor man's single ambiguous remark into his preconceived incredibly fallacious contentions about Wilson, Macdonald and Merion.
The FACTS surrounding what Francis did but said seemingly ambiguously thirty nine years later are what we are looking at and analyzing. Moriarty never had any of those surrounding FACTS before he wrote that ridiculuous agenda-driven essay, and so he is just trying to keep this whole discussion and argument very small and narrow (to that single ambiguous remark in Francis's much larger and more explanatory story. He should have asked us but he didn't. That's his problem, that's why he got criticized and panned around here from all those who have always known more of the facts and details of Merion's history and architecture, and now he's trying to blame us for it. This is the sign of a combined insecure and overly egocentric man.
But I think tonight is a very interesting juxtaposition on this thread, Bradley, with your good and thoughtful posts and his increasingly hystrionic and pathetically egocentric and insecure ones. "Oh my, oh my, everything that has happened to me is everyone elses's fault but my own."
We agree that the triangle existed on the 1910 map and was put there by the surveyors at the request of someone(s) that owned, or planned to own,the property for the Merion course? If it was there because the Francis land swap was already in the minds of those that instructed the surveyors to draw the map, why does it look like the other land to be swapped to the HDC, in return, down near the clubhouse between the blue and red roads, isn't also reflected in the 1910 map? The two roads are significantly different enough that it is hard to think that the difference is made up by the "approximate" label on the 1910 map.
So you are absolutely wrong. The area in green (PROPOSED GOLF COURSE) on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan is 117 acres!
Your essay contends HDC sold the land to MCC in the beginning of Jan. 1911. Wrong again. Lloyd et ux NOT MCC would BUY the land and hold the land from Dec. 19, 1910 until July, 1911 at which point he would transfer it back to Rothwell who would immediately transfer it to the MCC Golf Association Co. Your essay reflects none of this seemingly important and significant transfer arrangement that appears to have been done so Lloyd could move certain boundary lines for the proposed 117 acre coursearound at will with the contiguous 221 acres of the HDC land. Apparently you never realized any of that. Lloyd on the advice of Cuylers had taken 161 acres into his own name which included the exact dimensions of the 117 acres for the golf course for the express purpose of being able to move boundaries lines around at will with HDC if needed. It was needed and he did so. Thompson's 4/19/11 board resolution reflected that when it referenced "land already purchased exchanged for land adjoining."
David,
So now you are placing the design of .Merion out before June 1910 before Macdonald even saw the property?
Is there any length you won't go to in trying to diss Hugh Wilson?
You've now just thrown Macdonald under the bus as discarded him as the architect...perhaps we need to start calling it a LLoyd/Francis design?
Mike Cirba's logic applies equally as well (or better) if the pending visit was CBM's first, not second.
David,
So now you are placing the design of .Merion out before June 1910 before Macdonald even saw the property?
Is there any length you won't go to in trying to diss Hugh Wilson?
You've now just thrown Macdonald under the bus as discarded him as the architect...perhaps we need to start calling it a LLoyd/Francis design?
Mike Cirba,
This post exemplifies why you have no business in this conversation. I don't know if it is an emotional block or an intellectual block or both, but even when you are not flying off the handle for you it all boils down to who is being dissed and/or thrown under the bus, and everything you read and think is apparently based on that single consideration. For me it is about figuring out what happened. I go where the facts lead us. You, on the other hand, try to take the facts to where you have remained are firmly planted since this conversation began.
And Mike, if you were capable of actually understanding my essay, you would be aware that I already did note that Lloyd and Francis were involved in routing the course.
Now, some more overlay fun. The one below has the 1910 and the 1913 maps overlaid on the current Google Earth aerial. I've highlighted the roads - the "approximate one from 1910 in red and the as-built (?) one from 1913 in blue. As David has said, the maps, particularly the 1910 one are somewhat distorted and it's hard to match them to the current layout. Having said that, Llewellyn Road on the 1913 map, matches almost exactly to the current road. The Haverford College boundary does not exactly match where the property line was, if my previous post is correct. But, other matching points I used do fit.
David,
A question for you. We agree that the triangle existed on the 1910 map and was put there by the surveyors at the request of someone(s) that owned, or planned to own,the property for the Merion course? If it was there because the Francis land swap was already in the minds of those that instructed the surveyors to draw the map, why does it look like the other land to be swapped to the HDC, in return, down near the clubhouse between the blue and red roads, isn't also reflected in the 1910 map? The two roads are significantly different enough that it is hard to think that the difference is made up by the "approximate" label on the 1910 map. Notwithstanding your mutual feud with Tom and Mike, is it possible, in your mind, that Francis mispoke or was misquoted regarding the 130 x 190 yard piece of property?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion1910-1913Overlay.jpg)
The graphic above with the two roads reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line - "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
We know a land swap took place in the general area of the last five holes and specifically on the west side of those five holes. We can see the two road alignments - one generally proposed near the beginning of the planning process and one that evolved. Just how much tortured thought mongering must go on to try to convince people that the land swapped was any different than what is shown? It just seems so simple to me that I can't understand how anyone could believe that the simple, clear explanation is not the correct one.
If a picture is worth a 1000 words, I hope anyone believing this is not the land swapped can post a graphic showing what land it really was. I mean, its all right there in those two plans/aerial views.
Mike Cirba, Your posts make my point for me. You havent the least I idea what my theories are or aren't yet you continue to rant. This latest theory (flawed as it is) is yours, not mine. Your theory applies better to CBM's first trip than his March trip. That doesn't mean I've accepted your theory, or even that it makes sense. It just means it would fit better for the first trip (when they were trying to figure out if they had enough land) than the second. As for what else you attribute to me, you are wrong. But continue to knock yourself out fighting ghosts of your own creation and other things that aren't even in dispute. As I said before, I am done with your remedial research and analysis 101.
The reason that this is so important to them s that they know that there was a plan in 1910, but they need to minimize it as much as possible so they can claim the only thing relevant is what was done in 1911. Putting Francis working on the plan earlier means that the basic routing was there much earlier than they are willing to admit. The funny thing is that these guys went down this road under the mistaken impression that this is my only support for my theories.
Mike Cirba
There was a plan in June 1910 that H.H. Barker put together, but even your own paper dismisses its importance and as you claim, we don't even know what 100 acres he was considering on his 6000 yard course.
"Putting Francis working on the plan earlier means that the basic routing was there much earlier than they are willing to admit. The funny thing is that these guys went down this road under the mistaken impression that this is my only support for my theories."
Jeff:
Putting Francis out there working on that land plan does not necessarily mean that the basic routing was there much earlier. On the other hand, Jeff, you should try to tell me why YOU think Francis was put out there in 1910 working on that land by the essayist when there has never been any evidence at all of that. Let's at least see if we can get on the same page on that. ;)
"3. I don't think HG Lloyd was engaging in hyperbole, but he did under the meaning of "APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE ROAD.""
You don't think Lloyd was engaging in hyperbole but you think he did engage in hyperbole when he said in a Nov. 15. 1910 circular to the membership? ???
"2. Despite your outrage, you are WRONG about the acreage on the 1910 plan. You are off by probably 6 acres or more. Hire someone capable of understanding how to determine these things if you cannot figure it out yourself."
I'm not outraged in the slightest, I merely think the contentions you made in your essay are very wrong and that it's very important to know why. How is it you determine either me or Lloyd are off by 6 acres or more on the land in green on that 11/15/10 plan that is marked "Golf Course" and delineated on the western side of the top of the L by the words "approximate road?"
I do believe Francis. I just don't believe your interpretation of when that land swap and his idea of it took place.
Dumb question - when did Merion get the land where the driving range currently sits? Was it during the time being discussed or later? Or, was it always their property?
Jeff wrote:
Jeff, you've alluded a number of times to the "other records." What are the other records to which you refer?
It seems like you may be drinking the TEPaul Kool-Aid...
To refresh:
Francis tells us that fitting the first 13 holes was no problem but he was having trouble with the last five, so he swapped for the 130' x 190' area up at the top of the property - the location of the 15th green and 16th tee. Note that he doesn't say a word about swapping for land for the 14th green. Mike just threw that in there.
_____________________________
Mike are you really this obtuse? All these years and you still havent the first clue as to my theories? What a waste of time.
I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT 5 holes fit in the area that you've drawn out. I've NEVER SAID that there ever was a swap for the land on which the 14th green sits and on which the 15th tee sat. Why on earth would I say something so inane? Francis doesn't say anything about swap for the 14th green and 15th tee, so I would have to be a presumptuous ass or a complete idiot to assume the swap included such land.
You guys just make this shit up, apparently. Instead of repeatedly misrepresenting my points, why don't you stick to your own. You have enough trouble understanding those.
THE HOLES DID NOT FIT.
That is why they did the swap. They thought they could fit the holes, but the holes didn't fit, so they got some land and it not only made the course fit, they made it better.
DISCLAIMER: None of the above should be construed as acceptance or support of your inane and inaccurate description of what land they would have had or wouldn't have had to use before the swap.
"
Is that right? I'm sorry, I didn't understand you said that. I couldn't agree with you more given the fact we have a club governor offering a resolution at a board meeting asking for approval of an exchange of land that has ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED. I see no reason why he would do that if the exchange (land swap) had already happened BEFORE the land was purchased by or for the club.
When you speak of deeds with this issue there is really only two we need to be concerned with----eg when Lloyd took the land into his own name for MCC (Dec. 19, 1910) and when he passed it back out of his name to MCC (actually MCC's corporation that had been created to own the land and lease it to MCC) on July 21, 1911.
Of course, the timing of board member, Thompson's resolution is most important to consider since he offered it on April 19, 1910.
"When exactly was Hugh Wilson's first recorded involvement with the project? Are you aware of any involvement before the February 1, 1912 letter?"
From the records of the club itself there is a brief mention in the late fall of Wilson going onto what appears to be a special committee, or perhaps a morphing of the former "Special Committee on New Golf Grounds" that we have known as the "Search Committee" . . ."
I guess I'm just getting a bit weary with all this and getting a bit like poor Hugh Wilson himself when he happened to write in one article or correspondence that they were building the West Course a year before they even bought the land for it. ??? ::)
Please give it shot yourself, I'm willing to learn more about how Macdonald and Whigham first short-sightedly recommended only 65 yards of land above the quarry and then seemingly painted themselves into a corner like this with the final five championship finishing holes still to come. ::)
Mike, in reading these last couple of pages, it's pretty clear to me that this idea you have that it was foolhardy to only buy 65 yards of land above the quarry is a red herring.
It seems perfectly logical to me that Merion may have wanted to have had more than 65 yards, but you're completely ignoring the fact that they were constrained in obtaining more than that north of the quarry because (1) they'd already determined most of the course (the 13 holes that Francis said fit in pretty easily) and (2) they had a fixed budget and fixed amount of acreage to buy ... therefore, the swap had to be an exact match and they couldn't have obtained more without cutting into some of the land upon which they'd decided the other holes were going to be built.
Look, I'd love to have my neighbor's entire back yard in return for a small portion of my side yard, but the fact is, that if I've only got, say, 400 square feet of side yard to swap him for it, I'm only going to get an equivalent 400 square foot sliver of his back yard in return.
Mike,
It would be education for me to see you route the final five in the land on the 11/15/1910 land plan.
They were struggling between 5 routings weren't they?
"1. Could you please clarify? When in the fall? Was he appointed to a committee or not? And what committee? I'd much rather not have your speculation on what happened, but would prefer if you would give us the facts so we can figure it our ourselves."
"The Missing Faces of Merion" essayist:
In the future, if you want me to even consider responding to some request or demand from you for additional information on Merion, I insist each and every request Of YOURS only be coupled closely with statement that you are thanking Wayne Morrison for taking the time and making the effort that took days and weeks and months TO PROVIDE YOU with the information that YOU should HAVE HAD yourself before launching into this bizarre and "access demanding" campaign of yours about the history of Merion. Nothing else will suffice and perhaps even that won't, at this point.
You try to categorize what you've done and continue to do on here as some attempt at "civil discourse" but I think anyone viewing or studying these threads can see without question from numerous of your own posts that what you are doing and saying does not even sniff the concept of civil discourse! :(
Furthermore, if you'd prefer not to have what you refer to as "my speculation" perhaps you should stop making demands for additional information on Merion OF ME and just come over here and spend the time and make the effort to do it ALL YOURSELF as we have been for a number of years. That's what most all actual club and course historians have always done with clubs like these and with the help of others from them such as us with Merion or Phillmont or Springhaven et al. The best example of that was the hugely valuable historian and sadly recently departed Bob Labbance!
I don't see a single other participant on these threads making these demands of me. The rest seem perfectly happy with what I have been providing on Merion that no one else on here obviously has to provide.
I think we're saying the same thing. On the existing property that they, at the time, had to work with, they could get 13 holes but the last 5 were a squeeze. They didn't need some of the property they had (the land where the really nice homes ended up), so they traded as much of that as they didn't need for as much of the triangle as they could get. All I'm saying is that the dog (how much they've got) wags the tail (how much they can trade for). The amount of land they could afford to spare up by where the nice homes ended up going dictates how much of the triangle they could obtain. In other words, if they'd have had more to give where the nice homes ended up, they'd have acquired more triangle, going further north toward College Avenue.
Shivas
This logic applies only if the swap occurred after they had decided on 117 acres for the sale. I doubt this was the case.
What about the $85K purchase price?
David Moriarty:
I've got your post #362 printed out with time and date and GOLFCLUBATLAS.com on it. You're talking about the law on here now in your ongoing attempt to be given access to private information?? You're talking the law on here now after YOU put an unsolicited opinion essay about a private club on a public forum and getting criticized for it by people who have access to information you don't???
As much as I've been disgusted by the way you have treated this subject on here and others opinions about it I really never thought you were so stupid as to write a post on here like #362.
I'm sending it to the administrators of this website and may make plenty of others concerned and potentially concerned about something like this aware of this post.
It may be incalculable what you and that post of yours just did to this website ever getting information from clubs or anyone connected to them who are in a position to have that kind of information to share their OPINIONS of it with others on here.
Is there any single reason you can think of WHY David Moriarty should not have gone directly to Merion G.C. and MCC HIMSELF before even attempting to write an essay, and certainly one like THAT challengeing the club's architect and architectural history??
From Christ's sake, these two clowns MacWood and Moriarty DID NOT EVEN KNOW that MCC, Merion, the club, the club historians had THANKED Macdonald and Whigam profusely when they helped them out over four days spread out over ten months!!! They thanked them for that back in 1910 and 1911 and the Merion history reflects that completely. IT's ALL RIGHT THERE in the club records AND MEETING MINUTES from back then. Did those clowns try to find it where it all began? You surely know the answer to that---eg NOT even close.
BULLSHIT they did! We've all know about that forever. THERE IS NO more to it. THERE IS NO PUZZLE! THERE NEVER WAS! THOSE TWO CLOWNS just dreamed it up! SO they decide to make a total fucking mountain out of a molehill that has been known about FOREVER by MERION!?
"Tom, It seems rather extreme to de-register rather than answer my questions, especially because that won't stop them."
Your questions or your "puzzles" or your self-possessed concerns about your "work" ;) and your reputation ??? doesn't matter to me anymore, not that they ever have with the way you went about all this. Merion will always be there and Hugh I. Wilson and his committee (along with Flynn later) will always be considered its primary architects. Macdonald and Whigam helped them and gave them good advice on some things then, probably more to do with agronomy than architecture for a total of four days in the beginning. Merion and we always knew that even if clowns like MacWood and you didn't. Macdonald and Whigam were in no wise the routers or designers or the driving force behind Merion East! Even if you probably never will, I know that and so does Merion, and that's what will always be important. I don't want to be on here if you are on this website, because, in my opinion, you make everything to do with the very soul of golf architectural research shriek!
If all available information is compiled and made available, each can make his own subjective determination according to their own standards for design attribution. All I'm saying is there will be a central clearing house for golf architecture and it will aid in determinations.
I understand there is room for interpretation. There are some that give design credit without knowing all the information available such as Macdonald and Whigham at Merion. I don't think we will ever know what Macdonald and Whigham did at Merion so there is no need to speculate and make attributions based solely on interpolations of vague statements. All existing information will be available to everyone so that interested parties can make their own informed decisions based upon their own criteria. They will not have to rely upon determinations made by unknown processes.
Bryan,
Is it possible that Francis mispoke or was misquoted? Sure it is possible. But it is not just the dimensions of the swapped property. We'd have to throw out the entire Francis statement to make TEPaul's theory work.
The entire point of the Francis statement is that they could not fit the final five holes onto the course, and that he swapped for land and solved this problem. If the 1910 plan accurately depicts the state of the land BEFORE the swap, then he would have had no such problem. The holes fit. How do you draw the conclusion that the holes fit. Looking at my overlay, I'd say the currently configured holes marginally don't fit. Which is not to say that some configuration of the requisite number of holes couldn't have been fitted in there, but I have trouble with your categorical statement that "the holes" fit.
TEPaul claims that the 1910 plan accurately reflects the land before the swap, but it is easy to fit the holes on this plan. So if TEPaul is correct, then the entire Francis Story must be discarded. While TEPaul and Mike are willing to discard eye witness accounts at their pleasure, I am not.
"If it was there because the Francis land swap was already in the minds of those that instructed the surveyors to draw the map, why does it look like the other land to be swapped to the HDC, in return, down near the clubhouse between the blue and red roads, isn't also reflected in the 1910 map?"
I cannot get into the heads of the surveyors or those instructing them, but it looks to me like they anticipated a swap of a longer, shallower, swath of land. Could be that they were told "you need to change the road, we need about 100 yards or so next to the bottom of the Haverford land, and take it out of somewhere further down the road . . ." Remember the road was marked APPROXIMATE LOCATION, so the surveyors probably didn't know EXACTLY where it would go. But your question raises another point . . . Thanks for the speculation. Can we agree that the map as drawn does not show what we would expect to see in the way of reduced acreage across from the clubhouse stated in the swap story and that we don't know why it doesn't show it?
TEPaul claims that the 1910 map perfectly shows the 117 acre parcel that Haverford would purchase. But this too is wrong. The Golf Course land pictured is more than 117 acres, I agree that it shows more than 117 acres. Out of curiosity, what do you think the acreage is, and how did you measure it?for the very reason you provide above; there is too much golf course land across from the clubhouse. How much excess acreage do you measure there?
The rest of the border looks to be about accurate, and the total purchased was 117 acres, same as in the 1910 plan. So we can net out the differences between the acreage created by the APPROXIMATE road with the acreage created by the final road. Comparing the two, the APPROXIMATE road creates too much land.
_______________________________________________________________________
Shivas, what your saying could be true, but there is another issue with TEPaul's interpretation.
Are you too curious with what comes after "adjoining . . .."
"TEPaul claims that the 1910 map perfectly shows the 117 acre parcel that Haverford would purchase. But this too is wrong. The Golf Course land pictured is more than 117 acres, for the very reason you provide above; there is too much golf course land across from the clubhouse."
The above is a completely fallacious statement!
1. In president Evans' statement to the board he mentioned the 117 acres for a golf course had been negotiated by Connell and Lloyd.
2. Nickolson of HDC writes a letter to Evans making an offer of the 117 acres for $85,000.
3. After approval by the board Evans writes Nickolson back agreeing to his offer on behalf of MCC. This was not a option between HDC and MCC as your essay contends (the only options were between HDC and a few landowners), it was merely an agreement in principle provided MCC agree to create a golf course. Evan says to Nickolson MCC first needs to set up and register a corporation (The MCC Golf Association Co) and then they will proceed to lay off (he actually said that) a golf course on the 117 acres of land.
4. In Lloyd's circular to the membership on Nov. 15, 1910 explaining the course and the development (HDC) to the west and north he also references the 117 acres had been secured for a golf course and he also refernces in the same circular that the 117 acres for THE GOLF COURE is depicted in green on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan.
So you are absolutely wrong. The area in green (PROPOSED GOLF COURSE) on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan is 117 acres!
........................
...................
No Tom. I don't just make these things up. The acreage shown as the golf course is substantially larger than the 117 acres it is supposed to be. You can see this from even looking at Bryan's overlay. Plus, I've measured it. But why don't you go out and pace off the metes and bounds and calculate it yourself?
For anyone confused:Count me among the confused.
1. The area Merion ultimately purchased was 117 yards.
2. TEPaul claims that the area marked "golf course" on the 1910 plan was 117 yards.
3. If the Francis Swap occurred AFTER the Plan was created, then any swap was quid pro quo. Equal Acreage for Equal Acreage. How do you know that the swap was quid pro quo? Why couldn't they just have adjusted the boundaries in any way that they saw fit? If MCC lost acreage by the 14th tee, then they had to pick up land somewhere else.
4. Conservatively, between the 1910 plan and the actual purchase, MCC would have lost around 7.5 acres of land along Golf House Road across from the clubhouse. Plus the lost the small triangle behind the 16th tee. By my measurement, they gave up 6.5 acres across from the clubhouse and picked up maybe an acre along the western edge of the triangle. Those two deltas would bring the area back around 117 acres.
5. According to TEPaul an Mike, they gained what? An acre or less?
Where did MCC pick up the other 6 acres? Nowhere. The road was in its APPROXIMATE LOCATION.
................................
Mike Cirba,
While you started the thread, others have contributed, and it is not yours to delete.
And a few of us have attempted to address your initial post. Repeatedly.
________________________________________
..............
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion1910-1913Overlay.jpg)
Brian,
Thanks for trying this again.
However, the lines of the road are very thick and it hides quite a bit of what doesn't fit. The thickness of the roads is to scale from the maps. To scale on the map they are approx 42 feet wide. From the current Google map the roads are about 32 feet wide including the margins. I'd guess that the map drawers were not accurately to scale in drawing the width of the roads. As per previous posts I'm now beginning to question the overall accuracy of the 1910 map.
I'd also question something....
From the left inside boundary of the road we know that the 1913 map is 130 yards to the right boundary. I measure it at 123+/- yards. It would be really helpful if you could put three dots on the Google map I provided back on page 8 to indicate where the property line surveyor stakes are currently on the east side. Tom indicated that they're 20 yards to the east of 16 tee, and you indicated they are under the trees. Can you mark them on the Google map? They are still in the same place as 1913, no?
From the left inside boundary of the road we know that the 1910 map is less than 100 yards to the right boundary.
I think it's about 95 yards, but for discussion purposes, let's say it's 100 so the base of the triangle on the 1910 map is about 75% as wide as the 1913 map...would you agree?Sure, somewhere around 95 to 100 yards, although I'm questioning the accuracy of the 1910 map.
Why does it appear that the 1910 western boundary is very close to the 1913 western boundary...probably closer to 85-90% at the base of the triangle?
I think you've slightly and miscalculated mislocated the 1910 western boundary...Perhaps. Back to my request. Can you locate the boundary on the current Google map? Do we agree that the boundary in 1910 and 1913 should be in the same place.in fact, I recall from an earlier attempt that today's 1st green didn't fit into what was purchased either.
.......................
I should have been more specific as to of "the holes" I was referring. When I wrote that "the holes fit" I meant that the 15th green and 16th tee fit in the area next to the Haverford College land, or would with a very slight changes.
As far as I know, based on FRANCIS' STATEMENT, this was the only land Merion gained in the swap. If these holes could have been fit in before the swap, then this would have negated Francis entire premise of the swap. No need to swap for land if the holes already fit.
Bryan,
I misread your post and was talking about another discrepancy. I cannot explain why those measures were off in the southeast corner, but was referring to the southwest corner, where there was some sort of exchange. As I said to Mike, there may have been more than one. Or the map might just be off.
David,
I think it's interesting that you do the same thing Wayne and Tom do with regards to information you have that they do not...yet you cry about them doing so...do you think if you brought forward this latest sawp concept when you forst discovered it this thread might have moved a little smoother...
Bryan,
I misread your post and was talking about another discrepancy. I cannot explain why those measures were off in the southeast corner, but was referring to the southwest corner, where there was some sort of exchange. As I said to Mike, there may have been more than one. Or the map might just be off.
Bryan/David,
I'm seeing about 50 feet of discrepancy between the 1908 and 1913 maps between Ardmore Avenue to the north and the southern boundary.
I'll try to measure the November 1910 map next.
I measured the 1908 map. So far my score is:
1908 920 feet
1910 920 feet
1913 880 feet
Curiouser and curiouser?? In 1908 the boundary with the 126 acre Gest estate is straight. In 1910 the boundary is sill 920 feet on the eastern end but has a 40 foot jog to the south on the western portion of it. A bite out of the Gest estate on the 11-15-1910 map. On the 1913 map the jog is still there, but the boundary has moved north about 40 feet so Gest still has 126 acres. Net effect between 1908 and 1913 is zero acreage change in the Gest estate, but obviously some land is swapped with Gest. Meanwhile it calls into question the accuracy of the 1910 map where HDC seems to have appropriated an acre or so of Gest's estate. Poor cartography? Misleading advertising. Backroom deals by the captains of industry? ..............
As to the southern border, I am not sure, but I too doubt the dimensions on the 1910 map and always have. I think that that the college land may extend further out on the 1910 plan than on the Atlases.
This wouldn't surprise me, as i think that this drawing was created to show the Membership the general shape and location of the property, and was not meant as an exact statement of what they planned to purchase. I know Mike and Tom have tried to claim that this was some sort of special "legal document" but I never got that impression.
Bryan,
If that isn't the damndest thing!
It appears they gave up land along the right of today's 6th hole, making that tee shot partially blind and somewhat impinged on the right side to gain land up along Ardmore Avenue that they didn't use for the golf course behind the original #2 green.
Stranger yet is giving up about 15 yards in length down behind the original 10th tee, 11th green, etc.
What this also means is that the November 15, 1910 Land Plan is an accurate representation of the land they intended to use for the golf course at that point in time, down to the square foot, independently verified by the identical dimensions of the 1908 Railroad Map.
..........................
Huh?? :o How'd you reach that conclusion? One dimension of an irregular area does not an area give. Perhaps you forgot the ;)
David,
Now you're not going to surprise me and tell me that Hugh Wilson decided to design a Road Hole there, are you?! ;D
As to the southern border, I am not sure, but I too doubt the dimensions on the 1910 map and always have. I think that that the college land may extend further out on the 1910 plan than on the Atlases.
This wouldn't surprise me, as i think that this drawing was created to show the Membership the general shape and location of the property, and was not meant as an exact statement of what they planned to purchase. I know Mike and Tom have tried to claim that this was some sort of special "legal document" but I never got that impression.
This should be something Bryan could prove out, correct?
The south boundary of the property from Ardmore Ave. is exact from the 1910 Land Plan map and the 1913 Railroad map, so that's a pretty good start.
Bryan...can you do your magic? Not sure what magic you're looking for. But here's one more puzzler for you. The distance from Ardmore to the southern boundary of the Eaton estate:
1908 300 feet
1910 360 feet
1913 220 feet
The 1910 map is way out of whack with the 1913 map on this dimension. One more nail in the accuracy coffin of the 1910 map.
Re your real estate transaction information, could either of you decode the transaction for me. Where was the Wheeler estate. I don't see it on the map. Why is the 47 foot strip only 323 feet long. The south boundary of the Eaton estate given up to Merion is over 800 feet long. Dazed and confused.
Mike, I hope you are still going to try to pinpoint the eastern boundary with Haverfford College for me.
David,
Now you're not going to surprise me and tell me that Hugh Wilson decided to design a Road Hole there, are you?! ;D
Nah, the land swap meant that there was less impingement on the drive, although it would be nice to discover a road hole on Merion.
Sorry to leave you guys hanging but I just got back from a terrific Lakers game.David,
Now you're not going to surprise me and tell me that Hugh Wilson decided to design a Road Hole there, are you?! ;D
Nah, the land swap meant that there was less impingement on the drive, although it would be nice to discover a road hole on Merion.
Bryan, except that while they swapped for the land they kept the impingement on the drive only moreso. They even built sand and grass mounds on the corner so that a play over it would be dangerous whether or not one actually had to cut over an out-of-bounds.
..........................
Sure, there are some similarities and in the loose ways that template names are used, you can think of it as a road hole, if you like. In the teens that would have been RR sheds, not old hotel and garden. no?
_________________________________
Bryan asked:
Re your real estate transaction information, could either of you decode the transaction for me. Where was the Wheeler estate. I don't see it on the map. Why is the 47 foot strip only 323 feet long. The south boundary of the Eaton estate given up to Merion is over 800 feet long. Dazed and confused.
Bryan, I believe there may have been multiple swaps regarding this property, the first one pushing the entire 10 acres closer up to ardmore ave, and extending it east, the second one cutting a notch in the corner, and possibly one later cutting a diagonal. Perhaps the dimensions provided by TEPaul are for the second swap.
The estate was the Smith Estate on the 1908 atlas, then the Eaton Estate in 1913, (but it was the Carver estate for about 18 months in the middle.) It eventually became the Wheeler estate, or at least 1/2 of it did, as it was split in about 1/2 at some point.
Thanks for the clarification. Mike's quote from the Title Insurance Company of Pennsylvania has the following;
"10-22-1912
Charles Carver, Jr. sold .352 acres to Alfred B. Eaton who then conveyed the property to the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association 78’x197’ along the south border of the Wheeler property in exchange for a 47’x323’ strip of ground west of the 2nd green"
It is still confusingly written. Does it not sound like the 78’x197’ strip conveyed to Merion is along the south border of the Wheeler property? But, that is really the dimensions of the parcel at the east end of the Eaton estate. Surely the 47’x323’ strip of ground west of the 2nd green is in fact a strip along the south border of the Eaton/Wheeler estate? The 1920 atlas shows a notch out of the Wheeler estate, but it's closer to 47 by 200. It's nowhere near 323 feet. How can the Title Insurance Company of Pennsylvania have it located on the southern border of the Wheeler estate in 1912 when the atlas still has it as the Eaton estate, not the Wheeler estate, in 1913? These guys/girls seemed to be playing musical boundaries back in the day.
Are you going to play a cat/mouse game or tell us your understanding of the 6th hole or produce any other evidence you have to back your claims? Otherwise, your not just wasting our time, but a whole lot of other people as well. At some point, some might even accuse you of less than desirable motives.
btw...it's hard to keep up with the ongoing changes in your essay. Ran must have put about your 5th revision on the site by now...if it was so accurate in the beginning as you claim, why the need to keep changing it?
Please show us what you have or I'm quite done discussing the issue, as well. If you think I have a double standard, so be it. It's you I'm trying to have an educational discussion with right now, because frankly, you're the only one who still believes what you do.
Mike, what's with the stupid, uncalled for accusations? The guy is putting this evolution together in his mind piece by piece - as he gets them. He doesn't have access to everything all at once, so he has no other way to do it.
And you're calling him the "cat" in this cat and mouse game? That's a laugh.
If you people would just chill out and quit attacking each other every time your PRIDE tricks you into doing so, you all just might be able to figure this thing out, but every time ANY OF YOU comes up with a theory, the fur starts flying and the guys on the other side start whining like babies, claiming all sorts of nonsense and firing all sorts of snide nastiness every which way. Then, of course, these other 1500 members are all treated to the inevitable "I'm leaving" threats, which at this point, aren't really threats at all...
Frankly, it's appauling behavior that is beneath all of you.
Silly...scratch that. Sad, actually.
Silly...scratch that. Sad, actually.
"Damn it, Bryan, are you trying to steal my thunder? You've discovered the problem with TEPaul's latest assumptions regarding the minutes. "
That was yesterday afternoon, Shivas.
As of this morning, we are no closer to hearing anything from David about his source.
So Bryan threw out an idea before DaveM does...so what? DaveM is a rather methodical type and he's also a man who is almost certain to face indignation and mockery if there is even the slightest flaw in anything he says. So before he blurts out a theory, he wants all his ducks in a row....and who can blame him for that, given all that's gone on here. As you said, this was only yesterday afternoon. I would sure as shit hope that if DaveM were going to work up a multiple land swap theory that makes sense and is solid, it'd take longer than half a day.
Silly...scratch that. Sad, actually.
"Damn it, Bryan, are you trying to steal my thunder? You've discovered the problem with TEPaul's latest assumptions regarding the minutes. "
That was yesterday afternoon, Shivas. As of this morning, we are no closer to hearing anything from David about his source.
I have been trying to keep this thread ON TASK, and yet it's devolved again.
I'm VERY INTERESTED to hear what information David has; why hasn't he produced it or even cited it?
Mike,
That's the same crap that came from Wayno and TEPaul prior to David presenting his white paper.
He's not obligated to meet your time table.
And frankly, who cares if it was a Road Hole or not...we already know that Wilson tried to copy elements of certain holes from abroad and that
First you chide him for suggesting such, and now you accept the possibility that the hole was intended as a "Road Hole"
Instead of first examining the elements/features of the hole you chose to ridicule the suggestion.
You're so invested in Wilson that you greet any attribution to CBM with ridicule.
You're not being objective, perhaps you're incapable of being objective with respect to Merion/Wilson/CBM.
they had Macdonald as an advisor.
I thought we had moved on to just the facts about the property lines, which a number of us are TRYING to uncover.
Does that mean that David and others aren't permitted to "ADD" interesting tidbits to the discussion.
What are you so afraid of that makes you disclaim anything and everything that David posts ?
I thought better of my previous post, and modified it within, what, a minute or two of posting it. Man you guys are quick. My point was expressing my disappointment that Mike cannot seem to get his arms around what a conversation actually looks like, and that everything I offer is met with his offense.
Mike, the reference to Fox Hills wasn't to the strategy of the hole but to the "broad hollow running up to the terraced green like the home hole at Fox Hills."
In other words the shortest route to the green is across the corner of somebody's corn lot, with an open shot to the green if the carry is made, and a half dozen assorted shots back to the fairway if the ball falls short. The golfer who plays safe by taking the dog-leg journey to the right toward the green will hardly reach his destination in two strokes...
I hate to ask, but is Bryan and DM now saying the land swap mentioned in TePaul's minutes are related to these small parcels that have been mapped? They seem like separate transactions to me, based on the Francis comment about Golf House Road. I'm not saying that. I don't have enough information to say that.
Or, is it Bryan's contention that MCC picked up more land in the vicinity of No. 1 green that balanced out the land lost by 14 tee to green than previously thought? No, I'm not making that contention. I'm trying to get enough information to try to develop a contention about any of this. The only thing I'd contend now is that the 1910 map seems inaccurate enough to make it questionable as a basis to make any contentions.
One last question - TePaul says he has the metes and bounds. So, what is the date of that survey? Is it tied to the land purchase in November-December 1910? Or to the final configuration in April 1911? It seems there is no final configuration. Land swaps seem to have gone on for years.Is there more than one survey? All good questions. Hopefully Tom will answer them.
Bryan:
The Smith, Eaton, Wheeler place is essentially the same land. It was just transfered over the years starting with Smith and eventually to Wheeler. Merion bought the remaining six acres from the Wheelers less than ten years ago. The reason for your confusion in the differences in the dimension from Ardmore Ave to the southern border of the Eaton land doesn't appear to be mistake on the 1910 plan but on the 1913 PRR map. It's pretty funny really. PRR Plat maps are not exactly official property dimensions for any kind of title, deed or mortgage use so if they make a mistake no title company is likely to pick it up because title companies don't use PRR Plat maps for land survey use for titles and deeds. I understand. I see what happened there. Whoever was typing the dimensions (off metes and bounds) of the Eaton to MCCGA and MCCGA to Eaton swap got the dimensions mixed up on both sides of the swap. That seems like a possibility. But isn't the Title Insurance organization that Mike was quoting from a legal thing that would have needed to get the dimensions and locations accurate? Are you saying that they got both the dimensions and the locations wrong? It seems obvious to me that the 79' x 197' piece was on the eastern end of the Eaton property, not on the southern side. Due to that they actually made the entire ten acre property a lot narrower than it should be. I know this because we have a blueprint for Merion and the deeds reflecting this swap and you can see right on the dimensions of both sides that the PRR Plat map got them mixed up with the actual deeds. So that explains the big loss of the dimension from Ardmore Ave to the bottom of the Eaton land on the 1913 PRR Plat map. Is there any way that the blueprint can be posted on here. And, the deeds. They are public information are they not? Could they be obtained by anyone from the land registry office? It might help conclude the discussion. The way to prove this obviously is to just go out behind #2 green and walk it off. That will show the 1913 PRR Plat map was considerably too short from Ardmore Ave to the southern border of the property. Of course you have to add in the dimension to the southern border of the other side of the swap back in 1912 but we have that too.
Bryan,
Based on your feelings about what you see as the inaccuracies of the 1910 map, do you think it's still worth me trying to locate the eastern perimeter up in the triangle on that Google earth diagram?
Thanks
"It seems obvious to me that the 79' x 197' piece was on the eastern end of the Eaton property, not on the southern side."
Bryan:
The eastern piece (behind the 2nd green) was actually 47'x323'. The western section of the swap was 78'x197'. Both work out to 15,000sf and change and that's why they were a $1.00 "like kind" swap.
"I just measured it, based on the location of the boundary in the 1908 atlas, and the current location of Golf House Road and it comes out to about 32+/- acres. More head scratching.
Bryan:
I hope you are willing to admit that these kinds of measurements are always going to be a lot more accurate off of the old metes and bounds of actual property lines done specifically by professional surveyors for specific properties for deeds and titles and mortgages for the actual property owners and such then they will be off of Google Earth today or even PRR Plat maps by GOLFCLUBATLASERS. You just saw how badly the 1913 PRR Plat map, for instance, screwed up their dimenions on that Smith/Eaton/Wheeler land. ;)
In other words the shortest route to the green is across the corner of somebody's corn lot, with an open shot to the green if the carry is made, and a half dozen assorted shots back to the fairway if the ball falls short. The golfer who plays safe by taking the dog-leg journey to the right toward the green will hardly reach his destination in two strokes...
What do you think is meant by "the dog-leg journey to the right"?
For what it's worth, the 6th green sits up on a terrace a full 5 or 5 feet above the approach...
Actually, while exact measures are difficult, I've just measured the red area and I think that if not exact, the red area is pretty close to 100 acres.
Bryan, do you mind independently measuring the portion of the Johnson farm property that I have marked in red? If so, thanks in advance.
Do you understand how I came up with this shape or do you need more information?
David,
A picture is worth a thousand words. That illustrates your theory and makes a little bit of sense, but for one thing - I think I could easily fit the last five holes in the land in red. 14 could parallel 1, 15 could be a long par 5 along the west border, and 16 and 17 would be a 3 and a 4 leading back to the same 18th. Of course, I don't recall the topo that well.
About the size of the acreaage of your red lines above (100 acres?) didn't you realize the old Johnson Farm property went right to College Avenue on the top of the "L"? Lloyd bought the whole 140 acre Johnson Farm (140) in Dec 1910 and he bought the 21 acre Dallas estate in the same deed 140+21=161 acres.
Take that north/south western line on the top of the "L" right to College Ave, and then put the green line straight from the College directly to the southwest corner of the Haverford College land in red. That was part of the dimension of the old Johnson Farm for about a hundred and fifty years. The addition of that section in red probably is around 17 acres----eg your 100 acres in red + another 17=117! Then you add to that the section of the Johnson Farm to the west that's about 23 acres and you have 140 the long time size of the Johnson Farm. Again, that was the size of it for about 150 years and it would not change until Lloyd flipped land back to MCCGA in July 1911.
(is there any other spot on this earth that fits so much great golf into such a small space?)
But think about how this could have come about. They knew in June 1910 that they needed just under 120 yards for a golf course, the exact amount they ended up with when they finally purchased and leased the land. How could they come up with the exact amount if they handn't even bothered to consider the lay out?
David,
Thanks for helping move the conversation along.
I have a number of questions, if I might.
1) Connell and HDC made clear that Merion could have as much land as they needed for their golf course. They seemed to make that very clear when they said, "100 acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the course", which is pretty much an open-ended proposition. Why do you think they stuck with 100 acres? If they needed more, wouldn't it have been easier to simply negotiate for more cheap land with HDC (recall they were paying about 1/2 price for land from HDC) rather than go and buy a whole different property with the Dallas Estate? Also in terms of topography, that land is ok, with a couple of nice features, but it's nothing great for the most part, nor does it feature anything nearly as dramatic as what they had available to them north above the quarry on the Johnson Farm.
2) Macdonald and Whigham seemed to identify the potential of the quarry in June 1910 when they stated that "much could be made" of the natural hazard. Why do you think they didn't recommend that Merion buy easily available land directly due north of the quarry, where the 16th tee is today, as that would have made a very obvious lengthy par four with over 250 available for the drive, and then a lengthy second. AS it is, they only recommended the purchase of land a mere 65 yards beyond the quarry, limiting Merion to using the quarry for a single par three. There is no way to create a horizontal hole of any length running west/east using the quarry because the quarry continues all the way to the eastern border of the property? Who do you think goofed here?
3) Why would the Committee, or Macdonald, or whover, create 13 holes on the lower land when they had to know they didn't have anywhere near enough room left north of that to create five additional holes? By your own map you tell us that they didn't want to use land west of the course (as Francis tells us it was not part of any golf layout), so after they laid out 13 holes all they had left was the area I have in light purple (and the quarry, unusable for any tee, fairway, or green, is in yellow). It's clear that there is no space there for more than 3 holes, tops, if they were of any quality, and one of them would have to be a par three.
What I find odd is that the other day when I produced the exact same map and question you basically called me out saying I was horribly misrepresenting your theory. Yet, I don't see any difference between the area remaining for the final five holes on your map versus what I drew yesterday on Bryan's?
Perhaps you do believe that but that was never mentioned anywhere. The fact is on Dec. 19, 1910 Lloyd took into his own name 161 acres (the entire 140 acre Johnson Farm and the 21 acre Dallas estate=161 acres).
Richard Francis definitely NEVER said the green triangle was not part of the land they considered for the golf course. If he said that please show me where he said that and don't give us YOUR interpretation of what he meant by the 130x190 statement in 1950 again. To use your demand give us FACTS and not your speculations.
TEPaul, it is not "speculation" if I take him exactly at his word. And I do."
David:
Seriously, and I have said this to you before on this thread---it is NOT not taking him at his word; it is taking him at YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he MEANT by 130x190!!
If you cannot or never will admit that YOUR INTERPETATION of what he meant by that IS THE ONLY WAY to interpret what he meant than this will never get resloved with you.
But at this point, what does it really matter? The fact is you use and always have a speciously clever tactic of argumentation on this entire issue in that you constantly try to limit all discussion just to that small part of his story. If you look at the rest of his story any reasonable mind can see that he did not mean to say what YOUR INTERPRETATION of 130x190 meant!! ;)
The other convincer is it is both on the ground and throughout MCC's records. You've fucked with the entire timeline and the fact that you'll never admit how wrong you've been all along is pretty much the point here.
The funniest thing of all about Francis's 130X190 remark is it is clear to see what he meant by the result of the extended base (and actually the shortened height (that "green" triangle on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan is actually over 300 yards long because I walkee it the other day ;) ??? ::) :-*
No, the truth of Merion's original history is definitely not your interest and it never has been. Your interest has always been more transparent than that.
My post #463 is THE ANSWER to when the Francis land swap really happened and how!
I see we've gone back to conjecture.
To meet my commitment to David to measure the area of his "red 100 acres", I did, and it was about 105 acres. I see that subsequently he adjusted the boundaries to get it closer to 100 acres. For whatever it's worth the rectangle of land north of the "red 100 acres" and including the green triangle is about 14 acres.
WE had some property west of the present course??? What property was that? Does that sound like property LLOYD owned at the time of do you think Francis was talking about the remaining 200 acres of HDC? ;)
"I think he is talking about the western portion of the 100 acres HDC had offered them for a golf course."
Right, and who do you think owned it when Francis had his idea for a swap?
"Mike,
I am still interested in the Haverford College boundary markers on the current Google map. Both the west and the south would be good. Two on each axis. Sorry for being tiresome. I guess I'm still not convinced that there wasn't 130 yards there."
Bryan and Mike:
I really don't get this. We have the Merion deeds right here throughout the last century that have exact metes and bounds on them and so what the hell are you guys using Google Earth and pretty colored lines to try to determine accurate dimensions? ::)
Are you two birds questioning the dimensionsal accuracy of Merion's DEEDS or is it just that you don't know or appreciate what they say?
THIS is a document David Moriarty had never seen and was totally unaware of when he wrote his essay. ::) It's a document explained to him many times but he denies it. ;)The tone of this thread (particularly the contributions of Mike and David) has improved enormously over the past couple of pages and made it both readable and interesting again. Thank you gentlement. I'm concerned by this comment, though, Tom. You refer to a document David was not aware of when he wrote his essay and then state that it has been "explained" to him many times. Has he seen the document, or a copy of it? If not and given the tone and nature of most of the Merion "debate" over the past months, I can appreciate why he might not accept your statement as to what the document says without confirming it for himself. I'm not saying you are wrong as to what it says, merely pointing out that I can understand why David might not simply accept that. Of course there's one way to make sure we all are sure what the document says.
...................................
Bryan,
I think you misunderstood me. I don't have the metres and bounds either. I misunderstood. I'm so sad. I really thought that we could pin down that boundary. :( When I was talking about property boundary under the trees I was referring to the fact that I believe the original dimension of the triange from the inside of the road to have been about 130 yards, (as opposed to 95 on the 1910 Land Plan) and with the additional "triangle" sold to them by Haverford College in 1928 that made the bottom of the triangle 155 yards, and there are in fact stakes under and along the treeline on the left of 16 as you come off the tee for the first part of the hole.
Yesterday I tried to map from Haverford Ave., and from the Railroad tracks back to that line using the dimensions on the 1910 map. I don't know if I screwed up something but I couldn't get close. Yeah, I couldn't get it right either. That was the genesis of my interest in locating the boundary. I think the scaling is off on the 1910 map in other places as I've discussed in previous posts. I was trying to pin down the Haverford College boundary to either confirm or deny another measurement discrepancy. Can you not get Tom to show you the metes and bounds and then you can put them on the Google map? The metes and bounds are public information, so there shouldn't be any of the angst about protecting the privacy of Merion.
I'll look at it again today.
Hope tihis helps explain things.
Thanks
"Sure, I agree they are not as accurate as professional surveyors, but, I also don't believe that they are wrong by almost 100% (from 18 to 32 acres)."
Bryan:
OK, let's try this; we'll compare my methodology against your methodolgy. I sure don't know how to measure off Google Earth but I do know how to use the incremental land sizes off accurate metes and bounds on totals and I do know how to read the acreage listed on deeds! ;) I used to sell real estate and sometimes we actually had to go through all the metes and bounds with potential clients and at title offices during settlements. Reading through the sequence of any property's metes and bounds is some incredibly boring shit but somebody has to do it! ;) And that is why most all transfers require title insurance; most all mortgage companies demand it anyway and clients are protected too. If all properties were as disputed as Merion's borders are on here I will guarantee you there isn't a title insurance company that wouldn't go broke!! :P
Tell me when you're ready.
I've got to go mow the lower forty. See you'all later.
Bryan,
You mentioned you measure the land north of my red line at 14 acres? I don't recall exactly but didn't you measure the rectangle of Johnson farm property? How about the narro stretch along Ardmore?
I am trying to back out the land that I don't think was offered to get the acreage of the land offered, and by doing so I think I get within a few yards of the 100 I think was offered.
Do you agree?
Rich,
Surely the questions on this thread about the lower 40 are:
Is it really 40? Has he checked the metes and bounds?
Could he really have fit 6 holes within the bounds of the lower 40?
Patrick,
I didn't ridicule David for suggesting it might be a Road Hole.
I merely made what I thought was a good spirited comment about "Hugh Wilson" designing it.
Its certainly plausible.
I just wonder how long you'd tolerate someone attacking you and your historical research, at say, Garden City almost daily on a website you chose to leave months ago?
Mike, I've chided/reprimanded both sides.
On more than one occassion I've stated that the back and forth nonsense is inhibiting/prohibiting collaboration which could result in positive, informative results.
It seems that all parties are keenly interested in the subjects at hand and that all the parties have taken the time and made the effort to conduct research on the topics at hand. Now, if they could just work together, perhaps tremendous progress and interesting revelations could be made.
Where's your righteous indignation' or Shivas's for that matter?
I've expressed it on more than one occassion.
Perhaps you chose to ignore it because you thought I was advocating for CBM :o
When did it become proper to attack people in their backyards here?
Backyard, frontyard, sideyard, railyard, what difference does it make, the personal potshots on both sides are detracting from the effort.
Bryan,
You mentioned you measure the land north of my red line at 14 acres? I don't recall exactly but didn't you measure the rectangle of Johnson farm property? How about the narro stretch along Ardmore?
I am trying to back out the land that I don't think was offered to get the acreage of the land offered, and by doing so I think I get within a few yards of the 100 I think was offered.
Do you agree?
I have measured the north rectangle of the Johnson Farm at 14 acres +/- and the area from the current road to the western boundary of the Johnson farm at 18 acres +/-. I have not measured the L shaped segment north of Ardmore and west of the course. I will when I get a chance. Could I suggest that you you take your Google aerial and put a colour bound around that L shaped area and then label each of your areas of interest with a letter (A, B, C etc.) it'd be a lot easier to refer to the various segments by letter and therefore for all of us to have the same understanding of what area we're referring to.
David,
Don't you think it's relevant to the debate on when the land swap happened to determine why the November 1910 Land Plan had dimensions closer to 95x300 in that triangle area rather than the 130x190 that Francis described?
[
No. Because assuming that this map represented the exact dimensions of the land before the swap is pure speculation on your part. Not only that but it is unsupported by the map (which has more than 117 acres going to MCC) and by the scale, and by Francis. If we are leaving out speculation, then we certainly must leave this out.
Actually, I'm not speculating anything really. I'm more than happy to stipulate that it's merely a rough land plan put together prior to any routing, and prior to the Francis Land Swap.
I'm just stating that if your contention is that both the routing and the Francis Land Swap happened before that November 1910 Land Swap, then I should think it would be very dimensionally accurate by that point because it would be very, very clear where the golf course was going and where the real estate component was going.
And this would be pure speculation on your part, and speculation that really isn't supported by any facts of which I am aware.
Are you saying I'm speculating that your contention is both the routing and that Francis Land Swap happened before Nov 1910 (and relatedly, probably before June 1910 I believe you stated yesterday), OR are you saying I'm speculating that had those two events occurred in the timeframes you contend that it follows the November 15th, 1910 map would be measurably accurate and reflective of those events?
The latter. And mike, i did not say that they both probably occurred before June 1910. First, "before June 1910" would put us in May or before. I said before July 1, 1910.
Given that we both agree the November 15th 1910 Land Plan is not an accurate document, even though probably for differing reasons, do you think we should throw it out as evidence?
In other words, by definition its clear inaccuracy makes drawing any relevant conclusions from it very suspect, wouldn't you agree?
"It was found advisable that the Haverford Development Co. should take title in Mr. Lloyd's name, so that the lines be revised subsequently"
David Moriarty:
Could you show me where you found that quote? I want to see if that's exactly what I said he said.
The 1910 Plan is not exact, the location of the road is approximate, and scale may be off. But that doesn't mean that the plan has absolutely no value. In Nov. 1910 MCC's board provided the map to the members to show where their golf course was to be be located, and so it gives us a general idea of the same. In other words, it gives us a general idea of the location of the land upon which they were planning to lay out the course. And at this point they appear to have been planning on using some of the land west of the college for the course. Not only that, but they also appear to have been planning on giving up a substantial part of the Johnson farm to the west of the course. I know this not only because of the map, but also because at this time they were only buying 117 acres.
So no, I don't think it makes any sense at to throw out the entire plan just because it is not perfectly accurate. I don't think it was ever meant to be perfectly accurate, and we can still learn a lot from it (and what else we know) even though it is not exact. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it is an absolute and undisputable fact that at that point they were planning on using land west of the College. But I am saying that in my mind the 1910 plan and other factors indicate to me that they were, and so far as I know there is nothing I know about that calls this into question. You can take it or leave it, accept it or don't.
It is not a hard fact that they were using the land, but it is a hard fact that the drawing includes land west of the College as part of the golf course.
Yes, Cuyler's did recommend that HDC take title to the Johnson Farm and Dallas estate (140 acres + 21 acres=161acres) in Lloyd's (and wife's) name. Why do you suppose Cuyler's recommended that? First, the Johnson Farm at that time was not in HDC's name but Cuyler's was specific about why title to 161 acres should be taken in Lloyd's name.
The man's name who Lloyd transfered title to 120.1 acres to was Rothwell not Freeman. Rothwell did not transfer the title to MCC, he transfered title to the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association Corporation that Lloyd was the president of and Clymer Brooke was the secretary. I have no idea what Lloyd did with the remaining 40 acres that were not transfered to MCCGA Corp.
"Also, I think you are mistaken that Lloyd controlled HDC. He and others recapitalized the stock, but I do not think that he or they took a majority interest."
That's your opinion and not necessarily mine.
"By the way, what property, exactly, is the Cuylers letter referring to? The Dallas Estate, the HDC property, or both? It could go either way."
It refers to the property that was transfered into Lloyd's name on Dec. 19, 1910.
I have no problem if you want to use the map that way, but I think frankly it hurts your cause.
" You say it was 32 acres. I've described how I got 18 acres. How did you measure it at 32 acres?"
Bryan:
Where did you see me mention anything about 32 acres?
"I think the location of the boundary is suspect on the 1910 map as I try to relate it to the current boundaries. You tell me the 1913 map is suspect."
Bryan:
I know some of you guys don't trust the dimensions on the Nov. 15, 1910 particularly the "approximate road" so we don't need to use that one for measurements. I just wanted you to use the aerial on post #501 that shows the actual Club House Road, as built. But I guess I also need to know how I can be sure that red line in that aerial in post #501 actually represents where the western boundary at the top of the "L" of the old Johnson Farm was. If you're not sure that the red line on the aerial in #501 is accurate, then you could overlay the 1908 RR map on it and check it out.
As far as the dimensions of the Eaton property on the 1913 PRR plat map, I explained not just that it's wrong but how it's wrong as well as how it probably got to be wrong. Did you understand that? I read your explanation. I remain to be convinced. Hard to believe the RR people could get it so wrong that time. Can you provide the metes and bounds?
David,
Since we're supposed to be trying to change the tone here, can I request we leave Wayne Morrison out of this.
Mike Cirba:
Thanks for finding that for me. My mistake; I should have said Cuylers said so that the lines could be revised subsequently.
What I was intending to address by asking for my remark again as to what Cuylers said was this somewhat ludicrously speculative remark of David Moriarty's;
"At the time of the letter, they already needed to revise the "lines." It wasn't a prospective safety devise, it was a retrospective cure." ;)
Tom, although he said he knew the records were at MCC, and he was likely overly broad in that statement, I think what he meant to say was that he had deduced to his logical satisfaction that that's where the records were - even if he didn't specifically know what was in them or where specifically at MCC they were.
(after all, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense that the early records of a new club that was to be spun off from an old club would be at the old club if they aren't at the new club. )
Bryan,
Regarding the west property boundary of the college land, try this.
Start at the center of of College avenue, and travel along the border of Golf House Road and the neighboring property to the east, heading S 24 degrees 06 min. E for 381.11 feet. A surveyor stone was at this location. Then, on the same heading (S 24 degrees 06 min. E) travel 602.37 ft. This was the southwest corner of the college property.
Hope this helps.
________________________________________
.............................
"Cuylers seems to be addressing changes that had already been contemplated."
No it does not. Cuyler's letter to MCC president Evans addresses changes to potential boundary lines in the future and after his Dec. 21 1910 letter to MCC president Evans. And that is why Cuyler's mentions to Evans that Lloyd has been put in a position to move boundary lines around SUBSEQUENTLY! Obvious "subsequently" (which means AFTER) refers to AFTER Dec. 19, 1910. If they had ALREADY HAPPENED why would Cuylers say such a thing to Evans???
And this is all totally confirmed when Cuylers asks Evans to inform HIM when the boundary lines HAVE BEEN definitely determined!! If he or they already knew that why in the world would he be asking Evans to tell him WHEN they happened? If it had HAPPENED before Dec. 21, 1910, Lloyd, Francis, Evans, Cuylers et al ALREADY WOULD HAVE KNOWN where the boundary lines were going to be regarding that Francis land swap idea, wouldn't they?
"In any event here is the border according to your instruction. It places the SW corner of the boundary at 40*00'21.82"N and 75*18'58.46"W. Can anyone vet this placement of the boundary or the location of the SW corner? David, I don't suppose your source has the coordinates of the starting point on College Ave or of the SW corner."
Bryan:
Of course I can because I have everything I need to do it including the original metes and bounds of the old Johnson Farm AND the dimensions of the 1928 land swap with Haverford College off a professional survey from 1928. All the dimensions are on both and I can check them with complete accuracy BOTH WAYS! I know you can, but are you going to?
Now try to measure the width between the end of your red line next to the 16th fairway to Club House Raod. If it isn't close to 130 yards something is wrong with your measurements and my blueprint survey from Merion itself used to add that land of Haverford College onto their property will show the total width today. The land at the base of the narrow triangle is a bit less than 25 yards wide but I will check the numbers on the blueprint surve map again. I'd rather not do it by deduction. If you have the survey map, why not just tell us what the coordinates are or what the headings and distances are from College and Haverford and Golf House Road? Better yet, FAX me the blueprint and I can read it myself.
Apparently even now and even YOU are ASSUMING that triangle that shows up on the Nov. 15, 1910 HAS TO BE the result of Francis's idea for a land swap or even any SWAP at all!! ??? ::) WHY in the world are you ASSUMING THAT? Could it be because Moriarty keeps saying it and now you totally believe him and have taken that for some actual FACT??
Thanks for the suggestion. Can you tell us the source of these directions? Do you have a survey map from that era?
The first part of the instruction is hard to do on the Google map since the border between the road and the property to the east is obscured for the most part by trees. But it looks hard to follow the border on that heading. A heading of 26 degrees 06 minutes looks to align with the property line.
David,
Since we're supposed to be trying to change the tone here, can I request we leave Wayne Morrison out of this.
Sorry Mike, but no. Wayne may be letting you guys do his talking for him but as far as I am concerned he is very much part of this conversation. He is the source of all your information, and as recently as last week I was told that if I wanted my questions answered I needed to grovel before Wayne's good graces. I bring him up to set the record straight. My tone in doing so has not been hostile or insulting, although I do admit that I am perplexed that I have been attacked for a year using secret information, yet I explained all this to Wayne about a year ago. And Mike, my dealings with Wayne in the past are not alleged. Could you refrain from implying that Iam a liar unless you are going to back that up? Thanks.
Tom and Mike,
There may well be other facts to come forward, but your stranglehold on the "APPROXIMATE ROAD LOCATION" for width measurement purposes is astounding. I guess there are some inaccuracies of scale on that 11/15/1910 land plan, but the fact that the road drawn clearly says "approximate" should be your clearest clue to not use it to measure the width of that area...You have based your entire argument against the timing of the Francis deal on the width of the "APPROXIMATE ROAD"...how is that possible?
You guys have speculated alot on here about alot of things, so speculate for me why in the world this group of very smart guys would waste 3 acres in a proposed purchase on an area unusable for golf (because it was to narrow)? They wouldn't. theyknew they wanted to put the 15th green and 16th tee up in that corner when they hired the surveyors to draw up the plan for the membership...there is absolutely no other logical sequence of events...
Mike,
Yes, that's it, I think it was a very approximate sketch of the road placement based on the simple fact that a green and a tee were going up there...if they didn't have any golf layed out up there, why would they allocate 3+ acres of an already tight property to it?
300 yards multiplied by 100 yards then divided by two to get 15,000 square yards...or about 3.1 acres...
How is it that you see the triangle's presence in Nov. 1910 as proof that they didn't have a golf course laid out yet?
That, to me, is the ultimate proof that they knew they were going to use that area for golf holes...what am I missing?
Mike,
When did David suggest they only bought land up to 65 yards above the quarry?
"Reports say that the purchase of 338 acres was for five different plots, but I'm only counting four from this map...perhaps someone can identify the 5th."
The 5th tract was 68 acres north of College Ave.
300 yards multiplied by 100 yards then divided by two to get 15,000 square yards...or about 3.1 acres...
How is it that you see the triangle's presence in Nov. 1910 as proof that they didn't have a golf course laid out yet?
That, to me, is the ultimate proof that they knew they were going to use that area for golf holes...what am I missing?
Jim,
Without getting into geometric proportions, wouldn't the land need to be rectangular for that acreage calc to be accurate?
ABSOLUTELY NOT That's not important, though...
The only reason that area is a triangle is because Haverford College and the property above it were not part of the Johnson Farm that they purchased, which ran all the way to College Avenue, and because someone decided probably for aesthetic reasons that Golf House Road would be long, sweeping, flowing curves.
I'm sure based on looking at the property that they wanted to use land north of the quarry from the get-go.
Go up and stand on the 16th tee and tell me that they would have missed THAT opportunity when they already really owned the land in question through Lloyd's dealing on both sides of the table....that instead they would have only simply looked to buy land up to the middle of the 15th fairway, a mere 65 yards beyond the quarry as David is suggesting.
Mike, While it might seem logical to us, with the benefit if 20-20 hindsight, your comment is speculative in nature. That instead, sometime later after they had already laid out 13 holes and were quickly running out of room they did a big oopsie and said, oh boy, how could we have been such a stupids!
It wouldn't be the first or last time errors were made on a golf course.
Even though it might seem logical or prudent to us, you can't make speculative assumptions with respect to their thought processes at the time.
In theory, and as the map was drawn, they could have gone all the way up to College Avenue for those holes because that's where the Johnson Farm land ran to.
Jeff,
All I'm trying to indicate with that drawing is that the whole idea of someone actually "PICKING" out the land indicated by triangle is likely a silly idea.
The surveyor just estimated a boundary and ran a curving road up the map from top to bottom of the Johnson Farm, from Ardmore Avenue to College Avenue.
Mike, HOW do you know that ?
The only reason it looks like a triangle up on top is because of the jutting rectangular land of Haverford College and the property above it intersecting into the Johnson farm, narrowing the northern section.
Now, you're going to tell us what a triangle looks like ? ? ? ;D
This "approximate road" was the "working boundary" if you will, with Lloyd on both sides of the aisle.
They didn't "pick" land in a narrow triangular shape,
HOW do you know that ?
although I'm quite sure they all wanted to go well north of the quarry because that way you approach the scenic quarry from above, coming downhill and visibly towards it's visually intimidating presence...you can't route any holes south to north across the quarry unless it's a cliff-top par three like 17 because they'd be absurdly blind...
Macdonald's own recommendation was that much could be made of the quarry so I'm sure he wouldn't have recommended they only purchase 65 yards north of it originally as David contends.
HOW do you know that ?
The curving road was simply drawn to split the property into estimated portions and that's what they worked from.
Mike, you know that I'm giving you a hard time because you keep making leaps of faith and speculating.
This is a difficult subject to try to comprehend and excessive speculation doesn't help to unravel any mysteries.
When all other options are exhausted, what's left is what is simplest and is almost always the answer.
That's not necessarily true
After the Francis Land Swap took place, what's the first thing they did?
Did they run up to the top of the hill and build the 15th green and 16th tee up in the triangle they supposedly just purchased that they supposedly couldn't fit in place??
It's certainly possible, and, they may have had valid reasons for doing so.
You can't rule it out just because you feel it's not practical, especially since you don't have all of the pertinent information.
NO, they built the primo hole that they were trying to fit into their boundary constraints...the awesome 16th with either a full carry approach over the quarry, OR the optional longer 3-shot route to the right, which is why the needed the additional width.
The 16th would have been an obvious hole to anyone and everyone...I'm sure Barker saw it if he was looking at that part of the property, and I'm sure Macdonald and Whigham did as well. You can't miss it.
You can't miss it because that's what's there today.
You have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, something they didn't have.
Only I'm sure reality set in once they realized that almost all of their membership would not be able to make the full quarry carry on the second shot, so they had to come up with an alternate route they didn't at first anticipate having to build.
Only to do that they needed to push out the 14th green, the 15th tee, and much of the left side of the 15th fairway further left than the working boundary...that's all there is to it.
I'd bet my house on it.
I hope you have a summer residence ;D
Jeff....p.s..... It was just an adjustment in the working boundary.
Think about it...this boundary was established and was what they were working with trying to route the course for a number of months. At some point a fake boundary becomes a real one in your head because you're trying to work within that limitation, also with real estate $ to consider.
But I'm sure Francis, as he said, was looking at the map and Voila!, how about we just move the freaking boundary out a bit west up top and in a bit east on the bottom.
Mike, it's well known that I occassionally speak with CBM and SR whenever I'm in Southampton, but, when did you start speaking with the parties involved at Merion ? ;D ;D
What would be helpful would be the following.
START with listing the facts that everyone agrees with.
Once a list of agreed upon facts is established, it will then allow all to discuss facts/issues that are not agreed upon.
I think this would narrow the scope of the debate.
Just a thought
Mike,
I think you've hit on an important point, and that is that early maps/schematics and newspaper accounts can't be viewed as 100 % accurate.
As to the approximate location of the road I thought that had been mentioned previously.... by David, but, it's late and the perhaps the anesthesia is still affecting me.
Measuring a boundary or feature that hasn't been created, but is illustrated, can certainly lead one in the wrong direction.
It's interesting to observe the attempt to reconstruct the land acquisitions and formation of the land upon which a great golf course would be built.
My particular interest is how they eventually came to construct the crossovers.
It seems that without them, they never could have figured out a great routing.
P.S. I can't argue/deny the "idiot" label. ;D
TEPaul,
Amongst other things, here's what I don't understand.
If MCC had no interest in their archives, evidenced by the fact that they let them sit collecting dust in an attic for a century,
why are they now inclined to keep them a secret ?
If MCC didn't value those archives for a century, why are they now sequestering them ?
What caused MCC to suddenly value and insulate their archives ?
Mike,
When did David suggest they only bought land up to 65 yards above the quarry?
Jim,
David told us that the original 117 acres they purchased was included within the red lines;
"Reports say that the purchase of 338 acres was for five different plots, but I'm only counting four from this map...perhaps someone can identify the 5th."
The 5th tract was 68 acres north of College Ave.
“To All,
Is there any chance we can return to an actual factual discussion any time soon?”
I’ll certainly consider returning to a strictly factual discussion as soon as you tell us all where in the world you found a scintilla of a FACT to suggest this:
“They WERE OFFERED the land within the red lines, but they did not accept the offer because THE LAST FIVE HOLES DID NOT FIT AS THEY HAD HOPED, so they negotiated the addition of the north corner and they gave up a bunch of land they did not need to the east. Then Lloyd bought the property. Then they refined the plan.”
Moriarty, where in hell do you come up with complete garbage like that? I swear to GOD you are really trying people’s patience on here with that kind of total horseshit!
You harp on people on here for not supporting what they say with FACTS!?
Show us any FACT at all to suggest that preposterous statement of yours. And don’t come back with your constant accusations of people INSULTING YOU. JUST tells us what possible FACT even remotely supports that preposterous statement.
Need I remind you that Richard Francis said in his story that they got the first 13 hole up into the top of the “L” and then got stuck on the last five holes and that you said IN YOUR ESSAY that Hugh Wilson wasn’t even involved in this project until January 1911 and now you’re suggesting that all this happened BEFORE Nov. 15, 1910???
"THEY" were offered land and "THEY" didn't accept the over and then "THEY" negotiated for additional land in that north corner and "THEY" gave up land "THEY" didn't need and THEN Lloyd bought the property.
Who in the hell is the "THEY" you are referring to David Moriarty?? ::)
In the beginning G_d created 338 acres from 5 different plots. To provide one starting fact (I hope, think, conjecture, hypothesize .....) can we agree, that the 338 acres (not 330 as stated in the newspaper article, man, these guys were no better with numbers than we are) was comprised of . . .
"I know you can, but are you going to?"
Bryan:
Using a survey map blueprint done in 1928 and assuming the base of the original triangle for the course as built was 130 yards wide (What I believe it is when walking it as well as assuming it was as a reflection of what Francis said it was in his 1950 story about the fix he was responsible for on #15 green and #16 tee, the base of that narrow triangle that was the result of the land swap between MCC and Haverford College 1928 is 26-28 yards wide. All of this matches what I walked off on the ground a couple of weeks using these very same dimensions. I did say from the top of the old triangle to the corner of the Haverford College ground was over 300 yards, remember? ;)
..........................
In the beginning G_d created 338 acres from 5 different plots. To provide one starting fact (I hope, think, conjecture, hypothesize .....) can we agree, that the 338 acres (not 330 as stated in the newspaper article, man, these guys were no better with numbers than we are) was comprised of . . .
So close. But I think there was at least one other purchase, part of the Macfadden place, north of College Avenue. I don't remember the acreage. The McFadden property is listed at 12 and 434/1000 acres in 1908 and in 1913 and in 1920. So, 338 and a fraction acres based on the 5 properties explained above is where I'll rest, until proven wrong, of course.
____________
Seriously, thanks for doing the western boundary of the College property. I did it as well and came up with almost the exact same thing. No coordinates for the stone though.
It is interesting that the border was so far West.
Also, I measured the acreage using your line and the perendicular to the road (heading 245.9 degrees), and I came up with just under 4 acres. I had previously come up with a lower number, but was not taking the border far enough south. I think you had come up with a smaller acreage as well. Can you confirm it? Which area are you measuring? The "triangle" with the current road boundary? In any event, not tonight, I'm tired.
Thanks again.
In the beginning G_d created 338 acres from 5 different plots. To provide one starting fact (I hope, think, conjecture, hypothesize .....) can we agree, that the 338 acres (not 330 as stated in the newspaper article, man, these guys were no better with numbers than we are) was comprised of . . .
So close. But I think there was at least one other purchase, part of the Macfadden place, north of College Avenue. I don't remember the acreage. The McFadden property is listed at 12 and 434/1000 acres in 1908 and in 1913 and in 1920. So, 338 and a fraction acres based on the 5 properties explained above is where I'll rest, until proven wrong, of course.
Seriously, thanks for doing the western boundary of the College property. I did it as well and came up with almost the exact same thing. No coordinates for the stone though.
It is interesting that the border was so far West.
Also, I measured the acreage using your line and the perendicular to the road (heading 245.9 degrees), and I came up with just under 4 acres. I had previously come up with a lower number, but was not taking the border far enough south. I think you had come up with a smaller acreage as well. Can you confirm it? Which area are you measuring? The "triangle" with the current road boundary? In any event, not tonight, I'm tired.
Straight, harsh, rectangular roads were for the business of the madding crowds in the city...
The aesthetic needed out here in the land of the country gentlemen was much less practical and more artistically sophisticated and gentler on the eye.
Here's David's own drawing of the road system that was quickly built;
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/MerionOverlay1910plan.jpg?t=1209963615)
"I thought we were waiting for you to come up with a FACTUAL refutation. But so far all we have are insults and righteous indignation.
When can we expect your FACTUAL refutation? How about that FACTUAL outline? How is that coming? Writer's block?"
I believe I did do that and it is contained in my post #463. My facts in that post all are supported by the real and factual acre numbers involved through the first deed involving MCC land, the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting, the Thompson resolution in that board meeting and the second deed when H.Gates Lloyd passed the land for Merion East over to Merion Cricket Club Golf Association Corporation (of which he was the president). All the acreage totals and increments in that post which I took from the records stated above I consider to be refutation of your interpretation of the timing of the Francis land swap are factual.
Ask me questions about them if you like.
What I never considered that seriously is there always was a section of the old Johnson Farm that clearly was never considered for any golf course (when you see where it was you'll see why). That section can certainly easily be measured by the metes and bounds of that particular section of the farm from the old deeds metes and bounds through multiple owners (which again should all match).
I think that section was 23 acres. Take the 117 (amount of land MCC agreed to buy from HDC for $85,000) from the 140 Johnson Farm total and you have 23 acres.
117 (MCC agreed to buy)
+21 (Dallas Estate)
=138
-120 Lloyd turned over to MCCGA
=18
I think when Wilson and Committee began working on laying out courses there were 21 acres between the delineation of Club House Road on their survey maps and the boundary of the old Johnson Farm to the west between College and Ardmore Aves. I think that was squeezing them up in that existing triangle on their topo survey maps.
What I should have said is that according to your theory, WHOEVER was trying to layout the course originally first designed 13 holes south of the clubhouse, including being so hemmed in they had to cross Ardmore Avenue 3 times in a row and then stick a little par three behind the clubhouse.
They did all of this and spent all of this time and energy and effort with Francis spending many hours in the field and all that jazz with what HAD to be an OBVIOUS limitation in the land...anyone with half a brain would have recognized there wasn't enough land proposed NORTH of the clubhouse to build the FIVE FINISHING HOLES OF A CHAMPIONSHIP COURSE, MUCH LESS USE THE PROPOSED QUARRY IN ANY WAY BUT A PAR THREE AS THEY ONLY HAD 65 YARDS TO WORK WITH BEYOND IT, AND THEY"D JUST USED UP ONE OF THEIR TWO BACK NINE PAR THREES.
NO Mike. This isn't a refutation of my theory. It is your refutation of your own red herring. My theory is that they had the entire area marked by the small yellow line. The purple area is yours and nothing to do with anything relevant.
You obviously don't understand my theory and I'd appreciate if you would quit misrepresenting it. Thanks.
Another question – the 1910 property plan as pictured doesn’t have a routing on it. Why not, if the routing was already set? Other course maps of similar vintage feature the stick-style routings. Why not give the membership the benefit of this kind of information? Also, regarding the timing of the addition of the portion of land described by Richard Francis, how does the 1910 Property Plan illustration show that this parcel had already been purchased? The "approximate location of road" in fact looks narrower in the lower lobe and wider in the waist than the current iteration of Golf Club Road. Am I wrong here?
You are assuming that Merion produced this Purchase plan, rather than the developers, and I don’t think this assumption is the most logical one. But even if Merion had produced the map (I doubt they did) I’d have to speculate as to their reasons for leaving off a stick map, and I am trying not to speculate.
First, the map is not to exact scale, and contains a number of other imperfections in this regard. Second, as I explained in the essay, a 1928 transaction involving the same section of the course confirms that the land up in this corner was part of the original purchase in 1911. Third, this corner has been slightly altered over time, the 1928 transaction being an example. See footnote 16.
In my very first post on the "Missing Faces" thread in April of 2008, I said this:
blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., circuitious logic (my interpretation of what you just typed and copied, done in the voice of Charlie Brown's teacher)
I don't know what posting this is illustrative of, other than, strangely, it makes me want to sing Joni Mitchell songs......
NO Mike. This isn't a refutation of my theory. It is your refutation of your own red herring. My theory is that they had the entire area marked by the small yellow line. The purple area is yours and nothing to do with anything relevant.
You obviously don't understand my theory and I'd appreciate if you would quit misrepresenting it. Thanks.
David,
Now it's you who isn't taking Richard Francis at his word!
Francis said the area west of Golf House Road was not "part of ANY golf layout" they were considering.
I think it took as a long time to finally realize that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan was not the place to look for answers to our specific questions.
Bingo.
We've all been chasing a snipe since the day David's paper was originally posted here.
No offense meant to David. He inadvertedly made the exact same mistake that sucked the rest of us in.
First, just like the 1910 Land Plan, you can move that "approximate" western boundary north of Ardmore Avenue anywhere you like west of today's Golf House Road to come up to an exact 100 acres. If it measures out today at 110, move it a smidgeon right, 90, move it a smidgeon left. You're still on HDC land and therefore anything becomes plausible.NOT TRUE. In the summer of 1910 HDC only controlled the Johnson farm. They did not control the Taylor place and would not until after they made the deal. They had an option to buy it, but had not bought it. I’ve written about 600 times that my red line represents the WESTERN BORDER of the Johnson Farm, which was the western border of the land HDC actually owned (through their previous entity.)
Secondly, the last and only mention of 100 acres is the July letter where it is stated that Connell propsed 100 acres or whatever would be required of land to Merion, for the course. He clearly was NOT talking about some exact dimensions...he was estimating what it might take because let's not forget; the course Merion was moving from was all of 65 to 72 acres (I've seen both number), so 100 acres perhaps sounded a lot to them.
Also, we know that Merion wanted their golf course to be convenient to the railroad. This wasn't a secondary goal...it was primary. Early accounts talked about the land they were looking at stretched between two railroad stops, one of them being up by College Avenue. Your proposed land goes nowhere near that stop for the course.
In fact, that November 24th, 1910 Philadelphia Press article I quoted yesterday that told about the syndicate of Atterbury, Lloyd, Huston, Griscom, and Lesley having bought 338 acres of which 117 would be used for the golf course also stated;
"The Philadelphia and Western Railroad, a third rail fast trolley, is to have a station practically at each end of the course, affording exceptional transportation."
The bottom line is there is no underpinning factual reason for you to have chosen the land you just did. You're just trying to find any reasonable spot that adds up to 100 acres that doesn't include the triangle out of the 338 acres that HDC owned at that time. The fact that it's a sliding scale and can add up to anything you need depending how we move the left boundary just makes it more convenient.
SO, I think what this factual and numerical excercise shows is the area WHERE the land exchange and purchase came from on the land, but also HOW it was done and again WHEN it was done within the aforementioned TIMELINE and definitely not OUTSIDE the aforementioned timeline (given just the actual FACTUAL textual records and FACTUAL numerical acreage increments and totals of this period of Merion East's creation).
David,
Without wanting to get into further debate at this point, I do have a question.
What is it you are hoping to learn or think you can show from the boundary lines? Do you think we can identify the original 117 acres they were offered, or is there something I'm missing?
David,
I know we disagree about what Francis meant but I am interested to see where you're going and what you think the boundary lines might be able to tell us. I guess we'll see. Thanks.
Bryan,
You want me to walk out on the 16th tee with GPS?
Now THAT'S funny! Grin
Even funnier is I'm considering it, but it's not something I can get to this weekend.
"Even funnier is I'm considering it,"
I would not advise that; at least not unless you're carrying some pretty serious "heat" with you, like at least a couple of AK-47s. You also better get really proficient with you GPS coordinants to Bryn otherwise the medical helicopeters probably won't find you in time on the property before your ass is grass.
If I happen to get arrested this weekend on the 16th tee of Merion, please get Bryan Izatt to send bail money. Grin
Regarding the west property boundary of the college land, try this.
Start at the center of of College avenue, and travel along the border of Golf House Road and the neighboring property to the east, heading S 24 degrees 06 min. E for 381.11 feet. A surveyor stone was at this location. Then, on the same heading (S 24 degrees 06 min. E) travel 602.37 ft. This was the southwest corner of the college property.
Here are the metes and bounds of the property line of the border of the MCC land from College Ave to the point on the southwest corner of the Haverford College land from the land transfer from Lloyd to Rothwell and Rothwell by deed to MCCGA the same day (July 21, 1910). This, of course, is the very same boundary line between the MacFadden place and Haverford College and the old Johnson Farm at the top of the "L".
"All that certain tract of land situated in Haverford Township, in the County of Delaware and the State of Pennsylvania, bounded as follows, viz. BEGINNING at a stone in the center line of College Avenue, a corner of the land of Lews P. Geiger, Junior, running thence south twenty three degrees (23) and fifty eight (58) minutes east nine hundred and eighty three and forty eight one hundreths (983.48) feet to a point."
David,
I know we disagree about what Francis meant but I am interested to see where you're going and what you think the boundary lines might be able to tell us. I guess we'll see. Thanks.
Mike,
Why do you want to know where he's going when he's armed with the facts ?
Isn't the important issue that of assembling the facts THEN drawing conclusions.
You and others seem focused on what David MAY say when the facts are known instead of being focused on determining the facts and letting them speak for themselves.
Bryan,
If you look at your aerial again, would you agree that it would have been possible to get 14, 15, and 16 into even that narrow area if not for the need (probably unanticipated) to create an alternate route around the quarry on 16, probably once it became clear that the majority of members would not be able to routinely make that full carry?
Why does everyone assume that the configuration of holes 14, 15 and 16 in 1910-1912 is identical to their configuration today ?
Remember as well that the original 15th tee was located over along the road, behind the left side of the 14th green, in the area clearly outside of the bounds drawn on that November 1910 map.
Mike, David, TE, et. al.,
It might interest you to know that the original 12th tee at Pine Tree was NOT on Pine Tree's land, but, on that of an adjacent property owner.
And, Pine Tree was built around 1963.
The tee had to be abandoned and the hole converted from a par 5 to a par 4.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion1910-1913Overlay.jpg)
Wayne has also just come up with an excellent idea. We feel
those topo survey maps that Wilson and committee were obviously working with to create "numerous different courses" and then "five different plans" in the winter and spring of 1911 (reflected in the Wilson Committee report given by Lesley to the MCC board on April, 19, 1911) have probably been lost by Merion so we may never find any of them at Merion GC or MCC or anywhere else.
Mike Cirba, TE, David, et. al.,
The above statement would seem to indicate that Wayne IS involved and actively participating in this debate.
He's just not typing responses.[/size]
Mike, that must be one hell of a holiday party you're at...
Hi Patrick,
The configuration of 14, 15, & 16, at least by 1916, were close to today's configuration, with the exception of the fact that the 15th tee was behind the left rear portion of the 14th green and the 16th tee appears in drawings to be located a bit closer to the 15th green.
Mike,
Six years removed from 1910 is a long time.
Is it possible that the holes were configured differently in 1910 ?
As far as Wayne Morrison, I certainly would never presume to speak for him here, particularly on matters related to a club where he's a member. On the other hand, I do imagine he's probably following the discussion closely.
According to TEPaul's post, he's doing more than following the discussion.
It appears that he's an active participant, allowing TEPaul to post for him, which is OK, but, TEPaul should indicate the author of excerpts of his posts if the source is other than himself.
When I think of modern day courses that fail to keep records, modern day courses that mis-measured or mis-constructed, it doesn't surprise me that that sort of thing could happen in 1910, although those guys seemed to be prolific writers.
It would also seem possible that perhaps those century old, dusty, MCC archives could hold enlightening information that could short cut these debates.
On that Mike Cirba is very right when he said to David Moriarty and Sully that in a discussion one cannot claim that "approximate road location" is inexact when making one argument and then turn around and claim it is exact when making another another argument or denying someone else's argument.
I think Exhibit A, the November 1910 Land Plan that ostensibly showed that the Francis Land Swap had to have happend prior to then just got sunk deeper than the Titanic, when it finally became obvious that it was simply meant to be exactly what it stated....a general idea of the approximate property delineation between real estate and golf course.
Bryan, I've been trying to figure out an exact location of the Haverford College corner and you think you might want to consider moving your entire line a bit west, probably about 3 yards. In the 1928 survey, the north-south borderline started only 11 feet (N 65:48 W) from where the center of Golf House Road intersected the center of College, and I think we both were starting too far east. The original road looks like it was only about 20 ft. wide. As for the rest of the dimensions, I will try and work them out tomorrow, but they are only for part of the space. If I can get it scanned I'll send it.
Contrary to TEPaul's speculation, the description of the HDC borer I gave you was correct. Funny how he has the same 1928 information as me (likely copied from the same source, since I told Wayne where to get it,) yet he can only speculate as to whether or not I got it right. Goes to show that having the metes and bounds doesn't mean much of one cannot understand them.
_____________________________
....................................
It is not that complicated, Tom. The 1910 map was an approximation, but an approximation that included area west of the college land for a golf course. I see no viable explanation for including this land except that they planned to put the golf course up there.
...............................................
What would be really interesting however, is to compare the metes and bounds on the Dec. 19, 1910 transfer to Lloyd when he bought the 161 acres that DID include the entirety of the Johnson farm AND the transfer to MCCGA on July 21, 1921, seven months later, that DID NOT include the entirety of the Johnson farm but did include the metes and bounds of Club House Road!! ;)
The point is if the Francis land swap idea had been agreed upon by Lloyd and Francis or Lloyd and HDC BEFORE that Dec. 19, 1910 transfer to Lloyd (and certainly a month or more before that and before THAT Nov. 15, 1910 land plan) why wouldn't it have been included in the metes and bounds of the property Lloyd bought for MCC on Dec. 19, 1911 to hold for seven months or even on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan?? ;)
I believe a comparision of the metes and bounds of those two deeds, particularly in that area of the triangle will show us Francis' idea and the land swap to effectuate it had to have happened within that time frame----eg Dec, 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911, when Lloyd held the land for MCC, and matter of fact it would have had to happen between Dec. 19, 1910 AND that MCC April 19, 1910 MCC board meeting BECAUSE Thompson reflects THAT LAND SWAP in that meeting with his resolution for which he asks for and gets approval from the board (Aahh, the beauties of using a really good TIMELINE of ACTUAL FACTUAL EVENTS!!).
..........................
David Moriarty:
Here's something else you said in the "Author's note" in the beginning of your essay:
"The core of my thesis is in place, but I hope and expect that my analysis will evolve as I continue to study the topic and as others challenge my ideas. Thank you in advance to those who will read, consider, and constructively challenge the work."
We have been challenging your essay. Isn't that what you wanted? Or did you expect some to challenge it and not others? :)
Mike Cirba,
Come on Mike, let's get beyond your absurd hyperbole. You wouldn't have to assume any of that. He was looking at a map, saw the potential of that land, took the idea to Lloyd and Lloyd made it happen. It is not that complicated.
The site Committee needed to find a site suitable for a golf course. Do you really think they would really recommend the purchase of nearly 120 acres if they didn't know a course would fit?
.......................
The point is if the Francis land swap idea had been agreed upon by Lloyd and Francis or Lloyd and HDC BEFORE that Dec. 19, 1910 transfer to Lloyd (and certainly a month or more before that and before THAT Nov. 15, 1910 land plan) why wouldn't it have been included in the metes and bounds of the property Lloyd bought for MCC on Dec. 19, 1911 (this should be 1910, no?) to hold for seven months or even on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan?? ;)
I believe a comparision of the metes and bounds of those two deeds, particularly in that area of the triangle will show us Francis' idea and the land swap to effectuate it had to have happened within that time frame----eg Dec, 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911, when Lloyd held the land for MCC, and matter of fact it would have had to happen between Dec. 19, 1910 AND that MCC April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting BECAUSE Thompson reflects THAT LAND SWAP in that meeting with his resolution for which he asks for and gets approval from the board (Aahh, the beauties of using a really good TIMELINE of ACTUAL FACTUAL EVENTS!!).
..................
"Tom,
Could you correct the years in the above paragraphs. It's very confusing with the errors in it now."
Bryan:
I think I corrected them. If some date seems confusing to you by all means just point it out to me.
David Moriarty:
While some of Merion's own survey maps may be private information, I do not consider any of Merion's 11-12 deeds to be private information since all of them are available to anyone at the Recorder of Deeds at Merion's county seat, Media, Pa. What coordinates are you asking about? And what deeds? Would you like the telephone # of the Recorder of Deeds at Merion's County Seat in Media, Pa so you could identify them all to the Recorder of Deeds office and perhaps have all of them sent to you?
That would probably be a good idea. It probably would've been a good idea well over a year ago, don't you think?
"The land demarked in green was MORE THAN 117 ACRES."
David Moriarty:
Thank you very much for that answer. Apparently you mean all the land in green on the Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan that is marked "Merion Golf Course", correct? If that's correct how did you come to that determination or conclusion?
I've explained it repeatedly. In short, one can tell by comparing the plan to what was actually purchased. Also, I measured it. Measure it yourself if you don't believe me.
"You've got the documents Tom, are you that big of an ass that you will require me to incur the expense of getting them again?"
David Moriarty:
Anyone on here can see I gave you the chance numerous times in the last few pages and more to have a good discussion on this subject on here and a civil one too but you just don't seem to want to take it or to do that. All you seem to want to do is just avoid the reality of the facts we've offered you or talk about who knew what a year or more ago or just bait me about what I do and don't know or what I have and you don't.
But with that last post of yours, ALL OF IT, there is nothing at all I would dream of doing for you with information or anything else in the future. Henceforth, I guess you will just have to gleain it off of exchanges I'm having with others on here who know how to be moderately polite, unlike you.
I'm not a fan of some guy like you on the other side of the country who has hardly been to Merion of deciding to just sling a bunch of shit against the wall as to the credibility of the attribution of the course's architect (which in an entire century has never before been questioned by anyone) and then when he and his essay gets criticized for the shit he slung against the wall he constantly demands he must be given access to everything others have that he never had because of some hair-brained philosophy of civil discourse and being required to "VET" what they use to criticize his fallacious essay! IF you want it then go get it yourself as we did. Had you EVER, at any time, been even remotely cooperative with us or with me I may've helped you but that's all history now.
And then when everything is not made available to you by someone like me, you have the poor taste to ask me if I'm THAT BIG AN ASS because you may have to INCUR SOME EXPENSE to GET WHAT YOU WANT AND NEED!!
Maybe you should have THOUGHT of THAT BEFORE you wrote that ludicrous essay with less that half the information you needed to write it in the first place, David Moriarty, and not a year later! I'm quite sure, at this point, I couldn't possibly care less about your "work" (what a really dumb Hollywood sounding term that one is ;) ), your reputation or what expense you might have to incur to satisfy your ridiculous "Merion' :) curiosity or animus or whatever the hell it is that makes you carry on and on and on this sorry campaign of yours about Merion Golf Club.
If there is anyone left on here who is interested in either defending or challenging the credibility of your essay I would be glad to do it and if you're around or not I really don't care anymore. After that last post you definitely won't get any information on here directly from me again when you ask for it. My opinion, is my opinion, and my opinion of your essay is and always has been it is one of the worst things and for a number of reasons, I've ever seen. There is hardly a jot of FACT or TRUTH in the entire thing!
It's sad you actually consciously revert to the kind of behavior you just did on that last post and a number of others in the last few days. There is no question at all in my mind you did it as just another last ditch PLOY to avoid actually dealing with the FACTS and the TRUTH about Merion we have been putting before you on this thread. I'm certain you know very well if you even attempted to have a good and civil discussion with us about this, your entire essay's credibility will come down like the house-of-cards it is and then everyone on here will see, as clear as day, it is just that and nothing more.
David,
What is the value of measuring a proposed Land Plan where you admittedly tell us the whole northwestern boundary doesn't yet exist and is only "approximate"?
And you say you also measured it?? How did you measure that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED plan?
Thanks Tom, now what about the metes and bounds. Have you got them? Will you share them?
David,
STOP with the name calling, it's not doing anyone any good.
In some posts on this thread I believe you mentioned a few times that you think either the land bought or the land demarced in green on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan was MORE than 117 acres. I recall you said something to do with this over-all question or subject that the land bought or whatever was more than 117 acres, so what were you referring to?
If that's true which is it?
Do you agree that the Proposed Club House Road on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan was being used on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan to represent a dimensional boundary of MERION EAST GOLF COURSE even if, as you said, it was "illustrative"?
Do you agree when built Club House Road IS one of the dimensional boundaries of MERION EAST GOLF COURSE?
David Moriarty:
That three point explanation in Post #731 is a pretty interesting one but I think I see your point. I've got to go to a barbeque for a while but let me consider that answer and that maybe we are all in agreement that the Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan is not of much use to us to determine certain things about the creation of Merion perhaps including when Francis' land swap happened.
I'll be back soon.
I'm still convinced that Hugh Wilson is the architect responsible for Merion East.Dan,
David Moriarty:
That three point explanation in Post #731 is a pretty interesting one but I think I see your point. I've got to go to a barbeque for a while but let me consider that answer and that maybe we are all in agreement that the Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan is not of much use to us to determine certain things about the creation of Merion perhaps including when Francis' land swap happened.
I'll be back soon.
Let me save you some time on that one. While I don't think the map was exactly dimensionally accurate, I do think it gives us a good idea of where they were planning on putting the golf course on that date. I do not think they would have included the corner of land (whether or not to the exact dimensions) unless they were planning on putting something in there.
Mike,
As I said to Dan, of course you believe this. But then your opinion really get us any closer to figuring out exactly what happened, does it?
Not only that, but your disagreement doesn't refute my essay, does it? That would takes facts, and so far none have.
Pat,
You don't suppose someone is hoping for some sort of honorary membership into Merion by staunchly "protecting" them in a open, public discussion group, do you?
Probably not, but no one puts forth this much effort without hoping for some sort of return on the investment.
:)
Joe,
I just think David is very, very insulting and dismissive of what Hugh Wilson did and I think his reputation and accomplishments deserve much better.
These days it seems to be almost a fad to try and tear down heroes and after five years here David still hasn't proven anything, most of what he has contended has been disproven, and his EXHIBIT A, the 1910 Land Plan turns out to be a piece of toilet paper.
I'm sorry you don't feel the same.
The day Merion asks me to be a member will be the same day flying elephants stream out of my butt.
But thanks for the insult anyway.
Mike,
Can you agree that "Approximate" is a very different word than "Hypothetical" when discussing a land plan such as this one?
Mike and Tom,
One of your main points in defending the late winter/ spring date for the Francis Swap are his comments about the quarryman blasting away a couple days later...and your critique is the notion of blasting away on land you didn't yet own.
A couple issues with that failed logic:
1) To take "a couple days" literally (as you now must!) would mean his idea came on the 17th or 18th of April because the Board meeting was on the 19th which you claim effectuated the Swap immediately (or at latest, the following day).
2) LLoyd already owned the land through HDC, they could have blasted away any time they wanted once they determined this is where the holes were going...and the fact that LLoyd was the key to approving the idea further supports an earlier timing...prior to the December transfer to LLoyd/MCCGC from LLoyd/HDC...
Jim,
I agree that this could have taken place any time after Lloyd actually took control of the property...anytime after December 19th, 1910.
Why do you think the approximate road ran all the way to College Avenue if it was supposed to reflect the previously laid out golf course?
It's not like it's off by 10 feet, or 20.
It's off by 30 yards wide and it's off by 137 yards long!!!! ::)
Mike,
Golf House Road still goes all the way to College Avenue!
And Lloyd/HDC had control of the JOhnson Farm well before December 1910 and you all know it.
I just think David is very, very insulting and dismissive of what Hugh Wilson did and I think his reputation and accomplishments deserve much better.
These days it seems to be almost a fad to try and tear down heroes and after five years here David still hasn't proven anything, most of what he has contended has been disproven, and his EXHIBIT A, the 1910 Land Plan turns out to be a piece of toilet paper.
David Moriarty:
I am going to list a number of recorded FACTS that, in my opinon, have come forth from Merion's own records SINCE your essay that you could not possibly have known about BEFORE you wrote your essay!
Do you have any problem with THAT?
....................
Bryan:
.........................
I happen to believe there was 21 acres between the western delineation of Club House Road from College Ave on the north to Ardmore Ave on the south and the entire western boundary of the top of the "L" of the old Johnson Farm ON THEIR WORKING TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY MAPS.
........................
"Thanks Tom, now what about the metes and bounds."
Bryan:
I think I have all Merion's deeds (maybe 11-12) but most interestingly we do not seem to have the actual deed copy of the 161 acre transfer to Lloyd on Dec. 19, 1911. I am saddened, once again. :( I had hoped, and still hope, that we can accurately place the land transfers on the current map to help move the debate along. What we have is a brief abstract from Merieon of it. I do not believe Merion has ever had an actual copy of that deed. Wayne and I were talking about going to Media to get a copy of it tomorrow. If you do get one, will you provide the metes so that we can visualize the location of the land transfer. In the meantime, will you provide the metes for the other land transfer in question, that you do have.
One might wonder, particularly one on this website, who has followed these Merion threads why Merion would not have a copy of that Dec. 19, 1910 deed along with their other 11-12? I guess the easy answer would be because it wasn't technically Merion's deed, it was Horatio Gates Lloyd's et ux! ;) I wonder about a lot of things on this thread, but they just make my head hurt. Nice try on the easy answer, ;) but now you can do the right thing and complete your collection (and hopefully share the information with us.)
Bryan,
Here are the dimensions of the first few hundred feet of the western border of the HDC lands, beginning of Golf house road, according to the 1928 documents. (Note that the border follows the centerline of Golf house road.
Begin at the point where the center line of College and the center line of Golf House Road cross and go South 23:56:45 East, 230.03 ft. (At this point the road curves west, radius 200.8 ft., so the rest are the chords.) South 15:19 East, 60 ft. Then South 1:12 East, 38.3 ft. Then South 14:31 West, 71 ft.
The survey doesn't provide a chord for the remainder of the curve shown, but does provide a long chord from the end of the straight 230.03 ft segment to the last point on the curve shown: North 7:34:56 East, 209.25 ft.
I know that this question will be an exercise in futility, as I'm going to be told to go look somewhere else for this information, but after twenty-some pages of this discussion, I find myself not really knowing what any of the principals on this thread are really trying to prove, or state, or declaim, or whatever word you want to use. Would it, at this point, be too much to ask for David, Brian, Tom, and Mike, to state their positions, their theories, etc?
David, I'm trying to follow this, truly, but at this point, when you say that someone is ridiculing your theories, on some level I honestly don't know what you mean.
. . . we have been essentially saying this since this ludicrous essay came out.
in case you're as dense as Moriarty seems to be . . .
David Moriarty:
That three point explanation in Post #731 is a pretty interesting one but I think I see your point. I've got to go to a barbeque for a while but let me consider that answer and that maybe we are all in agreement that the Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan is not of much use to us to determine certain things about the creation of Merion perhaps including when Francis' land swap happened.
I'll be back soon.
Let me save you some time on that one. While I don't think the map was exactly dimensionally accurate, I do think it gives us a good idea of where they were planning on putting the golf course on that date. I do not think they would have included the corner of land (whether or not to the exact dimensions) unless they were planning on putting something in there.
"If you do get one, will you provide the metes so that we can visualize the location of the land transfer. In the meantime, will you provide the metes for the other land transfer in question, that you do have."
Bryan:
If do provide the metes and bounds of any deeds we may have would you mind PROVIDING to our satisfication what you THINK you can do with the information on them? Hopefully we can question you on what you think you might SPECIFICALLY accomplish with that information. This reminds me of Halloween, back in the day, when I was asked to sing for my candies. Do you still make the children sing for their candies on Halloween? ;) What do I think I'll do with the metes? I'd plot them on today's aerials to visualize the property boundaries in the land transfers and to allow me to accurately measure the acreage of various subplots in the overall acreage. Satisfied? Getting the metes for the Haverford College Boundary allowed us to all conclude that the 1910 Land Plan was dimensionally inaccurate. What will result from knowing these metes I can't say yet, because I don't know. Withholding publicly available information doesn't seem to me to be a good strategy for winning the hearts and minds of the GCA men and women in this debate.
If Moriarty really wants to know WHY some of us here like Wayne and I won't supply him with information, all he has to do is tell us on here that he doesn't mind us telling the TRUTH of why we aren't supplying information to him and probably never will! A reminder; I am not David Moriarty. Nor are the rest of the people, however few or many, that are following this thread
"This reminds me of Halloween, back in the day, when I was asked to sing for my candies. Do you still make the children sing for their candies on Halloween? What do I think I'll do with the metes? I'd plot them on today's aerials to visualize the property boundaries in the land transfers and to allow me to accurately measure the acreage of various subplots in the overall acreage. Satisfied? Getting the metes for the Haverford College Boundary allowed us to all conclude that the 1910 Land Plan was dimensionally inaccurate. What will result from knowing these metes I can't say yet, because I don't know. Withholding publicly available information doesn't seem to me to be a good strategy for winning the hearts and minds of the GCA men and women in this debate."
Bryan Izatt:
Let's just say that answer above doesn't exactly impress! ;)
If you want all the metes and bounds of all the Merion Deeds throughout time why don't I just supply you with the Recorder of Deeds in Media Pennsylvania? Call them, send them the appropriate postage, and I'm pretty sure you can have what you wish as I think that stuff is all in the public domain.
Failing THAT are you going to call me an ASS too as Moriarty did today for failing to supply this information to him? ;)
"2) LLoyd already owned the land through HDC, they could have blasted away any time they wanted once they determined this is where the holes were going...and the fact that LLoyd was the key to approving the idea further supports an earlier timing...prior to the December transfer to LLoyd/MCCGC from LLoyd/HDC..."
Sully:
Lloyd did NOT own the land untill Dec, 21, 1911 and in case you're as dense as Moriarty seems to be THAT date that lloyd actually owned the land (Dec. 19, 1910) is AFTER Nov, 15, 1910. That essentially means one generally does NOT blast the top off of a quarry ONE DOES NOT ACTUALLY OWN!!!
What Tom did yesterday was uncalled for and wrong, which is why I called for this thread to be pulled.
So are your continued insults and belittling of everyone who doesn't agree with you.
"Creeps"?? Who else might you be referring to?
This thread was my attempt at civil dialogue and counter-balance to your essay.
Once again, we ALL share the blame for the trainwreck it's become.
We always felt, but only AFTER reading that essay that something like that should never have gotten on here and I don't believe our feelings on that will ever change, and either will Merion's. It is obviously pretty hard to explain to many on here who don't know Merion particularly well just how fallacious that essay is. The entire thing just took a tact that has almost no basis in fact or reality but that's hard for people who don't know Merion or any other club well to pick up on apparently.
Merion is dedicated to the truth of its history----all of it----and so are we who have helped work on that history. We have nothing at all about its architect or architectural history to hide---nothing.
Mike, how long are you going to persist with this goofy talk about the majority of the Merion members not being able to make a carry to the front of the green that ranges from (a) 110 yards if you snuggle right up to the quarry to (b) about 140 yards, assuming you can hit a 220 yard drive from the middle of the 16th tee (and why would a short hitter play from tees any further back than that)?
This theory that the alternate route around the quarry was necessary for a majority of the members is complete nonsense, assuming you're still sticking to the notion that the final 5 holes had to be world-class championship holes. I don't think back then it was too much to ask for a 110-140 yard carry on a world class golf hole, even back then.
Who owned or was going to own the road? Why would Merion not want their property to have direct ingress and egress to College Avenue, particularly since (as you pointed out) one of the railroad stations was at (I believe you said "by") College Avenue?
Mike,
What makes you think Francis surveyed the whole thing?
Mike,
What makes you think Francis surveyed the whole thing?
Jim,
Well, Francis himself tell us that he spent many hours out in the field surveying the golf course as part of creating the design, so if the design happened before November 1910 then apparently this is when Francis did all that work, right?
No Mike. He tells us that he spent much time in the field running instruments and such, but doesn't tell us when this happened. Surely this could have been at any point in the process.
As for what happened at the time of the swap, it is worth noting that he doesnt refer to a plan or lay out plan or topo or blueprint, but simply refers to a "map." He was looking at a map.
Before this thread expires, I must reiterate what I said many years before, and has only been confirmed with subsequent random readings of golf course development in the 1890-1920 period, that to "lay out" a course almost certanly meant to "design" it, per todays common parlance. To the extent that this seemingly endless "argument" rests on other interpretations of the phrase "lay out," I am satsified that it is a non-argument, just a tale told with sound and fury, signifying nothing......
Rich
Before this thread expires, I must reiterate what I said many years before, and has only been confirmed with subsequent random readings of golf course development in the 1890-1920 period, that to "lay out" a course almost certanly meant to "design" it, per todays common parlance. To the extent that this seemingly endless "argument" rests on other interpretations of the phrase "lay out," I am satsified that it is a non-argument, just a tale told with sound and fury, signifying nothing......
Rich
...................
Shivas,
The hole was listed as 433 yards.
In an age of hickory and gutta percha, how many club players could carry their second shot over 400 yards.
Much of the yardage players of that era gained was due to limited irrigation and the run of the ball.
Did you read this descrption of the 16th prior to posting and calling the fact that it's a strategic hole with TWO options for the approach shot "goofy" and "nonsense"??
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2426/3540562952_495647d27b_o.jpg)
Before this thread expires, I must reiterate what I said many years before, and has only been confirmed with subsequent random readings of golf course development in the 1890-1920 period, that to "lay out" a course almost certanly meant to "design" it, per todays common parlance. To the extent that this seemingly endless "argument" rests on other interpretations of the phrase "lay out," I am satsified that it is a non-argument, just a tale told with sound and fury, signifying nothing......
Rich
Rather than accept your authority on the issue, I have researched it and found that in the vast majority of cases "to lay out" involved some interaction with the actual ground, whether it be staking out, marking out, or otherwise placing the golf course on the ground. Surely some designed and laid out a golf course in one step, out in the field, with stakes and such. But rarely have I seen reference to anyone "laying out a golf course" on paper, as opposed to the ground. I've seen plenty of those "planning a lay out" or drawing up a "proposed lay out" but the plan was not the layout, it was the layout plan. In short and generally, while designing and laying out were very much related, one needed to actually be laying out something on the ground for the latter term to apply.
In fact, there are examples where the course was planned or designed by one party, and then later "laid out" according to that plan or design.
But perhaps your research is more thorough than mine. What are the usages to which you refer?
___________________________
Mike, I've posted what he said numerous times, and I don't recall him saying exactly that. Do you have facts indicating that he said exactly that, or is it just your interpretation?
_________________________
Joe Bausch,
I recall at one point you set out to pull together a number of articles using the phrase "lay out" or "to lay out" or its variations. I don't recall you ever posting the results or conclusions? How'd that study go?
Thanks.
I've seen literally hundreds where layed out and designed are synoymous and I know Joe Bausch has, as well.
I never completed my "laying out"/"laid out" study. ;D
But here is another instance of where those terms are used, this from the Oct 23, 1914 issue of the Evening Public Ledger.
In the world of golf there is no more well-known figure than C. B. MacDonald as a constructor of courses. MacDonald had laid out a great many courses on the other side, and on this side of the water is best known by his work on the National Golf Links, Long Island. Ben Sayres, when here, said the National was the best course in America, but Peter W. Lees, the noted Scotch greenkeeper, is of the opinion that it is the best course in the world. Lees is at present located at the new Long Beach course, and the laying out of the course is in charge of MacDonald.
Bryan,
Was it deemed necessary to provide an alternate route around the quarry that significantly widened the area needed for the 16th hole? It was built at some point so I guess it was deemed necessary
If so, isn't that the germane point?
How do you know they measured around the quarry? Today's hole measures 430 to the center of the green on a straight line. It's 433 from the very back edge of the tee to the middle of the green for the two shot option. I know they measured it back then using the three shot option, and didn't have the tee back at the back, because the picture also approximates the 250 yard drive. If they were measuring from where the back of the tees are today, the 250 yard mark would have been placed much further back towards the tee.
Bryan,
By the way, it looks in that drawing as though the OB left only extended down the length of the haverford college boundary. Yes, that's what I see. The article says it's OB left on the approach shot over the quarry. I think the article is misstated on that point. A little writer's hyperbole to go with the mocking eyes of stone.
Jeff,
It's not an issue of giving Macdonald credit for helping. I've acknowledged his contributions and so have others and so has the club for decades.
It's an issue of depriving Hugh Wilson of authorship, which he's clearly earned, and that's what David's paper contends.
Hugh Wilson was too much of a novice to have done what he did....isn't that what it says?
Heavens forbid that anyone should discuss a friggin golf course on this site!
"A quick question on the narrow strip up by College. Who owns the roads in PA: the municipality? the county? the State? or the private land owners? Who would have owned Golf House Road when it was built? Is it possible that the strip was for private access? Or an easement for power, gas, telephone?"
Bryan:
A road in Pennsylvania can be owned by any of the above you listed. In the case of Golf House Road it was built at the expense of HDC (the residential development road cost was actually mentioned in Lloyd's letter to the MCC membership) and dedicated to the municipality (in this case to the township). The basic reason for a road dedication is to pass on road upkeep costs and such things as snow removal etc. Golf House Road itself is app seven yards wide (technically 11 feet from center to both sides).
Bryan Izatt,
You know and Mike Cirba knows that newspaper articles are notoriously inaccurate, yet, Mike never ceases presenting them when they support his position.
Can you return to your pursuit of the land issues ?
Will TEPaul please supply you with the Metes and Bounds which you have requested.
I'd just like to add one thought.
Many developers, of golf courses, buildings and theme parks, know pretty much, if not EXACTLY where everything will go IF they can get the land. The land is a known commodity, as is what the land can accomodate.
The critical question often is, can the land be obtained from the current owners ?
So the notion that a golf course was layed out on a parcel of land, prior to the complete acquisition of that land, is not an outlandish idea, thought or practice.
Bryan,
I think you're mistaken.
That drawing of 16 is not meant to be to scale and every single drawing has the routes dotted-lined from the front of the tee. I'm not suggesting it's to scale, just approximate.
Who even knows how big or long any of the original tees were? Does anyone recall mention of multiple tees? I don't. I don't know how long the original tee was. The diagram shows it as squarish in shape, but it's just representative. Do you suppose that when Wilson et al designed/layed out that tee they decided to build a 95 yard long airstrip tee right out of the box. Wouldn't that have been novel for the times? Seems more likely to me that the tee was extended backward as Merion tried to keep up with technology advances.
Patrick,
While we're talking pet peeves, you know what's even more annoying?
Guys like you and Shivas who drop in about every 4th day or so, make a bunch of uninformed comments, ask a bunch of questions on ground already covered, and then just debate ridiculous points like road access on a public road running thru the middle of the golf course just to hear yourselves make clever but wholly irrelevant debating points.
Mike,
I think the questions have been legitimate.
Many of those questions remain unanswered.
While I can't speak for Shivas, I doubt he drops in every 4th day or so. I know I don't.
I may post every 4th day or so, but, I try to stay tuned in to this often convoluted and complex thread.
Neither Shivas nor myself have a vested interest in this discussion/debate. We're independent observers.
The same can't be said of you. You're an interested party. You're invested in Wilson, ergo Merion.
Hence your perspective and posting isn't at arm's length, it's with an agenda, a motive, and that is to do anything and everything to refute David's premise, rather than to search for the facts and truth.
At the moment, I don't have the time to plunge into the fray ....... thoroughly.
But, I still know how to read and reason.
And, from what I"ve read and reasoned, the outcome of the debate seems to have been decided before the debate began.
What's disturbing is the fact that David and Bryan seem to have to pull teeth in order to obtain information presently available to other parties in this debate. It would be more productive if those that possess valuable information would provide same, whether or not they've been requested to do so.
Like I said, I'll wisely heed your advice and drop out of this circle jerk.
Mike, you were the one who created this thread.
You entitled it: " My attempt at the Timeline "
But, the title was a misnomer.
Your thread was a clear attempt to undermine and refute David's premise, NOT an attempt to construct a legitimate timeline.
Bryan Izatt,
You know and Mike Cirba knows that newspaper articles are notoriously inaccurate, yet, Mike never ceases presenting them when they support his position.
Can you return to your pursuit of the land issues ?
Will TEPaul please supply you with the Metes and Bounds which you have requested.
I'd just like to add one thought.
Many developers, of golf courses, buildings and theme parks, know pretty much, if not EXACTLY where everything will go IF they can get the land. The land is a known commodity, as is what the land can accomodate.
The critical question often is, can the land be obtained from the current owners ?
So the notion that a golf course was layed out on a parcel of land, prior to the complete acquisition of that land, is not an outlandish idea, thought or practice.
Patrick,
When did you become such a voice for moderation and reason. ;D It looks good on you.
Bryan,
I happen to like all of the parties involved.
I consider Tom Paul to be a friend.
While I revel in passionate, heated debate, being the Devil's Advocate AND stirring the pot, I'm very interested in this thread in that a good deal has been learned about the early beginings of Merion, and, I suspect that more information could be obtained IF the parties involved would co-operate with each other, even though they want different outcomes.
My perspective is: do the due diligence/research and let the chips fall where they may.
Vis-a-vis the metes and bounds, I'd be happy to receive them, but I will not ask again, nor, certainly, will I beg. Tom appears to want to work in acres based on his latest post, so I guess I could reverse-engineer the west boundary of the Johnson farm, but it makes so much more sense to just use the metes.
I don't understand TEPaul's reluctance to provide them.
It leads one to suspect that revelation won't favor his position AND that he's hiding pertinent information on this and other issues, and that's not good ..... for anyone.
I'd like to see the parties obtain as much information as possible and then reason a prudent position with respect to the land acquisition and other related issues.
Golf House Road has never been widened and I doubt it ever would be. It is certainly not a highly traveled road.
Are you telling us that the necessity of a 120 yard minimum carry has been determined to be too much for a majority of Merion members here before? If so, where?
Finally, are you telling us that the members at Merion had some magical ability to get Herculeanly longer somewhere between the 16th fairway and 17th tee, such that a 120 yard shot over the quarry was beyond most of their abilities on 16, but a shot significantly longer over the very same quarry somehow became a piece of cake for them on the very next tee? If so, where? ;D
How many acres does the golf course at NGLA occupy today?
Irrelevant
I ask because it seems that NGLA had very much the same origins as Merion, where more acres than needed for the golf course were purchased originally, with some percentage of the land going to "subscribers", or early investors in the venture.
In the case of NGLA, of the 200 acres purchased, CB Macdonald set down an arbitrary figure of 110 acres as necessary for the golf course, and the other 90 acres were going to go for sale in plots of an acre and a half, with the idea that their value would increase markedly over time with an adjacent golf course of this quality.
At the time of this plan and land purchase, there was NO golf course designed yet.
That's absolutely UNTRUE.
You have to STOP inserting your own views and trying to pass them off as facts.
In fact, a Holding Company had just been formed, with Macdonald as President, with James Stillman, Robert Watson, Dev Emmett, and Daniel Chauncey. "The Holding had not been definitely settled, as the owners of the property had allowed the golfers the privilege of determining later the exact boundaries of their purchase."
In fact, "a Committee to Lay Out the course had also just been appointed, as follows; C.B. Macdonald, Walter J. Travis, H.J. Whigham, and Devereux Emmett. This committee has been granted three months to stake out the course."
Sound familiar?
Perhaps Patrick can determine if there is any "conjecture" in this post and strike any portions that aren't 100% factual? ;D
I already did.
Mike, when are you going to stay on topic and cease trying to divert the focus by introducing irrelevant tidbits ?
Oh Patrick...you'd be quite incorrect about that.
I'd be willing to wager on that if you'll tell me who is advising you
Macdonald first bought the land, then created a plan for a large real estate component mixed with a golf course, and then laid out (designed) the golf course.
Not true.
I don't think that you and the party/ies advising you have understood the nuanced account.
Patrick,
Please do not help spread this sudden surge in Internet traffic between the west coast and midwest to northern New Jersey. :o
I have NOT sent an email, IM or had phone contact with David Moriarty in ages.
The same goes for Tom MacWood.
My communications with David have been on GCA.com, a public forum.
Can you say the same about your communications with your cohorts ?
However, I did receive a recent email from one of your co-conspiritors ;D
Wayne Morrisson advised me that he was disolving his "friendship" with me over my posts on GCA.com.
The absurdity of you now alleging/accussing me of being in contact with David and Tom MacWood is just another wild speculation of yours that has NO BASIS in fact.
Please cease and desist with conjecturing, you're terrible at it. ;D
My lord, we don't want to bring down the entire east coast grid! ;) ;D
I can assure you that if the grid goes down, it will have eminated and be confined to the Philly area ;D
David,
When Macdonald bought the 200+ acres, there was no golf course determined yet.
In fact, the Committee who had three months to LAY OUT THE COURSE had yet to be appointed. They would be shortly and would include Macdonald, Travis, Whigham, and Emmett.
The "Holding Company" had been appointed, with the undertanding that the boundaries of the golf course were subject to change, but estimated to be about 110 acres.
David,
When Macdonald bought the 200+ acres, there was no golf course determined yet.
In fact, the Committee who had three months to LAY OUT THE COURSE had yet to be appointed. They would be shortly and would include Macdonald, Travis, Whigham, and Emmett.
The "Holding Company" had been appointed, with the undertanding that the boundaries of the golf course were subject to change, but estimated to be about 110 acres.
Really? Was Charles Blair Macdonald lying when he described how he chose the land for the course? I need an exact cite Mike, because I think you and Wayne are misreading this stuff.
David,
I know you've outlined your timeline of events, but, I was refering to doing it vis a vis a chronological graph.
Shivas,
You're right the carry is the carry, the measurements don't lie.
What's wild is Mike conveniently ignoring the carry requirements on # 17, compared to the far more benign carry requirement on # 16.
I honestly believe that he's so heavily invested in Wilson that he can't be objective on anything related to Wilson, including the huge sporting goods business he started. ;D
And, I understand that.
Mike Cirba,
It is too bad that some have taken the discussion of events that occured about a century ago to such an extreme that they're willing to discard friendships and resort to vile name calling and personal attacks on each other.
I could see it happening if someone had an affair with someone else's wife, or beat up their daughter, but over events that occured a century ago ?
You wouldn't believe it if someone told you that's what happened, would you.
Mike, if the topic is about Merion, why would you go searching for information that refutes what DaveM wrote about NGLA other than an attempt to discredit message by discrediting the messenger?
This is classic rhetorical goofiness. "A once said that X is Y, therefore nothing A says about B can be believed." Hogwash.
Shivas,
C'mon, your smarter than that.
Merion's 16th has always been a 400+ yard hole, and probably was around 420 or so on a straight line when originally opened, even if the yardage was 433 listed in the 1916 US Amateur program.
Your 120 carry number is silly, because that assumes that players have hit a 300 yard drive with hickory shafts and gutta percha balls.
Probably most members drove on average around 220 or so.
That left a daunting full-carry attempt at carrying ALL of the quarry on their second, or...THANKS to the MAGIC OF STRATEGIC GOLF DESIGN, someone thoughtfully decided TO CREATE A FAIRWAY AROUND THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE QUARRY, which made it three-shot hole, but which also required much more WIDTH than someone likely anticipated for the hole at first.
The next hole, a par three from a cliff-top tee to a green well down below required about 170 yards of carry from the tee to reach reasonably maintained areas, but even there, they weren't going to lose a ball unless they duffed it off the tee.
Have you ever been to Merion Shivas, and seen the holes you're commenting on in this thread?
I ask because I don't think you would have posted what you just did had you seen those holes.
Assets useful for measurement:
1. The Dec. 19, 1910 161 acre deed in which the land is tranfered to Horatio Gates Lloyd. I just got it today; Merion has never had it in their archives and now they will. The thing that makes this asset valuable to me is it does have the exact dimensions of the old Johnson farm's western boundary at the top of the "L"
2. The July 21, 1911 deed in which Lloyd passes 120.1 acres of his 161 acre Dec. 21, 1910 deed back to the MCCGA (of which he is the chairman). This deed has the actual metes and bounds of Club House Road on it!!!
3. A 1920s Yerkes survey of Merion East which also has the metes and bounds of Club House Road on it.
"Does "dedicated" mean the land for the road is legally deeded to the Township? Or is it only an agreement for access and maintenance by the Township while the land boundaries continue to run down the middle of the road in a deeded sense?"
Bryan:
I can't completely answer that but my understanding has always been "dedicated" means the owners of land that has roads created on it and then "dedicate" it to a township, county or state etc either turn that land over in the "dedication" or else create for the receiver a form of sort of permanent "easement" that does "run with the land" (survives challenges on real estate transfers).
On the other hand, I do know of a few roads around here that were "dedicated" and for whatever reasons were turned back over by a municipality or whatever to private hands. This almost always happens when landowners along a road like that want to close it for some reason as any kind of public thoroughfare.
And then of course you do realize that once a road is dedicated and public the entity controlling it, usually a government, can widen it and such through "eminent domain."
Through the years it has been recorded by Merion that they were concerned about eminent domain with Ardmore Ave being widened at some point and hurting something like their second hole.
Golf House Road has never been widened and I doubt it ever would be. It is certainly not a highly traveled road.
The beauty of this is that your ballstriking and my ballstriking are irrelevant as well. The distance over the quarry is measurable and ascertainable. It's actually more than that - it's been measured and ascertained. And you're wrong. Period. From where the normal tee was in 1912 to carry the quarry was barely 360 yards. You insist it was 420, but that's simply not true and you know it. Hell, TODAY, from the WAY-BACK tee, the as the crow files distance is 430 to the center of the green and far less than that to carry the quarry. And that's from the stretched, re-stretched and re-re-stretched WAY-BACK tee. Sooner or later, somebody is going to post a snap-shot of the Google earth measurements over the quarry on #16 and #17 and reveal how totallly and completely wrong you are (I'd do it myself but I don't know how). That will show that either (A) your methodology in terms of measuring anything is sorely lacking and not worthy of consideration or (B) you just enjoy fabricating facts and trying to pass them off as reality.
So what's it going to be? Are you going to fold and fess up that you're all wet on this and live to fight another day, or is somebody going to beat you to it, post the smoking Google Earth gun at your head first and put you out of your misery first?
Bryan:
I'm going over to Merion today. It's not much of a day but if there's time how about if we get a laser rangefinder and measure the distance between that point at the end of the fairway and the front of the green and if it's appreciably different from the measurement you just got on the Google Earth ruler or whatever it is, what are we supposed to think of your measuring of any of the acreages of Merion then? Would you like the essayist has always done on here just say we are mistaken somehow too like everyone else who was around Merion back then with Hugh Wilson and his committee?
Andy,
You're correct; it's about 100 yards of carry over the quarry, once you've traversed the first 300 yards to get there.
For the poor suckers with hickory and gutta percha, it was a fearsome second shot carry unless you really whomped a drive, and most were looking at something in the neighborhood of 200 yards to the middle of the green after a 200 yard drive.
It is why the strategic designers of Merion East created an alternate fairway around the quarry.
One could argue, why not just lay up short?
Of course, one always had and has that option, but there's not much fun in pitching the ball 80 yards or so. Instead, the architects thoughtfully created the alternative option of trying to get over to higher ground around the quarry on the right.
However, all of this doesn't mean a hill of beans and is a complete diversion on Shivas's part from the actual matter at hand.
In the immortal words of Bill Murray, "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER". ;)
This is a smokescreen to deflect discussion from the fact that the NGLA articles have just shown beyond any doubt that Merion was not conceived or designed as per David's essay.
Tom Paul,
I know you did. It's just great to read it from the source. ;)
"Tom,
Thanks for the information. Do you know if Ardmore is/was also part of the Merion land, and it also was "dedicated" to the township? Just curious. I suspect it might have been, else why would they have designed three holes to play over it."
Bryan:
Again, Ardmore Ave is a dedicated road and it was when Lloyd and then MCCGA bought the Merion golf course property. I don't know whether it's a road that was dedicated to the township, County or state but that wouldn't be hard to find out even though it doesn't really matter, at least not for measurement purposed of property and titles. Road dedication is probably a permanent "easement" that "runs with the land." Remember I mentioned that yesterday?
For property measurment if one is measuring the property enclosed within say the old Johnson Farm and some or the same land that is now Merion East Golf Course, if on both sides of say Ardmore Ave, one measures right down the centerline of Ardmore Ave, from a particular point to another particular measured point. In the Dec. 19 1910 deed the Johnson farm was on both sides of Ardmore Ave and on the 7/21/1911 deed a section of the golf course was on both sides of Ardmore Ave and the old western section of the Johnson farm across from the present second hole became part of HDC land until a point at the intersection of Ardmore Ave and the new road to be built by HDC. That would become Golf House Road.
From that point one measures right up the centerline of Club House Road from Ardmore Ave to a point in the centerline of College Ave. Everything on the east side of that was Merion Golf course and on the left or west side was HDC.
Interestingly the Club House Road delineation between MCC and HDC is the only part of the golf course that actually adjoins HDC and was considered for golf holes and that is why I believe only that section was what could've been referred to in Thompson's Resolution to the board on 4/19/1911 as the exchange of land ALREADY PURCHASED for land adjoining! I think the same can be said for the additional three acres to be purchased for $7,500 that the resolution also addressed. I believe both were what we call the Francis land swap.
"It occurs to me, based on the quote from Tom below, that perhaps the 1910 deed doesn't have metes on it. He happily mentions metes on the 1911 deed and the 1920 survey, but on the the 1910 deed he just got, all he's mentioned is acreage. Why am I so suspicious? ;) And, does he really need a surveyor to tell him the metes of the road are the same in 1911 and the 1920's. You could tell just by reading them. Unless of course the road moved. :)"
Bryan:
Maybe one of the reasons you're so suspicious is you don't know much about real estate or real estate in Pennsylvania. Do you come from Pennsylvania? I sold real estate in Pennsylvania for about twenty years basically concentrating on the sale a farms and large acreage places so I certainly know how to read metes and bounds, not to even mention that real estate brokers in Pennsylvania are licensed by the state and they have to go to school and pass tests on such things as metes and bounds, contracts etc, etc or they won't be able to maintain their real estate licenses. It was never unusual for various clients to actually want to go out on land they were buying to look at the various "momuments" (generally surveyor stones) in the ground for fairly obvious reasons. The 1910 deed had metes and bounds on it. Matter of fact, all Pennsylvania deeds for the last couple of hundred years at least have surveyor metes and bounds on them for all kinds of practical and legal reasons.
As for the metes and bounds on the Dec. 21, 1911 deed of the Club House Road compared to the later Yerkes' survey metes and bounds of the Club House Road of course I can just read both and compare them and I will but if they are different in some way one good reason might be in 1911 that road was not built yet but on the Yerkes survey it was.
A couple of relevant points.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2431/3569478625_b7f43fcb34_o.jpg)
I wonder if Travis had the shovel and Emmett the pick or visa versa as they "laid out" the course on the ground ;)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3569478637_687d72f170_o.jpg)
Interesting how they bought the land, left the boundaries "loose", and then took 3 months designing the golf course and another two months building plasticene models of the holes before even beginning construction.
And from another paper;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2444/3569194738_6494d92e0a_o.jpg)
Sound familiar?? ;D
Tom Paul,
After taking THREE MONTHS to lay out and plan the golf course at NGLA and another two months to design it in plasticene before even beginning construction, imagine how Macdonald would have slapped any fool at Merion upside the head had they even suggested such a ridiculous thing as having him design their course in a couple of hours visit, much less a day! ::) ::) ::) ;)
He'd have been highly insulted, I'm certain!
Thanks, Andy.
Perhaps you should also ask Shivas why he thinks the built those fairway bunkers where they are if everyone was driving it down 300+ yards for the 130 yard approach back in 1912. ;D
Bryan Izatt:
I've got to ask you something. Do you really think you can hold your own in an GOOGLE Earthing Measurement competition with Andy Hughes? And if so why? Some of his recent Merion #16 measurements may be leading some on here to believe he can accurately measure your ass right off of you.
Thanks, Andy.
Perhaps you should also ask Shivas why he thinks the built those fairway bunkers where they are if everyone was driving it down 300+ yards for the 130 yard approach back in 1912. ;D
Bryan:
I'm going over to Merion today. It's not much of a day but if there's time how about if we get a laser rangefinder and measure the distance between that point at the end of the fairway and the front of the green and if it's appreciably different from the measurement you just got on the Google Earth ruler or whatever it is, what are we supposed to think of your measuring of any of the acreages of Merion then? Would you like the essayist has always done on here just say we are mistaken somehow too like everyone else who was around Merion back then with Hugh Wilson and his committee?
"Probably because you are hoarding information that would clarify the metes."
Bryan:
I can understand what you say there from your position---believe me I can. My question to you is, can you understand what I am saying to you about my position with Merion and that we (Merion and us) are more than capable of getting any of these parcels measured completely accurately by apparently the very surveyors who did those metes and bounds in the first place? How about IF, WHEN that is done we try to get what we and Merion and their surveyors are using with metes and bounds to you and then you can see if your measurements and your totals match their measurements and their totals?
Are you cool with that thought? ;)
When that time comes and assuming yours match theirs completely perhaps then you and us can totally PROVE to the World of GCA geeks and closet measurers all over the earth how right you can be and then ALL OF US can call you "The Immaculate Google Earthing AND Merion Measurer From GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's Discussion Forum."
Don't you think that is an ultra cool thought too Bryan. If we did it the other way around someone might actually accuse you of sort of backing into the correct measurements like some think the essayist is trying to back into the correct architectural history of Merion East. This way you will have the chance of showing everybody how right you can be the first time around with no coaching or secret information.
It will be like a big game show on the Internet:
"BONG---CORRECT ANSWER! Ladies and gentleman we have a WINNER, Bryan Izatt, the IMMULATE GOOGLE EARTHING MEASURER FROM GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's Discussin Forum!!!! :) ;D ;D ;D ;)
or
BONG---WRONG ANSWER! Get that Google Earthing GOLFCLUBATLAS.com Discussion Forum fake measurer and shmuck the hell outta here! ::) ??? :P :-[ :'(
For anyone who may still be unclear on the point, I should say what our new understanding is of something Francis said in his story and apparently MCC did.
He said it was easy to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion of the "L" with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Ave. I think we can fairly safely assume by that ground on the north side of Ardmore Ave he probably meant the app 3 acre tract behind the clubhouse and next to the P&W railroad that belonged to the P&W Railroad.
But we thought for the longest time that when the Thompson Resolution of 4/19/1911 referred to the land "exchange" with land adjoining ALREADY PURCHASED AND the purchase of 3 additional acres for $7,500 that the purchase of the 3 additional acreas was ALSO referring to that 3 acre railroad tract.
It didn't and it wasn't. It was referring to 3 additional acres to the west of HDC residential ground. We think the sum total of both items referred to by the Thompson Resolution to the board on 4/19/1911 was the sum total of what we call the Francis land swap. And the total acreage of the July, 21, 1911 deed passing the 120.1 acres to MCCGA Co. compared to the 117 acres MCC originally agreed to buy from HDC pretty much confirms it.
It also might be very interesting and indicative of when those involved at MCC still referred to the total ground bought as 117 compared to the later increase of three acres and 120.1 (after Lloyd's agreement and after the approval of the Thompson Resolution on 4/19/1911 and after the formal recording of the July 21, 1911 deed). That alone may have some bearing on when the Francis fix idea actually happened! ;)
The app. 3 acre railroad land long term situation is actually pretty funny. In the beginning of May, 1911 MCC or the MCCGA Co. created a lease for that land with the P&W Railroad. That lasted until 1961 when Merion G.C. actually bought that land from the P&W for $11,000. But the funny thing was, according to Merion records, it was someone from Merion in 1975 who just happened to notice the lease payment apparently and wondered about it because apparently Merion had actually thought they owned that land and had bought it way back when in 1911 or something. That is why they say they got around to buying it in 1961 because that is WHEN they realized they hadn't owned it all along. ;)
Yes, they did. You're saying that after a dozen USGA events over 97 years, that tee has been moved back a whopping 7 yards. Do you really want to stick to nonsense like that?
Dave,
Honestly, on what planet are you contending that the 16th at Merion was ever measured or played as a three-shotter. :o
That's just simply untrue from 1912 onwards.
Mike, the facts simply belie you. The hole - today - is almost 440 measured as a 2 shotter. If you're so hot on finding historical records, why don't you go find the 97 years of that tee being moved back less than 7 yards in the aggregate from the days of guttys and wood shafts to today, despite all the re-working and US Opens and Amateurs, etc. All I'd need to find is anything that indicates that tee being moved back more than 7 yards, and the hole would HAVE TO HAVE BEEN measured as a 3 shotter back then. You telling me that lengthening never happened? OK, sure...
And if the hole is 440 as a 2-shotter today to the center of the green, that means it was 405 back then to the center of the green (440 - 35 = 405), which would make it 382 to the front of the green from the tips, and about 375 to from the tips to clear the quarry even if a pansy-waist hitter at Merion who drives it 220 was playing the tippy tips. Face it, Mike, this was never an insurmountable second shot, even for a panty waist from the tips.
Shiv, where are you getting that 35 yards from?
I agree, Andy, but they're all pretty close no matter which combination of 3 shots you use. The first time I did it, I came up with 433 on the button, though. And remember, this is all to the center of the green.
Yep, I think you are right and I got the same results as you, but I am leery of saying 'this is the spot' when I can make that spot be in different locations if I try.
I'm not talking about where the boundary is and always has been. I'm talking about where the tee was.
A couple of relevant points.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2431/3569478625_b7f43fcb34_o.jpg)
I wonder if Travis had the shovel and Emmett the pick or visa versa as they "laid out" the course on the ground ;)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3569478637_687d72f170_o.jpg)
Interesting how they bought the land, left the boundaries "loose", and then took 3 months designing the golf course and another two months building plasticene models of the holes before even beginning construction.
And from another paper;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2444/3569194738_6494d92e0a_o.jpg)
Sound familiar?? ;D
Tom Paul,
After taking THREE MONTHS to lay out and plan the golf course at NGLA and another two months to design it in plasticene before even beginning construction, imagine how Macdonald would have slapped any fool at Merion upside the head had they even suggested such a ridiculous thing as having him design their course in a couple of hours visit, much less a day! ::) ::) ::) ;)
He'd have been highly insulted, I'm certain!
Are you talking about these articles Shivas? ;D
. . . there is NO WAY to go back any further and never has been a way to go back any further. There is a freaking ROAD BEHIND IT!
David,
I'm not using that 1910 Land Plan.
Recall I was the one who exposed it as a piece of dung some nights back.
I do recall somewhat oddly that you were still rather fond of it, however.
Strange.
"What other than the 1910 Land Plan ever indicated that there was no room for the 14th green and 15th tee before the swap."
ABSOLUTELY unbelievable question at this point!!!!!
WHAT INDICATED to Wilson and his committee AND FRANCIS certainly WAS NOT that Nov. 15, 1910 LAND PLAN!!!!
They were using TOPOGRAPHICAL (CONTOUR) survey maps to design that golf course. Do you know what the difference is between that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan and a TOPOGRAPHICAL (CONTOUR LINED) survey map, David Moriarty???
DO you SEE any topographical CONTOUR lines on that Nov. 15, 1910 LAND PLAN??? Has anyone who knows a jot about this club's course history ever implied they were using that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan to design Merion East???
THE POINT is if that "approximate road location" on that Nov, 15, 1910 plan was not dimensionally exact, THEIR topographical (CONTOUR lined) Survey maps obviously were DIMENSIONALLY EXACT BECAUSE THEY had to contain 117 acres that MCC agreed to buy from HDC within that PROPOSED DELINEATION of Club House Road, AND certainly AFTER Lloyd bought the 161 acres on Dec, 19, 1910 WITH Cuylers explanation that he was in the postion to move boundary lines around at will. And that is precisely WHY the Thompson Resolution was offered on April, 19, 1911 TO incorporate and approve the Francis land swap which was an "exchange" of land ADJOINING ALREADY PURCHASED AND the additional PURCHASE of 3 acres.
That was obviously because the delineation on their working Topos of Club House Road was exact even though it wasn't on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan! And this is WHY the Francis Land Swap happened AFTER Lloyd owned that land (Dec. 19, 1910) and NOT before that date!!!
It blows my mind that you perhaps haven't figured this out at this point or admitted it!
I've stated, many times that I'm fascinated by Raynor's alter ego, Francis, an engineer who might have understood the topos, who worked IN THE FIELD on the golf course.
I've always wondered how much of the design and construction work he was responsible for.
A couple of relevant points.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2431/3569478625_b7f43fcb34_o.jpg)
I wonder if Travis had the shovel and Emmett the pick or visa versa as they "laid out" the course on the ground ;)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3569478637_687d72f170_o.jpg)
Interesting how they bought the land, left the boundaries "loose", and then took 3 months designing the golf course and another two months building plasticene models of the holes before even beginning construction.
And from another paper;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2444/3569194738_6494d92e0a_o.jpg)
Sound familiar?? ;D
Tom Paul,
After taking THREE MONTHS to lay out and plan the golf course at NGLA and another two months to design it in plasticene before even beginning construction, imagine how Macdonald would have slapped any fool at Merion upside the head had they even suggested such a ridiculous thing as having him design their course in a couple of hours visit, much less a day! ::) ::) ::) ;)
He'd have been highly insulted, I'm certain!
Let's get back to the real issue and stop the diversions.
Excellent point, Jim. I call that a fallback position. They did, after all, get to tee it up and hit a driver on 18.
What say you, Mike? You going to hold firm on this notion that the reason for the swap was that 16 HAD TO BE wider because the bunt hitters couldn't carry the quarry at 16? If so, what do you tell them....to just walk in after 16 because if they can't make the carry on 16, there's no way in hell they can make the carry on 17 or 18?
Mrs. Cirba...oh, Mrs. Cirba...can Mikey come out to play?
Mike, you gonna ignore this question forever, or at least until you're done whipping yourself into your latest frenzy over the irrelevent NGLA article? ;)
Do you think these novices were skilled at reading topos and interpolating and transposing architectural design onto them ?
I doubt it.
I think they were probably foot walkers, observers of the land who understood golf, and not skilled architects capable of transposing architectural concepts onto the topos.
I can't recall seeing any design schematic layed out on a topo in the very early part of the 20th Century, can you ?
These fellows weren't Tom Doak's equal, they were novices, unskilled, untested amateurs in an arena that they were unfamiliar with, namely, GCA.
Excellent point, Jim. I call that a fallback position. They did, after all, get to tee it up and hit a driver on 18.
What say you, Mike? You going to hold firm on this notion that the reason for the swap was that 16 HAD TO BE wider because the bunt hitters couldn't carry the quarry at 16?
If so, what do you tell them....to just walk in after 16 because if they can't make the carry on 16, there's no way in hell they can make the carry on 17 or 18?
Mike,
Everyone knows that the carries at # 17 and # 18 are far more heroic than the carry at # 16.
Why do you have a problem admitting what's common knowledge ?
Last night David and Patrick were telling me I was lying about NGLA and Macdonald.
Mike,
I have to tell you that I'm losing respect for your integrity, your intellectual honesty.
I guess desperate men do desperate things.
I NEVER said you were lying. I said that you didn't understand the nuanced words of CBM himself, choosing instead to rely on newspaper articles which we know are notoriously inaccurate.
CBM clearly stated, in his own words, that he found the holes prior to the purchase of the property and that the seller allowed them to configure the purchase to accomodate the course which he had already designed. That's what CBM stated and all the newspaper articles in the world won't change his written words. Of course you still believe that Dewey beat Truman
With respect to the 1910 land plan, YOU were touting it to the highest praise.
Suddenly, you reject it.
As Shivas stated, you're constantly flip flopping in a desperate attempt to refute anything and everything that David or anyone else brings up that could possible deviate from the "Party Line" at Merion. I attribute that to your need to glorify Wilson, ergo, the Cobb's Creek Project.
One only has to look at your desperate attempts to insist that Wilson sailed before 1910 to get an understanding of your primary purpose for posting on Merion related subjects, and that is, to defend the party line at all costs, including attempts to divert the focus, flawed logic and denial of facts.
Tonight, they are focused on what...
the fact that the alternate 16th fairway is "necessary" or advisable"??
I'm not "focused" on that.
I'm just refuting your subjective and biased statements, explanations and conclusions linked to the 16th hole.
IT"S BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH ABOUT NGLA, and you're just providing them cover while they RUN. ;D
Rather than try to obscure and divert the search for the facts and the truth concerning "Merion", the subject of this thread, which YOU initiated, why not assist in trying to discover more facts and prudently reason what they imply, instead of trying to come up with hair brained excuses, denials and attempts to divert the focus away from the subject which YOU created, the Timeline at "Merion".
I'm sorry that you feel the need to resort to such foolish tactics.
Your behavior is juvenile and disengenuous.
Patrick:
Regarding your post #967 on the subject of topographical survery maps, or the topo survey maps I'm speaking of that the Wilson committee were designing Merion East on with defined boundaries, I was speaking with Wayne about two months ago and I asked him basically-----"Look Wayno, I'm old but I've been around the proverbial block a bunch of times but is it possible that people are actually as stupid as some on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com? He said; "Oh Yeah, welcome to the club." All I could say is; "Really?" Your post #967 totally reconfirms Wayno's point! ;)
Do you think these novices were skilled at reading topos and interpolating and transposing architectural design onto them ?
I doubt it.
I think they were probably foot walkers, observers of the land who understood golf, and not skilled architects capable of transposing architectural concepts onto the topos.
I can't recall seeing any design schematic layed out on a topo in the very early part of the 20th Century, can you ?
These fellows weren't Tom Doak's equal, they were novices, unskilled, untested amateurs in an arena that they were unfamiliar with, namely, GCA.
Uhh...Patrick....
I believe some Philly amateurs did this one, as well in 1914.
MIKE, Perhaps your confusing the dates 1909-1910, NOT 1914.
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/CC_orig_drawing_topo_1.jpg)
Mike, you misunderstood my comment to Bradley Anderson.
Let me break it down for you.
1. Wilson has long been credited with designing the course based upon principles he learned while traveling abroad.
2. This assumes he traveled abroad before the course was designed and built.
3. But he did not travel abroad until after the course had been routed, planned, built, and the tees, greens, and fairways seeded, and at least some of the artificial features built.
4. Therefore the initial routing, lay out plan, construction, tees, greens, fairways, and at least some of the artificial features could not have been based on what Wilson learned while traveling abroad.
It is a simple time line. He couldn't have based Merion on courses he had not yet seen, on a trip he had not yet taken. Simple as that.
As for whether or not his trip mattered. All the other accounts of Merion sure think it mattered, otherwise why do they say he based on the holes on courses overseas?
_________________________
As for your earlier post, you claim that "we can add to our list of facts from Francis that Hugh Wilson, and not anyone else was responsible for today's 3rd hole being an attempt at a redan."
But Francis is talking about how Merion benefited from Wilson's trip abroad. The trip did not occur until AFTER THE HOLE WAS DESIGNED AND BUILT. "One hole which benefited was the third. It was copied from the Redan at North Berwick."
So whatever it was that Wilson learned at North Berwick, it could not have been incorporated into the hole UNTIL AFTER WILSON'S TRIP. This was long after the hole was planned, laid out, built, and seeded.
So Francis' statement does NOT establish that Wilson and no one else was responsible for today's 3rd . . . "
_______________________________
David,
Do you see a flaw in the methodology?
......................
However, I also now believe after looking at the dimensions of the Johnson Farm that ran to College Avenue that the Land Plan has less than zero value because it is not only "approximate" and not drawn to scale, it is also equidistantly drawn with soft curves the length of the Northen parcel of that farm and not clearly not indicative of the lines of some pre-formatted golf course. It is therefore completely misleading, and I believe we've ALL collectively been off on a snipe hunt for the past few years.
.........................
Mike,
Are you suggesting that HGL and HDC were fraudulently misrepresenting both the real estate and golf course on the land plan? :o Say it ain't so.
At some point, the Francis Land Swap happened and property originally purchased and not being used for any golf layouts was swapped for land "adjoining".
Frankly, I was hoping to sit back at this point and hope the measurements of the acreage gives us all some better insight.
Thanks for the thoughts on the green Area B on my map. I agree that the western boundary should be closer to GHR. I think I've discovered the error of my ways. The metes that you and Tom provided were different in the headings. I was never comfortable with the heading as it related to the boundary. What I had forgotten is that the headings were magnetic compass readings from almost 100 years. Magnetic north wanders about over the years. Hence the difference between yours and Tom's metes. Through a little research I've determined that magnetic north in PHA has moved about 5*04' west since 1910. So, the heading of 23*58' from 1910 provided by Tom needs to be adjusted to S29*02E' for todays map. That'll move the Haverford College boundary to the east from where I had it before. Hence, also moving the western boundary of the Johnson farm further east to the area where you drew it.
More precise drawings and acreages to follow as I have time.
Mike Cirba,
How about it Mike, your theory that the 14th green, 15th tee and 15th fairway were part of the Francis land swap was solely based on information that you no longer find reliable, right? So we can discard that theory can't we?
Surely you can answer this simple question. I really don't want to have to go through all this again down the road, so let's put it to rest. How about it?
"In exchange, Merion received a small section of “land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long - the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.” No doubt Francis was describing the land between the present practice area and Golf House Road, a small triangle of land that perfectly matches Francis’ description. More importantly, the land was acquired while Merion was putting the finishing touches on the routing plan for the course. So the date of the supposed “swap” will allow us to determine when the final touches were being put on the initial routing plan.
Surprisingly, as one can see in the land plan above, Merion acquired this small projection of land as part of the 117-acre parcel designated “Merion Golf Course” in the Plan."
Do you notice how Bryan has the old western border of the Johnson farm to the west of Club House Road and Ardmore Ave? I think it was actually east of Club House Road and Ardmore Ave. I think some of Club House Road even goes into what was the old Taylor estate but obviously by the time MCC agreed to buy 117 acres from HDC those boundary lines had been extinguished in principle if not yet actually be deed and on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan and everything to the west of what would become Club House Road was just HDC land (no more Taylor and Davis properties----except of course what Lloyd would own of the old Johnson farm block across from the second green. I think technically that may've been part of what was swapped for HDC land. At that point the old boundary lines didn't matter any more and the only think important was for MCC to get 117 acres that included the top of the "L" to the east of Club House Road. Actually the needed to add three more acres to the top of the "L" from what their topo survey maps were originally giving them.
Thanks for the thoughts on the green Area B on my map. I agree that the western boundary should be closer to GHR. I think I've discovered the error of my ways. The metes that you and Tom provided were different in the headings. I was never comfortable with the heading as it related to the boundary. What I had forgotten is that the headings were magnetic compass readings from almost 100 years. Magnetic north wanders about over the years. Hence the difference between yours and Tom's metes. Through a little research I've determined that magnetic north in PHA has moved about 5*04' west since 1910. So, the heading of 23*58' from 1910 provided by Tom needs to be adjusted to S29*02E' for todays map. That'll move the Haverford College boundary to the east from where I had it before. Hence, also moving the western boundary of the Johnson farm further east to the area where you drew it.
More precise drawings and acreages to follow as I have time.
I understand what you are saying but I think that surveyors routinely correct for this error, and I think they have for 100's of years, so I wouldn't be so quick to calculate new headings. Even if you do correct for the headings, I still think we may have the other problem I mentioned.
I understand that surveyors would put the magnetic declinations on their work. The question is, do the metes on the deed that you have and Tom has, indicate any correction or are they just headings? I am persuaded that correcting for magnetic declination is appropriate in this case if for no other reason than it gets the line from your metes to actually track the property line up there. The headings you and Tom provided don't. I, of course, stand to be corrected.
.............................
" As to 117 acres, that's what I'm trying to get to with my measurements. Where the heck was a piece of property that fit that acreage. After that then I might have some theories."
Bryan:
It was on the topographical contour survey maps they were using to route and design the golf course on 117 acres on. If the boundaries hadn't been on that, then why would they've had a problem in the first place on the last five holes and needed to ask permission from Lloyd for a land exchange for land ALREADY PURCHASED and an additional purchase of 3 acres for $7,500 from the board?
That is confirmed by the fact that we know MCC agreed to buy 117 acres from HDC in Nov, 1910 and when they actually did buy the land on July, 21, 1911 they bought 120.1 acres, and not 117 acres.
This would be on the topo map that no one today has ever seen? What makes you think that a topo map would have GHR accurately on it if it wasn't built until the next year, or later? Or, do you know now when GHR was built. As for your questions, I don't know, that's what we're trying to figure out. You "know" the answers. Others of us doubt until we can logically see some facts to support your "answers". You're reminding me of Sister Aloysius from the play/movie Doubt. I can see you there in all righteousness saying: "I HAVE MY CERTAINTIES".
I understand that surveyors would put the magnetic declinations on their work. The question is, do the metes on the deed that you have and Tom has, indicate any correction or are they just headings? I am persuaded that correcting for magnetic declination is appropriate in this case if for no other reason than it gets the line from your metes to actually track the property line up there. The headings you and Tom provided don't. I, of course, stand to be corrected.
.............................
Here's another interesting item.
.......the linear dimension from the corner of the old Smith/Eaton place and Ardmore Ave (behind #2 green) all the way east along Ardmore Ave to the western boundary of the old Johnson Farm on Ardmore Ave was 701 yards. Using the same starting point to the intersection of Golf House Road and Ardmore Ave today is 583 yards.
If some of the land used to design those last five holes actually pushed a few parts of Club House Road right over the western boundary of the old Johnson Farm (that Lloyd owned) into the Taylor Farm to the west next to it (that Lloyd did not own) are you really telling me you can't understand why the Thompson Resolution addressed the purchase of three additional acres for $7,500?
Tom,
Is this undeniably what happened?
Tommy,
If I tried to lay out a timeline of all the bizarre thoughts running through my head as I was thinking about and attempting to hit that 7-iron it just might compete with this thread in both length, and bizzare thoughts...
David,
I have a question.
Despite what you think of Tom Paul and the way he's going about this, from a purely technical standpoint do you think that the methodology he's describing by having a surveyor compare the 1910 Lloyd deed with the 1928 Merion survey will yield the correct results?
In your opinion, should this type of exercise get to the Francis Land Swap answer?
In other words, I would expect that if the Land Swap happened before the November 1910 Land Plan, then those maps should show no difference. Would you agree?
David,
I have a question.
Despite what you think of Tom Paul and the way he's going about this, from a purely technical standpoint do you think that the methodology he's describing by having a surveyor compare the 1910 Lloyd deed with the 1928 Merion survey will yield the correct results?
Good question. The answer is NO for a number of reasons.
1. It is not a transparent process.
- We will have no way to know what TEPaul will ask of the surveyor, or what the surveyor will answer. It is all being done behind closed doors, and there is no reason for this at all.
- No matter what the surveyor comes up with, we are at TEPaul's mercy to convey the information to us. Given his abhorent record of misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting, this would be ludicrous. If the surveyor comes back with information that hurts TEPaul's claims, do you think we will ever hear about it? Of course not. At best we will hear a deceptive and twisted version.
2. There is no need for a surveyor. The western border of the Johnson farm is a straight line and plotting it is a simple matter. All Bryan needs is the bearing.
3. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR KEEPING BRYAN AND/OR ME FROM FIGURING THE CALCULATION OURSELVES. This is true even if TEPaul hires a surveyor. Verification is essential in this sort of thing, yet he refuses to open up the process to have the information verified.
In short, with TEPaul involved in the process, we have absolutely no reason to trust it. But even if it was someone honest and capable, I WOULD STILL INSIST ON TRANSPARENCY AND VERIFICATION, and Bryan or any HONEST person would gladly welcome TRANSPARENCY and VERIFICATION. That is the only acceptable way.QuoteIn your opinion, should this type of exercise get to the Francis Land Swap answer?
In other words, I would expect that if the Land Swap happened before the November 1910 Land Plan, then those maps should show no difference. Would you agree?
No. TEPaul's theory doesn't make any sense, even on the face of it. I have no idea what he thinks he is accomplishing it, but it seems like he thinks if he can get a measure from a surveyor, then we won't be able to refute him. But the measure from the surveyor doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any analysis that will tell us anything about the swap. He hasn't (and can't) explain exactly how this is supposed to work, because he has no idea.
It is a bit like when you guys claimed that you had "respected scientist and expert researcher" who would undermine my methodology. There was no substance to it. You guys just wanted someone with supposed expertise, so you could flaut his credentials without ever addressing the issues. Turns out the "expert" never came up with a single specific problem with my essay, and had no expertise whatsoever with this kind of research. It was just another false claim of authority to justifiy an argument that was otherwise unjustifiable.
That is what is going on here. TEPaul is trying to use the letterhead of a surveyor to bamboozle us into buying his flawed analysis without him having to actually prove it up.
I hope that answered your questions.
Let's say Tom Paul was Saint Paul, and we had every reason to believe in his complete truthfulness and the transparency of the process.
Let's also say he has the 1910 Lloyd Map and the 1928 Merion Map.
Is there a methodology you'd outline for him to follow that you believe would accurately determine if the Francis Land Swap happened prior to December 1910 or after 1910?
David,
The only answer I can give you honestly is because I'm hoping all of us can finally agree on some objective measurement to finally bring this to some conclusion that will allow us to break through this logjam.
In this exercise there are only two objective measurements. One is the metes that exist on the deeds (which through headings and distances describe the shape and boundaries of the property in question. Neither David nor I nor anyone else can plot those metes and come up with a shape that is somehow different. The metes are objective information; we can't change them. We can only read them and plot them. The other objective measurement is the area of a plot of land defined by boundaries which are in turn defined by the metes. You use a planimeter to measure areas of irregularly shaped objects. Tom's surveyor will have one, either mechanical or electronic. I have one I use that is available on-line for free. I've tested mine on known areas and it is accurate. I'm sure the surveyor has an accurate one too. If we both measure the same plot of land we will get the same answer. The area is an objective measurement. The third area that relates to this is the placement of a plot of land on a map to allow us to visualize where it is. A surveyor can do that. We can do that. What we both require are the metes and their starting location. Given that, it is not possible that we will put it in different locations.
David doesn't trust Tom and Tom doesn't trust David (or apparently me either). Given that, and the objective measurements that are the metes, the only middle ground I can see is for each of us to do it our own way and then to compare results. I'm 99% certain that we will get the same results. If the unlikely event that we don't, then we can debate.
If there is a way to accurately and objectively determine from comparison of the maps that the Francis Land Swap happened either before or after November 1910 then I would think you'd also be willing to work to improve Tom's proposed process so that it's something permitting full discovery.
I don't think Tom feels that the Google method is something he's confident can be done accurately, so there should be a middle ground we can all agree on that ensures accuracy and transparency.
Tom has an unfounded fear of current computer technology. The so-called Google method is simply a way of placing a predetermined (by the metes) property boundary on a map and measuring its area. I'd be happy to bet you a round of golf at my club that if we and a surveyor start from the same metes (and the metes are readable and complete) we'll get the same shape of property, located in the same place on a current map and measure it at the same area. What confounds the current debate is that we are trying to use the available information (RR plats and land plans ) that are dimensionally questionable to plot land boundaries and calculate areas, when the metes to do it accurately are available. Tom has them. I suppose I could call the County Recorder of Deeds and buy the damn thing and then we wouldn't need to get past the Tom-created logjam on this particular subject.
I would note that over the last couple of days Tom has said that he'd give me the data after he'd given it to a surveyor; he's going to give it to a surveyor; he might give it to a surveyor; and, he might give it to one if it's not too expensive. So, is he, or isn't he? When? Having me do it is free - you can't beat that price. ;D and I can do it ASAP.
Bryan:
Wayne and I are looking for some other material, particularly a copy of one of those topo survey maps the Wilson Committee used. It's pretty amazing the places we've looked and are still looking, particularly Wayne.
HenryE:
No, there is no further correspondences between Macdonald and Merion on record and no mention anywhere of any connection orther than the followiing;
1. Macdonald's June 29, 1910 letter to Lloyd about his June 1910 visit to Ardmore;
2. The Wilson Committee's April report to the board that mentions their visit to NGLA (March, 1911)
3. The mention of Macdonald/Whigam's single day visit to Ardmore on April, 1911.
Henry,
As usual, the information supplied by TEPaul is misleading at best, dishonest at worst.
The oft mentioned Ag letters establish that Wilson was corresponding with Macdonald.
"Do you want to fly me to Philadelphia to go spend a couple of days in the clerk's office to sort this out for you?"
JohnC:
That's not necessary. The two appropriate deeds I've been mentioning are very clear. I spent twenty years in real estate in Pennsylvania and these deeds are no different than any of the others I've ever seen from that era. The only thing that is a bit unusual here is Lloyd took a significant portion of HDC's land into his own name and held it at the same time he served on the Wilson Committee, and this is why he was in the unique position to make a land swap decision immediately and on his own as he did in the Francis land swap fix of the difficulty of fitting in the last five holes. Puttng himself in that position was completely preconceived and it also speaks directly to the fact the golf course routing and design had not been worked out which is completely understandable as Wilson's Committee of Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin and Francis would not be appointed until the beginning of 1911. Wilson wrote that himself!! ;)
John C,
Don't Ask! Don't Ask! TePaul has never entered a single "simple post" on gca.com and is unlikely to start doing so now on a Merion thread of all places! ;)
Funny thing, but pre-coffee I typed "Merion" as Meroin" before correcting it. Maybe that is a more appropriate name given these threads. As in, "to read another one of these threads, I need a hit of Meroin." ;)
Richard the Magnificent:
I don't think I'm mistaken in saying a number of great old clubs of which I have been aware of and familiar with through the years have always been interested in collecting and recording in their archives a number of the little stories and jokes and poems and ditties told about them or at them in events throughout their histories and that poem of yours is just wonderful, all things considered here. I will print it and offer it to Merion's historians post haste.
Thank you for it!
I have just become aware of a truly astounding piece of never seen before old newspaper information that is bound to just blow the entire top right off of Merion's early architectural history and its connection to C.B. Macdonald and Whigam. Truly amazing stuff and coincidentally it emanates from that expert golf architectural researcher/writer that started all this stuff off on Merion over six years ago. This stuff is remarkable and when one has the chance to carefully consider it all it's actually extremely funny too. But I'll tell you one thing; it looks like Macdonald is finally going to get all the credit he deserves for what he did for Merion and Philadelphia back in 1910.
MIke,
I don't know for a fact, but isn't there much more wetland type area at NGLA than Merion? This would dictate a larger purchase, no?
MIke,
They wouldn't fill in a low lying area if they didn't want to use it...but they might have to buy it if it were internal...like I said, I don't know NGLA, it was simply a thought as to why CBM bought 180 acres out there...we sure know you don't need 180 acres to build 18 holes, don't we?
Tom and David
With all of the beating up you two are performing on each other, you should know that all of this has resulted in people learning that McDonald was part of the creation of Merion, and that Hugh Wilson should not be honored with ALL of the credit.
So, in all of the early articles from different sources, why were CBM and Whigham not given more credit than being advisors ?
my gut feeling is that CBM/HJW advice would have been mostly about turf, construction, etc. given CBM's difficulties and learning during the actual construction and grassing of NGLA.
MIke,
I don't know for a fact, but isn't there much more wetland type area at NGLA than Merion?
This would dictate a larger purchase, no?
Jim,
Not really, and since there wasn't really an EPA back then my understanding is that they just filled in some of the low-lying areas.
Mike,
In addition to being flat out wrong, that's a disengenuous answer.
Jim didn't ask if the area was declared wetlands, he asked if there were wetland type areas, the kind which would make the land unsuitable or incapable of accomodating a golf course.
We know that the answer to Jim's inquiry is "YES, there were plenty of wetland like areas at NGLA"
Macdonald stated: "This property was little known and had never been surveyed.
Every one thought it more or less worthless.
It ABOUNDED IN BOGS AND SWAMPS...'
"In many places the land was impoverished.
These had to be topdressed.
Roughly speaking we have probably put some 10,000 loads of good soil, including manure, on the property."
And you're telling us that the properties were about the same, that they just filled in some low-lying areas ? ? ?
Mike, please, if you can't tell the truth, don't post.
They also used some for water hazards, such as 13 & 14.
How about at # 9, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18 ?
I originally meant to post this idea/comment on the NGLA thread, (too many related threads going on) but I've attached an aerial to that thread if you want to see the land configuration.
Why don't you study the aerial you posted before commenting on the golf course ? ;D
Phil,
Tillinghast also wrote that he saw "the plans" for Merion right in that same timeframe. I'm sure he also spoke to Macdonald when Big Mac was in town on April 19th to help the committee select the best of those plans the Committee had created, so yes, most definitely both men were quite familiar with the proposed holes for the new course.
Tillinghast also then wrote a course opening article for American Cricketer that made no mention of Mac and instead said that Hugh Wilson and the Committee "deserved the congratulatons of all golfers". Much have been some construction they did, huh? ::) ;D
As you know, he also wrote that Hugh Wilson "planned and developed" the course at Merion, and said he was a gifted architect.
Sounds like the best eye-witness in history to tell us exactly what happend, and guess what...he did! ;D
"Tom,
Is it possible that Lloyd owned HDC from the beginning of HDC's corporate establishment?"
Sully:
In my opinion, no it is not; not at all. We know now exactly who the owners were and their percentages and we know who the board of directors were too. I think you asked me something about the HDC recapitalization in 1910. I'll get to that a bit later.
Wayne and I did not lie about anything.
Of course you did. You claimed that the deed conclusively established that that Merion purchase the property in June in 1909. This was a lie. There is no way that any reasonable person could honestly claim that the deed conclusively established that Merion purchased the property on this date.
Not only that, but you concealed your lie by refusing to answer my questions about the transaction or to allow me to review the document. SAME AS YOU ARE DOING NOW. REFUSING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SOURCES AND CONCEALING THE SOURCES FROM REVIEW.
If you want to pretend it was not a lie, that is up to you. But lie or not, your statement had absolutely NO BASIS IN THE HISTORICAL RECORD, YOU KNEW IT, SO YOU HID THE HISTORICAL RECORD.
You claim that the deed conclusively proved that MERION PURCHASED the GOLF COURSE property in 1909.
1. MERION was not at all involved in the transaction.
2. The transaction did not at all involve the GOLF COURSE PROPERTY.
3. The deed does not even document a PURCHASE for value but a CONVEYANCE for nominal consideration of one dollar.
In other words, EVERY PART OF YOUR REPRESENTATION WAS ENTIRELY FALSE.
Your explanations, and post hoc rationalizations do not alter this or even address it. YOU WOULDN'T EXPLAIN OR ADDRESS YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AT THE TIME YOU MADE THEM, SO YOU OUGHT NOT TO HIDE BEHIND YOUR EXPLANATIONS NOW.
It doesn't matter who you guys guessed might have been involved, or what land you guys guessed might have been sold, or what you guys didn't even bother to check up on your guesses before your reached your conclusions, because:
1. YOUR ASSUMPTIONS WERE NOT BASED ON ANY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE DOCUMENT
2. YOU GUYS REFUSED TO EVEN TELL US THAT YOU WERE JUST GUESSING.
3. YOU GUYS REFUSED TO LET US REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS OR TO LET US REVIEW OR EVEN QUESTION THE DOCUMENTS.
As historic research goes, it does not get much more pathetic than this.Quote. . . the Haverford Development Company (HDC) as the party of the third part, which we thought may've been Lloyd and his MCC investors beginning to buy into this land using HDC as their vehicle.
THIS is your justification for claiming that the deed conclusively proved Merion bought the property? I stand corrected. It does get more pathetic.QuoteStill today we do not know who it was who first formed HDC or when.
This too is is absolutely pathetic. You had no basis for concluding as you did without first figuring it out. And there are many ways to figure it out, and all readily available to you. Here, let me help you. Again.
Haverford Development Company was incorporated on June 14, 1909. $100,000 par value.
Subscribers:
J. E. Tatnall (68 shares)
J. R. Connell (66 shares)
E. W. Nicholson (66 shares)
Board Members
J. Boyd
L. J. Kolb
J. R. Connell
E. W. Nicholson
A. M Butler
T. R. Patton
What else would you like to know about Haverford Development Company?
On December 1, 1910 they were planning to increase their capital stock from $100,000 to $300,000. Surely even you can figure out why.
By March 15, 1911 they had increased their capital stock to about $243,000.
Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company incorporated in on or about February 18, 1907,
Subscribers were George and Joseph Connell and John Dick. I believe George eventually became Mayor, and Joseph was the developer responsible for Oakmont and other Philadelphia suburbs.
My point is that this research is not rocket science. It takes less time than you spend typing one post. Yet you guys just guess at things instead of looking them up. Pathetic.
Still today we do not know who it was who first formed HDC or when.
This too is is absolutely pathetic. You had no basis for concluding as you did without first figuring it out. And there are many ways to figure it out, and all readily available to you. Here, let me help you. Again.
Haverford Development Company was incorporated on June 14, 1909. $100,000 par value.
Subscribers:
J. E. Tatnall (68 shares)
J. R. Connell (66 shares)
E. W. Nicholson (66 shares)
Board Members
J. Boyd
L. J. Kolb
J. R. Connell
E. W. Nicholson
A. M Butler
T. R. Patton
What else would you like to know about Haverford Development Company?
On December 1, 1910 they were planning to increase their capital stock from $100,000 to $300,000. Surely even you can figure out why.
By March 15, 1911 they had increased their capital stock to about $243,000.
| When | What | Source |
| Before July 1910 | ……. made possible by the action of certain members of the Club, who, with others, not members of the Club, have acquired a tract of 338 acres, under the name of Haverford Development Co. This property adjoins the grounds of Haverford College, between College Avenue and Ardmore Avenue, directly on the Philadelphia and Western Railway, with a station at either end of the property - a plan of the property is enclosed. | President Allen Evan's November 1910 letter to the membership |
| Before June 29, 1910 | Macdonald and Whigham visit Merion and discuss the various merits of the land Merion propose to buy | Macdonald’s letter to Lloyd |
| July 1, 1910 | Mr. Connell and his associates fully realize the benefit to the remainder of the property if a first class Golf Course could be established on the ground, and for that reason offer one hundred (100) acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the course, at $825.00 an acre It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres would be required for our purposes | Robert Lesley, chairman of the “Search Committee” report to "Special" board meeting of MCC |
| Nov. 1910 | …. a basic understanding (agreement in principle with HDC) that MCC would buy a certain amount of land for a certain amount of money out of a larger HDC tract from the HDC. | two letters between Nickelson of the HDC and president Evans of MCC |
| 3rd week of Dec. 1910 | Cuylers gets the MCC Golf Association Company set up with officers, with a certain amount of stock and registered. | NA |
| November 15th, 1910 | The Club has secured 117 acres at $726.50 an acre, or $85,000. (later amended to: “MCC had AGREED to buy (not yet bought)”.) | President Allen Evan's November 1910 letter to the membership |
| December 16, 1910 | 161 acres was transferred from HDC to a man by the name of Rothwell (probably a title and trust company employee) for $1.00. | Reflected in a deed dated Dec. 16, 1910. |
| December 19, 1910 | Three days later Rothwell transfered the property to Lloyd and his wife. …….. transfer of the 117 acres into the names Horatio G. Lloyd et ux for MCC that would become the majority of the world famous Merion East golf course; | Reflected in a deed dated Dec. 19, 1910 |
| TBD | The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee. | Francis reminisces in 1950 US Open Program |
| Before April 19, 1911 | "Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......" "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April 6th, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day… “ | MCC Minutes, April 19, 1911 |
| April 19,1911 | Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.………….. and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500 ( we have always referred to as the P&W railroad property …….. but the club wouldn't actually buy that land from the P&W Railroad ……. until over a half century later) | Thompson's board resolution |
| July 19, 1911 | Lloyd transferred 120.1 acres of his 161 acre Dec. 21, 1910 deed back to Rothwell who transferred it to the MCC Golf Association Company the same day, each time for $1.00 | July 21, 1911 deed |
Pat:
Clearly you have very little to no idea what is really going on here so it would probably serve this thread well if you would just refrain from those constant comments.
I don't think I'm as dense as you think I am.
Bryan isn't giving me anything and I'm only asking him how he thinks he is arriving at the process and results he is because it appears to be very similar to what I arrived at, and somewhat the way I arrived at it, that is reflected in posts #652, #656 and #670 (there may be others).
Then WHY won't you provide him with the Metes and Bounds that he's politely requested on numerous occassions ?
If you are really interested in this thread and subject you should start by very carefully reviewing those posts above from a number of days ago to see if you can understand them and what they are doing and apparently proving.
TE, they're asking for the FACTS, the METES and BOUNDS.
IF the FACTS undermine your position so be it.
IF the FACTS support your position so be it.
Just provide the FACTS that Bryan has repeatedly requested..... please.
If you have questions about them feel free to ask me.
I've asked you to provide the Metes and Bounds and I've asked you why you won't provide the metes and bounds.
Yet, you've answered neither.
The most interesting number seems to be the 18! Bryan was about double that some days ago but for most interesting reasons he has been working his way down towards it and just look at where he is now with the JW area!! THAT particular area, in my opinion, is the most important area of all because it not only appears to be the only boundary area this fix could have happened (given all the other factual occurences) but it is also the only boundary area between those two deeds that actually changed (and the reason for that is it was clearly designed to be flexible or elastic via the position Lloyd put himself in by taking that Dec. 19, 1910 deed into his own name). All the rest of the boundary lines on those two deeds remained the same from the beginning point on College Avenue to the corner point of the Eaton property and the middle of Ardmore Avenue. You can also take out area RE because no golf holes were ever considered in that section, and that allows you to run Merion's present (and in July 21, 1911) property line right to the intersection of Ardmore and Golf House Road. From then on back to the beginning point on College is the only dimensional area this fix (land swap) could have taken place, and it happens to be the entire delineation of Golf House Road! So we've isolated it and now all we need to do is measure its enclosure using the metes and bounds of two separate deeds! If we had a copy of one of those working topo contour maps the Wilson Committee was using in 1911 we could also measure off of that assuming it was in scale which it very likely was given the 117 acre understanding between HDC and MCC of Lloyd's 161 acre deed going in on Dec, 19, 1910 and the deed going out from him to MCCGA on July 21, 1911 that shows 120.1 acres for MCC.
That's great, but it doesn't explain why you WON'T provide Bryan with the metes and bounds.
Why won't you provide them ?
Most all the information in his timeline came from me anyway and I'm simply helping him refine it at the moment.
His timeline discards the ambiant noise and provides what I've been asking for for some time.
Now, help him further by providing the metes and bounds.
And, if you won't, tell us why you won't.
What are you afraid of ? Or, what are you hiding ?
I believe that two people coming at the same subject and problem from perhaps somewhat different perspectives but yet seemingly arriving ultimately at the same results and conclusions somewhat independent of one another is actually going to tell us all and show us all a remarkable story of how to go about analyzing a most interesting situation with clearly one piece of the puzzle missing which it probably always will be missing from our consideration and empirical analysis (the Wilson topo contour maps they obviously used to route and design that course in 1911 as well as how that proposed road ON THOSE TOPO CONTOUR MAPS was clearly limiting them and making it difficult to fit those last five hole in, as Francis said in his story).
That may be, but, you're still refusing to supply Bryan with the information he's requested.
You're willing to receive information from others but apparently unwilling to share the information solely in your possession.
THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
It's a form of logic using all the events and material in a timeline to come to what the X factor is, where it is, what it probably measured before the fix and after the fix as well as logically at least the timeframe of when that fix happened.
It would probably be very benefical for all following this thread if both you and Moriarty would allow me and Bryan Izatt to do this on our own without having irrelevent and unproductive comments from either of you which only wastes time and derails the process.
"ALLOW me and Bryan to do this on our own"
Are you kidding ?
You won't allow Bryan to pursue his quest because you're keeping the Metes and Bounds from him.
Don't you see the hypocrisy ?
Don't you see the absurdity of your position ?
You and perhaps Wayne want to orchestrate this to your conclusions, otherwise, you'd share the information requested with Bryan
You want to pursue a process under ONLY YOUR TERMS.
I'm not championing David's cause, I'm championing his efforts, and there's an enormous distinction that neither you nor Wayne understand.
Do yourself, and everyone else a favor. Supply Bryan with the Metes and Bounds and save Mike Cirba a trip to Media, PA.
Thanks.
JohnC:
Multiple sources, including Hugh Wilson's own account DO say Wilson's Committee was NOT formed until the beginning of 1911. Matter of fact, those multiple sources never talk about just Wilson, they all and always talk about Wilson and his ENTIRE committee!! None of them were appointed until the beginning of 1911.
David,
What do you think it means if Bryan comes up with the exact same numbers as TePaul WITHOUT having the Metes and Bounds, but by simply following the agreed-upon Timeline?
Would you see any significance to that??
"I've asked you to provide the Metes and Bounds and I've asked you why you won't provide the metes and bounds.
Yet, you've answered neither."
Because Pat, the way this is getting resolved, and it seems to be close to being resolved already with Bryan and me without metes and bounds is a whole lot more interesting for all of us than just measuring metes and bounds at this point.
TE, that's your opinion, which might not be shared by everyone you think.
While it's an interesting exercise to try to piece the compenent dimensions together, it would save everyone a lot of time and unnecessary reading if you'd just provide the Metes and Bounds.
What we will learn here doing it this way---eg the story this will tell us all doing it this way is how the unique circumstances of what happened at Merion in this entire timeline are going to show us how neither me or Bryan or even a professional surveyor is needed to measure metes and bounds to come to the exact acreage results.
That's NOT the object or focus of the discussion.
This isn't amateur hour at the Apollo.
This isn't an exercise or thread on how to survey or measure.
Cut through the B.S. and just give him the metes and bounds
The actual measurements using all the exact metes and bounds can be done later by Bryan or anyone else who can do what he does AND a professional surveyor using the exact metes and bounds and I guarantee you they will ALL show the same results that I came do some days ago and Bryan came to last night.
If that's the case, why withhold the Metes and Bounds ?
What's your reason for doing so ? To test Bryan's competence ?
I believe there is virtually no way they can't come to those same results given some pretty interesting events within the timeline we are using for this!
Again, that's YOUR opinion.
Give him the metes and bounds and lets get on with it.
I don't know Bryan from a hole in the wall, but, I trust his ability to measure, his objectivity and his integrity.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND GIVE HIM THE METES AND BOUNDS.
It is pretty cool how this is playing out between us; you'll see eventually I guess, that is if you really aren't as dense as I think you are. ;)
TE, I don't have time for games, I'm goal oriented, a "bring me the baby without the labor pains" type.
I don't want to see, "EVENTUALLY", I want to see now, and you're game playing is impeding that.
For starters you might begin by trying to understand what happened in that excercise depicted in posts #652, #656 and #670. From there you might try to understand how Bryan arrived at the results he produced on here last night! 8)
While I trust Bryan's ability, I'd rather he proceed with confirmed co-ordinates, the Metes and Bounds.
That eliminates margins of error.
Please, stop the silliness and give the info to him.
Your refusal to do so makes EVERYONE suspicious of your intent.
Everyone except Wayno that is. ;D
Sully,
That's a good question for Tom Paul and I have one for David Moriary, as well.
David,
If there is additional evidence that blueprints of the course existed prior to January 1911 that are included as part of the agricultural letters, and you think they prove that the course was routed prior to WIlson's involvement...
...then what the f*ck are you waiting for man? Let's see them!
Mike,
I hope you ask the same question of TEPaul when it comes to the Metes and Bounds, afterall, you did promise Bryan Izatt that you'd drive to Media, PA and obtain the readings for him. ;D
TEPaul could save you the trip, time and trouble by "letting us see them".
Like you said, what the fook is he waiting for ?
Mike Cirba,
You claim you understand what TEPaul is trying to prove with the metes and bounds. Great.
Can you specifically describe to us what he is trying to prove?
Because I really have no clue.
Thanks.
Mike Cirba,
You claim you understand what TEPaul is trying to prove with the metes and bounds. Great.
Can you specifically describe to us what he is trying to prove?
Because I really have no clue.
Thanks.
David,
You say you have proof that the course was routed and existed on blueprint prior to Wilson's involvement.
You've been at this for five years. YOU are the one challenging the history of this great course.
The burden of proof is your's.
Let's see it,.
Mike Cirba,
You claim you understand what TEPaul is trying to prove with the metes and bounds. Great.
Can you specifically describe to us what he is trying to prove?
Because I really have no clue.
Thanks.
David,
You say you have proof that the course was routed and existed on blueprint prior to Wilson's involvement.
You've been at this for five years. YOU are the one challenging the history of this great course.
The burden of proof is your's.
Let's see it,.
This, in a nutshell, is how ineffective this discussion has become. The answer doesn't even address the question.
Joe
Bryan:
Your timeline above is very good but on your first inclusion "Before July, 1910" you're implying that an arrangement with certain members of the club with the 338 acre HDC tract took place before July, 1910 and you are using as your source president Evan's circular to the membership of Nov. 1910. In that circular Evans does not say there was an arrangement with certain members of the club with HDC on the 338 acres before July, 1910. From other records from the club it does say that this arrangement was agreed to in a number of negotiations and conferences between Lloyd and Connell that appear to have culminated in late Oct or early Nov. 1910. At that point, Lloyd put the situation in front of the board, they considered it, approved it and then notified the membership of it. Simultaneously Lloyd sent out his own circular to the membership about the real estate opportunity.
Bryan;
I'm impressed. I do have a few minor questions but nevertheless go back and read my posts #652 and #656.
Look how close we are!!
You said above:
"Based on the information available, so far, I've plotted out the boundaries and calculated the areas of the plots of land we're interested in. The obvious caveat is that, without the metes and bonds from 1910 and 1911 (Tom), the plot is approximate."
It may still be approximate but I can tell you that you have now gotten the important and relevent acreage tracts (plots) and the total very close to what the actual metes and bounds determine them to be! Are you trying to say that you have actually used the metes and bounds to determine the acreages? Are you just teasing us along?
Tell me what you think you've learned or are learning from all this information taken together and I'll tell you what I think I've learned by that excercise contained in #652 and #656 that pretty much matches your post and drawing above. I think there may be a later post by me on this that explains a few other things about all this (the excercise contained in posts #652 and #656) even better. I'll see if I can find it.
Bryan:
By 1913 Merion could have added a few little pieces on the southwest boundary of the property but I'm not sure they had done that yet. I'll check the Merion deed and survey run to see. It would probably be better not to use 1913 but rather the total acreage when the deed was transfered from Lloyd to MCCGA in July 1911 and that deed shows a total acreage of 120.1, not 123.
Mike Cirba:
Are you beginning to understand what is going on here? It seems like Bryan and I are reaching almost identical results somewhat independent of one another and we are doing it not even using the metes and bounds on the entireties of those two important deeds that bookend this important timeline.
The reason for this is the unique event circumstances contained in this project's timeline that happen to be reflected in those two book-end deeds.
It looks like Bryan and I already have come to the same measurment results in those important areas that make up the totals. I will virtually guarantee you that either a professional surveyor or Bryan once the metes and bounds are totally measured will match the results Bryan and I arrived at.
Given some of the unique circumstances of this whole thing it appears there is virtually no way they can't all match and that would be pretty amazing considering we actually did it without measuring all of it.
"I've asked you to provide the Metes and Bounds and I've asked you why you won't provide the metes and bounds.
Yet, you've answered neither."
Because Pat, the way this is getting resolved, and it seems to be close to being resolved already I don't agree that it's resolved with Bryan and me without metes and bounds is a whole lot more interesting for all of us than just measuring metes and bounds at this point. I'm glad you find it "interesting". I just find it frustrating. What we will learn here doing it this way---eg the story this will tell us all doing it this way is how the unique circumstances of what happened at Merion in this entire timeline are going to show us how neither me or Bryan or even a professional surveyor is needed to measure metes and bounds to come to the exact acreage results. Tom, this is nonsensical. Why would anyone want to infer boundaries and acreages from "unique circumstances" and "timelines" when you could simply measure them from metes and bounds and know they are accurate. Do you enjoy trying to play puppet-master?
The actual measurements using all the exact metes and bounds can be done later by Bryan or anyone else who can do what he does AND a professional surveyor using the exact metes and bounds and I guarantee you they will ALL show the same results that I came do some days ago and Bryan came to last night. I believe there is virtually no way they can't come to those same results given some pretty interesting events within the timeline we are using for this!
It is pretty cool how this is playing out between us; you'll see eventually I guess, that is if you really aren't as dense as I think you are. ;)
For starters you might begin by trying to understand what happened in that excercise depicted in posts #652, #656 and #670. From there you might try to understand how Bryan arrived at the results he produced on here last night! 8)
David,
What do you think it means if Bryan comes up with the exact same numbers as TePaul WITHOUT having the Metes and Bounds, but by simply following the agreed-upon Timeline? The only number that is the same is the area of JW - 18 acres. It might mean that I guessed right. Or, that the RR map is really damn accurate. Or, that Tom can add acreages, knowing what the area of RE was. Or, that it was a fluke. Or, that the area of JW was really 18 acres.
Would you see any significance to that?? No.
Patrick,
I've told Tom Paul that I do understand the value in both him and Bryan arriving at the same conclusion without having the same set of data...I think it's important to see how that plays out. I'm glad that you and Tom understand the value, because I do not. >:(
I've also told Tom Paul that if this isn't resolved by Bryan by this weekend, I'll walk to freaking Media to get those prints to Bryan. Why would Tom want you to do that? In any event, I have another offer that I'm pursuing to get the metes and bounds, so you can put away your walking shoes for the moment.
Mike, Bryan and Sully:
Just to go back and review;
As I see this entire Francis land swap issue (the idea, the seeking of Lloyd's permission and the fix and approval) it has two distinct and perhaps somewhat interrelated questions to it;
1. When did it actually happened (did it logically have to be within a particular timeframe or not)?
2. Specifically WHERE (some defined area?) and HOW it happen (was it the exchange and purchase of the Thompson Resolution since there is not other boundary adjustment to this property in this timeframe?)?
Since nothing that was left that is available to us today specifically addresses those answers I think we just have to use ALL the material we know available to us surrounding this entire timeframe (June 1910 to July 1911) to determine what are the most logic answers to those questions.
Would you agree?
Since Tom and Wayne are ostensibly off on the search for the golden fleece (topo map) I thought I'd help out with this one. Of course, I'm not sure how accurate the roads are, or how useful it would be for determining acreages or land swaps? And, of course it's not signed by Francis or Wilson or anybody. :(
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionTopo.jpg)
Mike, Bryan and Sully:
Just to go back and review;
As I see this entire Francis land swap issue (the idea, the seeking of Lloyd's permission and the fix and approval) it has two distinct and perhaps somewhat interrelated questions to it;
1. When did it actually happened (did it logically have to be within a particular timeframe or not)?
2. Specifically WHERE (some defined area?) and HOW it happen (was it the exchange and purchase of the Thompson Resolution since there is not other boundary adjustment to this property in this timeframe?)?
Since nothing that was left that is available to us today specifically addresses those answers I think we just have to use ALL the material we know available to us surrounding this entire timeframe (June 1910 to July 1911) to determine what are the most logic answers to those questions.
Would you agree?
Mike Cirba,
You claim you understand what TEPaul is trying to prove with the metes and bounds. Great.
Can you specifically describe to us what he is trying to prove?
Because I really have no clue.
Thanks.
David,
You say you have proof that the course was routed and existed on blueprint prior to Wilson's involvement.
You've been at this for five years. YOU are the one challenging the history of this great course.
The burden of proof is your's.
Let's see it,.
This, in a nutshell, is how ineffective this discussion has become. The answer doesn't even address the question.
Joe
Joe Hancock,
I agree completely.
Especially since David's post to me that you copied above was in response to my asking him;
David,
If there is additional evidence that blueprints of the course existed prior to January 1911 that are included as part of the agricultural letters, and you think they prove that the course was routed prior to WIlson's involvement...
...then what the f*ck are you waiting for man? Let's see them!
I hope at this point Joe that you're unbiased enough to call out anyone on this thread who disengenously claims they have PROOF that will break this logjam and then purposefully diverts discussion elsewhere. ::)
Hasn't that been your modus operandi for some time ? ;D
So Mike, how many "wrongs" make a "right".
Why don't you start by answering the simple question David asked of you.
Thanks
"Are we at the point where we think a metes and bounds comparison of the 1910 Francis Deed and the 1928 Merion boundaries needs to be fleshed out?"
Mike:
Using a 1928 Merion property survey (metes and bounds) has no real relevence here and will be very distorting of the boundaries calculations of Merion East as numerous little pieces were added between the July 21, 1911 deed (120.1 acres) and 1928. If we want a real valid comparision of acreage we have to keep the excercise contained within the timeframe of Dec 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911.
"Are we at the point where we think a metes and bounds comparison of the 1910 Francis Deed and the 1928 Merion boundaries needs to be fleshed out?"
Mike:
Using a 1928 Merion property survey (metes and bounds) has no real relevence here and will be very distorting of the boundaries calculations of Merion East as numerous little pieces were added between the July 21, 1911 deed (120.1 acres) and 1928. If we want a real valid comparision of acreage we have to keep the excercise contained within the timeframe of Dec 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911.
Tom,
I can understand that. What would you propose? In other words, is there anything that can be gleaned from the 1910 deed as relates to the area along Golf House Road, particularly as relates to differences in the existing northwestern boundary as we know it today?
{EDIT} - Wait...I guess there really couldn't be cuz the road didn't exist yet and the purchase was for 161 acres.
Is there anything we can learn from that 1910 deed?
We could learn where the boundaries of the 161 acre and the 117 acre purchases were; and, therefore where the western boundary of the Johnson farm was; and, therefore, given the current location of the road, how much of the Johnson farm was given over to real estate; and, what other areas weren't given to MCC.
I've asked before, but no one has answered yet, do we know when the road was actually built? When it was built, did it have the same configuration as it does today? For whatever it is worth, College was opened in 1910.
Bryan,
The road exists in the 1911 photo I posted that shows the huge protective mound behind the 10th green as well as the raw, unbunkered 18th green and 14th tee.
From that pic, one can see the "bow-in" of the road down across from the clubhouse.
I'm not sure that helps nail it down, though.
Bryan:
That's the Haverford College land east of #16 that is the practice range. Merion leased that land from Haverford College to use as a range for close to thirty years before actually buying it. Today Merion G.C's total property is a bit over 150 acres.
Okay Mike, if you want full blame for for all these crazy tangents and theories then go ahead. But you and I both know that many of your theories were Wayne's originally. All this crazy misinformation and theory must have come from the Holy Flynn Bible, King Wayne's Version. If that is the case then that itself is pretty funny if you think about it.
And they are playing you. Why else would they only let you see part of the record.
Sully,
Does the initial selection of the 117 original acres as I identified it above make sense to you?
Compare the Johnson Farm property south of Ardmore Ave as well as the adjoning Dallas estate and now look at the land south of Ardmore Ave that is designated as part of the golf course on the 1910 plan.
Really looks like the "bought the land for the holes they designed", doesn't it? Sure.
Now look north of Ardmore Ave and see how that section of Johnson Farm was merely divided by a hypothetical boundary defined by an "approximate" road that purported to mark the divide between golf course and real estate land.
Do you see how simply and semi-arbitrarily they selected the land for the course?
Does it now make sense why that triangle of land appears on the approx. 1910 Land Plan, albeit running way too far north to College Ave.?
2. The swap mentioned in the April Board Minutes could not possibly refer to the Francis land swap unless the metes provided thus far are substantially off.
Jim,
Mike's theory is nonsense, as I explained to him in the NGLA thread. the boundaries were set according to the needs of the golf course.
1. Part of the Johnson property west of the course wasn't needed, and the boundary was change accordingly.
2. The Francis land swap area was not originally offered, but it was added.
3. The entire Dallas estate was added AFTER the offer for land was initially made, strongly suggesting that the reason that this land was purchased was that it was required for the course.
4. The RR property land behind the clubhouse was not offered either, but was added to the golf course at M&W's insistence.
5. Even the shape of the former Dallas Estate was altered to best suit the golf course.
So Mike, you can see that the borders of the course were not predetermined at all, but were determined according to the needs of the golf course.
The only boundary that remained for sure was PART of the eastern boundary, except for the RR property, and perhaps the southern boundary, but this is far from certain.
Mr. Moriarty:
Please answer my question in post #1240 unless you think that question should be ignored, dismissed or rationalized away too because it might reveal something about your understanding of all this you would prefer not to have revealed! ;)
"You've got the ball Tom.
Bring it out and we will see how much you know."
You're right I probably do. When I played pick up ball in the old days we generally didn't ask pipsqueaks into the game? Why? Because we knew they would inevitably get hurt. So now you're hurt like one of those pipsqueaks who never should've been in the game. If you want to learn something that you don't know it's better to just watch for a while and learn or maybe ask too. When you took on this preposterous Merion charade campaign of yours (with MacWood) years ago you actually admitted you didn't know much about it and you wanted to learn (so did he). Maybe next time you'll understand if you want to learn something come to the people first that know a lot more than you do. But that's not what you did is it or even wanted to do? Of course not because learning the truth about the architectural history of Merion was never your real interest. The only thing you (and MacWood) cared about is trying to embarrass the people who do know Merion. Apparently you must have thought that might give you two some credibility on here or whatever. It didn't and it never will.
Mike,
HDC owned 320 or so acres prior to buying the Dallas estate, why did they "need" to buy the 20 acre Dallas estate if they didn't know they could immediately sell it to Merion for the golf course?
Mike that is silly. If they expanded the course north of the road, they could have done so in a manner by which the the number of properties bordering the course would increase. Plus they still could have bought the Dallas estate for housing, and it would have given then even more lots directly bordering the course. Plus they could have started earlier, as opposed to waiting to clandestinely obtain the Dallas Estate.
What are you talking about? The course would be just as contiguous, but they would have more land along the course.
Never mind. I am sure that it will take another 60 posts for to understand how this could be.
Mike Cirba,
To be fair, you've been an obstructionist from day one (1).
You're certainly not a disinterested, impartial observer.
And, from time to time, you've engaged in the same conduct as TEPaul and David Moriarty, albeit, choosing to solely chastize David.
When Jim Sullivan, Bryan Izatt and others attempt to redirect the "TRIO" toward civility and scholarship, it lasts for all of one hour.
Please, stop making posts you KNOW are disengenuous and help TEPaul and David pursue information that would be valuable to the discovery process, irrespective of whose side is aided/assisted.
Media, PA should be your first stop.
If I lived closer, I would go myself.
Thanks
As for my insults of you, you've earned them with your dishonsty and disingenuous posts. Like now. Do you really not understand how you could get more course side property by expanding west, on the north side of ardmore avenue (into the optioned land) and by using the Dallas estate for housing?
Mike,
I may be biased, but, I don't think I'm qualified to be in your category.
In fact, I find myself light years behind you ;D
As to moderators, I'd be content to let Jim Sullivan and Bryan Izatt conduct the thread.
Mike,
Asking TEPaul to be a moderator is like putting the Fox in charge of the Hen house.
How can you even suggest that ?
It's not the dumbest thing you've suggested, but, it comes close. ;D
As for my insults of you, you've earned them with your dishonsty and disingenuous posts. Like now. Do you really not understand how you could get more course side property by expanding west, on the north side of ardmore avenue (into the optioned land) and by using the Dallas estate for housing?
David,
All that idea does is propagate the problem of Ardmore Avenue intersecting through a greater part of the course.
While Richard Francis and the Merion committee may have thought the road made a fine hazard, I'm sure even those novices knew that having to deal with it on more than three holes bordered on overkill.
It would also segregate the Dallas estate from the rest of the planned housing community, and little things like water, sewer, electric and other things we take for granted today.
Mike,
Asking TEPaul to be a moderator is like putting the Fox in charge of the Hen house.
How can you even suggest that ?
It's not the dumbest thing you've suggested, but, it comes close. ;D
Patrick,
I'm not suggesting Tom Paul to be the moderator.
I'm suggesting that a new thread is started that features Sully moderating a discussion between Tom Paul and Bryan Izatt.
The usual suspects can't weigh in, and that includes me and you.
Others can weigh in, but with questions only. No editorial commentary or introduction of "facts".
If Sully thinks someone crosses that bound, he tosses them. No questions, no second chances.
What do you think?
Mike,
To be honest, I wouldn't consider the format until after TEPaul supplies Bryan with the Metes and Bounds.
We're arguing nonsense.
No "special land selected by a previously routed golf course" uses historical property boundary lines around the entire property except in the one instance where a "approximate" boundary is drawn to delineate between the proposed golf course land and a proposed new real estate development.
Mike,
Let's get the Metes and Bounds, let Bryan do his calculations, present his conclusion and see where that takes us.
Bryan,
The road exists in the 1911 photo I posted that shows the huge protective mound behind the 10th green as well as the raw, unbunkered 18th green and 14th tee.
From that pic, one can see the "bow-in" of the road down across from the clubhouse.
I'm not sure that helps nail it down, though.
Mike,
Could you post the picture again. I'm not sure which one you are referring to. Your 1911 date seems to conflict with Tom's 1913-14 date.
Tom,
So, the road was built after the course was designed, built and opened for play?
"Are you trying to say that you have actually used the metes and bounds to determine the acreages? Are you just teasing us along?"
Bryan:
Sorry, you put a lot of posts on here today. It takes some time to get to all of them. ...........................
..................................
Tom, please, please tell me you were being ironic here, Mr. 35,680 posts and counting.
Sure. The excercise should prove the only specific area WHERE the land swap could have happened, and it should explain the only timeframe within which it could've logically happened.
If you would like to have any details of why that is very likely the case then ask someone else to ask me or perhaps Bryan, Moriarty! Or alternatively just leave Bryan and I alone on a thread dedicated to this and just watch without either of us having to deal with your attempts to sidetrack our discussion.
Can you do that and if not, why not? Is there something you think you stand to lose with Bryan Izatt and I having a discussion between us without your constant crap?
If you can't or won't do that then I will suggest to him that we take it private while we resolve it so we won't have to deal with your distractions, deceptions, insults, and just general obstructionist riff-raff which you've been engaging in on here for years now!
PS:
By the way, these couple of threads really do flow by quick and I just noticed a few things you said on the "Merion Memories" thread today.
How you answered Peter Pallotta's incredibly good post #189 with your post #192 shows that you aren't worth a damn when it comes to any attempt at a construcive discussion (and that includes your responses to the likes of Niall Carlton and Bradley Anderson and a few others I will name later) but some of the other posts of yours to Cirba and a few others including about me if not off this website by sunrise tomorrow are going to take you off GOLFCLUBATLAS.com permanently.
I will guarantee that!
Bryan:
I just sent you and IM so perhaps we could speak and get to know each other a bit and talk about this entire Francis issue and potential solutions to understand it. Do you have a problem with that and if so why? If you're concerned about your dime I will call you by all means/
But I can sure tell you that your post #1183 is not exactly serving to impress me about you. What is that one about? There's a lot going on and flowing by on these threads and I'm sorry I can't or don't give you my absolute undivided attention.
Mike,
HDC owned 320 or so acres prior to buying the Dallas estate, why did they "need" to buy the 20 acre Dallas estate if they didn't know they could immediately sell it to Merion for the golf course?
If Bryan Izatt wants to work with me on another thread to try to resolve this Francis issue via an excercise I propose to its conclusion I will be more than happy to then give him any metes and bounds he wants. Tom, your prerequisite that I undertake your exercise (whatever it is), before you give me the metes and bounds is not acceptable to me. I'd prefer to complete my own exercise and see what it tells me, and the rest of you, if anything.
But if you come on that thread David Moriarty, it will be over just like that. If I can't have a conversation on this with Bryan Izatt on here without your constant sidetracking interference I will take it private with him if he will go through this excercise with me to its conclusion, then----once again----he can have all the metes and bounds he wants to measure whatever he wants to measure. I hope he can then figure out what it really means in relation to this Francis land swap, how it happened and when (within a timeframe).
Mike Cirba,
To be fair, you've been an obstructionist from day one (1).
You're certainly not a disinterested, impartial observer.
And, from time to time, you've engaged in the same conduct as TEPaul and David Moriarty, albeit, choosing to solely chastize David.
When Jim Sullivan, Bryan Izatt and others attempt to redirect the "TRIO" toward civility and scholarship, it lasts for all of one hour.
Please, stop making posts you KNOW are disengenuous and help TEPaul and David pursue information that would be valuable to the discovery process, irrespective of whose side is aided/assisted.
Media, PA should be your first stop.
If I lived closer, I would go myself.
Thanks
Patrick,
Agreed, and I would say the same about you so we're even.
Please see my suggestion on the other thread on how we move this forward.
I told Bryan I'd get those prints for him, but he told me he had enlisted another source.
I asked him again after he said that, so if he still needs someone to make the trip, I volunteer.
It's way past time to wrap this thing up.
Mike,
Asking TEPaul to be a moderator is like putting the Fox in charge of the Hen house.
How can you even suggest that ?
It's not the dumbest thing you've suggested, but, it comes close. ;D
Patrick,
I'm not suggesting Tom Paul to be the moderator.
I'm suggesting that a new thread is started that features Sully moderating a discussion between Tom Paul and Bryan Izatt.
I can't speak for Jim, but I'm not really interested in a "discussion" with Tom. I'd be overwhelmed by about 35 to 1 in posts and 1,000 to 1 in words. Besides, it's too early to have a discussion. Whatever I can "prove", if anything, is contingent on the metes and bounds. The rest is just continual conjecture over the same inexact information. As to cage matches, with a heavy smoker, surely, you jest. ;D
The usual suspects can't weigh in, and that includes me and you.
Others can weigh in, but with questions only. No editorial commentary or introduction of "facts".
If Sully thinks someone crosses that bound, he tosses them. No questions, no second chances.
What do you think?
Patrick,
I don't understand what you guys are afraid of?
Of getting sucked into this black hole of a game the three of you are playing.
Bryan:
I just sent you and IM so perhaps we could speak and get to know each other a bit and talk about this entire Francis issue and potential solutions to understand it. Do you have a problem with that and if so why? If you're concerned about your dime I will call you by all means/
Tom, I'd prefer not to. I'd prefer to try to remain as neutral as I can. I haven't talked to David about this, nor to Mike. I would prefer to treat all three of you equally.
But I can sure tell you that your post #1183 is not exactly serving to impress me about you. What is that one about? There's a lot going on and flowing by on these threads and I'm sorry I can't or don't give you my absolute undivided attention. Not sure which post you are talking about; #1183 is one of Jim's. If it's #1281, that's just my sense of humour. I have trouble keeping up with your posting volume. I saw irony in your post. No harm meant.
Bryan,
As of July 1910 they only owned the Johnson farm (of those you mentioned) The rest had been secured by options, except for the Dallas Estate.
The dallas estate was purchased in the fall of 1910 and it appears it was done on the sly so as to get it for a cheap price. My essay addresses this, but assumes that Barker did not include it in his plan, but I have since reconsidered this and now I am not so sure.
I can send you more accurate dates of these various purchases if you want.
"Jim,
Maybe 15 pages ago, I summarized the purchase of the 338 acres. Nobody has disputed this (yet). The purchase seems to have occurred before July 1910 and seems to have included the Dallas Estate(see my timeline post). But nothing stays the way it seems for very long here.
"In the beginning G_d created 338 acres from 5 different plots. To provide one starting fact (I hope, think, conjecture, hypothesize .....) can we agree, that the 338 acres (not 330 as stated in the newspaper article, man, these guys were no better with numbers than we are) was comprised of:
Johnson Farm 140 137/1000 ac.
Dallas Estate 21 ac.
Taylor Estate 56 ac.
Davis Estate 58 ac.
Connor Estate 63 ac. (north of College, 67 ac. in 1908, but two plots totaling 4 ac. sold (speculation on my part) to Land Title and Trust Co. before 1913)
Total 338 137/1000 ac."
OH MY GOD!!!!
Jim Sullivan
Sr. Member
Offline
Posts: 6535
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1238 on: Yesterday at 03:50:09 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: DMoriarty on Yesterday at 03:40:02 PM
2. The swap mentioned in the April Board Minutes could not possibly refer to the Francis land swap unless the metes provided thus far are substantially off.
Why not?
They didn't buy some special areas of land for the already routed golf course. They bought land, and then routed the golf course.
Mike, when you bought your house, did you buy the house, and then figure out later whether your family would fit in it? Or did you figure that out first? ;)
FOR THE RECORD:
The boundary lines (metes and bounds) of the property that would become Merion East golf course was completely identical on the Dec. 19, 1910 deed to Lloyd and the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA from the beginning point at College Ave all the way to a point at the corner of the Eaton property and Ardmore Ave (next to the present 2nd green). And that is a provable fact.
"2. The land swap along For reasons explained above, the land swap along the border of the Dallas Estate was most likely contemplated in the original plan and carried out informally until the land changed hands again, thus necessitating the formalization of the swap. (I explained this above.)"
MikeC:
It looks like this fellow's constant deceptiveness has taken on a whole new meaning. Do you have any idea at all what he is trying to say there? Is that thing even a sentence? What language does this man use? Is it the language most call "Doubletalk?"
"Okay, correct me if I am wrong, but if the final boundaries of MCC East Course were identical to the 12-19-1910 Deed, then doesn't it prove David's point that the land swap and final routing were prepared prior to that date?"
Mr Jeffrey Esq:
Have another cuppa coffee, open your eyes a bit wider and then reread what I said. The boundaries on the two deeds were identically from the beginning point to a particular point (which was next to the 2nd green). That was something like an identical boundary run of maybe 5,000+ thousand yards! From there they were altered. The exercise is to isolate the only area on the property they could've been altered in that Francis land swap fix between Dec. 1910 and July 1911. We've done that now-----eg Golf House Road. Now, if you've gotten that figured out go back to sleep my little Munchkin.
Even the importance of Hugh Wilson's mention of 117 acres for the golf course on Feb. 1, 1911 has been overlooked, ignored or not understood at all in the context of when the Francis land swap idea had to have happened AFTER!!
Mike,
More boggling is your contention that the three acres of railroad land was "needed" just to add acres with no consideration of putting a golf hole down there...remember they had 200+ acres to the west if they "just needed a certain amount of acres"...
"BTW, if you go to Mike's first post in this thread, it will tell you who first came up with the notion that the land swap was only a redelineation of Golf House Road! It wasn't you! ;D"
Mr. Jeffrey Brauer, Esq, Sir:
Really? Well aren't I the silly rabbit?! I thought I came up with that idea a year or so ago. Who did come up with it?
Which is it Tom, did they have zero idea of what they were going to do in 1910 or maybe some idea...you just said both in that last post...
...and that they began routing and designing on it beginning in early 1911 and they continued that process with numerous different courses and then five different plans throughout the next three months of the beginning of 1911.
Mike,
Why do you say that the report which the Merion Board considered and embodied "Mr. Macdonald's letter" received only one page, or as you put it,"the Macdonald single-page letter...."?
The copy of the minutes on this in your post makes NO MENTION of a SINGLE-Page letter, just a letter. Anything, including Barker's routing, could have been attached (I'm NOT saying it was!) The minutes simply say they considered what CBM sent them. Clearly it doesn't state that they paid any attention to it other than refering to it, nor does it say that it rejected out-of-hand what he wrote; point of fact it clearly says the opposite and praised by CBM & Whigham for their work at NGLA.
Now I may have missed a post along the way where it clearly stated and was proven correct that the CBM letter was a single-page and nothing else, but I can't find it. That is why I think you need to justify that statement for accuracy purposes, that is all...
After the visit of these gentlemen Mr. Macdonald wrote to a member of the Committee, expressing the views of himself and Mr. Whigham, as to what could be done with the property. The report, as made to the Board, embodied Mr. Macdonald's letter, but it was not written for publication. We do not, therefore, feel justified in printing it. We can property say, however, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the Committee based its recommendation largely upon THEIR opinion.
Mr. Connell and his associates fully realize the benefit to the remainder of the property if a first class Golf Course could be established on the ground, and for that reason, offer one hundred (100) acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the Course[/color], at $825 an acre, which we understand is about one half the average cost of the whole tract; this offer is conditional upon the property being promptly put in shape for a golf course.
It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120 acres) would be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it woudl be a wise purchase.
David would also have us believe that Merion specifically bought not 100, but "nearly 120" because of a routing done by Macdonald and Whigham that needed this much land exactly...
Isn't that in harmony with the above quote which you posted ?
Yet, here we have the Site Committee recommending to the Merion Board to purchase the land based simply on the Macdonald single-page letter....
That's not true, that's merely YOUR narrow minded view.
You would have us believe that M&W were deaf, dumb and blind during their visit, that they had NO communication with the people from Merion. How likely is that ? Mike, please stop jumping to illogical conclusions.
NOT ON ANY PRECONCEIVED ROUTING THAT TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO THEN!"
How do you know that M&W didn't offer a routing when they visited ?
If Macdonald and Whigham had done a routing at this time...one land that required "almost 120 acres", SURELY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ATTACHED....OR EVEN MENTIONED!
Like the TOPO map ? ? ?
Just because something wasn't attached, doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Your logic is flawed beyond description.
David, Sully, Patrick, Shivas...do you still want to contend that Merion bought the EXACT PROPERTY they needed based on an existing Macdonald and Whigham routing of the property??!?
I've NEVER contended that.
Perhaps your reading comprehension skills have been skewed by your bias.
Could you quote or cite for me where you allege that I made that contention ?
If not, would you please ADMIT that you're WRONG, AGAIN. Thanks.
What it may substantiate is the time line with respect to the routing.
The letter is dated June 29, 1910, long before Wilson gets involved.
This exchange of information PROVES THERE WAS NO GOLF OCURSE ROUTING PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE and it also PROVES THAT MERION DID NOT BUY LAND BASED ON THAT SUPPOSED ROUTING!
It doesn't prove either of those things Mike.
It's the conclusion that you WANT to draw
If NO concept of a routing existed, why would CBM write the following ?
"The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House."
Even the importance of Hugh Wilson's mention of 117 acres for the golf course on Feb. 1, 1911 has been overlooked, ignored or not understood at all in the context of when the Francis land swap idea had to have happened AFTER!!
Tom,
Yes, I'm sure the chairman of the Construction Committee, or whatever it was called, had no idea how much acreage he was working with.
Mike, you must be kidding.
Why do you make these wild statements absent any substantiation other than your INHERENT bias ?
You know, if the true number was 117 and he said 120, I could think perhaps he might just be rounding up.
It's amazing how you continue to gloss over disparities when it suits your cause
But to already own 120 acres, to say 117 is just UNFATHOMABLE.
Not if the parcels were purchased seperately.
Especially, if as David suggests, the time when they only had 117 acres was WAY BEFORE WILSON WAS EVEN INVOLVED! ::) ::) ::)
Hopefully, someone will put everything documented in chronlogical order.
That would help in determining what happened.
If it keeps raining like this, we could have that project completed in ten days.
If the sun comes out, perhaps ten months.
Mike,
Considering Merion didn't buy anything until the second half of 1911 I think it's a safe bet they bought only exactly what they needed.
On a related note, I wonder why they hesitated to publish CBM's letter? My guess is it had more in it than a little general soil advice, perhaps critiquing fellow gca Barker for his one day job, or perhaps mentioning the alternate site, or something else they didn't feel comfortable talking about. Since the actual letter says nothing about not being published, its not hard to imagine old CBM telling them personally that he would write a letter, but its not for publication, and they would all know why.
Yes, I know its tough to add even more speculation to this thread, but what the heck.
***EDIT*** I just went back and see that Bryan Izatt measured the land of the Johnson Farm north of Ardmore Ave. but west of Golf House road at 22 acres. The Johnson Farm itself was just over 140 acres, which means if the original HDC offer was simply for the portions south of Ardmore Avenue, and the northeast section above Ardmore Avenue, that would be around 118 acres total.
I'm not sure if this is relevant, but it is certainly possible that this is the portion of land M&W were asked to consider and report on. (drawn crudely in black)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3599777689_f873192f21_o.jpg)
"How long do you think it will take for the others to reach the same conclusion? ;) ;D"
Michael:
I have absolutely no idea but that was why I wanted to go through that exercise step by step with Bryan Izatt. Had we been able to do that I believe a lot of people would and could begin to see what it means.
Congratulations, by the way!
"How long do you think it will take for the others to reach the same conclusion? ;) ;D"
Michael:
I have absolutely no idea but that was why I wanted to go through that exercise step by step with Bryan Izatt. Had we been able to do that I believe a lot of people would and could begin to see what it means.
Actually, the more I noodle on that, the more sense it makes, especially with the timing of bringing in the Dallas Estate land right around the time of that concept drawing. They took until November 1910, to get the basic property outline, being quiet about it all so that the Dallas Estate deal went down easier and cheaper.
That concept plan was drawn quickly and with the flexibility to change Golf House Road between HDC and MCC. That road on the 11-10-10 rendering/concept plan was drawn right after the Dallas acquistion, SPECIFICALLY AND PERHAPS ONLY TO to bring the acreage back down by the 21 acres of the newly acquired Dallas Estate, as a general map for the members to vote on and finalize a LAND DEAL, but was not intended to be a final plan.
As they routed the course in early 1911, they ran into the problems of not enough width in the existing triangle, and adjusted it along the road. However, when all was said and done, they needed yet another 3 acres. That one still troubles me a bit though, but maybe not that much. It wouldn't be the first or the last time a golf course routing simply needed to squeeze on the real estate a bit and developers usually get pretty uptight about giving up land for golf. I think that was the case because of the extra cost involved in buying those three extra acres.
Mike,
Well that simple picture is worth 1000 words, or in this case, perhaps 1000 TePaul posts.......
One last question then. It would stand to reason that the road in that Nov 1910 post WOULD in fact show that green parcel to be 21 acres and the final reconfiguration of Golf House Road would show it to be 18 acres, no?
Knowing that it was a concept plan, isn't it still quite possible that it was to scale and wouldn't the MCC portion as depicted show as 117 acres and not 120?
Knowing that it was a concept plan, isn't it still quite possible that it was to scale and wouldn't the MCC portion as depicted show as 117 acres and not 120? Did Bryan or anyone try to get the MCC acreage off that concept plan? Or, do you figure it just wasn't drawn with any accuracy at all?
That is possible, although if drwawn up as part of a presenttion of a plan to vote on buying property, it would seemingly match the acres to be bought, even with the proviso that land swaps were going to occur.
"Some people will probably think you fed me the answers, and some will certainly argue that."
Michael:
I figure I fed everybody the answers in posts #652, 656 and 670. That was about two weeks ago right? I know this stuff isn't easy to understand but that's why I keep saying, with a situation like this one with Merion which sure was pretty unusual all the way around you just have to know the details-----ALL OF THEM or you can't come to that kind of exercise in those posts. I never measured anything; I never tried to, I just kept backing some numbers in and out given other unique ramifications and facts. At first I wondered if it was nothing other than just a couple of coincidentally similar incremental number and then I realized it really is the answer. It's no different than taking a number of facts (givens) and just solving for what the X factor is or has to be----in this case to get back to a couple of given and known and factual totals.
At some point, someone decides that the Dallas Estate would make a logical extension. Almost certainly someone is starting to realize the limitations of the existing property for golf and that gaining more east/west real estate south of Ardmore Avenue is going to be necessary. HDC completes the purchase for it in early November, 1910.
Jeff,
Here is the letter that went out with the November 15, 1910 Land Plan.
Mike,
This letter states that a committee found the land and reported such to the Board in July, 1910 and that the club went ahead and purchased the land PRIOR to November 15, 1910
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3601175654_9689677e52_b.jpg)
The 3 ADDITIONAL acres that were purchased on April 19th, 1911 (to create the final total of 120.1 acres that was finally turned over to MCC in July 1911) were THE FRANCIS LAND SWAP and resulted from the need for a bit more acreage along Golf House Road and had nothing to do with the railroad land.
Case solved! ;D
Not quite.
If Wilson doesn't become involved until 1911, it appears that the club discovered the land in July, 1910 and acquired it PRIOR to
November 15, 1910.
Weren't the three additional acres the ones CBM recommended purchasing ?
Why is this letter being produced at this late date, and where is the balance of the letter ?
I thought adding this article from Tillinghast in the 1934 US Open article might be appropriate for this thread;
Why are you so willing to accept what AWT said in 1934, but unwilling to accept what Whigham said in 1939 ?
Especially since Whigham was intimately involved and Tillinghast wasn't.
I guess you only present and champion articles/statements that support your position.
"Hopefully, someone will put everything documented in chronlogical order.
That would help in determining what happened."
Patrick:
MY GOD, it's so amazing that you would say something that dumb at this point. That's all we've been doing is putting actual recorded facts in documented CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. That is what this TIMELINE thread is all about.
I've never seen a post that chronolgocially outlines the facts, have you.
I'm asking that one post list the indisputable FACTS, chronologically.
To date, that HASN'T been done.
You are just so notoriously light on research and understanding the details of it you're just a waste of time on here. That remark of yours is incredible, and it shows you obviously don't read these posts because you sure don't understand what they've said and what's going on here!
What the remark shows is your lack of reading comprehension skills
Jim,
I have the rest of the letter but am en route to play golf...I'll post it later.
Also, if you look at the 117 acres available on the original Johson Farm land less the Dallas Estate it seems to me due to the dimensions and narrowness that you wouldn't be able to get many holes in there without the addition of the Dallas Estate.
That is an observation, but one supported by the timing of events.
Sure thing...as soon as I get home from finally playing some golf this evening.
If nothing else, I believe the entire disagreement has been distilled down to this, as it seems that even Patrick Mucci agrees that the only remaining point of contention that would lead one to reasonably believe that anyone but Hugh Wilson routed and designed Merion is simply the tiiming and location of the Francis Land Swap.
That is incorrect.
The "timing" of the land swap could ONLY prove that Wilson DIDN'T route Merion.
The "timing" cannot prove that he did.
I know you do; you've said that a number of times. Apparently some others think it is preposterous too. No problem there at all, except all the factual records from MCC point to the fact they just felt they had enough land to build a good 18 hole golf course on (don't forget Macdonald told them so in June 1910 on what appears to have been somewhat less ground) and that they began routing and designing on it beginning in early 1911 and they continued that process with numerous different courses and then five different plans throughout the next three months of the beginning of 1911.
So it really doesn't matter how preposterous you think it is that they did it that way because the MCC records clearly show that is the way they did it.
How, specifically, do the MCC records clearly show that that is the way they did it ?
And then one needs to add to that there just isn't anything at all that points to anything finalized with a course or courses before that.
I don't think any of us are saying they had zero idea in 1910 what they would do out there on 117 acres for a golf course when the began routing and designing in the beginning of 1911 only that they did not begin the designing process until the beginning of 1911. That's what the record clearly SHOWS and I for one see no reason to dismiss it and not believe it.
TEPaul,
Doesn't it seem counter intuitive that if they had the land picked out as of July 1910 and purchased it prior to November 15, 1910 that they wouldn't have have begun the routing process until early 1911 instead of sometime between July 1910 and November 15, 1910 ?
I mean, seriously, any joker can take some golf club's historical record and just try to throw it all out as mistaken and wrong when it has never been questioned at any time in a century by anyone and then try to supplant it with a bunch of hypotheticals and conjecture and speculation by trying to torture the hell out of parts of some remarks that some involved back then made years later but what is the point of that really?
What's the value of it unless people on here just want to debate endless on a bunch of "WHAT IFS?"
The answer to your question/statement lies within the context of the "discovery process."[
We KNOW that the club's historical record was WRONG when it came to Wilson's trip abroad.
Are you suggesting that we accept that error as a factual facet of the club's historical record ?
If that element of the club's historical record is in error, is it possible that other elements of the club's historical record are in error ?
When only one party has access to the "records" and that party tells us what the the "records" say, based on their interpretation of the documentation they've reviewed, should the other party/ies accept that interpretation as The Gospel ?
Academic review and transparency are an integral part of the process in determining the veracity of the "historical record", not sequestering the information/documentation.
Come on Patrick; If you're going to take part in this discussion get your facts and details straight.
MCC didn't actually purchase anything until July 21. 1911!!!
They had an agreement to buy 117 acres in Nov. 1910,
TEPaul,
The letter below, which Mike Cirba posted, says just the opposite.
It states that they HAD secured the land PRIOR to November 15, 1910, and that they had chosen that land as early as July, 1910.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3601175654_9689677e52_b.jpg)
Lloyd bought 161 acres in Dec. 19, 1910 with the ability to move boundary lines for the golf course.
The letter states that the club had ALREADY secured the land prior to November 15, 1910
After the course was routed and designed with a boundary adjustment by Francis' idea the final plan was approved by the board in April 1911, they went into construction and Lloyd transfered the land to MCCGA on July 21, 1911.
Are you telling me that the above letter is a fraud or grossly inaccurate ?
"We KNOW that the club's historical record was WRONG when it came to Wilson's trip abroad."
Once again, Patrick. THAT story did not even happen until 50-60 years AFTER 1910 and 1911. It makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE to what actually happened in 1910 and 1911.
That's nonsense, and, it doesn't matter WHEN it happened, it happened, it became part of Merion's Historical Record.
Thus, the historical record was wrong.
"If Wilson doesn't become involved until 1911,"
Where did you get that FACT, Patrick; From Moriarty's essay?!? ::) ??? ;)
I think I got that FACT from Mike Cirba who stated that Wilson didn't join the committee until early 1911.
Is that correct or incorrect ?
If it's incorrect, what's the official date he joined the committee ?.
Personally, David, I agree that it was hatched as soon as CBM visited the property, but purposely not discussed to keep the price down. CBM could certainly see (as could some of the committee members, perhaps) that the little leg between Dallas Estate and Ardmore Ave was useless for golf, being less than one hole wide and long.
Just because CBM didn't put it in the letter, doesn't mean it wasn't discussed on site as he was giving general advice, including, BTW design advice (contrary to the ideas of some) because hole lengths were included in the letter. I doubt he did a routing at that point or it might have referenced it, and because the letter returned so quickly (2 days)
And, frankly, from July to November isn't that much time to negotiate an option for the land, set a price, etc. Sure, Dallas may have wanted to sell and took the first offer, but it usually doesn't work that way. I believe that would be especially true because it was noted how fast land was selling in that area and that MCC had to act now while prices were still affordable. I am betting there was some negotiation, and even some time used in preparing the proper paperwork before the option was finalized in Nov.
I guess you could label most of the above speculation, which is what most of this thread (the non argumentative parts) is. Or, interpretation if it sounds more polite!
***EDIT*** That westernmost portion of Johnson Farm land south of Ardmore Avenue measures approximately 320 feet wide and 650 feet long, which surely would have been wide enough to accommodate two holes.
"No matter what was going on, there is no way these guys agreed to purchase 117 acres of land if they didnt already having a course chosen. To do so would have been foolish."
That is a factually inaccurate statment! If it is to be considered factually accurate some FACTS are going to need to be produced to support it. It does not remotely pass as factual support that someone like David Moriarty THINKS it would've been foolish that those guys agreed to purchase (an agreement to purchase is definitely NOT the same thing as a PURCHASE of land (Title and Deed)) before creating a routing and design plan for on something similar to that land.
"I guess you could label most of the above speculation, which is what most of this thread (the non argumentative parts) is. Or, interpretation if it sounds more polite!"
Jeffrey:
While that post my seem logical to you or to any of us, it still is complete speculation. There is absolutely no factual information whatsoever to support it.
Furthermore, MCC's own board records do say that the only person negotiating with HDC between July and early November 1910 was Horatio Gates Lloyd! It even states those those negotiations took place at a number of meetings and a few conferences between Lloyd and Connell (of HDC).
Mike:
To go even further, there is not much question to me that this entire thing in that area involving HDC, Lloyd, Lloyd purchasing the beginnings of Allgates across the street from the HDC and Lloyd acting on behalf of MCC was a multi-pronged thing that had to happen pretty swiftly. Now I am beginning to see that there may've been movement on land on the southwestern corner of the Merion East property at the bottom of the L perhaps preceding or simultaneous to all this in early to mid 1910 from some people who were either on the board of directors of HDC or stockholders. There's even one who was a member of MCC and would become a Congressman. I'm speaking particularly of Kolb (Director of HDC) and Wilson (who was a MCC member who would become a US Congressman)
"The letter below, which Mike Cirba posted, says just the opposite.
It states that they HAD secured the land PRIOR to November 15, 1910, and that they had chosen that land as early as July, 1910."
Patrick:
The letter mentioned does not say MCC purchased land from HDC in Nov. 1910; it says they had secured the land which means they had an agreement with HDC to buy 117 acres. MCC would not actually purchase land until July 21, 1911, and at that time they (MCCGA) took title to 120.1 acres (an ADDITIONAL 3 acres) out of a larger lot (161 acres) Horatio Gates Lloyd had purchased (essentially for MCC) on Dec. 19, 1910.
TEPaul,
You can't refute the written words from Merion.
They had SECURED the land.
Now you've told us that you were a real estate broker in Pennsylvania.
When someone states that they HAVE SECURED land, that's past tense and indicative of the fact that they are in control of that land, either through deed or option.
"That's nonsense, and, it doesn't matter WHEN it happened, it happened, it became part of Merion's Historical Record.
Thus, the historical record was wrong."
It matters WHEN it happened if anyone is going to try to make some case that Wilson going abroad in 1912 instead of 1910 had some influence over what Wilson and his committee did in 1910 and 1911 as far as routing and designing Merion East.
You've conveniently substituting and confusing the issues.
# 1 The historical record WAS WRONG and REMAINS WRONG today.
Unless, you're conveniently forgetting that Ulrich told you that Merion has yet to correct this error ?
# 2 We've been told that Wilson wasn't active on the committee in 1910, so how could Wilson do anything
with the committee in 1910 as you've alluded to in your above paragraph.
# 3 As we sit here today, Merion's historical record is WRONG. How can you possibly refute that ?
That is the case that essay tried to make and it is wholly inaccurate!
I don't care about the essay and my comment had NOTHING to do with the essay, it had to do with the FACT the Merion's Historical Record is WRONG. Stop trying to duck and deflect the issue. Just admit what everyone knows, Merion's Historical Record is WRONG.
Wilson and his committee did route and design Merion East in 1911 (the Merion record that includes Wilson's report to the board on 4/19/1911 specifically says so).
So now you want to present Merion's documents as the ultimate evidence, but, reject Merion's documents when it comes to them "SECURING" the land ? You can't have it both ways.
When all is said and done, it may be that Wilson and the Committee routed Merion.
It might also be that they used previous routings as the basis for the final routing.
It may be that they used part of Barker's routing, the five other routings, Macdonald's suggestions, or none of the above.
A, if not THE dilema seems to be that one party has access to relevant documentation and only puts forth portions of those documents to support their position.
How that gets solved remains to be seen.
The only error in the Merion history was that Wilson went abroad in 1910 rather than 1912 and that story first began probably in the 1970s so there is no way it could've effected what happened in 1910 and 1911 since the story did not begin until 50-60 years AFTER THE FACTS of 1910 and 1911!!
That's your opinion, one that might not be shared by others.
To state that NO other error exists in Merion's entire 100 year historical record seems unlikely.
Time will tell.
/color]
Mike,
No offense to Joe Bausch and his tremendous efforts, but I am growing weary of you posting long discovered documents as if you have just found something novel, like you do above with those snippets concerning the Dallas Estate. I site those in my essay and we have discussed them as usual on here.
It is not so much that credit is that important to me, it is that with you we have to cover this stuff over and over again. As usual you are about a year behind the learning curve.
Also Mike, you ignored my post above. According to TEPaul, the Dallas Estate deal was in the works from June 1910. So your latest theory is wrong. You guys are jockeying about who can take credit on yet another fallacious theory.
Doesn't it get embarrassing to keep changing the headings on these threads and then not being able to produce? How many times are you guys going to prematurely celebrate your victory, only later to find out you are wrong?
Imagine had I been so careless with my essay.
"Tom,
What do you think that means? Are you talking about the Dallas Estate?"
Michael:
No I am not. I'm talking about land south of the Dallas estate that would be known as "Merion Golf Heights."
Patrick,
I've posted the July 1st Site Committee report to the Merion Board of Government in it's entirety. It is two pages and should be back about 50 or so posts. (EDIT - Patrick, both reports are included in entirety in my post #1440)
You'll have to forgive me, but, if you, David, Wayno or TE expects me to revisit and review 42 pages of posts, it ain't gonna happen.
I've also posted the November 15th, 1910 Letter from the Board to the Membership in it's entirety, including the Land Plan.
I believe that you ONLY posted that after I requested same.
These are both documents that David Moriarty has had from the beginning, and he quotes from both liberally in his essay so nothing relevant here has been withheld from David.
The reason I'm posting them now is because something finally hit me the other day and as I chased it down, it turns out that it proves that the Merion Site Committee recommended purchase of the 120 acres for the golf course to their Board of Governors BEFORE ANY POSSIBLE ROUTING BY MACDONALD AND WHIGHAM COULD HAVE EXISTED.
I don't see how that proves that M&W couldn't have provided an early routing.
You seem to get lost in "exclusionary" conclusions, ruling out any other possibility because you don't want there to be any other possibility.
What occurred to me is what should have been an obvious connection I'd never made before and it was a statement by Tom Paul that the report recommending the purchase of "nearly 120 acres" took place on July 1st, 1910, or exactly TWO DAYS after Macdonald sent his one-page letter to Lloyd of the Site Committee.
Let me repeat what I wrote above to Jim Sullivan;
I went back and read much of David's essay last night and I'd suggest you do the same.
He rests his timeline case around the land purchases on the following premise;
1) Connell and HDC offered 100 acres (or whatever would be required for the golf course)like 117-120 acres ? and a routing by Barker in June 1910
2) Macdonald and Whigham came to visit later June 1910
3) During their visit, David contends that it was identified that two additional pieces of land would be needed, proven by the supposed change to now "requiring 120 acres" in the July 1, 1910 report of the Site Committee to the Merion Board. David speculates that the additional acreage was made up of the Dallas Estate and the Railroad Land, although that would create the requirement for an additional 24 acres, not 20.
However, there was NEVER ANY CHANGE FROM 100 ACRES TO 120 ACRES IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! BOTH numbers come from THE EXACT SAME JULY 1, 1910 REPORT!!! (copied above)
So now you use David's speculations as proof of your point ? ? ?
We now firmly believe that when Barker and Macdonald, and Whigham visited they was already looking at 117 acres...the exact acreage of the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, land ALREADY OWNED by HDC and thus able to be legally part of the proposed transaction and recommendation.
See my comment under your point # 1
We also know that Macdonald recommended additional purchase of the 3 acres of Railroad Land which would have created the "120 acres" referenced in the July 1 letter.
However, there is no way that Macdonald and Whigham routed a golf course between their letter of June 29th, 1910 (copied above) and the Merion Site Committee's July 1, 1910 report (also copied above) RECOMMENDING STRONGLY to the Merion Board that they move forward to aquire the "required" 120 acres, and the only land that could have meant at that time was the 117 acres of those sections of the Johnson Farm, as well as the 3 acres of railroad land.
Why not ?
Also, Patrick, this nonsensical contention that there was other, regular, ongoing communications between Macdonald and Merion between July 1910 and Novmber 1910 is simply not supported by a single fact or shred of evidence.
There is NONE, zip, nada, zero record of any communications.
That doesn't mean that communication didn't occur, only that it wasn't recorded, sort of like the missing topo map.
You can't rule out the possibility/probability of communications, via phone, letter or personal visits because there's no record of them.
Remember, there's no contemporaneous evidence that Wilson routed and designed the golf course.
None, zip, nada, zero record.
So according to your logic, we should dismiss him as well.
In July of 1910, after four solid years of working on it, Macdonald was just finally getting his own NGLA open and had his own plate quite full. From "The Evangelist of Golf";
That's not true.
Please don't equate the process of forming a club, soliciting members, acquiring the land, the concept, with the sole task of routing and designing a golf course.
Macdonald was treading into new territory far from the centers of influence..
Merion was an established, local club
On July 2, 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was finally ready for a test run. An informal Invitational Tournament was held for a select group of founders and friends invited to participate.
A qualifying round was played on the first day, followed by two days of match play. The course was still rough with temporary tee boxes, and a few bare spots on fairways on fairways and greens. Macdonald was still altering and refining the course. In fact, a new 9th (current 18th) green was already under construction before the course ever opened.
Besides the 9th (current 18th) soon expanded by 60 yards, Macdonald changed his mind and stretched the Sahara hole (current 2nd) from a short 215 to 261 yards uphill over an extended waste area.
It was noted the tournament served the purpose of revealing any design shortcoming that needed correcting. All holes received high praise, except the Road hole, "which did not play as anticipated". Apparently the corner hazard in the driving area was not what it would become later.
So Patrick, as much as you and David and others wish to dream on that Charles Macdonald laid out the course at Merion, the true historical facts and timelines speak loudly otherwise.
No, they don't.
The leaps you make from one topic to another, drawing conclusions from unrelated subjects, is quite astounding.
The routing of NGLA is the same today as it was in 1909, nothing about the routing has changed.
As to "fine tuning" Macdonald continued "fine tuning" NGLA until his death in 1939
Macdonald did offer great help and advice to the Merion Committe, just as it was always written and acknowledged.
He clearly 1) gave them a somewhat guarded, cautionary recommendation approving of the site with the caveat that they get some soil samples and other study of inland agronomics, 2) hosted the Merion Committee for a night and a day at NGLA where he showed them all of his hole drawings from abroad, how he had applied them at NGLA, and then took them on a tour of the course, and finally, 3) he came down and helped the committee pick the best of their five plans for the proposed golf course.
Who crafted those five plans ?
Were they outgrowths of Barkers ? M&W ?
I don't know what M&W did or didn't do, and quite frankly, that's never been my focus.
If you go back far enough, you'll see that I debated that point with Moriarty & MacWood years ago.
But, I also don't know what Wilson did or didn't do, and neither do you. So stop posturing that you do.
I've always been fascinated by Francis's role.
My interest is simple, I want to learn/discover more about how the golf course came into being.
That's it...and it was extremely helpful.
Now we know.
I guess you feel that if you repeat the mantra often enough, even you will believe everything you write.
I don't.
Thus, the quest for information continues.
"TEPaul,
You can't refute the written words from Merion.
They had SECURED the land.
Now you've told us that you were a real estate broker in Pennsylvania.
When someone states that they HAVE SECURED land, that's past tense and indicative of the fact that they are in control of that land, either through deed or option."
Patrick:
I'm not refuting the written word from Merion; I'm simply explaining to you exactly what it said.
We know what it said, we're perfectly capable of reading the Board of Governors formal report to the members of Merion dated November 15, 1910.
I'm merely pointing out to you given the circumstances reported by the board of MCC that Merion had an agreement to buy 117 acres from HDC in Nov. 1910.
An agreement is definitely not the same thing as a purchase and deed transfer from a seller to a buyer with title going to the buyer as a result of a formal exchange of property.
We're aware of that and it doesn't change the FACT that the club HAD SECURED the 117 Acres.
That would not technically happen for MCC until July 21, 1911. Between Dec. 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911 Horatio Gates Lloyd et ux held title to that land. In November all that existed between HDC and MCC was a letter from the secretary of HDC making an offer to MCC for a particular amount of land for a particular price and a purchase to occur at a particular time. MCC president Evans accepted that HDC offer in the letter from Nickolson of HDC for MCC in a letter back to Nickolson of HDC. It wasn't even real estate contract on a sale and purchase, just an AGREEMENT TO SELL and PURCASE between two parties.
MCCGA would not own that land for another nine months and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if someone like you tries to rationalize that they did somehow.
You can be in denial all you want.
Merion indicated that they HAD SECURED the land.
The Board of Governors, in a formal report to the members, clearly stated that the club HAD SECURED the land.
Stop wasting everyone's time, we're clearly aware of the distinction between securing the land and taking title.
The FACT is MCCGA did not PURCHASE that land until July 21, 1911, and for good reason. And yes, I was a real estate broker in the state of Pennsylvania for about twenty years so I probably know quite a bit more about real estate transactions in this state that Merion is in than you do! ;)
I've never disputed that, but, it's clear that Merion had what they wanted sometime between July 1, 1910 and November 15, 1910.
That the exchange of title would take place subsequently is of NO significance.
Unless, Mike Cirba and Wayno want to assert that NO WORK could take place at Merion until AFTER July 21, 1911, when they officially took title ;D
"I guess you could label most of the above speculation, which is what most of this thread (the non argumentative parts) is. Or, interpretation if it sounds more polite!"
Jeffrey:
While that post my seem logical to you or to any of us, it still is complete speculation. There is absolutely no factual information whatsoever to support it.
Furthermore, MCC's own board records do say that the only person negotiating with HDC between July and early November 1910 was Horatio Gates Lloyd! It even states those those negotiations took place at a number of meetings and a few conferences between Lloyd and Connell (of HDC).
Just to touch on that Tom, I don't agree with Jeff that almost all of this thread is speculation.
I believe that many historic documents and facts have been produced on this thread, many for the first time.
Besides the new material, however, the only difference is that this time they've been produced in the proper and factually-accurate sequential historical order.
If you're going to put your opinion of something I said on here and I ask you to support it by SHOWING me WHERE I said something like that which I completely deny and that statement above is the best you can do, I am going to just keep hammering you harder and harder on here and you know that!
SHOW ME WHERE I said that or RETRACT IT!
..............................
p.s...paging Bryan Izatt, paging Bryan Izatt
Bryan...I did calcs of the Johnson Farm westernmost neck of land from the 1900 Railroad Map (whch seems dimensionally more accurate than the 1908 one). When I go on Google Earth, it seems about 120 yards wide, but I wanted to get your independent take on the measurement of that land.
Thanks.
"The question is how and why did they decide to add the Dallas Estate to MCC, and when? Since it is in the Nov 10 plan, and Freeman transferred it immediately to Lloyd just a week earlier on Nov 4, we know the decision was made at least by sometime in October 1910 (it had to take some time to execute paperwork, no?)"
Jeffrey:
That is incorrect. Freeman did not transfer anything to Lloyd on Nov, 4, 1910. Matter of fact, Freeman never transfered anything to Lloyd at any time!
Patrick,
Honestly, I'm close to just dismissing your posts on this thread because they are unnecessarily argumentative and continually refer to areas of discussion long since resolved.
You keep referring to some magical and invisible correspondences of Macdonald that took place at some time between July 1910 and December 1910, but there are NONE. Zero
Mike, you've got to let someone read these posts to you because you obviously don't understand them. You deliberately misinterpret them, then distort them, then put your own spin on them. I NEVER refered to magical and invisible correspondence, that's your biased interpretation.
I stated that you couldn't view Macdonald's letter as the basis for excluding any and all other forms of communication, which is what you did.
Are you stating that there was NEVER any phone conversations, other letters or memos or visits and that when Macdonald came on site he was deaf, dumb and blind, choosing NOT to say a word while he was on property, letting his letter serve as his sole communication with the folks at Merion ?
Your contention that Macdonald's sole communication with Merion was a brief letter is beyond absurd.
You and David are asking for us to prove that UFO's dont exist when the complete burden of proof is on YOU.
You CAN'T prove that Wilson routed and designed the holes at Merion, you've failed your own test.
If CB Macdonald designed Merion, then show us all the what, when, where, and how.
I never said that Macdonald designed Merion. Why would you deliberately LIE and say I did ? ? ?
That speaks to your intentions, integrity and intellectual honesty.
But, I don't exclude the possibility.
Show us the what, when, where and how Wilson routed and designed Merion.
You can't.
You have no contemporaneous proof.
Right now, it's just a dream that you and David seem to share. A nice, pleasant fantasy, admittedly, but one better suited to relaxing on a beach somewhere dreaming of a young Tanya Roberts, a good Cabernet, and wishing and hoping that your hero was somehow responsible for another great golf course, but a fantasy nonetheless...
Mike, sadly, you just don't get it.
p.s....our last posts crossed, so I'd only say that Merion did NOT seek out "One Day Wonder HH Barker" to design their course. The July 1, 1910 Report makes very clear that the Real Estate developer Joseph Connell did that on his own.
His plan never saw the light of day and there is not even a mention that his routing was included in what got sent to the Merion Board.
How do you know that ?
How do you know that portions of the Barker routing weren't incorporated into the final Merion routing ?
How do you continually make these proclamations without an iota of factual evidence ?
You're so invested in Wilson, due to your Cobb's Creek project that you've lost all objectivity on this subject and related threads.
Clearly, Merion wanted to go in a different direction than the "Slam Bam, thank you Merion" architecture practiced by the early British professionals like Barker.
How do you know that ?
How did Barker's routing differ from the final routing ?
Stop making absurd proclamations absent any proof.
We also KNOW based on the timeline that Macdonald visited and wrote his letter of June 29th, 1910, that was most assuredly NOTHING close to a routing of the golf course EXISTED, yet on July 1, 1910, the Merion Site Committee STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF MERION that they move forward swiftly to aquire the 120 acres available at that time for the golf course, which at that time included the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, and the 3 acres of railroad land.
How do you KNOW that nothing close to a routing existed.
Didn't the Barker routing exist ?
Do you think, given the perameters of the property that M&W would be incapable of providing a routing ?
Why else would Macdonald state in his letter that a great golf course was there for the taking ?
TEPaul,
Could you address the questions I raised.
I highlighted them in red.
Thanks
Let's accept your statement that Wilson and his committee were commissioned in early 1911.
I previously asked you if it was counter intuitive to believe that Merion, which HAD SECURED the 117 acres sometime between July 1, 1910 and November 15, 1910, would wait until 1911, up to half a year, to begin the routing process ?
THINK about that.
Think about your work at Androsian (sp?) Farms.
Think about NGLA ?
Think about Merion ?
Why on earth, with an early routing by Barker and probably a general or maybe a specific routing by M&W around July, 1910, would they wait for a half a year (6 months) before embarking upon the routing of the golf course, especially when the acquisition of the land had been such a tortured exercise ?
If you and I had secured the land for a golf course we were anxious to build, would we wait six months before attempting our first routing ? ? ?
[/b]
David,
What do you nean this was all covered before?
Your own essay states that you're uncertain whether Freeman even existed!!
Now, suddenly because I told you he did exist and was an auctioneer of some repute in Philly you speculate anew that he must have been shilling for someone else and couldn't possibly be wanting an estate home for himself and weKve already discussed and determined all of this anyway even though you never knew til today that Freeman was a real person and although he denies it, Tom Paul at some point over the last few years supposedly stated that Merion was looking at the Dallas Estate prior to July 1910 and even if he did or didn't there is absolutely no evidence of that so that all means my theory based on the timelines of the land purchases and Merion documents is wrong!
Do I have all that right?
In 1908, the Johnson Farm was controlled by the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company. The Haverford Development Company was formed sometime before June 1909 (we have a deed dated June 1909 that shows the acquisition of land near the present golf course) and acquired the Johnson Farm on Dec 16, 1910 after being transferred via James P. Rothwell, Jr. and 3 days later to HG Lloyd. On August 11, 1910 the sale of the 21 acre Dallas estate to the HDC was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Regarding the 1909 Deed, are you relying on my interpretation from my emails, or did you get an expert to translate for you?
Regarding the Dallas Estate, often times the paper reported a sale as soon as the deal was struck, but then reported it again when the deal finally closed. With regard to the Dallas Estate the completion of the sale was not reported until Nov. 4, 1910
]As I mentioned offline, I think that J.P. Rothwell was an agent who acted as sort of a middle man on some of these transactions. I now believe that James Freeman played a similar role regarding the Dallas estate, as I have since determined that there was a James Freeman who ran an auction house, an occupation which indicates he was comfortable with playing the role of the middle man.
Did you have the a surveyor look at 1909 deed, or did you rely on my interpretation from my emails?
. . .
. . .
Anyway, at least one piece of MCC correspondence also indicates throughout the time from the middle of June 1910 until well into the fall they all felt it not prudent to be too obvious about what they were doing which I suppose primarily meant having their eye on the Dallas estate.
. . .
Sorry David...coupling your earlier speculation about Freeman with Toms unsubstantiated speculation about an early Dallas sighting still adds up to zero evidence.
Where are your facts?
Mike,
It was drawn one week after the deal to include the Dallas Estate was finalized and was prepared specifically to show the members voting on the project what they were buying. The records show that the committtee/board thought MCC had to take action fairly quickly to take advantage of this offer. I think it shows as closely as possible what they knew as of the date of the drawing. I think it shows they didn't know the exact boundary of Golf House Road.
It was to scale. I just think that measuring off a photograph of a plan, taken at a slightly oblique angle, is not possible to measure accurately, but it does have a scale bar at the bottom. But, what we don't know is how accurately the plan reflects the orignal 117 acres MCC planned to buy or the 120 they ended up buying from HDC. As a CONCEPT PLAN, it may not have been thought necessary to have to scale out exactly as to the metes and bounds for a general depiction of their plan to buy acreage, especially since it was not set.
I tried to write all of that on as much of a fact based tone as possible. Now, here is one fact no one will deny -
That drawing caused a lot of controversy from 2004-2009 and possibly beyond!
Am I safe in throwing that one out there?
Mike
I won't tell you my opinion of what that drawing represents, but I will tell you what it is not. It is not a survey from which a property description for a deed will be drafted.
I will reiterate that I see all of these exercises about guestimating acreage and timing of land swaps to be a total waste of time. Merion's land was acquired by deeds. They are recorded in a courthouse, and each deed describes the exact property acquired and has a date on it. I fully expect each deed also refers to some matter of survey that is also of public record.
If you want to know when Merion (or anybody else) acquired a piece of real property, just go look. It is all right there for you
If there was a land swap, then there was a deed.
If there was a land swap, then there was a deed.
If not this has adverse possession or prescriptive easement written all over it. Suddenly I'm very interested.
Mike
One other question that I think is fundamamental is this;
Why in December 1910 did H.G. Lloyd take title to 161 acres and not just the 117 acres needed for the golf course if it was already finalized?
As John Cullum mentioned, if the land had already been selected, surveyed, and was ready to be deeded, why wouldn't he just have assumed control of the part already routed and configured?
Why would he need to have control of the land on both sides of the approximate boundary between golf course and real estate if things were already settled, and especially if the final part of the routing...the Francis Land Swap...had already taken place?? :o
Whoops, cross post.
Mike C,
I wonder why DM's theory of giving back the 21 acres to the north (and just west of Haverford College) as drawn in your blue line doesn't get more love around here. After all - that would be the most logical trade - a 21 acre rectangle for a 21 acre rectangle, wouldn't it?
Tony,
Sure, let me try...it's probably not the most clear depiction because I copped one that David did and then drew atop it.
I've also adjusted my northwestern boundary to indicate what I believe happened.
I think once the 21 acre Dallas Estate was purchased, the original Johnson Farm boundary between golf course and real estate (the only boundary that was movable) got renegotiated by Lloyd and Connell, and they drew that proposed boundary as a curving "approximate location of road" which I attempt to reproduce from the November Land Plan as the thinner black line on this drawing.
The difference between this thin black line and the "as built" red line from David's original drawing is what i believe approximates the dimensions of the Francis Land Swap.
In essence, I'm contending that Merion "gave back" 21 acres west of that boundary to account for the addition of 21 acres of Dallas Estate. In truth, the real number is that they "gave back" 18 acres, because in April 1911 they bought another 3 acres and it was somewhere along that boundary.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3624/3598086218_715e7388fa_o.jpg)
Mike,
See my ammended post above. Its just as logical, absent documentation, that if the Dallas Estate was under consideration in June 1910 (as TePaul said once) that it was Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate, minus a parcel from the Johnson Farm to keep at 120 Acres.
Was that the land by Haverford, or a general narroring of the north leg of the L using Golf House Road?
The rectangle of the Johnson Farm coming straight west from the Haverford College South Boundary to the original Johnson Farm property line, up to College Road, and then back over to Haverford College Boundary is about 21 acres, or the same size as the Dallas Estate. You have that marked as DM's 100 acre property in a blue line. I am suggesting that they kept that and added the Dallas Estate to make up the 120 acres.
That is the basis of DM's theory on the land swap - that the north border of the working topos was at Haverford College and the "extra" 3 acres was the triangle that shows up on the Nov 1910 map. I can follow his logic tree completely, even if I am not 100% sure its correct because of other facts. That seems kind of odd, doesn't it?
That's good Bryan. Do your best and if it's not too damn expensive we will take everything we have with metes and bounds and get a professional survey company to measure everythng; perhaps even the same one that did it back then. Then we can compare our results with your results.
It will be pretty interesting to see how you make out on the metes and bounds of the yet to be built Golf House Road on that July 21, 1911 deed that is a series of arcs to points using Chordes and such! I hope your GOOGLE EARTH plainimeter or what ever it is has a good protractor or arc measuring tool too. ;) The metes and bounds of July 19, 1911 Indenture clearly say: "to the intersection of the centreline of Ardmore Avenue and the centreline of a new road between this and land of the Haverford Development Company, thence along the centreline of said new road the following several courses and distances. North twenty three ........." I believe this indicates that Golf House Road was built prior to July 19, 1911, for the survey of this property must have been done before that date.
Either through a professional survey company or just comparing the arcs and lengths and numerical directional degrees I will confirm that the metes and bounds up and down from Ardmore to College Aves of Golf House Road on that July 21, 1911 deed are the very same metes and bounds as Golf House Road was actually built to (we can compare all that off the metes and bounds of the road on a 1928 Yerkes survey for Merion's property).
I might also warn you that if that road as built does go west of the old Johnson boundary line at the top of the "L" into the old Taylor estate at a few small points it may throw your numbers off some but I doubt it will with a professional surveyor because if Golf House Road and the old Johnson boundary when enclosed come out a bit low on a 120.1 acre ;) Just being anal, but the deed lists the acreage at 120.01 acres. total then I know a professional surveyor could easily find precisely where it may have gone over that boundary by just comparing the metes and bounds of the old Johnson boundary with the metes and bounds of as built Golf House Road and coming up with the remainder from over the old Johnson boundary.
Tony,
No dumb questions here.
Once you strip away the emotional acrimony around this stuff, it's truly the best mystery since Sherlock Holmes, but I think we're getting close...very close, in fact.
I think there was a boundary drawn along what is today #15 delineated as "approximate location of road" on the November 1910, Land Plan.
I think once they started out there actually trying to route and build holes, they realized the area was not wide enough, because of the decision to create an alternate fairway around the quarry on 16...that's my speculation.
I believe that created the need to swap land along that Golf House Road boundary..widening on the top for 15 and narrowing down below where they didn't need it across from the 14th tee.
Once that was all figured out, they built and paved the road.
If not this has adverse possession or prescriptive easement written all over it.
Mike
So do many of the wild drives I hit, but that never stopped me...
Tony,
They had to keep it within the 117 acres they had optioned for purchase for the golf course out of the 338 acres in total. 221 acres were already targeted for real estate.
Hope that helps!
Tony,
I agree, with 300+ acres at their disposal, selecting only 117 had to be purpose specific.
Mike,
You like graphics so here is the 1908 map which I believe shows what was offered and what they ended up with. It is obviously not meant to be exact.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/1908-Atlas-Expansion-1.jpg?t=1244137323)
1. The Purple line represents the border of the land that HDC either owned or had an option on at the time they made their offer to MCC (excluding the land off the map to the north)
2. The Blue line represents the border of what I believe were the approx 100 acres that were originally offered.
3. Together, the Red and Green lines represent the borders of what was ultimately purchased by MCC.
3.a. The Red lines represents the portions of the border that differed from what was offered.
3.b. The Green lines represent the portions of the border that followed what was originally offered.
As you can see, they did NOT follow what was originally offered:
1. Francis noted that they did not need land west of the present course so they didn't purchase it.
2. Francis noted that they did need the 130 x 190 yard parcel west of Haverford College so they expanded their purchase up there.
3. M&W noted that MCC should purchase the land behind the clubhouse to use in the golf course so the secured that by lease.
4. HDC owned or had an option on plenty of land West of the current course, but according to Francis they didn't have interest in the land west of the current golf course. HHB, M&W, someone else, or some combination added the Dallas Estate which was great.
These are some of the changes to the borders made to suit the golf course. I am not even sure why this is arguable.
Here's the November 4th, 1910 Philadelphia Inquirer Story that spells out the details of the Dallas Estate purchase by James A. Freeman for 25K, compliments of Joe Bausch.
It seems Mr. Freeman got the land for a bit of a steal, at just under $1200 an acre. The adjoining land of the Johnson Farm had recently been sold to Connell's group for $1500 an acre.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3376/3604337182_8567a79839_o.jpg)
Here's the article from August 11th, 1910, when Freeman first optioned the Dallas Estate Property.
It's interesting how the article mentions the only land that HDC really owned at even that late date, the 140 acre Johson Farm.
The rest of their holdings were all optioned, almost certainly with contingencies.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3071/3603556913_363a5ed5f1_o.jpg)
..........................
...........................
We also KNOW based on the timeline that Macdonald visited and wrote his letter of June 29th, 1910, that was most assuredly NOTHING close to a routing of the golf course EXISTED, yet on July 1, 1910, the Merion Site Committee STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF MERION that they move forward swiftly to aquire the 120 acres available at that time for the golf course, which at that time included the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, and the 3 acres of railroad land.
Mike, I've read the 43 pages and counting, and apart from speculation about what was included in the 120 acres, I don't recall that there is any written evidence that it included the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, and the 3 acres of railroad land. You may have deduced that through your logic, but that doesn't mean it should be stated as fact. You, Tom and David are all prone to deducing things and then saying them often enough that you accept them as fact, when they're not.
I'm sorry...I find that other thread awfully distasteful.
Hope you guys don't mind me picking up the discussion back over here?
For the 2005 US Amateur program, author Gary Galyean in the lead story titled "Merion Golf Club - The Creation of a Legacy" wrote;
"In 1909, the golfers of the Merion Cricket Club formed the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association. Joining Mr. Griscom in that organization's endeavors were Charles Yarnall, Robert Lesley, Walter Stephenson, Alan Wilson, and Wilson's younger brother Hugh."
Does anyone know the source of that information? Was that info also in the Tolhurst book?
Tom Paul wrote earlier that based on the minutes, there was really no mention of the creation of a "Construction Committee", and speculated whether this was either an ad hoc committee, or perhaps a standing committee.
I'm finding myself wondering if the focus on the minutes to date have been on the period 1910-12 or so, and perhaps something happened earlier?
Also class...today's homework assignment...
Knowing what we all know now about the sequence of the land purchases, etc., what do you now think of this November 15, 1910 Land Plan, which is one of the only pieces of physical evidence we have.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/3532451510_42f386a5bd_o.jpg)
How confident are we in what it represents?
While it was shown to be not to scale, does anyone recall what it measured to in terms of acreage? Can anyone tell us?
Remember, this is supposed to represent the exact land purchase in a bid to the membership, after the land for the course had been "secured"...it would later be bought outright December 19, 1910 by HG Lloyd and transferred to MCC in July 1911.
So, what do you think this shows us? Anyone....?
Mike
I won't tell you my opinion of what that drawing represents, but I will tell you what it is not. It is not a survey from which a property description for a deed will be drafted.
I will reiterate that I see all of these exercises about guestimating acreage and timing of land swaps to be a total waste of time. Merion's land was acquired by deeds. They are recorded in a courthouse, and each deed describes the exact property acquired and has a date on it. I fully expect each deed also refers to some matter of survey that is also of public record.
If you want to know when Merion (or anybody else) acquired a piece of real property, just go look. It is all right there for you
Mike,
See my ammended post above. Its just as logical, absent documentation, that if the Dallas Estate was under consideration in June 1910 (as TePaul said once) that it was Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate, minus a parcel from the Johnson Farm to keep at 120 Acres.
Was that the land by Haverford, or a general narroring of the north leg of the L using Golf House Road?
The rectangle of the Johnson Farm coming straight west from the Haverford College South Boundary to the original Johnson Farm property line, up to College Road, and then back over to Haverford College Boundary is about 21 acres, or the same size as the Dallas Estate. You have that marked as DM's 100 acre property in a blue line. I am suggesting that they kept that and added the Dallas Estate to make up the 120 acres.
That is the basis of DM's theory on the land swap - that the north border of the working topos was at Haverford College and the "extra" 3 acres was the triangle that shows up on the Nov 1910 map. I can follow his logic tree completely, even if I am not 100% sure its correct because of other facts. That seems kind of odd, doesn't it?
Jeff,
On the 1900 RR map I'm getting about 420ft by 980ft for that northern rectangle.
What are you seeing?
...........................
We also KNOW based on the timeline that Macdonald visited and wrote his letter of June 29th, 1910, that was most assuredly NOTHING close to a routing of the golf course EXISTED, yet on July 1, 1910, the Merion Site Committee STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF MERION that they move forward swiftly to aquire the 120 acres available at that time for the golf course, which at that time included the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, and the 3 acres of railroad land.
Mike, I've read the 43 pages and counting, and apart from speculation about what was included in the 120 acres, I don't recall that there is any written evidence that it included the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, and the 3 acres of railroad land. You may have deduced that through your logic, but that doesn't mean it should be stated as fact. You, Tom and David are all prone to deducing things and then saying them often enough that you accept them as fact, when they're not.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionAcreageMapv2copy.jpg)
Here are the acreages as I calculate them based on the metes and bouunds from the deeds and the map below.
Area RE: 21.1 acres the real estate part of the Johnson Farm, north of Ardmore, West of GHR
Area JW: 19.8 acres the area west of GHR to the western boundary of the Johnson Farm
Merion: 120.4 acres the course land on July 26,1911
Total: 161.3 acres
The total should be 161.157 acres and the Merion portion 120.01. The error in my measurements are thus around 0.3% or less.
Other areas of interest:
Area F: 4.8 acres the Francis triangle
Area D: 21.2 acres the Dallas Estate (error almost 1%)
Area JN: 10.5 acres the northern rectangle of the Johnson Farm including Area F
I would note that Area F, although described as a "triangle" on here, is closer in shape to a rectangle in July 26, 1911. Francis described it as 130 yards by 190 yards, but did not describe a shape. The area of a rectangle 130 x190 is 5.1 acres, not very far off the area of the Francis "triangle". The triangle shape is more pronounced in the November 15, 1910 land plan, but I'd estimate the area as being about the same as the July 26, 1911 "triangle".
I would also note that Tom's mathematical machinations were predicated on Area RE being 23 acres. It is really 21.1 acres.
TEPaul,
I've asked a few times before, but hopefully the third time is charmed. WHAT DO MCC'S AND/OR MERION'S ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS SAY ABOUT THE LAND SWAP?
I asked you a number of questions a while back about the MCC records, and you seemed to be considering whether to answer them or not. Can I expect answers? If so, when?
"***EDIT*** I just went back and see that Bryan Izatt measured the land of the Johnson Farm north of Ardmore Ave. but west of Golf House road at 22 acres. The Johnson Farm itself was just over 140 acres, which means if the original HDC offer was simply for the portions south of Ardmore Avenue, and the northeast section above Ardmore Avenue, that would be around 118 acres total.
I'm not sure if this is relevant, but it is certainly possible that this is the portion of land M&W were asked to consider and report on. (drawn crudely in black)"
You're not sure if it's RELEVENT??
Of course it's relevent! All one needs to do is follow the timeline of what MCC and HDC were doing from around July 1910 to about the middle of December 1910 to understand just how relevent it really is. Whether they had their eye on the Dallas Estate in June or July 1910 or whether they didn't the fact is when the Dallas Estate was finally nailed down by HDC around the beginning of Nov. 1910 that is practically the same day and certainly the same week Lloyd and Connell completed their negotiations and the actual formal offer was made by Nickolson to Evans through Lloyd and MCC's board voted on it and accepted the offer to purchase 117 acres!!
Then when MCC came in with their working topo contour maps (probably in the end of Dec or beginning of Jan 1911) with that proposed road drawn on the map to scale that they used to route and design numerous courses and plans on throughout the winter and early spring of 1911, one needs to realize that the land to the west of that road and between the western boundary at the top of the "L" of the old Johnson farm was approximately 21 acres that I said back on post #652, 656 and 670 I am convinced it was!
As I said in those posts back there:
23 acres=the western section of the old Johnson farm never considered for golf Tom assumed it was 23 acres. It's not, it's 21.1 acres
140.137 acres=the entire Johnson farm
140-23=117 acres 140.137 - 21.1 = 119.037
Remove that app 21 acres (Another false assumption, it now measures to be 19.8 acres) from the 117 (really should be 119.037, as above) I mentioned on posts #652, 656, and 670 of the old Johnson farm to the west of the proposed road from the course plan (as it was on their working topo survey maps);
117-21=96 acres 119.037 - 19.8 = 99.237 acres
ADD the Dallas estate (21 acres Deeded as 21.02 acres)
96+21=117 acres 99.327 + 21.02 = 120.347 acres
ADD the exchange AND 3 acre additional purchased acres to the golf course land via the Francis fix idea gotten along the extension of Golf House Road through it's redelineation from the working topo survey maps to its actual metes and bounds "as built" delineation (Thompson Resolution)----I've been saying this for over a year now!
117+3=120.1 acres of the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA 120.347 + 3 = 123.347 acres Oooops, wrong answer! It's not the 120.01 acres on the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA. The flaws are in the original assumption, by Tom, that the Johnson Estate land never considered for the golf course was 23 acres, and the assumption that the land west of GHR to the western boundary of the Johnson Farm was 21 acres. Neither were as assumed by Tom. Perhaps that was why he wanted to sell me his methodology and why he didn't want to share the deeds and metes and bounds. Hope that helps, Mike.
THIS is why I said in posts #652, 656 and 670 that when the metes and bounds of Golf House Road are measured with and enclosed with that old Johnson boundary (after the Francis fix) the area in there is no longer app 21 acres BUT 18!! (posts #652, 656 and 670!)
(of course if the road actually crossed over the old Johnson farm western boundary at the top of the "L" and into the Taylor estate a professional surveyor can easily find the small remainder).
There is no question in my mind what this serves to do is set that Francis idea and fix inside at some point the TIMEFRAME of Dec. 19, 1910 AND April 19, 1911 (but much more likely before April 6, 1911) and it is all reflected in the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA. If it happened before that none of this makes any sense and I guarantee you when a professional surveyor does these metes and bounds measurments THEY WILL match my incremental results above of 21 and then 18!
I've been saying this for 2-3 weeks and so far no one seems to understand it. This is the only place a boundary adjustment could have happened and the Francis boundary adjustment is the only one ever mentioned in this timeframe so it is the only one that could've happened in this timeframe! If Bryan measures the right boundaries and he measures well I'm convinced he will come to the same results. But if he does he still may not quite understand what it really means! We'll see.
If we are getting technical about what actually went on in 1910 and 1911, they (that is MCC) did not buy anything in Nov. 1910. What they had in Nov. 1910 was a basic understanding (agreement in principle with HDC) that they would buy a certain amount of land for a certain amount of money out of a larger HDC tract from the HDC eventually if they agreed to get to work doing a course.
When they had that (agreement in principle) via two letters between Nickelson of the HDC and president Evans of MCC in Nov. 1910, then MCC got their lawyer and board member, T. DeWitt Cuyler, to swing into action and create what was known as The MCC Golf Association Company. We need to take very careful note of the company part of that because before that MCC had been operating at Haverford for golf with what was known as the MCC Golf Association which was formed in 1909 by a group of golfing members including Alan Wilson and I believe Hugh and a few others. I doubt that former MCC Golf Association was a separate registered company but it may've operated through a corporate entity within MCC known as the Haverford Land Co (not the same thing as HDC).
(Do you think these MCC "captains of the universe" like Lloyd, Scattergood, Griscom, Cuylers, Thayer et al were corporation freaks and geeks with all the complex financial shit that went along with all that or what?? I guarantee you if these bigtime business honchos could borrow a nickel for 5 1/4 cents on this side of the street and lend it out on the other side of the street for 5 1/2 cents or save a dollar in taxes somehow they would do it in a heartbeat with some kind of labrynthian corporate structure no matter how rich they were! ;) ).
It would take Cuylers who was apparently one of the most powerful men in the American railroad industry and an expert on corporate law and corporate registration a number of weeks to get the MCC Golf Association Company set up with officers, with a certain amount of stock and registered. That would not get done until around the third week of Dec. 1910.
At that point 161 acres was transfered from HDC to a man by the name of Rothwell (probably a title and trust company employee) for $1.00. Three days later Rothwell transfered the property to Lloyd and his wife. At that point Lloyd was the president of the newly set up MCC Golf Association Co.
Lloyd would hold the land for the golf course (120 acres) until July 19, 1911 at which point he transfered it back to Rothwell who transfered it to the MCC Golf Association Company the same day, each time for $1.00. Within a year or so the MCC Golf Association Company would lease the land and course to MCC, the club.
One might wonder what-all the 161 acres was that was initially transfered through to Lloyd and his wife in Dec. 1910. It was the entire 140 acre Johnson Farm and we believe it was the 21 acre Dallas estate. When Lloyd transfered the 120 acres back through Rothwell to the MCC Golf Association Co. in July 1911 we assume he kept about 40 acres of the old Johnson Farm across Ardmore Ave from the second hole that became part of the residential development to the west that was known as HDC. We feel pretty confident that for about the last 7-8 months (from Dec, 1910 to July 1911) Lloyd and his MCC syndicate had essentially been in control of HDC too and probably through a stock underwriting/offering he engineered and just a basic preconceived real estate sales management arrangement with the former owners of HDC and probably primarily MCC members et al many of which would be residential buyers and builders on the HDC land (221 acres). We've begun to track the real estate development sell out to the west over the next 7-12 years into the 1920s and a lot of them were MCC members including interestingly enough Hugh I. Wilson on the corner of Exeter Rd overlooking the 14th hole.
But the most fascinating and impressive thing to me is obviously there were a number of preconceived reasons Lloyd took control and ownership like that in the end of Dec. 1910 and according to a letter from Cuylers to Evans on Dec. 21 1910 one of those reasons was so Lloyd could move boundary lines for the course around at will because the boundaries of what would become the course had not been definitely determined upon at that point according to Cuylers.
And we also know because it is recorded in the administrative records of MCC that within a couple of weeks or sooner (the beginning of Jan. 1911) the Wilson Committee would be formed and according to their April report to the board they would spend the next three months between January and April first laying out many different courses on the ground, then going to NGLA for two days in the second week of March, then home to hone their course layouts down to five different plans, get Macdonald/Whigam back on April 6, 1911 for a day, go over the grounds and five plans, select one to be approved by the board and that was done on April 19, 1911.
That's what the records show, those are the facts, and in the course of all this at some point in 1911, Francis who was then a member of Wilson's committee had his idea of how to finally fix #15 and #16 which he said in his story had been a problem getting in all along with the last five holes (again obviously because that triangle that shows up on the plan back on Nov. 15, 1910 was just too damned narrow to fit the 15th green and 16th tee up into). Francis certainly knew to go to Lloyd and just get his permission on the spot to redelineate that road on the plan which wouldn't even be built for a couple more years and it was done (no deed or land transfer necessary at that point) and they probably did get quarry men to blow the top wall off the quarry in two days as his story said. The thing I think is so interesting is Francis's midnight visit to Lloyd could hardly have been a surprise in the slightest to Lloyd----he was ready for it because he and Cuylers and MCC had put him in position to do something precisely like that back in the end of Dec. 1910. In other words, they all saw the possibility of something like that coming and they said so in writing back in the end of Dec. 1911 because at that point no course or precise land figuration for the course had definitely been determined upon as they said in Dec 1910.
Had MCC had "a plan", a routing and course or anything like it in place in 1910 or certainly before Nov. 15, 1910 as Moriarty's essay contends they sure wouldn't have had to do all that and go through all that, would they? And what in the world would it have been all about then that the Wilson Committee was doing all those three months in the winter of 1911 with what they reported were their "numerous different courses on the ground" and then "five different plans" that would be used to select one to be approved on April 19, 1911?
Anyway, at least one piece of MCC correspondence also indicates throughout the time from the middle of June 1910 until well into the fall they all felt it not prudent to be too obvious about what they were doing which I suppose primarily meant having their eye on the Dallas estate.
So what about the Southeast corner of the property that has a green, a tee, and some fairway but is not within the boundaties of the course?
Tony,
For someone who is just getting interested in this topic, you sure have come up to speed pretty quickly! Very nice summary!! Only, I'm pretty sure Macdonald never came back to Merion after constructon started, so I think the idea that he went back to NGLA impressed is not supported factually.
Overall though, I'm not 100% sure yet that any of us are entirely right or wrong and I'm trying to work the numbers a few ways to see what they indicate.
At this point, the biggest unanswered question I have is simply this...
What were the original 117 acres referred to and should we just be now assuming that they gained 3 acres somewhere along the border of Golf House Road between the original "approximate" boundary drawn on the November 1910 Land Plan and what was finalized by July 1911?
At this point, the biggest unanswered question I have is simply this...
What were the original 117 acres referred to and should we just be now assuming that they gained 3 acres somewhere along the border of Golf House Road between the original "approximate" boundary drawn on the November 1910 Land Plan and what was finalized by July 1911?
Michael:
You spent a lot of time there with some pretty comprehensive information....
Did that entire redelineation of the proposed road (the future Club House Rd) from Francis's idea create a perfect net land swap between the golf course land and the residential real estate proposed development land to the west? That's hard to say but the fact is measuring it all out on the ground today could be done with accuracy to determine that given that November 15, 1910 proposed plan of the course and proposed real estate development to the west is scaled on the plan. But even if it didn't, the fact is by around the end of December 1910 Lloyd owned the entire Johnson Farm anyway including a piece that is now part of the residential development across Ardmore Ave from the 2nd hole. And that is not to even mention that by that time he and his MCC syndicate may've controlled most of the Haverford Development Co. too.
Mike -- Here is what I was referring to. I know I've seen it in this thread somewhere, but this is taken from David's essay:
In the May 1911 edition of American Golfer, “Hazard,” thought to be A. W. Tillinghast, reported on their return visit to Ardmore Avenue.
The new course of the Merion Cricket Club is nearing completion in the planning. During the month Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald and Mr. H. J. Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the prospects. Mr. Macdonald said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country and as our first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement of his should cause much satisfaction.
I obvioulsy mis-read this. As it just says "seven holes" I thought it was the "last seven."
Bradley -- Thanks! I did also read something in David's essay, I think by Far and Sure as well that said something about the last five holes, as well.
Bryan,
The numbers are indeed perplexing.
I see nowhere that the 3 acres purchase mentioned in April 1911 can be identified.
It makes me wonder if they at first thought they needed to buy the 3 acres of Railroad land near the clubhouse and instead simply negotiated a cheap lease deal the next month. That is the conclusion I'm leaning towards. I'll have to go back and check the wording of the Thompson resolution and the date the land was leased, but the coincidence is too great to ignore. The nail in this coffin would be a minute from MCC saying that the purchase wasn't executed as approved, but rather the land was leased. Absent that, I think that this is the most plausible conclusion.
Again, pure speculation, but I think all of us are left with more questions than answers right now and I don't see how what's been measured neatly encapsulates any of the theories that have been bandied about.
Do you?
Two other questions, not sure either is applicable.
You mentioned earlier something about True North changing over time. Does that factor at all here? True North is constant. Magnetic North varies with time. The surveyors recorded magnetic compass readings. I had to correct for that placing the metes on the map. No, I don't think it bears on the results we're seeing.
Also, David has long contended that Merion's holes were mismeasured "along the ground" by some factor. Any chance a surveyor back then made some percentage error? I'll have to get back to you on that, but no, I doubt they got it wrong. The defining thing of course is the monuments and stakes in the ground. The metes and bounds just tell you where to go look for them.
Again, I want to thank you for doing all of this, Bryan...I'm sure it's been a lot of work!
Mike,
Re your question
"Could you explain your last sentence about Tom's mathematical machinations or at least refer me to the particular post?"
I was referring to the eureka moment that Tom (and you, later) was pushing in mathematically deducing what was in the 117 and 120 acres. It's embodied in the post below, although he presented it multiple time going way back to posts #652, 656 and 670. I've added the correct numbers in red to highlight how the math should have been done. The error is the opening assumption that the Johnson land never considered for the course (what I've labeled Area RE) was 23 acres. It's not - it's 21.1 acres. Based on that false assumption, the rest of the analysis falls apart."***EDIT*** I just went back and see that Bryan Izatt measured the land of the Johnson Farm north of Ardmore Ave. but west of Golf House road at 22 acres. The Johnson Farm itself was just over 140 acres, which means if the original HDC offer was simply for the portions south of Ardmore Avenue, and the northeast section above Ardmore Avenue, that would be around 118 acres total.
I'm not sure if this is relevant, but it is certainly possible that this is the portion of land M&W were asked to consider and report on. (drawn crudely in black)"
You're not sure if it's RELEVENT??
Of course it's relevent! All one needs to do is follow the timeline of what MCC and HDC were doing from around July 1910 to about the middle of December 1910 to understand just how relevent it really is. Whether they had their eye on the Dallas Estate in June or July 1910 or whether they didn't the fact is when the Dallas Estate was finally nailed down by HDC around the beginning of Nov. 1910 that is practically the same day and certainly the same week Lloyd and Connell completed their negotiations and the actual formal offer was made by Nickolson to Evans through Lloyd and MCC's board voted on it and accepted the offer to purchase 117 acres!!
Then when MCC came in with their working topo contour maps (probably in the end of Dec or beginning of Jan 1911) with that proposed road drawn on the map to scale that they used to route and design numerous courses and plans on throughout the winter and early spring of 1911, one needs to realize that the land to the west of that road and between the western boundary at the top of the "L" of the old Johnson farm was approximately 21 acres that I said back on post #652, 656 and 670 I am convinced it was!
As I said in those posts back there:
23 acres=the western section of the old Johnson farm never considered for golf Tom assumed it was 23 acres. It's not, it's 21.1 acres
140.137 acres=the entire Johnson farm
140-23=117 acres 140.137 - 21.1 = 119.037
Remove that app 21 acres (Another false assumption, it now measures to be 19.8 acres) from the 117 (really should be 119.037, as above) I mentioned on posts #652, 656, and 670 of the old Johnson farm to the west of the proposed road from the course plan (as it was on their working topo survey maps);
117-21=96 acres 119.037 - 19.8 = 99.237 acres
ADD the Dallas estate (21 acres Deeded as 21.02 acres)
96+21=117 acres 99.327 + 21.02 = 120.347 acres
ADD the exchange AND 3 acre additional purchased acres to the golf course land via the Francis fix idea gotten along the extension of Golf House Road through it's redelineation from the working topo survey maps to its actual metes and bounds "as built" delineation (Thompson Resolution)----I've been saying this for over a year now!
117+3=120.1 acres of the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA 120.347 + 3 = 123.347 acres Oooops, wrong answer! It's not the 120.01 acres on the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA. The flaws are in the original assumption, by Tom, that the Johnson Estate land never considered for the golf course was 23 acres, and the assumption that the land west of GHR to the western boundary of the Johnson Farm was 21 acres. Neither were as assumed by Tom. Perhaps that was why he wanted to sell me his methodology and why he didn't want to share the deeds and metes and bounds. Hope that helps, Mike.
THIS is why I said in posts #652, 656 and 670 that when the metes and bounds of Golf House Road are measured with and enclosed with that old Johnson boundary (after the Francis fix) the area in there is no longer app 21 acres BUT 18!! (posts #652, 656 and 670!)
(of course if the road actually crossed over the old Johnson farm western boundary at the top of the "L" and into the Taylor estate a professional surveyor can easily find the small remainder).
There is no question in my mind what this serves to do is set that Francis idea and fix inside at some point the TIMEFRAME of Dec. 19, 1910 AND April 19, 1911 (but much more likely before April 6, 1911) and it is all reflected in the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA. If it happened before that none of this makes any sense and I guarantee you when a professional surveyor does these metes and bounds measurments THEY WILL match my incremental results above of 21 and then 18!
I've been saying this for 2-3 weeks and so far no one seems to understand it. This is the only place a boundary adjustment could have happened and the Francis boundary adjustment is the only one ever mentioned in this timeframe so it is the only one that could've happened in this timeframe! If Bryan measures the right boundaries and he measures well I'm convinced he will come to the same results. But if he does he still may not quite understand what it really means! We'll see.
Bryan,
I think I know what happened.
Your correction of Tom's numbers needs a slight correction, as well.
Tom adds in 3 acres as his last calculation, but those three acres need to be subtracted from somewhere else first, because it was ALL land along the division between the Golf Course and Johnson Farm land on RW that we're talking about.
That would mean that prior to the "swap", the land marked "JW" would have been not 19.8 acres, but 22.8 acres, as the golf course at that time before Mr. Francis and his brainstorm was only 117 acres as determined in November 1910 and not the 120 acres it was built as (plus an additional 3 acres of leased railroad land not included in this calculation).
We also know the April 1911 minutes refer to this additional 3 acre purchase on land "adjoining" land already purchased, which I think your numbers prove had to be along Golf House Road..
So I think the calculations should be;
23 acres=the western section of the old Johnson farm never considered for golf Tom assumed it was 23 acres. It's not, it's 21.1 acres CORRECT
140.137 acres=the entire Johnson farm
140-23=117 acres 140.137 - 21.1 = 119.037 CORRECT
Remove that app 21 acres (Another false assumption, it now measures to be 19.8 acres) from the 117 (really should be 119.037, as above) I mentioned on posts #652, 656, and 670 of the old Johnson farm to the west of the proposed road from the course plan (as it was on their working topo survey maps); No, it is not 19.8 acres. At that time prior to the 3 acre swap of land on that side of Golf House Road it would have been 22.8 acres
117-21=96 acres 119.037 - 19.8 = 99.237 acres This should be corrected to read 119.037 - 22.8 = 96.237
ADD the Dallas estate (21 acres Deeded as 21.02 acres)
96+21=117 acres 99.327 + 21.02 = 120.347 acres This should be corrected to read 96.237 + 21.02 = 117.347
ADD the exchange AND 3 acre additional purchased acres to the golf course land via the Francis fix idea gotten along the extension of Golf House Road through it's redelineation from the working topo survey maps to its actual metes and bounds "as built" delineation (Thompson Resolution)----I've been saying this for over a year now!
117+3=120.1 acres of the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA 120.347 + 3 = 123.347 acres. This should be corrected to read 117.347 + 3 = 120.347..
With your agreement, I think we've figured this out.
What do you think, Bryan?
Mike -- You have me on board with this. Maybe a simple break down would be as follows (using approximate numbers):
1. November 1910 -- Proposed land plan to members shows golf course on 117 acres, however, Lloyd can set boundaries as he chooses.
2. Between 11/1910 and 4/1911 board meeting -- Francis and company realize they can't get good golf in the proposed land and he proposes to Lloyd a widening of the area for 15 and 16 and a minor give back of some are north of where they want to locate the 15th green and 16th tee. The result is an increase to Merion's acreage to 120.1 acres, not 117 as originally proposed.
Your quote from the previous post:
"We also know the April 1911 minutes refer to this additional 3 acre purchase on land "adjoining" land already purchased, which I think your numbers prove had to be along Golf House Road.."
It appears to me we've solved how it went from 117 on the 11/1910 plan to 120.1 deeded in July, 1911.
Tony,
Yes, I think we're on the same page. The only thing I'm not 100% sure of yet is all of the "give back" areas, which we'll probably never know 100% unless we find the actual topographical map the Committee was working from beginning early 1911. That November Land Plan only showed the "approximate" boundary, but the topo would have been exact.
I'm thinking they were very, very close, though.
I do agree that the "give back" land included land north of 15/16, which we had never considered before, but I think it makes sense. I also think some land was likely returned down along the 14th tee across from the clubhouse, but perhaps not.
Perhaps they just designed and built the holes and then built the road along their perimeter as you said yesterday.
In any case, I really want to hear Bryan's take, as well.
I'll see if I can't sum up the conversation that got blown away here...
I think there are a few open questions left.
1) If Merion secured 117 acres in November 1910 and that's what the Land Plan that month represented, they why does that Land Plan measure out at around 121-123 acres? More importantly, why does the Merion that got bought in July 1910 measure 120 acres without the 3 acres of railroad land? Are we in agreement that something happened between those months?
2) If change/growth to the course happened, which we assume it did, could it have happened anywhere else but along that Golf House Road boundary? I'd be open to hearing suggestion on where it could have possibly been, but to me the road just changed spots.
3) Since the triangle measure 4.8 acres, are we agreeing that it's impossible that this couldn't have been the 3 acres added between November 1910 and July 1911? I'm not so sure. Maybe Bryan could give an idea of about how much 3 acres is?
Any other issues out there?
Tony,
I agree, with 300+ acres at their disposal, selecting only 117 had to be purpose specific.
Patrick,
Guess what?
It was not only purpose specific, it was site specific.
Mike, Guess what ? It's the SAME THING
The northern and southern sections of what we know today as the "L" that makes up the predominant shape of the property and the bulk of the golf course....were the northern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, along with all of their historic boundaries, except for the northwestern part, where it was determined to build real estate on the other side of an "approximate" boundary delineated by a road.
And Guess what?
They were 117 acres.
And Guess what else?
If we add the 3 acres of Railroad Land that Macdonald and Whigham recommended they buy that were right next to the clubhouse..
Amazingly...
we get to the 120 acre "requirement" that the Merion Site Committee recommended to the Board that would be necessary for the golf course on July 1, 1910.
Now, since you are so unbiased, impartial, and just seeking the true story here.
Why don't you go back to David and ask him what 120 acres he thinks the July 1, 1910 letter was talking about?
That's not my job/responsibility.
If you have a question for David, ask him.
You don't need me to be a surrogate.
Bryan,
Are you thinking that the Francis Swap all happened within and above Area F?
Is that what you;re suggesting when you say that the triangle on the 1910 Land Plan is essentially the same acreage as the shorter more rectangular shape that got built?
Also, do you recall what we measured the 1910 Land Plan at? I recall it didn't come out to 117 acres, but can't recall what people estimated.
p.s....I'd just add here that the reason Tom Paul didn't provide the metes and bounds is because they were provided to him by someone who has no interest in seeing his thousands of hours of research efforts appear on GCA, as he's no longer a member here.
That's absurd.
The Metes and Bounds aren't proprietary information, they're part of the public domain.
Once TEPaul came into possession of them he, as an active participant who stated that he had them, had an obligation to disclose them instead of sending people on a wild goose chase to obtain them.
What possible reason would Wayne have for trying to keep them secret ?
I just thought before we continue to lambaste Tom that someone should make that fact known.
Mike,
Are you saying that TEPaul posted third party information without verifying it ?
And, TEPaul never posted them prior to Bryan coming into possession of them.
Mike,
Re your question
"Could you explain your last sentence about Tom's mathematical machinations or at least refer me to the particular post?"
I was referring to the eureka moment that Tom (and you, later) was pushing in mathematically deducing what was in the 117 and 120 acres. It's embodied in the post below, although he presented it multiple time going way back to posts #652, 656 and 670. I've added the correct numbers in red to highlight how the math should have been done. The error is the opening assumption that the Johnson land never considered for the course (what I've labeled Area RE) was 23 acres. It's not - it's 21.1 acres. Based on that false assumption, the rest of the analysis falls apart."***EDIT*** I just went back and see that Bryan Izatt measured the land of the Johnson Farm north of Ardmore Ave. but west of Golf House road at 22 acres. The Johnson Farm itself was just over 140 acres, which means if the original HDC offer was simply for the portions south of Ardmore Avenue, and the northeast section above Ardmore Avenue, that would be around 118 acres total.
I'm not sure if this is relevant, but it is certainly possible that this is the portion of land M&W were asked to consider and report on. (drawn crudely in black)"
You're not sure if it's RELEVENT??
Of course it's relevent! All one needs to do is follow the timeline of what MCC and HDC were doing from around July 1910 to about the middle of December 1910 to understand just how relevent it really is. Whether they had their eye on the Dallas Estate in June or July 1910 or whether they didn't the fact is when the Dallas Estate was finally nailed down by HDC around the beginning of Nov. 1910 that is practically the same day and certainly the same week Lloyd and Connell completed their negotiations and the actual formal offer was made by Nickolson to Evans through Lloyd and MCC's board voted on it and accepted the offer to purchase 117 acres!!
Then when MCC came in with their working topo contour maps (probably in the end of Dec or beginning of Jan 1911) with that proposed road drawn on the map to scale that they used to route and design numerous courses and plans on throughout the winter and early spring of 1911, one needs to realize that the land to the west of that road and between the western boundary at the top of the "L" of the old Johnson farm was approximately 21 acres that I said back on post #652, 656 and 670 I am convinced it was!
As I said in those posts back there:
23 acres=the western section of the old Johnson farm never considered for golf Tom assumed it was 23 acres. It's not, it's 21.1 acres
140.137 acres=the entire Johnson farm
140-23=117 acres 140.137 - 21.1 = 119.037
Remove that app 21 acres (Another false assumption, it now measures to be 19.8 acres) from the 117 (really should be 119.037, as above) I mentioned on posts #652, 656, and 670 of the old Johnson farm to the west of the proposed road from the course plan (as it was on their working topo survey maps);
117-21=96 acres 119.037 - 19.8 = 99.237 acres
ADD the Dallas estate (21 acres Deeded as 21.02 acres)
96+21=117 acres 99.327 + 21.02 = 120.347 acres
ADD the exchange AND 3 acre additional purchased acres to the golf course land via the Francis fix idea gotten along the extension of Golf House Road through it's redelineation from the working topo survey maps to its actual metes and bounds "as built" delineation (Thompson Resolution)----I've been saying this for over a year now!
117+3=120.1 acres of the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA 120.347 + 3 = 123.347 acres Oooops, wrong answer! It's not the 120.01 acres on the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA. The flaws are in the original assumption, by Tom, that the Johnson Estate land never considered for the golf course was 23 acres, and the assumption that the land west of GHR to the western boundary of the Johnson Farm was 21 acres. Neither were as assumed by Tom. Perhaps that was why he wanted to sell me his methodology and why he didn't want to share the deeds and metes and bounds. Hope that helps, Mike.
THIS is why I said in posts #652, 656 and 670 that when the metes and bounds of Golf House Road are measured with and enclosed with that old Johnson boundary (after the Francis fix) the area in there is no longer app 21 acres BUT 18!! (posts #652, 656 and 670!)
(of course if the road actually crossed over the old Johnson farm western boundary at the top of the "L" and into the Taylor estate a professional surveyor can easily find the small remainder).
There is no question in my mind what this serves to do is set that Francis idea and fix inside at some point the TIMEFRAME of Dec. 19, 1910 AND April 19, 1911 (but much more likely before April 6, 1911) and it is all reflected in the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA. If it happened before that none of this makes any sense and I guarantee you when a professional surveyor does these metes and bounds measurments THEY WILL match my incremental results above of 21 and then 18!
I've been saying this for 2-3 weeks and so far no one seems to understand it. This is the only place a boundary adjustment could have happened and the Francis boundary adjustment is the only one ever mentioned in this timeframe so it is the only one that could've happened in this timeframe! If Bryan measures the right boundaries and he measures well I'm convinced he will come to the same results. But if he does he still may not quite understand what it really means! We'll see.
Bryan,
I think I know what happened.
Your correction of Tom's numbers needs a slight correction, as well.
Tom adds in 3 acres as his last calculation, but those three acres need to be subtracted from somewhere else first, because it was ALL land along the division between the Golf Course and Johnson Farm land on RW that we're talking about.
That would mean that prior to the "swap", the land marked "JW" would have been not 19.8 acres, but 22.8 acres, as the golf course at that time before Mr. Francis and his brainstorm was only 117 acres as determined in November 1910 and not the 120 acres it was built as (plus an additional 3 acres of leased railroad land not included in this calculation).
We also know that Hugh Wilson's Committee report of April 19th, 1911 asking for approval of a land swap for land ALREADY PURCHASED for land adjoining AND approval for the purchase of three more acres for $7,500 was presented at a Merion Board meeting.
I think your numbers prove that swap/purchase had to be along Golf House Road, and I think we all also now know that this was indeed the Francis Land Swap..
So, with great appreciation and thankfulness for everything you've done here, Bryan, I think the calculations should be;
23 acres=the western section of the old Johnson farm never considered for golf Tom assumed it was 23 acres. It's not, it's 21.1 acres CORRECT
140.137 acres=the entire Johnson farm
140-23=117 acres 140.137 - 21.1 = 119.037 CORRECT
Remove that app 21 acres (Another false assumption, it now measures to be 19.8 acres) from the 117 (really should be 119.037, as above) I mentioned on posts #652, 656, and 670 of the old Johnson farm to the west of the proposed road from the course plan (as it was on their working topo survey maps); No, it is not 19.8 acres. At that time prior to the 3 acre swap of land on that side of Golf House Road it would have been 22.8 acres
117-21=96 acres 119.037 - 19.8 = 99.237 acres This should be corrected to read 119.037 - 22.8 = 96.237
ADD the Dallas estate (21 acres Deeded as 21.02 acres)
96+21=117 acres 99.327 + 21.02 = 120.347 acres This should be corrected to read 96.237 + 21.02 = 117.347
ADD the exchange AND 3 acre additional purchased acres to the golf course land via the Francis fix idea gotten along the extension of Golf House Road through it's redelineation from the working topo survey maps to its actual metes and bounds "as built" delineation (Thompson Resolution)----I've been saying this for over a year now!
117+3=120.1 acres of the July 21, 1911 deed from Lloyd to MCCGA 120.347 + 3 = 123.347 acres. This should be corrected to read 117.347 + 3 = 120.347..
With your agreement, I think we've figured this out.
What do you think, Bryan?
On November 15, 1910, HDC obtains 21.02 acre Dallas Estate through a series of flips. At that date the Philadelphia & Ardmore Land Company owns the Johnson Farm of 140.137 acres.
On November 15, 1910 the Board of Governors of MCC write a letter to the members outlining the results of "The Committee"'s search for land for the new course. The Board announces that "The Club has secured 117 acres at $726.50 an acre, or $85,000." There is no real estate transaction that reflects this "securing". Absolutely correct. Remember, Lloyd still has control of the boundaries and I think he is acting in the best interest of both parties during this timeframe. Both the golf course and HDC.
With the letter, written on November 15, 1910 by the Board of Governors of MCC, was enclosed a "plan of the property". The plan of property was prepared by Pugh & Hubbard, Civil Engineers. It is further noted that the Board proposes to form a Corporation "which will buy outright, the 117 acres, shown on the plan in green, and marked "Golf Course". (I'll address the acreage shown on the plan of property in a separate thread.)
On December 23, 1910, the Dallas Estate and the Johnson Farm are separately sold to Rothwell. On December 28, 1910, the two properties are sold by Rothwell to Lloyd as a single entity of 161 acres. The Indenture describes the metes and bounds of the survey conducted by Pugh & Hubbard, Civil Engineers. So, the same surveyor did both the plan of property and the survey for the deed. I didn't know this. Apparently, you think by having this indenture, you might be able to show us how much land it really was?
So, at this point MCC feel they have secured 117 acres and that that is shown on the plan of property. How they got to 117 acres from 161 is through the subtraction of the fat L of land that I've labeled Area RE, north of Ardmore and west of GHR, and the land west of the "approximate" road between Ardmore and College that I've labeled Area JW. We have three knowns: the total acreage going in - 161.147; the Area RE acreage - 21.1; and, the MCC "secured" acreage supposedly shown on the plan of property - 117. We have one unknown - Area JW. Solving the equation yields the area JW as: 161.147 - 21.1 - JW = 117. JW = 161 - 21.1 - 117 = 23.047 acres. There is no documentary evidence, other than the plan of property, the would define where the "approximate" road was that defines the AREA JW acreage. Don't we really have only two knowns if we are unsure that the "secured" acreage is, in fact, 117 acres.
Sometime between December 1910 and July 1911 another 3 acres was added to the 117 acres "secured" by MCC to arrive at the 120.01 acres that MCCGA finally purchased on July 26, 1911. Given that MCCGA picked up an $85,000 mortgage for the 120.01 acre purchase and that the MCC Board letter sets the price at $85,000 for 117 acres, I think we can assume that they didn't "purchase" the extra 3 acres. Somebody, presumably Lloyd, threw it in for free. I think we can assume that the extra 3 acres didn't come from a like-for-like swap, since they added 3 acres and didn't give anything up. Absolutely, agree with this statement. Again, it's my contention that Lloyd probably thought Francis' proposal about widening the golf course would give his HDC more golf course frontage.
Since there is no record of the metes and bounds of the 117 acre "secured" tract, the only evidence we've got as to where it was, is the plan of property, which, sadly is distorted. The good news is that it was done by the same surveyor as did the deed survey a month later, so I'd guess they were familiar with the land and surveying it. I think we need a flat scanned version of it to see if it really is to scale. In response to your lost question about the acreage on that plan, Mike, I'll follow up with another thread tomorrow.
With regards to Tom's "conclusions" or what you've "figured .... out" above, I don't even want to go there yet.
I would only add at this point the reminder that Francis told us that his idea happened "after" they had fitted 13 holes in the southern portion of the property and were trying to fit the last five.
Given what we're learning about the land purchase timeline, is anyone still thinking that this was all wrapped up and routed early on before the 117 acres were secured in Nov 1910?
Bryan -- I think I'm reading this backwards from how you describe it. I think not, but let me try again to explain it.
You suggest near the clubhouse that Merion gained six acres (from the Nov. 1910 proposal). No, I'm suggesting they lost 6 acres from November 15, 1910 and July 26, 1911. What I wrote in the post above was looking backwards from 1911 to 1910. I know it's confusing, but we know the answer is in 1911 (120.01 acres), so I was working back from there. I think they lost six acres; considering that the red "proposed" line is further away from the club house than the actual road. Didn't they "give up" all of that land between the approximate road and the actual GHR? Yes, they gave up/lost the 6 acres of land between the approximate road and the actual GHR? That means that on November 15, 1910 the "Golf Course" land must have been greater than 120.01 acres, i.e. 120.01 + 6 acres.
And, if that's the case, doesn't it also mean that up by 14 and 15 they GAINED two acres from the proposal. (This would seem to mesh with Francis' story that they widened the area up there.) And if they gained up top, would that be +2 acres. Yes, from November 15, 1910 to July 26, 1911 the "Golf Course" lands got bigger by two acres. That means that on November 15, 1910 it must have been 2 acres smaller than it was on July 26, 1911, i.e. 120.01 +6 -2 = 124.01 acres.
That'd mean you had a final of 120.01 acres - 6 lost down below the clubhouse + 2 gained in the widening of 14 and 15 = a proposal to the members of 116 acres on the November 1910 map. Nope, I still think I'm right, from 120.01 acres on July 26, 1911 to (120.01 + 6 - 2 = 124.01) on November 15, 1910. Or, if you prefer, from 124.01 acres on November 15, 1910 - 6 acres + 2 acres = 120.01 acres on July 26, 1911
If I'm all dizzy on this please let me know. ;D Yes, you're all dizzy, but it's treatable. ;D Hope this explanation helped.
Bryan, Mike, et. al,
As to the acreage differential on the Nov 1910 plan, let me ask you this:
Didn't MCC pick up the acreage where No. 2 green is located later on? I think I recall that. If so, it could simply be a drafting error and that could account for a few acres difference, no? There was a land swap around the 2nd green and 6th fairway in 1912, but it was only 0.352 acres and didn't impinge the 2nd green. It was ostensibly to provide relief from having to drive over the corner of the Eaton estate on the 6th tee.
Another possibility that was touched on earlier, but I don't recall the answer - where exactly does the property line along GHR come out to? Sometimes, property lines go to the center of roads, not the edges as shown on the Nov 1910 map and the easment is given by both property owners. Over several thousand feet of 50' road Right of Way, that could add up to 2 acres right there. (Approx 3600 lineal feet of road X 25' (half of the ROW) = 90,000 SF or about 2.1 acres) The metes from the deeds are indeed along the middle of the road, Ardmore and GHR for example. There's no way to know, so far, where they were on the 1910 plan of property, although since it was the same surveyor that drew that map as did the July 26, 1911 deed survey, I'd guess that they ran them down the middle of the "approximate" road. In any event it looks like the property owner owned the road as well and "dedicated" it to the Township (according to Tom). As an interesting sidelight - the boundary of the south-west corner of the Dallas Estate actually crosses Darby Road and then angles north-east diagonally across Darby. So, at the time I guess Dallas, and then Merion owned a small entire section of Darby road. The roads are more like 25 feet wide at most, not 50.
Bryan's look at the metes and bounds could help you determine that.
I truly hate to throw out more speculation here, but I guess I just had to! Sorry if my memory is getting poorer after 10,000 posts on MCC.
Bryan,
Are we in agreement that the only place on the property where this final boundary could have been solidified is the northwestern boundary along Golf House Road and are we also in agreement that this HAD to have happened after Nov 1910 and finally, are we also in agreement that the 4.8 acres around 15 green and 16 tee could not have been the swapped land in question?
As much as Patrick doesn't want to see or admit the truth os what the evidence show, I think each of those points are largely irrefuable at this point.
Would you agree?
Bryan,
Thanks for the answer. Yes, there is no way to know where they were on the Nov 1910, but they aren't the ones doing the measuring - we are! When you or Mike came up with the 124 acres on that map, did you measure the edge of the green area, or did you take it to the center of the road? I used the middle of the road on the as-built GHR. For the "approximate" road, I was guesstimating where it was, so I can't claim that it was exactly middle or edge. The source material is not that precise. It would make nearly a 2 acre difference. I don't think it would in the +6-2 (or -6+2, if you prefer) measurements. GHR is 3800 feet from Ardmore to College. The stretches for the +6 and -2 areas are considerably shorter. In any event, I'm not trying to prove a precise 4 acre delta, just that there is a delta and that it is that the plan of property shows an area that is larger than 117 acres. I have now got a scanned version on the plan, so I'll try that later to see if I can be more precise taking into account ROW's.
And, yes, the roads are only 25' feet wide, but ROW is typically wider, usually to account for drainage ditches, water lines that follow the road, etc. Are you saying it only showed 25' wide on the surveyors metes and bounds back in those days? The metes on the deeds don't address road widths. They merely state that they went down the middle of the road when they did. The current GHR measures about 22 feet across the paved areas and about 35 feet to the ROW. I guess they made narrow gauge roads in PA in the 1910's. ;)
John,
Yes and I think the date was July 21, 1911 after all was said and done.
I've still no clue to the following. Why did Merion secure 117 acres, send a plan to their members with 124 acres and build a course on 120. Mucci if you think they had this thing routed, I'm going nuts on that one given the differences in the numbers. ;D
"Are we in agreement that the only place on the property where this final boundary could have been solidified is the northwestern boundary along Golf House Road" Which final boundary? I'd agree that the only boundary that was variable between the 1910 plan of property and the July 26, 1911 deeded 120.01 acres is the boundary along GHR.
"are we also in agreement that this HAD to have happened after Nov 1910" Are you referring to the final location of GHR? No, I can't reach that conclusion yet. Are we in agreement that the plan of property and the Board's letter to the members are at odds about the 117 acres? Which is right? What was going on in the back rooms about the size of the "Golf Course" property and consequently the location of GHR?
"are we also in agreement that the 4.8 acres around 15 green and 16 tee could not have been the swapped land in question" Which swapped land, in what question? The Francis swap? The Thompson Resolution swap? Francis suggested a swap of about 5 acres for the 15th green/16th tee for something adjoining. That approximately 5 acres is included in the deeded 120.01 acres on July 26, 1911. It also appears to be there on the plan of property on November 15, 1911. What do you make of that?
I've still no clue to the following. Why did Merion secure 117 acres, send a plan to their members with 124 acres and build a course on 120.
They secured 117 acres because they initially felt that amount of land was adequate.
If they only owned 117-120 acres any plan sent to the members reflecting 124 acres would have to be an error.
The built on 120 because they secured more land to improve the golf course.
Mucci if you think they had this thing routed,
I do.
The parcel is too contrived and the acreage too arbitrary/limited, given the amount of land available to them.
I'm going nuts on that one given the differences in the numbers. ;D
Hopefully, I've cured your insanity.
Patrick is just wishin', and hopin', and praying that there is some way he can get someone, anyone, to credit CB Macdonald for Merion, even without a single shard of proof and a timeline that flies in the face of it.
I've never advocated crediting Macdonald for Merion, that's your defense at it's extreme.
The absence of a single shard of proof and timeline flies in the face of crediting Wilson with the routing of Merion.
It's way past ridiculous at this point, and really cluttering these threads with nonsense, frankly.
I understand your reluctance at continuing to research this topic.
You want to dismiss any efforts to research this topic because you're so heavily invested in Wilson.
I don't know who routed Merion, but, I'd like to find out.
You don't know who routed Merion, but, you want to give credit to Wilson and end any further research in this area.
Ask yourself, which position is the more reasonable position ?
Which position seeks the truth and which position maintains the status quo despite not having hard evidence to prove your case.
TEPaul should publish the entirety of the Cuyler letter and Lesley report.
That MAY add some clarity to this issue.
I'm sorry guys....but this is just land planning 101....circa 1910.
I agree with you.
I've still no clue to the following. Why did Merion secure 117 acres, send a plan to their members with 124 acres and build a course on 120.
They secured 117 acres because they initially felt that amount of land was adequate.
If they only owned 117-120 acres any plan sent to the members reflecting 124 acres would have to be an error.
The built on 120 because they secured more land to improve the golf course.
Mucci if you think they had this thing routed,
I do.
The parcel is too contrived and the acreage too arbitrary/limited, given the amount of land available to them.
I'm going nuts on that one given the differences in the numbers. ;D
Hopefully, I've cured your insanity.
John -- Jeff is correct on this. The deed that placed the golf course boundary for the 120.01 acres was in July 1911.
I've still no clue to the following. Why did Merion secure 117 acres, send a plan to their members with 124 acres and build a course on 120. Mucci if you think they had this thing routed, I'm going nuts on that one given the differences in the numbers. ;D
Bryan,
Narrow Guage roads! I love it.....PA did have a lot of narrow guage railroads at the time. Of course, the most likely explanation is that roads and ROW's generally get wider all the time. If minor roads are 50' today, I can imagine them being 35' in 1910.
I was once again trying to come up with a definitive explanation. However, it seems just as likely that the road was simply drawn for ilustrative purposes and that it didn't necessarily have to measure out to the proposed property boundaries, especially since it was known that the road would shift to fit the golf course.
Bryan,
Narrow Guage roads! I love it.....PA did have a lot of narrow guage railroads at the time. Of course, the most likely explanation is that roads and ROW's generally get wider all the time. If minor roads are 50' today, I can imagine them being 35' in 1910.
I was once again trying to come up with a definitive explanation. However, it seems just as likely that the road was simply drawn for ilustrative purposes and that it didn't necessarily have to measure out to the proposed property boundaries, especially since it was known that the road would shift to fit the golf course.
Guys
You've got to ask yourself, who had the whip hand here ? Who was taking the lead ? Surely, the answer to both questions was the development company. They would have decided a general masterplan, or whatever it was called in 1910, that suited there purposes and then offered the land they had designated for the golf course to the golf club. In doing so they would have had to mark some sort of boundary even though it wasn't hard and fast along part. The line of the proposed road just smacks of an architect/desk sitting at his desk coming up with an arbitary boundary without any real reference to the lay of the land. The site area would have been calculated after, hence the odd number in 117 acres.
All conjecture on my part but if everyone else can have a go then why not me.
Niall
Jeff,
I agree that the road, being "approximate" was illustrative. But, I have to believe that it was meant to show 117 acres, or why else would the accompanying letter state that the Board proposes to form a Corporation "which will buy outright, the 117 acres, shown on the plan in green, and marked "Golf Course". The second page of the letter goes on at length about how they will finance the land purchase and the course development through a mortgage, a lease and bonds. They even included a form for subscription to the bond issue as part of the letter and asked the members to be liberal in subscribing to the bonds. Even in the '10's it seems a little loose to be basing this on a misleading plan of property.
In any event, if behind the scenes GHR was understood by all to be a movable boundary dependent on the design of the course, would not the expectation of the membership be that the line may shift shape but the total acreage would remain the same. After all, they said explicitly that "The Club has secured 117 acres at $726.50 an acre, or $85,000." All the financial arrangements were based on those numbers.
Now in the end in July 1911 they ended up with 120.01 acres, but still only paid $85,000 (see extract from the July 26, 1911 Indenture transferring the golf course property from Lloyd via Rothwell to MCCGA, below). Are we to assume that sugar daddy Lloyd just threw in 3 extra acres.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionJuly261911DeedPriceMortgageDe.jpg)
Mike,
It's not 108 acres, I want to include the part of JW below the base of the triangle...you know..."the area with fine homes along golf house road..."
..........................."are we also in agreement that this HAD to have happened after Nov 1910" Are you referring to the final location of GHR? No, I can't reach that conclusion yet. Are we in agreement that the plan of property and the Board's letter to the members are at odds about the 117 acres? Which is right? What was going on in the back rooms about the size of the "Golf Course" property and consequently the location of GHR?
Bryan, I'm surprised you're still hedging on this one. It's clear that the approximate road drawn on the November 15, 1910 Land Plan is markedly different than the road that was built and shaped according to the final routing and hole dimensions as indicated by the metes and bounds on the July 1911 deed.. It's also clear that the road changed based on adding width where necessary along 14 & 15 and giving back where it wasn't needed, and all of that clearly took place during the time period between November 1910 and July 1911.
.................................
We also know that Hugh Wilson and Committee would have later been working with an actual TOPO with a boundary that may or may not have looked precisely like that 1910 Land Plan.
In any case, whatever they were working with clearly wasn't wide enough and we know that the boundaries of the roadway changed to support the golf course they needed, and I believe it's painfully visually obvious. EVEN the 1910 Land Plan, which shows MORE ACRES than what was built, SHOWS CLEARLY THAT WHAT THEY WERE CONSIDERING FOR THE FINAL FIVE HOLES WAS NOT WIDE ENOUGH. Tongue Wink
Jim,
The land area you're asking about measures out to 108.5 acres...much larger than the 100 acres David was hoping for.
The entire rectangle above the Haverford College boundary is 10.5 acres, with 4.8 acres used as 'the triangle" you mentioned.
You say "how very close it actually ended up being..", but it's really not as I'll show shortly.
Back on that Land Plan it was about 100 yards x 327 yards wide. Today it is 130 yards by 190 yards. That is not close.
On the July 26, 1911 deed the dimensions are about 130 yards by 327 yards. The property goes all the way to College. So, they are reasonably close to the plan of property map that was purely illustrative. ;)
To your other question...
I believe the swap clearly happened after that 1910 Land Plan was drawn and the fact that the boundary on that western side up to and including the triangle land changed so much between the time the Land Plan was drawn and what got eventually built virtually proves it had to have happened later.
Mike, could you restate your theory on what was swapped. Last I recall you thought it was a slice along the 14th green/15th fairway for a slice down opposite the clubhouse. And, that it was a like-for-like sized swap. And, that Francis misstated in saying it was 130 x 190 yards. But, my recall on your position is fuzzy at best.
All,
Please allow me to illustrate further.
After asking the question last night about the parallel, "doppelganger" road drawn through the Real Estate Portion of land on that 1912 map, and asking if that also was based on some supposed existing golf course routing, I went back and read what Francis wrote again and was struck by a number of things.
First, he says that "the Land now covered in fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long...".
I got to wondering what he is talking about because the entire stretch along Golf House Road from Ardmore to College Avenue is covered with "fine homes". So, that got me thinking....what did that property look like in 1950 when Francis spoke?
Unfortunately, no luck...the length of the road was pretty developed then, as well.
But something else kept bugging me. If they already had a surveyor with Pugh and Hubbard who drew thiese Land Plans, then why would they need Richard Francis on the Comimittee?
Maybe Pugh and Hubbard were land surveyors for deed purposes, and perhaps Merion wanted an in-house surveyor for surveying the holes from the plans onto the ground.
Or put better, if Francis was already out there surveying before the November 1910 Land Plan, why didn't they just use HIS maps?
More importantly, the "doppelganger road" kept troubling me, as well, so I wanted to go back and see if THAT road got built to the initial spec as drawn on the 1910 Land Plan.
Alas, it was off, as well.
Here is the 1910 Land Plan showing both proposed "approximate" roads followed by a 1948 Railroad Map of the same terrirory showing the roads as they were actually built.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2089/3627225378_8542e8bcf0_o.jpg)
Now, here's the "as built" in 1948.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2427/3628225331_1f17851ddc_b.jpg)
Finally, let me try to draw something that creates the original intended "doppelganger" effect...
If you're going to persist in free hand drawing of the road for illustrative purposes, could you at least try to get it approximately in the right place in the triangle. It certainly doesn't go up the middle of it. ;)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/3629044164_cd3709f80f_b.jpg)
I really think we're looking at the Francis Land Swap right here.
Right where? Could you explain what it is you're seeing in this picture as the swap, because I don't see what you're trying to say.
Bryan,
I know you're trying to ask the same thing different ways but what do we know as fact here?
I'd suggest that among the things we know is that the Land Plan does not measure 117 acres as portrayed and the other fact is that the approximate location of road was the only variable boundary.
Are we in agreement on those two points?
Yes, I agree that the Land Plan does not measure 117 acres.
No, I don't agree that the approximate location of the road was the only variable boundary. If we're going to state facts, then I'd rather state that the variable boundary was in the northeastern section of the Johnson farm, since you think the road is purely illustrative and we don't know where the boundary was of the 117 acres that they said they "secured" before November 15, 1910.
Do you agree that the Francis swap area measures 4.8 acres, and on July 26, 1911 extended up to College?
Do you think that the swap was like-for-like size?
Yes, I agree that the Land Plan does not measure 117 acres.
No, I don't agree that the approximate location of the road was the only variable boundary. If we're going to state facts, then I'd rather state that the variable boundary was in the northeastern section of the Johnson farm, since you think the road is purely illustrative and we don't know where the boundary was of the 117 acres that they said they "secured" before November 15, 1910.
Do you agree that the Francis swap area measures 4.8 acres, and on July 26, 1911 extended up to College?
Do you think that the swap was like-for-like size?
Ooops...our posts crossed.
Ok...at least we agree that the November 1910 Land Plan didn't measure at 117 acres...could you remind me what it measured at? Was it around 122? Thanks!
I think the road was more than illustrative...I think it was "approximate", but also known to be a moveable boundary as necessary. It may also have been a "working boundary".
In actuality, I do believe it is much closer to a representation of reality than either David and Jim S. do. I do believe that it represents the original land being looked at for golf course including 327 yards all the way up to College Avenue, which they seem to tend to want to forget is there.
I think they are the ones who want it both ways...proving that some triangle exists while asking us not to look at the actual dimensions very closely.
I also believe that it was meant to largely shadow the "doppelganger" proposed road through the Real Estate property as illustrated on that Nov Land Plan, as seen below.
I don't really understand your obsession with the "doppelganger" thing. I don't think it adds anything material to the discussion.
I just think that Francis and Company found out that this proposal didn't work very well for fitting the golf course, largely because of the quarry.
.......................
To your other questions...
Do you agree that the Francis swap area measures 4.8 acres, and on July 26, 1911 extended up to College?
I agree that the area in play today as the course was built measures 4.8 acres of what was originally a 10.5 acre rectangle extending north to College Ave. I do not understand what you mean in the second part of your question, because I did not understand you to ever say that the final deed" extended that far north in 1911 after the final purchase.
If you look at my map of the boundaries of Merion as defined in the July 26, 1911 deed, you'll see that the orange boundary extends all the way up to College. It's not very wide up there, but clearly there was land deeded to Merion all 327 yards up to College. Hope that clarifies it.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionLabeledDeedMap.jpg)
Could you explain further?
Do you think that the swap was like-for-like size?
I'm not certain. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it was, or that additional acreage was needed, or that some was given back from what was drawn on the 1910 Land Plan, especially if that measures out at over 120 acres.
I've certainly not been shy in drawing out what I think happened...do you have any theories of your own now that you've looked at both the timelines and acreages in detail?
No, I don't have a theory yet for the swap. The whole measuring exercise was to try to provide some factual context to determining where the swap was. So far, the measurement hasn't helped clarify the swap areas. But, I'm still thinking on it, as Jim apparently is doing too. You have a theory, so, I thought it would be good to have it concisely stated again (outside this post, I hope, and without arguments in favour or against. Let's just get it out and clear and debate from there.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3619/3575087874_58dd870b54_o.jpg)
Bryan,
Tough to tell if that's gravel or paved...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3625/3628713212_4bac0faf0e_o.jpg)
Is there any reason why Haverford College would not have a road from College Avenue to access their property from the west? It looks like the train tracks are the Eastern boundary. Is there anywhere to look at something like this?
Thanks
Fair enough, I have a hard time when you and Tom Paul imply that he misspoke because it was 39 years after the fact...I'd like to think in the context he said it...basically self depricating except for one vital addition to the project...
As you know, I've been struggling with the idea that the "approximate road" was purely hypothetical or aesthetic, and with the suggestion that, if we take it too literally, it left too narrow an area for the golf they needed...essentially I just have a gut instinct that the SWAP, (whenever it occurred) included the entire triangle in use today...all 4.8 acres. So that's the point of this latest query about a road entrance into the Haverford College grounds there.
Wouldn't they have to have had a road coming in from College Ave. to access the land there?
If so, wouldn;t this become a very logical place to initially consider your Northern boundary for golf if you were HDC and Merion?
I'll play along for fun. Patrick if they had the thing routed -- like you just said -- why didn't they put the road where it ended up being? And, why did they want golf course all the way up to College Ave. when they knew they weren't going up there? Humor me.
Tony,
You and others seem to think in the context that "A" routing was the ultimate or final routing.
Routings are revised all the time.
To say that no prior routing existed because the ultimate routing was modified is "nuts"
One only has to look at Sand Hills where Dick Youngscap bought about 8,000 acres for his golf course.
But, when C&C were doing the routing on the land Youngscap owned they discovered that they desired some addtional land to route a number of holes on, hence, they advised Youngscap to buy the additional acreage, which he did. They subsequently rerouted the course to include a few holes. I believe it was holes # 12 and # 13, but, it could have been more or others.
Are you sufficiently humored ? ;D
Another example is CC of York, where both Flynn and Ross provided seperate routings on the same piece of land.
Just because one architects routing was chosen doesn't mean that the other architect's routing didn't exist.
Bryan,
Did you see the modern pic I posted from close to the same angle. Yes.
If not for the trees the area of the original 10th green would appear to be to the right of the road as well. Yes. Of the section of the road that's visible. If you could see through the trees, it would curve back to the right of where the 10th green was, if I understand the perspective of the photo.
What road do you think this was? Don't know. It's looks like a painting, so maybe it was artistic license. It appeared on a dinner menu at the end of 1911 and no other such road appears on any maps of the time. So, maybe it's an artistic impression of GHR. We know from the deed that the road was there by July 1911.
Per my post above, do you think that GHR could have been designed and built between April and July 1911? If not, how long a lead time do you think was required. In other words, when did they need to pin down the location of the road to get it designed and built by July 1911?
Bryan,
Mike, thanks for reiterating your theory. I was only thinking specifically of your theory of what was swapped for what, but the broader theory is fine.
You asked me to describe again my theory of what I think happened. I thought I had done that some pages ago when I first summarized the original historical property boundaries and drew out on those pre-purchase maps what I thought happend, and then again later I thought I had done it using the Merion internal documents that showed what was done by Barker, and what was done by Macdonald in mid-1910, as well as the correspondence to membership in November 1910 but I'll try to summarize.
First, I believe that the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm were the areas originally considered by both Barker as well as Macdonald and Whigham as part of the "nearly 120 acres" that would be required to be purchased that Robert Lesley referred to in July, 1910, and which the Site Committee recommended to the Board. The fact that they measure out to 119 acres per your measurement of the area seems consistent with that.
I also believe that it would have been difficult not to realize that grabbing ahold of the Dallas Estate which ran contiguous to the southern portion of the Johnson Farm was a wise move for either real estate or golf course purposes, and you provided the definitive documents that showed that area coming under HDC control in October 1910, well after the July 1, 1910 solicitation to membership. If you're referring to soliciting the members to buy bonds for the land purchase, that was November 15, 1910. No?
I believe that pickup of the Dallas Estate then provided options for the golf course that hadn't been possible prior. It also allowed Lloyd to work with Connell to negotiate a real estate/golf course boundary along the western edge of the northeastern part of the Johnson Farm that could be moved as necessary to create the golf course, but which also allowed them to keep real estate acreage maximized and the golf course kept to about 117 acres, which is what they eventually recommended securing.
Thus, the creation of the "approximate road", which replaced the historical boundary of the Johnson Farm along that edge, probably early November 1910.
No matter what the November 1910 Land Plan measures out to, we know it is inaccurate and we know that Merion intended to secure 117 acres, not the 122 or whatever the oversized and otherwise flawed 1910 Land Plan turned out to be. I don't think we can just write off the plan of property as oversized and flawed. That's too easy. While I think the shape of the "approximate road" is probably close to what was intended and even close to what was on the plan they worked with, we still know it's off, so it's subject to continued speculation and doesn't serve our purposes as well as we had hoped.
We also know that it was supposed to be 117 acres from all of the documents and news accounts at the time the property was recommended to membership in November, and we know it from Hugh Wilson's first letter to Piper/Oakley later in February 1911 when he also mentions that they have 117 acres....not 120. That is a very specific number and I'm certain it was consistent with whatever topo maps they had created which HAD to have included the land boundaries. Ah, but which boundary? The "approximate" road? Or another boundary that describes the actual 117 acre tract? Have you seen the topo in question to KNOW that it had boundaries on it.
I also believe that the golf course was 117 acres prior to the Francis Swap and 120 acres afterwards. I think they netted 3 additional acres but it's iimpossible to prove with anything other than the events and correspondences. We would need to see the boundary of Hugh WIlson's topo map that measuured 117 acres total to see specifically where it happened along Golf House Road. So, #1, you're agreeing that the RR land doesn't account for the 3 additional acres, #2 nor does that the Lesley Report 3 acre purchase for $7,500; and #3, that the "Francis swap" was not a like-for-like swap, but rather netted 3 more acres. So, if they added 4.8 acres then they only gave away 1.8 acres, for the sake of argument?
To your measurements...
It really doesn't matter much if that section of the Johnson Farm to the west across Ardmore Ave from the second hole was 23 or 21 acres. The point is the difference to get to 117 acres can only be found to the west of GHR between Ardmore and College Aves because comparing the metes and bounds on those two deeds shows there is no other place on the property where metes and bounds changed once one takes out that land of the Johnson Farm across from #2.
If that far section was 21 then the acreage immediately to the west of GHR before the swap would be app 23 acres and app. 20 acres after the swap. It really doesn't matter; the only point is the golf course had to total 117 acres before the swap and 120 after it. That's how the golf course gained three acres in there to get to 120.1 acres on the July 1911 deed from the 117 MCC originally agreed to purchase. I'd remind you once again that Hugh Wilson wrote about a 117 acres purchase on 2/1/11 and not a 120 acres purchase as we know happened on 7/19/11.
I also believe the additional three acres mentioned during the April 1911 Board Meeting is is not the railroad land since my understanding is that the metes and bounds on the Dec. 1910 deed and the July 1911 deed are the same along the creek. Oh, I thought we had previously agreed that it was. If it wasn't, then are you suggesting they bought another 3 acres (and, paid $7,500 for it) beyond the net gain of 3 acres that you mentioned above in the Francis swap?
I know it's frustrating to all of us that the 1910 Land Plan is not measurable to an accurate scale because if it were, we could certainly see definitively what's changed. Tom had claimed in previous posts that he had a deed that showed 117 acres. I assume that that is erroneous. But we also KNOW that it's not accurate, clearly, so it's also sort of frustrating that we're still trying to measure that proposed land plan that seems unreliable for measurement. Everyone seems to agree to that so I'm not sure exactly what we are still thinking can be uncovered there.
The point is that whoever was routing and designing the golf course frankly couldn't have been using that Nov 1910 proposed plan to route and design the course----they were using a topo map Hugh Wilson also referred to and sent to Piper & Oakley in February 1911 that most assurely DID have a measurable and accurate delineation on them for Golf House Road! Otherwise there wouldn't have been anything at all that would have been limiting them in that area, would there?
Remember all it was out there was just open ground. They probably just measured and staked out on the ground the measurable delineation of GHR showing on their topo contour maps (that enclosed a total of 117 acres) And, in your theory, who was it that decided the delineation that provided 117 acres. Why was it them, and not Pugh & Hubbard, the professional surveyors who drew the land plan. Why couldn't P&H get it right on the land plan, but somebody else could on a topo? and could see it was a problem fitting those last five holes in with that delineation on their topo contour maps. That delineation of GHR on those topo maps is the only thing that could've been limiting them at that point.
The other issue is that if the Francis Swap had happened before Nov. 1910 there would've been no reason at all for the board to consider an exchange for land ALREADY PURCHASED for land ADJOINING AND the purchase of 3 acres additional as it already would've been considered and done before Lloyd even purchased the 161 acres and it obviously would've been reflected on those topo contour maps with their GHR delineation (which in that case would not have been limiting them on those last five holes).
It is also important to understand that in Nov. 1910 on the HDC real estate side 221 acres were slated for residential development while in reality only app 218 acres were ever actually developed of the original 338 acres mentioned by HDC and MCC.
I think some folks here are still hung up on the language Richard Francis used to describe the northern part of the property and still think that Merion had to to come along and swap for that whole "Triangle", and then looki at the Land Plan of November 1910 and thinki since some land up there was already identified that everything must have happened before then, even if it doesn't measure out to what Francis said on that plan, or other factors such as the size of the plot and other timings make it a jigsaw puzzle piece that certainly doesn't fit the story or timelines in any way.
What some folks here don't seem to be understanding, and the reason is doesn't fit is because that is NOT what was swapped. Then what was swapped? That is what I was originally asking re your theory. How big was Area F, and where was it, that they gained in the "Francis swap"; what size and where was Area X that they gave back to HDC, in return? Oh, wait, I see in a subsequent post you add:
"I just think that when Francis describes the dimensions of the area around 15 + 16 he was not precise in his decription of the entire land mass being all swapped for land along Golf House Road now covered in fine homes.
It was probably a bit more complicated and he wanted to simplify it for anecdotal purposes of the article in question.
If you consider that the swap also involved an additional 3 acres coming to Merion, it had to be a bit more complex than we're seeing with the evidence at hand."
I know it's complicated, but could you give it a shot at drawing an AREA F and an Area X that is a swap and nets them 3 more acres?
If Francis had done all that before Nov. 1910 then they probably just would've shown the membership in Nov. 1910 a map with the fix already on it and the exact boundaries of what the July 21, 1911 survey and deed showed at that time! Wouldn't they??
Hope this helps!! ;D
I'll play along for fun. Patrick if they had the thing routed -- like you just said -- why didn't they put the road where it ended up being? And, why did they want golf course all the way up to College Ave. when they knew they weren't going up there? Humor me.
Tony,
You and others seem to think in the context that "A" routing was the ultimate or final routing.
Routings are revised all the time.
To say that no prior routing existed because the ultimate routing was modified is "nuts"
One only has to look at Sand Hills where Dick Youngscap bought about 8,000 acres for his golf course.
But, when C&C were doing the routing on the land Youngscap owned they discovered that they desired some addtional land to route a number of holes on, hence, they advised Youngscap to buy the additional acreage, which he did. They subsequently rerouted the course to include a few holes. I believe it was holes # 12 and # 13, but, it could have been more or others.
Are you sufficiently humored ? ;D
Another example is CC of York, where both Flynn and Ross provided seperate routings on the same piece of land.
Just because one architects routing was chosen doesn't mean that the other architect's routing didn't exist.
Mike or Bryan: Do we have any proof that Merion acted on the Lesley Report and spent the additional $7,500 on three acres?
Mike or Bryan: Do we have any proof that Merion acted on the Lesley Report and spent the additional $7,500 on three acres?
Tony,
The proof that Merion acted on the Lesley Report is simply that they "Secured" 117 acres in November 1910, Hugh Wilson said they were working with 117 acres in February 1911, the Committee's report read by Lesley to the Board asked for an additional 3 acres at $7500 in April 1911, which was approved, and Merion purchased 120.1 acres in July 1911.
We also know that Bryan's measurement of those land areas works out to just over 120 acres, so we've proven they bought what they bought, so to speak.
However, the cost of the purchase of 120.1 acres was the same as what had been proposed for the 117 acres...$85,000.
Tony,
I think we're on the same page here.
The only point I think is important to note is that in Dec 1910 they were planning on needing 117 acres and after April 1911, or at least by July 1911 they were buying 120 acres, irrespective of costs.
To me, the reason the rest of it "fit" was simply because they had to work within the historical boundaries of the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate lands they "secured".
I wonder why they focussed on only those plots for the golf course.
Mike
Correct me if I'm wrong but surely this was a real estate development and the golf course was merely the "loss leader" on the development (mind you, I wonder how much HDC lost by selling AT $725 per acre to Merion at HDC !) and that the golf club wouldn't have had the choice of the 340 acres ? Would HDC not have done there masterplanning and then presented to the golf club the land for the golf course, with the rest being earmarked for housing ?
Niall
Mike
Correct me if I'm wrong but surely this was a real estate development and the golf course was merely the "loss leader" on the development (mind you, I wonder how much HDC lost by selling AT $725 per acre to Merion at HDC !) and that the golf club wouldn't have had the choice of the 340 acres ? Would HDC not have done there masterplanning and then presented to the golf club the land for the golf course, with the rest being earmarked for housing ?
Niall
Bryan,
Since you asked for my best GUESS of what the 117 acres might have looked like that they were originally working with, and please I know my scale and drawing abilities are poor, but I'd be very curious what this rougly measures out at, if you're able to make easy determinations.
Any possible attempts to more accurately match the symmetrical dimensons of the western road on the eastern side would be greatly appreciated because I'm sure mine aren't near exact.
Thanks!
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/3632879105_a733211e85_o.jpg)
I think some folks here are still hung up on the language Richard Francis used to describe the northern part of the property and still think that Merion had to to come along and swap for that whole "Triangle", and then looki at the Land Plan of November 1910 and thinki since some land up there was already identified that everything must have happened before then, even if it doesn't measure out to what Francis said on that plan, or other factors such as the size of the plot and other timings make it a jigsaw puzzle piece that certainly doesn't fit the story or timelines in any way.
What some folks here don't seem to be understanding, and the reason is doesn't fit is because that is NOT what was swapped. Then what was swapped? That is what I was originally asking re your theory. How big was Area F, and where was it, that they gained in the "Francis swap"; what size and where was Area X that they gave back to HDC, in return? Oh, wait, I see in a subsequent post you add:
"I just think that when Francis describes the dimensions of the area around 15 + 16 he was not precise in his decription of the entire land mass being all swapped for land along Golf House Road now covered in fine homes.
It was probably a bit more complicated and he wanted to simplify it for anecdotal purposes of the article in question.
If you consider that the swap also involved an additional 3 acres coming to Merion, it had to be a bit more complex than we're seeing with the evidence at hand."
I know it's complicated, but could you give it a shot at drawing an AREA F and an Area X that is a swap and nets them 3 more acres?
Bryan,
Interestingly, the "approximate" road built through the Real Estate Development (Turnbridge Rd) also seems off a bit on this 1910 Land Plan versus what was built as well, doesn't it?
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2089/3627225378_b1e4352e9b.jpg?v=0)
I sense we might be chasing ghosts here since the 117 acre Land Plan measures 122 acres, but I'd still be curious to know if it's uniformly incorrect or just in certain areas....thanks
Bryan,
Thanks for drawing some of that out again.
I'm not sure why would you suggest I'm dodging the question of where the 117 acres were and what got swapped when I just put forward a VERY speculative suggestion regarding creating Golf House Road as a mirror of Turnbridge that frankly wouldn't support my theory very well?
I could have easily just said that you'd need to move the road about 30 feet along the length to the east, because I thought that is the dimension you had suggested earlier would yield a few acres in return from what P&H drew. If it's 60 feet, that's a possibility, as well.
As to your point about that making the "triangle" even less useful for golf, isn't that the point? It's only when you buy into the theory that the exact dimensions of the course were determined through some previous invisible, hypothetical routing that you run into that quandary and we already know that ALL of the rest of the course besides that western edge was bounded by historical boundaries...NOT anything purchased specifically for golf.
And, my theory is that once the 21.1 acre Dallas Estate was purchased in October 1910, that gave them a possible 119 acres of Johnson Farm they originally looked at in July 1910, + 21 acres Dallas Estate, + 3 acres of RR land next to the clubhouse M&W recommended for 143 total and we know they wanted to limit golf course acreage to around 120.
THAT is when the hypothetical road boundary got drawn by Connell and Lloyd, and the fact that it got tight up near the top because of the way the Haverford College rectangular property juts in is simply an accident of the configuration of the property; Now, that's daring and speculative ;D - it's an accident of the property configuration rather than where Connel and Lloyd chose to put a road on the property. They were bright guys, why not put the road along the western boundary of the Johnson farm and give the course a 150 yard wide rectangle to work with up there? Or run it along the HC boundary to not create that accident of an unusable triangle up there? NOT because someone already planned some holes "up there". There was no "up there"...it was all just Johnson Farmland that had been further subdivided in an attempt to get down to the desired acreage.
I'm more than happy to try and answer your questions further, but I would ask you this first;
Is the 1910 Land Plan only incorrect and overstated in one measured area or is it uniformly and inconsistently inaccurate throughout?
In other words, does everything say, south of Ardmore Avenue measure out fine and everything above inaccurate, or is the entire map off by some percentage?
I would think that would be important for us to know, because otherwise, with the evidence I've seen to date I'd say that the answer is simply that the "Approximate Road" was misapproximated by some 20 yards as you suggest between what was proposed and what they eventually needed to fit the golf holes, and I know you're hoping I make a more daring, speculative answer than that! ;) :D
OK, so you'll go with the option that the road was just drawn 20 yards to far west on the plan, and should have been 20 yards further east - the blue road on my map.
What I'm really trying to pin you down on is where was the Francis swap. Where was Area F they picked up and where was Area X they gave up. I thought that you had previously stated that you thought they picked up a crescent up around 14 green, 15 fairway and green and 16 tee, and gave up a crescent lower down. I was just trying to confirm that that is still your working theory onthe Francis swap. If it is, it is predicated on P&H mis-drawing the land plan map and Francis mis-stating the 130 x 190 yard dimensions of the swap. So, where do you stand?
Thanks.
Bryan,
Is that dotted line along the road an attempt to reduce it to 117?
***EDIT***Nevermind...dumb question.
I just never saw the Land Plan blown up that size before so that you can see all the separate little dots.
THanks
Bryan,
Thanks for drawing some of that out again.
I'm not sure why would you suggest I'm dodging the question of where the 117 acres were and what got swapped when I just put forward a VERY speculative suggestion regarding creating Golf House Road as a mirror of Turnbridge that frankly wouldn't support my theory very well?
I could have easily just said that you'd need to move the road about 30 feet along the length to the east, because I thought that is the dimension you had suggested earlier would yield a few acres in return from what P&H drew. If it's 60 feet, that's a possibility, as well.
As to your point about that making the "triangle" even less useful for golf, isn't that the point? It's only when you buy into the theory that the exact dimensions of the course were determined through some previous invisible, hypothetical routing that you run into that quandary and we already know that ALL of the rest of the course besides that western edge was bounded by historical boundaries...NOT anything purchased specifically for golf.
And, my theory is that once the 21.1 acre Dallas Estate was purchased in October 1910, that gave them a possible 119 acres of Johnson Farm they originally looked at in July 1910, + 21 acres Dallas Estate, + 3 acres of RR land next to the clubhouse M&W recommended for 143 total and we know they wanted to limit golf course acreage to around 120.
THAT is when the hypothetical road boundary got drawn by Connell and Lloyd, and the fact that it got tight up near the top because of the way the Haverford College rectangular property juts in is simply an accident of the configuration of the property; Now, that's daring and speculative ;D - it's an accident of the property configuration rather than where Connel and Lloyd chose to put a road on the property. They were bright guys, why not put the road along the western boundary of the Johnson farm and give the course a 150 yard wide rectangle to work with up there? Or run it along the HC boundary to not create that accident of an unusable triangle up there? Bryan...simply because they were trying to keep it to rougly 120 acres for golf course...they had only secured 117 at the time and the agreement was that the rest was going for profitable real estate. In a way you've proved my point. There were NOT trying to fit the land boundary to an already routed and designed golf course...they were simply drawing a proposed boundary (flexible) along the Johnson Farm to limit the coming design to that 117 or so acres they thought they roughly needed. NOT because someone already planned some holes "up there". There was no "up there"...it was all just Johnson Farmland that had been further subdivided in an attempt to get down to the desired acreage.
I'm more than happy to try and answer your questions further, but I would ask you this first;
Is the 1910 Land Plan only incorrect and overstated in one measured area or is it uniformly and inconsistently inaccurate throughout?
In other words, does everything say, south of Ardmore Avenue measure out fine and everything above inaccurate, or is the entire map off by some percentage?
I would think that would be important for us to know, because otherwise, with the evidence I've seen to date I'd say that the answer is simply that the "Approximate Road" was misapproximated by some 20 yards as you suggest between what was proposed and what they eventually needed to fit the golf holes, and I know you're hoping I make a more daring, speculative answer than that! ;) :D
OK, so you'll go with the option that the road was just drawn 20 yards to far west on the plan, and should have been 20 yards further east - the blue road on my map.
What I'm really trying to pin you down on is where was the Francis swap. Where was Area F they picked up and where was Area X they gave up. I thought that you had previously stated that you thought they picked up a crescent up around 14 green, 15 fairway and green and 16 tee, and gave up a crescent lower down. I was just trying to confirm that that is still your working theory onthe Francis swap. If it is, it is predicated on P&H mis-drawing the land plan map and Francis mis-stating the 130 x 190 yard dimensions of the swap. So, where do you stand? Bryan, I'd love to speculate further, but I'd need to know the answer to the questions I asked about whether just this section of the Land Plan is "off", or whether it was uniform. In other words, does the entire Land Plan represent and measure 338 acres?
Thanks.
As to the other road being "off" I believe that also shows that it is clearly just a concept. There are no lot lines, etc., all of which were added later as the land use dominos fell - i.e., they determined what land to use for the golf course.
I still maintain that both roads could be illustrative ONLY, as Mike C originally contended and that they may NOT have been exact acreages. I know my modern renderings that get shown long after plans change don't consider that and have perfectly surveyed acreages. These plans are not intended for that kind of use.
Short version - I wouldn't get hung up on exact acreages of this drawing. I believe they set a TARGET of 117 (plus the extra 3 RR acres) based on the idea (CBM generated, perhaps) of 120 acres in summer 1910. As they routed the course in early 1911, it simply turned out that they needed 3 more acres and they got it under a friendly arrangement with HDC to move GHR as needed.
In other words, there never was an exact 3 Acres swapped. It just turned out that the routing took 3 more acres than they hoped for and they agreed to buy it at full price to the developer (even though you now say they never paid that)
If we wonder about Francis words in 1950 and parse them, my question is, where did the phrase "Francis Land Swap" that has us confused come from. Isn't it David Moriarity, circal 2007 or so, or did Francis or MCC actually use those words?
Bryan,
..........................
I would think that would be important for us to know, because otherwise, with the evidence I've seen to date I'd say that the answer is simply that the "Approximate Road" was misapproximated by some 20 yards as you suggest between what was proposed and what they eventually needed to fit the golf holes, and I know you're hoping I make a more daring, speculative answer than that! ;) :D
OK, so you'll go with the option that the road was just drawn 20 yards to far west on the plan, and should have been 20 yards further east - the blue road on my map.
What I'm really trying to pin you down on is where was the Francis swap. Where was Area F they picked up and where was Area X they gave up. I thought that you had previously stated that you thought they picked up a crescent up around 14 green, 15 fairway and green and 16 tee, and gave up a crescent lower down. I was just trying to confirm that that is still your working theory onthe Francis swap. If it is, it is predicated on P&H mis-drawing the land plan map and Francis mis-stating the 130 x 190 yard dimensions of the swap. So, where do you stand? Bryan, I'd love to speculate further, but I'd need to know the answer to the questions I asked about whether just this section of the Land Plan is "off", or whether it was uniform. In other words, does the entire Land Plan represent and measure 338 acres?
Thanks.
Bryan,
So for this exercise, instead of the HDC land being 221 acres and the course being 117 acres as the Land Plan is supposed to represent, we're working with the knowledge that the real estate portion is actually 216 and course is actually 122 as drawn by P+H, correct?
Afterall, if the overall landplan measures out at 338 acres then this is indeed a zero-sum game, yes?
Bryan,
I wouldn't have anything to go on to base that routing on, so I will decline. Also, I have some green details to do today, plus believe it or not, two contract proposals! I shouldn't spend this much time here but am waiting for an ancient printer to print a draft version.
I respect that you declined my request. It was worth a try. Good to know you have real paying work to do, rather than just dealing with us obsessives out here in the ether. ;D Keep dropping in on the insanity.
I forgot that Francis used the swap word. That said, unless we parse it out completely, IMHO it could refer to parts of the triangle for indenting the road. At one point, DM posted a map of the two roads (proposed and final) , on a BW map and the alignments appeared to be about equal in land they traded.
Maybe the reason the routing came out to be three more acres than their 117 target was specifically that they worked to that Nov 1910 map, not realizing that it was off a few acres because it was an illustration only. After working out the routing, swapping land, etc., they surveyed it, found it took more acres than they thougyht, and they decided to keep it
Jim,
I guess it could have been an aha moment. I guess every real idea has an aha component even if you are not of the personality to do cartwheels when it comes to you.
Bryan,
For Jeff or anyone to attempt that routing exercise on the 119 acres of the Johnson Farm and 3 acres of RR land, wouldn't they need the dimensions of the property bounds on each area?
For instance, based on eyeballing an out of scale RR map I recall Jeff commenting that the area of the Johnson land where hole 2 is today wasn't wide enuff for 2 holes, when in actuality it is something like 120+ yards wide.
Bryan,
I'm trying to be as precise as possible here. OK
Can I also assume that the entire 5 acre overapproximation of golf course land takes place North of Ardmore Avenue on that Land Plan? Yes.
Bryan,
For Jeff or anyone to attempt that routing exercise on the 119 acres of the Johnson Farm and 3 acres of RR land, wouldn't they need the dimensions of the property bounds on each area?
For instance, based on eyeballing an out of scale RR map I recall Jeff commenting that the area of the Johnson land where hole 2 is today wasn't wide enuff for 2 holes, when in actuality it is something like 120+ yards wide.
Mike,
The RR map would have to be out of scale if you say two holes fit there, north of the Dallas Estate. The whole parcel is 4 holes wide. The little notch before purchase of the Dallas Estate is about 1/3 (not 1/2) the width of that side of the L. It was NOT wide enough to put in two good holes. 120 yards is 360 feet - good enough for one hole by today's standards, and even by old day standards, short of being wide enough for two holes. A minimum for two holes back then would have probably been 400 to 450 feet, whereas today it would be a minimum of 500-600 feet.
With your permission, I will use the Brauer Hour as a catch phrase.
But let me ask you a question: I thought your whole premise was that the changes simply occurred along Golf House Road, no? Why are we spending time trying to find exactly what land was swapped? I don't think there was a formal swap, other than the land along Golf House Road.
Mike Cirba,
Have you seen the Cuyler letter in its entirety ?
Mike Cirba,
Have you seen the Cuyler letter in its entirety ?
Patrick,
Do you really think I'd be putting as much time and energy into this thread as I have if the Cuyler letter said anything like those who are now clinging to it as a final last hope like a boat chair on the Titanic are wishing?
In other words, now that the 1910 Land Plan that was the supposed "proof" that Hugh Wilson could not have designed Merion is lying stone dead in tatters at the bottom of the ocean, and every other last shred of possible evidence of a design prior to Hugh Wilson has been competely refuted, the Macdonald as Designer of Merion crowd has now had to come to me searching for a flicker of hope in the wording of a letter from Mr. Cuyler in December of 1910 that they hope can be twisted somehow into confusing the issue yet again that perhaps really Barker...or Macdonald and Whigham...or ANYBODY but Hugh Wilson designed Merion?!?!?!?
Sorry...it's over.
As this is post 1775, perhaps it's too much to wish for, but there would be sort of a nice irony to this whole thing if perhaps Bryan would simply respond to this post with a Eureka moment saying, "aha! I see exactly what you're saying Mike!!" and end this thread with the nice Philadelphia-sounding post #1776. ;D Sadly, I see that Mr Mucci beat me to the prized Phillie post #1776.
With that being said, I am going to cross over the border into Speculationland. Thankfully, we do have some known facts to help us on our journey.
What is it we know for certain...ok...let's see...
1) At the time the November 15, 1910 Land Plan was drawn, it was stated that it represented the 117 acres of proposed golf course acreage.
2) Modern day measuring by both David Moriarty and Bryan Izatt state that it actually measures more than that, somewhere around 122 acres in total.
3) Both agree that it's because the only variable boundary...the "approximate" road that later became Golf House Road with different dimensions...is not drawn in the correct place and/or shaping to accurately reflect 117 acres. Everyone else agrees.
4) In April, 1911 the MCC Board minutes as related by Tom Paul tell us that the Board approved a Golf Committee motion to exchange land with land already purchased, as well as the additional purchase of three acres.
5) When the boundaries were finalized, and Merion purchased the property in July 1911, the final course measured 120.1 acres.
6) In 1950, Richard Francis of Hugh Wilson's committee wrote that his one big contribution to the project was to figure out how to create enough space -to fit the final five holes (the first 13 had been routed) by swapping some already-secured land "west of the present course that did not fit in at all with any golf layout", and also describes that traded parcel as "the land now covered with fine houses along golf house road". Funny that you don't mention the 130 x 190 exact dimensions of the area that Francis wanted. Are you trying to disavow them?
7) As of February 1911 we know that Merion had a topographical map of the property that they were working from, as Hugh Wilson sent it to Piper & Oakley. This map would have certainly had the boundary dimensions they were working with on that variable northwestern border. You don't know that with certainty, do you? If you do, how? Inference won't cut it.
8)Fortunately, we also know at least where the starting point of the proposed boundary of that map was. WHAT?!? I hear you say... :o
Well, yes, we do, because at the point Francis had his brainstorm the first 13 holes had already been routed and Francis himself tell us that "it was not very difficult to get the first thirteen holes into the upright position - with the help of a little land on the north side of Ardmore Avenue."
So, we know they were unrestricted in building those holes and utlized that "little land on the north side" as the 3 acres of Railroad Land they had leased in May 1911 to fit the approach and green of the 12th and the par three 13th on that land.
That included ALL of the course and land south of the clubhouse, to the lower parts of the property across Ardmore Avenue.
But what of the areas north of the clubhouse...the final stretch where Francis tells us they had trouble fitting in the final five holes?
Since David Moriarty published his essay a few years back his contention had been that the all of the holes "fit" on the 1910 Land Plan, and then when Bryan started was doing his good work recently it became that they "almost fit" and then that they didn't fit because the road was "approximate", and then well, at least the 15th green and 16th tee fit, just like Mr. Francis wanted. ::)
The simple fact is that the 1910 Land Plan and the "approximate road" north of Ardmore Avenue DOES NOT FIT THE GOLF HOLES in any way, shape or form ALL ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF IT, FROM TOP TO BOTTOM on the boundary that today is represented by Golf House Road.
At the very northern end, it shows a "triangle of land" that is at most 100 yards wide at the base and runs 327 yards to the north on land that in reality today for the golf course is 135 yards to the middle of Golf House Road to 190 yards at the northern course border.
Moving South, large sections of the left of side of hole number 15 do not fit.
Going further south, the original 15th tee does not fit.
Going further south, the 14th green...obliterated...does not fit.
Then further south, despite the fact that the land across from the clubhouse today bellies out, our land plan has a little pot at best. Don't forget....this is supposed to represent 117 acres yet this section goes well into what we know today are houses.
But finally, the coup de grace...
We know that Richard Francis tell us that they had the first 13 holes already routed when he had his brainstorm.
He did not tell us that he and his committee had trouble putting the first hole, and the first green, and the second tee in place. In fact, we know he also told us that the 2nd tee used to be on the northern side of Ardmore Avenue, just beyond the original 1st green, which was just slightly north of today's green.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2424/3630251896_d4a9b045a9_o.jpg)
How far off is that 1910 Land Plan?
The starting point of Golf House Road where it meets Ardmore Avenue on the 1910 Land Plan is OVER FIFTY FIVE YARDS TOO FAR TO THE EAST AND WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO FIT THE ORIGINAL FIRST FAIRWAY, FIRST GREEN AND SECOND TEE!!! (see aerial view below) No need to shout. First, it is only 25 yards east of the intersection. No way, no how, is it even near 50 yards. Measure it on Google Earth, if you don't believe me. If you look in the overlay picture you can see the 1st green entirely. If you measure out a 335 yard dogleg left to a green a little north of the current 1st, it fits fine. Try it on Google Earth.
We can now see clearly that the 1910 Land Plan is flawed, faulty, and futilie from Top to Bottom. Well, we could agree that from north of the bow opposite the clubhouse, the current course does not fit within the "approximate" road. But it's a leap from there to the emotive alliterative flawed faulty and futile. But, nice turn of phrase.
We also now know without a shadow of a doubt that the Francis Land Swap HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED AFTER THAT MAP WAS DRAWN BECAUSE THE FIRST HOLE WOULD NOT EVEN FIT as originally designed as a right to left dogleg. But, it does fit. Your conclusion is flawed.
Because Bryan put in so much hard work and because he asked me to, I drew this attempt at what I think the land boundary looked like on Hugh Wilson's map. I really do thank you for this. I know how much work it is to develop these theories and put them down in type and pictures.
As I said, we now know the starting point HAD TO BE EXACTLY where today Ardmore Ave. and Golf House Road intersect, I disagree that it had to be there, as pointed out above, but you can start anywhere you like. so that's my lower boundary. We also know that Wilson and the boys had to be working with 117 acres, so I'm assuming that the Land Plan did not bow out nearly enough in the land across from the clubhouse.
I'm also assuming that generally the boundary line was drawn a bit further east along the extent of it on the REAL map than was illustrated on the Land Plan.
Unfortunately, Francis's contention that they traded land that is now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road doesn't help us at all because it is covered by fine homes along the length of it, and already was when he spoke in 1950, and besides, hadn't that been the plan all along??
Instead, I think he's speaking of giving back some of the land right across from the clubhouse...not as much as is indicated by the difference in the Land Plan vs the "as built". If it were that wide I simply cannot imagine how some 65 or more yards of width would not have been considered in "any golf plan".
No, instead, I think it was a narrower strip, and this is what I think the Hugh Wilson map looked like. I have no idea what it would measure... The two crescents you've created reduce the area by about 4 acres. But, then you add back in about 1.4 acres at the intersection of Ardmore and GHR. Net effect is a reduction of 2.6 acres; so down from 122 to 119.4. You've got another acre and a half to go. I wouldn't know a planemeter from a planetarium, but if nothing else, we now know two things;
1) The starting point of the Golf House Road boundary on the real map used to design Merion. I remain unconvinced, as above.
2) That the Francis Land Swap took place, and Merion was designed, sometime AFTER November 15, 1910. I can't agree on drawing this conclusion based on what you've presented above. I also don't see the compelling evidence from David for the other side either.
Thanks for all of your help. You're welcome. But, I hate to be a pest, but where are you going to place the 130 x 190 part of the swap? I assume that you want to use the area of the crescent across from the clubhouse as the area that was given back to HDC for the fine homes.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3330/3637284692_03c0bc74eb_o.jpg)
That's two votes for a new thread.
Mike,
I agree with your post 1788. Its just that I thought you had concluded that when you retitled the thread the first time (now I can't forget, but I think it was appended with "Finally Solved". Then, after that, we came back to all sorts of machinations.
For my money, unless someone secures the Wilson Topo and it shows a different working boundary than the approximate road, IMHO, they jumped from that Nov 1910 plan right to routing. My theory is that if they all knew it was going to change, why pay a surveyor or planner to redraw the road again until someone comes up with a real life location for it based on golf course design? There is no evidence that they did.
Yes, the concept plan is more than the "secured" 117 acres, but if they all knew that then they could figure that in the routing. And yes, to believe my interpretation, you have to discount Francis words a bit, but I thought that was the generally prevailing view anyway - that he was merely reciting his role in the relocation of clubhouse drive to accomodate the 15th and 16th holes.
Mike Cirba,
Have you seen the Cuyler letter in its entirety ?
Patrick,
Do you really think I'd be putting as much time and energy into this thread as I have if the Cuyler letter said anything like those who are now clinging to it as a final last hope like a boat chair on the Titanic are wishing?
In other words, now that the 1910 Land Plan that was the supposed "proof" that Hugh Wilson could not have designed Merion is lying stone dead in tatters at the bottom of the ocean, and every other last shred of possible evidence of a design prior to Hugh Wilson has been competely refuted,
That's not true.
Evidently, you refuse to acknowledge or didn't understand the exclusionary nature of the premise.
the Macdonald as Designer of Merion crowd has now had to come to me searching for a flicker of hope in the wording of a letter from Mr. Cuyler in December of 1910 that they hope can be twisted somehow into confusing the issue yet again that perhaps really Barker...or Macdonald and Whigham...or ANYBODY but Hugh Wilson designed Merion?!?!?!?
There is no written contemporaneous proof of that.
The issue isn't Wilson versus Macdonald.
The issue is to uncover evidence/documents that reveal who designed Merion.
You continue to try to thwart the discovery process while others attempt to pursue it.
Sorry...it's over.
Mike,
I asked you a simple question:
Have you seen the Cuyler letter in its entirety ?
Your long winded reply would seem to indicate that you haven't.
If you haven't, then you can't speak to its content.
If you have seen it in its entirety, could you obtain a copy for us ?
Thanks
Mike,
But to recap the letter, which I believe TePaul paraprhased or even quoted sometime in one of these threads, it was dated Dec. 10, 1910, it recommended that HDC take the land in Lloyd's name, and it said Lloyd had complete power to move boundaries around for the benefit of both MCC and HDC. It also urges them to let him know when the boundaries are finalized.
Is that a correct summary?
If it is, then your contention is that it proves that the routing wasn't complete, and as per most MCC records, hadn't probably even started, is that correct?
Mike,
I think so, but do it without predijuice. If more documents come available, it might change our conclusions, but in reality, if they haven't come out after almost 100 years, or even after a year of diligent searching by Wayne and TePaul, I would say that the chances are that they aren't really there. As you once said, it would appear that the simple answer was right in front of us the whole time and we tried to complicate it!
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionAcreageMapv2copy.jpg)
Now this feels like actual progress...thanks Jeff and Bryan for some real and helpful stuff...and you to Mike for figuring this thing out so many times thus far...
So a couple of thoughts
1) We're going to assume the comments identifying 117 acres meant nothing in November 1910? But that the "approximate road" meant everything...
2) We're also going to assume that no routing work was done between an option on the land and the actual purchase of it?
Good morning.
Bryan,
On the map I posted last night, my east west dimensions match yours perfectly, by my NS dimension along Haverford is 3565 vs your measurement of 3265. Just checking to make sure yours isn't a typo before re-scaling any maps. Its not unusual for stretch to occur in drawings and we deal with that all the time.
Thanks for the newest graphic. I really didn't understand the mirror road theory. Its still pre-coffee, but my first take is that while the acreages work out fine, there is no evidence that this was ever considered. Is that correct?
As I said last night, I have some real world stuff to get out today, so I am not trying to add drama to this (or add to the Merion Time Line) but I will try to scale it in CAD quickly when I get the chance.
Bryan,
Hey, I thought you didn't like my "doppelganger" road idea! :-\ ;) ;D
Very creative effort there....although I think you might agree that the odds of Jeff's theory being the correct one here is about a 90% greater chance than either of our attempts. ;) Perhaps you could summarize Jeff's theory for us. If it is that there was no real boundary and they routed the course as best they could within the 161 acres (less the 21.1 acres) I'm OK with that, but it does make Franis' land swap story nonsensical. I'm trying to find a theory that preserves as much of the written record as possible.
In either case, it's nice to know we're on the home stretch here.
Jeff/Bryan,
I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that only a few of us are left here civilly working this problem to conclusion.
There are a lot of eyes on this thread.
Thanks Mike,
Interestingly, the Cuyler words about no definite course yet or something similar clearly implies what we've agreed verbally...these guys were tinkering prior to the official dates on deeds and such, agreed?
Now this feels like actual progress...thanks Jeff and Bryan for some real and helpful stuff...and you to Mike for figuring this thing out so many times thus far...
So a couple of thoughts
1) We're going to assume the comments identifying 117 acres meant nothing in November 1910? But that the "approximate road" meant everything...
2) We're also going to assume that no routing work was done between an option on the land and the actual purchase of it?
Jim,
Me too?? ;)
In answer to your questions....and I hesitate to speak for Jeff, but this is my understanding.
1) No, it meant that they secured 117 acres and that was the goal. But to Jeff's point, they didn't restrict the designers to some tight 117 acres on the Land Plan or draw the "approximate road" that tight. They drew the line a little more liberally (122 acres, according to Brian) and then would work from the goal of trying to reach the magic number as things became finalized. He's surmising they were able to give back around 5 acres along the length of it, but also had to purchase another 3 they didn't expect.
So, in this theory, the road was "approximate", and the 117 acres stated in the letter to the members was also "approximate", and Francis' recollection of wanting 130 x 190 yards was made up, because they could have whatever they needed along the movable approximate boundary.
But, they had to "purchase" an extra 3 acres in addition to the RR land? There is no evidence that they ever bought 3 extra acres. And how could they have bought it, when it was already owned (or optioned) by HDC or Lloyd and was part of the movable boundary that they were given to play with in the routing exercise.
In other words, they couldn't make the 117 acres work. They needed 120. Actually, they needed 123 because they also used the 3 acres of leased Railroad land.
When you read what Francis wrote about fitting the first 13 but not being able to fit the final five holes it takes on a bit of a different meaning and I think Jeff has nailed it. What is it specifically that you think Jeff has nailed?
2) Not necessarily, although I think we also know that the original "almost 120 acres" being optioned in July 1910 and the 161 acres Lloyd took title to in December was not the same land overall. Even if we want to assume that it was all inclusive, or that they figured they'd use the Dallas Estate back in July when it wasn't under HDC control until October, there is no evidence of any routing taking place over that time period. That might not seem logical in some ways but we do know for certain that as of Nov/Dec 1910 there was no routing completed and much routing work and many different routing plans took place after that time. I think what we're concluding here is that without some further evidence of actual routing work by anyone during those months in 1910, anything else is highly speculative.
When you read what Francis wrote about fitting the first 13 but not being able to fit the final five holes it takes on a bit of a different meaning and I think Jeff has nailed it.
[/color]
What is it specifically that you think Jeff has nailed?
Mike,
You wrote:QuoteWhen you read what Francis wrote about fitting the first 13 but not being able to fit the final five holes it takes on a bit of a different meaning and I think Jeff has nailed it.
Bryan then asked:Quote[/color]
What is it specifically that you think Jeff has nailed?
Could you answer Bryan's question ?
Thanks
Mike -- I think so. I hate referring to it as a "swap" because no land really exchanged hands. We know Lloyd was under control of 161 acres at the time, but could only use 120 (or, maybe, even 117). I believe when they proposed the idea to members that they had a very rough plan which shows in green on the proposed map plan. I think some on here had estimated that at 117 acres. What Lloyd and company failed to get (at the time they issued the plan) is that they couldn't fit golf holes all they up to College Ave. However, Lloyd (in looking at his entire 161 acres) knew he could get the holes in a bit wider area if he eliminated the "golf course land" next to the McFadden property.
So, he widened that area to fit 15 and 16. I do think its possible that the "proposed" course on the November 1910 plan was 117 acres and that by widening the corridor of the 15th and 16th, Merion ended up having to buy 120.1. I've got no facts to go on other than Bryan already told us that Merion took title to 120.1 acres in July 1911 based on the recorded deed.
Mike, do you know if there are anything in the minutes where the board approved the purchase of the land between April 1911 and July 1911 when the deed was recorded?
Jeff,Mike,
You wrote:QuoteWhen you read what Francis wrote about fitting the first 13 but not being able to fit the final five holes it takes on a bit of a different meaning and I think Jeff has nailed it.
Bryan then asked:Quote[/color]
What is it specifically that you think Jeff has nailed?
Could you answer Bryan's question ?
Thanks
Pat,
I think I nailed that there was no different western boundary than what was shown on the Nov 15- 1910 plan and that no routing took place prior to that.
Patrick.
Connell's formal offer to Merion of 117 acres at 85K didn't even get sent to the club until Nov 1910 and they asked for an answer by early Dec.
Merion didn't respond formally...they just had Lloyd take title to the 161 acres of which Merion had agreed in principle to purchase 117.
Mike,
No routing ?
What about the routing Barker produced in June 1910 that was attached to the November 15 report?
Is that a fabrication ?
Patrick,
What's an extremely unlikely sceario is that anyone would spend all of the time necessary to properly route a golf course on land that was still under negotiation.
Mike,
It WASN'T under negotiation, it was SECURED.
The RECORD is clear on that, it's on Merion's letterhead, in a report from the Board to the Membership.
We know that Big Mac spent over five months routing NGLA with Travis, Emmett, and the boys; it's absolutely preposterous to think he would even consider doing a Dark Ages of Design single-day routing on his only visit to the property in all of 1910.
Not at all.
Donald Ross did it without any visits to the site.
What's interesting about your argument is that it's all presumption. You assume, presume and conclude, not on the facts, but upon the outcome that's desirous to you.
There is also not a single shred of evidence that anyone did any routing in 1910
That's a total lie.
There was a routing attached to the November 15th report, so how can you maintain that there's not a shred of evidence when the documents clearly prove you wrong ?
and even tons of evidence against it,
There's NOT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE AGAINST IT, ONLY YOUR PRESUMPTIONS.
not the least being the months of routing and design activity done by Hugh Wilsons committee documented in the Apr 1911 minutes.
Do you have any facts...
Yes, I"ve presented them, but you refuse to acknowledge their documented existance.
You continue to be in denial of anything that doesn't share your opinion.
any at all at this point that tell us anyone was out there routing at the bequest of Merion in 1910?
What does the November 15th report say ?
Or, do you now deny its existance ?
That's a total lie.
There was a routing attached to the November 15th report, so how can you maintain that there's not a shred of evidence when the documents clearly prove you wrong ?
There's NOT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE AGAINST IT, ONLY YOUR PRESUMPTIONS.
not the least being the months of routing and design activity done by Hugh Wilsons committee documented in the Apr 1911 minutes.
What does the November 15th report say ?
Or, do you now deny its existance ?
Bryan,
Again, I'm hesitant to speak for Jeff, but my understanding is as follows.
In November 1910 Merion members were asked to support an effort to "secure" 117 acres for a golf course. That is incorrect. The letter said the land was already "secured". What they asked the members to support was the buying of bonds to pay for the purchase of the "secured" land. That was obviously approved. They didn't ask for approval, they stated it was already secured. The solicitation includes a copy of the Land Plan which although the letter says represents 117 acres, measures at 122 and is labelled "approximate", which means that someone purposefully left that language in. Why not just put the final boundary on the map if it had been already finalized?? Why say the plan depicts the 117 acre property for the "Golf Course"? Isn't the answer to both questions - we don't know?
At that point they didn't "purchase" anything.
In December 1910, after Merion's counsel Cuyler recommended Lloyd take 161 acres (140 of Johnson Farm and 21 of Dallas Estate) under his name for HDC so that he can move around that "approximate" boundary as necessary to support the demands of the golf course. You've done excellent work producing the other reports and letters. It sure would be nice if you could produce the Cuyler letter, so that we can judge for ourselves what it says in context.
Francis did have his brainstorm.
However, it involved having to work outside the lines! What he came up with involved moving portions of holes even further west of that approximate boundary, which is why he needed Lloyd's permission and counsel, and which is the area that falls outside of your overlay past the western border. THAT is the swap. If that is the swap, why did he specifically say only that it was 130 x 190? You've said that it meant that that was the final size of that area, but that's an interpretation on your part, and a fairly large leap. Keeping on repeating it doesn't make it true. And, if he was going to be specific about final dimensions, why didn't he mention the final dimensions alonside the 14th fairway and green?
The goal all along was to work within the limits of the 117 acres that the club had approved. The club hadn't approved them, they had secured them, but obviously in retrospect it was only a working number, not a final fixed target.
When it came down to it, they couldn't, although they gave back a number of acres of land along that boundary from the 122 or so it was drawn as. In the end, it worked out to 120 acres which is why they needed the club to authorize the purchase of 3 additional acres in April 1911, for the same purchase price per acre as the rest of the HDC land. That alone should tell us that they weren't referring to the Railroad land. That is incorrect. They approved the purchase of 3 acres that were not described in the snippet of Merion Board minutes that Tom revealed. And they approved the purchase for $7,500 or $2,500 an acre, which bears no resemblance to the $825 an acre Connell originally offered, or the $726.50 an acre the board "secured" them for, or the $708.33 that they actually paid for them. The $2,500 price per acre leads me to conclude that it is the RR land, supported by the fact they went out and leased 3 acres from the RR the next month.
They needed approval to move from 117 to 120 acres. Approval from whom? Lloyd had the 161 acres and was on the MCC side.
In the end, it didn't matter because with Lloyd in control on both sides they still only paid the originally agreed price of $85,000. It's just that they first needed to get approval from the club to "purchase" the extra 3 acres that took them from the originally approved 117 to the new 120 acres. This logic is so convoluted that I can't even respond to it. They had to get approval to purchase something that Lloyd already owned on their behalf? Did you put purchase in quotes because even you don't believe it was really a purchase in any normal understanding of the term. The 3 acre purchase was intended to be of the RR property, IMHO.
And Mr. Francis did indeed have his brainstorm.
Jim,
I think they just settled on the original amount of 85,000, which Merion mortgaged in July 1911. Merion didn't mortgage it in July 1911. James Rothwell mortgaged the tract to the Girard Trust Co. on July 19th 1911 on the day he held it while transferring it from Lloyd to himself and then from himself to MCCGA. MCCGA assumed the mortgage from Rothwell.
Someone ate the cost but there is no record of who; We know Merion's Board approved the additional expenditure in April 1911 but ended up paying the original amount. So, the 3 acres, whatever it was, was never "purchased". I'd bet that if you could see the Merion minutes, that there would be one in May 1911 saying that they approved entering into a lease with the RR and that they were going to use the money they'd allocated to the "purchase" to pay for it.
I actually happen to agree with Patrick that it is likely that some routing work was being carried out prior to the land purchase, for one thing we know Barker had produced a routing, and I suspect the good folks at Merion either as individuals or as a group were trying to work something up before the committee was formed. I don't think it would take too much of a leap of imagination to think that committee was formed with those who had taken most interest and had already been over the ground.
Where I differ from Partick is that I don't think a finalised routing was required to agree the final land purchase,
Niall,
I never stated that a "FINALIZED" routing was requuired.
and that therefore the date of the final purchase of the land doesn't necessarily prove anything with regards routing. I've argued with Patrick in previous posts about this point and we've agreed to differ. What this doesn't do is directly address whether M&W were involved in doing the design. It may knock a hole in Davids theory (as I remember it) but solving the timeline doesn't answer all the questions.
Niall
Jim,
Not agreed.
I believe they rushed to get the land deal done. MCC may have balked because they hadn't finalized or even started a routing, which is when the "Flexible Boundary Concept" came into play. They transferred it to Lloyd (perhaps because both parties trusted him?) and finalized the deal. Why was there a rush? Well, maybe there wasn't, or maybe someone had some tax advantages to take advantage of before the end of the calendar year.
In any event, its funny how the same words can be read differently by two different people. I take Culyers words to mean "Start routing within that land boundary and tell me when its done" while you think it means "We are close, tinker some more, and tell me when its done."
Sadly, we don't have Cuyler's words; we only have Tom's summation of them. We're parsing words that are second hand at best.
I think the land committee (or whatever it was called) wrapped up there work on Dec. 10, 1910.
I think Lloyd commissioned Pugh and Hubbard or others to prepare a topo map upon acquistion of the property. This today even takes several weeks. I believe it was delivered to MCC in late January 1911, mostly because Wilson's first letter on 2--1-11 to Oakley says he is "sending our topo maps immediately." He does not say "We are sending our routing" so (while speculating a bit) I believe the maps are new and the routing has just begun.
I really doubt these important men did a lot the weeks between XMas and New Year. When they returned in January, they found that Hugh Wilson ahd asked Santa for the chairmanship of the Construction Committee and they made his wish come true on their first meeting of January 11, 1911. They start to work, and await the topo maps, which because of the Xmas break, show the 11-10-1910 approximate road as their boundary.
After a month of work on it, they take their 5 plans to CBM at NGLA in March. He/they approve 1 of those plans.
Five plans developed in a month? From a bunch of novice designers? Didn't these guys have day jobs too?
CBM returns on April 6 to declare the last 7 holes among the finest inland holes anywhere. I doubt he would do this if they hadn't been shaped into their final form. Do I understand you correctly that in a month that they built and shaped the last seven holes? Wow, that's impressive. I'd imagine the land was hard to work in March of a bad winter. Thus, I conclude that the land swap was merely a part of the routing process and probably occurred between Feb 1 and March ? when they went to NGLA. They were busy boys, fitting in the development of the 5 plans, and picking one, and swapping the land to make it work, in that month. CBM "approved" one of the five re-routed plans that they made AFTER noodling on how to best realign the road..
Or, CBM approved some other plan, and they chose it, Francis realized his idea in the middle of the night sometime after the March NGLA visit. This would narrow the land swap down to March-April 19, 1911 when the final property is approved in the minutes.
The last possibility is that CBM approved a plan on March ? (sorry, forgot the exact date) and they even started building to it, using the November property line. AFTER he leaves on April 6, but before July 11, 1911 when the deed was finalized, Francis has his idea and the holes 14-17 are altered and blasted away immediately, as he said. And at that point, it is a mere swap of land along the road.
I am still awaiting some dimensions from Bryan to make sure my map is correctly scaled in CAD but thought I would jump in.
Bryan,
Regarding the three acres proposed purchase that was approved in April 1911, the following quotes by Tom Paul are the source of my understanding.
However, it seems Tom Paul's own thinking on which three acres the minutes refer to has changed and evolved over the past few months.
In any case, this is the source of my understanding and contention.
If they'd done it that way instead of using that P&W 3 acres the only other problem would be that Lloyd and HDC would've been out some more acreage that was slated to be used for residential development but then of course the club could've just paid Lloyd or HDC the $7,500 they allocated to buy the railroad land. The real irony here is that 3 acre old railroad tract where the old 12th green and old 13th hole once were is now completely obsoleted and not really used for anything even though Merion owns it as of 1961! By the way, MCC allocated $7,500 in 1911 to buy that P&W three acres but they never bought it until 1961 at which point they paid the outrageous sum of $11,000 for it. Not much price appreciation for the railroad in half a century is it? - April 14, 2009
we've also said for years now that we have never found one of them including the one that it was mentioned in the board meeting minutes was attached to the report to that April 19, 1911 board meeting asking for approval of THAT PLAN AND asking for approval of a land swap for land ALREADY PURCHASED for land adjoining AND approval for the purchase of three more acres for $7,500 that was obviously incorporated in that plan presented to that board meeting - May 31, 2009
No it didn't because MCC agreed to pay the going HDC real estate price ($7,500, $2,500 per acre, 3 acres=$7,500) for the additional three acres they took out of the remaining 221. I guess in the end only 218 got developed but HDC got paid their per acre lot price for that lost three residential acres. At least I hope they did. If not I'm buying about the second half of the 14th hole and I'm gonna sleep in those right greenside bunkers.- June 4, 2009
The app 3 acre P&W railroad land it appears they had their eye on too from June 1910. Macdonald in his letter of June 29, 1910 mentioned they should use it. They did use it in the golf course plan that was approved by the board on 4/19/1911.
But that 3 acre P&W RR land did not figure into the three acre increase in total MCC property to 120.1 acres on the July 21, 1911 deed compared to the 117 acres MCC agreed with HDC to buy out of Lloyd's Dec, 19, 1910 161 acre deed.
On July 21, 1911 MCC owned 120.1 acres (not the originally agreed upon 117) but in effect they were using 123 acres for the golf course because they leased that 3 acres from the P&W railroad. We also have the lease agreement of May, 1911 between MCC and the P&W Railroad. That lease would continue until 1961 when Merion G.C. realized they did not own that land. They thought they'd owned it from the beginning. And so in 1961 they bought that app 3 acre P&W land for $11,000. We have that deed too. - June 5, 2009
I'll ask Tom for clarification on how he thinks that transaction took place next time I speak with him. It does seem odd to me that Merion would approve a $7,500 purchase of those three acres in April 1911 only to go ahead and lease it for $1 a year the next month. It even seems odder to me that the Railroad would charge Merion $7,500 for the purchase of those three acres yet only charge them a dollar a year in a perpetual lease to rent it. :o
Don't you think that's very odd? I don't recall seeing the details of the lease, so, I can't comment. After having seen a bunch of deeds where substantial property changed hands for $1, I tend to think that the real money paid is often obscured behind veils of legal and accounting mumbo jumbo.
Since we know that the metes and bounds along that creek bordering the railroad land near the clubhouse didn't change between the December 1910 Lloyd deed and the July 1911 Merion deed, we also know that those 3 railroad acres were not part of the difference between the 117 acres Merion secured in 1910 and the 120.1 acres they purchased in July 1911. Correct? I can't say with regard to the 117 acres, because you'll recall we don't know the bounds of that., but it wasn't in the 161 acres nor in the 120.01 acres, so I would conclude that it did not account for the difference.
In the meantime Bryan, perhaps you can answer a related question for me.
Do you know what the per acre price was for HDC residential land as of April, 1911?
Do you mean price for it when they would sell it for real estate? Or, do you mean the cost to acquire it? I'll try to answer later after you answer.
A question for you in return. Was the Lesley report of April 1911 ever reproduced in its entirety on this thread (or any thread)? I lose track of these things.
Mr. Joseph R. Connell,
Dear Sir:
Philadelphia, Pa., June 10, 1910. (Please note the date !)
I today have inspected the property (Please note the date !) at Haverford, south of College Avenue, where it is proposed to to lay out a golf course: and beg to submit to you my report.
I am enclosing a sketch of the property in question on which I have roughly shown in pencil a proposed lay out of the course.[/color]
We know that to "lay out" a golf course means to "ROUTE" a golf course.
At least that's what Mike Cirba and others have told us.
I would say that the land is in every way adapted to the making of a first class course, comparing most favorably with the best courses in this country, such as Myopia and Garden City.
In the past few years I have laid out upwards of twenty (20) courses in this country, and from my experience I believe the proposed course could be constructed at less expense than any I have heretofore gone over.
If the work was commenced at once, the course could be ready for play by the fall of 1911.
Very truly yours,
H. H. BARKER,
Garden City, L. I., N. Y.
This letter should prove several points.
First, that a golf course COULD be routed in a single day.
Second, that a routing DID exist as early as June 10, 1910.
Third, that M&W could have provided a routing after their visit.
While Barker's experience at routing appears far more extensive than CBM's CBM had ample study and experience to enable him to produce a basic routing in a day, just as Donald Ross did during his career, and, CBM had the advantage of having a talented partner.
To those who claim that it took M&W five months to route NGLA, there is no evidence that the basic routing wasn't completed shortly after they initially rode the land for 2 or 3 days in 1906..
Patrick,
In your last two posts you said I was "lying", and "disengenuous".
I think that's absolutely absurd and completely wrong and I consider you a friend so I'm not sure what I've done to deserve such harsh judgement.
Mike, you lied about your claim that NO ROUTING existed in 1910 when you knew that the Barker routing was presented on June 10, 1910.
Below, I've quoted your statement and quoted my rebuttle.QuoteThere is also not a single shred of evidence that anyone did any routing in 1910Quote[/color]
That's a total lie.[/b]
There is nobody who has come forward with more research and raw material here....the other day I even told you everything I know about the Cuyler letter, including the "definite" wording that David and Tom MacWood and you had been hoping was a last-ditch shred of evidence that would somehow sway everyone to interpreting that it offered some hint of an some existing course by ANYONE except Hugh Wilson prior to then.
I never stated that you hadn't worked hard and/or produced volumes of information.
But, your presentation has tended to have been skewed from day one, when you initiated this thread.[/b]
To say I've been hiding things and "lying" is really below you, Patrick.
Mike, you lied about the routing.
Let's call it an oversight on your part, one borne of overenthusiams to have your position carried.[/b]
I'm surprised and disappointed in you.
I calls em as I sees em.[/b]
I presented the letters in the order they were presented to the club, and the order in which they were read by the men in charge.
In July, the BOARD OF GOVERNORS of the club were given the Site Committee's report.
In November, a solicitation letter went out to general membership.
WHAT IS THE ACTUAL RELEVANCE OR MEANING IF THE JULY 1910 SITE COMMITTEE REPORT (which I presented in total) WAS ATTACHED TO THE NOVEMBER SOLICITATION TO MEMBERSHIP OR NOT??
Not overlooking its existance would be one relevant meaning.
[/b]
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE BARKER ROUTING WAS ATTACHED TO EITHER CORRESPONDENCE??
There's NO EVIDENCE that it wasn't attached.
[/b]
Pat, with all due respect, while you accuse Mike C of lying and twisting,
Jeff, Mike lied about the existance of a routing in 1910, that's a fact.
[/b]
you then post a letter from Barker showing he did a one hour quickie and use that to suggest that CBM did the same.
Jeff, first, your categorization if Barker's routing as a "one hour quickie" is also disengenuous and you know it.
Second, I didn't suggest that CBM did the same, I said he "COULD" have done the same.
[/b]
Well, I say that if Barker mentioned that he did a routing in his letter that CBM would have mentioned that he did a routing in his letter.
You can say whatever you want, but, it doesnt mean it's factual or logical.
[/b]
He didn't. He said he couldn't tell for sure without a topo map in front of him.
I think a competent historian (and granted, none of is) would parse CBM's document for what CBM meant to say, not imply something from HHB's letter, wouldn't you?
I think a competent historian, one who studied CBM, could conclude, that with his personality, it would be doubtful if he DIDN"T offer a routing.
[/b]
While we are at it, I believe your assertion that Barker had far more experience is a bit twisted, too.
I don't think so, Barker had routed 20 courses prior to June 10,1910, Macdonald 2 or 3 ?
[/b]
In June 1910 his routing experice WAS approximately 20 to 2 based on his statements and CBM's accomplishments of the time.
I think that proves my point.
However, I wonder if you are referring to HJ Whigham as CBM's talented partner at this point in time, or interjecting Raynor into the discussion?
Not does what happened at NGLA bear on Merion one iota. He was doing his grand project for himself vs coming down to another club at the request of a friend. IT has no bearing.
YOU WONDER IN ERROR.
You're injecting Raynor, not me.
Unless you have evidence that Raynor accompanied CBM on his visit, rather than, or in addition to Whigham.
Ask yourself, WHY were M&W being invited down to look at a vacant piece of property, intended to be a golf course.
Do you think there advice was being solicited ?
IF so, if no routing or hole design existed, they wouldn't have been asked to comment on same.
Don't you think that they would have been asked to provide a routing if none existed ?
If a routing existed, wouldn't they have been asked to comment on it ?
[/b]
Either way your entire post is based on argumentative speculation.
That's absolutely untrue.
Barker provided a routing on June 10, 1910.
Do you think he was on the train as it passed the site and that he just decided to craft a routing out of the blue ?
[/b]
For a brief time here, until you came back, the focus on this thread was to look at documents that exist and are not challenged.
Then why did Mike Cirba declare that NO ROUTING existed in 1910 ?
Especially when that routing is clearly refered to by the author in a document dated 06-10-10.
[/b]
It was going pretty well. Then, you and a few others start back on the UFO track of "coulds" "woulds" and "shoulds" based on no facts and all speculation.
Speculation my ass, Mike and others staunchly maintained that a routing could not be done in a day.
And, Mike maintained that NO ROUTING existed in 1910.
Yet, we have written proof, hard evidence, in Barker's own hand, that a routing was done in a day, AND that a routing existed in 1910.
Those are two salient facts.
[/b]
Yes, I will agree that CBM COULD have done a routing quickly.
I'm glad we agree on that.
He would have had to if he was abducted by Aliens later that afternoon.
Was Barker abducted by aliens later in the afternoon of June 10, 1910 ?
PS - Not sure what you reposting part of DM's essay is supposed to prove. I have always taken it to mean that Barker did a routing on the Johnson Farm property under contract and it was found wanting for any number of reasons. Since he was hired by Connell, it may very well have been squeezed into 100 acres as Connell originally intended. If so, it would have been clear to CBM and the committee what the flaws were and that 120 acres were required.
I don't believe that anyone ever stated that the Barker routing was perfect.
It is clear that CBM recommended buying the additional 3 acres.
Why do you suppose he made that recommendation ?
Could it have been for the purposes of hole location or routing ?
Again, from my professional experience 100 years later, I still see developers offering golf course land of substandard size. I saw one just the other day as a matter of fact! He says 100 acres, MCC knows that their existing course is about 100 acres and is cramped, and bring in CBM to offer a second independent opinion, perhaps to specifically bolster their desire to purchase more than 100 acres Connell contemplates.
Except that Connell doesn't state that.
Connell does state that he consents to sell "100 ACRES OR WHATEVER IS NECESSARY FOR THE COURSE."
So, they were well aware that they would probably need more than 100 acres from the get go.
This is a very reasonable scenario based on my experience. And, getting a general assessment of the land before beginning final negotiations would be a signifigant and logical step, even without routing, given the land wasn't under contract.
Except that this wasn't the first time they had tried to acquire land for the golf course.
They had been through this process before, and failed.
The fact that they had to acquire seperate parcels would seem to indicate that a basic routing existed.
The huge issue that you and others seem to avoid is the fact that the land was secured in June of 1910, yet, it's maintained that nothing transpired between June of 1910 and early 1911 in the way of developing routings. Is that a reasonable scenario based on your experience ?
That you'd secure land and make NO attempt to route it for seven or more months ?
Especially when a routing was presented on June 10,1910.
Is it your contention that despite the fact that a routing had been produced on June 10, 1910, that the club decided to freeze the project and not work on any potential routings for seven or more months ?
That they would invite M&W to review the property, but then, freeze the routing process ?
Does that seem like a reasonable scenario to you ?
If we accept the speculations by Mike and others, that M&W visited Merion on or about June 16-18, and Barker visited the site on June 10, 1910, it would seem that Merion was hard at work soliciting opinions and advice, including routings. Are we now to believe that when M&W left the site that Merion closed the project, never to reopen it until seven or more months later in early 1911 ?
Does that seem like a reasonable scenario to you ?
Now, I am not trying to play the "I'm a gca, so my opinion is better than yours card" but.....well, I guess I am playing that card! ;)
Jeff, I don't know what happened at Merion in 1910 and 1911, but, I'd like to find out.
When something doesn't pass the smell test, you have to question it.
When some try to stifle and end the discussion, you have to get leary and ask that more research be done before drawing definitive conclusions.
As I stated, I'm not sufficiently convinced that the currently accepted explanation/history is the factual history.
If nothing else, the date of Wilson's trip should have taught us to question, research and verify before accepting info as facts.
Pat, with all due respect, while you accuse Mike C of lying and twisting,
Jeff, Mike lied about the existance of a routing in 1910, that's a fact.
[/b]
you then post a letter from Barker showing he did a one hour quickie and use that to suggest that CBM did the same.
Jeff, first, your categorization if Barker's routing as a "one hour quickie" is also disengenuous and you know it.
Second, I didn't suggest that CBM did the same, I said he "COULD" have done the same.
[/b]
Well, I say that if Barker mentioned that he did a routing in his letter that CBM would have mentioned that he did a routing in his letter.
You can say whatever you want, but, it doesnt mean it's factual or logical.
[/b]
He didn't. He said he couldn't tell for sure without a topo map in front of him.
I think a competent historian (and granted, none of is) would parse CBM's document for what CBM meant to say, not imply something from HHB's letter, wouldn't you?
I think a competent historian, one who studied CBM, could conclude, that with his personality, it would be doubtful if he DIDN"T offer a routing.
[/b]
While we are at it, I believe your assertion that Barker had far more experience is a bit twisted, too.
I don't think so, Barker had routed 20 courses prior to June 10,1910, Macdonald 2 or 3 ?
[/b]
In June 1910 his routing experice WAS approximately 20 to 2 based on his statements and CBM's accomplishments of the time.
I think that proves my point.
However, I wonder if you are referring to HJ Whigham as CBM's talented partner at this point in time, or interjecting Raynor into the discussion?
Not does what happened at NGLA bear on Merion one iota. He was doing his grand project for himself vs coming down to another club at the request of a friend. IT has no bearing.
YOU WONDER IN ERROR.
You're injecting Raynor, not me.
Unless you have evidence that Raynor accompanied CBM on his visit, rather than, or in addition to Whigham.
Ask yourself, WHY were M&W being invited down to look at a vacant piece of property, intended to be a golf course.
Do you think there advice was being solicited ?
IF so, if no routing or hole design existed, they wouldn't have been asked to comment on same.
Don't you think that they would have been asked to provide a routing if none existed ?
If a routing existed, wouldn't they have been asked to comment on it ?
[/b]
Either way your entire post is based on argumentative speculation.
That's absolutely untrue.
Barker provided a routing on June 10, 1910.
Do you think he was on the train as it passed the site and that he just decided to craft a routing out of the blue ?
[/b]
For a brief time here, until you came back, the focus on this thread was to look at documents that exist and are not challenged.
Then why did Mike Cirba declare that NO ROUTING existed in 1910 ?
Especially when that routing is clearly refered to by the author in a document dated 06-10-10.
[/b]
It was going pretty well. Then, you and a few others start back on the UFO track of "coulds" "woulds" and "shoulds" based on no facts and all speculation.
Speculation my ass, Mike and others staunchly maintained that a routing could not be done in a day.
And, Mike maintained that NO ROUTING existed in 1910.
Yet, we have written proof, hard evidence, in Barker's own hand, that a routing was done in a day, AND that a routing existed in 1910.
Those are two salient facts.
[/b]
Yes, I will agree that CBM COULD have done a routing quickly.
I'm glad we agree on that.
He would have had to if he was abducted by Aliens later that afternoon.
Was Barker abducted by aliens later in the afternoon of June 10, 1910 ?
PS - Not sure what you reposting part of DM's essay is supposed to prove. I have always taken it to mean that Barker did a routing on the Johnson Farm property under contract and it was found wanting for any number of reasons. Since he was hired by Connell, it may very well have been squeezed into 100 acres as Connell originally intended. If so, it would have been clear to CBM and the committee what the flaws were and that 120 acres were required.
Again, from my professional experience 100 years later, I still see developers offering golf course land of substandard size. I saw one just the other day as a matter of fact! He says 100 acres, MCC knows that their existing course is about 100 acres and is cramped, and bring in CBM to offer a second independent opinion, perhaps to specifically bolster their desire to purchase more than 100 acres Connell contemplates.
This is a very reasonable scenario based on my experience. And, getting a general assessment of the land before beginning final negotiations would be a signifigant and logical step, even without routing, given the land wasn't under contract.
Now, I am not trying to play the "I'm a gca, so my opinion is better than yours card" but.....well, I guess I am playing that card! ;)
Pat,
By the way, as to your dissing me about saying he did a one hour routing, YOU were the one that highlighted the fact that his report and routing were delivered THE SAME DAY as he visited the site.
Jeff, you deserved to be dissed for that remark. You knew it was meant to diminish and/or dismiss the effort.
Barker's report was drafted the same day as his on site evaluation.
I do the same thing when I meet with a client.
That night I draft a summary of the meeting. It's a prudent business practice, especially in the days before dictation equipment.
If you want to be a jerk and argue that I said it was an hour routing then fine. In truth, if he arrived in the morning, and toured the property for a few hours, had lunch, and then wrote up his little report and sketch, I guess we could agree that his time might have allowed 2 hours for the routing, maybe 3, if he did it after all his other duties and activities. If you want to assume that they all worked until 11:59 PM that night before he delivered his routing and report, then we could stretch his routing time to maybe 6 hours or so.
That's all conjecture on your part.
He might have spent the night before with his host or nearby, been on the property at 6:00 am, spent all day until sundown at about 9:00 pm and then drafted his routing and letter.
Don't be so quick to dismiss his efforts
What is the point of arguing against a point you make an hour earlier about how quick the routing is? You make the point that it was a one day routing. I was just being funny. Sorry. I will say its a one day routing if it makes you happy. I will also concede that CBM could have routed a course but didn't mention it anytime.
YOU continue to miss the point.
Mike Cirba and others argued that it was impossible for anyone, including M&W to provide a routing based on a visit of just one day.
YET, we find out that that's exactly what happened. That's a material fact. And, Barker wasn't just some amateur armchair architect.
He was a skilled professional. The same could probably be said of CBM.
Should we agree that he pitched for the Yankess that day and didn't mention it either? Why the hell not, since we are spending time conjecturing what he MIGHT have done in your addled little brain.
There's no conjecture on my part.
The conjecture was on Mike Cirba's part when he stated that NO ONE could provide a routing based on a day's visit.
We know he was wrong despite your attempts to protect him.
Again, I am protesting you wasting everyone's valuble time and energy arguing over minutiae just to be argumentative. be constructive or go home.
I am being constructive by pointing out egregious errors.
Errors in facts and errors in thinking.
Do you now want to disavow the existance of the Barker routing ?
Do you now want to disavow the ability to route a golf course in one day ?
Pat,
With all due respect, you are pounding the table again. I find it funny that the only thing in my post you DIDN'T green type is the last part, where I mention that things like reports without routings ARE very common in the industry, at least now.
Of course, there is not much you can do to counter that argument, is there?
Of course there is..... context.
You want to equate how things are done in 2009 to how they were done in 1909, 100 years earlier ?
And you offer that wild contrast as proof positive of your position ? Shirley, you jest.
To your other assertions,
1. I believe I could go back and find a post somewhere where Mike C admits there was a Barker routing. He didn't lie, its just his opinion that its been proven that it was not part of any final routing for reasons I stated in my last paragraph. If you want to go out of the way to point out an inconsistency in someones typiing, then so be it. My suggestion is - and I mean this as nicely as possible - is to quit being a prick about this by doing that.
Baloney, Mike has been so biased it's comical. His reasoning ..... absurd, and he lied when he stated that NO ROUTING existed in 1910.
Mike drew his conclusion long ago and is searching for a path to get there, no matter how convoluted and distorted it is.
2. I WAS wondering if you were calling Whigham an able partner. You can read my "son in law thoughts" above, but I could be wrong.
Why don't you read up on Whigham and see how accmplished he was before automatically dismissing him as a mere "son-in-law"
You're guilty of the same smear campaign as Mike and others.
3. I have asked myself why CBM came down. These threads have made the reasons very clear. My opinon is that MCC was in the initial stages of considering property, Connell made an attractive offer of land that they were checking out. Connell brought in Barker to see if the property was generally suitable. MCC brought in CBM for a second opinion, not tainted by being paid for by the developer.
Second opinion of what ?
The land ?
The routing ?
Or, was he requested to provide a routing ?
Do you know exactly why CBM was summoned to Ardmore Ave.
I don't, but, I'd like to find out.
Its clear since the Dallas property and the RR property were acquired later that their main mode was property acquistion and acreage determination. At least the facts say we know that for sure. That they were interested in routing, prior to even knowing what land they would have is speculation, pure and simple.
I'm not so sure.
Why did M&W advise them to purchase the additional land if not for hole location/routing ?
At least, I know I wouldn't be inclined to route a course if on my first visit, it was clear that the client didn't have all the land they wanted or needed, in my opinion and/or theirs. What exactly would be the point of CBM doing a routing if he couldn't be sure of what land they had?
You're forgetting who controlled the land and the club's ability to obtain same.
Riddle me that Batman.....
Hopefully, you'll find my answer sufficient to create a quest for more information before making any unequivical statements as to the history of the club.
Let's also not forget where M+W "came down" from.
They were already in Philadelphia for the 1910 US Open and Mac's bud Griscom asked if they would come by to look at the land Connell was offering.
BIG difference than a special trip down from NYC.
Pat,
I also don't know the dates of the Open that year, but we could look that up easily enough.
Jeff, I believe the Open dates were June 16-18.
I still question why you think he did a routing without mentioning it at all in his followup letter, or anyone else from MCC mentioning it in any correpsondance, as they did with Barkers routing?
I never stated that Macdonald did a routing. My comments were more to the point that it can't be unequivically stated that he didn't offer a routing, basic or detailed.
If M&W visited subsequent to June 10, 1910, which seems to be the presumption, doesn't it stand to reason that he was shown Barker's routing.
My uneducated guess is that he did see Barker's routing.
If so, did he accept it, fine tune it, modify it, or do nothing ?
If he saw Barker's routing, did that cause him to advise purchasing additional land ?
I don't think you can rule out any of the above, close the books and simply state that none of the above was possible.
Barker provided a routing on June 10th, M&W visit shortly thereafter. CBM advises them to buy additional land to improve the golf course, but, how would he know that UNLESS he'd seen a routing or a basic plan ?
I think these are valid questions.
In his followup letter, which has been posted here a few times, he mentions overall course length, general suitability (providing you get those 3 RR acres) and specifically says he cannot tell for sure without a topo map.
The recommendation that they obtain 3 measely acres seems telling to me.
As to the topo, might that have been more to the individual holes than the basic routing ?
It doesn't seem to be a land parcel that would lend itself to an infinite variety, or even a multiple, of routings
He adds a PS but still doesn't mention his routing, if it existed. He discusses soil tests.
I can't tell you why his letter is brief. I can only offer possibilities.
Perhaps he was miffed that Barker's was called in first or visited first.
Perhaps because he was asked if Barker's routing was palatable.
And if MCC would have asked him to specifically come down and offer a routing, don't you think his letter would have addressed something like "Pursuant to your request for a routing" much like Barker started out summarizing the reason for his visit?
One would think so, but, the fact that Barker beat him to the punch may have miffed him.
Perhaps, due to his reputation, deeds and personality, Merion respected him but didn't want Merion to be NGLA South.
If I had to guess, I'd guess that Barker's basic routing was accepted, that M&W were asked to comment on its viability and that CBM advised that they needed specific acreage in order to make the plan work better. But, again, that's speculation. And that's why I'd like to learn more about this topic.
Some things that have been presented seem counter intuitive and/or impractical.
Who secures a land parcel for a golf course, after actively looking for and losing sites, calls in two of the foremost experts of the day shortly thereafter, obtains routings and comments, and then ABANDONS the project for 7+ months ?
It doesn't add up.
Wouldn't it just be too fantastic a coincidence if no single piece of correspondance from any of the participants mentions a routing if in fact there was one? I think not. While you may not be sure, I am 99.9% sure and if on a jury, would consider that beyond reasonable doubt.
But that only addresses ONE scenario, it doesn't address the others.
It doesn't address the fact that Barker presented a routing on 06-10-10 and that M&W visited subsequently, along with some of the scenarios I presented above.
Just because you choose to eliminate one scenario doesn't mean that the other scenarios fall as well.
I think there's more to be discovered, especially from Mid 1910 to early 1911.
But, that's just my opinion, TEPaul could still be wrong ;D
Patrick,
Sometimes I wonder if you read anyone's responses even as you interject your green type between them.
I read them carefully.
In fact, I did agree with your presumption that CBM most likely saw Barkers routing.
It's a reasonable conclusion.
That said, I was also recently in a similar meeting where the client refused to show me the other consultants routing, which also happens. If they call in an expert, they don't want their opinions skewed by others opinions. It could have happened either way.
Again, I think you're viewing the issue in a present day context and not in the context of events in 1909-11, when few golf courses existed and Barker and Macdonald were held in very high regard.
What couldn't have happened either way is the ACTUAL timeline of events. I have no problem using facts to narrow down the possibilities and get frustrated at someone like you who simply wishes to keep all possibilities open.
Possibilities, probabilities or certainty ?
Mike Cirba declared that NO ROUTING existed in 1910. We KNOW that he was WRONG about that.
Mikd Cirba declared that NO ONE could route a golf course with just one site visit. We KNOW he was WRONG about that.
You may choose to ignore his pronouncements in his quest to "cleanse" the record, I don't. Those items are relevant.
And, the timeline I posted, with the huge 7 month gap is another relevant issue that you, Mike and others want to ignore.
You and Mike may want to close the book on further discovery and discussion, I don't.
The point of this excersise (for me) is to get to the ACTUAL time line of events, period and with 99% certainty, knowing 100% is out of the question at this point.
How can you eliminate the Barker routing from the timeline.
We know of its authenticity.
And, how can you ignore the 7 month gap in your quest for a timeline ?
Do you really believe that the project was frozen for 7 months ?
But, I see no need to argue a 1% possibility endlessly other than if that happens to be your hobby, which sometimes, I suspect it is!
We view things differently. You WANT to accept a particular version, whereas I want to pursue more facts before accepting ANY version.
You may recall Mike Cirba's staunch defense in claiming that Wilson did in fact sail to the UK prior to 1912.
Should we have accepted Mike's position, or pursued additional research ?
The answer is self evident.
This isn't about arguing.
I've taken NO position with respect to whose routing was initially/finally crafted on the ground, but, I'm not about to have the supposed crafter shoved down my throat solely by constant repetition.
I see no evidence that "Barkers routing was accepted" by MCC. Like you, I can envision CBM's reactions, given his legendary ego. It is fun to contemplate.
Once again, even if CBM saw it and used it as TP as suggested by Mike earlier, subsequent events rendered whatever Barker did mute.
I don't know how you can conclusively deduce that.
Even if CBM did some kind of routing that day (which I doubt, but lets move on) the record shows it was superceded by other events - the purchase of the Dallas Estate, the committe prepared many routings, and then visting CBM, which somehow caused them to work up even five more routings.
Jeff, absent source documentation I don't know how anyone can draw a definitive conclusion.
At some point, all the earlier work, whatever that was, was rendered moot by the final routing, the land swap, etc. perhaps even including CBM's good advice in March and April 1911.
Again, until Barker's routing turns up, I don't know how you can draw any definitive conclusions, including variations from the initial theme.
If you are asking if CBM did some routings at that point in history (1910) just to complete the record, you can ask away. I know David has been looking for more documents between CB and MCC for quite a while now. I know they don't exist or haven't been found in any MCC collection and Wayne and TePaul are still looking after over a year.
Certainly the production of any additional documentation would be helpful.
But, a critical document would be Barker's routing. Production of that document should clear up a number of questions.
For a while, a few of us were simply trying to connect the dots on a timeline based on documents and known facts.
Jeff, you can't be serious. Mike Cirba declares that NO ROUTING existed in 1910 and you accept that without protest ? ? ?
If your connection of the dots was to establish a timeline on documents and known facts, how can you blandly overlook the eradication of Barker's 06-10-10 visit and routing ?
I personally think all that has been discovered is all that is going to be discovered. I was particpating in this thread based on that assumption and even said that if more info came out, I would be glad to revise my opinion.
I know one thing, if no effort is made to find additional documentation, it's doubtful that any will be discovered.
Like others, I don't fear further discovery, whether it proves Wilson or Barker or Macdonald or Francis or anyone else, including the committee routed Merion.
At this point I can't rectify the missing activity in a 7 month time span and other items.
I'm not prepared, in my own mind, to close the book on this and related issue.
Based on that, we are currently simply trying to figure out how the land parcel bought went from 117 to 120 acres.
That is why your posts seem like such a distraction to me.
Jeff, you're entitled to focus on your objective, but, your objective isn't the only objective and your objective isn't mutually exclusive to all other issues, positions and perspectives.
I would like to keep this one focused on what the main participants have generally agreed to and narrowed things down to. Of course, I understand that I have no control over anything. But, it just seems to me that if you wanted to, you could again start another thread to drum up support for your CBM speculation about his routing efforts if any in June 1910 and see where it goes.
My issue isn't about speculating on CBM's routing efforts.
My issue was to point out that Mike Cirba's statement that NO ROUTING existed in 1910 was false.
My issue was to point out that Mike Cirba's contention that NO ONE could visit and route a site in one day was false.
Mike Cirba has continuously and constantly drawn irrational conclusions and made false statements.
IF YOU seek the truth, how can you accept false statements about any of these issues ?
Thanks for your consideration.
And you for yours.
One last topic that I wanted to touch on related to CBM doing a routing. To that date, he had only routed his own courses.
Who elses courses would you route but your own ? ? ?
My question is how did his amateur status affect his work?
Was the his amateur status a factor in him being vague, in their not publishing the letter wihch might appear to make him look like a professional, etc.
Jeff, how many professional "architects" do you think there were in 1909-11 ?
You may be looking at this in the context of 2009
Would he undertake to route a course for another client at that point or would that have affected his amateur status?
There was a thread or threads about that subject some time ago.
I believe that TEPaul may have provided some insight on the subject, along with others like Tom MacWood.
Like most of the other stuff talked about regarding MCC here, I vaguely recall this being discussed but with Pat bringing up the CBM routing card again, perhaps a refresher course in how that affect things might help some of us
Jeff,
Pat has zero evidence, has contributed nothing of value to this thread, and is trying to divert attention from the real facts while personally calling me a liar.
Mike, YOU LIED.
You stated that NO ROUTING existed in 1910, yet, you knew that Barker had tendered a routing.
It was part of the Merion records.
Its sad and pathetic and he;s not worth discussing this with,
Between Pat here, with David feeding hin info,
and 0tom Macwood ob email you've been barraged with enough babble and misdirection in one day than all of Muhammad Ali's opponents conbined!
If you could point out errors in my facts, or faulty reasoning in my logic, I'd be happy to review it with you.
Throughout this thread you've attempted to stifle discovery, continually and constantly claiming "victory" for your position.
You even retitled the thread on numerous occassions.
Your perspective has been driven by a conclusion you previously reached.
Dave Schmidt, Bryan and others have pointed out the flaws in your reasoning.
To take the position that you've been an objective moderator or participant is beyond sheer folly.
But ask yourself at the end of the day; did anyone of them introduce a single new factual piece of evidence into the discussion or did they just speculate that barker or n+w had to have done something!
Perhaps you overlooked the introduction of Barker's 06-10-10 routing and the fact that he crafted and presented that routing after JUST ONE DAY on site, something you said couldn't be done. Yet, the facts proved you wrong.
I'd say that's hard core evidence and something of value
Nacwood even goes so far in email to conclude that 1ilson invited @iper down to see the course in early FEb 1911 wheb it is clearly documented in multiple places that construction didn't even commence til April!
I'm not responsible for Tom MacWood's, Wayne Morrisson's, or anyone else's emails.
These guys are so desperate to try and prove Tom and Wayne wrong that its become a pathetic personal vendetta.
I see it as a two (2) way street, and, I believe it was TE and Wayno who were desperate to prove David Moriarty wrong.
However, you can't overlook David's pointing out the substantive and glaring ommission in either Wayno's or TEPaul's post regarding a Merion report.
David might have started an entire thread on that subject.
Leaving out critical information is dirty pool and you know it.
This is bullshit and Patrick should be ashamed of himself for his role in all of this.
I've played NO ROLE.
I'm an equal opportunity disputer.
I've disputed some of David's info, TEPaul's, Wayne's and your info.
Unlike you, who wants to shut this thread down, a thread you started, I seek more information, information that would allow me to make an informed, intelligent opinion.
Neither Tom nor Wayne want to have any of their research here any longer, much less the supposed infamous Cuyler letter, which is another red herring, because they are tired of dealing with the same nonsensical, non_factual, erroneous, vendetta_driven,and totally speculative bullshit you've been dealing with all day from these jokers.
First of all, how do you know the Cuyler letter is a red herring ?
You've already told us that you've NEVER seen it.
As to your other comment, you can't be serious.
IF TE or Wayne had conclusive evidence that proved their point they'd post it in a heartbeat, either directly or through you.
The hiding and/or hording of information and documents can only be viewed in a negative context by ANY prudent person.
If we haven't actually seen Barker's routing how we judge its importance?
Well, if you're trying to establish a bona fide time line, you can't exclude it.
As to judging its importance, you certainly can't dismiss it as others tried to do.
Isn't it likely an estimate of the ability to place 18 holes of some variety on the proposed property?
I don't believe it's an estimate.
I take Barker at his word that it was a routing on the property.
As to an "estimate" I believe that the statement that "100 acres or whatever is necessary for the course" is an estimate.
Pat,
You crucify people for speaking of something they haven't seen. Why should we accept your speculations about the Barker routing?
I wiil say one other thing to some of Pat's rants. There really wasn't a 7 month gap in the process. Things just take longer than most people think. If TePaul was in real estate, he could probably confirm that buying the Dallas Estate, or putting together 3 way contracts (HDC/Lloyd/MCC) etc. all take weeks, if not months. And, without email and Fed Ex to speed along documents, etc. it could have taken longer in those days, as would surveying 338 acres for topo of the entire development. Throw in the Xmas season, other businesses, and all that and I think MCC came together about as quickly as it could from inception in June to construction the next April.
Mike,
No problem. I think I will spend the rest of the day doing something more relaxing, like being waterboarded.
Mike,
I get 2.57 and 0.7 acres to MCC on that drawing, after measuring a little more carefully.
I get 0.675 up north to HDC and 4.775 near the clubhouse to HDC.
Actually, these last few drawings sort of confirm my theory IMHO, providing Bryan's "just over122" acre originally delineated road is correct:
Original MCC delineated acres - 122.3
New Road (As Built)
To HDC 4.775 + 0.675 = 5.45
To MCC 2.57 + 0.699 = 3.26
122.3 - 5.45 + 3.26 = 120.1 acres
I will concede that with three of us measuring, and tracing roads on Google or in CAD, that the numbers are only approximate. Some may not buy this idea without the numbers working out exactly.
That would especially go for Pat, who has been arguing that just because the facts say something, we can't expect it to be true, and just because there is no proof, it doesn't mean it isn't true, and no one can infer otherwise.
If I have time later, I will begin a thread on the existences of the Easter Bunny, which should be fun!
Jeff,
Thanks for all of your help with this. I think it makes complete sense, from a timelines analysis, an evidence-based analysis, and from the sniff test and common sense analysis of what Francis actually said.
It's clear from this overlay that there is no way to fit the 15th tee/16th green as Francis spoke of, and he widened that corridor. It's been clear for quite a while on this thread that the 15th tee/16th green didn't fit inside the "approximate" road. I still remain unconvinced that Francis widened the corridor.
We have three "facts" that we're dealing with that I don't think anybody has satisfactorily reconciled:
1) The November 15, 1910 letter said they had secured 117 acres;
2) The land plan shows 122+/- acres;
3) Francis said he swapped (not widened to) 130 x 190 yards.
So, in your theory, you choose to throw out the Francis swap statement and substitute it with a Francis really meant "widened" statement. And, you throw out the statement in the letter that they had secured 117 acres, in favour of the land plan map.
An alternate theory is to throw out the land plan map that's in conflict with its attached letter and substitute an alternative "approximate" road configuration as I had previously done (see below), and put in Francis' 130 x 190 yard swap in its entirety. At least this theory reconciles with two "facts" rather than one..
I've sent a note to Bryan, as well, asking for his objective analysis and measuring.
We know we won't get that from many others here. ;)
Mike,
A few posts back you said you were going to look into the RR lease. I, for one, would like to nail the RR land down one final time. Do we agree that it was not part of the swapping and reconfiguration between the land plan and the final 120.01 acres of July 26, 1911?
Second, I asked if the Lesley Report was posted anywhere in these threads?
Bryan,
If Jeff doesn't try it...the poor guy has been through torture yesterday, believe me :o, then I'm thinking of giving it a shot.
It has to be a fun exercise. Why don't you try it, as well?
Here's your aerial...for anyone else who wants to play at home it's the area in brown, less the area marked "RE".
Sure, I'll give it a try, but it'll be a couple of days. I thought Jeff might enjoy a break from the water boarding doing what he does best - design golf courses. For those playing at home, I want to exclude the Area F and north from the exercise. If Francis is to be believed that area wasn't part of the plans. He stated the he needed to swap for it. You could include the RR land since CBM recommended getting it, and it was initially used.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionLabeledDeedMap.jpg)
You haven't produced the actual routing of Barker.
You're either kidding, or, obtuse.
I produced the ACTUAL LETTER dated June 10, 1910, from Barker to Connell in which Barker describes the submission of a routing along with his letter.
A copy of which appears below.
If that's not proof positive, you wouldn't recognize proof if it hit you in the face..
You just make speculations that support your point of view based on the word
Well, you've eliminated my reference to "kidding"
You call the production of Barker's letter to Connell "speculation" ?
Are you out of your mind ?
Have you guys in Philly had your water supply checked recently ?
Barker's letter is crystal clear.
The authenticity of Barker's letter is undisputed.
It's factual.
How you can claim it's content is "speculation" is beyond me.
I'd be surprised if a moron in denial could claim that the Barker letter to Connell dated June 10, 1910 doesn't refer to the submission of a routing.
But, you and others have surprised me before
There is NO SPECULATION that Barker submitted a routing
Mr. Joseph R. Connell,
Dear Sir:
Philadelphia, Pa., June 10, 1910.
I today have inspected the property at Haverford, south of College Avenue, where it is proposed to to lay out a golf course: and beg to submit to you my report.
I am enclosing a sketch of the property in question on which I have roughly shown in pencil a proposed lay out of the course.[/color]
We know that to "lay out" a golf course means to "ROUTE" a golf course.
At least that's what Mike Cirba and others have told us.[/b]
I would say that the land is in every way adapted to the making of a first class course, comparing most favorably with the best courses in this country, such as Myopia and Garden City.
In the past few years I have laid out upwards of twenty (20) courses in this country, and from my experience I believe the proposed course could be constructed at less expense than any I have heretofore gone over.
If the work was commenced at once, the course could be ready for play by the fall of 1911.
Very truly yours,
H. H. BARKER,
Garden City, L. I., N. Y.
And you claim that the production of this letter, and the assertion that Barker was refering to a routing is "speculation" because the actual routing wasn't included ? ?
Should we dismiss all documents that fail to include their attachments or enclosures ?
While TEPaul remains "At Large", please stop by Happy Dale Farms and have your head examined.
Patrick,
There is no proof whatsoever that Barker's routing ever made it onto the Site Committee's July 1st report to the Merion Board.
The letter is INCORPORATED into the site committee's July 1st report to the Merion Board.
There is NO PROOF that the Merion Board didn't see the routing.
All that is copied is the content of his letter in the body of a larger document. There is no mention of any attachment.
For that matter, there is no proof that the routing made it past Connell, although I can't imagine he wouldn't have shared it.
There's NO PROOF that it didn't make it past Connell.
Common sense would seem to dictate that the letter and the routing were placed in front of a broader audience.
Furthermore, it is even more remote to assume that Barker's routing ever made it to the Merion membership, because there is no indication that it was attached to the November 15th bond solicitation either.
Is it your position that the letter and routing were "hidden" from all parties, including the membership ?
This sounds like more flawed reasoning on your part.
Another attempt to jump to a false conclusion to further your position.
How much personal experience do you have in terms of your familiarity with the depth and details of presentations made to various memberships ?
[/size]
A mention that someone produced a routing for the Land Developer had little to do with Merion and their desires and plans for the property.
I'd suggest that you have your water checked as well.
Barker's 06-10-10 letter was incorporated in the Site Committee's July 1, 1910 report to the Board.
You would also have us believe that the club NEVER attempted to craft routings from July 1, 1910 until 7 or more months later.
[/b][/size]
In fact, the July 1st letter seems to go to pains to point out that Barker was brought in at Connell's initiation, not Merion's.
Here's Barker's July 1, 1910 letter, it is INCORPORATED into the report to the MERION BOARD.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2443/3602306390_3d87346472_b.jpg)
They must not have thought much of it, frankly.
That's wishful thinking and conjecture on your part.
In fact, it's almost certain that whatever pencil sketch drawing visit he did in a single day on June 10th, 1910 was based on strictly the Johnson Farm property, as the Dallas Estate was not mentioned in that correspondence, and wasn't purchased by HDC until October of that year.
Your ability to draw flawed conclusions without substantiating evidence remains flawlessly intact.
Is it your position that the Dallas estate was never considered until the day of purchase ?
There is NO PROOF that the Merion Board didn't see the routing.
That is great stuff, Mike! Have you been channeling HH Barker?
Mike,
I skipped the last couple of days / pages and I'm not sure I can wade through it but I did have a thought about the debate here...
I think there are a couple a couple of axis' that have divided the debate. David and his side think CBM deserves more credit than he is getting because it is logically impossible for Hugh Wilson to have donw much prior to being appointed to chair the construction team...I have my problems with that logic.
You and Tom think the opposite because all of the technical timeline stuff supports this taking place in early 1911 when the committee, including Wilson, was formed.
I'm not the least bit interested in solving for who gets what portion of the credit, I am interested in the timing...probably in large part because the side you are on has claimed to have THE ANSWER 8 or 10 times in the last 6 months, and it's somewhat different each time and none of them seem logically sound to me.
I think the Francis Swap is a key to the timeline and the differing beliefs of how and when are another "axis" dividng this debate...and I'll try to identify the two camps.
You believe the Francis Swap had to have occurred after the November 1910 Plan was complete because the holes along it (when completed later) do not fit. If they already swapped this for that and had all the holes routed they wouldn't have needed to label the road approximate...so they didn't have a clue where anything was going to go and they needed a plan to sell to the membership so they added an aesthetically pleasing road with no consideration for where or how it divided the property. You then contend that it was this randomly placed road that became the working boundary which had to be shifted once they began the routing process and realized the guy in the engineers office hadn't given them enough width for 15 and 16. In essence, the way I have read your argument (and Tom's as well before he moved to the little Tiki Hut in Hawaii) is that the road was randomly placed on the Land Plan in 1910 and then immediately incorporated as a working boundary. Jeff Brauer hypothesized that the December Cuyler letter suggesting Lloyd take ownership to ease the process of moving boundaries is also proof that the routing happened after the fact stumped me because they clearly left one boundary (just one) labeled "approximate", which clearly implied it is not exact and will likely need to be shifted.
I believe that the "approximate road" was shaped the way it was because they knew they needed that general shape.They knew where the holes were going to go but did not know how much room they were going to take. It's really that simple in my mind. The road could have been labeled "arbitrary" or "random" but was not.
Why would a completely arbitrary road, drawn with no consideration for a golf course become the working boundary when these guys had 340 acres to work with?
Mike,
You believe the Francis Swap had to have occurred after the November 1910 Plan was complete because the holes along it (when completed later) do not fit. If they already swapped this for that and had all the holes routed they wouldn't have needed to label the road approximate...so they didn't have a clue where anything was going to go and they needed a plan to sell to the membership so they added an aesthetically pleasing road with no consideration for where or how it divided the property. You then contend that it was this randomly placed road that became the working boundary which had to be shifted once they began the routing process and realized the guy in the engineers office hadn't given them enough width for 15 and 16. In essence, the way I have read your argument (and Tom's as well before he moved to the little Tiki Hut in Hawaii) is that the road was randomly placed on the Land Plan in 1910 and then immediately incorporated as a working boundary. Jeff Brauer hypothesized that the December Cuyler letter suggesting Lloyd take ownership to ease the process of moving boundaries is also proof that the routing happened after the fact stumped me because they clearly left one boundary (just one) labeled "approximate", which clearly implied it is not exact and will likely need to be shifted.
Why would a completely arbitrary road, drawn with no consideration for a golf course become the working boundary when these guys had 340 acres to work with?
There is NO PROOF that the Merion Board didn't see the routing.
Patrick,
Barker's letter was incorporated into the report.
Barker's routing was NOT.
What does that tell you?
It doesn't tell you anything.
You don't know that the routing wasn't viewed by the committee.
Ask yourself, if a letter was incorporated in a report and the report described a routing, do you think the Board reviewed the routing.
Do you think the Board had the individual and collective wisdom to analyze the merits of the routing ?
Do the Merion Board minutes EVER acknowledge and include the eventual routing in 1911 or 1912 ?
If not, what does that tell you ?
Think about it before you answer.
Did these letters and correspondences excitedly discuss the wonderful opportunities and insightful creativity that Mr. Barker's routing brought to light?
Do ANY of the Board minutes in 1911-1912 include the final routing and discuss the wonderful opportunities and insightful creativity that any routing brought to light ?
If not, what does that tell you ?
Think about it before you answer.
Did anyone at Merion even mention Mr. Barker, except to say almost apologetically;
"Mr. Connell, on his own account, obtained from H.H. Barker, the Garden City professional, a report, of which the following is a copy."
Can't you just feel the enthusiasm and excitement jump off the page?! ::)
Mike, I asked you before, and you failed to respond, so, I'll ask you again.
How many Golf club Boards have you sat on ?
Do you find ANY Board minutes exciting ?
I've been on a variety of boards for over 20 consecutive years and none of the hundreds of Board minutes I've read could ever be described as exciting, irrespective of the merits of the topic or project being discussed.
Board minutes don't contain drama, they're not for entertainment purposes.
But, you wouldn't know that.
Instead you negatively characterize something you know nothing about, choosing to put forth your absurd spin on it.
My lord, I bet they jumped right out there based on his recommendation and bought the land, started construction and had it open for play according to his brilliant routing in the fall of 1911!
According to you, the Board and committee went into hibernation for the next seven months, effectively freezing the project with no additional activity.
Right??!? Oh...wait... :P
Right !
Geez,
Well this is a ten minute routing without the property, but this is absolutely my last post today. I am being a slacker!
It appears that the narrowest neck is just a bit too narrow to get the four holes wide that would be required. Those centerlines are 140-180 feet apart. You will note that I also did an altternate 18th across the creek on RR property not acquired. It might have made a nice creek hole, but apparently wasn't available, or sat too low, etc.
It also appears that the Quarry is not used to well, which may have been their major stumbling block. It does show that 5 slightly narrow holes might have fit in that land, but IMHO not well. It also disregards the need for a maintenance facility.
Bryan,
Of course that wouldn't work well which is simply more evidence that the Francis Swap almost certainly never happened in the way David suggests and which you seem to as well. I'm just trying to find a way to accept literally what Francis said happened, regardless of what you think David has suggested. Assuming that the northern acreage wasn't part of the initial plan does two things for me: it allows me to understand why he would say it was difficult to fit in the last 5 holes; and secondly, it allows me to accept that he said he swapped to get 130 x 190 yards up there, because it wasn't initially part of the acreage.
The whole point of creating a routing is to do it on.the full 119 acres of Johnson Farm that both Barker and Mac saw on their site visit in June 1910. How do you know what Barker and CBM saw? Why not the full Johnson Farm or the Connor Estate?
There is absolutely no evidence or other reason to believe that the property was subdivided below College ave at that time and the property was described in club docs and news articles as running north to College. No doubt the property ran up to College, and even beyond into the Connor Estate. But, equally there is no evidence of where exactly the 100 acres or whatever was required were, or even where the exact boundaries of the 117 acres were.
I think it also goes to my long held contention here that it would have been ridiculous for them to only secure land 65 yards beyond the quarry, particularly since more was available, part of the historic property, and M+W recommended that much could be made of the quarry. I've lost track of where this 65 yards north of the quarry thing comes from since I'm not able to see the bounds of the quarry from 1910. Nevertheless, are you saying that Francis was "ridiculous" to say that he swapped for the land beyond 65 yards north of the quarry? If we take him literally at his word that's exactly what they did.
I'm not seeing how that's difficult to understand?
It merely suggests that the other three acres were to come from the RR property.
Jim Sullivan,
I think the only reasons that the one area was the flexible boundary were:
It was decided to use all land south of Ardmore for golf.
It was predetermined that the Johnson Farm House was going to be the cluhouse, keeping the golf course down there hugging the creek.
I doubt the concept of integrating golf and housing was established then (putting golf in front yards, rather than back yards was the order of the day back then) so MCC was contemplated as a basic core course, not one that would be strung out between houses.
Jeff,
You were a slacker. I was hoping for all 18 holes to be laid out according to CBM's list of lengths. I assume you're saying by implication that the first thirteen holes were laid out over both the Johnson and Dallas properties. I'd agree with your conclusions in the last paragraph.
Now, IF Francis recollected the swap dimensions accurately and IF we accepted that the land at the north end of the Johnson property wasn't initially part of the golf course property so that Francis could swap for it, THEN, based on your routing we can see how he felt it would be difficult to fit the last five holes in with any resemblance to a championship course.
Yes, but on Nov. 15, 1910 when the committee took the plan to a vote of the members, they were targeting 120 - 117 from HDC and 3 from the RR. That they had to buy an additional 3 acres from HDC (later not paid for, for reasons unexplained) took the total land purchase to 123 acres.
Not busting your chops or anything, but I am getting frustrated at various parties who keep bringing up points that have been covered, explained and are fairly obvious. I guess I am just getting tired of this whole thing now. It just seems we aren't going to get everyone to agree to anything, barring a new document.
Has anyone considered a seance? At this point, I would prefer to discuss some other topic that no one seems to understand and can never figure out rather than rehash MCC again.
Hey, lets talk about women! We can't figure them out and never will, either!
Another thing I find perplexing about the acreages bandied about is, on July 1, 1910:
1) it is reported that Connell offered 100 acres ( a nice round number), or whatever would be required ......
2) and, in the next paragraph the Committee says it is probable that nearly 120 acres (another round number) would be required.
By November 15, 1910 they have a deal done to secure 117 acres, not a round number, but in fact, seemingly precise to the acre. It's not 116 or 118, it's precisely 117.
Does that not suggest that in those intervening 4.5 months that someone did some more planning of the layout of the course. How else would they have gotten from a round 120 acres to a precise 117 acres? Of course, then they got it wrong and had to increase it back to a precise 120.01 acres on July 26, 1911. ???
Jeff,
You were a slacker. I was hoping for all 18 holes to be laid out according to CBM's list of lengths. I assume you're saying by implication that the first thirteen holes were laid out over both the Johnson and Dallas properties. I'd agree with your conclusions in the last paragraph.
Now, IF Francis recollected the swap dimensions accurately and IF we accepted that the land at the north end of the Johnson property wasn't initially part of the golf course property so that Francis could swap for it, THEN, based on your routing we can see how he felt it would be difficult to fit the last five holes in with any resemblance to a championship course.
Bryan,
The problem is that Francis clearly did NOT reflect exactly what happened 40 years later. You can say this as many times as you want, but it does not make it true. You can only speculate that Francis was a doddering old man who mistated what happened. What was he going to say for a brief article in the US Open program...? "Well, we took a piece of land running curvilnearly along our working boundary, and widened it along the length of over 400 yards by about on average 25 yards, and to compensate for that we had some land across the street from the clubhouse that we gave back that was about six acres, but there was more acreage there, and also north of where we wanted to place the 15th green/16th tee that we couldn't use, and also needed some more land behind the 1st green that actually crossed a bit outside the Johnson Farm land property..." ::) ;) He could have said: "My greatest contribution was to suggest realignment of the property boundaries along what are now the 14th, 15th, and 16th holes so that we could fit those holes in the property that we had." But, he didn't, he said that he swapped for 130 x 190 yards.
The problem is that both you and Jim are trying to put a square peg in a round hole by insisting that Francis 40 years later HAD to mean that they swapped for the whole triangle. He simply meant they needed to widen the area up there to 130 yards wide to make everything fit. Truth is that it is simpler to accept a literal interpretation than to interpret what he must have meant. I think we're dead on this issue. We'll agree to disagree until more information comes to light.
The more facts we learn, the clearer it becomes that any literal interpretation of Francis leads to absolutely preposterous results.
What are those facts;
1) The first 13 holes had been routed.
2) There was land west of the present course along GHR of no use to any golf plans. (now covered by fine homes)
3) For a literal interpretation of Francis to be true, they would have been routing on a Johnson Farm truncated in the north at the Haverford College boundary, liekly giving them 108.5 acres of Johnson Farm + 21.1 acres of Dallas Estate for a total purchase of 129.6 + 3 acres railroad land = 132.6 acres total.
This drawing should help to illustrate;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3656486371_61775da1a4_b.jpg)
The red bounded section marked "1" shows the areas where the first 13 holes had already been routed.
The yellow marked "2" is the boundary of the quarry, unusable for tees, fairways, and greens.
The blue bounded section is the northwestern boundary of the Johnson Farm. The large area marked "3" across from the clubhouse would be the supposed land west of the present course "that was not used for any golf layout".
The green boundary makred "4" is the area that they would have supposedly been trying to fit the five finishing holes of their championshp course into, if we take Francis to the letter of his remarks rather than the spirit of them.
The orange is a crudely drawn location of the "approximate road" as seen on the November 1910 Land Plan.
The description and numbering above doesn't match the drawing.
I understand what you've laid out, but I don't understand why these facts make taking a literal interpretation of Francis' words absolutely preposterous.
I think I understand why you were trying to get Jeff to do a routing on this land because you're trying to see if there was enough here for an 18 hole golf course. You're basically trying to see if a professional architect could make it work. Yes.
The problem is that we already know that 13 holes were pre-configured and had already used up a par three on the back nine. Why is that a problem?
So, in reality, what you should be asking Jeff or anyone to attempt is to build out the Final Five Holes of their championship course on the land encircled in green, because according to the literal interpretation of the Francis theory, that is all that would be left!
And, that's what Jeff did a few posts back. He said he could squeeze them in with narrow corridors, but there would have been no room for maintenance facilities.
We also know already that for some crazy reason (which makes no sense given the limited overall property), the land west marked as "2" was not part of any golf plan?! ::) Beats me. I thought maybe those of you who have seen that land might be able to say why it doesn't look like golf land - too hilly; too flat. Maybe Connell said they couldn't have it.
Bryan and Jim...seriously...how would that make any sense at all if the property ended north at Haverford College? They would have had to have tried to use this land for golf, wouldn't they?!? I've seen nothing that indicates why they focused in on what they did. They had the Connor Estate they could have used. They apparently had options on other land they might have used. That's the crux of the problem, why did they choose the 117 acres they did, and what were those 117 acres.
Otherwise, you're arguing that they went ahead and routed the first 13 holes all the while knowing that they didn't have nearly enough land to work with north of the clubhouse. That would have been insane!
How would you route a golf course? Would you start at the clubhouse and work sequentially out from number 1 on? I've never routed a course, nor am I able to channel Wilson, CBM, Barker or anybody else who might have done it at the time.
Maybe it was insane to have satisfactorily routed the first 13 holes and then figured out they didn't have enough room for the last five, but that's what Francis said they did - and regardless of whether you take Francis literally or believe that he meant they adjusted the boundary. They had 13 holes laid out and then couldn't fit the last 5 in. Or, would you like to interpret that too. What do you think he really meant?
Why wouldn't they have used the entire 132 acres at their disposal to route the course??
For a literal interpretation of the Francis Swap to be true, they would have THEN swapped for what we know is 4.8 acres of land (the "triangle") up by 15green/16tee (making the overall course now 137.4), but would have given up in return OVER SEVENTEEN ACRES IN RETURN across from the clubhouse that for some insane unexplainable reason was supposedly somehow deemed as "not part of any golf layout"!!
I don't know what their insane reason was, but indisputably they did "give up" that land.
Wouldn't it make much more sense for Francis to simply be talking about the overall width he needed to create up there the by going beyond the "working boundary" to the west (west of the orange line) along 14 & 15 so that those holes fit, and then giving back acreage down below where it bowed in anyway (east of the orange line) by the clubhouse to keep similar acreage for real estate?
It would make sense if we understood that there was a working boundary and that it was where the approximate road was and that Francis had a senior moment when he was recollecting what his contribution was. I think we need some additional documentary proof of the boundaries of the 117 acres to be able to reach a definitive conclusion. You can hang on to your interpretation until then, and I'll stick to Francis' words.
Bryan,
The 3 acres they were going to purchase in April was NOT the railroad land. It was the 3 acres that fell outside the approximate road drawing and thus outside the agreed working boundary that Lloyd and Connell had drawn up. How do you KNOW that?
The railroad would not have charged them $2500 an acre for $7,500 to buy but leased in perpetuity for $1 a year.
$2500 an acre was the price of HDC real estate land at the time. How do you KNOW that? You asked me some posts ago what the price of HDC real estate was. Have you now found out? How?
So, you're saying that they proposed to buy 3 acres from HDC. There is no record of such a purchase actually happening. And, in April Lloyd on behalf of MCC owned the 161 acres of Johnson and Dallas land, so if they were buying it from HDC then it must have been outside of the Johnson/Dallas tracts. Is that what you're saying, that they bought 3 acres from HDC that was outside the Johnson/Dallas tract?
I don't know who ate that cost, but that's what it was.
Bryan,
What Mike said. I don't recall he or I agreeing that the railroad land was the 3 acre purchase. It couldn't have been since, well, it wasn't purchased until the 1960's.
TePaul informed us that many MCC members were also big time in the railroads. Its really easy to surmise that they planned on getting that land by lease or purchase. Its easy to surmise that the lease was a real sweetheart deal that no one but a railroad executive who was a member at MCC could negotiate.
Mike,
In fact, my quick routing (call me quarter hour Brauer) did basically use your green parcel, although I extended it to the Nov 15 road rather than the final road you seem to show. Its still too narrow.
Mike,
In fact, my quick routing (call me quarter hour Brauer) did basically use your green parcel, although I extended it to the Nov 15 road rather than the final road you seem to show. Its still too narrow.
So, you're saying that they proposed to buy 3 acres from HDC. There is no record of such a purchase actually happening. And, in April Lloyd on behalf of MCC owned the 161 acres of Johnson and Dallas land, so if they were buying it from HDC then it must have been outside of the Johnson/Dallas tracts. Is that what you're saying, that they bought 3 acres from HDC that was outside the Johnson/Dallas tract? [/size][/color]
Pat Mucci,
Geez. You are really silly in how you are trying to distract the debate.
Jeff,
Some moron has broker into your computer and is posting under your name on GCA.com.
Evidently, he's unable to chew gum and walk at the same time as he can't follow two (2) distinct discussions within a thread with 57 pages and counting
I wouldn't give your post the dignity of an answer if I were Mike, and I wouldn't do it either, but its an easy add on to my answer to Jim Sullivan.
Yet, you continue to chime in with your two cents.
Among the things I find the silliest is your double negatives - there is no proof that it is not true, basically. To anyone schooled in logic, it does not follow that there is proof that it is true.
This moron doesn't understand the error of his logic where he allows Mike Cirba to conclude that the Barker routing wasn't substantive because there's no proof that the committee/Board viewed the routing, which, incidently, was attached to Barker's letter, because there's no proof that the routing was included with the documents presented in the committee/Board report, even though the routing was attached to Barker's letter, and then reject the logic where someone concludes that you can't exclude the Barker routing as being substantive just because it doesn't seem to have been included with the letter that was viewed by the committee/Board.
Common sense would seem to dictate that any and every board member would have seen the routing attached to the letter, if for no other reason than curiosity. As to exhibits attached to reports, they're frequently included in reports presented to the board, but not mentioned in board minutes.
But, that's why common sense isn't so common.
You are pounding the table again Johnny Cochran. I guess you figure if it worked once...............
You continually fail to examine the content and merit of the text, prefering to reject it based on it's color.
Now, I'm not calling you a racist, but you seem to be a greenaphobe
Mike,
Given Barkers description of a "rough routing" I bet it was graphically very similar to yours, only not drawn on an aerial photo, just on a map. When a gca describes his own work as "rough" you know its nothing special or final.
How do you KNOW that ?
That's pure speculation on your part.
You accuse me of being illogical and then you resort to logic of the absurd, absent any facts to support it.
Yet, Pat and a few others take it as gospel that it was a virtuoso masterpiece.
That's a distortion of the truth and a blatant lie.
That's never been my position and you know it.
Now you're engaging in the same absurd tactics of extremes and exaggerations that Cirba's made famous on the Merion threads
I susbscribe to your toilet paper fate for that routing!
Actually, since Connell paid for it,
Why would a smart, successful professional pay for a "toilet paper" product ?
Does that seem logical to you ?
I wonder if any of you Philly boys could track down successor companies or descendents who might have records of it.
We know MCC doesn't have it.
How do you know that ?
You only know what you've been told by parties favorably disposed to an outcome that seems to have been predisposed.
Rich,
Tom MacWood had credited it to Barker, and I looked it up in Whitten's book, which corroborates.
Mike,
In fact, my quick routing (call me quarter hour Brauer) did basically use your green parcel, although I extended it to the Nov 15 road rather than the final road you seem to show. Its still too narrow.
Jeff,
Except in your routing example you cheated and used "land west of today's course that was not part of any golf layout.". ::) ;) ;D
Even with using the extra land that Francis told us they weren't using you STILL couldn't fit those five championship finishing holes into the land that was left if you take Francis literally!!
Slacker!! ;) ;D
There is no way they would have routed 13 holes if all they had left was that little sliver around the quarry. They would have had to have been certifiably insane.
Espeically with 17 acres of gently rolling land across from the clubhouse that they had supposedly somehow deemed "not part of any golf layout".
The literal interpretation of Francis's words makes no sense under any realistic scenario, as you know.
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39657.0;attach=1817;image)
..............
I understand what you've laid out, but I don't understand why these facts make taking a literal interpretation of Francis' words absolutely preposterous. It's simple math, Bryan.
If we give the Committee all of the land north of the club house out to the historical western boundary of Johnson Farm, but truncated at Haverford College as you suggest Francis had to mean, that give us a total of roughly 1545 ft x 1050 ft, or 37.2 acres.
Doesn't sound too bad for five holes, right?
Only we know that Francis said that they weren't going to use the land west of GHR for any golf layout, so the area west of GHR and north of the clubhouse is slightly over half the area, or roughly 9 acres, so we're down to 28.2 acres.
Then, we have the quarry, which was unusable for fairways, greens, or tees.
The quarry measures out roughly at 540 ft x 450 ft, or another 5.5 acres, leaving a total of 22.7 acres to build the final five holes of their championship course, and only one of them can be a par three! It's an exercise in futility, and if I took you out on the property tomorrow you could see instantly that it could never have worked, not even on paper!
There is no way they would have routed 13 holes knowing that they only had 22.7 acres left to build the final five holes!!
Or said another way, it's basically like trying to cram five finishing holes into the Dallas Estate! :o :o :o
................................
Jeff,
As long as it's not "sixty second Cirba" I'll take it! ;)
Bryan,
Maybe this will help..
If the golf course was already routed and the 117 acres specifically identified prior to Nov 15, 1910 as per the Francis Literal interpretation. Then why in Dec 1910 would Cuyler advise Lloyd to take 161 acres...ALL of the 140 acre Johnson Farm and the 21 acre Dallas Estate...under title in his name?
Why not just take the 117 supposedly pre-routed acres and start building the road?
Rich,
Tom MacWood had credited it to Barker, and I looked it up in Whitten's book, which corroborates.
Boy, is there just no end to the conspiracies these eastern clubs will go to in denying true architectural attributions?
Mike,
How about "six second Cirba?" Ouch. That hurts even to type it.....
TePaul and I had an interesting conversation while I was driving to lunch today on that subject. And, how is Tom doing? Just think, if he wasn't on enforced hiatus from the site, this thread could be 100 pages long now. In general, we discussed the economics of the project from a developers perpective and that would actually be a fascinating exploration to explore - while clearly an artistic success, did Lloyd and HDC make the money they anticipated by selling MCC a third of their land?
As a tangent, it is interesting to note that the Philadelphia & Ardmore Land Company bought the Johnson Farm from Gebhard Fecht on February 21, 1907 for $48,000. On December 16, 1910 they sold it via Rothwell to HDC and then again through Rothwell to Lloyd. When it was sold to Lloyd for $1, it was encumbered with three mortgages - one for $85,000, one for $60,000 and one for $34,000. In July, 1911 when Lloyd sold it via Rothwell to MCC, it was only encumbered by the $85,000 mortgage. Sounds like some interesting financial finagling there in the middle. At the same time HDC bought the Dallas Estate for $21,020. Total outlay for the Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate was $69,020. Bottom line to Connell, he paid $69,020 for 161 acres and sold 120 of it to MCC for $85,000. Profit of $16,000 and he get to keep the back 40 for housing. Profitable? Ya think. And, MCC thinks they got a good price too. :o
Anyway, we came up with two theories on that -
Lloyd probably took the land personally, to keep the transaction at arms length, since he was on the board of HDC and MCC. How is that arms length, if he's on both boards. Sounds like insider trading to me. Where are the lawyers? But, we also have to remember that Lloyd was involved in HDC and presumably wanted to at least break even. (With Allgates going in he wanted his club nearby, and clearly was concerned that MCC members get a good deal, so his motiviations were slightly different than Connells who presumably wanted to max out profit.
Lloyd and Connell, et al, may not have totally trusted each other. Or, at least it makes sense to keep your leverage "just in case" things don't work out. In other words, Lloyd kept the deed of about half the acreage in his name, Connell kept what he had contributed under Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co. P & A Land Co. (PALCO ;D) contributed the Johnson Farm. Lloyd got it. Connell didn't keep it. and they had kind of a detente - niether could back out or move forward without the other because each separately owned half the asset to be developed further.
Again, that is another Brauer theory and many are probably sick of hearing me spout off - hell, I'M Tired of hearing me spout off. That said, I have seen similar arrangements on similar business developments.
So, you're saying that they proposed to buy 3 acres from HDC. There is no record of such a purchase actually happening. And, in April Lloyd on behalf of MCC owned the 161 acres of Johnson and Dallas land, so if they were buying it from HDC then it must have been outside of the Johnson/Dallas tracts. Is that what you're saying, that they bought 3 acres from HDC that was outside the Johnson/Dallas tract? [/size][/color]
Bryan,
Lloyd didn't own the 161 acres in April, at least not technically. He had taken title for HDC under his name.
Lloyd did own it legally. The deed is in his name alone. Tom has claimed many times that it was on behalf of MCC - not HDC as you state here. Are you saying Tom is wrong. Here is one of Tom's references:
2. DEC, 19, 1910; The date of the transfer of the 117 acres into the names Horatio G. Lloyd et ux for MCC that would become the majority of the world famous Merion East golf course; Reflected in a deed dated Dec. 19, 1910.
That is a FACT. That deed has been in Merion G.C.’s archives for years as well as in the Recorder of Deeds in the County seat..
Now, mind you, Tom is wrong about it being "et ux". There is no "et ux" in the deed. Just Lloyd alone. Are you and Tom suggesting that there was a side deal/contract between MCC and Lloyd saying that MCC really owned it and not Lloyd, despite the deed?
Merion had "secured" only an offer to buy 117 acres back in November 1910, and that was the offer for the amount of land that went to the Board for approval (accepted) and then solicited to membership in the form of bond sales at that time.
The 3 acres of land that was added was just outside that working boundary defined by the approximate road, west of it...the Francis Swap, if you will...
It was still Johnson Farm Land. Yes, and Lloyd owned it legally (or on behalf of MCC in Tom's claim). Merion had to agree to purchase those 3 additonal acres from HDC, No, they didn't. Lloyd (or Lloyd on behalf of MCC) owned it. which raised the total purchase to 120.
In the end, HDC only developed 218 acres for real estate, not the 221 originally planned. That was due to the Francis Swap.
Make sense? No, for the reasons above.
Bryan Izatt,
Why are you engaging in an exercise of trying to fit today's golf course into the property configuration circa 1910-11-12 ? I wasn't. I did ask Jeff and Mike to try to route CBM's recommended mix of holes withing the property lines. You can see for yourself how that turned out. The Google aerial was just a convenient tool to context the property boundaries. Clearly, the early course was not like the current course.
Is it Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer's contention that todays golf course as represented by your google earth image is the same golf course, in every way, that existed in 1910-11-12 ? I don't know, you should ask them, although I suspect that this is a rhetorical question.
Jeff,
Just because I missed a few days, I have to ask...was your math calculation based on the 11/10/1910 Land Plan?
Also, why would CBM's share of credit be impacted by the date that a Merion Committee member made his primary contribution?
One other question for anyone, did Francis say the first 13 holes were completely routed? Or did he say "they fit pretty easily"?
Thanks
Mike,
You like graphics so here is the 1908 map which I believe shows what was offered and what they ended up with. It is obviously not meant to be exact.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/1908-Atlas-Expansion-1.jpg?t=1244137323)
1. The Purple line represents the border of the land that HDC either owned or had an option on at the time they made their offer to MCC (excluding the land off the map to the north)
2. The Blue line represents the border of what I believe were the approx 100 acres that were originally offered.
3. Together, the Red and Green lines represent the borders of what was ultimately purchased by MCC.
3.a. The Red lines represents the portions of the border that differed from what was offered.
3.b. The Green lines represent the portions of the border that followed what was originally offered.
As you can see, they did NOT follow what was originally offered:
1. Francis noted that they did not need land west of the present course so they didn't purchase it.
2. Francis noted that they did need the 130 x 190 yard parcel west of Haverford College so they expanded their purchase up there.
3. M&W noted that MCC should purchase the land behind the clubhouse to use in the golf course so the secured that by lease.
4. HDC owned or had an option on plenty of land West of the current course, but according to Francis they didn't have interest in the land west of the current golf course. HHB, M&W, someone else, or some combination added the Dallas Estate which was great.
These are some of the changes to the borders made to suit the golf course. I am not even sure why this is arguable.
Bryan,
The 3 acres they were going to purchase in April was NOT the railroad land. It was the 3 acres that fell outside the approximate road drawing and thus outside the agreed working boundary that Lloyd and Connell had drawn up. How do you KNOW that?
The railroad would not have charged them $2500 an acre for $7,500 to buy but leased in perpetuity for $1 a year.
$2500 an acre was the price of HDC real estate land at the time. How do you KNOW that? You asked me some posts ago what the price of HDC real estate was. Have you now found out? How?
So, you're saying that they proposed to buy 3 acres from HDC. There is no record of such a purchase actually happening. And, in April Lloyd on behalf of MCC owned the 161 acres of Johnson and Dallas land, so if they were buying it from HDC then it must have been outside of the Johnson/Dallas tracts. Is that what you're saying, that they bought 3 acres from HDC that was outside the Johnson/Dallas tract?
I don't know who ate that cost, but that's what it was.
Bryan,
The reason it's mathematically impossible is because the factual documentation shows us that Merion thought they needed 120 acres, secured 117 of HDC land, and eventually purchased 120 acres of HDC land. Mike, you are saying it's logically impossible, not mathematically impossible. Get over the "mathematical" thing. And, it's your logic not mine.
To swap 14 acres of land back to HDC in return for a different 4.8 acres they would have needed to have secured 129 acres of HDC land in the first place which we know never happened. If the swap happened before November, then we don't know what they had "secured" at that point. We do know that Lloyd ended up holding 161 acres, so it's not so hard to imagine that they swapped 5 for 14. How many fine homes do you suppose they could have fit in the 4 acre crescent opposite the clubhouse that Jeff has identified on his map? Maybe one very wide and shallow lot? Of course, that's what Francis said and in the glossy version, so it's probably not to believed.
You HAVE proven it Bryan! When I believe I've proven something, I'll let you know.
Bryan,
Who put a bee in your bonnet compared to a few weeks ago? Just asking. I hope I didn't piss you off! (although you might be the only one I haven't!) What good eyesight you have to see the bee across the ether. No, it's not you, I'm just frustrated with Mike's 42nd claim that it's been proven, and his statement that it was my doing. And, his continuing restatement of facts that are wrong - such as Lloyd held the land for HDC and they purchased 3 extra acres from HDC.
I would agree that maybe no one has proven anything, but I think in terms of likelihoods. That triangle hasn't changed from then til now - if it was 4.8 acres in its finished form, it still is! agreed, and it just happens to be the same area that Francis said it was in the glossy 1952 article.
The way the acreages we KNOW work out, it almost had to be that the Nov 10 plan was the working western boundary. There is nothing in the documentation, other than the amount of acres they agreed to buy from HDC (117, but never delineated until the final deed in July 1911 The 117 acres was never delineated in any deed we know of. This is why it's so frustrating of late. ) and the deed that says they did buy 120.01. Howe can you say there is nothing in the record about that? its in the deeds? No, it's not. There is a deed for the 161 acres and one for the 120.01 acres. The 117 is a statement in the letter and the 122 is what we measured on the land plan.
Using our various measurements my theory is a very likely explanation or how 117 became 120 because the acreages do work out using the November plan and the final alignments and deed. The November plan was 122, not 117. As far as I can see your numbers work out to explain going from 122 to 120. But, how could they not?
The reason I posited my theory was that David's acreages didn't work out. Niether did TePaul's mythical line or Mikes various mythical lines. If they were using any bigger a parcel than the Nov 10, 1910 plan, after the realignments they couldn't have ended up at 120.01 acres. If the road had been drawn at 117 acres, then MCC would have ended up at 114 acres. Had it been 137 acres (basically the Johnson Farm west boundary) it would have ended up at 134 acres. I'm not defending David's acreage. His theory as best I understand it was that the swap happened before the land plan. Based on that we don't know what acreages they started working with before the swap. It could have been anything within 161, I guess. But, David can argue his own case, if he ever returns.
In short, I have seen no other explanation that shows how any other land swap could work out to the acreages stated in the MCC deed and the acreage shown on the Nov. 10 MCC exhibit. Until I see something like that (and its based on some actual document, rather than someone hoping a document exists AND that it says exactly what they need it to say, I side with Mike that DM's plan IS mathmatically impossible. I agree that we need further documents. It'd be nice to start with the ones that are known to exist, that have never made it here - like Cuyler's letter(s). and the Lesley/Wilson report and the minutes. But, Tom doesn't want to play out in public because David offended him. Too bad.
BTW, while TePaul has read me a few Oakley letters and the Cuyler letter I am not using any secret information. In fact, I believe the Cuyler letter has been posted here hasn't it? No. Or, was it just TePaul's version and many don't trust that he didn't leave out statements implying that Barker or CBM had been there again to route the course?
Jim,
No, not at all.
........CBM came in as a friend of Griscom, and Barker came in “on the account” of Connell, who was not a MCC guy, he was the developer. I always thought that MCC going out of its way to mention “on the account of Connell” was a hint that they didn’t ever plan on using him – he just wasn’t their guy and they obviously DID have some kind of problem with him, or more accurately, just liked CBM better.
One word answers only, please:
Are the last 6-7 pages of this thread worth reading? Yes/No.
........CBM came in as a friend of Griscom, and Barker came in “on the account” of Connell, who was not a MCC guy, he was the developer. I always thought that MCC going out of its way to mention “on the account of Connell” was a hint that they didn’t ever plan on using him – he just wasn’t their guy and they obviously DID have some kind of problem with him, or more accurately, just liked CBM better.
Jeff, not to stir things up too much, but my interpretation of the "on the account of Connell" was documented by MCC to show their appreciation to Connell for making the effort to hire, bring in and pay for Barker.
Andy,
Yes, but he was their novice. ;)
Seriously, Lloyd, et.al., must have seen something special in him. Don't forget Lloyd was on Wilson's committee, as was Griscom and Francis and Toulmin, all who had been highly active in the game for over a decade.
I think we underestimate their knowledge of what constituted a good vs bad golf hole.
They also had Tilly and Findlay in town and about...
Yes, I am sure they knew him well and thought quite highly of him--of that I have no doubt. After all, not only was he in charge of creating their course but it is likely their development investment hinged on the potential success of the course. Who would want a fine home along Golf Course Road if the course was junk?
Still. Would an honest assessment of his resume really inspire confidence? Perhaps it did for them at that time and it all turned out well, clearly. But I can't help but think Mike, when you you get right down to it that you, at this moment, are far more qualified to design a world-class course. You have seen many more wonderful courses than Wilson ever did, you have participated on gca.com for years, you have had the chance to interact with working gca's and you have read countless books by experts through the years. And yet (this is going to sound snarky and that is not the intent, truly), who would hire you to head a committee to design a top-notch course?Andy,
Yes, but he was their novice. ;)
Seriously, Lloyd, et.al., must have seen something special in him. Don't forget Lloyd was on Wilson's committee, as was Griscom and Francis and Toulmin, all who had been highly active in the game for over a decade.
I think we underestimate their knowledge of what constituted a good vs bad golf hole.
They also had Tilly and Findlay in town and about...
Jeff,
Real life is generally mundane and often boring and factual details sometimes lie on the floor like snipped threads from a larger whole.
I think it's when we start trying to weave those stray threads into some meaningful entity on their own without recognizing they came from a larger more relevant whole that we come up with the type of specious, fallacious arguments we've been seeing here lo these many years.
Anyway, I've yet to see anyone either factually put a ding in your theory or offer any alternative theory actually based on the historical facts and timelines we now KNOW, have you?
I'm also not seeing any forthcoming real soon, but perhaps I'm wromg
.
Some here have tried to quell discussion or cause major distractions, or just say its not worth reading, but I sense that's only because they don't like the way the real life story ends, and perhaps would rather go on believing in their respective CBM and Barker mythological hero worship.
Mike,
Should someone come up with something that topples my theory, I will be the first to congratulate them and admit I am wrong. I think we are ALL hoping some document or another surfaces that really ties the knot. However, another snippet will most likely just throw us all into more of a tizzy, as it MIGHT be interpreted different ways.
Specifically, for those who think Barker designed MCC, they will most likely look for ways to fit new info into that theory.
For those who think CBM or Barker routed the course BEFORE 11-10-1910, they will find ways to fit that into their theory, and for those who think the committee did it, they will look for ways to fit that into their theory.
I guess I agree with those who think we really are a bunch of amateur historians who like to argue more than we like to find the truth, despite all of us protesting that truth is all we want! So, let them have at it. I am only too glad to be proven wrong.
Actually, my little piece of the puzzle probably isn't all that signifgant anyway. All I did was posit that there was no interim boundary line of 117 acres. The fact that there is no legal deed of such, which would surely be recorded in the plat office is one indication. The math is a second.
Bryan,
I'll look...I'm sure it was a news article and it seems they not only got wrong the total acreage Lloyd secured in Dec 1910, which you already KNOW for a fact based on the deed in your possession, but also they must have been pretty cramped playing on 50 acres previously. ;) ;D Any luck in the looking for your source for your quote? How did they (whoever it was) get the total acreage wrong, 117 acres and 221 acres add to 338 acres which is correct, is it not? As for "50 acres" for the original MCC course, I believe it says 60 acres, not 50. (Speaking of people trying to distract from the discussion at hand ;D)
Besides, if the routing was already completed before November 1910, why the heck would Merion be looking to option an additional 13 acres (a net add of over 11% to what they secured) in January 1911?!?! I don't know. You published the quote. I thought it was worth exploring, first by knowing where it came from. If it's a "fact" then I suppose we should incorporate it in our fact list and try to understand what it means. I thought the whole conspiracy theory was predicated on the belief that the golf course routing was set in stone by CBM and/or Barker, and/or ANYONE except Hugh Wilson prior to November 1910?? ::) ;) If you're implying that I'm a believer in a conspiracy theory along these lines, you are wrong. Nor do I speak for anyone who might have that theory. Are you speaking for anyone who might have alternate theories?
If that's the types of scraps of leads you're being sent as someone hopes to topple Jeffs's factually based theory, I think we should perhaps break out the broom and sweep this place up cuz the show is over. Nope, I found that little quote that you posted, all by myself.
Mike,
Are you sure that was 1913?
By the way, would anyone care to venture say what they believe Francis meant previously when he wrote, "Still another problem faced the committee..."
Prior to that statement he wrote about his Francis Land Swap, and then how they originally thought the road would make a fine hazard and had a number of holes crossing it.and how it was that way until the road became too busy.
What prior problem faced the committee that Francis is referring to?
Sure doesn't sound much like "construction" to moi! ;)
I hear what you are saying, but go back and read my post 2012. That is at least my take on it. I think they got more help out of CBM than they would hiring Barker, Travis, or anyone else claiming to be a gca at that time. With Wilson's interest and CBM's help and advice don't you think they might have had a comfort level?
Seriously, I think you're making a mistake by trying to go back to that time with a modern mindset.Mike, that may be true. It does seem though that they could have found someone from either side of the ocean who had actually at least once designed a good course. Without doubting any of Wilson's many fine qualities and fully grasping the success of Merion, Wilson had never been overseas, and had at best seen how many great American courses?
Mike & Jeff,
I've been preoccupied for the last few days and haven't kept up.
I intend to carefully review this thread and respond.
I'll be preoccupied for the next few days, but, I'll try to respond to Jeff's post # 1977 and others, sooner, rather than later.
So, with that being said, and with apologies for the crude drawing, here is my attempt to route a course on the Johnson Farm.
Obviously I've used a few existing holes, but I think it shows a few things;
Wouldn't the fact that you've chosen to use existing holes lend credence to the premise that the committee also used existing holes from Barker's routing ?
1) Anyone can do a one-day routing, for better or worse. This took me about 2 hours total.
I'm now going to change my name to Mike Barker. ;)
Interestingly, yesterday I happened to discover a stick routing of a pretty good Barker golf course circa 1909.
While stick routings are simplistic, diagramatically, the routing was quite sophisticated in terms of the topography and the routing of the holes, with the ultimate routing and hole design pretty much mirroring the "crude", "sketched" stick routing, the type that you're so quick to be critical of, without ever having seen it.
I also recall seeing a stick routing and/or "crude" routing of GCGC.
Again, the routing, while simplistic was sophisticated and highly accurate with respect to some of the holes that remain today.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the technique of routing and/or diagraming was fairly "crude" at the turn of the 20th Century.
Since GCGC seems to have turned out quite well, as did the golf course I saw yesterday, I'd have to advise you to keep your day job and forget about a career in GCA.
If the "crude" "sketched" stick routing of Merion was anything like the one I saw yesterday, it was a pretty good effort/product. [/b][/size]
2) The Johnson Farm plus the 3 acres of RR land M&W recommended would easily accommodate M&W's hypothetical, ideal 6000 yard course. This one measures 6494.
3) We know that whatever Barker came up with for Connell in June 1910, there is no evidence of it being used or even presented to Merion
You don't know that, you've only chosen to conclude that because it serves your purpose.
A prudent man would conclude that the routing, which was referenced in the letter contained in the Board report, was viewed by the entire Board and probably a much broader audience.
and we also know that the Committee worked on many plans of their own from Jan-Apr 1911 and that M&W helped them select the best one.
How do you know that the committee and/or CBM didn't:
1 see the Barker routing
2 use facets of the Barker routing for their plans
Is there ONE IOTA of contemporaneous documentation that unequivically verifies that Wilson routed Merion ?
I'm quite sure critics of my brilliant routing will come along here and I welcome any and all comments.
Your brilliant routing abilities are only exceeded by your expertise in drawing flawed conclusions, which is quite impressive.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3618/3653292743_d85ae92bd5_o.jpg)
Pat,
Sadly, it was me. I am sorry for venting some frustrations at you, even if I am beginning to think you are a world class knucklehead! Allowing you to bring me back in to a pointless debate is a character flaw of mine, I admit.
I never allowed MIKE C to conclude that "the Barker routing wasn't substantive because there's no proof that the committee/Board viewed the routing". We all know they viewed it.
Mike Cirba keeps insisting that they never saw it.
In one of my posts, I argued that subsequent events rendered in non-substantive in the history or Merion, or more accurately, in the final form that Merion East assumed. Period.
I don't know how you can conclude that none of Barker's routing was preserved in the final product.
How do you make that leap ?
One of the principle tenets, previously accepted as The Gospel, has also been swept under the rug.
That tenet was that Wilson routed and designed Merion.
While I appreciate your acknowledging the role played by CBM, the Committee and, if I may add, Wilson, we still don't know the genesis for the routing an design, nor do we know the author/s. While you may want to end the discovery process, I'd prefer to see it continue.
It may be that we won't learn anymore than we know today. Then again, a great deal more might be discovered through continued due diligence.
BTW, Barkers letter that your refer to says he is enclosing a rough sketch. I am not assuming anything, just taking the man at his word.
Just yesterday, I saw one of his "rough sketches" circa 1909, and it was impressive.
So, I'm not prepared to disdain and dismiss his efforts, as is Mike Cirba.
As to the virtuoso comment, since the specific debate on this thread is to determine the Merion East Timeline, I have asked you just how (and as you demand) with what FACTS do you surmise any portion of the Barker Routing made it into the final form of Merion?
I've NEVER asserted that Barker's plan, be it a routing or hole design or both, made it into the final form at Merion circa 1912.
What I have said repeatedly, is that you CAN'T unequivically state that it didn't, as Mike Cirba has done time and time again.
What you continue to miss, time and time again, is the flawed concept of one way exclusion as practiced incessantly by Mike Cirba.
If you have answered that in all your bluster I have missed it.
You've missed it over and over again because you only choose to examine the color of the type.
If I want someone to repeatedly tell me I am wrong without really listening to me, I believe I will return to my ex wife.
Maybe that explains why she's your ex-wife. ;D
You're not listening either.
As hard as this will be to believe to readers of this web site, she is even more repetitive, less logical and more of a bulldog than you are.
A real sweetheart, both of you!
There's no doubt that she's less logical than me.
Ditto for being more repetitive.
With regard to bulldogs, the leg lifters are the more tenacious.
As to sweethearts, I'd like to hear her opinion of you before casting my vote.
In actual FACT, MCC talked to Barker (hired by Connell) and they talked to CBM.
They moved forward using CBM's advice.
They did NOT move forward using Barkers advice.
How do you know that ?
How can you state, unequivically, that Barker's plan or portions of his plan weren't presented and preserved by CBM or the committee ?
You, like Cirba, keep drawing one way conclusions WITHOUT the supporting facts.
They talked to two of the leading golf course experts in June of 1910 and made their selection to have CBM assist them.
That doesn't preclude the use of Barker's plan or portions of Barker's plan.
Absent his "sketch" you can't draw definitive conclusions EXCLUDING any and all portions of his plan.
Since you get easily confused.
I'm NOT stating that all, or portions of his plan, made the final cut.
What I am stating is that neither you nor Cirba can exclude them out of convenience.
Ask me, Tom Doak or any gca and you will soon here that they may have done some speculative and/or paid preliminary routings and then not gotten the job.
That doesn't mean that their entire plan was rejected.
There may have been elements that were retained.
You can't make a blanket statement that NONE of Barker's plan was used by the Committee and CBM.
You simply don't know what elements of Barker's plan were eliminated or retained.
Therefore, you can't claim that Barker's plan was irrelevant.
At this point, we just don't know.
However, Mike Cirba continues to claim that NONE of Barker's plan was retained, and you know, unless your ex-wife was right about you ;D, that that can't be.
That seems to be what happened to Barker.
No, it's not.
It's what you and Mike Cirba surmise.
While he claimed "20 projects" in that June 10 letter, according to Cornish and Whitten he had but three completed projects by then
While I applaud C&W's efforts at establishing a historical record, I don't view their work as "The Gospel"
If as you allude to, Barker lied to Connell, ergo the committee and overinflated his efforts and products to date, how would that be accepted by these distinquished and worldly business barons ?
You're willing to take Barker at his word on some items, yet you reject his word on others.
You can't have it both ways.
(to 2 for CBM, but CBM's were more highly regarded)
He prepared a quick sketch routing, for another party,
and apparently not even if required by his engagement to Connell (although I don't know that for sure)
I've always admired architects for their ability to route courses.
Perhaps it comes easier to some.
I'm not prepared to dismiss a routing because the architect, an architect of note, was able to do it in a short period of time, especially when stick or rudimentary diagrams were the fare of the day.
Yes, it was seen by MCC.
We agree.
Perhaps your ex-wife wasn't right about you all the time ? ;D
However, in my estimation, for it to be substantive, it would have had to be, well..... USED.... by MCC in later work rather than discarded.
But, you don't know that it wasn't, in part or in whole.
Are you going to argue that an unused routing not paid for by MCC is substantive?
I ask you once again.
How can you declare that NO PORTION of Barker's routing was used ?
Or are you prepared to show some proof other than some more bluster, or alleging a Philly conspiracy that it had some substance?
Oh, oh, I'm begining to think that your ex-wife might have been on the money.
Its about LOGIC Jeff.
You can't claim that NONE of Barker's routing or plan or hole design WASN'T retained in the final design circa 1912.
That's always been one of my points.
Whereas, you and Cirba are automatically dismissing any portion of Barker's routing from the final design circa 1912, and you're doing so without a shred of proof.
Now do you get it ?
According to your ex-wife, I already know the answer.
Mike,
That is apparently an oblique reference to their clay soils (vs the ideal of sand) and all the advice CBM gave them on agronomy, not to mention, it apparently was a struggle to grow the grass in.
Patrick,
Because you saw a sketch of a Barker routing from 1909 it's supposed to mean what exactly to the history of Merion?
It means that you can't diminish or eliminate its relevance due to its form.
There is NO evidence that his routing was seen by the Merion Board (it wasn't attached) much less the membership.
Jeff Brauer and every intelligent individual without an agenda concedes that it was seen by the Board.
You're the only one claiming that it was "disengaged" from the letter and hidden in a closet, never to be viewed again.
In fact, there is no evidence it was seen beyond Connell, although I'm betting the Site Committee saw it too.
Mike, I don't mind you making irrational statements, you're good at it, I do mind it when you draw irrational conclusions
How many courses did Barker have completed on the ground as of June 1910.
More than Wilson or any member of the committee.
It's fair to ask Tom MacWood if you need to.
I don't need to, my answer is more than sufficient.
Are you going to spend this entire thread asking and answering questions long since answered.
If the question/s was/were answered, I have no need to ask.
You've continually claimed a finite conclusion where none exists.
If you have any additional proof of Barker's involvement, or anyone else's, please bring it forward.
Barker's involvement is already a matter of the documented record.
We find no such contemporaneous documented record/s when it comes to your claim that Wilson routed and/or designed the golf course.
You've yet to provide similar evidence when it comes to Wilson.
Otherwise, please save us the green type and constant distractions from the real issues that have been uncovered in recent weeks..
You keep trying to divert and deflect attention from the issue/s, constantly retitling your thread and constantly telling us the case is close.
Yet, the case remains open.
No one has provided information sufficient for a prudent person to conclude that Wilson routed and designed the golf course.
If you have that information and have been withholding it, please present it now.
If you don't have that information, just admit it and let the due diligence continue.
What are you afraid of ?
Mike,
I am reminded of the old joke:
What is the difference between an ex wife (or Pat Mucci) and a terrorist?
You can reason with a terrorist!
Patrick,
Yes, everyone at Merion and in Philadelphia have to now fess up to their horrible crime....the sad, purposeful, neglecting of the brilliant H.H. Barker routing of their golf course that was hidden like the crazy uncle in the closet until David Moriarty wrote that it was discarded in favor of a Macdonald/Whigham routing that we then found out never existed,
Mike, You and others tried to ram down our throats that Wilson was THE router and designer of Merion.
Thanks to the efforts that were a result of David's opinion piece, we now know that the "party line" was flawed, that there was far more to the story and myths about Merion.
Don't you recall how you vehement you were in claiming that Wilson sailed to the UK before 1912 ?
Well, you were dead wrong on that, yet you carried on, screaming that David was wrong, over and over and over again.
We've learned that your methodology is to first draw a conclusion and then try to limit frame the information to fit your conclusion.
Not exactly SOP in academia.
so you and the other Conspiracy Theorists had to go back to Barker because it HAD to be someone other than Hugh Wilson, even people who were on Wilson's committee
You're wrong again.
The contemporaneous information produced didn't substantiate the accepted "party line" that Wilson routed and designed Merion.
I can't speak for others, but, my interest was to try to obtain as much information as possible, whereas your position was to squelch and/or dismiss any effort to learn more about Merion's history.
Your constant yet erroneous pronouncements regarding final conclusions were what I objected to the most.
You wanted to stifle the discovery process and debate while I wanted to encourage both.
who just happened to be moonlighting by themselves before they had any responsibility and even though Richard Francis told us he was "added" to Hugh Wilson's committee, and after all, we know Barker drew a rough sketch for Connell that strangely was not attached to any of the official correspondence to Merion in June 1910
I've tried to educate you with respect to exhibits and correspondence presented at Board meetings, but, it doesn't fit your predetermined conclusions, hence, you deny that the Board ever saw Barker's routing, which defies "prudent man" logic.
and even though the name HH Barker was never mentioned again in any of Merion's documents for the next 100 years
That's irrelevant and another example of your enormous leaps of faux logic.
According to your logic we should accept that Wilson actually sailed before 1912 and that Crump actually died from a tooth infection that spread to his brain.
If we've learned one thing from David Moriarty and Tom MacWood, it's to question the accuracy of club histories.
Club histories aren't written by outsiders.
They're usually written by those with a purpose or goal.
we now know it was him because you guys are completely shooting blanks as every one of your respective hypothetical theories have been shown to be fallacious, contrary to facts, at odds with timelines and contemporaneous accounts and complete and utter bullshit.
Just the opposite is true.
Barker's involvement is documented .... by Merion.
Yet, we have no contemporaneous documentation circa 1909-1911 that Wilson routed or designed the golf course.
The only thing we have is you screaming from the hilltops, or at the train station, that Wilson and no one else was substantively involved at Merion.
I don't know what happened, but, I'm sure as hell not going to accept your version.
I'd like to find out what happened.
You on the other hand want to stifle all further investigation and claim that your position is victorious.
Yet, your position has changed time and time again.
And yes, Patrick...you are so objective and unbiased.
I'm glad we finally agree.
I see how difficult it's been for you switching horses from the architect of NGLA, a course you've referred to in about 75% of the threads you've started here in the past decade...Macdonald, to a former pro at a club your a member of, Garden City.
Once again, you've resorted to your old tactics of distorting, exaggerating and misrepresenting the facts and truth.
Once again, you've got your facts wrong.
Why don't you actually count the threads I've started and then count the NGLA threads I've started.
It may surpise you to see that you're off by a good 70 %
There are Iranian mullahs who will give a fairer trial to the protesters than you have to Hugh Wilson ::) ;)
My position doesn't revolve around Wilson.
It revolves around determining the author/s/architect/s at Merion.
If information is produced that clearly identifies Wilson as the router, hole and feature designer that would be great..
I'll be glad that the author/architect has been identified vis a vis documentation, not lore.
You seem to think that I have a vendetta against Wilson.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Other than that, I really don't want to argue with you over stuff where you guys have ZERO evidence and that we've all gone round on time and again.
Mike, if ever a guy argued with zero evidence it was you on the issue of Wilson's trip abroad.
Barker's routing is a matter of Merion's official contemporaneous record.
We have no such official contemporaneous record from Merion regarding anyone else supplying a routing other than the committee in collaboration with CBM. Don't you want to learn more ?
Jeff has presented a simple, yet elegant theory on what happened, so why don't you read Jeff's theory and tell us all why it's factually inaccurate because I'm sure your mind is quite made up prior to reading it.
Mike, I'v read it. I questioned it and I addressed the specific questions that Jeff posed to me.
I do not accept all of Jeff's conclusions and have stated why, so you need not ask me to put forth my views again, just reread my posts.
I believe more needs to be learned before we confer attribution.
You on the other hand had coronated Wilson long ago.
I want to learn more, and you want to end the discovery process and debate.
I've stated repeatedly that I'd like to learn more about Francis's role, especially considering his qualifications.
I know that you and others will cite Francis's own demure words, but, I think his involvement might have rivaled or paralleled Raynors.
Time may tell.
Mike,
I am reminded of the old joke:
What is the difference between an ex wife (or Pat Mucci) and a terrorist?
You can reason with a terrorist!
Mike,
That is apparently an oblique reference to their clay soils (vs the ideal of sand) and all the advice CBM gave them on agronomy, not to mention, it apparently was a struggle to grow the grass in.
Jeff,
Yes, but I'm focused on his use of the word, "Another", as in "Another problem facing the committee".
It's usage tell us that something preceding it was also a problem addressed by the committee.
Make sense?
Bryan,
As I've said before, I think the work you've done on this thread is of the utmost value and I really appreciate it. If it appears I was implying otherwise then I regret that error because I think you've been instrumental in helping to solve this case..
I did find the snippet where that quote about 13 acres came from. It's from a brief article in January 1911 in a Philadelphia newspaper that is unattributed, and I'm not sure which paper it came from.
One other item of interest is that it states that CBM, Whigham, and Barker all inspected the property prior to purchase. You'd think it would say that either or all of them designed the course by this stage, wouldn't you? Or at least just call it a Lloyd/Francis design. ;)
Boy...for someone you say is trying to stifle debate I'm sure spending a lot of time putting source material out here. ;)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2610/3671530123_b4a37c829c_o.jpg)
Jim/Bryan,
Since both of you have been very much of the Literal Interp of Francis camp, while I have you here, perhaps you can address the question of how you think he swapped a 4.8 acre triangle for "the land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road"?
Mike,
You are so bent on this thing having two distinct sides that you assume because Bryan and David (who also disagree with your conclusions) may have come up with 122 acres I would change my tune...that's been a major theme throughout the discussions from you and it hasn't helped move it along. I have major disagreements with David's premise, but agree with his disagreement of your conclusions...and I haven't actually seen a theory or premise of Bryan's so I can't speak to it.
I don't care who came up with 122, but Jeff's theory is 100% dependent upon the "approximate road" being used as a formal boundary line prior to the swap for negative 2 acres...the same Plan that measures out to 122 acres was created by a professional survey/engineering company, are you suggesting they were so incompetent that they mismeasured the northern part of the property by 10%? Why would a Plan measuring 122 acres be used in conjunction with a proposal that states the committee had already "secured" 117 acres?
Jim,
My theory doesn't depend on the approximate road being the working boundary....my theory is that the approximate road WAS the working boundary! Yes, that is the point. It's 100% dependent on a document we have, too. No one else can say that.
Now, I will admit that mine is a guess or a theory because, barring seance, no one alive then can come back and tell us what really happened. Such is the nature of research into history. At least we aren't looking at fossils and relying on carbon dating!
That said, is it better to rely on what we have, or to rely on something we don't have? To explain the evidence that is out there or require some non-existant evidence to make our point? Obviously, not everyone in this discussion wants to come to a consensus. If we were intersested in a consensus, I think most would say (perhaps grudgingly) that my theory is the best one to build that consensus on at least as it relates to the boundary.
If Pat M wants to say "just because there is no evidence of something, doesn't mean its not true" or you want to keep all options open until further notice rather than try to move to closure, then Mike and I are pissing in the wind.
Of course, its your right, and its presumptuous of us to think others want closure just because we do, so the debate continues, even absent anyone providing anything more concrete, other than they don't agree.
Jeff,
Yes, but I'm focused on his use of the word, "Another", as in "Another problem facing the committee".
It's usage tell us that something preceding it was also a problem addressed by the committee.
Make sense?
At the risk of sounding like an idiot, I don't get what you're struggling with. He starts talking about fitting the last five holes in - that's problem one. Then he segues into crossing Ardmore becominga problem - that problem #2. Then he says there's yet another problem facing the committee - the soil was crappy. The flow of the article seems pretty logical to me; the preceding problems were fitting in the last five holes and the crossings of Ardmore. What are you trying to get at here?
Doesn't everything cancel itself out? That CBM was brought in after Barker cancels out Barker. And then CBM's imagined 6,000 yard course (a boiler plate set of yardages) cancels HIMSELF out - the "himself" being the foremost promoter of template holes (for lack of a better word) in America.
Peter, in 1910, how was CBM the foremost promoter of template holes ?
When Tom Doak was brought in after Nicklaus at Sebonack, did that cancel Nicklaus out ?
Again - and under the assumption that this whole thread, for all its detail and debate and hard slogging by some great posters, is all about trying to decide whether the routing was or wasn't done before Wilson got involved -- there is a big difference between hole "concepts" and hole "placements".
That's absolutely not true in site specific cases.
This whole debate has been framed -- by both sides -- in the only way it could be to virtually ENSURE that the debate would be ENDLESS.
Since when is searching for the truth subject to a deadline ?
But maybe that's the way people actually WANT it.
Wouldn't that depend upon whether or not people want to know what actually happened ?
Time to put down the pipe Mike...
One other item of interest is that it states that CBM, Whigham, and Barker all inspected the property prior to purchase. You'd think it would say that either or all of them designed the course by this stage, wouldn't you? Or at least just call it a Lloyd/Francis design. ;)
Boy...for someone you say is trying to stifle debate I'm sure spending a lot of time putting source material out here. ;)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2610/3671530123_b4a37c829c_o.jpg)
Jeff,
What I have said all along is that I think the most likely original boundary up in that neighborhood was a stright shot across from the southern border of the Haverford College land...Mike made it clear that that was unlikely because the acreage was something like 130 which was never used...now it turns out Lloyd had an option (may have had an option, it seems the newspapers aren't always dead on) that brings the total land to 130 acres and the only place that makes sense is the area west of GHR's current placement.
Now we can accept the 130 optioned acres as a preliminary step before a final routing and exact need was established...I think.
In sort of a related subject, we know gca hadn't really developed the professional standards of today. Does anyone with a journalism background know if rigid journalistic fact checking had developed by that point for local papers?
Well, thanks for a straight answer! That is a first on this thread, at least lately.....
The straight across theory does make some sense to me. It's the second most logiical theory, IMHO.
Mike,
That would presume that the article was writen exactly when Lloyd took the option, I do not agree with that.
Bryan,
"There is no evidence that there wasn't"
Am I the only one troubled by having my logic questioned by a bunch of folks who use double negatives like that? With all due respect, like Patrick, that sentence also means that there was no evidence that there was an interim boundary, just as easily. It means nothing. It means there is no evidence, period. And yet, you continue to argue that despite no evidence, you believe it to be true and then go into attack mode on my parsing of the evidence that IS out there!
Remain unconvinced if you will. But maintaining that just because there is no evidence, we can't exclude something, means this argument will go on forever, as if it hasn't already. There was a time on this thread when everyone demanded some kind of factual proof for some new theory. Now we are down to "Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean I am convinced that it didn't happen" whether referring to Barker, the committee, or little green men from Mars building MCC.
BTW, I have gone over my correspondances with TePaul and he doesn't say that there was a deed for 117 acres as far as I know. IF there is one, then my theory is wrong (see, I won't argue that just because the evidence proves otherwise, that my theory must be true!) TePaul wants us to keep looking for that mythical boundary of 117, just llike you. He says that they say they were working up against a boundary that doesn't work.
Well, I think the boundary as constituted by the road doesn't work, at least without realigning the road, as shown by a few quick routings that place those 5 holes in awkward places around the Quarry.
I asked Jim Sullivan, but if you think the boundary was somewhere else from the Nov 15 plan, please tell me where you think it is. I offered two scenarios. Mike C deflates one, although you might remain unconvinced. My third was that they could have put it anywhere, as many have suggested.
My point is, if they put it anywhere, its just as logical that they left it where it was on the Nov 15 plan. Why would they pay a surveyor and title company a dime to move a boundary that was going to move again as soon as they could possibly move it with a final routing? Remember, part of the agreement was to move right away and Culyer says to let them know when the boundary is finalized.
Don't tell me I am wrong again, but please answer the question as directly as you can. Thanks in advance.
Re the boundaries of the 117 acres, Tom said he had metes for it, which implied a deed. I reposted Tom's post a few pages back. He did post it. Just because it's not in your correspondence from Tom doesn't mean that he didn't post it. Sorry for the double negative. ;D In any event, if he is retracting the post or the statement, that's fine. I wasted a fair amount of time parsing deeds looking for the boundaries, based partly on Tom's post, so I'm a bit frustrated by it too. For whatever it's worth, I don't believe there is a deed that details the boundary of the 117 acres.
I'm hardly a professional statistician, but I'm sure some of the numbers guys out there can tell us precisely what the odds are of Jeff's theory being incorrect.
First of all, Bryan is contending that since 117 acres was never a legal boundary that Jeff is just making stuff up. That's not what I'm contending at all. Do you just make this stuff up. Please reread what I wrote. (Good God, I'm starting to sound like Mucci. :o)
That's really misleading. Of course there was no deed for the 117 acres, but there was an agreement in principle, in the form of a letter from HDC to Merion from November 1910, and a returned acceptance letter from President Evans of Merion to HDC for specifically 117 acres. The 117 acres was simply an agreement between MCC and HDC to purchase a tract of land of 117 acres. An agreement is not a deed. It was upped to 120 acres when the deed was transferred in July 1911. The "agreement" was not even a sales agreement as we use today---eg the agreement was simply contained in two letters between HDC (making an offer of a tract of land of 117 acres) and Evans (accepting the offer). Today that would be considered "an agreement in principle" (the letters did not constitute a contract). That agreement was essentially contained within Lloyd's deed of 161 acres.
So, we know that in the original agreement in December 1910 Merion "secured" 117 acres. That should be November, not December.
We also know that as measured by Bryan and David Moriarty, the November 1910 Land Plan measures to 122 acres.
We also know that in July 1911, Merion purchased 120 acres.
Those are the numbers, indisputably.
So what are the odds of Jeff's theory then being wrong....
Remember, Jeff's theory only works out if from a given size of 122 acres on the Land Plan, the EXACT acreages used in actual reality both to and from that Land Plan boundary works out to 2 acres, given that the other known is that Merion purchased 120.1 acres.
I'm overcome by an urge to rip out my hair and shout. DO YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE EXACT GIVES AND TAKES MATHEMATICALLY HAVE TO ADD UP TO 2 ACRES? THE FACT THAT THEY DO PROVES NOTHING.
I think it's realistic to assume that of a 122 acre plot of land, perhaps a factor of 1/5 could be used to determine what might constitue a reasonably acceptable "transfer" possibility. In other words, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that somoeone would trade half the property in a land swap, but you might swap out 25 acres or so when you're working with a larger area of 338 acres, so let's use 25.
But, you'd have to have both sides of the approximate boundary work out property, so the calculation would be approximately 1 in 25 and then 1 in 25 again, right?
Using an onlline odds calculator, the odds of Jeff's theory being wrong are 1 in 1225.
Like I said, I'm not a statistician, but perhaps someone who is can either verify or show me what I'm doing wrong here. I THINK YOU'VE JUST PROVED THAT YOU'RE NOT A STATISTICIAN. OR, A MATHEMATICIAN
Bryan,
There are a number of things wrong with your 13 acre theory.
First, there is no record of Merion ever securing 130 acres in principle in any of the club documents. The article didn't say that they secured 13 acres, it said they had an option. 117 acres is specifically mentioned.
Second, there would have been no need for Merion to approve purchase of 3 extra acres in April 1911 from the original agreement in principle to purchase 117 acres if they already had secured the land to the Johnson Farm boundary. We've been over and over this point. Give it up. The three acres was the RR land. Even Tom said it was. Go back and reread his posts.
Third, this ignores the fact there is absolutely no record or other evidence that the Johnson Farm was ever sub-divided at the arbitrary Haverford College boundary and in my unanswered list of issues above I cite why that would have been absolutely ludicrous, incredibly short-sighted, and directly against Macdonald & Whigham's advice for them to have done so. Of course, there is one piece of evidence that it was divided there - the Francis land swap story. But, then that's an inconvenient truth that you have discarded.
Fourth, if the Johnson Farm had been previously subdivided as such, which it wasn't, then what "almost 120 acres" would Merion have been thinking they needed for golf in July 1910, when all that HDC actually owned at that time was the 140 acre Johnson Farm and the northeastern and southern quadrant of that farm added up to 119 acres?
Jim,
Contending that they HAD the land in November yet didn't have it and still needed to trade for it AFTER December is impossible.
Re the boundaries of the 117 acres, Tom said he had metes for it, which implied a deed. I reposted Tom's post a few pages back. He did post it. Just because it's not in your correspondence from Tom doesn't mean that he didn't post it. Sorry for the double negative. ;D In any event, if he is retracting the post or the statement, that's fine. I wasted a fair amount of time parsing deeds looking for the boundaries, based partly on Tom's post, so I'm a bit frustrated by it too. For whatever it's worth, I don't believe there is a deed that details the boundary of the 117 acres.
Bryan,
I talked to Tom Paul on this and he thinks you have read much too much into what he wrote when he said that the 117 acres were encapsulated within the 161 acre purchase by Lloyd.
OK. Tell Tom that I accept that that wasn't his intent. But, I didn't read too much into it. It was pretty clear. But, water under the bridge, let's move on.
I think it's fair to think the newspaper could be dated...
Why would the newspaper article need to know about an internal discussion of the course committee?
I'd also ask those who are stating that the 130 acres included the Johnson Farm below Haverford College as well as the Dallas Estate to tell us where the "almost 120 acres" were that the Site Committee recommended they'd need in July.
Bryan,
Yes, it needed to net out to two acres, but only because we KNOW the Land Plan measures 122 acres and we KNOW they purchased 120.
So, if either of the gives or putbacks (out of a possible range of X acres on either side of the transaction) was different and not netting out to 2 acres, Jeff's theory wouldn't work.
What are the odds of that?
Just using a maximum swap of either side of the transaction at 5 acres (which is extremely conservative because you are arguing that they swapped 14 acres for 5), the odds of both of his calculations of gives and putbacks netting out to 2 acres is 1 in 45.
The odds of matching both 1 precise number of 5 possible and 1 precise number out of 14 = 1 in 171.
p.s.
Tom does not agree it's the railroad land. He believes it's the additional HDC land that moved the purchase from 117 acres secured to 120 purchased. The Lloyd letter to members outlines the 2,500 price tag.
I think it's fair to think the newspaper could be dated...
Why would the newspaper article need to know about an internal discussion of the course committee?
Jim,
The newspaper reports on a KNOWN event...the December LAND purchase "transaction" made by Lloyd. The December land purchase was for 161 acres to Lloyd. The story is about Merion securing the 117 acre from HDC that was in the November letter, and presumably agreed to before it showed up in the letter.
We KNOW it had to have been written AFTER THEN. We don't know when the reporter came into the knowledge. It might have been after November 15 or it could have been before, if he had any connections to the players at MCC or HDC.
Jim,
I think the newspaper article is wrong. Of course you do...
There is no mention anywhere in Merion's records of an additional optioned 13 acres.
There's no mention of 122 either...
But beyond that...
Let's assume it's correct.
It is impossible to believe that the November 1910 Land Plan shows proof of the Francis Swap before then because of the existence of the triangle and then also argue that the land Lloyd purchased (with the option of 130 acres for Merion all below Haverford College Line) in December 1910 didn't include that triangle in the 130 acres as Bryan's floated theory contends.
In other words, if one believes the 130 acre news account is correct, they also BY DEFINITION have to believe that the Francis Land Swap happened AFTER December 1910.
To me, this is simply MORE evidence that the Francis Swap did NOT include all of the triangle and that it certainly happened sometime AFTER November 1910.
I just cannot get my hands around your logic here...why must the 130 acre purchase / option need to include the triangle area...the numbers say it does not...
Jim,
I think the newspaper article is wrong. There is no mention anywhere in Merion's records of an additional optioned 13 acres. I thought that it was generally conceded that there are many gaps in the Merion records and that Tom and Wayne have only been filling in those gaps over the last year or so. Are you now contending that the Merion records are complete? If you think the article is wrong, what do you suppose the reporter's motives were for fabricating a 13 acre option, that just happens to perfectly fit one part of the Johnson property?
But beyond that...
Let's assume it's correct.
It is impossible to believe that the November 1910 Land Plan shows proof of the Francis Swap before then because of the existence of the triangle and then also argue that the land Lloyd purchased (with the option of 130 acres for Merion all below Haverford College Line) in December 1910 didn't include that triangle in the 130 acres as Bryan's floated theory contends.
In other words, if one believes the 130 acre news account is correct, they also BY DEFINITION have to believe that the Francis Land Swap happened AFTER December 1910.
To me, this is simply MORE evidence that the Francis Swap did NOT include all of the triangle and that it certainly happened sometime AFTER November 1910.
Have you done your Google measurements to see if Johnson Farm less land adjacent to Haverford CC equals 130 acres?
I still would like to hear someone explain how on November 15, 1910 Merion could simultaneously own the land of the triangle and also have option on the 13 acres that some contend they swapped to buy the triangle, but I'm sure we'll get a reasonable rationalization. ;)
Do you think the writer, clearly familiar with many other details, would just manufacture 13 acres?
I'd be curious to know where these articles keep surfacing from? Any more out there?
You do a little twisting yourself. Are you related to Chubby Checker?
Had a lot of fun listening to Chubby, loved the twist, the music and times.
Chipoat,
Is the black swan relevant? No one saw it because no one was looking, and no one was there.
Patrick's assertion that "even though there is no proof that something happened, one cannot declare unequivocally that it did not happen".
Jeff, the Texas sun must have fried your brain.
That's NOT my assertion.
It's my rebuttal to Mike's assertions.
Mike Cirba has repeatedly announced conclusions, conclusions that are absent supporting facts and structured logic.
ChipOat and others understand and recognize the legitimacy of my logic and the logical arguments I've put forth.
For example, Mike Cirba declares that no part of the Barker routing/sketch found it's way into the golf course since the Barker routing/sketch doesn't appear to have been attached to the Barker letter contained in the Merion Board report.
Yet, when I counter that Mike can't make that declaration because he's never seen the Barker routing/sketch, you claim that I'm just being argumentative and nit picking.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Mike is wrong. He's hit the trifecta, he's been wrong with his facts, his logic and his conclusions
Yet, you want us to accept Mike Cirba's absurd conclusions ?
Conclusions that have been proven wrong time and time again ?
Are we to just roll over and accept everything that you and Mike write and reject everything in green ink ?
YOU and MIKE have constantly misrepresented my position, despite my repeated efforts to clarify it for you.
In terms of my arguments, my facts are those that have been recognized as being accurate, and my logic is irrefutable.
So stop ranting and raving that my position/s has/have no merit other than their decibel levels.
You're all wet on this one.
Okay, I agree, sure. I am dealing in likihoods, not OJ type conspiracy theories. If there is no proof, then I have little trouble concluding that something didn't happen.
Now you're joining the theatre of the absurd.
Barker's letter is a matter of the documented record at Merion, as is his reference to his routing/sketch.
You've accepted that letter as rock solid proof.
Yet, you defend Mike Cirba's absurd conclusion that no part of Barker's routing made it into the golf course because the routing/sketch wasn't attached to the letter IN the Merion Board report.
You don't know that.
And, you don't know whether parts of Barker's routing/sketch were part of the plans presented to CBM or whether parts were eventually put into the ground at Merion circa 1912.
Yet, you chastize me for not accepting Mike Cirba's flawed conclusion/s that NONE of Barker's routing went any further than Connell.
Either the Texas sun, your ex-wife or both, have rendered part of your brain useless.
As to Wilson and Co being primarily responsible, well we have proof.
We don't have proof that Wilson was primarily responsible for the routing and/or the hole design.
And, we don't know the genesis of the five plans presented to CBM.
Until we know the genesis of those plans, the issue of the routing and hole designs remains unresolved.
But conspirancists will discredit the club record, spend 10 posts trying to discredit Mike and I for nit picky little things and then espouse that the big picture just can't be true, etc.
I'm begining to think that it's neither the Texas sun nor your ex-wife, but, a genetic predisposition to stupidity.
"Nit picky" little things ? Like Mike's insistance that Wilson sailed to the UK prior to 1912 ?
"Nit picky" little things ? Like the absence of proof for a great number of Milke's flawed conclusions.
I've cited example after example of Mike's radical, ill founded and flawed conclusions.
It doesn't take rocket science to do so, only a simple course in "common sense or logic 101"
When you and Mike are questioned about your premises or conclusions, suddenly, you're the victims, set upon by unreasoned individuals who are merely seeking to satisfy "Prudent Man" standards.
Get off your defensive and lecturing high horse and see the issues for what they are, not their color.
Its lawyering at its worst in Pat's case.
Baloney.
It's lawyering at its BEST.
SEEKING FACTS, NOT FICTION, and,
USING LOGIC, NOT UNFOUNDED LEAPS OF FAITH/BIAS
What a way to break up a nice little friendly discussion.
I see, when the discussion isn't going your way you accuse those opposed to your premise and/or conclusions as disrupters.
How convenient.
Like you, Pat has NO idea what Barker's role is, but argues that it HAS TO BE bigger than MCC says, just because they acknowledge he was there in June.]
Jeff, you've just crossed the threshold from stupid to moronic.
Why don't you try something new, like thinking BEFORE you type.
I'm probably more familiar with Barker's role than you are.
Do you think you knew more than I did about Barker prior to this thread ?
Don't be so quick to draw conclusions where you don't have the facts to support your claims.
What a waste of my time.
Believe me, I've got better things to do than act as a tutor for "Logic 101"
I did read an exchange between Pat Mucci and Mike Cirba about which, as a bona fide linear thinker (not always a good thing), I feel compelled to comment.
Note that I consider both principals to be friends and that my comment is not specifically related to the subject of who did/did not "design" (whatever that word means) the East Course.
Mike: I'm afraid I must support Patrick's assertion that "even though there is no proof that something happened, one cannot declare unequivocally that it did not happen".
While I agree with you that lack of smoke often means there wasn't a fire, there is a popular investment book these days called "The Black Swan" that is, basically, all about the accuracy of Patrick's logic. The title of the book is drawn from the fact that, although nobody outside of Australia had ever seen a black swan in all the thousands of years of recorded history, that was not any guarantee that black swans don't exist (they do) even though generations of learned naturalists were sure they did not.
I don't have any idea what Barker's role really was, but I do agree with Patrick that we can't absolutely, positively know the answer to that question. Based on what I've read, your conclusion on the matter seems highly likely to be accurate, but it can't be demonstrated to be 100% correct at this time.
Chipoat,
I don't know what everyone's respective roles were, but, I'm not prepared to accept Mike Cirba's exclusionary pronouncements and Jeff's acquiescencse to them.
That Jeff and Mike don't understand the inherent flaws in Mike's premises and conclusions can only be attributed to a failure in our educational system, or at least the school districts where they attended. ;D
I'd like to uncover more facts before drawing ANY conclusion/s.
It seems that you, Bryan, Jim and others feel the same way, while Mike and Jeff want to shut down the discovery process before any additional facts can be uncovered.
It seems that you, Bryan, Jim and others feel the same way, while Mike and Jeff want to shut down the discovery process before any additional facts can be uncovered. [/b][/size][/color]
Speaking of Sayres, in November 1915 he presented an address at a dinner celebrating the 50th year anniversary of the Merion Cricket Club, the following is noteworthy to those incliined to think like Patrick Mucci and Tom MacWood who insist that Merion just HAD to hire a professional like H.H. Barker..."THE BEST", as Tom MacWood termed it...to design their new golf course.
Mike, this is just another example of your ability to make quantum leaps to flawed conclusions absent facts and/or reason.
Whatever idiot presented you with this passage, presenting it as proof that Merion would never hire a professional, just goes to show that "birds of a feather ..... "
Are we now to believe that Merion never hired a professional Green superintendent, A professional Golf Pro, A professional Tennis Pro, A professional Club manager.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2643/3675784995_c61731d481_b.jpg)
Given this evidence, I move that in the interest of productive discussion, and in light of Jeff B's point about people like Patrick continually rehashing points we all thought were long dead and buried, can we at least agree to take Barker off the table as the supposed architect of Merion?? ::) :P :-\
Mike, if this is what you call "evidence" you've got one of the weakest cases in the land.
Your presentation and conclusions are absurd. They're beyond juvenile, they're infantile.
Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself, as is the moron who provided that passage as proof positive.
Patrick,
So, bring new facts. I haven't seen you contribute one DAMN thing.
I would love a show of hands of those who felt I personally shouted them down. For anyone votes yes, then I apolgize in advance.
p.s. I notice you very purposefully ignored Alan Wilson telling us that Merion did not use a golf course architect, which summarily rules out your and MacWood's man-crush on HH Barker.
Mike,
Would you remind us, and cite for us, Alan Wilson's actual involvement with the creation of the Merion Golf Course circa 1909-1912 ?
Sorry, but I'll take Alan Wilson's eyewitness account over your and MacWood's biased, threadbare, agenda-driven speculation any day.
"Eyewitness Account" ?
Would you please cite the sum total of Alan Wilson's involvement at Merion circa 1909-1912 ?
Thanks
Tom Macwood asked me to post this for him:
Mike
Here is a link to 'Hugh Wilson - An Ongoing Investigative Journey'
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32632.msg644817/
There is nothing in that thread that implies he was independently wealthy in 1910 or at anytime. There is nothing to indicate he was a magnetic personality. Regarding his status as an elite golfer this is your timeline for his competitive career leading up to 1910. [/b][/size]
May 9, 1897: GAP match for Belmont team
Dec 4, 1897: GAP tourney
Dec 5, 1897: match at Philly CC
Mar 6, 1898: story calls him 'king' golfer at Belmont and that he doesn't play when the weather gets cold.
May 8, 1898: interclub match playing for Philly CC
May 18, 1901: named captain of golf team
1902: On the Princeton GC green committee at the time new course constructed
May 11, 1902: NCAA match at Garden City
June 14, 1903: better ball tourney
Sept 27, 1903: GAP qualifier
Nov 4, 1903: wins Election Day Trophy tourney at St Davids
May 8, 1904: interclub match
May 26, 1904: Stevenson Cup qualifier (playing for Merion)
May 28, 1905: GAP match at HVCC (for Merion)
June 4, 1905: GAP match vs Mt. Airy
May 24 and July 1, 1906: tourneys at Merion
April 21, 1907: named to play in 4/27/07 Chevy Chase match
May 3, 1908: intercity match vs Washington
Unlike Leeds, Macdonald or even Crump he was not a nationally ranked golfer and did not compete nationally, never in the US Am or US Open like those three, and never named to the Lelsey Cup team, saved for the best players in Philadelphia. He did not travel overseas. Regarding his architectural aptitude or interest there is nothing pre-1910. And you claimed he played over these courses while at Princeton (1898 to 1902) to show his experience:[/b][/size]
Myopia Hunt
Garden City
Chicago
Lakewood
Baltusrol
St. Andrews
Essex County
Philadelphia Cricket
Philadelphia Country Club
Richmond County
Morris County
Midlothian
Exmoor
Atlantic City
Ardsley
Misquamicut
Princeton and Wilson did not play at Myopia, Essex County or Misquamicut. Harvard had their own golf course, the former Cambridge GC, however Princeton did not travel to Harvard during those years. They did not play over any of the Chicago courses (Chicago, Midlothian and Exmoor) during his tenure. GCGC was the most significant course he played, but one must remember the 1902 version was not the later post-Travis version. This is the corrected list:[/size]
Garden City
Lakewood
Baltusrol
St. Andrews
Philadelphia Cricket
Philadelphia Country Club
Richmond County
Morris County
Atlantic City
Ardsley
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a logical explanation why Lloyd and company would put the design responsibilities in the hands of a complete novice.
They had already brought in the two top architects to inspect the property, they hired the top construction firm in the country (out of Boston) to build the course and brought in top grass expert Reginald Beale from the UK. [/size]
Patrick,
NONE of the Merion people who were there EVER mentioned Barker, including your buddy Francis.
Not even Once.
Not even in passing.
Not a friggin whisper.
Get over it.
Mike,
Why is it that when I ask you a direct question, you NEVER answer it ?
I asked you to cite Alan Wilson's specific involvement at Merion circa 1909-1912 after YOU cited him as an "EYEWITNESS"
WHY ? have you failed to answer that question
Bryan,
Yes, it needed to net out to two acres, but only because we KNOW the Land Plan measures 122 acres and we KNOW they purchased 120. So, if we didn't KNOW those two areas, it (whatever you think it is) would/could have netted out to something else. But, good start. We do KNOW the area of the the land plan map is 122 acres. And, we do know the Merion deeded area is 120 acres. In mathematics those would be known as constants in any equation. And it's good that we agree that 122-120=2, because it sure is tough to get agreement on anything around this thread.
So, if either of the gives or putbacks (out of a possible range of X acres on either side of the transaction) was different and not netting out to 2 acres, Jeff's theory wouldn't work. Where are you seeing "a possible range of X acres on either side of the transaction"? Look at Jeff's map again. The areas in white are fixed by the approximate road and GHR. There is no range in the size of each area. They are fixed. Jeff measured the fixed area of each. And, since we KNOW that 122-120=2, we also KNOW that the sum total of Jeff's white gives and putbacks MUST equal 2 acres. There is no other possibility! :P So you're setting up an "if" condition that is not mathematically possible, and then saying because it didn't happen (because it can't possibly), that by double negative logic, Jeff's theory must be right. Ridiculous. Although I don't condone Pat's adjectival descriptions of you, I have to say that you are being incredibly obtuse on this point.
What are the odds of that? The odds of what? The odds that the gives and putbacks would net out to 2 acres? The answer is infinity to 1. There is no other possibility.
Just using a maximum swap of either side of the transaction at 5 acres (which is extremely conservative because you are arguing that they swapped 14 acres for 5), the odds of both of his calculations of gives and putbacks netting out to 2 acres is 1 in 45.
The odds of matching both 1 precise number of 5 possible and 1 precise number out of 14 = 1 in 171. I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here. If this is your understanding of odds, I sure hope you aren't a betting man. ;D
p.s.
Tom does not agree it's the railroad land. He believes it's the additional HDC land that moved the purchase from 117 acres secured to 120 purchased. The Lloyd letter to members outlines the 2,500 price tag.
To quote from Tom,
OH MY GOD!?!??!
Bryan,
not pissed, didn't take anything personally. Just realized that this is a no win battle for both the logical arguments put out there or lack thereof, all of our tendencies to call our arguments logic and opposing arguments speculation, and in this latest flurry, the realization that we don't even all have the same basic understanding of points not even in contention.
The prime example is the RR land. I think someone brought it up a while back. In my mind, it was pretty well conceded that this came later and that MCC is really 123 acres 120 from HDC and 3 from the RR. And yet, here it comes back up today. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that was settled. Ditto on Pat and the role of Barker. I was pretty damn sure that everyone agreed that Connell brought him in June 1910, and MCC brought in CBM. Then we spend a week debating whether double negative logic means that Barker's routing MIGHT be included somehow, somewhere in MCC. I was pretty damn sure that we agreed that it was done at the start, but not the end.
Old arguments keep popping up like brushfires here. Yeah. It certainly contributes to my frustration. The targets keep moving. So do new ones, like the 130 acres option. I like to think of that as a "new" (even though it's old) "fact" in the current discussion context. That is new to me, so I have no answer for you, other than the newspaper may be wrong. Yup, or they may be right. I guess that unless we have signed, sealed carbon dated affidavits that agreement on any point that doesn't fit the various theories will be impossible to achieve And, to simplify Mke C's contention, how on earth could there have been a land swap if the working boundary was 130 acres? It would have had to have been a land give back to the tune of 10 acres, not a swap. That's only if you define a swap as equal for equal. I don't believe everybody agrees with that yet.
Have you done your Google measurements to see if Johnson Farm less land adjacent to Haverford CC equals 130 acres? Of course I measured it. Mike has provided an (almost) correct summary, but I did measure it directly too and it fits. If the glove fits, you must acquit ;D This is beginning to look more and more like the OJ trial.
Do you think the writer, clearly familiar with many other details, would just manufacture 13 acres?
I don't know Jim....we have this article that mentions the 13 acre option but also gets wrong the acreage of the old, existing course...
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2610/3671530123_b4a37c829c_o.jpg)
Then, we have this one that incorrectly the total acreage purchased, the money per acre paid, and the previous owner of the land;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2582/3675594383_b8d879877a_o.jpg)
Then this one which seems factually correct, if lacking details;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2503/3676408254_e58742c232_o.jpg)
Then, finally this one (in two parts), which also mentions 130 acres, but which gets wrong the total acreage of HDC's holdings (350) the price per acre Merion paid ($3000) , the source of Barker's involvement (Lloyd), hyperbolizes the price of a recent adjacent land deal ($8000 per acre).
Somehow, they have the mysterious 12 or 13 acres in there..
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3599/3675594627_c116b3e575_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2442/3675594737_e935a681b3_b.jpg)
Tom,
Thanks for the explanation on Connel. That makes a lot of sense.
Phil
Sorry about that Mike! I meant it for you. I had just sent him an email and his name was stuck in what is my sorry excuse for a brain!
Not that I'm wanting to go down the Barker path, but the question that struck me about Connell getting Barker on his own account, was that retaining him must have happened before July 1910. Was Connell a golf man in any way? Anything that I've seen on him is about his real estate expertise. If he wasn't a golf man, how would he have known of Barker, and that he was an architect, and who was apparently then at GCGC? Is it possible that MCC suggested him, and Connell agreed to pay for him to try to help sell Merion on the land? Common sense?
Mike and Jeff,
The context of the January article allocating 117 to Merion and 13 in an option to Lloyd does not preclud the possibility that the swap was for the triangle because it is quite likely that the article was several months dated with some of it's facts...how would the writer know about the midnight bike ride by Francis if the swapped land was all within the 161 Lloyd was going to buy anyway?
In fact, the specific date of most of this information seems anywhere from one to six months delayed from the actual event taking place...three or four months seems to be a reasonable grace period from a decision/event happening to a reporting of it.
I am not saying there were six months lag before the first mention of anything, but when those articles speak of CBM looking over the site, it does not mean it just happened the day before...as an example, the January 1911 article mentioning the 13 acre option for Lloyd was written after he had taken 161 acres into his name...are you suggesting that the 13 acres was in addition to 161?
Question: If it were proven that they were initially looking at 130 acres with Lloyd holding 13 of them in an option and the northern boundary was the extension of the southern boundary of Haverford College, would the presence of a triangle on the 11/10/1910 Plan prove to you that the Francis Swap occurred prior to November 10, 1910?
Bryan.
Also, I asked this a while back and didn't catch your response.
Does the entire Nov 1910 Land Plan measure out at 338 acres?
Thanks!
Bryan.
Actually, your batting average is only ..400 pct as the other article from Nov 24th I found amd posted previously that mentioned they had secured Barker to do the layout, contrary to Merion;s records, also only mentions 117 acres. I'm truly beginning to wonder how many of these stories were planted by HDC and or Lloyd to try and gain advantage during negotiations.
Bryan,
Tom Paul at first thought it was the RR land 3 acres but his thinking on the matter evolved as I posted in a series of snippets of his posts from Apr-Jun a week or so back. EDIT - Please see my posts 1855-1856 on this thread that show Tom's various posts on the matter. Thanks.
I reread them and frankly I don't see the evolution in the thinking. You're in contact with Tom, ask him if he could just get you to post a simple, categorical correction to post #223 where he said:
"Immediately after "adjoining..." in the Thompson resolution that was approved I left out the part about the app. 3 acre purchase of what we refer to as the "railroad land" for $7,500 and the payment of annual real estate taxes."
Just a simple, no, I was wrong, it was not the purchase of the RR land. As you know, I'm firmly convinced it was, but I'd like a direct simple retraction of Tom's previous comment, if he's changed his mind.
While you're at it. Can you get him to give you a retraction of his "Lloyd et ux for MCC" statements, if he has changed his mind and it really was "Lloyd et ux for HDC". Again, I believe his initial statement that it was for MCC is correct. Why on earth would he hold it for HDC. It makes no sense.
Recall afterwards how I was asking you if you thought it made any sense that the RR was going to charge 2500 an acre for a purchase yet then agreed to a dollar annual, perpetual lease and how Tom contends that the HDC land was selling at that time for 2500 an acre?
I believe your post 1856 says that the average cost of the remaining 221 acres was going to be $2500. In any legitimate business transaction there is always a difference between cost and price.
Also, I know the offer letter from HDC to Merion was from the first half of Nov 1910.
Don't know the date of the Merion response and they are not in my possession..
Not that I'm wanting to go down the Barker path, but the question that struck me about Connell getting Barker on his own account, was that retaining him must have happened before July 1910. Was Connell a golf man in any way? Anything that I've seen on him is about his real estate expertise. If he wasn't a golf man, how would he have known of Barker, and that he was an architect, and who was apparently then at GCGC? Is it possible that MCC suggested him, and Connell agreed to pay for him to try to help sell Merion on the land? Common sense?
Bryan,
Barker was in Philadelphia already for the June 1910 US Open he played in at Philadelphia Cricket Club. I don't know if Connell played golf...he wasn't a member at Merion...but he certainly did seem well-connected.
Bryan,
Believe me, I know I'm neither a mathematician or a statistician.
I guess in thinking about it, I'm trying to figure out the odds of;
Given a value of 338 total acres, and a known subset of 122 acres, what are the odds that a single added value less a single subtracted value equals a known value of 120 acres?
In my example, because the triangle land measures at 4.8 acres, I rounded off to 5 acres and for discussion purposes called it an even swap, or said another way...
Given a value of 338 total acres, and a known subset of 122 acres, and a maximum total of 5 acres swapped both to and from, what are the odds that the total equals a known value of 120 acres? The odds calculator I used answered 1 out of 41.
You had mentioned you believed that they traded 5 acres for 14 acres, so I ran a similar calc which yielded a much higher result.
I guess in theory the answer could be any value up to 120 acres on either side of the transaction, but the reason I selected 5, or 25, or whatever the number might be, is to put a realistic max possible swap on the calculation so as to be realistic in what they were likely dealing with.
Does that make any more sense?
Question: If it were proven that they were initially looking at 130 acres with Lloyd holding 13 of them in an option and the northern boundary was the extension of the southern boundary of Haverford College, would the presence of a triangle on the 11/10/1910 Plan prove to you that the Francis Swap occurred prior to November 10, 1910?
Jim,
Yes, if it were proven that the "northern boundary was the extension of the southern boundary of Haverford College" prior to November 15, 1910, I would certainly have to agree that the Francis swap happened prior to then, but I've not seen any evidence at all that was the case.
However, if it were only proven "that they were initially looking at 130 acres with Lloyd holding 13 of them in an option", I would not necessarily agree, but at least one of the news accounts indicates that they were looking at 130 acres out of a total of 350 acres. The actual acreage of the five properties at that time was 342 acres, so I can easily see the reporter rounding up to 350. It's way less likely they would have rounded 117 up to 130. Also, under that hypothetical I think the most likely possible scenario is that they first secured 117 in November 1911 and then thought they might need more and optioned another 13, either before or after Lloyd's purchase of the 161. Why does that make more sense? They'd been nosing around and assessing the property since before July. They must have had a pretty good idea of what was there and what flex they might need.
I also honestly think that some of this newspaper information was purposefully mis-fed to news sources as negotiations were underway.
For instance, the one that mentions that a recent sale in the neighborhood went for $8,000 an acre simply sounds like it's trying to drum up interest and acceptance from Merion while they can still get it at the low, low, LOW price of X per acre. Joe Bausch sent me the neighborhood real estate transactions from that timeframe and there was nothing of the sort. Not coincidentally, that was also one of the articles that talked about Merion securing 130 acres for their course. It might interest you and Joe to know that HDC sold Land Title and Trust Co two parcels of the Connor Estate totaling 4 acres on november 15, 1910 for the princely sum of $25,000. Not quite $8,000 an acre, but pretty close.
There is so much misinformation and flat out erroneous information of various sorts in that series of articles that I'd much prefer sticking to what I know is accurate from the club records we've produced.
Is there any proof that either the northern boundary stopped at Haverford College or that Merion ever secured 130 acres? Just a corroborated newspaper story so far, and the fact that it allows inclusion of other "facts" like the Francis land swap. Of course, if we had access to MCC's records ..........
However, neither of you will give up on the idea that Francis traded for the entire triangle and I frankly don't see how any of the actual evidence in the club records, or even in the news accounts, supports that idea, once the timing of events are considered.
Jim/Bryan,
If we can focus the discussion on the purchased parcels, swapped lands and acreages and how those events played out in the timeline of what is known, I do have another question or two of you and Bryan.
Perhaps we should start by agreeing on the known facts.
1) Every one of the news accounts, as well as the official Merion documents mention that the club secured 117 acres in the November/December It was not November/December, it was as Jim says sometime before November 15. timeframe. On a related note, Tom Paul has relayed the the offer letter from Connell of HDC to Merion was dated early November 1910. Sorry, this isn't really a fact since none of the three of us have seen the letter, and the date is inexact. But, let's let it stand. There was some discussion between Connell and Lloyd dating back at least to July that lead to an offer letter in early November. All of the news accounts I posted were after the November 15, 1910 Bond Solicitation letter from Merion to their members.
2) The most credible of the news accounts that mentions 13 additional acres under option again states that Merion has purchased 117 acres outright, and that Lloyd has another 13 on option for them. The other news account incorrectly reports the total acreage as well as the price per acre Merion paid, as well as other items reported erroneously.
3) The combination of the Johnson Farm land with an artificial border drawn at the boundary of the Haverford College Land measures 108 (108.4) acres, and the Dallas Estate measures 21 (21.02)acres, which makes for 129 (129.42) acres.
4) The northeastern and southern quadrants of the Johnson Farm measure 119 acres.
5) The 130x190 land of the triangle that Francis references is 4.8 acres. The overall rectangle of Johnson Farm land above the Haverford College boundary is 10.5 acres, meaning the "unusued" portion of that landform is 5.7 acres
6) The leased 3 acres of Railroad land (transaction was May 1911) was not part of the HDC deal and can be discounted for our immediate purposes.
7) Although we know the total course opened in 1912 was 123 acres, the magic number we're trying to work towards is the 120.1 (120.01)acre purchase Merion bought in July 1911.
8) In July 1910, before HDC had the Dallas Estate under option, Merion reported that they'd probably require almost 120 acres for their golf course.
9) In December 1910, H.G. Lloyd took title to 161 acres, which included the entire Johnson Farm(140 acres) and the Dallas Estate.(22 acres (21.02) )
10) In July 1911, Merion purchased 120 acres of land formerly owned by HDC, To be correct, the Johnson farm was owned by the Philadelphia & Ardmore Land Company, a separately incorporated PA corporation whose officers were different from HDC's. It was sold via Rothwell directly to Lloyd. HDC was not involved. Perhaps the "Syndicate" included both HDC and PALCO. and later by Lloyd.
If you're in agreement that those are the facts as we know them, I have a few questions. Feel free to add any other relevant facts to the list.
I'll add some points later about the assembly of the 338 acre land tract.
Then, about every 5 days or so, I end up having to respond to Patrick Mucci, who starts about 200 prior posts and starts firing off lengthy, inflammatory, bright green posts raising issues that were settled 150 posts ago,
That's not true.
The questions were neither inflamatory nor previously settled.
If they were truely settled, I wouldn't make the inquiry.
And, if they were truely settled, you could just reference the reply # where they were settled.
and demanding to know the truth
Are you kidding ? Since when is that improper ? ? ?
and demanding that the club release it's private records for his review and supposed approval. ::)
That's a blatant lie.
I've never demanded that any club release their private records.
Perhaps that would be tolerable if it was only those of us who could do this type of thing with a decent level of civility, but when every five days I get another barrage from a Patrick calling me a liar,
You did lie,
You lied above when you stated that: "I demanded that the club release their private records."
And, you lied in your reply # 1838, dated 06-19-09, 4:25:18 pm, when you stated the following:
There is also not a single shred of evidence that anyone did any routing in 1910 and even tons of evidence against it.
If you don't want me to point out where you've lied, DON'T LIE ! [/b][/size]
or Tom MacWood appearing with a new theory out of the blue,
Since when is Tom MacWood, or anyone prohibited from asking questions or introducing new material for discussion ?
You've attempted to stifle discussions that don't fit your argument.
But, you were the one who started this thread, thinking that you were going to "close the book" on any other theories regarding Merion's origins.
The only problem is that the thread didn't conform to your preconceived notion, taking an investigative turn that you didn't like, hence, you've attempted to close down any thoughts that differ from yours.
I think it's time to just move on to much more productive uses of time.
That's your opinion, one not shared by all.
I think if we are all honest with ourselves we'd admit that it's a good idea at this point...
I disagree.
Since when is seeking the truth subject to a time limit ?
Since when is due diligence or research on the clock according to you ?
Let the efforts to discover the truth continue.
And, Lastly, since when is uncovering the truth a bad thing ?
Jeff,
I affirm what you have stated about Patrick. As much as it pains me to agree with you, his comments today have clearly crossed the line.
Patrick,
According to your last post Jeff Brauer is blind fool. Are you committed to stand by that statement without retraction?
Patrick
I think if you went out to a pasture and put your logic next to some cow turds, it would be hard for most of us to tell the difference, because your logic is pure crap on this one.
The LOGIC is irrefutable.
That you don't recognize it would seem to indicate that you didn't pay attention in class.
Let's see.
There is no Barker routing....Because there is no Barker routing, we must presume the possibility that elements of his routing MIGHT have found there way into a routing that changed land parcels, was worked on later by Wilson and the committee, CBM, Whigam, etc.
Jeff, you're resorting to Mike's tactics by distorting and mis-stating my position.
The FACTS are that YOU and MIKE stated that NO elements of the Barker routing/design found their way into the initial golf course.
My counter position was that without the Barker routing/design you couldn't draw that conclusion.
That's IRREFUTABLE.
To argue that it's not irrefutable speaks to flaws in your cognitive abilities.
I further went on to state that without the Barker routing/design you couldn't exclude elements of Barker routing/design from having found their way into the initial golf course.
That too is IRREFUTABLE.
Yet, you and Mike and other dolts want to argue that it isn't.
Actually, I once conceded that a few holes, IMHO south of Ardmore being most likely, MIGHT have found their way into the routing, or at least that the REAL routers might have found the same hole corridors, even if reversed, extended, etc.
Yes, but, you only conceded that AFTER I challenged you and Mike on your initial statements regarding Barker's routing/design.
If you want to argue that this means some of Barkers rough sketches somehow approximated some parts of the final routing, then so be it. I'll accept that.
That's all I asked.
All I ever asked you is, so what?
Let me try to explain this to you.
Mike Cirba unequivically pronounced and made another one of his many flawed conclusions, that NO ELEMENTS of Barker's routing/design found their way into the initial golf course. I challenged that position by asking: "How do you know that, absent the production of Barker's routing/design ?
Now Chipoat and others understood the question and the logic of the question.
Even you, subsequently conceded the possibility.
Yet, Mike clung to his flawed conclusion, and as such, I continued to challenge it.
What kind of victory is that for Barker?
This isn't about championing Barker's colors.
I've repeatedly stated that I don't know who did what, but, that I'd like to find out how Merion evolved.
You don't discover anything when one participant continually draws flawed conclusions, and dismisses and disclaims anything that doesn't fit his position.
How does the fact that Barker did a routing in June 1910, which is accepted as fact, change the history of what went later?
Jeff, you can't be that obtuse.
How can you determine the history when you're missing the data ?
Data from June 1910 to 1911-1912.
I'd like to discover/learn more.
You and Mike want to end the thread.
Why ?
What are you afraid of ?
How does it change it if in fact a few holes sketched roughly by Barker simulate a few of the final holes?
It certainly changes what the accepted history has been.
And, it may be the tip of the iceberg.
I've said all along that I'm interested in Francis's role.
Was he the "Raynor" of the project ?
I know he seems to dismiss his significance, but, he seems to have been the only qualified professional on site during construction.
What is the importance of the points you have so vociferiously and repetitively argued to the history of MCC?
Jeff, you must not be getting enough sleep.
Mike Cirba makes wild statements and draws flawed and erroneous conclusions and you ask me why I've been so vociferous ?
You must be kidding.
And, I'm not the only one objecting to his methodology, Bryan, Jim, Chip and others felt the same way and challenged him accordingly.
Are we to accept anything and everything he says ?
I can't see it being important one bit as a significant event in MCC history, beyone what was known.
Jeff, you've lost your marbles.
Let's start with the accepted MCC history that Wilson sailed to the UK, studied the great courses there and then returned and designed Merion.
Should we have accepted that flawed representation of MCC's history.
Mike also states that NO routing/design work was ever done in 1910.
We know that's NOT TRUE.
More and more seems to be discovered each week.
Why do you want to end this thread ?
What do you fear in the way of discovery ?
If so, please enlighten me as to what, IF TRUE, importance it has, the makes you subject the rest of us to such unpleasantness and make yourself look like such a fool?
Interesting.
You don't object to people not telling the truth, misrepresenting and distorting the statements of others and drawing flawed/erroneous conclusions, but, you do object to me challenging them on those points. In addition, when I repeatedly posed specific, direct questions to Mike Cirba, he rarely answered them. Why ? Yet, when you and others pose questions to me, I almost always answer them.
Now you tell me, who's been more candid ?
As to looking like a fool, you appear to have flunked Logic 101, not me.
Maybe I am way off base here and will put this to a vote?
Unless you can find errors in my facts and flaws in my logic, you're off base.
Am I the only one that thinks that no Barker routing means its most likely that it was fairly UNIMPORTANT to MCC history?
After all this, you ask that question ?
It proves to me that you just don't get it.
You can't draw sound conclusions absent the production of his routing/design.
Or do most of you agree that because we DON'T have it, it means it could have had some signifigance?
YOU DON"T GET IT.
YOU CAN'T DRAW EITHER CONCLUSION ABSENT THE PRODUCTION OF THE BARKER ROUTING/DESIGN.
That's been a cornerstone of one of my positions.
Is Pat's argument that a few of Barkers holes COULD be in the final routing in some form important enough to generate ten or more windy and insulting posts from him and another 20 hot responses from the rest of us?
After all these posts you're asking others what my argument is ? ? ?
I've stated my position over and over and over and over again, and you STILL don't know what it is ?
Jeff, have someone explain it to you, you just don't get it.
How do you have the arrogance, the nerve to posture that you've been agrieved ?
You have the balls to call my posts insulting when you've posted insults time and time again ?
If I called you obtuse, I understated your condition.
Should we all humor Pat and agree that yes, because there is no evidence that Barker holes made it into the final MCC routing, that we must therefore conclude that they did? Sure, I will agree that they MIGHT have.
That's NOT my position.
It amazes me that after stating my position time and time again, you STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
Have someone explain it to you.
Tell them to speak slowly and clearly.
Will that stop Pat?
Does anyone agree with me that him arguing endlessly a more or less tangent point that is truly speculative in nature, that I have produced no facts in this thread, and that I am speculating, when I say he is speculating because there is no evidence? Is it speculating to say that there is no evidence, so I conclude its probably not true?
Jeff, you've sunk to moronic lows.
You've misstated my position once again.
Mike and You claimed that no elements of Barker's routing/design found their way into the initial golf course because the routing/design wasn't attached to the letter in the Board report.
I challenged your conclusion and stated that without the Barker routing/design you couldn't exclude elements of Barker's routing/design from finding their way into the initial golf course. I further went on to say, that without the Barker routing/design you couldn't draw any sound conclusions as to whether or not elements of the Barker routing/design found their way into the initial golf course.
And you want to argue against that logic ?
Go ahead, tell me how, without the production of the Barker routing/design, you can draw any valid, prudent man conclusion.
Consult with Mike Cirba, Wayno or anyone you want. Tell me how you can draw finite conclusions absent the Barker routing/design.
YOU can ONLY SPECULATE.
And, Mike continues to speculate toward his predetermined conclusion.
Lastly, as to credit for Barker, if that is what he is going after, I will offer this.
IT'S NOT WHAT I'M GOING AFTER YOU MORON ;D
Most courses in history have had more than one architect make preliminary studies.
Many have routings by separate gca's before picking one.
Is there any other case where another gca considered for the job did a routing on his own, and then gets credit for the design?
We're not discussing "most" courses, we're discussing the specifics at Merion.
Years ago, I did some studies and routings for what is now Common Ground, by Doak, for a different owner/management company. Obviously, they were never implemented, but its possible that I could dig them out and find a few holes in locations where I had routed them years ago. Do I get credit for Common Ground because of it? I think not?
That's irrelevant.
Pat,
Again, if you will, please tell me what you think is the major signifgance of Barker's one day routing and the possibility that a few holes might have been incorporated into the routing the next year? I am all ears, and also watching my step very carefully. And, as you suggest for Bradley, a short answer will suffice.
Without the production of Barker's routing/design I can't evaluate the significance or insignificance of Barker's routing/design and how much of it was or wasn't incorporated into Merion's initial golf course.
However, without the production of Barker's routing/design I CAN'T dismiss the significance of Barker's routing/design.
Do you follow that LOGIC ?
And, Is that short enough for you ?
Disagree
Patrick,
I hope that this thread has played itself out.
We have all been through the looking glass and back. But what stands out to me is your double assertion that one of our great contributers is a blind fool. And so this whole argument ends on an even sadder note that it began.
Bradley,
Do me a favor, save the "Drama Queen" theatrics for someone who cares.
You too have chosen to ignore the specifics of my response.
In the context of the citation, Jeff was being a blind fool, however, it wasn't by accident, he was probably being intentionally obstreperous.
At what point does the flogging of this long deceased nag cease?
More housecleaning....
The following was the subscription form attached to the November 15th Lloyd letter;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2489/3681650369_c8d3b5cfe9_o.jpg)
Following again is the July 1, 1910 Site Committee report which describes Connell's "Syndicate" holdings. Would that syndicate be PALCO? I don't think so. I think that the Syndicate may have included both HDC and PALCO. Strangely none of your documents mention PALCO even though they held the Johnson Farm until it was sold to Lloyd.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3556/3681651673_9b1dd3cd46_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3601492895_8d9014164c_o.jpg)
If I'm understanding this right, Connell with the PALCO syndicate made the initial informal offer in July 1910. At the time they had roughly 300 acres but only about half (the 140 acre Johnson Farm?) was owned outright. At the time PALCO owned the Johnson Farm and HDC owned the Connor Estate for a total of 207 acres. Neither the 300 acres or the 50% make any sense. It is clear at this time they do not have the Dallas Estate under option. I have seen nothing that indicates that there was an option on the Dallas Estate or that there wasn't. What have you seen that makes it clear?
Of those holdings, page 2 of the Site Commitee report states that Merion will probably require almost 120 acres for the golf course.
Sometime afterwards, HDC was formed. Nope, HDC was incorporated in June 1909 and in the same month acquired the Connor Estate.
In October, the Dallas Estate was purchased by HDC.
In early November, Lloyd, Atterbury, and others of the HDC syndicate purchased the whole shebang of the now 338 acres from PALCO under the corporate title of HDC. Nope, the Taylor and Davis Estates weren't purchased until early 1911. Do you have any evidence that HDC took over PALCO? I haven't seen anything, although it seems likely they did. At that time, as part of the deal, Merion "secured" 117 acres for $85,000, whatever that means. ***EDIT*** I just re-read Lloyd's HDC stock offering letter of November 15th, 1910 and in it he says "There will be acquired by the company five tracts of land, aggregating approximately 338 acres...", which indicates to me that it hadn't happened yet. Strangely, in the Evans letter that went with the Lloyd letter, the site committee reports that the syndicate "have acquired" the 338 acre tract. Strange that two letters from the same people on the same day would contradict each other. Perhaps it's not the reporters who were getting the story wrong. Maybe it was the sources - Lloyd et al.
In December, Lloyd took title of 161 acres under his own name (and his wife) Nope, his wife is not mentioned in the deed. based on Cuyler's advice. ***EDIT*** I'm trying to find out from Tom Paul whether he took title under his own name for HDC, or for Merion. The deed doesn't say either. If Tom says one or the other, can he produce the document that proves it?
In April 1911, Merion's Board approved an additional purchase of 3 acres at $7,500. ***EDIT*** They also approved the land swap of "land ALREADY PURCHASED for land ADJOINING". The additional purchase was never executed and we neither of us have any document that proves what it was. There is also no evidence as to what swap they were talking about in April 1911. You've inferred that it was the Francis swap, but there is no evidence that I've seen to define the Thompson resolution.
In May 1911, Merion leased 3 acres of railroad land adjacent to the clubhouse on a perpetual lease of $1 per year.
In July 1911, Merion purchased 120.01 acres for $85,000
Does that sound correct? See points above. I'm trying to get all this together in a time line, so that it's clear, but it's tedious going.
p.s. to Bryan - Tom Paul does not believe the 3 acres approved for purchase in April 1911 is the railroad land and believes he was mistaken prior.
OK. Thanks. I agreed with his first interpretation. And, I still do.
Jeff, you've sunk to moronic lows.
You've misstated my position once again.
You've misstated my position once again.
Bryan,
If MCC is now a total of 123 acres, wouldn't that prove that the 3 acres was not the RR land, purchased later? If it's 120 acres (well, plus the Haverford land later bought for the range) then it would have to be the RR land, right?
| When | What | Source | ||
| Mar. 15, 1907 | Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company (PALCO) incorporated. | Pennsylvania Department of State | ||
| Feb. 21, 1907 | Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co. (PALCO) acquire the Johnson Farm from Gebhard Fecht for $48,000. This is the beginning of the assembly of the 338 acre HDC development. | Deed | ||
| Jun. 14, 1909 | Haverford Development Company (HDC) was incorporated with $100,000 par value. Subscribers: J. E. Tatnall (68 shares) J. R. Connell (66 shares) E. W. Nicholson (66 shares) | Pennsylvania Department of State | ||
| June 24, 1909 | Haverford Development Company (HDC) acquires 67 acre Connor Estate from Land Title and Trust Company. | Deed | ||
| Jun. 10, 1910 | Sometime before June 10, Joseph Connell, on his own account, retains H. H. Barker to inspect the Haverford property, sketch the property and provide a rough lay-out of a course. On June 10, 1910, Barker inspected the property and submitted a letter, sketch of the property and lay-out of the course to Connell. | A transcription of Barker’s letter to Connell is included in report by MCC golf site search committee to the Board | ||
| Jun. 29, 1910 | Sometime before June 29, Griscom invites Macdonald and Whigham to come over from New York to give the benefit of their experience. On June 29, Macdonald writes to Lloyd giving his view of the merits and issues with the property and his ideas on a 6,000 yard course. | Report by MCC golf site search committee to the Board and Macdonald letter | ||
| Jul. 1, 1910 | The MCC Site Committee reports to the Board that its attention has been called to an approximately 300 acre tract, half owned and half optioned by a Syndicate represented by Joseph Connell, that they considered for the golf course. (At this time, the Syndicate through PALCO and HDC own the Johnson Farm and the Connor Estate respectively, totalling 207 acres. The remaining properties that comprise the 338 acre HDC development, are the Dallas Estate, the Davis Estate and the Taylor estate, totalling 135 acres. There is no information yet available about which of these properties were optioned at that time. Clearly the half owned vs half optioned statement appears to be incorrect.)[/color) | Site Committee report to the Board | ||
| Jul. 1, 1910 | The site committee reported that Connell had offered (presumably some time before July 1) 100 acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the course for $825 an acre. The 100 acres would cost $82,500. | Site Committee report to the Board | ||
| Jul. 1, 1910 | The site committee further notes that they think it is probable that nearly 120 acres would be required for Merion’s purposes and that if it could be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, it would be a wise purchase. | Site Committee report to the Board | ||
| Jul. to Nov. 1910 | Merion and HDC negotiate the land deal for the golf course | Inferred from the original offer in July and the securing of 117 acres in November. | ||
| Oct. 31, 1910 | Rothwell buys the Dallas Estate from the executors of the late David Dallas’ will, for $21,020. | Deed | ||
| Nov. 9, 1910 | Rothwell sells the Dallas Estate to HDC for $1 and subject to a mortgage of $14,020. | Deed | ||
| Nov. 9, 1910 | Haverford Development Company sells two parcels totalling 4 acres of the Connor Estate back to the Land Title and Trust Company for $25,000. | Deed | ||
| Nov. 15, 1910 | Lloyd solicits MCC members to buy HDC stock up to $150,000 to enable purchase and development of a 338 acre tract. He describes the 338 acres as being comprised of 5 tracts and says the will be acquired in the future. The 5 tracts are: Johnson Farm 140 137/1000 ac. Dallas Estate 21 ac. Taylor Estate 56 ac. Davis Estate 58 ac. Connor Estate 63 ac. (north of College, 67 ac. in 1908, but two plots totalling 4 ac. sold to Land Title and Trust Co. on November 9, 1910) Total 338 137/1000 ac. In this time frame, PALCO owns the Johnson Farm and HDC owns the Connor Estate, while the Dallas Estate has just been purchased a couple of weeks before by HDC. The Taylor Estate and Davis Estate appear to have been under option. | Lloyd letter to MCC members. | ||
| Nov. 15, 1910 | Some time before November 15, MCC secures 117 acres at $726.50 an acre, or $85,000 for the golf course and reports it to the membership on November 15. | Allen Evans letter to the MCC members. | ||
| Nov. 15, 1910 | Contemporaneously with securing the 117 acres for the golf course Lloyd also reportedly secures an option on an additional 13 acres bringing the total for the golf course to 130 acres. | Two newspaper stories from January 1911. | ||
| November 15, 1910 | In the letter from Allen Evans to MCC members, attached to the Lloyd letter referred to above, of the same date, it is noted that the $85,000 price is a good deal made possible by the action of certain members of the Club, who, with others, not members of the Club, have acquired (which contradicts the attached letter, which says they will acquire) a tract of 338 acres, under the name of Haverford Development Co. This property adjoins the grounds of Haverford College, between College Avenue and Ardmore Avenue, directly on the Philadelphia and Western Railway, with a station at either end of the property - a plan of the property is enclosed. | President Allen Evan's November 15,1910 letter to the membership | ||
| Nov. 1910 | Tom P. reports that there was an exchange of letters between Nickelson of the HDC and president Evans of MCC optioning the 117 acres for the MCC golf course. | Tom Paul’s report of letters between Nickelson of the HDC and president Evans of MCC | ||
| Dec. 1910 | Tom P. reports that there was a letter sent from Cuylers to Lloyd suggesting he take the 161 acres of the the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate into his own name to make it esier ti adjust boundaries. | Tom Paul’s report of a letter from Cuylers to Lloyd | ||
| 3rd week of Dec. 1910 | Cuylers gets the MCC Golf Association Company set up with officers, with a certain amount of stock and registered. | NA | ||
| Dec. 16, 1910 | 161 acres comprised of the Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate was transferred from HDC to a man by the name of Rothwell for $1.00. | Reflected in a deed dated Dec. 16, 1910. | ||
| Dec. 19, 1910 | Three days later Rothwell transferred the 161 acre property to Lloyd. | Reflected in a deed dated Dec. 19, 1910 | ||
| Still under debate | The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee. | Francis reminisces in 1950 US Open Program | ||
| Jan. 6, 1911 | HDC acquires the 56 acre Taylor Estate | Inferred from Deed | ||
| Jan. 11, 1911 | Wilson appointed to chairmanship of the Construction Committee and they hold their first meeting of January 11, 1911. | Tom Paul reports from MCC minutes | ||
| Feb. 2, 1911 | Haverford Development Company acquires 58.097 acre Davis Estate from J. Lewis and Carrie Davis. | Deed | ||
| Second Week of Mar. 1911 | “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......" "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. | MCC Minutes, April 19, 1911 | ||
| Apr. 6, 1911 | On April 6th, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day… “ | MCC Minutes, April 19, 1911 | ||
| Apr. 19,1911 | Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.………….. and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500 ( we have always referred to as the P&W railroad property …….. but the club wouldn't actually buy that land from the P&W Railroad ……. until over a half century later) | Thompson's board resolution | ||
| July 19, 1911 | HDC reacquires from Lloyd, the 41 acres of the Johnson Farm left after MCCGA took their 99 acre part. | Inferred from Deed | ||
| Jul. 19, 1911 | Lloyd transferred 120.01 acres of his 161 acre Dec. 21, 1910 deed back to Rothwell who transferred it to the MCC Golf Association Company the same day. The purchase is encumbered with a mortgage of $85,000. | July 21, 1911 deed | ||
To start discussion, allow me to ask you and Bryan a few questions;
1) Could you identify where you think the "nearly 120 acres" was located that Merion thought they required for their new course as of July 1910?
I think in July 1910 the 120 acres was an undefined subset of the Johnson Farm (south and northeast sections equaling 119) and the Dallas Estate 21 or 22...so a subset of about 140 total. I think it's reasonable to conclude that if Barker looked at the property, CBM and HJW inspected and advised on the property, and the Merion committee were studying their options pretty diligently AND old man Dallas was dead and Mrs. Dallas was hoping to sell the Estate they knew they could get it and the land would be needed. If the deed finalizing the Dallas sale is October 1910, I'd bet it's safe that they began that process in the summer
2) Could you identify where you think the 117 acres that Merion secured in November 1910 were located?
The Johnson Farm south of Ardmore, the Dallas Estate, and an undefined subset of the Johnson Farm northeast section...the formal boundary having room to wiggle, but with a dollar value per acre already tied down at ~$725...including A triangle slicing into the northern rectangle that goes up to College Ave.
3) Where do you think the difference between the 117 acres Merion secured in November 1910 and the 120 acres they purchased might have been located?
Along GHR...although not necessarily west of the border of that Johnson Farm original western boundary...Lloyd owned that whole thing and at some point they had to get it back to HDC to sell as home lots. I think they zeroed in on 117 for the specific reason that they knew where the holes were going to go...ie, the first green was going out into that corner and the 15th fairway was going to swing out west when they drew up the November 1910 Land Plan...what they didn't know was the exact length they wanted #1 to be, or the exact width the 15th fairway and green were going to be...those two areas very likely resulted in a net enclosed area of 120 acres...plus the RR land.
4) If the 130-acre theory presumes that Merion at some point swapped the 13-14 acres of land on the far side of GHR across from the clubhouse for the 4.8 acres of land where today's 15th green/16th tee are located, how would it have been possible for Merion to simultaneously have secured 117 acres of land (which I'm presuming includes at least some of the triangle land), while still somehow retaining option on an additional 13 acres (which I'm presuming that the 130-acre theory assumes is the land across from GHR)?
I don't think Merion swapped 14 for 5, I think Lloyd took option on that land so he could make some of those decisions...I do not believe Culyer's letter date (December 1910 IFIRC) was the first day they all thought a movable boundary would help...I think Merion swapped for the triangle for an equal amount of land across from the clubhouse with neither boundary being formalized until later...They had previously agreed to 117 acres and were under that assumption until sometime in the spring when they had a real clear idea of where the road could go and learned that they had enclosed 120 acres.
5) The Thompson Resolution of April 1911 describes a swap of "land already purchased for land adjoining", along with requesting approval of three addtiional acres. To what do you think they might be referring to.
I think my opinions above probably cover that...I can't tie down the RR land deal at all, one way or another...Bryan asked a good question of Tom pages ago about a note in the May meeting minutes regarding the April approval for $7,500 being unnecessary anymore based on a better lease arrangement...short of a note like that I would guess the purchase of 3 acres was the result of the designing up phase of holes 1 and 15...and/or possibly the need to own half of GHR which was about to be built.
Thanks for your help in advancing the discussion...
Thank you for sticking with it, tell Tom what I told him on the phone yesterday...Man up and get back in the game!
Patrick,
If you can't produce what you need to produce on your side of the argument to win the debate, then all we have to go on is the majority report. What is illogical about that?
Plenty.
Let me try to explain it to you using small words.
Mike Cirba declared that NO element of Barker's routing/plan found its way into the initial design of Merion.
I pointed out that absent Barker's routing/plan he couldn't make a difinitive statement to that end (drawing that conclusion).
I don't need Barker's routing/plan in order to make my statement logical and/or valid.
Only through the production of Barker's routing/plan can we learn what did and/or what didn't make it into the initial golf course.
Hopefully, you'll understand that.
Please produce Barker's drawings and settle this once and for all.
That's one of the dumbest statements anyone's made on this thread.
Pat,
Keep telling yourself your logic is irrefutable. Maybe you will convince yourself its true.
I don't need to convince myself, I already understand the logic, as does Chipoat and others.
You're the one still floundering.
Basically, your double negative thinking says nothing at all.
It's NOT a double negative.
I'm afraid you're confused again.
If we don't have evidence, we can't use it for any position, really.
Let me phrase it properly for you. It's really quite simple.
If you don't have Barker's routing/plan/design you CAN'T declare that none of the elements of that design found their way into the initial golf course.
Nowl you've already stated that elements of Barker's routing probably found their way into the initial golf course.
Me ? I don't know how much, if any at all, of Barker's routing/plan/design found its way into the initial golf course, but, I'd like to try to find out.
And by all means, keep calling me names.
YOU INITIATED THE NAME CALLING.
You started by calling me a jerk and a knucklehead, a phrase I regard as a term of endearment in my neighborhood.
You continued your sniping for some time, so don't pull the holier than thou and you're the poor victim attitude.
That Texas sun must be taking its toll on your memory banks.
And arguing the obtuse.
and misrepesenting what I say to keep that argument going.
And misstate my words and rephrase them 100 times worse than I mis state yours.
Would you be so kind as to point out WHERE I misstated your words ?
I've pointed out dozens of examples where you've misstated mine.
And insult me 100 X what I insult you.
You started the insults.
Don't start whining because you don't like turnabout.
And by all means continue to insult all of our intelligence with your posting style and content.
I didn't insult "all of our intelligence", only the intelligence or lack of intelligence of those who are incapable of following geometric like logic.
And keep screaming to anyone who will listen that I must be dumb as stump.
Someone else must have called you "dumb as stump", I certainly didn't.
I stated that you were "like a fool" and "blind to the substance" .....
Here's the exact quote:QuoteThe foundation of my position is LOGIC.[/b][/size][/color]
Like a fool, you ignore the geometric purity of the logic, choosing instead, to label my position as solely argumentative.
Clearly, you're blind to the substance, prefering to rale against the form
Bless your little hear, Patrick! In Texas, we give New Yorkers the benefit of the doubt. We know that you don't even know that you are being incredibly rude. Its just the way of (some) New Yorkers.
First, I'm not a New Yorker, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Second, you were the one of the two of us who initiated the name calling and rude behavior.
Now, you're the pot calling the kettle black ?
How convenient.
For all your yelling and screaming in green type, basically, the only irrefutable part of your logic is that it is designed to keep the argument going.
I haven't yelled and screamed, that's just another distortion and misrepresentation of the truth on your part.
The logic employed is irrefutable to anyone with an IQ over 90.
The use of the logic is not to perpetuate a discussion, but rather, to point out an error in facts, reasoning and conclusions.
That you don't see that is rather sad.
I am just tired of that, and you in particular.
Ask me if I care.
Even Tom MacWood and I, while we disagree, did so civilly and with respect.
Hey Bozo, you were the one that started calling me names.
You were the one who went over the civility and respect line first, headfirst !
In case you've forgotten, why don't you revisit your reply # 1880, 1904, 1977, 2031, 2068, 2079, 2230 and 2238 for starters..
BTW, I perfectly understand your point, no matter how many times you tell us I don't.
Its just that I disagree and believe it to be insignifgant for reasons I won't repeat.
The final routing is all that counts, no?
Not when you're trying to ascertain authorship.
While I am not 100% sure that Barker did not have a major influence, and his work sure started to define the final boundaries of MCC, I am 99% sure that work after his superceded it.
But, you don't know if his work or elements of his work represents the core values in the final work.
The many routings of Jan 1911, the five after they visited CBM, etc.
Again, without the Barker routing/plan and the other five plans you can't determine how much of Barker's work flowed through to the other plans.
Perhaps none of it.
Perhaps a good deal of it.
My point is that you can't decide in either direction because you don't have the factual foundation to make that determination.
Its that simple. As I said, I am very comfortable in my 99% conclusions, and also willing to say I am wrong should new evidence come out.
I'm happy that you're comfortable with 99 % of your conclusions.
I HAVEN'T drawn very many conclusions because I don't think sufficient evidence has been produced that would allow that luxury.
I wish everyone, including you, the same peace of mind, even if you have different conclusions.
Again, I haven't drawn my conclusions, nor was I ever predisposed to a conclusion in the first place
Unlike some, I'm anxious to discover more pertinent information.
Sleep tight.
You too ;D
How in the world does a crippled old Italian from North Jersey get so many guys out on the edge of the bridge?
Jim, it's rather easy.
I can't imagine how I'll deal with Patrick once I get him 2 or 3 down if we ever get on the golf course together...
and I will get you 2 or 3 down...
Like Ran, I suppose, if we play enough matches that eventually you'll get to that position.
Ran had me 5 down after the first 7 at Plainfield.
Unfortunately for him, it was an 18 hole match, and when I rolled in a 40 footer for birdie on # 15 to go Dormie, the look on his face was priceless. I'm really not very competitive, but, I'll try to make a match of it.
Hopefully, we'll get a chance to play in August or September when I plan on visiting TEPaul.
However, I'm not drinking the local water.
I've seen what it can do to peoples minds.
Maybe, when I visit, I'll bring your kids a puppy and a kitten.
That should keep you up at nights for another couple of months. ;D
Finally, in looking up how Hugh Wilson characterized the construction and agronomic knowledge of he and his committee, I realized that his actual 1916 essay was never actually put on the original "In My Opinion" piece here, but instead paraphrased and characterized.
Now that the Richard Francis first-person essay is now here as well, I thought it might be interesting to compare the two, especially as they both use the terms "lay out".
.....................................
“The Merion Cricket Club played golf on leased property for nearly twenty years and as is usual in this country the land became so valuable the club was forced to move. This experience showed the advantage of permanency; so early in 1911, the club appointed a committee (Messrs, Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin and Wilson) to construct a new course on the 125 acres which had been purchased. The members of the committee had played golf for many years but their experience in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member. Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half of the things we did not know. Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. We spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on Golf Course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I later saw in England and Scotland confirmed Mr Macdonald’s teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such a the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in their entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their courses.
Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens, and fifteen fairways. Three fairways were old pasture turf. These will be mentioned later. We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had largely been farm land.
After completing the construction of the greens, and thoroughly harrowing in and breaking up the soil on both fairways and greens, we allowed the weeds to germinate and harrowed them in about every three weeks.
We opened the course September 14th, 1912, just a year after seeding…..”
How in the world does a crippled old Italian from North Jersey get so many guys out on the edge of the bridge?
Jim, it's rather easy.
I can't imagine how I'll deal with Patrick once I get him 2 or 3 down if we ever get on the golf course together...
and I will get you 2 or 3 down...
Like Ran, I suppose, if we play enough matches that eventually you'll get to that position.
Ran had me 5 down after the first 7 at Plainfield.
Unfortunately for him, it was an 18 hole match, and when I rolled in a 40 footer for birdie on # 15 to go Dormie, the look on his face was priceless. I'm really not very competitive, but, I'll try to make a match of it.
Hopefully, we'll get a chance to play in August or September when I plan on visiting TEPaul.
However, I'm not drinking the local water.
I've seen what it can do to peoples minds.
Maybe, when I visit, I'll bring your kids a puppy and a kitten.
That should keep you up at nights for another couple of months. ;D
"There is absolutely no evidence that Merion ever PURPOSEFULLY used ANY of H.H. Barker's rough pencil sketch routing from June 1910, and with the MCC Minutes indicating that many different golf course plans were conceived and revised during the following ten months, as well as their subsequent usage of Macdonald and Whigham as advisors, combined with no subsequent mention of Barker in any of the club's records, one has to ultimately conclude that there is very little chance that Barker's one-day routing efforts were even accidentally utilized in the golf course that was built and opened in September 1912."
Mike, could you show us the MCC minutes from June 1909 thru Sept 1912 that contain Wilson's routing/plan/design ?
Without Barker's routing/plan/design YOU DON'T know how much of it, or elements of it, made it into the subsequent routings, and the golf course in Sept of 1912.
To state that "one has to ultimately conclude that there is very little chance tht Barker's one-day routing efforts were even accidently utilized in the golf coiurse that was built and opened in Sept of 1912", is an erroneous conclusion based upon the absence of supporting documentation.
It's a conclusion that YOU insist on drawing, irrespective how flawed it is.
Only after review of Barker's routing can any conclusions relative to whether elements of his routing were incorporated into the subsequent designs and/or the golf course as of Sept 1912 be drawn.
"In fact, as there is no mention of an enclosure containing Barker's pencil sketch routing actually being attached to the July 1, 1910 Site Committee report to the Merion board, one has to fairly conclude that there is simply no actual evidence that the routing ever made it beyond the eyes of Connell, and probably the five men of the Merion Site Committee." ::)
That's your conclusion. One not shared by many, including Jeff Brauer.
Could you show us the 1909-1910-1911-1912 Board minutes that have Wilson's routing attached to them ?
....why the intense period of work for the Wilson committee, and the two days of learning (and learned discussion) at NGLA, and then the creation of 5 different plans (I presume, five routings) for the course that was clearly the work of the committee? As I've suggested, it seems to me that everything else (everything previous) is cancelled out by the selection -- as detailed in the Merion minutes -- of a final plan from amongst those 5 created by the comittee, a selection CBM helped them make. But as I say - I've made this same point 3 or 4 times now, and no one seems to think it's worth commenting on, so maybe I'm missing or misunderstanding something. That's not a plea for reassurance; I'm just wondering if the argument I'm making is that far off base (or that obvious).
Peter
....................................
Bryan,
Hugh Wilson wrote that in 1916, so at that time they did have at least 120 acres purchased, along with another 3 acres leased by summer of 1912, and I'm not sure these other 2 transactions make up the difference to 125 acres by 1916, but they might;
He may have written it in 1916, but he is clearly talking about the size of the tract in January, 1911, not in 1916. He said: "so early in 1911, the club appointed a committee ........... to construct a new course on the 125 acres which had been purchased." You're being quite disingenuous on this point, trying to rationalize it to the land that they had in 1916. Do you really think the sentence would have made any sense if it had be writte to reflect your rationalization: "so early in 1911, the club appointed a committee ............... to construct a new course on the 125 acres which had been purchased in 1916."
10-22-1912
Charles Carver, Jr. sold .352 acres to Alfred B. Eaton who then conveyed the property to the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association 78’x197’ along the south border of the Wheeler property in exchange for a 47’x323’ strip of ground west of the 2nd green
6-24-1914
Alexander Shand, Jr. conveyed 2915.04 sq. ft. to the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association for $1.00 and other money
Also...
As regards the Hugh Wilson contention about 117 acres, I don't have the Piper & Oakley letter, but I know Tom MacWood, who does have those letters, has not contested Tom Paul's contention that Wilson told P&O in his Feb 1, 1911 letter that they had 117 acres and was sending along a topo map. I'll see if I can't get an exact quote.
Also...
..............................
Bryan,
I'm sorry...I don't get why you are calling me disengenuous? I don't deserve that and have acted with you in good faith here. A little sensitive tonight? I retract disingenuous. I was just surprised at your answer.
I didn't even state my response as a statement to you, but as a question, asking if you thought they might have been part of it? WTF?? ??? I didn't read it as a question on your part, it seems like a statement. If you meant it as a question, fine.
We know the course that opened in 1912 was 123 acres with 120 purchased and 3 leased.
I don't understand why you find his mention of 125 acres relevant at all? I'm simply surmising and speculating that he was either rounding up (as you said the news article did from 138 to 150 the other day) or was thinking about the present acreage when he wrote this 5 years later.
What's the point? Do you see something meaningful in that number? What's meaningful to me is that it is yet another number, this time from Wilson himself, that doesn't fit with any other number. I don't think he was rounding up. Perhaps he misstated the acreage from 1916 as being from 1911. But, it's getting frustrating that all the documents we have, even the ones from official Merion sources seem to be full of misstatements. ???
Mike -- You know, I once wrote a covering letter/resume that was a lot like the one Mr. Barker wrote, full of details and credentials and attempts at making a good impression. Of course, I never got an interview, let alone the job -- I was not the person they were lookng for; I daresay, I wasn't even the "type" of person they were looking for. Which brings me again to the same point I've been making recently (and one that only Patrick picked up on, if only to disagree with): Why would CBM be called in (later) if anyone had any faith in or use for an (earlier) Barker routing? And, if such a preliminary routing even existed, why would CBM provide Merion with the outline for that 6,000 yard course of his, a per-hole set of yardages that I think (it's safe to say) was a boiler-plate golf course that makes no mention of/reference to any of the principles of great golf course architecture as manifest in the classic holes of British links golf that CBM was aggressively promoting at that time? And then, if any bit of that bolier-plate was being considered at all, why the intense period of work for the Wilson committee, and the two days of learning (and learned discussion) at NGLA, and then the creation of 5 different plans (I presume, five routings) for the course that was clearly the work of the committee? As I've suggested, it seems to me that everything else (everything previous) is cancelled out by the selection -- as detailed in the Merion minutes -- of a final plan from amongst those 5 created by the comittee, a selection CBM helped them make. But as I say - I've made this same point 3 or 4 times now, and no one seems to think it's worth commenting on, so maybe I'm missing or misunderstanding something. That's not a plea for reassurance; I'm just wondering if the argument I'm making is that far off base (or that obvious).
Peter
Mike Cirba.
Your hackneyed attempts to malign my character and integrity are pathetic and disgraceful. And that you dare compare my treatment of the source material to TEPaul's is yet another indication that you will say anything at all if you think it will help your argument, no matter how absurd.
You wrote that you never knew the Wilson article came from the Piper/Oakley Book? Because I never told you? And I mislead the reader by pretending that the Wilson article wasn't about agronomy?
From my Essay, emphasis added:
"About four years after Merion opened, Hugh Wilson authored an account of the origins of the courses at Merion which was published in the last chapter (”Personal Experiences”) of Charles Piper and Russell Oakley’s seminal 1916 work on golf course agronomy, Turf for Golf Courses. While Wilson’s essay mostly focused on the early agronomy issues at Merion’s two new courses, he began the piece by tracing the origins of Merion’s East course, and was most effusive in his praise of Macdonald and Whigham and the help they had provided during the NGLA meeting.
Don't you think it is about time you read my essay?
Mike
Does an arrival in Atlanta on 12/6 preclude a three or four day visit to Philadelphia prior to the 6th or after the 10th?
Tom MacWood,
There was no "golf course" on the ground prior to construction beginning in late April 1911.
Actually, the April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes state that the final PAPER plan was ATTACHED to the Board Report. Unfortunately, no one has been able to locate a copy.
Tom,
Wilson already told us that they ploughed up ALL of the land for the golf course, less three fairways of pasture-land they thought might provide adequate turfgrass on their own.
Not only did he not say that, it would make no sense. It would be a total waste of time, effort and money. Their treatment was focused on the fair greens.
Why would this work of basic turning over the soil (harrowing) across the entire property not have begun as soon as the ground thawed? Bryan asked earlier about spring in Philadelphia, and it's often pretty cold right into March. In fact, some of our biggest snows often occur that month.
In any case, this turning over of the soil on the property is work that had to be done no matter where the holes were located, right? How is this basic gardening work dependent on some routing being previously completed?
We also know that Francis told us that they already had 13 holes routed, and were only struggling with the last five when he had his brainstorm. We know that about 10 days after March 27th, M&W came to the property and helped them select their best routing of the five final options. So, starting ploughing work as of March 27th really tells us nothing much, does it?
It's like when you say that Piper and Oakley and Wilson refer to the topographical map Wilson sent in February 1911 as a "blueprint". I think you're reading way too much into it, frankly.
Why wouldn't the Committee have drawn one of their early, tentative "plans" on that topo map prior to sending it to P&O? It only makes sense as they had already obviously begun that planning work.
Is there some additional evidence that Barker was involved in the creation of any of those plans?
p.s. I refer to "one-day routing" for Barker because that's precisely what we know he did for Joseph Connell in June 1910. That's not an insult...that's the way the early British professionals worked and really all that most clubs would pay them for. Thus, the Dark Ages of Design, which was not really their fault. They simply weren't paid to put enough time investment into their "designs" to ensure any quality.
Barker was asked to inspect the property in June. Most inspections of this type are one day affairs. I've sent you at least two articles that reported Barker laying out golf course during a three day period. You obviously are attempting to paint Barker in the worst possible light you can.
However, you're also ignoring history if you don't recognize that the methods of Macdonald and others were in direct contradiction to this earlier methodology that had spawned such poor results that the entire soul of golf shrieked, in Macdonald's brilliant words.
I am not trying to tweak Tom MacWood here, but if that Dec. 7 article says Barker had entered earlier, and many more are expected, does that perhaps imply his travel plans were already set? Would he be able to change his plans that quickly in those days to squeeze in a trip to MCC?
I know that if he made a last minute change to his itinerary with today's airlines, it would cost a bundle, but I don't know if the Pennsyvania RR had implemente "maximum revenue" price structures back in those days! (wink)
Tom,
I appreciate seeing snippets of the Oakley letters. Those kind of details are fasinating.
I would answer your question, but it would be just speculation. No one has facts to say whether those five plans upon return were feature designs incorporating CBM design principles, total re-routings, tweakings of the last five holes, variations on one basic routing with a few twists on each one (from experience those would be typical, but perhaps running the holes backwards in similar corridors, etc)
I do have to side with MIke C ground plowing theory. When I show up early in the process, I have seen many people plow the land first. I think its mistake in most cases, because plowed land holds moisture longer than solid ground, slowing construction after each rain. And, if CBM visited April 6, maybe they were just trying to get the corn, weeds and stubble down so he could see what he was looking at. I do know that is typical today, since most of us gca's like to look at more than old corn stalks. (they had to plow portions of Firekeeper for us to walk)
I also think that we have established the gap between actual events and when they were recorded in Board minutes. Even if plowing started 3/27, and the minutes are April 19, that might be as contemporaneous as those events got recorded.
Tom & Mike,
Tom asked the question, "Does an arrival in Atlanta on 12/6 preclude a three or four day visit to Philadelphia prior to the 6th or after the 10th?"
So that the adtes may be firmed up a bit better, according to articles in the Atlanta Constitution, Barker was already practicing on the 5th which means he arrived by at least late on the 4th.
Lest it get lost in the shuffle, he also set a new 4-round course record at East lkae for the tournament! The man could play...
Tom MacWood,
Other than in the bowels of the quarry, of the 120 or so acres of farmland that was just coming out of winter's grips into spring thaw, where exactly do you think ploughing down corn fields, or turning soil would have been a costly waste?
Relatedly, what areas might Wilson have taken soil samples from in March and sent to P&O which would have proved useless, or unnecessary, as those sections were clearly not being used for any golf course?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3368/3513188383_0fc7233420_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3583/3638727568_b45514d30a.jpg?v=0)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3565/3470579907_9e171f6452_b.jpg)
The following photo from the 1916 US Amateur looks across today's 6th green to land across Ardmore Avenue that is Johnson Farmland that was not purchased by Merion and should give a pretty good indication of the type of land they were dealing with at the initiation of clearing, ploughing, and subsequent construction.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2647/3690158967_3df0ee8571_o.jpg)
Here's some other bordering farmland above today's 7th fairway as viewed from around today's 3rd green looking at the 4th tee and beyond;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3575/3690190057_5a7fcf3813_o.jpg)
I'm still not seeing why turning over the crops and plouging the land was an unncecessary and wasteful idea?
Tom,
on what date did 1ilson write that he had completed the first trearment of the fairways and greens?
Pat,
I know we both flared up there and I am sorry for my part. Let's continue the debate, if you wish, on a more civil basis while we celebrate the freedoms we have in this country to participate in such debate.
Jeff,
Last night while I was watching the fireworks with family and friends I thought about how lucky we are to be in America and how lucky we are to have our health. It's too bad that our passions crossed into the red zone.
Like you, I meant no harm, am sorry that I flared and welcome civil, yet passionate if not heated discussions/debates in the future.
They're part of what makes this site so special.
So, let's continue the friendly discourse, with a few barbs here and there.
To all, happy fourth of July!
Same to all, and their families.
..............................
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2425/3690397156_0a2058eefb_o.jpg)
Bryan
In response to your question in post 2277. When I originally read the 11/24 article I wondered the same thing, but after comparing it to the articles on or around 11/14 I found the information is quite different.
The earlier articles refer to the 130 acres and the total of 350 acres. The earlier article mentions Lloyd had the property inspected by Macdonald, Whigham and Barker. There is no separate mention of Barker. We have no idea if we have three distinct experts or one group. The earlier articles also mention no effort/money will be spared, and leave the impression the goal will be a course to rival GCGC or Myopia. And last but not least they say work will begin at once.
The 11/24 article mentions the individuals involved within the syndicate: Lloyd, Atterbury, Griscom. Lelsey and Huston. Those names do not appear in the previous articles or 11/15 MCC report. The 11/24 article goes into the arrangement at the old course, the breakdown of acres owned by PRR and those owned by Griscom. It mentions the annual rent paid to the PRR ($800). It mentions 117 acres as opposed to 130 acres. It has the accurate purchase price and cost per acre (unlike the earlier articles). It joins Macdonald with Whigham and segregates them from Barker. It mentions that Barker is the former Irish Am champion, which is not mentioned in the previous articles or the MCC report. The information in this article came from a very knowledgeable inside source within MerionCC. The dateline of Lakewood, NJ may be a clue - Lesley was a member of the golf club at Lakewood.
The one fact that continually gets brushed aside (along with inability to explain why Wilson would be selected to design the course) is the consistent drum beat that work will commence immediately. There must be half a dozen different reports in November that say work will begin immediately, and that no effort will be spared.
Regarding your timeline I don't believe the 1/11/1911 date for the formation of the Wilson committee is accurate. That comes from Jeff B. who said it came from TEP. I think they may have gotten their wires crossed. TEP has always maintained the minutes do not mention when the committee was formed, in fact he has said the minutes never refer to Wilson's committee by name. The earliest documented action of Wilson's committee is the letter to Piper dated 2/1/1911.
Why did you change the April 19, 1911 entry? Didn't you originally have information about the timing of CBM's 2nd visit to MCC and a quote about him making the final selection? To be honest I'm not sure if I changed that item or not. I did split it into two items. But, I was thinking about CBM making the final decision on the plans when I was reading over David's new thread. David states it as a hard fact, but I've lost sight of what document that that conclusion is based on. If you, or David can point me at the document, and it's clear then I'll put it in.
If Joe or Mike don't post the P&O letters, send them to me and I'll post them. As I recall, Mike has said that one of the letters Wilson sent to Piper included mention of 117 acres. Is that letter included in the ones you want posted?
Mike,
As your last official act before leaving your own thread, perhaps you could take my name out of the title thread. I have always been uncomfy with it in there, and especially since there has been no untying of any knot!
I have not read any of this. What was the problem? Why can't we just get along? It is only golf for crying out loud.
Mike, after I met my dairyland farmer's daugher wife, and was brought into the farm community that I knew nothing of previously, I learned one of their old expressions about animal husbandry among other matters... ;) ::)
"you name it; you feed it"
Bryan
Yes, the 117 acres is in the first letter dated 2/1/1911. What is your email address?
The info regarding CBM making the final decision comes from TEP. I'm not sure I would call anything coming from TEP a hard fact but its the best we have for now.
Bryan,
Are you going to answer my five questions?
Perhaps now you that we've been derailed from any productive discussion with more goose chases you can see why this has become such a frustrating exercise in complete futility for me that I'm going to wrap up my participation today, and would really hope to hear your perspective on those questions.
Thanks.
Mike,
As your last official act before leaving your own thread, perhaps you could take my name out of the title thread. I have always been uncomfy with it in there, and especially since there has been no untying of any knot!
To start discussion, allow me to ask you and Bryan a few questions;
1) Could you identify where you think the "nearly 120 acres" was located that Merion thought they required for their new course as of July 1910?
I think in July 1910 the 120 acres was an undefined subset of the Johnson Farm (south and northeast sections equaling 119) and the Dallas Estate 21 or 22...so a subset of about 140 total. I think it's reasonable to conclude that if Barker looked at the property, CBM and HJW inspected and advised on the property, and the Merion committee were studying their options pretty diligently AND old man Dallas was dead and Mrs. Dallas was hoping to sell the Estate they knew they could get it and the land would be needed. If the deed finalizing the Dallas sale is October 1910, I'd bet it's safe that they began that process in the summer
As I recall the quote it was probably nearly 120 acres, so I didn't put too much stock in trying to find a place where there was a neatly packaged 120 acres. It could be that they were just saying that the old course was on 100 acres and that wasn't enough so likely 120 acres, or so might be better. As to where it was I'd just reiterate what Jim has said above.
2) Could you identify where you think the 117 acres that Merion secured in November 1910 were located?
The Johnson Farm south of Ardmore, the Dallas Estate, and an undefined subset of the Johnson Farm northeast section...the formal boundary having room to wiggle, but with a dollar value per acre already tied down at ~$725...including A triangle slicing into the northern rectangle that goes up to College Ave.
The Johnson Farm south of Ardmore, the Dallas Estate, and an undefined subset of the Johnson Farm northeast section. There is no information available that defines exactly where it was, beyond that. Since I choose to accept the 13 acre option story, I have stated in previous threads where I think the 130 acres is. It could be that the 117 acres was never that real a number. It could have been just that they wanted to pay no more than $85,000 and they had a per acre price from Connell.
3) Where do you think the difference between the 117 acres Merion secured in November 1910 and the 120 acres they purchased might have been located?
Along GHR...although not necessarily west of the border of that Johnson Farm original western boundary...Lloyd owned that whole thing and at some point they had to get it back to HDC to sell as home lots. I think they zeroed in on 117 for the specific reason that they knew where the holes were going to go...ie, the first green was going out into that corner and the 15th fairway was going to swing out west when they drew up the November 1910 Land Plan...what they didn't know was the exact length they wanted #1 to be, or the exact width the 15th fairway and green were going to be...those two areas very likely resulted in a net enclosed area of 120 acres...plus the RR land.
I think that the three acre difference netted out from give and takes within the 13 acre option and the Francis triangle that was outside the 130 acre tract. I will, someday, when I find time, draw the 130 acre tract and the gives and takes that accommodate the Francis land swap.
4) If the 130-acre theory presumes that Merion at some point swapped the 13-14 acres of land on the far side of GHR across from the clubhouse for the 4.8 acres of land where today's 15th green/16th tee are located, how would it have been possible for Merion to simultaneously have secured 117 acres of land (which I'm presuming includes at least some of the triangle land), while still somehow retaining option on an additional 13 acres (which I'm presuming that the 130-acre theory assumes is the land across from GHR)?
I don't think Merion swapped 14 for 5, I think Lloyd took option on that land so he could make some of those decisions...I do not believe Culyer's letter date (December 1910 IFIRC) was the first day they all thought a movable boundary would help...I think Merion swapped for the triangle for an equal amount of land across from the clubhouse with neither boundary being formalized until later...They had previously agreed to 117 acres and were under that assumption until sometime in the spring when they had a real clear idea of where the road could go and learned that they had enclosed 120 acres.
I'm not sure I understand the question in your question. I think the Francis triangle was outside the 130 acres, hence the need to "swap" for it. Anything west of GHR as finally laid out would have not been taken up from the option. If you want to use the 122 land plan road area as a surrogate for the 117 acres, then there would be gives and takes relative to that road, the 130 acres and GHR. I'll draw it out for you, hopefully soon.
5) The Thompson Resolution of April 1911 describes a swap of "land already purchased for land adjoining", along with requesting approval of three addtiional acres. To what do you think they might be referring to.
I think my opinions above probably cover that...I can't tie down the RR land deal at all, one way or another...Bryan asked a good question of Tom pages ago about a note in the May meeting minutes regarding the April approval for $7,500 being unnecessary anymore based on a better lease arrangement...short of a note like that I would guess the purchase of 3 acres was the result of the designing up phase of holes 1 and 15...and/or possibly the need to own half of GHR which was about to be built.
As to the swap, I don't know what they were referring to. All we have is the snippet from the minutes, and it is completely non-specific about what land it was referring to. I find it hard to fathom that a Board as bright as Merion's would approve a swap without being specific about what they were talking about. Why do you think they were being so vague? Or is there more information in these minutes, or previous minutes, or subsequent minutes that would help us understand what they were referring to?
I think the additional 3 acre purchase referred to the RR land. You, and now Tom, having changed his mind, don't agree. In any event, there is no evidence in deeds that the 3 acre purchase happened. So, I guess it's really irrelevant.
Thanks for your help in advancing the discussion...
Thank you for sticking with it, tell Tom what I told him on the phone yesterday...Man up and get back in the game!
Jim,
You don't think that M&W were important in determing whether Merion should purchase the land?
I am going by the July 1, 1910 Committee report, which notes that M&W have indicated what could be done with the land and states that the Committee's recommendation (to purchase the property) is based largely on M&W's opinions.
David, we've SEEN the Macdonald letter in its entirety. You and Tom remind me of the last two Japanese warriors on an island somewhere who are still fighting in 1970 25 years after the war has been lost.
When Bryan, Jeff, Jim, and I were making progress in a very helpful, civil way, despite an occassional green-inked attempt at deflection from Patrick, this was actually beginning to get enjoyable, as we were trying together to solve some of the mysteries.
Mike, your categorization of my questions to you, questions you never seem capable of answering, and my refutation of your erroneous conclusions, aren't diversionary tactics, they're attempt to get the thread back on a fact based track.
However, much as anyone thinks I'm biased, and I am, yesterday's return of David and Tom Mac, much as I enjoy the latter's research if not always his analysis and conclusions, made very clear to me that this would go on forever.
Mike, you initiated this thread. Did you think it was everyone's mandated obligation to strictly agree with your presentations and conclusions ?
I'm convinced that a routing map signed by Hugh Wilson could be found and we'd be told by David and TMac that Macdonald and/or Barker and/or Francis and/or ANYBODY but Hugh Wilson had their fingerprints all over it.
You continue to pull this stunt, time and time again.
Stop telling us what would happen if a future event should occur.
Then thrown in pages full of green-ink stained deflections from Patrick every third day or so and it's simply a trainwreck needing to be cleaned from the tracks.
Let me see if I can rephrase the above sentence.
Patrick's quest for the truth and pointed questions are impeding my (Mike Cirba's) attempts to sanitize history.
Me thinks, Brutus doth protest too much !.
You're constantly calling for an eradication of this thread. WHY ?
Don't you want the search for the truth to continue ?
I noticed in some of the letters you posted, that those letters referenced "attachments", yet, the attachments weren't included.
By your logic, does that mean that they don't exist ?
I also believe that your definition of the words "prove" and "proof" differs greatly from Webster's.
So, we're at an impasse here, and before we go deeper into the abyss of name-calling, vitriol, and embarrassing ourselves, I'm pulling the plug.
The process of discovering the truth is sometimes fraught with obstacles.
However, like Shivas, I'm begining to think that perhaps you can't handle the truth.
I have no ill will towards anyone here, but this conversation has lost focus, relevance, and once again, civility, and it's time to draw the line.
The only thing that's seems to be lost is the support for the conclusion you drew before posting this thread.
A great deal of interesting and informative information has been presented by all.
Why do you want to put the brakes on the process of discovering as many of the facts as possible regarding Merion?
David,
Any "backpedaling" is due to actually reading what Hugh Wilson said which is very different from what you've told us all these months when you stated time and again that Wilson said he wasn't involved before 1911.
As you know, he said no such thing.
As far as your continued baiting and insulting of Tom Paul and Wayne, I can tell you that unfortunately neither will ever be back here again.
If the conversation continues to be this productive, I'll be next, and then perhaps you and TMac can debate as to why he thinks its Barker and you think it's M+W.
Tom MacWood,
In January to April 1911 do you know what they had on the ground?
A freaking corn field!!
They hadn't even started plowing down the stalks!!!
Holy cow, you guys are too much.
I made that assumption partly because of the languge you just quoted, i.e. in the first paragraph (referencing a time prior to the NGLA visit) it says "laying out many different golf courses", and in the second snippet (referencing a post-NGLA visit time frame) it says "we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans". In both cases, the committee is "laying out" many/five "different" something-or-others, and since the first time they use the phrase that something-or-other is a "golf course", I didn't think it was a stretch to assume that the second time they use the phrase they are still talking about a golf course, as in "five different plans" for that one single golf course...which I take to mean routings.
David - Jeff said it better than I did (in my answer to Tom M) in his previous postscript to you; for me the line about "the following is my idea for a 6,000 yard course" seems telling, i.e. while I know things work differently today than they did back then, it's hard for me to see why CBM would follow that line with such a generic-seeming set of yardages (even if he had some sense that he'd have a chance at a 'do-over' later on).
Guys - just one little request to all involved; please try to leave out some or all of the most cutting/acerbic/insulting attempts at personally humiliating eachother....after a while, I find that I can't read it anymore without coming to the conclusion that you've started actually HATING eachother. That's bad enough, hate is, but when the hate keeps getting masked or justified by attempts at getting to the "truth"....well, not to sound too wimpy, but I find I don't have much of a stomach for that anymore
Tom, David - just saw your posts now. Tom, all I can say (based on the only things I'm basing my "sayings" on) is that the snippets you provided sure makes it sound like the committee was busy laying out "many different golf courses" until JUST BEFORE heading to NGLA. Again, I don't understand or know enough about the timelines to answer your question, but I'm still left to wonder why there'd even be a mention of the different golf courses prior to the NGLA if, as you suggest, there was already a fixed routing in place.
Peter
Tom MacWood,
In January to April 1911 do you know what they had on the ground?
A freaking corn field!!
Not in Jan to April.
They hadn't even started plowing down the stalks!!!
Are you telling us that they don't plow down the stalks UNTIL six (6) months after the Harvest, AFTER the following SPRING THAW ?
Holy cow, you guys are too much.
Mike, are you sure that you know what you're talking about when it comes to planting, harvesting and cultivating corn and related crops.
These are the dates:
April 3, 1911
April 8, 1911
April 10, 1911
April 11, 1911
April 13, 1911
April 18, 1911 (Wilson)
April 18, 1911 (Oakley)
Tom Mac & David,
The date of Cuyler's letter to Allen Evans is November 27th, 1910.
I guess Barker's "definite" golf course was done before his train arrived.
Jim,
You don't think that M&W were important in determing whether Merion should purchase the land?
I am going by the July 1, 1910 Committee report, which notes that M&W have indicated what could be done with the land and states that the Committee's recommendation (to purchase the property) is based largely on M&W's opinions.
Jim,
You don't think that M&W were important in determing whether Merion should purchase the land?
I am going by the July 1, 1910 Committee report, which notes that M&W have indicated what could be done with the land and states that the Committee's recommendation (to purchase the property) is based largely on M&W's opinions.
Where did the corn stalks go?
Guys, I live in the farmland of Berks County PA. They plant corn around here. Lots of it.
Tom MacWood in Ohio in the heartland of America I'm certain knows exactly what I'm talking about.
You can harvest all you like in the autumn...come spring you still have a rotting corn stalk several feet high coming out of the ground, usually broken in half from the winter snows.
Mike, under your scenario, when would you plant your corn if you still have rotting corn stalks several feet high in the spring.?
Are you aware of corn's ability to amend the soil and that it should be a rotational crop ?
Hundreds, thousands of them.
I don't care if you wanted to furrow fair green from here to Fayetteville, you still have to turn them over and dispose of them and plow them under.
And the best time to do that is after the harvest !
Not in the spring when you're about to plant.
I guess if you want to get technical you could just plow the fairways, but since half of the land was a corn field, it sure would make a hell of a hazard come opening day if you left it untouched! ::)
As a rotational crop how do you know it was being used as a corn field that year, as opposed to being labeled a corn field ?
It is absolutely insane that we are even seriously discussing the idea that someone did a one-day routing in December in the middle of a corn field in PA
Mike, by December many corn fields have already had the stalks shredded and disked into the soil.
and in February during what was reported to be a tough winter they suddenly have a...presto chango...golf course!!
I can't recall anyone but you claiming that a functional golf course existed in February.
This is another one of your wild, unsupported claims.
Pat,
Just because it might be better for the soil have the stalks tilled in doesn't mean they were. Many things could have caused a non-harvest....rain, lack of subsidy funding to bring the crops in, death in the family.... :)
Joe, I agree completely.
But, Mike Cirba can't state unequivically that the property was nothing but corn stalks.
In addition, we've seen AWT, Ross and others route wooded areas and hostile land.
David,
I would be more than happy to take everyone of these guys exactly at their word...to the letter...not sure I have any compadres with me, save the Canadian moonlighter...Bryan Izatt.
Peter,
Do you realize that Merion fits into the ideal hole length template CBM wrote in that letter...nearly to a T?
David,
I would be more than happy to take everyone of these guys exactly at their word...to the letter...not sure I have any compadres with me, save the Canadian moonlighter...Bryan Izatt.
David,
I would be more than happy to take everyone of these guys exactly at their word...to the letter...not sure I have any compadres with me, save the Canadian moonlighter...Bryan Izatt.
Bryan,
If you want to figure out what really happened then I'd advise you to stick with factal information. And, here I thought I was the champion of factual information. I suspect that you have ignored more factual information (c.f. Francis land swap) than I have.
The related news articles from the time as I showed the other day are chock-full of factual errors and inconsistencies. As are the "factual" MCC records (c.f. the two circular letters of Nov 15, 1910) I also suspect there was some speculation, some positioning, some misinformation being fed, and other backroom maneuvering as negotiations took place. And, maybe it's a fact that the 13 acre option was a backroom maneuver that got public, but was never meant to be part of the official MCC record.
There is NO record of a 130 acre option. None. There is no record of a 117 acre boundary.
There IS a 117 acre offer sent by Micholson in early November, 1910. But no record anywhere of what the 117 acres offered was.
There IS a Nov 15th letter soliciting bonds from Merion to members sent 11/15/1910 that states the club has secured 117 acres. Which same letter says the land plan shows the 117 acre course when it doesn't.
There IS unaniminity in the subsequent news articles that 117 acres had been secured, except for one that had a plethora of other information wrong such as the total among of acreage HDC held, as well as the price per acre Merion paid which was vastly overstated. So, all information in all news articles must be discounted. Unless of course it supports our pet theory. ;D
There IS a December purchase by Lloyd of the entire 161 acres of combined TOTAL Johnson/Dallas properties per Cuyler's advice regarding moving the boundary to suit the needs of the course. Which letter is now reputed to be earlier than previously stated as a fact.
There IS January 1911 club documents talking about lawn tennis courts and skating rinks being on the new site. And, ?
There IS Hugh Wilson's writing P+O in Feb 1911 that they have 117 acres for their new course. Hugh correctly toed the party line on that one, Of course we don't know where the 117 acres was. But, maybe it was on the topo map/blueprint that he sent P&O. But, ooops, we don't have that map/blueprint.
There IS the Thompson resolution of Apr 1911 that approved the purchase of 3 acres as well as a swap for land adjoining for land already purchased. Neither of which we know factually what they were talking about, because they commit to expenditures and swaps without actually minuting exactly what the hell they were for.
There IS the purchase by Merion of 120 acres in July 1911. Well thankfully, we have one stake in the ground (no pun intended). We have a deed that seems to mach the rest of the record.
The rest is smoke and mirrors. There appears to be smoke and mirrors all around. Those MCC guys certainly weren't born yesterday in their land dealings.
Also, Joe Bausch can concur if he wishes, but we've regularly seen top area golfers referred to as "experts", particularly if they were involved in some aspect of planning or advising on new course building and or significant changes to existing clubs. I haven't seen Joe corroborate this, but it doesn't matter. What struck me was if they were describing Wilson et al as experts, it is in stark relief with Wilson's own words from months later when he says essentially we didn't know nothing.
Consider also that this document was going out to a general membership, many if not most of whom were non-golfers in 1910. . So, they could be hoodwinked more easily that someone who self-admittedly didn't know anything about building golf courses was an expert?
David,
I would be more than happy to take everyone of these guys exactly at their word...to the letter...not sure I have any compadres with me, save the Canadian moonlighter...Bryan Izatt.
Bryan wrote:
The moonlighter returns. I'm with you compadre. The trouble I'm finding with taking these guys exactly at their word is that their exact words even conflict with themselves. For instance, in the two November 15th letters, one says HDC have acquired 338 acres, while the other one says that 338 acres will be acquired. Both written by Lloyd at the same time. ??? So much for taking them exactly at their word.
Bryan, I am not sure Lloyd wrote both letters. Wasn't one of the letters written by Evans?
A single phrase certainly seems to be causing much disagreement. “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground…” The author RW Lesley was chairman of the golf committee. He was not a member of the construction committee.
What could this possibly mean? How does one go about “laying out many different golf courses on the new ground” especially after the committee that wrote of this followed it by stating that “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
What could they have possibly meant?
Some have argued that to “Lay Out” a golf course at that time required that it was being constructed. Others have argued just as hard that it refers to the design of the course and not the building of it.
Why, though, is it not possible for both sides to actually be at least partially correct?
David Moriarity wrote, “I think that, generally, "to lay out" a golf course meant arranging the golf course on the ground, whether staking it out, marking it out, or even by building it. This is distinguished from planning a golf course, which can be done on the ground as one marks, stakes, or lays out the course, but can also be done on paper…”
Now whether one agrees with David’s interpretation of what a proper definition of the phrase “Lay Out” means in regard to a golf course is correct or not, he is right in stating that “laying out” a golf course can be done by “staking it out.”
Isn’t it simply most reasonable to believe that the “committee” of Merion men STAKED OUT a “golf course” of their own design on the ground? And that after doing so they made changes, rearranging holes and lengths and sites and even routings? After all, the only thing that would have been required was a bunch of wooden stakes and energy.
Especially that makes sense because of what the entirety of that portion of what they wrote states: “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
They didn’t state that they laid out five “variations” but rather “five different plans” and this in a single day. The only way this would be possible is if they simply moved stakes to different locations. A lot of work and a daunting task; that goes without saying, but they certainly could have had enough committee men and others there to do it. They certainly had the motivation for it.
Now Mike wrote that, “It is not clear which committee ‘laid out many different courses on the new ground…’”
Again, whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, the FACT is that SOMEONE LAID OUT five different plans ON THE GROUND after visiting with CBM & Whigham. What can be stated UNDENIABLY is that it WASN’T CBM & WHIGHAM! So you don't think they re-arranged the course they had prior to the NGLA visit? They scrapped it and laid out five new courses. Why would they do that? Is there anything in the Wilson letters that indicates that drastic a change in direction?
Did they advise the “committee” including Wilson and the other members when they visited on how to go about properly “laying out” a golf course. Assuredly so! But that “advice” could NOT have been the final word since if it was they would have simply returned and staked out what they were told to; this they did not do. How do we know this? Because they wrote that, “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…” Not a mention of the “plan that CBM just gave us” nor any mention of even “as he advised, simply that they “laid out five different plans.” Five different plans could mean many different things. As minor as five different combinations of grass to five plans to incorporate CBM's pet holes to laying out five uniquely different golf courses. You chose to interpret it in the most drastic way (five completely new routings), and in mind most unlikely scenario. I'm not even sure you can get five distinct routings on that narrow L-shaped property, with a fixed clubhouse location and a road bisecting it. Add to the equation the committee producing these 5 distinct routings is inexperienced and unqualified, and up to their eyeballs in agronomic issues.
For me, and I am sure that I will face an onslaught of arguing against this, I must conclude then that the “Committee” designed Merion and that the SIMPLE proof is staring at all of us in that single paragraph…Which committee? The account you are referring to was written by the chairman of the golf committee and does not mention the construction committee by name. In fact the construction committee and Wilson are not mentioned in the minutes at all according to TEP. Strange don't you think?
Phil - that makes sense to me. Tom M (in post 2417) says that a course was staked out in December 1910, but I don't understand that. In a previous post (the one that included the letter from Merion to its members, and then the newspaper article), Tom noted that the first was from January 1911. The newspaper article (which I assume must've come out AFTER the Merion letter, since Merion would presumably tell its members first before making the news public) mentions that work would soon begin on laying out the new course. So the course couldn't have been layed out/staked out before, say, mid-January 1911 at the earliest, and since that was in the cold part of winter, maybe not until the early part of spring.
Peter
Regarding the contour map that Wilson sent Piper of 2/1/1911, is it logical to believe Wilson would send him a blank map of the property and blindly ask him which sections of the property he would like samples for testing? What would he expect Piper to do, put the map up on a dart board and begin throwing? Round and round we go and where ever the dart lands that's a sample I'd like.
Wilson was inexperienced, but he was bright enough to know Piper needed to know where the fairways and greens were in order to know where to take samples.
Tom,
Half the golf course was a corn field.
Would they have been able to leave the stalks standing in the non-fairway areas and hope they just disappeared, or would they have plowed them all over and turned the soil?
Bryan,
The other reason my answer might be disappointing is because both you and Jim ducked the question of where the 117 acres were located.
...........................
Now that I have your attention, could you point me to the posts where I can find the quotes, where it says that "Macdonald and Whigham had determined the final layout plan", or that "the Committee's recommendation (to purchase the property) is based largely on M&W's opinions". I'd like to review the quote before amending the timeline.
David,
Sorry, but Nov 27 is the date I was given for the Cuyler letter, I guess it saves going thru train schedules though.
Btw...do you guys have any new evidence or are we all just going to regurgitate the old arguments?
You're an old farm boy, right.
You know damn well that when spring comes you have to turn over ALL of the soil.
Bryan,
You know full well where the 130 acres are in your theory and you know where 3 of the 4 boundaries are since you contend that the northern boundary is at Haverford College.
So you simply need to figure where to draw the western boundary to leave 13 acres that Merion could have still as an option while retaining 117 acres that all of the records reflect.
LIFS boxes you into that corner, not me!
Bryan,
You know full well where the 130 acres are in your theory and you know where 3 of the 4 boundaries are since you contend that the northern boundary is at Haverford College.
So you simply need to figure where to draw the western boundary to leave 13 acres that Merion could have still as an option while retaining 117 acres that all of the records reflect.
LIFS boxes you into that corner, not me!
Mike,
The logic that led you to make this statement explains your inability to view any of this with a receptive open mind better than anything else...the 130 acres can be very clearly defined. Merion wanted to spend $85,000 on 117 acres. The 13 acres Lloyd may have optioned enables the club to define the exact parameters of the 117 later...so if the 130 acre theory holds any water, it precludes a firm 117 acre boundary...and it fully supports the everything in Francis' story, especially the fact that Lloyd was the one to approve of the idea. By the time Wilson was Chairman, he would have been the one to ask.
Phil,
The language is only confusing if you're fully invested in creating confusion in lieu of facts when the words are understandable to a two-year old.
Tom,
Oakley tells Wilson he needs to lime "the whole course".
Tom,
Oakley tells Wilson he needs to lime "the whole course".
You just made my point. There was a golf course and it needed liming. Are you still under the impression they manured & limed the entire property?
By the way, in case anyone missed it in the scintillating Wilson/Oakley letters...
The letter of April 28th, 1911 from Mr. Oakley to Hugh Wilson states as follows,
"Mr. C.B MacDonald called at the office today and spoke very encouragingly of your work at the Merion Golf Club."
At that point, Hugh Wilson had not even begun construction. If all he was at Merion was the Construction Foreman per David and Tom MacWood's theories, what the hell was CB Macdonald talking about?
At that point, Hugh Wilson had not even begun construction. If all he was at Merion was the Construction Foreman per David and Tom MacWood's theories, what the hell was CB Macdonald talking about?
Tom,
Oakley tells Wilson he needs to lime "the whole course".
What would you suggest they call it? Should they type "proposed" or "future" as an adjective before the noun "golf course" in every sentence.
Wilson called it a contour map...Oakley responded calling it a blueprint. Wilson referred to it as such from that point forward. He was literally begging Oakley to help him...he would have called it "Oscar" if he thought it would help the communications.
How are you determining that Section B is fairway?
Tom,
Oakley tells Wilson he needs to lime "the whole course".
What would you suggest they call it? Should they type "proposed" or "future" as an adjective before the noun "golf course" in every sentence.
Wilson called it a contour map...Oakley responded calling it a blueprint. Wilson referred to it as such from that point forward. He was literally begging Oakley to help him...he would have called it "Oscar" if he thought it would help the communications.
How are you determining that Section B is fairway?
I have done quite a bit of research over the years; I've read a lot of old letters, reports and articles. When I first began reading these letters I assumed it was virgin property, untouched, with no formal routing. What really stood out as I read the letters was Wilson's constant reference to a golf course, I thought that is a new one. I've not run into anyone before who referred to a blank site as a golf course, very odd. But after reading the letters a few more times, all the letters from 1911 to 1914 (a few hundred), and seeing how he used the term throughout those years, I became convinced there was a golf course, albeit a staked out or mapped out golf course, but a golf course none the less. After that the other pieces of the puzzel began to fall into place, and the likelihood Wilson designed the course became more and more remote.
Tom,
Oakley tells Wilson he needs to lime "the whole course".
What would you suggest they call it? Should they type "proposed" or "future" as an adjective before the noun "golf course" in every sentence.
Wilson called it a contour map...Oakley responded calling it a blueprint. Wilson referred to it as such from that point forward. He was literally begging Oakley to help him...he would have called it "Oscar" if he thought it would help the communications.
How are you determining that Section B is fairway?
I have done quite a bit of research over the years; I've read a lot of old letters, reports and articles. When I first began reading these letters I assumed it was virgin property, untouched, with no formal routing. What really stood out as I read the letters was Wilson's constant reference to a golf course, I thought that is a new one. I've not run into anyone before who referred to a blank site as a golf course, very odd. But after reading the letters a few more times, all the letters from 1911 to 1914 (a few hundred), and seeing how he used the term throughout those years, I became convinced there was a golf course, albeit a staked out or mapped out golf course, but a golf course none the less. After that the other pieces of the puzzel began to fall into place, and the likelihood Wilson designed the course became more and more remote.
Tom,
I'm still not understanding. How are you determining that Section B was fairway?
Also, are there any specific instances in all of the pre-construction letters that reference a particular green, fairway, rough area, tee, or any specific landmark even in a general way?
I'll go slow.
1) Oakley says the sample marked section B on the blueprint is pretty stiff clay and the lime is badly lacking
2) He suggests a treatment of manure and lime
3) But not now, it would not be practicable this time of year to use manure on your 'fair greens'
4) Section B is 'fair green' aka fairway
Is that the one where Oakley says section B was heavy clay and the best way to treat heavy clay is manure & lime though not on the fair green this time of year and so he recommends waiting until the fall?
Do you know if Wilson was on the green committee of the old course?
Do you know when he was named chairman of green committee at the new course?
Bryan,
You know full well where the 130 acres are in your theory and you know where 3 of the 4 boundaries are since you contend that the northern boundary is at Haverford College.
So you simply need to figure where to draw the western boundary to leave 13 acres that Merion could have still as an option while retaining 117 acres that all of the records reflect.
LIFS boxes you into that corner, not me!
Now that I have your attention, could you point me to the posts where I can find the quotes, where it says that "Macdonald and Whigham had determined the final layout plan", or that "the Committee's recommendation (to purchase the property) is based largely on M&W's opinions". I'd like to review the quote before amending the timeline.
I haven't been able to locate it, and am not sure we ever got "exact" language.
- TEPaul repeatedly wrote that CBM and Whigham were brought back to Merion and spent the day going over the course and reviewing the plans, and that theyapproved ofliked (in my lexicon, "approved of" means to like) one plan that would give Merion seven the best inland holes anywhere, and that the planof which they approvedthey liked was the one presented to the board and approved (I agree that the Board approved the plan, that M&W liked, in a decision making sense , but you can see that that's different from your quote above "Macdonald and Whigham had determined the final layout plan".) by the board.
- TEPaul also wrote that it is possible that the plan M&W selected Again, I can see this being used in terms of M&W saying they like one plan better than the others, but not giving the impression that their liking equaled approval in a decision making sense. (he sometimes uses that word instead of approved) could have been subtantively altered by M&W before it went to the board.
- TEPaul also wrote that M&W reiterated their suggestion that Merion needed to aquire the land behind the clubhouse and the layout plan that was presented to the board utilized this land.
I'll keep looking but these threads are pretty dense.
................................
...........................
It is interesting Wilson refers to the map in his first letter as a contour map, in his response to Wilson Oakley calls it a blue print, and from that point on they both refer to it as a blue print. A blue print is a plan.
Bryan,
I don't agree with your replacement of "approved" with liked. I wasn't proposing replacing "approved", just "approved of" and "of which they approved". There is a difference, even in the dictionary.When the board approved the purchase, does that mean that they merely "liked" it, or did they give it the go ahead? You'll notice that I didn't change the "approve" after the Board. Of course, they approve - decide- and give it the go-ahead. M&W approved of (liked) one plan, but that doesn't mean they decided and gave it the go-ahead. That's the Board's prerogative.
At any rate here are some quotes from TEPaul and one by Mike, who has also supposedly seen this stuff. Didn't copy down the cite on two of them.
TEPaul, post 136 of Findlay thread:
The board report goes on to say that following the visit to NGLA Wilson and his committee did “five different plans.” It ends by reporting that Macdonald/Whigam returned to Merion for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over their plans and went over the ground and stated that they would approve of a particular plan as they felt it contained what would be the best seven holes of any inland course in the world! As they had done the previous June, Macdonald also suggested on April 6, 1911 that Merion should acquire that 3 acres behind the clubhouse which belonged to the P&W railroad and was not a part of the 338 land deal between Lloyd and the developers that included the land for the golf course that had already been purchased actually in the name of Lloyd and his wife. Presumably, as per Macdonald’s suggestion to that effect, by April 6, 1911, at least, one of the plans incorporated that 3 acre P&W land for some holes (that would be the land that included the old 12th green and the old 13th hole which no longer exist). I also believe it was just previous to this time (April 6, 1911) that Richard Francis conceived of his idea with Lloyd to do the land swap to create enough space in the existing triangle to construct the 15th green and 16th tee that would bring into design Merion's famous Quarry hole (#16). David Moriarty, in my mind, it is more than possible, although definitely not certain, that none of the five Merion plans on that day in April included that P&W land and that in fact may’ve been an architectural or conceptual suggestion that Macdonald/Whigam made on their own during that one and only single day they were there . . . Within two weeks, the plan that Macdonald/Whigam said they would approve of was taken to the board and considered and approved and that was the routing and design plan used to create the original Merion East.
TEPaul:
They only presented one plan after consulting with Macdonald/Whigam on that single day in early April 1911 about which the Wilson report (to the board) says Macdonald/Whigam approved the plan that they (Macdonald and Whigam) described as having a last seven holes equal to any inland course in the world.
TEPaul:
What we do know is the Wilson Committee report says that before visiting NGLA they had laid out many different courses and following their visit to NGLA the Wilson Committee then went home and rearranged the course and laid out five different plans. Then approximately three weeks later Macdonald and Whigam came to Ardmore for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over the grounds and looked over the plans and said they would approve the plan they felt contained a last seven holes that were the equal to any inland course in the world. The report says the Wilson Committee sent that particular plan to Lesley and the board.
Quote from: TEPaul on September 09, 2008, 09:23:30 PM
Then with the day back at Ardmore on April 6, 1911 at which time Macdonald and Whigam looked over their ground again and what they had done with it with their final five plans and then they got them to approve one of their five plans they'd done since returning from NGLA which they took immediately to their board and had it approved and then proceded to build it.
Quote from: TEPaul on June 18, 2008, 05:25:03 PM
In early April Macdonald and Whigam came to Ardmore for a single day and went over the plans created by Wilson and his committee, they toured the grounds, they then selected one of those plans that they described as containing the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world (later reported in the newspaper). The committee gave that plan to the board and it was approved and construction began.
Quote from: MikeCirba on April 18, 2009, 06:39:01 PM
Shivas,
My limited understanding is the Committee after returning from NGLA "had laid out five different plans" and then said that M&W came over for a day on April 6th and reviewed the plans and stated that if Merion laid it out according to one of the plans they approved that Merion would have the best seven inland finishing holes in the country.
I would think that means that M&W made the selection of the best plan, which Lesley two weeks later presented for approval to the board for the committee with the recommended plan attached.
______________________________________________________
As for the "blueprint" being just a contour, it is possible, but a quick onlike look revealed no examples in that time period where the word blueprint was used to describe just a contour map. Did they even create contour maps as blueprints? As opposed to carbon copies? You'll notice that Wilson called it a "contour" map first. Then Oakley called it a "blueprint" and then Wilson referred to it as a "blue print". Wilson consistently called it a "blue print", i.e. a print which was blue, which I think means the copying process. I don't remember carbon copies being very effective, certainly not for things like contour maps. Blue prints on the other hand were durable and waterprooof. Good things in the field. So, I'd go with it was referring to the copying process rather than it being a detailed design (blueprint in common terminology) on a contour map.
Secondarily, I'd think that the samples that they described on the map probably weren't related to specific greens or fairways, but rather to topological or geological or ecological areas. If they related to green and fairway locations you'd think that they'd have gotten 18 green samples and at least 18 fairway samples. They only mention somewhere around 5 or 6 samples. Fire away.
...........................
It is interesting Wilson refers to the map in his first letter as a contour map, in his response to Wilson Oakley calls it a blue print, and from that point on they both refer to it as a blue print. A blue print is a plan.
Tom,
As someone previously pointed out, blueprint could refer to the process by which the contour map was copied. The "plan" on the blueprint may have been nothing more than the contour lines. I think you are making a leap to a conclusion here.
If you believe the contour map was blank and if you believe the course was not routed or staked out until April, you have two anomalies in the letters of February and March. The continual use of the terms blue print and golf course.
Tom,
They refer to the amount of seed to apply to the roughs in one of the first letters.
The early letters also speak of spreading manure and lime indiscriminately at 10 tons and 2 tons to the acre respectively,
That the plan evolved later to put more on the fairways and greens sometime after April 1911 and an approved final routing is not surprising at all but this certainly wasn't his expressed intent in early 1911 for either he or Oakley.
I'd also point out again that Wilson wrote that essay in 1916 specically at P+Os request particular to a book on Agronomy.
Continued attempts to make it appear that this was the only focus of what he did at Merion East are laid hollow once the reader realizes that Wilson is merely talking about mainly construction and grassing because that is all he was asked to write about for the book.
| When | What | Source | ||
| Mar. 15, 1907 | Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company (PALCO) incorporated. | Pennsylvania Department of State | ||
| Feb. 21, 1907 | Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co. (PALCO) acquire the Johnson Farm from Gebhard Fecht for $48,000. This is the beginning of the assembly of the 338 acre HDC development. | Deed | ||
| Jun. 14, 1909 | Haverford Development Company (HDC) was incorporated with $100,000 par value. Subscribers: J. E. Tatnall (68 shares) J. R. Connell (66 shares) E. W. Nicholson (66 shares) | Pennsylvania Department of State | ||
| June 24, 1909 | Haverford Development Company (HDC) acquires 67 acre Connor Estate from Land Title and Trust Company. | Deed | ||
| Jun. 10, 1910 | Sometime before June 10, Joseph Connell, on his own account, retains H. H. Barker to inspect the Haverford property, sketch the property and provide a rough lay-out of a course. On June 10, 1910, Barker inspected the property and submitted a letter, sketch of the property and lay-out of the course to Connell. | A transcription of Barker’s letter to Connell is included in report by MCC golf site search committee to the Board | ||
| Jun. 29, 1910 | Sometime before June 29, Griscom invites Macdonald and Whigham to come over from New York to give the benefit of their experience. On June 29, Macdonald writes to Lloyd giving his view of the merits and issues with the property and his ideas on a 6,000 yard course. | Report by MCC golf site search committee to the Board and Macdonald letter | ||
| Jul. 1, 1910 | The MCC Site Committee reports to the Board that its attention has been called to an approximately 300 acre tract, half owned and half optioned by a Syndicate represented by Joseph Connell, that they considered for the golf course. (At this time, the Syndicate through PALCO and HDC own the Johnson Farm and the Connor Estate respectively, totalling 207 acres. The remaining properties that comprise the 338 acre HDC development, are the Dallas Estate, the Davis Estate and the Taylor estate, totalling 135 acres. There is no information yet available about which of these properties were optioned at that time. Clearly the half owned vs half optioned statement appears to be incorrect.)[/color) | Site Committee report to the Board | ||
| Jul. 1, 1910 | The site committee reported that Connell had offered (presumably some time before July 1) 100 acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the course for $825 an acre. The 100 acres would cost $82,500. | Site Committee report to the Board | ||
| Jul. 1, 1910 | The site committee further notes that they think it is probable that nearly 120 acres would be required for Merion’s purposes and that if it could be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, it would be a wise purchase. | Site Committee report to the Board | ||
| Jul. to Nov. 1910 | Merion and HDC negotiate the land deal for the golf course | Inferred from the original offer in July and the securing of 117 acres in November. | ||
| Oct. 31, 1910 | Rothwell buys the Dallas Estate from the executors of the late David Dallas’ will, for $21,020. | Deed | ||
| Nov. 9, 1910 | Rothwell sells the Dallas Estate to HDC for $1 and subject to a mortgage of $14,020. | Deed | ||
| Nov. 9, 1910 | Haverford Development Company sells two parcels totalling 4 acres of the Connor Estate back to the Land Title and Trust Company for $25,000. | Deed | ||
| Nov. 15, 1910 | Lloyd solicits MCC members to buy HDC stock up to $150,000 to enable purchase and development of a 338 acre tract. He describes the 338 acres as being comprised of 5 tracts and says the will be acquired in the future. The 5 tracts are: Johnson Farm 140 137/1000 ac. Dallas Estate 21 ac. Taylor Estate 56 ac. Davis Estate 58 ac. Connor Estate 63 ac. (north of College, 67 ac. in 1908, but two plots totalling 4 ac. sold to Land Title and Trust Co. on November 9, 1910) Total 338 137/1000 ac. In this time frame, PALCO owns the Johnson Farm and HDC owns the Connor Estate, while the Dallas Estate has just been purchased a couple of weeks before by HDC. The Taylor Estate and Davis Estate appear to have been under option. | Lloyd letter to MCC members. | ||
| Nov. 15, 1910 | Some time before November 15, MCC secures 117 acres at $726.50 an acre, or $85,000 for the golf course and reports it to the membership on November 15. In his 1916 essay in P&O’s book, Wilson says that MCC purchased 125 acres of land | Allen Evans letter to the MCC members. | ||
| Nov. 15, 1910 | In Evans letter, it is stated that a plan of the property is attached showing the 117 acre Golf Course property. (But, the plan of property shows a Golf Course property that measures out to 122 acres, not 117.) | Allen Evans letter to the MCC members. | ||
| Nov. 15, 1910 | Contemporaneously with securing the 117 acres for the golf course Lloyd also reportedly secures an option on an additional 13 acres bringing the total for the golf course to 130 acres. | Two newspaper stories from January 1911. | ||
| November 15, 1910 | In the letter from Allen Evans to MCC members, attached to the Lloyd letter referred to above, of the same date, it is noted that the $85,000 price is a good deal made possible by the action of certain members of the Club, who, with others, not members of the Club, have acquired (which contradicts the attached letter, which says they will acquire) a tract of 338 acres, under the name of Haverford Development Co. This property adjoins the grounds of Haverford College, between College Avenue and Ardmore Avenue, directly on the Philadelphia and Western Railway, with a station at either end of the property - a plan of the property is enclosed. | President Allen Evan's November 15,1910 letter to the membership | ||
| Nov. 1910 | Tom P. reports that there was an exchange of letters between Nickelson of the HDC and president Evans of MCC optioning the 117 acres for the MCC golf course. | Tom Paul’s report of letters between Nickelson of the HDC and president Evans of MCC | ||
| Nov. 27, 1910 | Tom P. reports that there was a letter sent from Cuylers to Lloyd suggesting he take the 161 acres of the the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate into his own name to make it esier ti adjust boundaries. | Tom Paul’s report of a letter from Cuylers to Lloyd | ||
| 3rd week of Dec. 1910 | Cuylers gets the MCC Golf Association Company set up with officers, with a certain amount of stock and registered. | NA | ||
| Dec. 16, 1910 | 161 acres comprised of the Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate was transferred from HDC to a man by the name of Rothwell for $1.00. | Reflected in a deed dated Dec. 16, 1910. | ||
| Dec. 19, 1910 | Three days later Rothwell transferred the 161 acre property to Lloyd. | Reflected in a deed dated Dec. 19, 1910 | ||
| Still under debate | The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee. | Francis reminisces in 1950 US Open Program | ||
| Jan. 6, 1911 | HDC acquires the 56 acre Taylor Estate | Inferred from Deed | ||
| Jan. 1911 | Construction Committee formed and Wilson appointed to chairmanship in January 1911. | Inferred from first known activity of the committee on Feb. 1, 1911 | ||
| Feb. 1, 1911 | Wilson writes to Piper stating that MCC have purchased 117 acres of land. He also states that he has sent a "contour map", under separate cover, to Piper | Wilson/Oakley letters | ||
| Feb. 2, 1911 | Haverford Development Company acquires 58.097 acre Davis Estate from J. Lewis and Carrie Davis. | Deed | ||
| Second Week of Mar. 1911 | “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......" "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. | MCC Minutes, April 19, 1911 | ||
| Apr. 6, 1911 | On April 6th, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day… “ | MCC Minutes, April 19, 1911 | ||
| Early April 1911 | Wilson writes to Oakley that they are beginning to plough and do rough work on the course. | Wilson/Oakley letters | ||
| Apr. 19,1911 | Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.………….. and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500 ( we have always referred to as the P&W railroad property …….. but the club wouldn't actually buy that land from the P&W Railroad ……. until over a half century later) | Thompson's board resolution | ||
| July 1911 | Golf House Road is completed. | Inferred from Deed | ||
| July 19, 1911 | HDC reacquires from Lloyd, the 41 acres of the Johnson Farm left after MCCGA took their 99 acre part. | Inferred from Deed | ||
| Jul. 19, 1911 | Lloyd transferred 120.01 acres of his 161 acre Dec. 21, 1910 deed back to Rothwell who transferred it to the MCC Golf Association Company the same day. The purchase is encumbered with a mortgage of $85,000. | July 21, 1911 deed | ||
Bryan,
I believe you are correct in your interpretation of blueprint.
Also, I have no problem with David's cites as far as what Tom relayed previously except to note as I told you previously that Tom's thinking evolved around the three acres mentioned in the Apr 1911 board meeting that it says they agreed to purchase for 7500 dollars and I'm in agreement with his new interpretation.
On the other hand, I can tell you definitely that neither Tom nor Wayne have any interest in sharing any additional info with anyone on this site now that it's become a sideshow targeted to embarrass them and I wouldn't even think of asking either of them. I assure you, and Tom and Wayne, that there is no attempt on my part to embarrass them or to create a sideshow. I, for one, find it doubtful that M&W "approved" the final plan rather than "approved of" meaning liked best. I thought perhaps on reconsideration that Tom might rather have used my interpretation of liked. In any event, short of the minutes that describe the event, this point will remain debatable anyway.
So, if the goal was to get rid of any dissenting voices here, we're almost there.
Last, I believe in Jeff's theory, or a slight variation of it and believe the triangle as part of the Johnson Farm was always part of the land and that it only needed to be widened.
I believe the additional 13 acres considered was land across from the clubhouse that they looked at for tennis and other sport activities but quickly discarded the idea once they began trying to route the golf course in Jan 1911. Are you now accepting that there was a 13 acre option? Perhaps tennis was the reason that area was never considered for the golf course, but I'm wondering with MCC around a mile away with a fabulous tennis facility, why they would even consider building another one at the golf course. Would most of the Merion members retain their MCC memberships as well as obtain the new golf membership? I also believe that the 3 acres approved for purchase was the Francis Swap were those three acres west of the working approximate boundary on the 1910 Land Plan. Sorry to be so annoyingly persistent, but what three acres specifically? And why would they have to buy them when Lloyd already owned them as part of the 161. And, to be even more annoying, you still haven't answered where you think the 117 acres where specifically. I, at least admit that I don't know, because there is no record. Could you admit that you don't know either?
That is the only conceivable scenario where Francis would have needed Lloyd's approval.
Niall/Bryan
If you believe the blue print is a blank contour map on what date (approximately) do you believe it became a real plan?
Bryan,
Since I know you'll ask, I'm starting to think Francis traded "land that was not part of any golf layout" because it was first envisioned to place the lawn tennis courts and sundry activities there for a brief time as the January 1911 Merion correspondence and news accounts related.
Once the course routing started in earnest, however, I'm thinking perhaps they saw that wasn't going to work but still had routed around that area.
I also think it would have been hard to justify tennis-front properties to Connell, or perhaps they could not agree on the same low price for another 13 acres.
How much did LLoyd pay again per acre for the 161? The grant price was $1. The property was encumbered with 3 mortgages totaling $184,000, which works out to $1,142 per acre. Which, of course, doesn't match with any of the other per acre prices.
Bryan
The 1/11/1911 date for the formation of the Wilson committee comes from Jeff Brauer, who said he got it from TEP. TEP has always maintained the minutes do not metion the formation of the committee, or mention the committee at all. I believe Jeff was mistaken. Wilson said the committee was formed early in 1911. I understand that Tom. That's why I changed it to "there about". And the source attribution is Tom. With those two caveats, it makes just as much sense to keep it this way as to change it to "early 1911". If we ever get to see the minutes and confirm or deny Tom's date then I would change it.
Wilson said in his 3/27 letter that plowing and rough work began. I think it says that they are "starting this week", which I think means they hadn't started when he wrote the letter. The April 8th letter says they are starting "next week". I interpreted that to mean that perhaps the weather or something else interfered in the week of March 27th and that they didn't really get started until mid-April. Do you read this differently?
Wasn't there a brief quote associated with Cuyler's 12/21/1910 letter or report? Something about adjacent land? I don't recall one, but if you find it let me know.
IMO the sending of the contour map or blue print is worth mentioning. OK, I'll add it.
Jeff/Bryan,
Here is a view of their Cricket Facilities in 1930.
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=1340&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%20Merion%20Cricket%20Club&REC=1&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=7023&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%20Merion%20Cricket%20Club&REC=4&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
Tom MacWood,
If plowing makes little sense in early spring, bringing out the horse and scoop to move earth in December or any part of winter makes less sense. Even to this day, modern earthmovers don't start work in that area in winter. If the ground is frozen, you compact the ice and it costs you more time later, and usually, its just too wet to move around, finish, etc.
Jeff,
Living in Texas probably explains why you think December in Philadelphia is frigid.
January and February are the cold months.
They even play football outdoors in Philadelphia in December.
Daytime high temperatures probably average about 36 degrees in December of 1910, and surprisingly, 44 degrees in January of 1911.
Saying that golf course construction started in Dec-Jan makes no sense.
It does in the context of December 1910 and January 1911.
Saying it started before they had the land legally and finally acquired in Dec. 1910 makes no sense.
I don't agree with that in the context of the way things were done in 1910-1911 and in the context of the circle of participants.
I even think the records show that construction started in April, 1911, which is still normal to early for golf construction to start in Philly.
I think the records indicate that February and March were unseasonably moderate as well.
Based on that common sense and knowledge, I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that your theory of a golf course in existence anywhere other than paper is correct.
Not in the context of the weather in Philadelphia in the last quarter of 1910 and the first quarter of 1911.
Niall
One would presume they had a finalized working drawing that they followed as they constructed the golf course. My question to you is on what date (approximately) did they finalize that working plan?
. . .These days the term blueprint is often used in reference to the content, be that in plan form or written form. It would be quite wrong to put a modern interpretation on the use of the term.
Niall
Tom
On your basic point you I think you are absolutely correct, the base plan would be the contour plan which would show the boundary and I would think landmarks also ie. existing roads, burns, clubhouse etc. I would think that in this instance the contour plan would be the base for all the plans produced including the Routing Plan.
. . .
Niall/Bryan
If you believe the blue print is a blank contour map on what date (approximately) do you believe it became a real plan?
Tom,
I think you calling it a blank is misleading. It was likely a map of the contours of the property. That is not blank. I would guess that the blue print was a copy of the master contour map that may have been drawn on paper or linen. Blue printing was a way to make multiple copies that were strong and waterproof. The particular blue print (copy) of the contours that they sent to Oakley would never become the final plan of the course, since it was just a copy. Either they would have used yet another blue print copy at their location and eventually, maybe, have created a linen version when the final course was approved in April. Regrettably as far as I know no copies of any of the contour maps or blue prints or course designs or plans have been found, so this is yet another debatable point.
My 1907 edition of the Webster's International Dictionary defines "blue print" as follows, in its entirety:
"A copy in white lines on a blue ground of a drawing, plan, tracing, etc., or a positive picture in blue and white, from a negative, produced by photographic printing on peculiarly prepared paper."
To hold Piper, Oakley, Wilson etc. to more contemporary definitions of the word(s) is either disingenuous or deceitful, IMO.
. . .These days the term blueprint is often used in reference to the content, be that in plan form or written form. It would be quite wrong to put a modern interpretation on the use of the term.
Niall
"Modern interpretation?" Maybe. But I am not so sure. What makes you think the meaning of the term has evolved? How was it used differently in 1910?Tom
On your basic point you I think you are absolutely correct, the base plan would be the contour plan which would show the boundary and I would think landmarks also ie. existing roads, burns, clubhouse etc. I would think that in this instance the contour plan would be the base for all the plans produced including the Routing Plan.
. . .
Golf House Road -- the west boundary -- was built to suit the golf course. So if this plan included the boundaries and roads, then they had already planned the course.
Wouldn't you agree that it would be strange to forward a contour map of "the course" without the borders?
It seems we are stretching here . . . blueprint doesnt mean blueprint, course doesn't mean course. I guess it is possible that they were using these words differently than we do, but it would seem that we should at least take them at their face value until evidence is offered that they were using the terms in a manner which to us would be uncommon.
At the very least, these letters should create a strong presumption that there was a course designated on that blueprint, because that is what the letters say.
Regarding the term "golf course", over here in the UK that refers to everything within the boundary of the course bearing in mind that the vast majority of courses in the UK are self contained and without any housing inbetween fairways etc. In other words just like Merion. I have read nothing different in newspaper articles and writings of the time that suggests it was any different back then.
With regards to when a golf course becomes a golf course, I don't think it is uncommon regarding new courses that once the site is identified, secured and going forward that it is henceforth referred to as the "golf course". Again I don't think anything has changed over time.
Andy…you can flog me mercilessly on the golf course this coming Saturday morning
My 1907 edition of the Webster's International Dictionary defines "blue print" as follows, in its entirety:
"A copy in white lines on a blue ground of a drawing, plan, tracing, etc., or a positive picture in blue and white, from a negative, produced by photographic printing on peculiarly prepared paper."
To hold Piper, Oakley, Wilson etc. to more contemporary definitions of the word(s) is either disingenuous or deceitful, IMO.
Rich
Thanks. I have a similar definition in my old 1913 Webster's
"Blue print, a copy in white lines on a blue ground, of a drawing, plan, tracing, etc., or a positive picture in blue and white, from a negative, produced by photographic printing on peculiarly prepared paper.<-- also blueprint. Long used for reproduction of architectural drawings, now also applied to an architectural plan of any color, and thus (Fig.) a plan, or outline of a plan of action."
Its funny how you missed the second part.
On the other hand, I can tell you definitely that neither Tom nor Wayne have any interest in sharing any additional info with anyone on this site now that it's become a sideshow targeted to embarrass them and I wouldn't even think of asking either of them.
Let's be honest Mike. TEPaul and Wayne have never stopped participating. You've been posting their information in their supposed access. Did the sudden change in the Cuyler date come to you in a dream? How about the numerous third hand explanations and clarifications and backtracks you have posted for TEPaul? Did you make those up?
As for TEPaul and Wayne being embarrassed, they should be. But they have done this to themselves by playing games with the source material, and by making claims that they cannot back up. No one can deny that. But I have no need or desire to embarrass them unnecessarily, so as soon as they come clean and stop playing games with the source material, and as soon as they back up their claims with facts, then we can let bygones be.
After all, the ones keeping these issues relevant and in the forefront. As long as they continue to act like spoiled children with the source material their behavior will remain an issue. I will not drop this until I have had a chance to vet and rebut the spurious claims that they have made about me and my essay. I am entitled to at least this.
Ok...I hate myself for stepping in and will have to go back to Step One but...
Niall,
Golf House Road wasn't built until July 1911, five months after the contour map was sent and David knows that fact full well.
Also, there is a 1928 Survey Map of the Merion property on BLUEPRINT in the Merion Archives but only the property bounds and buildings are shown...not a single golf hole.
Back to rehab... :-\
Regarding the term "golf course", over here in the UK that refers to everything within the boundary of the course bearing in mind that the vast majority of courses in the UK are self contained and without any housing inbetween fairways etc. In other words just like Merion. I have read nothing different in newspaper articles and writings of the time that suggests it was any different back then.
With regards to when a golf course becomes a golf course, I don't think it is uncommon regarding new courses that once the site is identified, secured and going forward that it is henceforth referred to as the "golf course". Again I don't think anything has changed over time.
Niall
The same is true over here. The entire property is often referred to as the golf course, and its not unusual to refer to a planned or staked out course as the golf course either. However it is unusual to refer to a virgin unplanned parcel of land as a golf course. I don't recall ever seeing the term used in that way. Can you cite any examples? It is usually referred to as land or property or site. Those were the terms used by Barker, Macdonald, Lesley and the newspaper articles prior to December 1910.
Here are some samples of how Wilson used it:
February 1, 1911 Wilson to Piper "If by chance you are coming up to Philadelphia, I sincerely hope that you will look us up, for it would be a great opportunity for us to take you out to the Course and have a chance to talk the matter over with you."
February 8, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I sincerely hope that you will get up to Philadelphia and if you do, please let me know a day or so in advance and I will arrange to take you out and go over the course with you....at present about half the Course has very fair turf, and the other half has been used as a corn field."
March 13, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I have just retuned from a couple of days spent with Mr. McDonald at the National Golf Course. I certainly enjoyed having an opportunity of going over the Course and seeing his experiments with different grasses. He is coming in a couple of weeks to help us with some good advice, and we had hoped that you would be up before this and have delayed sending you samples of the soil on that account. I expect to get them this week, however, and will forward them to you. Mr. McDonald showed me several pamphlets in regard to grasses and fertilizers, and I will be very much obliged if you will send me nay that you think would help us out on the New Course,"
March 14, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I am sending you under separate cover samples of soil taken from the new Merion Course. I am also sending you blue print showing the locations from which the samples were taken."
March 23, 1911 Oakley to Wilson "I think the whole course needs liming...I judge, however, that this feature [putting greens] of the course is not the important one at present time, and that you are mostly interested in getting the fair greens in playable condition."
March 27, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "If you will let me know a day or two before you come to Philadelphia, I will arrange to go out the Course and go over it with you."
April 5, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I am very glad that you are coming up to Philadelphia and will go over the Course with us"
May 9, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "Many thanks and kindness yesterday in going over the Course with me and answering so many questions."
May 10, 1911 Oakley to Wilson "I certainly enjoyed my trip with you to the new golf course Monday, and am only sorry that I did not have more time to go into the various phases of the work.
June 15, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I am enclosing you copy of a letter from Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Beale who, as you know, is the grass expert of Carters & Co, spent an afternoon with us and I told Mr. Macdonald to have him talk freely and criticize the Course in any way he possibly could."
July 11, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I want to talk these matters over with you and hope that you will be able to get up pretty soon and look over the Course. It is quite a different proposition than when you last saw it."
September 20, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I enclose some grass and will be obliged if you could tell me what it is. It looks to me like a good thing to plant on the sides of the Course." (the fairways and greens were seeded between 9/1 and 9/15)
.................
______________________________________________________________________________
Bryan Wrote:
I, for one, find it doubtful that M&W "approved" the final plan rather than "approved of" meaning liked best. I thought perhaps on reconsideration that Tom might rather have used my interpretation of liked. In any event, short of the minutes that describe the event, this point will remain debatable anyway.
Bryan, I don't get this? You asked for quotes from TEPaul and I gave you a handful and they are consistent in their use. In each one, he has Macdonald and Whigham approving the plan. He even wrote that they selected the plan. He even notes that it was "more than possible" that they even made substantive changes to the plans they reviewed, thus necessitating that a substantively different plan than the five went to the Board.
Also, TEPaul supposedly read the passage to Shivas, and Shivas latched on to the fact that CBM had approved the plan and in particular to the word "approved." So I think we can safely assume TEPaul's supposed transcription says that they approved the plan.
Have you seen something I haven't that makes you believe that M&W did not approve (or select) the plan as TEPaul has repeatedly claimed? TEPaul and Wayne already selectively dole out information, surpressing most of what might hurt them. Are we to supress the information he has given us when it might cut against him? Doing so would only extend the charade.
Here again is how TEPaul put it:
. . . Macdonald/Whigam returned to Merion for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over their plans and went over the ground and stated that they would approve of a particular plan as they felt it contained what would be the best seven holes of any inland course in the world! . . . Macdonald also suggested . . . that Merion should acquire that 3 acres behind the clubhouse which belonged to the P&W railroad . . . it is more than possible, although definitely not certain, that none of the five Merion plans on that day in April included that P&W land and that in fact may’ve been an architectural or conceptual suggestion that Macdonald/Whigam made on their own . . . Within two weeks, the plan that Macdonald/Whigam said they would approve of was taken to the board and considered and approved and that was the routing and design plan used to create the original Merion East.
TEPaul:
They only presented one plan after consulting with Macdonald/Whigam on that single day in early April 1911 about which the Wilson report (to the board) says Macdonald/Whigam approved the plan that they (Macdonald and Whigam) described as having a last seven holes equal to any inland course in the world.
TEPaul:
What we do know is the Wilson Committee report says that before visiting NGLA they had laid out many different courses and following their visit to NGLA the Wilson Committee then went home and rearranged the course and laid out five different plans. Then approximately three weeks later Macdonald and Whigam came to Ardmore for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over the grounds and looked over the plans and said they would approve the plan they felt contained a last seven holes that were the equal to any inland course in the world. The report says the Wilson Committee sent that particular plan to Lesley and the board.
Quote from: TEPaul on September 09, 2008, 09:23:30 PM
Then with the day back at Ardmore on April 6, 1911 at which time Macdonald and Whigam looked over their ground again and what they had done with it with their final five plans and then they got them to approve one of their five plans they'd done since returning from NGLA which they took immediately to their board and had it approved and then proceded to build it.
Quote from: TEPaul on June 18, 2008, 05:25:03 PM
In early April Macdonald and Whigam came to Ardmore for a single day and went over the plans created by Wilson and his committee, they toured the grounds, they then selected one of those plans that they described as containing the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world (later reported in the newspaper). The committee gave that plan to the board and it was approved and construction began.[/i]
Ok...I hate myself for stepping in and will have to go back to Step One but...
Niall,
Golf House Road wasn't built until July 1911, five months after the contour map was sent and David knows that fact full well.
Also, there is a 1928 Survey Map of the Merion property on BLUEPRINT in the Merion Archives but only the property bounds and buildings are shown...not a single golf hole.
Back to rehab... :-\
Geez Mike, did you come back just to falsely accuse me of misrepresenting the the facts? Golf House Road shows up in a deed in July 15, 1910. So it was built by July 15 1910, not necessarily in July 1910. That means it was built some time BEFORE July 15, 1910. It is bad enough that you constantly chirp false information, but it is too much that you repeatedly try and impugn me with information you don't understand.
________________________________________________________
..........................
David,
You've railed on for pages and posts that Tom is not to be trusted. Now, you find one statement, repeated multiple times, that you approve of ;), so, you now want to accept it. I don't get that. I'm working on first principles here. I know of no organization that allows the consultant to approve anything. They may recommend something, but the Board always makes the approval decision. I think that M&W may well have selected one plan as the one they liked best, and recommended it, but approved it, I think not. But, I'm not always right.
Regarding the term "golf course", over here in the UK that refers to everything within the boundary of the course bearing in mind that the vast majority of courses in the UK are self contained and without any housing inbetween fairways etc. In other words just like Merion. I have read nothing different in newspaper articles and writings of the time that suggests it was any different back then.
With regards to when a golf course becomes a golf course, I don't think it is uncommon regarding new courses that once the site is identified, secured and going forward that it is henceforth referred to as the "golf course". Again I don't think anything has changed over time.
Niall
The same is true over here. The entire property is often referred to as the golf course, and its not unusual to refer to a planned or staked out course as the golf course either. However it is unusual to refer to a virgin unplanned parcel of land as a golf course. I don't recall ever seeing the term used in that way. Can you cite any examples? It is usually referred to as land or property or site. Those were the terms used by Barker, Macdonald, Lesley and the newspaper articles prior to December 1910.
Here are some samples of how Wilson used it:
February 1, 1911 Wilson to Piper "If by chance you are coming up to Philadelphia, I sincerely hope that you will look us up, for it would be a great opportunity for us to take you out to the Course and have a chance to talk the matter over with you."
February 8, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I sincerely hope that you will get up to Philadelphia and if you do, please let me know a day or so in advance and I will arrange to take you out and go over the course with you....at present about half the Course has very fair turf, and the other half has been used as a corn field."
March 13, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I have just retuned from a couple of days spent with Mr. McDonald at the National Golf Course. I certainly enjoyed having an opportunity of going over the Course and seeing his experiments with different grasses. He is coming in a couple of weeks to help us with some good advice, and we had hoped that you would be up before this and have delayed sending you samples of the soil on that account. I expect to get them this week, however, and will forward them to you. Mr. McDonald showed me several pamphlets in regard to grasses and fertilizers, and I will be very much obliged if you will send me nay that you think would help us out on the New Course,"
March 14, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I am sending you under separate cover samples of soil taken from the new Merion Course. I am also sending you blue print showing the locations from which the samples were taken."
March 23, 1911 Oakley to Wilson "I think the whole course needs liming...I judge, however, that this feature [putting greens] of the course is not the important one at present time, and that you are mostly interested in getting the fair greens in playable condition."
March 27, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "If you will let me know a day or two before you come to Philadelphia, I will arrange to go out the Course and go over it with you."
April 5, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I am very glad that you are coming up to Philadelphia and will go over the Course with us"
May 9, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "Many thanks and kindness yesterday in going over the Course with me and answering so many questions."
May 10, 1911 Oakley to Wilson "I certainly enjoyed my trip with you to the new golf course Monday, and am only sorry that I did not have more time to go into the various phases of the work.
June 15, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I am enclosing you copy of a letter from Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Beale who, as you know, is the grass expert of Carters & Co, spent an afternoon with us and I told Mr. Macdonald to have him talk freely and criticize the Course in any way he possibly could."
July 11, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I want to talk these matters over with you and hope that you will be able to get up pretty soon and look over the Course. It is quite a different proposition than when you last saw it."
September 20, 1911 Wilson to Oakley "I enclose some grass and will be obliged if you could tell me what it is. It looks to me like a good thing to plant on the sides of the Course." (the fairways and greens were seeded between 9/1 and 9/15)
Tom,
That's quite a bit of transcribing. Do you suppose that Wilson, being just a novice, may not have understood that the experts used terms such as property, site, etc until there was a plan, and not "course"? Perhaps he simply thought of the property as his future course, even in a virgin unplanned state. Sometimes a word is just a word.
Thanks David. They way Wilson refers to the property/site as a course when it is pre-construction/during construction is what I was referring to. I'll try and dig out some stuff that I've got although I'm down at the Open from Saturday onwards, and have work I need to get out the door before then, so really shouldn't be on GCA at the moment but there you go. These Merion threads are so addictive ! I'll ping on some articles when I get the chance.
Niall
Ok...I hate myself for stepping in and will have to go back to Step One but...
Niall,
Golf House Road wasn't built until July 1911, five months after the contour map was sent and David knows that fact full well.
Also, there is a 1928 Survey Map of the Merion property on BLUEPRINT in the Merion Archives but only the property bounds and buildings are shown...not a single golf hole.
Back to rehab... :-\
Geez Mike, did you come back just to falsely accuse me of misrepresenting the the facts? Golf House Road shows up in a deed in July 15, 1910. So it was built by July 15 1910, not necessarily in July 1910. That means it was built some time BEFORE July 15, 1910. It is bad enough that you constantly chirp false information, but it is too much that you repeatedly try and impugn me with information you don't understand.
Thanks David. They way Wilson refers to the property/site as a course when it is pre-construction/during construction is what I was referring to. I'll try and dig out some stuff that I've got although I'm down at the Open from Saturday onwards, and have work I need to get out the door before then, so really shouldn't be on GCA at the moment but there you go. These Merion threads are so addictive ! I'll ping on some articles when I get the chance.
Niall
Niall
I agree. Wilson does use the term in pre-construction/during construction manner, but that is not what you have been claiming. I said Wilson was referring to planned or staked out golf course on February 1, and you said there was no plan.
Good luck finding your example.
At the very least, these letters should create a strong presumption that there was a course designated on that blueprint, because that is what the letters say.
David
On the basis that we agree the blueprint is the contour plan, I haven't seen anything in the first couple of letters where the blueprint/contour plan is referenced which suggests that a course routing or any other course details are shown on it. Wilson refers to the property as the course in several of his letters as highlighted by Tom but I haven't found anything where he refers to the course as shown on the plan. Is it in any of the subsequent letters or in any that haven't been posted yet ?
Niall
.....is NOT included in my 1907 Webster's (which is a very inclusive tome weighing ~16 pounds--or 1 stone 2 for you Brits out there).
I know the Wilson letters are among the few direct specific items of fact we have from this event, but would it not make sense and be quite shrewd of Hugh Wilson to initiate the conversation with Piper and Oakley as though the property were a blank slate? In other words, why impinge their objective analysis of the property with the location of greens or tees regardless of whether or not they were already placed?
If P&O had great concerns about a "section" for some scientific reason, Wilson wouldn't want to dissuade tham from voicing it by suggesting he already had a green placed there...
To hold Piper, Oakley, Wilson etc. to more contemporary definitions of the word(s) is either disingenuous or deceitful, IMO.
Think of blueprints the same as Xerox. Its a process. It was replaced by blue line prints, done with a coated paper and ammonia by the 1970's. And, with large scale Xerox and now inkjet printers and CAD, replaced again.
However, in any reprodutive era, I have personally prepared base maps, contour maps, soil testing maps (with lettered references), routing maps, construction maps, etc.
Using the phrase "blueprint" to say what kind of drawing is on there is among the dumbest things I have heard argued on this thread. It just isn't so, and I am surprised to hear Tom MacWood argue it, because he had some Landscape Architecture training and would know that. That he is using this argument, when he really knows better, is dumbfounding to me, really. It is just another example of how absurd this thread is.
All just MHO of course. But I have prepared prints at many, many stages of the design process. Of course, if you want to take someone elses word for it that I am sadly out of touch with what went on back then, so be it.
I spent yesterday touring Cape Arundel golf club in Maine, a nearly untouched Travis course. Like Wilson and his committee, "I learned more in one day there than in my many years of participating on Merion threads" about what golf cousres were like in the early 1900's.
"Blue print, a copy in white lines on a blue ground, of a drawing, plan, tracing, etc., or a positive picture in blue and white, from a negative, produced by photographic printing on peculiarly prepared paper.<-- also blueprint. Long used for reproduction of architectural drawings, now also applied to an architectural plan of any color, and thus (Fig.) a plan, or outline of a plan of action."
Niall
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. I went back and re-read your posts and you did say there may have been planned golf coursee circa 2/1/1911. At the time I was focused on your claim that I was using the term 'blue print' in a modern manner....to support your arument that there was no architectural plan on the contour map. We now know -- from Webster's 1913 dictionary -- a reproduction of an architectural drawing or architectural plan was its common use back then too.
Tom,
I did answer your question two pages ago. Here you go again, with an additional comment...
As far as the Green Committee questions, I don't know the answer to either question, honestly.
I do know that by December 1914 he was so taxed by his work at Merion and subsequent design/build jobs at Merion West, Seaview, Philmont, and North Hills, as well as his work for Robert Lesley's GAP Committee charged with locating a site for Philly's first public course that he resigned as Chairman of the Green Committee, citing the need to focus on his his business affairs. After all, he wasn't a professional golf course architect although by virtue of what he was able to accomplish with his design at Merion East, apparently industry titans Robert Lesley, Clarence Geist, Ellis Gimbel, Franklin Meehan, and others in the area like Tillinghast and George Thomas as well as all of the golf writers in the city sure treated him like one immediately afterwards.
Despite his resignation and plan to focus on business, in January 1915 Robert Lesley (who was now President of GAP) picked Wilson again to lead a committee...this time to design and construct the public course at Cobb's Creek, which he accepted and spent several months on.
Why do you think the blueprint of Merion from 1928 doesn't have any golf holes drawn on it?
Why do you think based on hundreds of letters WIlson and Oakley exchanged there is not a single mention of any golf tee, fairway, green, or hole location on any plan or any contour map or any blueprint?
Think of blueprints the same as Xerox. Its a process. It was replaced by blue line prints, done with a coated paper and ammonia by the 1970's. And, with large scale Xerox and now inkjet printers and CAD, replaced again.
However, in any reprodutive era, I have personally prepared base maps, contour maps, soil testing maps (with lettered references), routing maps, construction maps, etc.
Using the phrase "blueprint" to say what kind of drawing is on there is among the dumbest things I have heard argued on this thread. It just isn't so, and I am surprised to hear Tom MacWood argue it, because he had some Landscape Architecture training and would know that. That he is using this argument, when he really knows better, is dumbfounding to me, really. It is just another example of how absurd this thread is.
All just MHO of course. But I have prepared prints at many, many stages of the design process. Of course, if you want to take someone elses word for it that I am sadly out of touch with what went on back then, so be it.
I spent yesterday touring Cape Arundel golf club in Maine, a nearly untouched Travis course. Like Wilson and his committee, "I learned more in one day there than in my many years of participating on Merion threads" about what golf cousres were like in the early 1900's.
"Blue print, a copy in white lines on a blue ground, of a drawing, plan, tracing, etc., or a positive picture in blue and white, from a negative, produced by photographic printing on peculiarly prepared paper.<-- also blueprint. Long used for reproduction of architectural drawings, now also applied to an architectural plan of any color, and thus (Fig.) a plan, or outline of a plan of action."
Niall
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. I went back and re-read your posts and you did say there may have been planned golf coursee circa 2/1/1911. At the time I was focused on your claim that I was using the term 'blue print' in a modern manner....to support your arument that there was no architectural plan on the contour map. We now know -- from Webster's 1913 dictionary -- a reproduction of an architectural drawing or architectural plan was its common use back then too.
David
I suspect that any confusion has come from my inelegant definitions. I was concerned that you were maybe reading too much into the use of the word "blueprint" and perhaps using its modern connitation which is as some sort of masterplan or whatever. For instance, on this side of the pond you would some times here politicians coming away with statements about "a blueprint for providing a better future" or some such tosh. Clearly they aren't talking about a physical plan (as you no longer get blueprints I believe) but about a plan of action. Thats one crude example but hopefully you get my drift. The reason I tried to highlight this was not to support my opinion that the plan/blueprint didn't have a routing on it, I have other reasons to believe that, but more to say to you that you would be wrong (in my opinion) to come to the conclusion that it did on the back of the reference to the plan being a blueprint.
The reasons why I suspect that there wasn't a golf course routing or detailed course layout shown on the plan are firstly the plan is referred to as the contour plan and that there is no reference that I can see in the letters that refers to the golf course being shown on the plan ie a routing or feature details such as greens/tees/bunkers etc. Secondly, each plan has its own purpose. It is usual practice to issue separate plans for the same area which show different things eg one plan might show contours and that would be the contour plan, another plan might show the routing and that would be the routing plan, another plan might show landscaping/seeding etc and so on. In issuing drawings the architect/surveyor/engineer/draughtsman isn't going to waste time and effort reproducing detail which is insignificant to the purposes of the plan. In other words a contour plan would have contours but probably wouldn't have other detail such as routing, services etc.
I am of course assuming that Wilson and his committee produced detailed drawings/plans for their contractor but then they might just have given him a copy of the contour plan with some rough hole locations sketched on and told the contractor "there you go boys, theres where we want the green for the 1st and we want it regular shaped and about 20 yards by about 20 yards. We also want it to slope back to front with the front 3 feet lower than the back" or whatever. Hard to say exactly how they did it but I suppose it is possible that they were less relient on plans than we think (or at least than what I think) given that they were on the ground for most of the project.
Niall
Tom,
I am sure this is just a silly question, but are you saying that a "contour plan" is NOT an architectural drawing?
I do not see all of this parsing of words as being helpful.
I find the most convincing evidence that McDonald and Whigham (nor Barker before them) did not route the course to be that none of them ever claimed they did; coupled with Wilson's personal account which credits them with only scant participation.
If I am way off rack on this, I respectfully request Tom McW or David to enlighten me with something other than parsing of words
I do not see all of this parsing of words as being helpful.
I find the most convincing evidence that McDonald and Whigham (nor Barker before them) did not route the course to be that none of them ever claimed they did; coupled with Wilson's personal account which credits them with only scant participation.
If I am way off rack on this, I respectfully request Tom McW or David to enlighten me with something other than parsing of words
H.J. Whigham included Merion East on a list of courses that CBM had designed.
Tom,
Actually I asked the wrong question. Going by your definition provided for "blue print":
"Blue print, a copy in white lines on a blue ground, of a drawing, plan, tracing, etc., or a positive picture in blue and white, from a negative, produced by photographic printing on peculiarly prepared paper.<-- also blueprint. Long used for reproduction of architectural drawings, now also applied to an architectural plan of any color, and thus (Fig.) a plan, or outline of a plan of action."
In what way does a "contour map" if it is done as "white lines on a blue ground" NOT meet this definition?
Tom,
Where in the definition that you are using does it LIMIT the definition of a "blueprint" to an "architectural plan or architectural drawing?"
You corrected an earlier post for leaving out the second section, yet you are COMPLETELY ignoring then the firs part of the definition that you provided, "Blue print, a copy in white lines on a blue ground, of a drawing, plan, tracing, etc."
One can have a blueprint showing a contour plan ONLY both today and back then...
John Cullum,
You're missing the point.
If not for the parsing of words, exactly what evidence would exist that Hugh Wilson didn't design Merion?
Tom,
Where in the definition that you are using does it LIMIT the definition of a "blueprint" to an "architectural plan or architectural drawing?"
You corrected an earlier post for leaving out the second section, yet you are COMPLETELY ignoring then the firs part of the definition that you provided, "Blue print, a copy in white lines on a blue ground, of a drawing, plan, tracing, etc."
One can have a blueprint showing a contour plan ONLY both today and back then...
Long used for reproduction of architectural drawings, now also applied to an architectural plan of any color, and thus (Fig.) a plan, or outline of a plan of action
Take your pick, any of the variations will do.
John Cullum,
You're missing the point.
If not for the parsing of words, exactly what evidence would exist that Hugh Wilson didn't design Merion?
Here is some:
Wilson really was a complete novice and needed some expert guidance. His committee in fact had McDonald come visit the property in the very early stages, and he clearly particpated in some degree.
It all seemed to come together very rapidly, again, something a inexperienced designer/builder would have a difficult time doing.
Whigham put it on the list of McDonald courses in 1939.
Tom,
Where in the definition that you are using does it LIMIT the definition of a "blueprint" to an "architectural plan or architectural drawing?"
You corrected an earlier post for leaving out the second section, yet you are COMPLETELY ignoring then the firs part of the definition that you provided, "Blue print, a copy in white lines on a blue ground, of a drawing, plan, tracing, etc."
One can have a blueprint showing a contour plan ONLY both today and back then...
Long used for reproduction of architectural drawings, now also applied to an architectural plan of any color, and thus (Fig.) a plan, or outline of a plan of action
Take your pick, any of the variations will do.
Tom
You again forget to read the word "also" in the middle of the above sentence, and also this time forget to include tghe first defining sentence which says that a blue print is "a copy in white lines on a blue ground, of a drawing, plan, tracing, etc., or a positive picture in blue and white, from a negative, produced by photographic printing on peculiarly prepared paper."
To say that in 1911 (or even 1913) a blueprint referred to only "architectural drawings" is naive, dishonest or illiterate. Take your pick. ;)
Tom
Apologies for getting you mixed up with David earlier on. Just so I get you right, are you saying that blueprint = architectural drawing, and that as a "blank" contour map/plan isn't an architectural drawing, there must have been some sort of "architectural drawings" on the contour map/plan to make Oakley refer to it as a blueprint ? Did I get that correct ?
Niall
Neville/Grant? Was Neville/Grant's version of PBGL considered a great course?
Neville/Grant? Was Neville/Grant's version of PBGL considered a great course?
Neville/Grant? Was Neville/Grant's version of PBGL considered a great course?
The "unfinished" Merion course opened in Fall 1912 was not considered a "great course" either, if you objectively read the reviews of Tillinghast, "Far and Sure", and Alex Findlay.
They all thought it had a lot of possibilities to become a great course, and to a man thought the quarry holes were great (probably because they relied on a dramatic natural feature), but they also each had quite a bit of criticism and each thought quite a number of holes were rather mundane.
Richard Francis himself good-naturedly told us a lot of places where there screwed up at first, with multiple road crossings, greens that were too pitched either to or fro, the 2nd and 14th greens, and so on.
This floated notion that it was a great course in September 1912 because of some brilliant routing that could have only been conceived by an experienced genius is the biggest myth propogated on this whole issue if not this entire website.
It wasn't...both the routing as well as the hole interiors had significant architectural and mechanical flaws, which is evidenced by the fact that almost half the routing changed in whole or in part on almost half the holes to the course between 1912 and 1930.
Here is some:
Wilson really was a complete novice and needed some expert guidance. His committee in fact had McDonald come visit the property in the very early stages, and he clearly particpated in some degree.
It all seemed to come together very rapidly, again, something a inexperienced designer/builder would have a difficult time doing.
Whigham put it on the list of McDonald courses in 1939.
Is questioning the 'novices' Neville/Grant or Fownes and their home-run designs next?
Tom,
I'd say that had more to do with getting a championship into Philadelphia, which was one of the 4 most golf-prosperous cities in the country at that time.
Ironically, and as bemoaned by many in the press like Tillinghast for years prior, Philadelphia had NOTHING approximating a Championship Course in either length or difficulty before Merion was built.
Even then, however, it took a LOT of adds and changes to the course over four years to get Merion to that level by 1916.
Tom,
Wouldn't there have been a "Title" to this architectural drawing? For example, I have seen a number of topographical drawings for Tillinghast courses and EVERY one of them, regardless of how much detailed course information was on them, had a title. For example, there is the one I am looking at right now that is titled "Topographical Map of Golf Course Essex County Country Club."
I have also seen topographical drawings done PRIOR to course designs and they are simply labelled "topographical drawing." There is a good deal of Tilly correspondence wherein he asks for "topographical drawings of the property" so that he can place his design upon it.
As you have pointed out, these are technically minded men yet there is not a single drawing referenced in the letters you cite that is TITLED! Why is that? Without a title or direct statement stating that the drawing sent was nything morethan a simple topographical drawing of the land upon which the golf course was to be built one simply cannot say that there was a drawing of a golf course, existing or otherwise, on the topographical blueprint that was sent.
I thought Barker and CBM were assumed to be in town for the US Open in June 1910.
Tom,
Wouldn't there have been a "Title" to this architectural drawing? For example, I have seen a number of topographical drawings for Tillinghast courses and EVERY one of them, regardless of how much detailed course information was on them, had a title. For example, there is the one I am looking at right now that is titled "Topographical Map of Golf Course Essex County Country Club."
I have also seen topographical drawings done PRIOR to course designs and they are simply labelled "topographical drawing." There is a good deal of Tilly correspondence wherein he asks for "topographical drawings of the property" so that he can place his design upon it.
As you have pointed out, these are technically minded men yet there is not a single drawing referenced in the letters you cite that is TITLED! Why is that? Without a title or direct statement stating that the drawing sent was nything morethan a simple topographical drawing of the land upon which the golf course was to be built one simply cannot say that there was a drawing of a golf course, existing or otherwise, on the topographical blueprint that was sent.
Phil
I would expect most architectural drawings to have a title, in this case something like 'Merion Cricket Club Golf Course' or 'The New Course for Merion Cricket Club.' Are you saying Wilson would have written "I'm sending you under separate cover a blue print titled Merion Cricket Club Golf Course"; instead of "I'm sending you under separate cover a blue print." Most architectural drawing are rolled up, I don't think you'd see the title until you unrolled it.
Wilson sent two maps, the first one he called a contour map and the second one he called a blue print. You're saying he should have mentioned a title in both cases?
Tom,
I'd say that had more to do with getting a championship into Philadelphia, which was one of the 4 most golf-prosperous cities in the country at that time.
Ironically, and as bemoaned by many in the press like Tillinghast for years prior, Philadelphia had NOTHING approximating a Championship Course in either length or difficulty before Merion was built.
Even then, however, it took a LOT of adds and changes to the course over four years to get Merion to that level by 1916.
I thought Barker and CBM were assumed to be in town for the US Open in June 1910.
David,
The 'personal' to me appears to be something between you/Tom M and Wayne/Tom P. I assume there is a longer history between all of you that I am unaware of.
But if you say you simply want to figure out what happened then I will take your word for it. And I have read the essay a couple of times.
Tom,
For the sake of arguement, let's say CBM designed Merion. With that supposition in place, why do you feel Merion would have hid that fact from their members and the public?
One of the biggest holes I see in the CBM theory is what Merion's motivation would have been. Why would they have lied?
(I freely admit that based on readings here and elsewhere that I think Wilson did the design)
David,
Could you describe for us exactly what tasks are involved in "laying out a course on the ground" as well as any evidence for your contention that he hasn't been given "enough credit" for his work in that regard?
David,
I admit that I didn't understand your reply.
Do you have anythig from Merion that stated to the public that CBM, not Wilson, designed the course?
Tom,
I'd say that had more to do with getting a championship into Philadelphia, which was one of the 4 most golf-prosperous cities in the country at that time.
Ironically, and as bemoaned by many in the press like Tillinghast for years prior, Philadelphia had NOTHING approximating a Championship Course in either length or difficulty before Merion was built.
Even then, however, it took a LOT of adds and changes to the course over four years to get Merion to that level by 1916.
I thought Barker and CBM were assumed to be in town for the US Open in June 1910.
Where did anyone, other than W, ever state that M and W had "extensive involvement" in designing Merion East? That is extrapolation to the nth degree. They assisted in the design process, as is readily acknowledged by everyone from the beginning. Everything else has been mental masturbation and in my opinion has been a waste of time and energy.
- And Wilson was seeking and receiving M&W's advice on a variety of issues from early on in Wilson's involvement until after the course was planned.
- And Wilson appears to have been the type to seek out and follow expert advice (see the mass of agronomy letters.)
- And three weeks before M&W's second visit to Merion, Wilson and his committee spent two days at NGLA with M&W going over how they should lay out Merion East, and how the how the underlying principles of the great holes could be applied on the ground at Merion.
- And according to Alan Wilson, M&W advised Merion as to the layout of Merion East, and their advice was of the greatest help and value.
- And, according to TEPaul, on their second visit Macdonald and Whigham spent the day going over the land again and "approved" the final routing plan that would go to the board a few weeks later.
Mike
That article says that Winthrop Sargent is the chairman of the green committee and that Wilson had been chairman for many years. Sargent became the chairman at the end of 1914. Based on that it sounds like Wilson was chairman at the old course?
IMO it would be simpler to mark the samples A, B, C, D etc than to describe each as 1st green or 12th fairway (A) 100 yards short of green or 17th green or 12th fairway (B) 75 yards from the tee 10 yards off of the right of fairway or 7th fairway.
Tom,
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
I've never exchanged any words with you in the past and with that remark, I will continue that way.
David M. at least allows that I am entitled to an opinion.
David,
Thank you for the well thougt out response. I am satisfied that the following part of your reply is fairly well accurate:
- And Wilson was seeking and receiving M&W's advice on a variety of issues from early on in Wilson's involvement until after the course was planned.
- And Wilson appears to have been the type to seek out and follow expert advice (see the mass of agronomy letters.)
- And three weeks before M&W's second visit to Merion, Wilson and his committee spent two days at NGLA with M&W going over how they should lay out Merion East, and how the how the underlying principles of the great holes could be applied on the ground at Merion.
- And according to Alan Wilson, M&W advised Merion as to the layout of Merion East, and their advice was of the greatest help and value.
- And, according to TEPaul, on their second visit Macdonald and Whigham spent the day going over the land again and "approved" the final routing plan that would go to the board a few weeks later.
Accepting all of that as correct, I still am not inclined to take the "credit" away from Wilson. I am not so sure Tom Paul would disagree with your conclusions. He has told me that McDonald was always recognized as having a substantial participation in the "design" of Merion East. I think this has gotten to the point of argument for argument's sake
David,
But you most assuredly ARE trying to take credit away from Hugh Wilson.
You are trying to take away credit for routing the golf course and for the design of the holes. That is basically the thesis statement of your essay, and you seem very willing to give that credit to ANYONE but Wilson, to the point of absurdly that two men who served under Wilson on his committee deserve some credit while he does not.
You're simply trying to find evidence to support your thesis and summarily discounting or ignoring everything else.
Please don't tell us you're some objective observer just looking to find out what happened.
You're an advocate for a previously conceived position and a very clever one at that.
Careful, David...
I seem to be the last remaining link to the information you seem to want so badly.
I think you'll miss me when I'm gone.
All I am trying to do is figure out who did what. Wilson did a lot for Merion and golf in general, and he very much deserves credit for his role. He was involved in the planning process, he laid the course on the ground, he grew the grass, he modified the course, he went abroad to get ideas for the finishing touches, he incorporated them into the course, he rebuilt three greens because of drainage problems, he added the white sand, he regrassed a large area south of ardmore and on and on. IN FACT, AS FAR AS I KNOW, HE WAS IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING FROM THE TIME THE COURSE WAS FIRST BUILT UNTIL HIS UNTIMELY DEATH, AND MAYBE EVEN AFTER, SINCE THEY MAY MADE CHANGES THAT HE HAD INITIATED!.
David -- If this is your stance, what is it you are trying to find out about Macdonald? Back on like page 48 of this fiasco, I think I posted something to the effect that I thought it was fair to say that he helped in sight selection, found some better golf course land for the fine folks at Merion and, ultimately, when Merion thought they had a decent routing he approved. Is there more to this than that? And, if you've laid it out before and I've lost it, I apologize for not seeing it.
Part of me thinks there is NO WAY that if C.B. Macdonald routed Merion he wouldn't have let the whole world know about it.
DavidDavid,
Thank you for the well thought out response. I am satisfied that the following part of your reply is fairly well accurate:
- And Wilson was seeking and receiving M&W's advice on a variety of issues from early on in Wilson's involvement until after the course was planned.
- And Wilson appears to have been the type to seek out and follow expert advice (see the mass of agronomy letters.)
- And three weeks before M&W's second visit to Merion, Wilson and his committee spent two days at NGLA with M&W going over how they should lay out Merion East, and how the how the underlying principles of the great holes could be applied on the ground at Merion.
- And according to Alan Wilson, M&W advised Merion as to the layout of Merion East, and their advice was of the greatest help and value.
- And, according to TEPaul, on their second visit Macdonald and Whigham spent the day going over the land again and "approved" the final routing plan that would go to the board a few weeks later.
I appreciate you acknowledging those points as accurate. Those points alone establish way more involvement by M&W than modern Merion has credited to M&W, but let's set that aside for now. I am curous where I fell short on the rest of them. I was trying to avoid speculative leaps but perhaps I failed or perhaps you are just are not familiar with all of the information (who could be with this morass.)
Here are the points you did not accept, with my explanation of the sources.
- M&W visited the site at least twice, not just once. Not seriously disputed. He came once in June 1910 and again in March 1911.
- And according to Robert Lesley, after M&W's first visit, Merion's site committee recommended the purchase of the golf course land based largely on M&W's advice. This is directly from the July 1, 1910 Site Committee report to the Bd. (I think Lelsey used the word "opinions" instead of "advice."
- And Merion even added acreage they were apparently not previously considering based on M&W's advice.
- And when Merion announced that experts were at work on the plans (either late December 1910 or early January 1911) Wilson was by no means an expert, and had only just been appointed to the Construction Committee if he had been appointed yet at all. The date is based on a early January newspaper article that cribbed heavily on this announcement. And Hugh Wilson himself acknowledges he knew no more than the average club member.
- And in the two Board Meetings about which we have information, M&W's opinions were presented and the board apparently acted on their advice. Again, based on what we know about the Bd. meetings, where M&W's opinions were presented to the board.
- And I have seen no direct evidence indicating that Hugh Wilson was even mentioned in Merion's board meetings about the land or the final routing plan, nor is their any direct evidence that Merion ever chose him to plan the course. Again, based on what we know about the Bd. meetings, where M&W's opinions were presented to the board.
- And Wilson attempted to build holes that are synonomous with CBM designs even though he had never seen the holes on which CBM's holes were modeled. Lots of sources, including Wilson, Lesley, Tillinghast, Findlay, and local news accounts before and after the opening.
- And Whigham, who was there, included Merion in a list of famous courses designed by CBM. See Bahto's book.QuoteAccepting all of that as correct, I still am not inclined to take the "credit" away from Wilson. I am not so sure Tom Paul would disagree with your conclusions. He has told me that McDonald was always recognized as having a substantial participation in the "design" of Merion East. I think this has gotten to the point of argument for argument's sake
I am not inclined to take credit away from Wilson either. I am just trying figure out what happened. But what TEPaul has been saying latety, about Merion always acknowledging, all of this? Demonstrably false.
_____________________________________________
Mike Cirba,
No matter how many times you post those articles, they still will not establish what you think they establish.
By the way, how's your time away from posting on this thread working out for you?
Did Wayne get back to you in answer to my questions based on the 1928 deed he provided you to post?
. . .David
Here are the points you did not accept, with my explanation of the sources.
- M&W visited the site at least twice, not just once. Not seriously disputed. He came once in June 1910 and again in March 1911.
- And according to Robert Lesley, after M&W's first visit, Merion's site committee recommended the purchase of the golf course land based largely on M&W's advice. This is directly from the July 1, 1910 Site Committee report to the Bd. (I think Lelsey used the word "opinions" instead of "advice."
- And Merion even added acreage they were apparently not previously considering based on M&W's advice.
- And when Merion announced that experts were at work on the plans (either late December 1910 or early January 1911) Wilson was by no means an expert, and had only just been appointed to the Construction Committee if he had been appointed yet at all. The date is based on a early January newspaper article that cribbed heavily on this announcement. And Hugh Wilson himself acknowledges he knew no more than the average club member.
- And in the two Board Meetings about which we have information, M&W's opinions were presented and the board apparently acted on their advice. Again, based on what we know about the Bd. meetings, where M&W's opinions were presented to the board.
- And I have seen no direct evidence indicating that Hugh Wilson was even mentioned in Merion's board meetings about the land or the final routing plan, nor is their any direct evidence that Merion ever chose him to plan the course. Again, based on what we know about the Bd. meetings, where M&W's opinions were presented to the board.
- And Wilson attempted to build holes that are synonomous with CBM designs even though he had never seen the holes on which CBM's holes were modeled. Lots of sources, including Wilson, Lesley, Tillinghast, Findlay, and local news accounts before and after the opening.
- And Whigham, who was there, included Merion in a list of famous courses designed by CBM. See Bahto's book.QuoteAccepting all of that as correct, I still am not inclined to take the "credit" away from Wilson. I am not so sure Tom Paul would disagree with your conclusions. He has told me that McDonald was always recognized as having a substantial participation in the "design" of Merion East. I think this has gotten to the point of argument for argument's sake
I am not inclined to take credit away from Wilson either. I am just trying figure out what happened. But what TEPaul has been saying latety, about Merion always acknowledging, all of this? Demonstrably false.
_____________________________________________
. . .
Please understand that it is not that I don't accept them. What I quoted is what I see as the real crux of your position. I don't put as much weight on alot of that other material as you do. Largely because of inadequate sources. I don't give the newspaper articles much credence at all. I have spent alot of my life in the fact finding business, so my conclusions are reached from my past experience, as are everyone's. It's just my belief formed after careful review of the facts. I do think it is very possible that some of Barker's plan was used. To date that is the only "plan" anyone has ever really acknowledged.
PS-If this response seems to ramble, it's because I am having a very difficult time with my screen. I can't see what I'm typing when a post gets long. Is anyone else having this problem. The screen jumps all around
David,
Again, what tasks specifically do you think Wilson did to "lay out the course on the ground"?
I'm asking because I think you know for certain that no one would have given him contemporaneous credit, much yet state that he "deserves the congratulations of all golfers" as Tillinghast said after the course opened if it was simply constructing the course to someone else's plans. Why would he be called "the genius behind the course at Merion" if he was simply following instructions?
Besides, we know Fred Pickering was the construction foreman.Not in January 1911 he wasn't.
What do you think Hugh Wilson did specifically between January 1911 and September 1912 that . . .
. . . he garnered such laurels and sterling reputation that Robert Lesley, Clarence Geist, Ellis Gimbel and Franklin Meehan immediately sought his expertise for design and construction purposes immediately after the opening of Merion East?
- The announcement that experts are at work planning the course was not from a newspaper article but from Merion's board which also announced the purchase had been completed, and was part of the material I got from the Sayre's scrapbooks. The announcement was not dated, but the newspaper article (I think Jan 6, 1911) heavily cribbed on this announcement, and was therefore used to determine the outside date of the article.
- The announcement that experts are at work planning the course was not from a newspaper article but from Merion's board which also announced the purchase had been completed, and was part of the material I got from the Sayre's scrapbooks. The announcement was not dated, but the newspaper article (I think Jan 6, 1911) heavily cribbed on this announcement, and was therefore used to determine the outside date of the article.
And do we not know that the deed proves otherwise. As I recall HDC still held title to the property in January 1911.
- The announcement that experts are at work planning the course was not from a newspaper article but from Merion's board which also announced the purchase had been completed, and was part of the material I got from the Sayre's scrapbooks. The announcement was not dated, but the newspaper article (I think Jan 6, 1911) heavily cribbed on this announcement, and was therefore used to determine the outside date of the article.
And do we not know that the deed proves otherwise. As I recall HDC still held title to the property in January 1911.
David - from your timeline in post #2615 you only missed one thing, I think. This from Bryan's timeline:Peter, Interesting editing. Here is what it says if you go a bit further . . .
(as of the second week of Mar. 1911)
“Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses...."
Don't want to start the Phil argument again, but to me the reference there to clearly to one and the same committee, Hugh Wilson's committee; the same committee that "desires to report..." is the one that then "went down to the National..."
Peter
John,
Lloyd, personally, owned the property in January 1911, not HDC.
Tom.
Virtually all of those tasks need to be done on the punch list of every new golf course project. Also, do you really believe Wilson, Lloud, Griscom, et al did this work themselves?? As David mentioned, he didn't even send the soil samples; he had someone else do it.
The letters show Wilson was directly involved in every one of the tasks, not just directly involved, it appears he took direct repsonsibility. I have not seen any evidence that Griscom, Lloyd, et. al. did anything.
To claim that administering these mundane tasks was responsible for his immediate fame, acclaim, and assignment on huge architectural projects like Seaview by financial titans like Geist immediately following the opening of Merion East.
Immediate fame? Please explain. In his letter to Oakley Wilson said he was called in at Seaview because the locals Geist had hired were making a mess of it. Do you know what the story is there?
That's why I asked David to explain to us precisely what was involved in his tortured definition of "laying out the course" on the ground and I still have no idea what the hell he's talking about. We know Lloyd and Wilson weren't out there with a shovel and bucket, we know they brought in Pickering as construction foreman...perhaps you can tell us what you think laying out the course involved in terms of things Wilson and crew actually did.
In your research have you ever come across the double meaning of the term 'laying out'? It often refers to the process of routing a course, but it also can refer to the pocess of building a golf course.
So far, all I see from DM4 account is picking seed, deciding how much manure and lime the men should spread, and following Macdonald's orders, although about what he's never clear.
I also find it peculiar that all he writes about to and for an agronomic expert is agronomy...that to me is clear prrof he had no design role.
Didn't Wilson write in 1916 account that Macdonald taught him the proper priniples of how to buid those famous replica holes?
Maybe there is more to this new definition of laying out a course in David's New English Dictionary than I'm understanding. Since you seem to be on the same page with this new dialect perhapa you can help me translate. ;)
What precisely did Wilson and Co do "on the ground"?
It appears to me he oversaw construction and made all the decisions relating to the constuction of the course.
Do you know if Wilson was working a day job at the time?
Was Wilson the club champion at MCC?
Wasn't Wilson a partner in an insurance business with his brother Alan?
Another question....Does anyone know whether MacDonald and/or Whigam attended the 1916 U. S. Am?
Was Wilson the club champion at MCC?
Was Wilson the club champion at MCC?
John
I'm sure somebody else can tell us that, as it is a matter of fact.
What is known is that he was was a leading collegiate golfer at Princeton around the turn of the century and chosen as one of 12 elite golfers for the Philadelphia team which played the New York team in 1903. Perrin and Tillinghast were on his side and Macdonald and Emmet on the other. In the NYT article on the event Wilson was singled out for praise.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9904E4D71439E433A25752C0A9679D946297D6CF&scp=2&sq=%22H.+I.+Wilson%22+golf&st=p
It appears that he didn't play that much from 1903-1911, posssible due to having to build a career and help raise and support a family while in his 20's. Whatever, from the written record, he was a seriously good golfer.
Rich
I had mentioned that Wilson was very active in sports in college in a previous thread. Here is what I base that upon (from the December 19, 1900 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer).
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/2524562960_a8361b51ac_o.jpg)
I did not know that Hugh Wilson was a member at Philly CC before Merion (or perhaps he belonged to both). These scores are from the May 8, 1898 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2204/2523775301_4acf0e52e7_o.jpg)
And from the May 18, 1901 Philadelphia Inquirer is this little snippet, buried at the very bottom of the sports page:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2386/2524707702_33dd797c9f_o.jpg)
I'm assuming this means he was captain during his senior year.
I've done a more comprehensive search for Hugh Wilson in the database of early Philadelphia Inquirer issues I have access to. I essentially searched for "H I Wilson" or "Hugh Wilson" or "Hugh I Wilson" from 1890 to 1922. Sorting through the many hits I think this is a reasonably complete list of stories where he is mentioned, but I'm sure I missed a few or more. In chronological order:
1. March 1, 1896: youngster at a dinner party (in the 'This Week in Society' article)
2. July 26, 1896: family makes trip to the Adirondacks
3. May 9, 1897: GAP match for Belmont team
4. Dec 4, 1897: GAP tourney
5. Dec 5, 1897: match at Philly CC
6. Mar 6, 1898: story calls him 'king' golfer at Belmont and that he doesn't play when the weather gets cold.
7. May 8, 1898: interclub match playing for Philly CC
8. June 1, 1898: usher at a wedding.
9. Dec 31, 1899: at a 'subscription dance' (?); Mary Warren in attendance too.
10. July 29, 1900: at an 'enchre party' (?) in Spring Lake, NJ
11. Dec 19, 1900: appointed manager of P'ton FR baseball team
12. May 18, 1901: named captain of golf team
13. June 26, 1901: leaves to visit Silver City, NM (I think this is where little mentioned brother Wayne lives).
14. May 11, 1902: NCAA match at Garden City
15. June 14, 1903: better ball tourney
16. oops, I skipped a number!
17. Sept 27, 1903: GAP qualifier
18. Nov 4, 1903: wins Election Day Trophy tourney at St Davids
19. May 8, 1904: interclub match
20. May 26, 1904: Stevenson Cup qualifier (playing for Merion)
21. May 28, 1905: GAP match at HVCC (for Merion)
22. June 4, 1905: GAP match vs Mt. Airy
23. May 24 and July 1, 1906: tourneys at Merion
24. Jan 17, 1907: squash tourney
25. Jan 24, 1907: squash tourney
26. April 21, 1907: named to play in 4/27/07 Chevy Chase match
27. June 29, 1907: a "Hugh Wilson" is listed on a boat to Glasgow.
28. February 12, 1908: squash tourney
29. May 3, 1908: intercity match vs Washington
30. Jan 17, 1909: squash tourney.
31. Feb 16, 1909: squash tourney (defaulted match)
32. March 18, 1909: Princeton Club dinner.
33. Dec 1, 1911: at the Radnor Horse Show (Robert Leslie there too)
34. Sept 12, 1912: tourney invite for 9/27 and 9/28
35. Apr 10, 1913: Cobb's stuff.
36. Apr 25, 1913: Cobb's stuff.
37. June 23, 1913: Philly Cup competition
38. June 24, 1913: upcoming GAP tourney
39. July 5, 1913: GAP match
40. July 6, 1913: GAP match
41. Sept 20, 1913: Lesley Cup qualifier invite.
42. Dec 31, 1913: caddy dinner story at Merion.
43. Nov 4, 1914: Joe Bunker article.
44. Jan 24, 1915: Joe Bunker Cobb's story.
45. March 17, 1915: Joe Bunker article.
46. Apr 9, 1915: 4-ball match w/ Ouimet at Seaview
47. Jan 9, 1916: Joe Bunker Cobb's article.
48. Apr 23, 1916: Joe Bunker article that includes recent changes to Merion for upcoming National Amateur tourney.
49. Jan 14, 1917: Billy Bunker article
50. Mar 11, 1917: his work on two holes at Philmont
51. April 15, 1917: mentioned in part of PV story
52. Apr 22, 1917: Billy Bunker article.
53. Apr 21, 1919: mentioned "In a Social Way" article
54. Dec 21, 1919: part of "Clubs and Clubmen" article where he is mentioned finishing PV
55. Jan 8, 1920: elected to exec comm of USGA
56. Jan 10, 1920: same as above
57. Jan 18, 1920: same as above
58. Feb 8, 1920: trip to Atlantic City
59. Nov 13, 1920: mentioned "In a Social Way" article
60. Nov 4, 1920: again USGA comm mention
61. Dec 1, 1920: sold house in Bryn Mawr
62. Dec 5, 1920: dance invitation at Merion CC
63. Aug 2, 1921: trip to NY
64: Oct 31, 1921: guest at H'ween dance.
65. Mar 3, 1922: searching for more golf course sites for the city
Here's an April 9, 1915 Philadelphia Inquirer report of the match involving Ouimet, Reid, Geist, and Hugh Wilson:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/3150301548_bc2bfabf8f_o.jpg)
Mike, we need to check out the Philadelphia Record, Philadelphia Press, the Evening Public Ledger, etc in late 1914 and early 1915 for stuff about Seaview. Another gathering at the Free Library is in order!
Tom,
If Macdonald and Whigham designed the course in a day's visit in June 1910, which is the only day they were onsite prior to the day the final routing was decided 10 months later as David contends,
or HH Barker routed the course in June 1910 in a single day as you contend, now that we know Cuyler referred to a golf course in Nov 1910, so according to your prior logic there must have been a golf course by then, and not after December 1st when Barker left to go to Atlanta,
and we also know I was able to whup both their butts by creating a routing on the Johnson Farm in 2 hours flat, ;)
Than, I'm not sure how Wilson having a day job precluded his designing the course with his committee, particularly with having the benefit of M+Ws advice.
What could it take a novice...2 days? :P ;D
Cuyler's referred to a golf course in November 1910? What did he say?
Cuyler's referred to a golf course in November 1910? What did he say?
Tom,
What is referred to as the "Cuyler letter" where he writes to President Evans recommending that HG Lloyd take title of the HDC Land to be able to easily shift boundaries since there was no definite course (Lloyd would subsequently buy the entire 161 acres of 140 Johnson Farm and 21 Dallas Estate) appeared in the December MCC Minutes, transcribed into the record.
It is dated November 27, 1910.
I mentioned this the other day.
| When | What | Source | ||
| Mar. 15, 1907 | Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company (PALCO) incorporated. | Pennsylvania Department of State | ||
| Feb. 21, 1907 | Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co. (PALCO) acquire the Johnson Farm from Gebhard Fecht for $48,000. This is the beginning of the assembly of the 338 acre HDC development. | Deed | ||
| Jun. 14, 1909 | Haverford Development Company (HDC) was incorporated with $100,000 par value. Subscribers: J. E. Tatnall (68 shares) J. R. Connell (66 shares) E. W. Nicholson (66 shares) | Pennsylvania Department of State | ||
| June 24, 1909 | Haverford Development Company (HDC) acquires 67 acre Connor Estate from Land Title and Trust Company. | Deed | ||
| Jun. 10, 1910 | Sometime before June 10, Joseph Connell, on his own account, retains H. H. Barker to inspect the Haverford property, sketch the property and provide a rough lay-out of a course. On June 10, 1910, Barker inspected the property and submitted a letter, sketch of the property and lay-out of the course to Connell. | A transcription of Barker’s letter to Connell is included in report by MCC golf site search committee to the Board | ||
| Jun. 29, 1910 | Sometime before June 29, Griscom invites Macdonald and Whigham to come over from New York to give the benefit of their experience. On June 29, Macdonald writes to Lloyd giving his view of the merits and issues with the property and his ideas on a 6,000 yard course. | Report by MCC golf site search committee to the Board and Macdonald letter | ||
| Jul. 1, 1910 | The MCC Site Committee reports to the Board that its attention has been called to an approximately 300 acre tract, half owned and half optioned by a Syndicate represented by Joseph Connell, that they considered for the golf course. (At this time, the Syndicate through PALCO and HDC own the Johnson Farm and the Connor Estate respectively, totalling 207 acres. The remaining properties that comprise the 338 acre HDC development, are the Dallas Estate, the Davis Estate and the Taylor estate, totalling 135 acres. There is no information yet available about which of these properties were optioned at that time. Clearly the half owned vs half optioned statement appears to be incorrect.)[/color) | Site Committee report to the Board | ||
| Jul. 1, 1910 | The site committee reported that Connell had offered (presumably some time before July 1) 100 acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the course for $825 an acre. The 100 acres would cost $82,500. | Site Committee report to the Board | ||
| Jul. 1, 1910 | The site committee further notes that they think it is probable that nearly 120 acres would be required for Merion’s purposes and that if it could be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, it would be a wise purchase. | Site Committee report to the Board | ||
| Jul. to Nov. 1910 | Merion and HDC negotiate the land deal for the golf course | Inferred from the original offer in July and the securing of 117 acres in November. | ||
| Oct. 31, 1910 | Rothwell buys the Dallas Estate from the executors of the late David Dallas’ will, for $21,020. | Deed | ||
| Nov. 9, 1910 | Rothwell sells the Dallas Estate to HDC for $1 and subject to a mortgage of $14,020. | Deed | ||
| Nov. 9, 1910 | Haverford Development Company sells two parcels totalling 4 acres of the Connor Estate back to the Land Title and Trust Company for $25,000. | Deed | ||
| Nov. 15, 1910 | Lloyd solicits MCC members to buy HDC stock up to $150,000 to enable purchase and development of a 338 acre tract. He describes the 338 acres as being comprised of 5 tracts and says the will be acquired in the future. The 5 tracts are: Johnson Farm 140 137/1000 ac. Dallas Estate 21 ac. Taylor Estate 56 ac. Davis Estate 58 ac. Connor Estate 63 ac. (north of College, 67 ac. in 1908, but two plots totalling 4 ac. sold to Land Title and Trust Co. on November 9, 1910) Total 338 137/1000 ac. In this time frame, PALCO owns the Johnson Farm and HDC owns the Connor Estate, while the Dallas Estate has just been purchased a couple of weeks before by HDC. The Taylor Estate and Davis Estate appear to have been under option. | Lloyd letter to MCC members. | ||
| Nov. 15, 1910 | Some time before November 15, MCC secures 117 acres at $726.50 an acre, or $85,000 for the golf course and reports it to the membership on November 15. In his 1916 essay in P&O’s book, Wilson says that MCC purchased 125 acres of land | Allen Evans letter to the MCC members. | ||
| Nov. 15, 1910 | In Evans letter, it is stated that a plan of the property is attached showing the 117 acre Golf Course property. (But, the plan of property shows a Golf Course property that measures out to 122 acres, not 117.) | Allen Evans letter to the MCC members. | ||
| Nov. 15, 1910 | Contemporaneously with securing the 117 acres for the golf course Lloyd also reportedly secures an option on an additional 13 acres bringing the total for the golf course to 130 acres. | Two newspaper stories from January 1911. | ||
| November 15, 1910 | In the letter from Allen Evans to MCC members, attached to the Lloyd letter referred to above, of the same date, it is noted that the $85,000 price is a good deal made possible by the action of certain members of the Club, who, with others, not members of the Club, have acquired (which contradicts the attached letter, which says they will acquire) a tract of 338 acres, under the name of Haverford Development Co. This property adjoins the grounds of Haverford College, between College Avenue and Ardmore Avenue, directly on the Philadelphia and Western Railway, with a station at either end of the property - a plan of the property is enclosed. | President Allen Evan's November 15,1910 letter to the membership | ||
| Nov. 1910 | Tom P. reports that there was an exchange of letters between Nickelson of the HDC and president Evans of MCC optioning the 117 acres for the MCC golf course. | Tom Paul’s report of letters between Nickelson of the HDC and president Evans of MCC | ||
| Nov. 27, 1910 | Tom P. reports that there was a letter sent from Cuylers to Lloyd suggesting he take the 161 acres of the the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate into his own name to make it esier ti adjust boundaries. | Tom Paul’s report of a letter from Cuylers to Lloyd | ||
| 3rd week of Dec. 1910 | Cuylers gets the MCC Golf Association Company set up with officers, with a certain amount of stock and registered. | NA | ||
| Dec. 16, 1910 | 161 acres comprised of the Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate was transferred from HDC to a man by the name of Rothwell for $1.00. | Reflected in a deed dated Dec. 16, 1910. | ||
| Dec. 19, 1910 | Three days later Rothwell transferred the 161 acre property to Lloyd. | Reflected in a deed dated Dec. 19, 1910 | ||
| Still under debate | The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee. | Francis reminisces in 1950 US Open Program | ||
| Jan. 6, 1911 | HDC acquires the 56 acre Taylor Estate | Inferred from Deed | ||
| Jan. 11, 1911 or there about | Wilson appointed to chairmanship of the Construction Committee and they hold their first meeting of January 11, 1911. | Tom Paul reports from MCC minutes | ||
| Feb. 1, 1911 | Wilson writes to Piper stating that MCC have purchased 117 acres of land. He also states that he has sent a "contour map", under separate cover, to Piper | Wilson/Oakley letters | ||
| Feb. 2, 1911 | Haverford Development Company acquires 58.097 acre Davis Estate from J. Lewis and Carrie Davis. | Deed | ||
| Second Week of Mar. 1911 | “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......" "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. | MCC Minutes, April 19, 1911 | ||
| Apr. 6, 1911 | On April 6th, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day… “ | MCC Minutes, April 19, 1911 | ||
| Early April 1911 | Wilson writes to Oakley that they are beginning to plough and do rough work on the course. | Wilson/Oakley letters | ||
| Apr. 19,1911 | Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.………….. and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500 ( we have always referred to as the P&W railroad property …….. but the club wouldn't actually buy that land from the P&W Railroad ……. until over a half century later) | Thompson's board resolution | ||
| July 1911 | Golf House Road is completed. | Inferred from Deed | ||
| July 19, 1911 | HDC reacquires from Lloyd, the 41 acres of the Johnson Farm left after MCCGA took their 99 acre part. | Inferred from Deed | ||
| Jul. 19, 1911 | Lloyd transferred 120.01 acres of his 161 acre Dec. 21, 1910 deed back to Rothwell who transferred it to the MCC Golf Association Company the same day. The purchase is encumbered with a mortgage of $85,000. | July 21, 1911 deed | ||
Was Wilson a good enough golfer that he would have been considered an "expert" as you know the term was bandied about in the early days of golf in this country?
As you know, Merion reported in January 1911 that "experts" were at work preparing plans for the new course.
Tom MacWood,
I don't believe Tom Doak is quite the golfer Jack Nicklaus is, either. Which would you have preferred do the work at Ohio State?
Based on their resumes I would have preferred Doak. Its only when you don't have resume (like Wilson) when other factors become important. Have you studied golf architecture; are you connected with others who are golf architects or who have studied golf architecture; have you travelled abroad; are you a nationally or even locally recognized golfer; are you snappy dresser? Wilson was a snappy dresser.
Was Wilson a good enough golfer that he would have been considered an "expert" as you know the term was bandied about in the early days of golf in this country?
As you know, Merion reported in January 1911 that "experts" were at work preparing plans for the new course.
In 1911? No way.
p.s., No the letter was addressed to President Evans.
Was Wilson a good enough golfer that he would have been considered an "expert" as you know the term was bandied about in the early days of golf in this country?
As you know, Merion reported in January 1911 that "experts" were at work preparing plans for the new course.
That seems quite a stretch. I beleive it is more likely that the report was puffing a bit. Boards have been lying, covering, and misrepresenting to the mebership since Og and Nog formed the Cavemans Club
Tom,
Oh yes, there clearly were experts at work. (see above)
Honestly, you know better how the term was used and I'm surprised you'd support David's contention here.
Tom,
Oh yes, there clearly were experts at work. (see above)
Honestly, you know better how the term was used and I'm surprised you'd support David's contention here.
Perrin designed Merion?
Tom,
American Golfer was a magazine by and for golf cognescenti of the time...the GCA of the time, if you will.
To anyone else, including general correspondence to club members where most didn't play golf, or in many news accounts of the time as seen above, the top golfers were simply referred to as "experts".
I've just shown how Hugh Wilson was among the golf "experts" in the Metropolitan District in 1901.
The New York TIMES calls Hugh Wilson a GOLF EXPERT, listed right alongside CB Macdonald and Dev Emmett but we're supposed to disregard that because Tom MacWood and David Moriarty tell us what to think and what they really meant???
Are you saying that an article written in 1901 that states every golfer within 200 miles of NYC (no matter their handicap) is an expert should be our guide for an expert in 1911?
This is just like "laying out". Pure and utter nonsense.
I've also just shown where ALL of the members of the Merion Committee were among the top golfers in Philadephia the year the course opened.
1. Philadelphia wasn't exactly a hotbed of amateur golf and amateur golfers in America (see the handicaps). 2. You would have to rent a fairly large hall to hold your group of top golfers. You have a lenient criteria.
They were the golf experts, Tom.
Whatever you say.
Please don't tell us we can't read with our own eyes.
p.s. Where's H.J. Whigham?
My guess Whigham was living in Chicago in 1901, or maybe on assignment in South Africa. Wasn't he a correspondent during the Boer War?
Mike
Did Wilson have a real job at the time he building Merion?
Mike
Did Wilson have a real job at the time he building Merion?
Tom,
He was in the Insurance Business, but so was Jay Sigel for many years.
In other words, let's just say that it's my understanding that if you own an Insurance Business, which he did with brother Alan, there is plenty of time for golf.
By 1910 he had a number of servants in his household, so I'm guessing he had some wealth, free-time, and he obviously devoted it to the golf course.
Besides, why couldn't he have done a one-day routing like Barker (as you believe), or a one-day routing like Macdonald/Whigham (as David believes), or a 2-hour routing like I did?
Why would he need more time than that? ;)
Was Wilson a good enough golfer that he would have been considered an "expert" as you know the term was bandied about in the early days of golf in this country?
As you know, Merion reported in January 1911 that "experts" were at work preparing plans for the new course.
That seems quite a stretch. I beleive it is more likely that the report was puffing a bit. Boards have been lying, covering, and misrepresenting to the mebership since Og and Nog formed the Cavemans Club
David,
We'll both get to see all of the evidence including the Cuyler letters when Wayne and Tom's book is released, per my understanding.
I think they might be holding back to generate buzz.
Tim,
The comment was intended to be tongue-in-chhek funny.
Lord knows it gets dreadfully serious around these parts much too often, ;)
David,
Your making my point for me. Who today would call Jimmy Laing an expert, yet there you go!
Besides, Tom MacWood thinjs the expert was Barker.
Were there more than one of him?
Laing won a contest to design it and a fifty dollar prize.
David,
Ab Snith was responsible at HVGC for the design changes, not Laing.
John,
Lloyd, personally, owned the property in January 1911, not HDC.
Bryan, it may seem like semantics and nitpicking but I think that in time we will find out that this was not really the case, at least not in the way we usually understand the verb "to own." I agree that Lloyd technically held title at this point, but there had to have been other agreements that impacted his legal rights and obligations with regard to this property. For one example, there is the Cuyler letter, which supposedly indicated that Lloyd would hold title for HDC, indicating that he was acting on their behalf. For another example we have MCC announcing the purchase of the property, and Wilson apparently thinking that the land had already been purchased, and Wilson working the land before title transferred to MCCGA. And for what it is worth, the newspaper article above mentions that "financial difficulties" that delayed the deal. What do these unspecified fiancial difficulties have to do with title or owership?
So I am still sticking with my original position-- Lloyd was most likely acting as a bridge or Guarantor on behalf of one or both parties, and was holding the land pursuant to this role. For example he may have put up the money and held the land as collateral until HDC and MCC got their ducks in a row. Given that the Taylor option was exercised at about the same time, HDC may have needed money quickly to exercise before expiration, thus necessitating Lloyd's intervention.
I realize that this is all very speculative, but while it may sound odd I think it is also speculative to say that he "owned the property" in that the status of the land at this point is still very much unresolved. How is the status of the land unresolved? Lloyd owned it, or, he had title to it, whichever you prefer, since they mean the same thing.
I guess I am saying that I'd be more comfortable with he held title in his own name, but perhaps I should have just said that. You could have, but I'd still ask what makes you more comfortable. Holding title to land means you have ownership of it. If you are hypothesizing that there were some side deals or contracts that encumbered his ownership, then just say so. Have you ever seen any hard evidence of such side deals for the Merion property? Not inferences or speculation, but real evidence?
___________________________
...........................
David,
We'll both get to see all of the evidence including the Cuyler letters when Wayne and Tom's book is released, per my understanding.
I think they might be holding back to generate buzz.
If the length of this thread is indication of interest in the topic, it may be marketing genius on their part.
In the meantime, we can continue to speculate.
For instance, what would you think about the Francis Swap and timing of the course routing if you learned that the boundaries for the golf course had not been definitely located as of late December, 1910?
I think personally that it meant the course hadn't been routed yet and probably not even started to be routed but that's just me.
With Barker's plan in hand and their own noodling and doodlng and M&W's advice they lay out a few possibilities on paper in the fall of 1910. They figure out how to fit in the first thirteen holes, but the last five are more difficult.
What is the date and source of the article? I will see what I can find on the Catherwood estate.
For anyone who thinks the golf course was routed prior to 1911, ask yourself 1) Why Lloyd bought the whole 161 acres on Cuyler's advice in December? and 2) Where the Lawn Tennis and other amenities were supposedly going to go?
Who are 'they'? Wilson said the club appointed a committee early in 1911.
I don't know specifically who "they" were. It's a theory. But, it seems likely to me that the Merion men were doing something between July and November 1910. It could have been drawing plans on the back of napkins in the grill room. Possibly Lloyd, the site committee, Wilson, Francis .....? You don't need to formalize a committee before you actually start to work on a project.
Finally, I know TP said it here before but when we last spoke he told me that he doesn't believe any longer that Lloyd took title for HDC and had been confused by some convoluted language. . . .
. . .
Certainly one of the points of Lloyd taking the entire 140 acre Johnson Farm into his own name in 1910 plus the Dallas estate (do you deny that?) was so that the designers had some latitude with land for routing and design. Cuylers said as much in his Dec. 21, 1910 letter to president Evans (viz. "It was found advisable that the Haverford Development Co. should take title in Mr. Lloyd's name, so that the lines be revised subsequently"[/b]).
David,
Perhaps I misunderstood him; I'm telling you my understanding and I know he said the language is confusing.
In either case, your post is insulting to the both of us...Tom has not purposefully omitted or changed any info here.and after a response like that one from you I'm certainly not going to ask him for clarification.
David,
I don't speak for either Tom or Wayne. In some cases, Tom has forwarded me specific information that I've copied verbatim here attributing it to him. I've probably spoken to Wayne one time in the past two months, since a day together at Merion West. I've been busy and I know he is.
In other case, such as what I wrote about "taking title", I'm trying to reconstruct a phone conversation and it based on "my" understanding of something we talked about a few weeks ago.
I do know that he felt that whatever it specifically said is not as meaningful as the fact that Lloyd simply purchased the 161 acres himself, not representing either entity. In thinking about it, I think that's what he meant when he said that Lloyd didn't take title for HDC; not that Cuyler didn't recommend it, but instead he purchased it under his name.
I think your example of Rothwell is not a good one to compare to Lloyd. Rothwell was clearly a middle-man, holding title from 1 to 3 days at most. Lloyd had the land that became Merion for almost seven months.
I'd also like you to know that what I wrote this morning is not speculation. The boundaries for the golf course were not definitely established as late as the second part of December, 1910. It's why Lloyd purchased the whole shooting match.
Also, I'm cooking dinner right now, but let me leave you with the following;
"Robert W. Lesley, president, stated on behalf of the Committee on the Park Golf Course, that he had seen plans for an eighteen hole public golf course prepared as the result of many consultations with himself and other golf experts laid out at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park."
"...He added further that he is assured that work on the preparation of the course will be begun as soon as the weather permits in the Spring. The new links will be of championship length and character and will give Philadelphia a public golf course second to none in the United States."
- Philadelphia Press, 1/21/1915
Sound familiar?
Mike, there is something wrong with your quote. Will you please recheck it because as written it does not make sense. I copied it verbatim.
- And if not, then could you explain why you think it says that Lesley was an expert?"...himself and other golf experts." Please don't be obtuse, because it's crap and it makes you look stupid.
Nice editing . . . Here is the the quote
"Robert W. Lesley . . . stated . . . that he had seen plans for an eighteen hole public golf course prepared as the result of many consultations with himself and other golf experts laid out at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park."
Something is wrong with the quote. Read it. Robert Lesley is not being called a golf expert. The "golf experts" were apparently "laid out" at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park. Was there a Scottish cemetery there? Who laid out the course? Who planned it? Who is consulting whom?
Mike, the passage you provided is nonsense. Either you typed it wrong, or it was nonsense in the paper.
-And could you please look up the meaning of the word "verbatim" and then specifically point out the portions of the two articles that are verbatim?I was stating in answer to your question that copied it verbatim from the newspaper,and yes, I double-checked.
If this is true the quote is nonsense. Wouldn't you agree?
-And could you please tell me why you are crediting Lesley with an announcement apparently by Sayres?You don't know it was Sayres, but even if it was, Sayres, Evans, and the Board of Governors got their official info on golf at Merion from the Golf Committee, headed by Robert Lesley. But, you already know that...I am unaware of any facts indicating that Merion's board had even been made aware of Wilson and his committee by this point, much less any evidence that they referred to them as experts. Enlighten me.
-And could you please tell me why you are crediting Lesley with language in a Phil. Press aritcle by an author you don't name? Their is no byline. You can look it up in the 1/21/1915 Philadelphia Press in an article on the annual GAP January meeting, titled Townsend, Golf Secretary, Quits, and it's the third paragraph in the story. But you are not suggesting it was anyone at Merion are you?
-And, while we've always known that some of the members at Merion were good but not great club golfers, what does that have to do with whether they were experts at designing golf courses, as the term was commonly used at the time? I'm done with this subject on how "expert" was used at the time. Let's let others decide whether I've proved my point because I'm very confident that people can read.
What a cop out Mike.
You claimed there were hundreds of courses designed by clubbies who were considered experts at designing golf courses merely because they were good players. It seems that you cannot come up with a single example where this was actually the case. To make it easier on the readers, will you at least acknowledge that you have not been able to locate even a single example to support your claims?
And Mike, you missed the last part of my post. What are we supposed to have learned from the article mentioning US Amateur Champion H. Chandler Egan? Other than what the resume of a real amateur "golf expert" should look like, that is?
-Could you please explain to me what that reference to H. Chandler Egan as a "golf expert" in that context has to do with designing courses?
-And while your at it, take a look at H. Chandler Egan's golfing accomplishments by 1904, and tell me that you are seriously comparing his level of expertise in golf to Wilson, Francis, Toulmin, Lloyd, and Griscom? Or all of them combined for that matter! Let me help you . . . Start with the 1904 US Amateur Championship, and work your back through time . . . multiple Western Open Championships and Multiple NCAA Championships, an Olympic Team Championship, and an Olympic Silver Medal. And that was 1904 or BEFORE. In other words, if there ever was an amateur "golf expert" in the United States, Egan was it. Had he resided from Philadelphia we'd never hear the end of him. It is telling that you have to go all the way to H. Chandler Egan to find an example, and even there not one about design.
- And after all that, PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS! Because TEPaul's post did not.
David,
I stated that it was Tom Paul who wrote that and made it clear in the first sentence. He sent it to me a few months back, and I copied it to Word because I thought it made perfect sense.
I chose to use it because he clearly made points that I wasn't going to even try and improve on in answering your questions.
Nevertheless, since you're also avoiding my questions and back to playing word games, I can see once again our dialogue has no practical or productive purpose.
Perhaps others who are actually interested in getting to the truth like Bryan Izatt will answer how they think the Francis Land Swap happened before November 1910 if the boundaries for the golf course were not even located by the end of December 1910. :-\
David,
Tom Paul sent it to me a few months back.
So why then did you write "a few days" then change it after my response?
As far as your seeming inability to understand simple English, I honestly don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse or whether the inaccurate definition you're created in your own mind to define what "laid out" meant has corrupted your thinking to the point where nothing make sense in some bizarro revisionist history world in your head.
Let me break it down for you, and then I'm done with this nonsense.
Robert Lesley stated that he had seen plans (i.e. ON PAPER) (noun) for an eighteen hole public golf course...laid out (verb) at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park. The plans had been created as the result of many consultations with Lesley (himself) and other golf experts.
Sorry Mike, but the sentence as you presented it is nonsense, and your explanation makes even less sense. You can't just pretend the sentence says something it doesn't to fit your needs. - Lesley consulting with himself? Or is there a mystery man who had consulted with Lesley and other golf experts? And is this the same mystery man who laid out the course, because in your reading Lesley and the experts only made the plans.
Here again is the sentence:
"Robert W. Lesley, president, stated on behalf of the Committee on the Park Golf Course, that he had seen plans for an eighteen hole public golf course prepared as the result of many consultations with himself and other golf experts laid out at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park."
Can someone else tell Mike that the sentence does not seem to make any sense? He won't believe me, no matter how many times he is wrong.
And Mike, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE ARTICLE. CAN YOU POST IT? NOT YOUR TRANSCRIPT, BUT THE ARTICLE? THANKS.
I am glad though, Mike, that you now agree with me that oftentimes planning a course is different than laying it out.
It's not difficult, David. I'm confident you even have the ability to understand the wording of the MCC Minutes, despite some of the arcane phrasing.
You of all people criticizing my ability to understand this stuff? Finally, you made me laugh. Thanks.
And there was no set boundary for the golf course as of December 1910. I WILL wager you on that, even if only theoretically, as I'm uncertain in your world if we'd actually agree the sky is blue and I personally don't believe in gambling. If you are actually interested in finding out what really happened you need to accept that as fact and see where that leaves your thinking. It really isn't a bad place, but you just have to make room for both CB Macdonald AND Hugh Wilson instead of trying to diminish one to elevate another.
I'll believe there was no set boundary as soon as I see evidence of it. So far as I know, everyone at Merion thought they bought exactly 117 acres, and nothing about a flexible or indeterminate boundary. Besides if you want me to accept facts, you need to come up with facts. Verifiable facts. So far it is just you demanding we believe you based on what? TEPaul's incomplete and evolving description of a letter? I don't think so.
And, Mike, even if the boundary was not yet finalized it makes no difference. Francis still wrote what he wrote, and tweaking the boundary won't change that. I am going with my man Francis until the facts indicate otherwise.
But David, on this other crap that is simply about trying to knock Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison, and Hugh Wilson, I'm through wasting time and engaging with you on this. I'm tired of your insults and your transparent agenda. I'll be happy to discuss this topic with others genuinely interested and not mostly trying to grind personal axes, but if you insist on this narrow, single-mindedness and unwillingness to intelligently accept and discuss contrary information then I'll leave it up to you to try and convince the very few you may have left who think the whole of your theories make any sense at all.
How come every time you just cannot answer simple questions you try and cut off conversation?
1. What FACTS back up your claim that before 1910 there were hundreds of clubbies who were considered "experts" at designing golf courses just because they were good but not club golfers? Because the more I look at the FACTS, the more I can see that this was just not the case.
2. What did Hugh Wilson do to design Merion, and what verifiable facts back up whatever you think he did?
Tom has not been suspended as far as I know. The proof is quite plain for all to see. When someone is banned or suspended their name appears as “guest.” Tom Paul's does not. Isn’t that what happened to Tom Macwood? Secondly, if you look on the members list you will see thet “Tepaul” is still recognized as an active member. So Tom has simply chosen to not take part in the group. For how long only he knows. If it is for good, he will be missed just as you were when you took your sabbatical(s)
Phillip, You are mistaken. One can be suspended from posting without going "guest." I know because after some complained about my defending myself against TePaul and calling him out for blatantly doctoring extremely relevant source material, I too was suspended. I still don't understand why exactly, but I suspect that it was just the easiest way for Ran to deal with it. As far as I know TEPaul is still suspended and rightfully so.
Also, what is wrong with posting for someone if they ask? Tom Macwood asked several on here to do so for him, including me. I considered it a privilege to do so and would do it for others as well.
If you condemn Mike for doing this, and I honestly have no idea if he has or not, then you must also condemn me & others and Tom Macwood for also doing so.
First, I think that TomM was welcome here when he was having you post. Second, if you have no idea whether Mike is posting for TEPaul and Wayne, then you haven't been paying attention. Third, if TEPaul is suspended then he shouldn't be using back door avenues to post, and Mike shouldn't be facilitating it. It is Ran's site and if he doesn't want TEPaul participating, then TEPaul ought not to be.
As for the rest, this has nothing to do with AWT. We were talking about Mike's claim that hundreds of clubbies were considered experts at designing courses simply because they were good but not great club golfers. I've read dozens and dozens of articles, and have yet to find an example of a clubbie being called an "expert" at designing courses simply because he was a good club golfer. In fact they are almost all professionals or those with prior experience designing courses. But you substitute in the phrase "expert golfer" and change the focus to golfing ability rather than design expertise, but that is not what design expertise referred to. Merion's committee did not write about "expert golfers" or "good club golfers." Rather they wrote about "experts at work planning the course." In my experience this meant either professionals or those who had golf design experience.
In short Phillip, I don't know why you are trying to make this about AWT, but I have no opinion on his ability as a golfer, and don't recall expressing one. You have written that by 1910 he was designing courses professionally by 1910, so I imagine one would consider him an expert at designing courses if not by then, then soon after. But again it is not my issue.
It doesn't matter who you, Mike, Tom MacWood, or I thought were expert golfers. My concern is with how those there then referred to those who designed the courses, and in that context the design "experts" were either professionals or experienced.
DM thinks there have to be even more letters like the Oakley ones that Wilson wrote back and forth that have been lost to history, but even if CBM only did what the record shows, DM thinks that CBM should be credited with more attribution than he has gotten. There is probably a case to be made for that, but MCC has the final say, even if more clarity comes out on this.
Tom MacWood's theory on Barker makes close to zero sense, based on the actuall written record and probably shouldn't be seriously debated, at least until he comes up with some corroboration on his one newspaper article.
I have suggested to TePaul that he spend some money having college students track down the Oakley file in Washington, and also look into other sources around Philly - ie. Pugh and Hubbard Surveyors, HDC descendants, etc. It seems pretty clear that no new documents will show up in the MCC files so the task should be to look elsewhere.
David,
I don't speak for either Tom or Wayne. In some cases, Tom has forwarded me specific information that I've copied verbatim here attributing it to him. I've probably spoken to Wayne one time in the past two months, since a day together at Merion West. I've been busy and I know he is.
Of course you speak for them. Almost on a daily basis. Whether based on emails from them or direct conversations, you are repeatedly relaying what they want you to. If you ask me, the whole thing is a bit disrespectful to Ran since TEPaul is not currently a welcome participant on these boards, is he? But then you've created the impression that TEPaul is absent by his own choice, so maybe he has mislead you into thinking that this is the case.QuoteIn other case, such as what I wrote about "taking title", I'm trying to reconstruct a phone conversation and it based on "my" understanding of something we talked about a few weeks ago.
I do know that he felt that whatever it specifically said is not as meaningful as the fact that Lloyd simply purchased the 161 acres himself, not representing either entity. In thinking about it, I think that's what he meant when he said that Lloyd didn't take title for HDC; not that Cuyler didn't recommend it, but instead he purchased it under his name.
This is a new story on your part Mike. You said it was because of confusing language, and then said again that you know TEPaul said the language was confusing. But now you are saying that it wasn't a misunderstanding based on confusing language but that TEPaul just changes his mind?? Which is it?QuoteI think your example of Rothwell is not a good one to compare to Lloyd. Rothwell was clearly a middle-man, holding title from 1 to 3 days at most. Lloyd had the land that became Merion for almost seven months.
Thanks for your opinion, but how long they each respectively held title is irrelevant since IMO both of them were limited on what they could do with it because of their duties and obligations to the real interested parties, HDC and MCC. In other words, as I have been saying all along, Lloyd played the role of a bridge, middleman, or guarantor, in order to expedite the deal. At least that is what the facts as I understand them indicate.QuoteI'd also like you to know that what I wrote this morning is not speculation. The boundaries for the golf course were not definitely established as late as the second part of December, 1910. It's why Lloyd purchased the whole shooting match.
I wish you were joking Mike, but I am sure you are not.
MIKE, YOU HAVE JUST CLAIMED THAT THE SUPPOSED SENTENCE FROM THE CUYLER LETTER DOES NOT SAY AND/OR MEAN WHAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN TOLD. YOU CAN'T NOW DRAW A CONCLUSION FROM THE VERY SAME SUPPOSED SENTENCE AND CLAIM YOUR CONCLUSION IS NOT SPECULATIVE.
I feel for you Mike. These guys have so manipulated the record that you apparently cannot even keep track, and are claiming the same information is both true and false in the very same post. It is really unfair of TEPaul to leave you to try and keep track of all his deception.
QuoteAlso, I'm cooking dinner right now, but let me leave you with the following;
"Robert W. Lesley, president, stated on behalf of the Committee on the Park Golf Course, that he had seen plans for an eighteen hole public golf course prepared as the result of many consultations with himself and other golf experts laid out at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park."
"...He added further that he is assured that work on the preparation of the course will be begun as soon as the weather permits in the Spring. The new links will be of championship length and character and will give Philadelphia a public golf course second to none in the United States."
- Philadelphia Press, 1/21/1915
The quote doesn't quite make sense as you have it written. Do you mind rechecking it?
Did you notice that quote is treating "had plans created" and "laid out" were different processes?
Surely you are not making anything out of the reference to unidentified experts are you? If so could you show me the portion of this article where these experts are clearly identified? And please don't tell me that because you think you otherwise know who these experts were, that this is definitely to whom the article applies.QuoteSound familiar?
No, not really.
My questions, Mike?
David
Get off your soap box. Either prove that Mike is a talk piece for T Paul or stop making unfounded allegations. Alright, your language is better than T Paul's, but your intent is the same - an attempt to debase someone. Many on this site have pleaded for restraint and things have gotten better, but for some reason you feel the need to bait others. Does this somehow make you feel better?
Ciao
May, 1913
At this time, Merion East had just opened and Merion West was just being designed. According to revisionist history, Hugh Wilson did not yet have design experience, at least not that anyone in the press would have known of.
As a separate question, the article below that you refer to, says in the last line that the new links adjoin the McFadden and Catherwood Estates. McFadden I can place. All the deeds start at the corner of that property up at the end of the Francis triangle. But the Catherwood Estate, I can't place. Anybody got any ideas on where it was?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/ExpertsatWork.jpg?t=1247201482)
The D.B.C. Catherwood estate was across College Ave from the McFadden estate. It was probably 15-20 acres that was part of the 63 acres HDC developed above College Ave.
I don't know specifically who "they" were. It's a theory. But, it seems likely to me that the Merion men were doing something between July and November 1910. It could have been drawing plans on the back of napkins in the grill room. Possibly Lloyd, the site committee, Wilson, Francis .....? You don't need to formalize a committee before you actually start to work on a project.
Bryan
What evidence leads you to believe the "Merion men" were doing something between July and November? In order for a theory to be plausible shouldn't there be at least a few facts.
Bryan,
Maybe an example would help? At various points in time Rothwell apparently held title to just about all the property we are discussing. But it would be a mistake and overly simplistic to say that he ever really owned the property, because he was obligated -- by agreements we have not seen -- to pass the title and money on to the various real owners. I think Lloyd was in a somewhat similar position; effectively holding title for the real parties and severely constrained in what he could and couldn't do with the property, and obligated by agreements that we don't yet have to pass the title along to the real parties as soon as certain obligations were met.
I have a lot of trouble with comparing Rothwell with Lloyd. Rothwell was a clerk from Philadelphia. Lloyd was one of, if not the biggest money man for both HDC and MCC. I see no way to compare who they were and where they were coming from vis-a-vis these transactions. You can believe that the agreements that obligated Lloyd's conduct just haven't been discovered yet. I'm not sure I believe that they exist. I think that they probably did these deals based on gentleman's agreements. Since Lloyd was playing both sides of the fence in the transaction, I guess he was only asking himself to trust himself to protect the interests of both HDC and MCC.
Because while title evidences ownership, the agreements between the parties also evidences ownership in that it defines the nature and extent of the the various rights and obligations with regard to the property. Cuyler wrote that Lloyd was taking title on HDC's behalf, which should mean that while title was in his name, he was acting as an agent or representative of HDC, and that would have made HDC the owner in fact, subject to whatever deal Lloyd had made with HDC. Likewise MCC claimed that they had purchased the property and that certain members made this possible, implying that Lloyd was acting on their behalf.
I see you've already blown a gasket on Tom's retraction on this point, which, by the way he did some time ago, so I'm not going to rehash it. You are still assuming that there were agreements between the parties, but until we see them there is no point in debating whether Lloyd was constrained.
So in my layman's opinion, until we better understand the various agreements to the parties it seems overly simplistic and misleading to treat Lloyd as the actual and unencumbered owner.
If there are various agreements to understand. What you describe as simplistic and misleading here, you describe as sticking to the known facts in other circumstances. The one fact we have now is that Lloyd owned the land (or held title showing his ownership if it makes you feel better). There is no contrary evidence or facts at the moment.
_______________
I don't have the info with me regarding Catherwood, but I will look later.
___________________
Did you get a chance to look at the statements by TEPaul and Shivas regarding the term "approved?" They leave little doubt that TEPaul is claiming that the minutes say "approved" and that it is not synonymous to "liked."
Yes, I looked at them and at Mike's confirmation. I still question Tom and Mike's interpretation. What position do you think that M&W had within MCC that gave them authority to "approve".
I hate to fall back on dictionary definitions, and I really don't want to debate the merits of definitions as per the blue print debate, but I do note that there are two definitions of approve:
?▸ verb: judge to be right or commendable; think well of
▸ verb: give sanction to "
_________________________
Can you tell us where TEPaul claimed that there was a Construction Committee Meeting on January 11, 1911?
Hugh wilson did not have "design experience" in 1913? He had just effectively apprenticed under CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham, the foremost designers in America at the time, and must have had some input into the initial design of Merion. He had traveled abroad to study the great courses, and had added a number of finishing touches to Merion. Also, Merion West was already planned by this point!
By May of 1913 Hugh Wilson had design experience. However, in January 1910 he did not.
Mike
In Wilson's first letter to Piper (2/1/1911) he states Macdonald suggested he contact Piper. In later letters Wilson mentions other communications with CBM. Doesn't that suggest the two men were in communication for several months (several weeks before the overnight stay and several weeks after the one day visit)?
I would agree CBM letter clearly implies the Department of Agriculture. I don't think you can say it clealy implies P&O. I'm not sure how many people were employed by the Department, but based on Wilson's correspendence with different employees there were at least half a dozen, probably many more. I don't believe Piper and Oakley were house hold names in 1910. Were they well known?
The significance of the date of the Cuyler letter remains to be seen. At the time TEP introduced it he said the date was significant because in his opinion it indicated the Francis land swap occured later than David suggested in his essay. For weeks TEP said the letter was dated Dec 21, 1910. Now the letter is dated Nov. 27, 1910. Which really has no bearing on TEP original claim regarding the swap.
My question has less to do with the date, and more to do with why or how there could be confusion about a date on a letter. Any ideas?
By late December, there were still no boundaries located for the golf course. It wasn't a "tweak" as David suggests. The routing work hadn't begun, but would right after the holidays with the formation of the committee of what we now also know were the very best golfers in the club, sans Howard Perrin who may have begged off for any number of reasons..
Cuyler's referred to a golf course in November 1910? What did he say?
Tom,
What is referred to as the "Cuyler letter" where he writes to President Evans recommending that HG Lloyd take title of the HDC Land to be able to easily shift boundaries since there was no definite course (Lloyd would subsequently buy the entire 161 acres of 140 Johnson Farm and 21 Dallas Estate) appeared in the December MCC Minutes, transcribed into the record.
It is dated November 27, 1910.
I mentioned this the other day.
“Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the layout of the course.”
“The land was shaped like a capital “L” and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion – with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Avenue – but the last five holes were another question. “
“I was looking at a map of the property one night when I had an idea. Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr. Lloyd on the telephone, found he had not gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him. The idea was this: We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in with ANY golf layout (caps emphasis mine). Perhaps we could swap it for some good use?”
Bryan,
Good question. What's the date of the article again? It was your article. Didn't you date it January 7, 1911?
If nothing else, I think it goes to the point where there was NO determined boundary for the golf course as of December 1911, which is fact, not supposition. I don't follow how you reach this conclusion. I don't have any issue with your and Jeff's idea of no definite boundary, but that there was a working boundary.
Bryan,
Interesting above as I think more about it.
Did you note in that 1913 article I posted above where Hugh Wilson's committee folks (Clarence Geist actually) looking at land for the public course in Philly basically said they weren't going to do a layout or planning for the course until the city actually approved the land in question, as it would be a waste of time (implied). I read the article, but don't see the parrallels on this point. In that case, there were two truly arms-length entities involved - the city being one. In the Merion case the two parties were anything but arms-length. In fact Lloyd had money on both sides. I doubt there were any inhibitions about designing a course there or even blasting the top off the quarry before MCC legally owned it.
Bryan,
Sorry for the multiple posts but that article does throw a different light on the 13 acre option and related 130 acres theory, I think.
It also begs the question of why Merion would be considering land way up there if the original purchase was going to truncate at the south end of the Haverford College boundary?
What do you think?
I am still trying to figure it out. I see Jim has a theory. Are you accepting that this item, in this news story, is fact and correct? No use speculating if you're going to later deny that the statement represents a fact.
Tom M,
Macdonald suggested, in his June 1910 letter, that they contact the Washington guys. There is no reason CBM and Merion had to communicate between his original letter and their visit in March, other than to schedule the visit.
Mike,
The original 117 acres was going to truncate at the south end of Haverford College and the tennis courts were going to fill the top 10 acres...still my theory and I'm sticking to it...it's looking better all the time.
Jim,
The upper part of the Johnson Farm was 10.5 acres. The little polygon north of College between the Catherwood Estate and Turnbridge Road looks to be about 2.5 acres, making the total north of the Haverford College property line 13 acres. Interesting.
Tom,
I may have missed it in the multitude of posts on this thread or others on this topic, but where did you find the P&O letters? I guess the records there, wherever there is, were incomplete since you don't seem to have the critical contour map that was sent under separate cover at the beginning of February, 1911. Have you searched at the Dep't of Agriculture? It sure would be nice to find at least one map with a plan on it, or just one plan. Given the fact that no plan on paper has ever been found makes me wonder whether there ever was one (other than Barker's). Is it possible that they (whoever they are) designed the course via stakes in the ground?
I think CBM was clearly implying Piper and Oakley in June 1910.
I also think it is likely that CBM and the Merion Committee traded some correspondance throughout...but the Feb 1 letter does not prove it...CBM suggested it in June 1910 with his words about cutting a sod and sending it to Washington.
Mike,
What is the date of this most recent article?
-- The article also mentions the McFadden Estate which was below College.
-- The article also mentions an option having been purchased in November.
Financial difficulties were mentioned in Jan 7. 1911 Inquirer article as well.
I'd like to see a copy of the May 1913 article re: other experts. The transcription you posted still doesn't make sense. Is there a reason you post all the other actual articles but only give us a transcrption of this one?
Thanks.
No, they were out of Boston.
Yes, the 117 acre option was clearly done in November...it just seems that there was a lot of confusion and conflicting information around what happened in December when the deed expresses that Lloyd purchased 161 acres outright and news articles talk about 13 acre options, lawn tennis, 130 acre golf course, etc..
The May 1913 article was copied from a fiche reader to paper copy at the Free Lbrary when I was with Bausch. I don't think he copied it in any other form, or took a photo that day because it was only relevant to stuff on Cobb's Creek we already knew and not something fundamentally different.
I do wish you would trust that I copied it accurately, and double-checked that I did, but if it's a huge issue I'll see about getting it scanned.
Could the land deal be possibly any more complicated?
Anyone want to speculate as to the Pennsylvania Railroad's connection to all of this as the article claims they were the seller? How does HDC and/or PALCO fit in this mix?
Another article I posted prior talked about Lloyd's syndicate purchasing 338 acres; among the primary members of that syndicate was named Mr. Atterbury of the PA railroad.
David,
I have the paper reproduction from microfiche, not Joe Bausch..
Apparently Robert Lesley called a golf expert is troubling you but I think it's much more telling that Hugh Wilson is called a golf expert supposedly before any of his course designs were in play.
In any case, I had it in mind to get it scanned. After the usual insults, you can look it up yourself as I told you the newspaper, the date, and the headline.
I missed the section where we moved to First Principle Only. . .Jim,
. . . but David tell me are you saying Wilson's committee required CBM's approval in April 1911 before taking the plan to their board? In other words, if CBM were overseas for the month, do you think they would have waited until he returned before proceeding?
What perplexes me about this whole discussion is what do we have left to discuss?
2 L's Mike, or you're next...
David - re your point #5 from your second to last post: you wrote that "...they waited to proceed until M&W could teach Wilson and his Committee how to lay out the course in early to mid March...".
This I really don't understand. WHOMEVER you think was being referred to in the sentence from the minutes about "laying out many different courses on the new ground," I assume you agree that this laying out happened BEFORE the Committee went to visit Macdonald at NGLA.
I think so, but I haven't seen the source material, so I cannot tell. Can you?
I have granted the possibility that in their first visit to Merion, and then later at NGLA, Macdonald could've suggested possible locations for holes based on the principles of the great British holes (in fact, I think the minutes also say that during their visit, Macdonald spent the 2nd day walking the Committee around NGLA showing them how he'd done it there) -- but that seems to me a far cry from teaching the committee how to lay out the course, and even more so from routing an 18 hole golf course.
Really? What else is there to routing a golf course than deciding where and how the holes fit on the ground?
And, Peter I have no reason to suspect that M&W waited to start routing the course until Wilson and his committee showed up. Before January 7, 1910 Merion's Board announced to the members that experts were already at work preparing plans for a course that would rank in length, soil, and variety of natural features with the best in the country. The only experts involved up to that point were Barker, and M&W. And by this time, M&W had already seen the property, knew at least some of the characteristics of the holes they envisioned, even took note of the properties special features such as the quarry, the creeks, the land behind the clubhouse, as well as the properties shortcomings such as the cramped space and lack of natural mounding. Also, Merion had a contour map well before the NGLA trip and they'd have been fools not to send it to CBM. After all, M&W had already told Merion that they could not absolutely determine whether a first class course was possible on the land without a contour map. What could this possibly mean but that they needed a contour map to see if the holes they envisioned would fit?
So by the time Wilson and his Committee showed up, I think M&W already had a very good idea of what needed to be done, and most of what remained was teaching it to Wilson and his novice Committee . . .
Do you really mean exactly what you wrote, i.e. that during their visit to NGLA in March, Macdonald taught the Committee how to lay out Merion?
Yes. I really mean that during their visit to NGLA in March, M&W taught the Committee how to lay out Merion. Judging by Wilson's apparent mode of operations, there were very like some letters before and after, as well. IF so, how do you TEACH someone to lay out a course? Among other things, you could teach them . . .
. . . the length and types of holes to lay out;
. . . the fundamental strategic principles underlying these holes;
. . . where and how to place the holes so as to incorporate that the fundamental strategic principles into the natural conditions (e.g., the quarry, the creeks, slopes, corners, out of bounds) at Merion East;
. . . and where and how to layout and build artificial features such as mounding and certain green contours, and why to build such features.
In short, you teach them where, why, and how to lay out the golf holes and their features.
(By the way, I just noticed that, after my last post on this thread, you sort of insinuated that I had intentionally left out a portion of the reference in the minutes about "laying out many different courses" -- a reference that everyone had already seen and debated a dozen times. Please, David - stop doing that, will you? In your timeline prior to my post, you'd left out that same reference completely, and yet I dealt with it straight-up, without the b.s.)
You have misunderstood and mischaracterized my previous post, and taken offense where none was intended. Please Peter - stop doing that, will you? I did not "sort of insinuated that you had intentionally left out a portion of the reference in the minutes about 'laying out many different courses.'" This had nothing to do with the point of my post. Nor was there any "B.S."
As I recall you claimed that the references (pronouns) in TEPaul's transcription were clear and indicated that Wilson's Committee was the only actor, and I explicitly noted that you had left the contradictory references (pronouns) out of your version of the transcription. Whether done so intentionally or not, you cannot edit out the contradictions and then claim none exist!
I believe I also suggested that you ask your friend TEPaul to clarify by providing a complete, accurate, and verifiable transcription, so we could move beyond this absurd disputes about his apparently flawed representations. He's back. So why don't you ask him to clarify?
Bryan,
As far as the supposed January 11, 1911 Construction Committee. I do not recall ever seeing reference to any such meeting. Does anyone else recall any reference to any such meeting?
I'm guessing that Jeff's reference in post #1830 doesn't count in your mind.
"I really doubt these important men did a lot the weeks between XMas and New Year. When they returned in January, they found that Hugh Wilson ahd asked Santa for the chairmanship of the Construction Committee and they made his wish come true on their first meeting of January 11, 1911. They start to work, and await the topo maps, which because of the Xmas break, show the 11-10-1910 approximate road as their boundary."
Where do you suppose Jeff might have got that specific date?
My understanding is that they were appointed in early 1911, and the first record of them doing anything is the February 1, 1911 letter to Piper, and the activities described therein (communicating with CBM, discussing communicating with CBM, deciding his advice was of great value, writing Piper immediately.)
Can you remind me of the reference for your understanding that it was early 1911. Do we agree that it was before February 1, 1911? So, as not to flog this dead nag anymore, how would you like to characterize the date of the creation of the Construction Committee? Sometime in January? Some other time?
Vis-a-vis the content of the Feb 1 letter, Wilson said (with my parenthetical additions):
"Mr. Charles Macdonald spoke of you and said that you could help us out (regarding soil and grass) if anyone could. We realize the value of his advice (about you being the source for soil and grass advice) and immediately decided that we would write to you and ask if you would be good enough to help us out (regarding our soil and grass).
I missed the section where we moved to First Principle Only. . .Jim,
Bryan stated a while back (and a number of times I think) that his time line was trying to work with first principles, which I take to mean axioms or facts which required no deduction or additional proof; In other words, the basic, undisputed building blocks of arguments to come. A good example of a first principle would be that, according to the x deed, Lloyd took title to y property on z date.
David, you have taken one statement I made and generalized it. My only reference to first principles was in reference to our discussion of "approval". I said,
"I'm working on first principles here. I know of no organization that allows the consultant to approve anything."
I intended it only in relation to consultants and approvals. You dismissed my thoughts. Now you want to transfer the first principles to my time line. You are incorrect in making that transferance. You're beginning to sound Cirbaesque..
I thought the purpose of his time line was to list out all the reasonably undipsutable facts, or first principles, off of which all these other arguments are being developed. Maybe I am wrong about this, but that was my understanding of his time line. (Aside: While generally a good idea, there are some big problems with Bryan's fact based time line approach in this instance, but that is outside the scope of your question.)
I have tried to be as factual as possible in the time line, but where the "facts" are questionable or uncertain or need comment, I have highlighted them in red or provided commentary.Quote. . . but David tell me are you saying Wilson's committee required CBM's approval in April 1911 before taking the plan to their board? In other words, if CBM were overseas for the month, do you think they would have waited until he returned before proceeding?
First, to clarify, I was explaining to Bryan what sanction I thought M&W had from Merion that gave M&W the authority to sanction to the plan before it went to the board. My answer was NOT meant to be a first principle or statement of fact, but was my understanding based on the facts we know from the Board Meetings. My understanding may change if we ever get to see the parts of the record that are currently being hidden from us.
You have started to use the word sanction in place of approve, I assume in the following definition:
▸ noun: the act of final authorization ("It had the sanction of the church")
▸ noun: formal and explicit approval
▸ noun: official permission or approval
As I've stated before, I think that the following would be a more sensible definition of approve:
▸ verb: judge to be right or commendable; think well of
Where is the evidence that M&W were given the power of the state or the church (tongue firmly in cheek) or MCC to sanction anything. Isn't it eminently more sensible that they were asked to judge which plan was right or commendable or that they thought well of, and recommend it to the Board for approval? This is done every day in business. You hire consultants to develop or review options and give you their expert opinion and recommendations. But they are still consultants and formal and explicit approval comes from the Board.
Second, to try and address your questions:
1. I don't think Wilson's Committee took the plan to the MCC board. I think Lesley's Committee did. TEPaul assumes that Lesley was speaking on behalf of Wilson's Committee, but I have seen no facts supporting TEPaul's assumption.
2. Judging from what we have been told that Lesley told the Board, I think (where is the evidence, not the thinking) that it was very (where is the evidence that it was "very") important to Lesley and the MCC's Board of Governor's that M&W had been involved in the planning process (at NGLA) and that M&W had already sanctioned the plan being presented (sanctioned the plan being presented? Or, judged one of the plans as commendable?) , and that they stated that it would produce a first class course with some of the best inland holes in the country.
3. Judging from what we have been told that Lesley told the Board, I do not think that Lesley or the Board were much if at all concerned with what Wilson and his Committee thought of the layout plan, or with what, if anything they had contributed to it. You have third hand information, from sources you don't trust and now you're making a leap that the Board didn't care about their own man and his committee's input. Wow! :o
4. I do not think it was a coincidence that a plan was not presented to MCC's Board until shortly after M&W returned to Merion, went over the land (again) and over the various versions, and sanctioned the final routing plan.
5. As for whether Merion would have waited for M&W to approve of the plan, who says they did not wait as it is? In other words, I think they waited to proceed until M&W could teach Wilson and his Committee how to lay out the course in early to mid March, and then they waited until M&W could come back down about three weeks later to go over the land (again) and over the various layout options, and to finally determine the routing plan.
6. What would they have done if they could not get CBM? I don't know, but my guess is that they would have gotten someone else, but they probably would not have been that happy about it, as they clearly wanted nothing but the best.
7. I think the choice of the word "approved" is significant because it provided insight as to how important Lesley and the Committee thought M&W's opinion was. As long as you're fixated on one of two possible meanings of the word "approve"
Hope this helps.
Interestingly, I agree with the basic points (including what you just laid out David) each side makes but get disagreement from both when I offer a thought...
The problem with all of this is the desired degree of final attribution. That's it!
Not sure how many times I have to say it, but I really don't care about attribution. I want to figure out who did what. The problem I see it, is that the other side is so afraid losing face that they will not allow an honest discussion of who did what. Only one side is hiding facts. Only one side has used them selectively and disingenously for about a year. Only one side has ever tried to cut off the conversation or threatened those who would not acquiesce and accept the story without proof. So I refuse to accept that both sides are engaging in the same type of behavior.
Both sides have dug in so deep that a reasonable understanding of the other's thought process is impossible...and frankly both sides seem to make rationalizations that could only come from a strong desire to shift the balance fully one way or another.I disagree. I am trying to be honest with all the material and see where it leaves us. I'd appreciate it if you would point out rationalizations that try to shift the power fully one way or another. But I refuse to accept other's representations without vetting them and verifying them, especially when those representations have been used to attack me and my work. No one in their right mind would ask me to, much less demand that I do.
David,
I believe CBM was incredibly helpful in a variety of ways during his June visit in terms of procuring the land in a manner most efficient for all involved as well as identifying the key attributes of the property to be used for golf. This, on its own, warrants mention of "providing the greatest assistance...". If he were in consistent communication with the Merion folks for the next 7 months we would know about it.
How would we know about it? If P&O had not saved copies all of their correspondence (both sent and received) we'd not have known about the thousands of Ag letters. It is not as if Merion kept records of that sort of thing. We have NO correspondence of this type from Wilson or MCC. And if CBM saved all his correspondence I haven't been able to locate it, and not for lack of trying. So I don't think you can assume that we would know about it. In fact, I don't even see how you think we might know about it? Why would possibly expect to know?
That they documented two very detailed sessions in March/April 1911 provides even more support for him playing a part, a significant part, in the creation of Merion East. This has been acknowledged for 99 years...
With all respect Jim, this is just NOT the case.
The NGLA trip has long been misunderstood as having taken place on the eve of his overseas trip, which was thought to have taken place BEFORE Merion East was designed. Moreover, it has long been thought that Wilson went to NGLA for help planning his trip abroad, and that CBM provided a general primer on what he should learn. In short, CBM's role has long been reduced to that of a glorified travel agent. This is a far cry from what really happened.As for CBM's second trip to Merion to again go over the course and to review and determine the final layout plan, that too has been denied, ignored, forgotten, and or misrepresented.
If you'd like I can provide you multiple quotes and examples where the self-proclaimed experts on Merion site and real experts elsewhere have repeatedly ignored, dismissed, and misrepresented these events, but I really don't think it gets us much closer to the truth. That being said, I will not sit silently while others claim that Merion has always known, understood, and acknowledged these events and others.
What about the fact that they already identified the land they ideally wanted, and had a blessing in hand from another very prominent GCA of that land before CBM ever showed up? Does this minimize CBM's "approval" of it? Does it really mean they made the purchase recommendation largely on his blessing? Or is it safer to assume they were using his endorsement for the land to their best?
The Site Committee wrote that their recommendation was based largely on M&W's opinions, so I am not sure why you keep dismissing this or modifying it.
What about the fact that Francis came up with the land swap enabling the last five holes we currently know? Regardless of when he did it, we better take his word for having done it. Without them, Merion is not the same. How can you assign much in the way of routing credit to CBM when 5 holes were most assuredly not his doing at all?
My essay acknowledges that Francis played a major role, and I believe I have always acknowledged it. Plus, we know that M&W's involvement and influence extended much further than the routing. But again, figuring out who did what is different than crediting them for it, at least as far as I am concerned.
Re: your point #4 in the first of the recent numbered posts..."4. I do not think it was a coincidence that a plan was not presented to MCC's Board until shortly after M&W returned to Merion, went over the land (again) and over the various versions, and sanctioned the final routing plan." Do you, therefore, think they had a plan to present to CBM/The Board much earlier then if it was not a coincidence that they waited to present it?
Not sure I get what you are asking or that I can answer . . .I think that you are assuming that Wilson and his Committee played a more independent role in the design process that the record justifies. In short, I don't think Wilson and his Committee did much of anything regarding the design without direction from M&W. Whatever plans they came up with were done with M&W's direction, so I am not sure how to speculate about what they might have done without M&W. Don't get me wrong, surely this was a collaborative process throughout and Wilson's committee must have had substantial input; laying out the five variations, for one possible example. But M&W were the ones directing the design process and calling the shots.
In other words, I think the NGLA meeting led to the 5 variations, and M&W took over from there. As for what happened before NGLA, I will be surprised if we find out they were doing much more than messing around with some inherited layout(s.)
Now some of this last answer on my part is speculative, but your question requires me to speculate, but I am unable to accept your speculative assumptions to even properly answer your question.
I hope this helps.
I don't need to ask TE to clarify, David. I trust that the minute, as TE provided it, is correct, and I trust that partly because the whole paragraph makes sense to me as it stands. (If I was absolutely alone on that, I might start to question myself. But I think it makes sense to a few others around here as well.) You disagree. We're stuck.
Of course you trust TEPaul. But that shouldn't have anything to do with it. I don't think anyone who cared at all about accurate historical research would ever recommend that we simply take an interested party's word for what the source material really said. I'd certainly never demand that you take my word for anything. Nor would anyone seriously concerned with actually determining the truth. There is never an excuse to allow unsupported claims to stand without having them properly vetted and verified. Consult Wayne's many past posts on this exact issue if you doubt me. He posted a whole bunch of them in the years before my essay as well as right when I posted it.
Yet here we have an example where there is apparently something wrong with the transcription we have been given, yet you insist it must be accurate and do not even want to double check it? In short Peter, your position (and the position of those who agree with you) is unsupportable under any reasonable standard. Verification is a necessary and essential part of the process. This is true even when the person making the claim is totally trustworthy.
If I were to follow your methodology and just trust what TEPaul and Wayne have told me, we'd still all believe that Hugh Wilson traveled abroad in 1910 and that Charles Blair Macdonald's role at Merion was nothing more than acting as Hugh Wilson's travel agent.
I think I wrote that my reading of the minute was that it referred to one and the same committee, i.e. the one that laid out many different courses was the one that went to visit Macdonald at NGLA (and so that would have to make it the Wilson Committee). I didn't include the "we" in reference to developing five plans because I thought I just needed to quote a snippet from Bryan's post to indicate what I was talking about, but all the "we" says to me is that one of the committee members who didn't travel to NGLA joined the rest in that latter task.
Interesting interpretation, Peter, but it doesn't make any sense either. You have previously stated that this was Hugh Wilson's report, so for your interpretation to make sense, then it would have to have been Hugh Wilson who "didn't travel to NGLA [but] joined the rest in that latter task." . . . "they" traveled to NGLA, "we" laid out five plans . . .
I am pretty sure Hugh Wilson went to NGLA. Rather than try to stretch meaning and make sense out of nonsense, wouldn't it make sense to make sure we have a true and accurate quote? Surely if TEPaul was as loyal a friend as you, he'd at least give you that so you were not stuck here defending the indefensible.
And Peter, I know what you wrote, and I responded to you accordingly and accurately. You were out of line in your last post to me.
David.
Bryan,
As far as the supposed January 11, 1911 Construction Committee. I do not recall ever seeing reference to any such meeting. Does anyone else recall any reference to any such meeting?
I'm guessing that Jeff's reference in post #1830 doesn't count in your mind.
"I really doubt these important men did a lot the weeks between XMas and New Year. When they returned in January, they found that Hugh Wilson ahd asked Santa for the chairmanship of the Construction Committee and they made his wish come true on their first meeting of January 11, 1911. They start to work, and await the topo maps, which because of the Xmas break, show the 11-10-1910 approximate road as their boundary."
Where do you suppose Jeff might have got that specific date?
With all due respect to Jeff, his posts are not the first place I turn for accurate representations source material. Nor are the posts of anyone else for that matter. I would prefer to see the source material. I have no idea where he got it. Maybe he read January '11 and typed January 11, then tacked on 1911. I have no idea what meeting he is talking about, but I guess we could intepreting the Feb. 1, 1911 meeting as indicating that the committee had at least discussed the CBM communication, whether they met or not.
My understanding is that they were appointed in early 1911, and the first record of them doing anything is the February 1, 1911 letter to Piper, and the activities described therein (communicating with CBM, discussing communicating with CBM, deciding his advice was of great value, writing Piper immediately.)
Can you remind me of the reference for your understanding that it was early 1911. Do we agree that it was before February 1, 1911? So, as not to flog this dead nag anymore, how would you like to characterize the date of the creation of the Construction Committee? Sometime in January? Some other time?
I assume by "it" you are referring to when they were appointed, and not their first meeting? If so I believe that is what Hugh Wilson wrote, but I haven't gone back to check. If it wasn't in January then February 1, 1911 was a very busy day. If it were my time line (which it isn't) I'd be inclined to stick with early 1911, but put it immediately before the February 1, 1911 letter reference, and let the reader figure it out. I'd certainly not object to January 1911, depending on how it was presented in relation to everything else.
Vis-a-vis the content of the Feb 1 letter, Wilson said (with my parenthetical additions):
"Mr. Charles Macdonald spoke of you and said that you could help us out (regarding soil and grass) if anyone could. We realize the value of his advice (about you being the source for soil and grass advice) and immediately decided that we would write to you and ask if you would be good enough to help us out (regarding our soil and grass).
I don't suppose tongue was firmly in cheek when you typed this? IMO the first and last parentheticals are fine, although obvious and therefore unnecessary. IMO the second is by no means a necessary conclusion, and so I am not sure why you would add it? Again, it seems as if you are unnecessarily reading things in when they are not necessarily part of the record. For example it could well be that they realized the value of CBM's advice because he was C.B. frickin' Macdonald, and when it came to golf courses they were going to do what he told them to. I'd say this second supposition is at least as likely as your supposition. But they are both suppositions, and I don't know why you want to move beyond the facts.
I missed the section where we moved to First Principle Only. . .Jim,
Bryan stated a while back (and a number of times I think) that his time line was trying to work with first principles, which I take to mean axioms or facts which required no deduction or additional proof; In other words, the basic, undisputed building blocks of arguments to come. A good example of a first principle would be that, according to the x deed, Lloyd took title to y property on z date.
David, you have taken one statement I made and generalized it. My only reference to first principles was in reference to our discussion of "approval". I said,
"I'm working on first principles here. I know of no organization that allows the consultant to approve anything."
I intended it only in relation to consultants and approvals. You dismissed my thoughts. Now you want to transfer the first principles to my time line. You are incorrect in making that transferance. You're beginning to sound Cirbaesque..
Ouch. Be careful with the nasty name calling or else I'll have to report you. I might say the same thing about you for confusing fact with supposition, but I'm too polite.
It probably didn't help my understanding that I disagreed that you were working with first principles there, but I thought you were starting with a statement of your general approach then applying it. Anyway, my mistake.
Seriously, I am disappointed that you are not going for first principles. Your time line would be much more useful to all of us (including you, I think) if you stuck to the most basic factual building blocks and left all supposition and deduction until later. Otherwise the entries in the outline will inevitably taint the result.
I thought the purpose of his time line was to list out all the reasonably undipsutable facts, or first principles, off of which all these other arguments are being developed. Maybe I am wrong about this, but that was my understanding of his time line. (Aside: While generally a good idea, there are some big problems with Bryan's fact based time line approach in this instance, but that is outside the scope of your question.)
I have tried to be as factual as possible in the time line, but where the "facts" are questionable or uncertain or need comment, I have highlighted them in red or provided commentary.
I agree with your approach regarding questionable and uncertain facts, but not sure I do with your "need comment" category. It seems to me a good way to put a strong spin on a fact that is not necessarily justified or appropriate. The few comments we have discussed seem to be highly speculative and arguable in my mind, and I was hoping you'd stay away from that sort of thing.
Isn't the ultimate goal to let readers (including possibly yourself) to be able to examine all the facts before they are spun, and come to their own conclusions? Or do I have this wrong, as well?
You've long been an advocate against suppositions and speculations, and so I hate to see suppositions and speculation slip into your time line. Why not let the reader decide what the was meant by "approved" or why Wilson wrote he valued CBM's advice?Quote. . . but David tell me are you saying Wilson's committee required CBM's approval in April 1911 before taking the plan to their board? In other words, if CBM were overseas for the month, do you think they would have waited until he returned before proceeding?
First, to clarify, I was explaining to Bryan what sanction I thought M&W had from Merion that gave M&W the authority to sanction to the plan before it went to the board. My answer was NOT meant to be a first principle or statement of fact, but was my understanding based on the facts we know from the Board Meetings. My understanding may change if we ever get to see the parts of the record that are currently being hidden from us.
You have started to use the word sanction in place of approve, I assume in the following definition:
▸ noun: the act of final authorization ("It had the sanction of the church")
▸ noun: formal and explicit approval
▸ noun: official permission or approval
As I've stated before, I think that the following would be a more sensible definition of approve:
▸ verb: judge to be right or commendable; think well of
Where is the evidence that M&W were given the power of the state or the church (tongue firmly in cheek) or MCC to sanction anything. Isn't it eminently more sensible that they were asked to judge which plan was right or commendable or that they thought well of, and recommend it to the Board for approval? This is done every day in business. You hire consultants to develop or review options and give you their expert opinion and recommendations. But they are still consultants and formal and explicit approval comes from the Board.
If we are talking about M&W's role in relation to Wilson's Committee, I think his was an authorized and authoritative approval. In other words, I don't think that Wilson's committee was in any position to override them or disregard their opinion. If we are talking about M&W's role in relation to the Board, then obviously the Board had final say, but M&W were the foremost authorities on this stuff, so it would have been pretty unlikely that they were not going to accept M&W's recommendation.
I can live with "approved" though. But not "liked."
Second, to try and address your questions:
1. I don't think Wilson's Committee took the plan to the MCC board. I think Lesley's Committee did. TEPaul assumes that Lesley was speaking on behalf of Wilson's Committee, but I have seen no facts supporting TEPaul's assumption.
2. Judging from what we have been told that Lesley told the Board, I think (where is the evidence, not the thinking) that it was very (where is the evidence that it was "very") important to Lesley and the MCC's Board of Governor's that M&W had been involved in the planning process (at NGLA) and that M&W had already sanctioned the plan being presented (sanctioned the plan being presented? Or, judged one of the plans as commendable?) , and that they stated that it would produce a first class course with some of the best inland holes in the country.
The evidence is that it was presented it to the Board and that it was noted in the Minutes. As explained above, I think it was authorized, authoritative, approval.
3. Judging from what we have been told that Lesley told the Board, I do not think that Lesley or the Board were much if at all concerned with what Wilson and his Committee thought of the layout plan, or with what, if anything they had contributed to it. You have third hand information, from sources you don't trust and now you're making a leap that the Board didn't care about their own man and his committee's input. Wow! :o
If there was evidence that they did care about Wilson's input, we'd have seen it. If evidence comes up otherwise, I'll change my view.
4. I do not think it was a coincidence that a plan was not presented to MCC's Board until shortly after M&W returned to Merion, went over the land (again) and over the various versions, and sanctioned the final routing plan.
5. As for whether Merion would have waited for M&W to approve of the plan, who says they did not wait as it is? In other words, I think they waited to proceed until M&W could teach Wilson and his Committee how to lay out the course in early to mid March, and then they waited until M&W could come back down about three weeks later to go over the land (again) and over the various layout options, and to finally determine the routing plan.
6. What would they have done if they could not get CBM? I don't know, but my guess is that they would have gotten someone else, but they probably would not have been that happy about it, as they clearly wanted nothing but the best.
7. I think the choice of the word "approved" is significant because it provided insight as to how important Lesley and the Committee thought M&W's opinion was. As long as you're fixated on one of two possible meanings of the word "approve"
Just my opinion, but consistent with what I have been told about the use of the term by TEPaul and Shivas. Others can draw their own conclusions. That is harder to do though if "approved" is changed to "liked"
Hope this helps.
Tom:
It's a good suggestion you make but what you should do is address it not to me but to Merion Golf Club and Merion Cricket Club. You know that; I know you do. It is what you should have done in the first place when YOU started this subject and issue over six and a half years ago. We and I have told you that for years now. If you never choose to consider what we have said and are saying there really is no reason to continue to repeat it anymore. If you want to be a good and competent golf architectural historian (which you may be capable of somehow if you do it correctly) you're going to have to learn to take and travel the right roads to be that. That is something I personally don't think you have done or even yet understand the reasons for. You and I have been at this a long time now on this website, Tom; you should try taking my advice for a change and give it a try. I believe you will see the benefits and the good results from it.
David,
How about "recommended" or "commended" rather than "liked" or "approved" or "sanctioned"?
Since you "think" one thing, and I "think" another, I guess it can't go in the time line.
What's interesting to me, and perhaps not a surprise, is that different people read or hear something and understand it in completely different ways. A thought spoken or written is not always received and understood in the way it was intended by the speaker or writer. Unfortunately we don't have Wilson, Lloyd, Macdonald, Francis, Oakley et al available to put on the stand and cross examine as to their intent in their words.
David,
How about "recommended" or "commended" rather than "liked" or "approved" or "sanctioned"?
"Recommended" is better than "liked" but I don't understand what you have against "approved." Could it be that if M&W "approved" the plan, then you have to reconsider your understanding of their role?
Since you "think" one thing, and I "think" another, I guess it can't go in the time line.
What's interesting to me, and perhaps not a surprise, is that different people read or hear something and understand it in completely different ways. A thought spoken or written is not always received and understood in the way it was intended by the speaker or writer. Unfortunately we don't have Wilson, Lloyd, Macdonald, Francis, Oakley et al available to put on the stand and cross examine as to their intent in their words.
All the more reason we should ALL insist on working off of verifiable information instead of what someone else tells us to believe.
While I'm on philosophical points, I found this quote when I was looking for the meaning of "with all due respect", that you've used with several people in the last day:
"There was a great comedy piece a few years back (whose origin escapes us) that gave examples of how the English would use their language when speaking to a non-native speaker to imply the precise opposite of what was actually being understood. This allowed the English to feel superior without actually damaging international relations. One example was the phrase “with all due respect” which is generally understood to imply that the speaker has a great deal of respect for their counterpart, while the speaker is actually implying that they have no respect in the slightest for their interlocutor. The respect due being precisely zero."
I received this interpretation as your intent with the comment, as I suspect others did.
With all due respect, you and these others are mistaken. I haven't thought of it much, but I think I generally use the phrase to indicate that my disagreement is neither meant to be personal nor is it meant to reflect poorly on the person I am addressing. I am apparently not clever enough to be English.
It seems to me that TEP is now sounding like the voice of reason in his two posts since returning tonight (although, based on past experience, that might degenerate quickly ;)) . I hear that the door at Merion/MCC might be open to you if you want to pursue the information we'd all like to see from their records. I respect that given the bad blood between you and Tom on one side and TEP and Wayne on the other that Wayne and TEP don't want to give the information to you or to GCA. If the door at Merion is open to you, then why not enter and get the information, rather than continuing to beat on TEP and Wayne for past sins. Those sins are in the past and can't be recanted. We all know how you feel and we all know how Wayne and Tom P feel about the relationship. Move on.
I'd love to move on and more than willing to do so. But unfortunately I believe you are mistaken. Without going into detail regarding my private conversations with the private clubs, I'll say generally that while some information at Merion may be available, it is my understanding that none of the information at issue here is available.
Your oft stated goal here is to find out what happened in the early days at Merion. Let's focus on that by uncovering new information. It's perfectly clear that when we have to interpret words to create suppositions that we try to turn into inferences that then turn into facts, we all end up in knots.
I'd love to uncover new information, starting with the information that we know exists but which has not been fully provided and verified. But again, I believe you have misconstrued TEPaul's words and intentions. My understanding is that the documents we need are thus far unavailable, except at Wayne and TEPaul's discretion. And, as I understand it, Wayne and TEPaul are certainly not coming forward with the documents. Ask him if you disagree.
I presume, maybe wrongly, that part of your goal in discovering the early history is to have that early history accepted by Merion and the participants who are interested from GCA. I can't see anybody else who'd care. I believe many interesting "facts" have come out of these gargantuan threads, but it is my feeling that you have failed so far to convince anyone on most of your suppositions.
With all due respect, your presumption misses the mark by a wide margin. My primary and specific goal is to figure out what happened. My secondary goal is to verify, vet, and rebut the various claims and information that have been used to attack me, my essay, and my reputation. A more general but related goal is to participate in a discussion where ALL of the parties are required either to back up their claims and with verifiable information or keep their unverifiable claims and information to themselves; a discussion where ALL parties are free to express their views on any issue without threats, attacks, lies, or defamatory campaigns being carried out against them. We are far way from all these goals, and I don't see how TEPaul's recent posts address any of them.
Let me put it this way: If tomorrow Merion rewrote their history, changed their website, changed their scorecard, and fully adopted MY current view of the role M&W's role at Merion East, I'd be far from satisfied.
-- I'd still continue to try and figure out what happened.
-- I'd still continue to try locate and disseminate all of the relevant source material.
-- I'd still continue to demand that Wayne and TEPaul provide me with the documents necessary to thoroughly verify, vet, and try to rebut the many claims they have made against me, my essay, and my reputation.
-- I'd still continue with this phase and the next phase of my research.
In other words, I'll be satisfied and finished when I believe I understand what happened to the best of my ability, and when I have had my opportunity to verify, vet, and try to rebut the claims that have been made against me. I know more information is out there. I know it has not been provided completely and accurately. I know that it has not been verified and vetted. I know that it has been used against me repeatedly, inaccurately, and unfairly, and I know that the explicit purpose of this usage has been to trash me, my essay, and my reputation. All these things only increase my resolve to get to the truth of the matter. Whether I convince Merion or anyone else in the process is tangential at best.
Tom MacWood and David Moriarty,
I don't know, I think Tom Paul's suggestion certainly sounds fair and concilliatory. If nothing else, there would be no charges of withholding or tampering with information, and I can tell you personally that the the Merion Historical Archive is wonderful.
I'm quite certain that Joe Bausch and I would be happy to accompany you, and although I don't have much else of value to offer, I'll throw in a round at Cobb's Creek on me if either or both of you decide to take the invitation seriously.
We also see that construction work would not begin in the spring here, so the term "laid out" refers to the golf course plan drawn on paper (*note - we have the plans), not on the ground,
Gentlemen,
Just to satisfy my intellectual curiosity, has anyone actually read every word of this thread from the beginning?
As I am in the midst of tending to the affairs of the family firm, can somebody please send me an executive summary?
From what I gather, maybe I ought to start a thread about the origins of Cypress Point and invite speculation on whether Mackenzie of Raynor is the originator of the routing.
Given that in the clubhouse, there is a picture of Mackenzie, Robert Hunter, Marion Hollins and H.J. Whigham during construction, I can only surmise that Macdonald sent his son-in-law to make sure that Dr. Mackenzie and his socialist underling were staying true to Raynor and Marion Hollins' vision.
I really wish you'd quit doing this, Mike. Construction is not always synonymous with laying out a course. It is quite possible to arrange the holes on the ground (with stakes for instance) without actually constructing the course. Even by your reading, this article distinquishes between planning and laying out the course. The plans were laid out in the northwest corner of the property.
There it is folks! In his own words (above), could there be a clearer indication of what this thread has become and other threads on here on Merion/Macdonald/Wilson have become? It's never been about the truth of the architectural history of that early time with Merion East, it's all about David Moriarty. I'm of course always interested in the history of any phase of Merion East's architectural evolution but I am surely not interested in David Moriarty or his expectant, attempted or on-going education on any of it. In that vein, I would only offer up to him what I have said before, so many time----eg if you really want to get to know Merion and any phase of its architectural history do what any competent history student does and would do----start with establishing your own working research relationship with MERION FIRST!
David Moriarty:
Regarding your post #2810 and that Perry Maxwell remark about the Scribner magazine article by Whigam, all I can say it very, very interesting. VERY INTERESTING!! That remark by Maxwell I have never seen before!
However, the problem with you is you seem to think, for some God-damn reason, that some of us here always tend to denigrate Macdonald somehow and his contribution to American golf architecture. I don't want to speak for others but I can tell you nothing could be further from the truth at least when it comes to me. I grew up on Long Island surrounded by Macdonald architecture. I've told you this before but you tend to ignore it because it seems your entire mission on this website is not to learn anything from anyone and certainly not from those you are suspicious of, which seems to be most everyone on here, but to be accusatory and denigrating of them at every turn.
I can pretty much guarantee you by the time I was ten years old I was more familiar with Macdonald architecture (NGLA, Piping Rock, Links and The Creek) than you will or could ever be in your entire life----unless of course you would have let me show it to you and what it was and is all about. I made that kind of offer a number of times and you turned it down every time. It will never be offered to you again because of that, that's for sure. Hopefully something on here might serve as some lesson to you but with someone as self-possessed as you are, not from my own impresstion of you but from the very words you write on here, I guess I can no longer imagine what that might be.
But always in my world and probably in life generally there is the tunnel, and the light at the end of it, as well!
Mike C,
What song did the Beatles write for the Rolling Stones? Other than Let It Be and Let It Bleed?
David,
Would the Beatles have come if there had been no Elvis, or better yet, no Little Richard?
While The Beatles helped the Rolling Stones and even wrote a song for them, would there be no Stones and would Mick have been a tax accountant had The Beatles never Come Together?
Would the British Invasion of Ross, Park, Alison, Mackenzie, Findlay, and others have brought golf here with or without Macdonald and would other Americans like Crump, Leeds, and Wilson have gone abroad to study the classics with or without Macdonald?
Can any of us really answer these questions with any degree of certainty?
Would the Beatles have come if there had been no Elvis, or better yet, no Little Richard? . . .
David,
Do you think it is simple coincidence that of roughly 300 or so golf members at Merion, the five men appointed to the Committee were 5 of the top 6 golfers in the club?
No. I don't think it was coincidence that they wanted experienced golfers on the committee charged with laying out and constructing a golf course. While they were by no means experts, they were obviously better choices than non-golfers or one's who did not give a hoot about the game.
I mean, let's even for a moment say they didn't design the course.
Why the hell would you pick 5 of your 6 best golfers to simply construct it? Especially when they self-admittedly had the construction and agronomic experience of the average club member?!?
There you go again, mischaracterizing my understanding of their role. If you cannot address my real argument, then there is something wrong with your position. See my answer above.
Do you think it's more likely they appointed these goys simply because they thought by virtue of their playing abilities they knew something about the game and the shots required to play it, or because they had some special insight into selecting grasses and proportions of manure and lime to spread? See first answer, above.
You also continue to talk about "aying out a course by putting stakes in the ground to someone else's plan. Well my heavens, David, why in the world would anyone ever give them credit much less acclaim for doing that?!? Isn't that something one could teach an eight year old how to do? Why even mention such a thing in the press as the Philadelphia papers credited to Wilson amd Committee?
Do you really believe that Hugh Wilson's and his Committee's ONLY possible noteworthy contribution to the creation of the course was planning it? If so then you, TEPaul, and Wayne have vilified the wrong guy. I think they contributed plenty and don't understand why you insist on demeaning their non-design contributions. Be careful Mike, you've left yourself only one leg to stand on. What will you say if that one fails.
____________________________
Let me repeat what posted above, because you must have missed it.
In January 1910, in the context of designing, laying out, and building golf courses, "expert" meant a professional and/or one with experience. I also take issue with your contention that around this time it was common for members to plan their own courses, without the help of a professional.
Notwithstanding the 1904 article and your attempt to compare then Amateur Champion H. Chandler Egan to Hugh Wilson, do you have any relevant and timely examples to the contrary?
If not, could we get some sort of consensus that it is very unlikely that the experts at work preparing plans referred meant Hugh Wilson and his committee of good but not great club level golfers? If not, why not? And on what factual basis?
Mike C,
What song did the Beatles write for the Rolling Stones? Other than Let It Be and Let It Bleed?
David M,
If you have Chris Clouser's book on Maxwell, you will see that the original Dornick Hills had a lot of NGLA/CBM in it. Later, I think the depression got him to change his style to something easier to maintain. However, Chris still thinks he used a lot of highly altered template holes. I have never viewed it quite that way, but go back and look at the original DH plans. CBM was clearly a major influence for PM>
I have not read the book, but plan to. It is refreshing to hear that he would actually consider that CBM had a lasting influence on Maxwell. It is also depressing to think we have been at this for six years, and I doubt TEPaul, Wayne, or Mike would even admit that CBM influenced Wilson to try and build a Redan and an Alps.
As for the rest, that is not what the source material said, or not what we have been told it said, and what we have been told it said doesn't make any sense, and is not complete. Plus, I haven't seen this document. Have you? It sure isn't a "first principle" because TEPaul tells us it is. Plus, you jump from your understanding of this supposed "first principle" to conclusions that I am not sure it ever supports. But as you said, you don't care about logic, so I hope you won't be offended if I don't bother.
Geez. Are you know telling me that I am incapable of understanding such straightforward words as "we laid out many plans, went to NGLA, came back, did five more plans, and then had CBM come over for a final look, and then we approved the routing about two weeks later?" Those words are pretty straightforward, are they not? Oh no, of course not. We need the super secret David M decoder ring to know exactly what they mean.
That is not what the document says, or even what we have been told it says. But this is what happens when we rely on a second hand, "nonsensical" version from an interested party who insists on telling us what we should believe the documents say.
I think I understand what a source document is. The April 19 minutes are one. All the other opinions offered here, mine included, are less likely to be fact and more likely to be opinion than what is said in that document. Oh yeah, we can't trust that because TePaul, the devil himself, has posted it. Well of course, because nothing is as it seems and everyone is against you.
Believe what you want. Trust TEPaul at your peril. I'd rather see the real source material.
I stand by my reasoning in saying that the MCC minutes that we do have, sans interpretations by any of us, probably tell us the most about how MCC was created over other documents, theories, etc. As always, just my humble opinion.
Of course, I am now debating whether it was the Beatles or the Rollling Stones who designed MCC.......
Perhaps you might consider getting some sleep . . .
David,
I think I understand what a source document is. The April 19 minutes are one. All the other opinions offered here, mine included, are less likely to be fact and more likely to be opinion than what is said in that document. Oh yeah, we can't trust that because TePaul, the devil himself, has posted it. Well of course, because nothing is as it seems and everyone is against you.
Tom MacWood,
Yet. We are supposwd to believe that because he put sticks in the ground where someone else told him to, and then sat idly as Pickeeing supervised construction, that he was suddenly expert by spring 1913, such that he was called that in news articles and suddenly had Geist,' Gimbel,Lesley and Meehan asking him to design their courses.
Oh...that's right. It's because he attended a pajama party at Macdonald's house and became an instant expert, even if he wasn't able to use any of it to design Merion! ;)
After reading your account of the man, Tom, I'm surprised they let him in the ckub at all!
Why do you think they named him to any committee, much less as chairman?
Tom,
In the spring of 1913, he was starting to design Merion West.
Month newsman would have known about his PO letters and Pickering was credited with construction. According to you and DM, he had no courses designed at that time.
He was called a "golf expert" nevertheless, which David contends was only used for pros or amateur archies.
I contend that the term was much more widely used to indicate mostly proficient golfers, much like the 1901 NY Times article I posted thart called Hugh Wilson, along with Macdonald, Travis, Emmett,and othwrs "golf experts".
Which do you believe?
Tom MacWood,
If they were all on the green committee in 1910 (I know Griscom was chair of the GC back in 1896) then how the hell could they have been complete novices as you and David keep repeating?
When did you learn of this and what is your evidence?
Tom:
This debate about the use of the term "experts" by Merion in 1911 really seems out of focus on this thread. The point and the issue is not whether you or me or Mike Cirba or David Moriarty think Wilson and his committee were experts in 1911, the real issue is did Merion call them "experts" when it was mentioned by Merion to its members that "experts are now at work" in January 1911?
Since we know that Wilson and his committee had just been appointed in January 1911 and had just gotten to work on what they later reported was the laying out of numerous different courses for Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911, of course they were the ones Merion referred to as "the experts" whether you or me or Mike Cirba or David Moriarty think they were novices or not.
The fact is there was no one else there at that time doing anything other than Wilson and his committee.
Not 1901 again, every golfer who could break 90 within a 200 mile radius of NYC was called an expert. Now you are just being difficult. Use your common sense man - his experience in 1913, by any measurement, was far greater than in 1911.
Contruction of the West course began in the Spring of 1913 - the course had been designed.
Wilson began asking for Oakley's assistance on Seaview in late 1913 or early 1914. When did Wilson become involved in that project?
Tmac,
There were other meeting minutes, such as from Nov. 1910 that reported what was going on. Of course that focused on the property purchase, but as far as "could have been from 1910" is it "logical" that this important work was deemed fit to put in the minutes, but only months later? That is a real stretch to me. Minutes report what is going on right now, or in the very recent past, no?
Did we not conclude that the Wilson committee was a sub committee of the golf committee? Lesley was reading Wilson's report into the minutes. Since Wilson wrote it, of course he is not going to mention himself, right?
Please do not accuse anyone else of rampant speculation, since it would be the pot calling the kettle black! (but hey, I am guilty of similar stuff on this thread. Not busting any chops, just noting that we are falling back into the same pattern of coulda, woulda, shoulda stuff)
Tmac,
There were other meeting minutes, such as from Nov. 1910 that reported what was going on. Of course that focused on the property purchase, but as far as "could have been from 1910" is it "logical" that this important work was deemed fit to put in the minutes, but only months later? That is a real stretch to me. Minutes report what is going on right now, or in the very recent past, no?
Did we not conclude that the Wilson committee was a sub committee of the golf committee? Lesley was reading Wilson's report into the minutes. Since Wilson wrote it, of course he is not going to mention himself, right?
Please do not accuse anyone else of rampant speculation, since it would be the pot calling the kettle black! (but hey, I am guilty of similar stuff on this thread. Not busting any chops, just noting that we are falling back into the same pattern of coulda, woulda, shoulda stuff)
Jeff
The November 15, 1910 minutes deal with finalizing the purchase of the land. All the news reports at the time, announcing the project, said the work would commence immediately. Why is it a stretch to believe that the course was laid out immediately, in late 1910?
I have no idea if the Wilson committee was a subcommittee of the Golf Committee or not, or if the Green Committee was considered a subcommitte of the Golf Committee, the fact remains Lesley was the author of the April report and there is no mention of Wilson or his committee. So if we are speaking of stretches, don't you think calling that report the "Wilson report" is a stretch?
Tom,
In the 1901 article, Wilson is in the Top 1.7% of over 2500 golfers handicapped by the Metropolitan Golf Association at the time, which as you know was the largest and by far the most prestigious section in the country.
By 1910, of 800 golfers handicapped in Philadelphia (max of 18 hcp), there were only 11 golfers in the district with lower handicaps, a single 4 and 10 5s.
In spring of 1913, according to revisionist theories, he did not have any designs on the ground that any newsman would be aware of yet he was called a "golf expert" that spring.
Why would Robert Lesley also be called a golf expert? I don't recall him designing any courses or giving lessons?
Also, what evidence do you have that Wilson and the others were essentially the green committee in Jan 1911. As mentioned, Griscom was chairman of the Green Committee back to 1896, when they went from 9 to 18 holes, so there is no way that he would or any of the others would have had "the knowledge of construction and agronomy of the average club member", despite Wilson's humble, self-effacing words.
and by the way, despite my satirical style, these are serious questions and I think they betray who was there and who actually was responsible for the plans...
"The disjointed excerpt you have given us does not say Wilson's committee had layed out many different courses in the winter and spring of 1911. The author of the report was Lesley, he was not on Wilson's committee. There is no mention of Wilson or his committee in the report. And Lesley does not give a time frame for when these different course were laid out. It could have been in 1910."
Tom:
How do you know Lesley was the author of that report to the board of 4/19/1911?
I realize Lesley was not on Wilson's committee. That's why it would be pretty odd if Lesley authored that report and said "we" went up to NGLA. Why would Lesley go to NGLA if he wasn't on Wilson's committee?
I guess it would be convenient for us a century later if that report mentioned Wilson but it seems to me it probably wasn't necessary to mention his name back then at that board meeting as all the men on the board of MCC certainly knew what was going on then and who was doing it.
No, Lesley or that report does not mention a time frame but if all that laying out of numerous different courses had taken place in 1910 one would think it would've been mentioned by Lesley at the board meetings of November and December 1910 or January 1911.
But perhaps not:
Lesley at the 4/19/1911 board meeting:
"Ooops, sorry guys, I guess I forgot to tell you at the last two or three or four board meetings that chairman Hugh I. Wilson and his four man member New Golf Grounds Committee were over there at that old Johnson Farm in Ardmore in 1910 laying out numerous different courses for a new course for us over there which is pretty nice of them since I don't believe we even appointed them to a committee until last January or something. Did you guys know we are moving our golf course from Haverford to Ardmore and Old Money Bags Horatio here has taken title to about 160 acres over there? Or is it 117 acres? Or 120 or maybe 130 with an option for 13 more? Whatever, this young "go-get-'em" whippersnapper novice golf architect of ours, Hughie I. Wilson and that plan-drawing Dick Francis, will figure it out for us somehow even if they have to ride a scooter over to see Horatio in the middle of the night for some late night land swapping permission; and if they can't figure it out then Rodman can always get those two fine gentlemen Macdonald and Whigam back down here again at some point to route and design us a world class golf course in about two hours. What did you say, Horatio? You're saying Macdonald and Whigam were here about two weeks ago for a day to approve a plan that's attached to this report and I just reported that? Oh, yeah, I see where Wilson's report says that and you're right here's that plan under my briefcase. Did I just read that? Maybe I did; I guess I must have been thinking about pussy or something which shouldn't be surprising to any of you guys! Did you notice the chassis on that waitress who just brought us our tenth drink?"
"Why is it a stretch to believe that the course was laid out immediately, in late 1910?"
Tom:
Because on Nov. 23, 1910 the "terms" of the agreement with HDC to purchase the land on or around the 10th of Dec. was changed and put off for a number of months (it wouldn't happen until July 1911). This was part of the arrangement by Lloyd and Cuylers that was explained in a letter to MCC president Evans.
David M,
No surprise here. I am now being told that according to you, I cannot interpret what some straightforward wording means. Wow! . . . .
Was a drawing of a golf course attached to the April report ?
Tom MacWood,
I know how badly you want it to be Barker on a single day on his way to or from Atlanta in Dec 1910 but that interpretation is wholly inconsistent with laying out many different golf courses prior to going to NGLA, or what followed that visit.
There are also no mentions of hiring Barker for any purpose.
TePaul,
David and Tom will tell you that you don't even understand your own forgery.
It is kind of interesting that MCC can't find any of its plans, when it does have its minutes. Do we think some gca buff managed to steal those out of the files long ago for his own personal collection? Or were they taken out "temporarily" for writing various histories and articles and never returned for whatever reason, like theft, damage, etc.?
Just out of curiosity, and understanding completely why you want to see the source document, IF TePaul has doctored his excerpt, just what do you expect to find that he doctored? And, how would changing the grammar of all that affect anyone's theory?
Up front Jeff, before you and others ridicule me for what you will undoubtedly consider more attacks on TEPaul, please note that
1. I am trying to honestly answer your questions.
2. Everything I write directly pertains to our efforts to getting at the truth of what happened at Merion .
3. Everything I write is based on my understanding of the facts. I don't dwell on those facts because to do so would take much too much time and would inevitably be considered piling it on. While I'd rather keep moving forward, I will provide a sampling of those facts if you or others find it necessary or doubt my conclusions.
Now as to your questions . . .
- I have speculated in the past that, at a minimum, the actual source material will clarify whether this was a report written by Wilson and entered into the record by Lesley or whether it was Lesley's report report about the history of the planning process, including but not limited to a description of what Wilson and his Committee did at NGLA.
- I suspect that some or all of the pronouns are TEPaul's creation and not Lesley's or Wilson's. I will be very surprised if it turns out that Lesley, Wilson, or Sayres (the Secretary) made such foolish grammatical errors and let them stand in the record.
- It is as difficult for me to guess as for you, given that neither one of us really knows, but I will not be surprised if TEPaul used one or more of the pronouns to mask a transition that was awkward to his position. For example, I would not be surprised if the actual transcription was something like . . .
The Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, reports as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground, we appointed a sub-committee in charge of constructing the course. They went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day the sub-committee spent on the ground studying . . . . Upon their return from NGLA, we [or "they" depending on who did it] rearranged the course and laid out five different plans.
Or something like:
The Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, reports as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground we appointed a sub-committee in charge of constructing the course, and that sub-committee reported to me as follows: "We went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day the sub-committee spent on the ground studying . . . . Upon our return from NGLA, we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans."
But Jeff, surely you understand how absurd all this is, don't you? TEPaul can do whatever he wants with this source material, yet rather than provide it to us, or even to clarify what it says, he continues to evade and avoid addressing what is REALLY written in the minutes, or even whether he has provided us the complete and accurate transcription. What do you suppose your hypothetical "historian" would say about that?
I say it would be very risky for him to alter the document here, both because of his relationship to MCC and because if it ever came out, his rep would really be damaged.
But TEPaul has repeatedly misunderstood, misrepresented, and concealed major portions of the source material and been caught red-handed doing so on numerous occasions. Yet you and others have given him pass after pass, and his actions have been without real consequence so far. So why should he expect any consequence to follow now for mischaracterizing the contents of this report? He will undoubgtedly say is that it was a mistake or that he was going by Wayne's quick transcription of the actual document (something he has already claimed, by the way) or that he didn't mean it the way we thought he did, or some lame excuse, and you guys will nod their heads and pretend it never happened.
Look a few posts above. Without explanation or even pause, TEPaul changed "they" to "we" to justify his claim that the report was in Wilson's voice. What were the consequences for him again changing the source material to suit his rhetorical needs? You and others did not even notice or comment. You don't care. You want the report to have be in Wilson's voice so you apparently don't give a damn that he has just again altered what was supposed to be an exact transcription of the minutes.
In short, you and others enable TEPaul's continued bad behavior and disingenuous use of the source material by constantly overlooking these transgressions (and transgressions that have been much, much worse) and by not calling him on it, and not DEMANDING that he come clean with all the relevant source material.
Unlike you, I do know real life "historians" and other academics, and I am thoroughly aquainted with how their process works. I have worked for them and with them, and have even been considered one myself (although I would beg to differ.) It is tedious work but they generally take it very seriously, and in the end all they really have are their reputations. Their reputations are largely based on their work product, and ideally, their work product is judged by a rigorous peer review process where both their arguments and the facts they offer to support those arguments are subject to repeated critical analysis, verificitation, and vetting.
If your hypothetical historians had any respect whatsoever for themselves or their discipline, they would never put up with what you guys put up with here from TEPaul. His reputation would be in tatters, and he would have been shunned and laughed right out of the conversation, as he should have been on here a long time ago. Academics might have even a lower disregard for those that won't play by the rules as do serious golfers.
In addition, he would really have to concoct an alternate scenario to cover his bases that would pass vetting as well. I am not critiqing his intelligence when I say it would be difficult to anticipate all the possible ramifications of such deception that you allege.
Why? Thus far TEPaul has lived n a world without real consequences at least around here. He obviously doesn't concern himself with such things, as they have never mattered before. At this point I cannot even imagine how much it would take for the hardcore Tompaulogists to hold TEPaul accountable. Although I do know that many have privately seen the light and disavowed his information, explicitly or implicitly, so maybe there is some hope that others will start holding him to the even the basest standards of civil discourse.
I mean really, do you think he has all the time in the world to do that, just to screw with you?
It is obvious he has all the time in the world, and do think he is scrambling to save face here. But I don't think it is necessarily to screw me.
As he has explained on many occasions, he actually believes that he KNOWS what happened at Merion, at least to the extent that anyone should or could know what happened. He has repeatedly stated, even in this thread, that with the exception of the timing of the trip, his view on what happened at Merion has NOT CHANGED ONE BIT, despite all the new information that has come out over the past six years.
He is NOT here to figure out what happened. In other words, his mind is made up and was made up all along! His role here is to convince you that he is correct. And in this regard, the ends justify the means. He has stated as much on many occasions, even admitting that he and Wayne have concealed source material in the past because of what TomM and I might make of it; even admitting that his KNOWING WHAT REALLY HAPPENED determined how he viewed the Findlay's apparent statement that CBM was responsible at least some of the holes at Merion! It couldn't mean that, because TEPaul KNOWS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
So TEPaul knows what he knows DESPITE the facts, not BECAUSE of the facts, and when one approaches source material from this perspective it becomes very easy to ignore, misrepresent, and/or conceal any fact that might be construed against what YOU KNOW TO BE THE TRUTH. After all, when you think you already know the truth, what is the harm in protecting that truth by any means necessary?
In short, rather than obfuscating the truth finding process, I think TEPaul really thinks he is serving and protecting the truth by manipulating the source material. And he may not even realize he is doing it some of the time, for as you have often noted with all carry our biases with us.
I hope this clarifies my thinking on this.
I hope this clarifies my thinking on this.
I hope this clarifies my thinking on this.
No, Dave. It does not.
Please take a rest and let the rest of us take a rest. You are getting nowhere, and neither are we.
Constructively
Rich
David,
I know I am late to this segment of the conversation but I've thought for a while now as this "experts" question was debated that exactly WHO used the term AND their audience are the key to deciding whether or not Wilson and his crew qualified...
I would ask about the research you did: What sources did you search? Were they club documents or local newspaper reports or golfing publications? If they were other than club documents, is it possible that the source of the information was direct from the club in questions own words?
My sources were three different online databases which together comprise a compilation of archives of thousands of newspapers from around the country, of which at least hundreds of which were in existence during 1909 to 1911. I plan on checking a different database later this week. I searched for all articles from 1909 through 1912 referencing the relevant terms "expert(s)", "new," (and synonyms) and "golf." I then examined at the articles to determine if the "expert" was involved in creating a new course, or if the article was about something else. I then looked at the basis for referring to this person as an expert, and depending on the person, conducted additional searches to determine the basis. But almost always the basis for the expert designation was in the article, such as in this example from the April 15, 1911 Charlotte Observer article about a new course to be "Laid Off" at Greensboro Country Club:
". . . Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds of clubs of importance in the country. He is in charge of of a country club at New Brunswick Nova Scotia, and spends his summers there. While here he will also give instructions as to the game to local players."
I ask this because the use of the term within a club is very likely to comfort the rest of the membership that their new course is in good hands...much like my questions to you about your statements that CBM chose the land they purchased...
As I said, all my sources are from newspapers. But one can see by examining the various articles about Merion that these articles are very often parroting some sort of communication to the Members within the club. This seems to be the case with many of the articles I viewed, although with a few (such as the one I from quote above) it is difficult to tell whether the information is from a club communication or from the golf pro doing the work.
No doubt these articles comforted the members in the same manner than any any underlying club announcements on which they may have been based would, but the usage is extremely consistent throughout the articles I have found. In articles, club members with no design experience are not called "experts" at designing courses, even when they were good club golfers.
For what it's worth, a typical club member today would still view their top 10 players as experts and if the club made a conscious decision to not hire a golf course architect, these are the people that would be selected to do the planning.
Not sure this applies here, since we know that MCC was working with real experts before and after the announcement. Plus, I came across no examples of this type of usage.
___________________
Jim, there really aren't even any of what I would consider close calls or borderline cases, other than what I have pointed out in earlier posts. Those that they called "experts" actually possessed some qualifications, if one considers being a professional a qualification.
Here is one that I guess could be considered sort of an exception, but only because although he undeniably a real expert golfer, I don't think H. Chandler Egan was a professional golfer, was he? As I noted to Mike earlier, comparing H. Chandler Egan to Wilson hurts his point much more than it helps it.
I am also posting the article in the interest of full disclosure and because I thought it was interesting. I was not aware that Egan was designing courses this early. We usually his work from later 1920s.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/19120703MedfordOregEgan.jpg?t=1247687575)
Please read the 4th headline, and look at the golfers with 4, 7, and 8 handicaps in 1901
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3498/3707528100_22ca59a47c_o.jpg)
Dave
". . . Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds of clubs of importance in the country. He is in charge of of a country club at New Brunswick Nova Scotia, and spends his summers there. While here he will also give instructions as to the game to local players."
Mr. Peacock may have been an "expert in his line" but he was crap at geography. "New Brunswick Nova Scotia" is equivalent to "Connecticut Massachusetts."
Try harder next time. ;D
Rich
Dave
". . . Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds of clubs of importance in the country. He is in charge of of a country club at New Brunswick Nova Scotia, and spends his summers there. While here he will also give instructions as to the game to local players."
Mr. Peacock may have been an "expert in his line" but he was crap at geography. "New Brunswick Nova Scotia" is equivalent to "Connecticut Massachusetts."
Try harder next time. ;D
Rich
Rich, maybe it was a very large club.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/110415CharlotteObsPeacock.jpg?t=1247688881)
If you've finished nitpicking, can you answer my questions? Will you?
Thanks.
Please read the 4th headline, and look at the golfers with 4, 7, and 8 handicaps in 1901
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3498/3707528100_22ca59a47c_o.jpg)
Rich
Here is the article from 1901 that Mike was referring to. You must have missed riveting discussion of several days ago.
My response to your quote would similar to what I wrote Mike: "Are you saying that an article written in 1901 that states every golfer within 200 miles of NYC (no matter their handicap) is an expert should be our guide for an expert in 1911?"
Golf architecture advanced quite bit between 1901 and 1911.
You have a question? One for which you do not already have the answer? Re-educate me please!
As for Canada, my maternal Grandmother was born in St. Stephens, New Brunswick. I'll try to channel her tonight to see what she knows about Mr. Peacock. Don't expect any results soon, however, as she is and was a stubborn woman.......
This is a non-issue, demonstrably proven to be true.
You know, I'm one who thinks that, while there's been much unhelpful parsing of words in these threads, this particular parsing of words is at the least very interesting. I think Jim's point about the way the membership would have viewed the announcement well worth considering. And I find it curious that, by using just a few extra words, they could've easily identified exactly WHO those experts were -- so why didn't they?
Peter
You fail to see my point, David, because there was no point. It was a question.
Peter
Jeffrey:
I doctored documents? Who said that? What documents does someone think I doctored?
From TEPaul's recent version of the Alan Wilson letter:
They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value.
From TEPaul's version of the Alan Wilson from 2006, from posts which he has conveniently deleted (my underline):
They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.
Tom Paul, I truly hope that you can explain this inconsistency. Regardless of your thoughts on David's essay and his further comments; this is no way to debate or battle.
..............he now claims that the report said "we" went to NGLA when all along he has been telling us that the report said that "they" went to NGLA? Typical. Yet another switcharoo of what was represented as a verbatim account to support the argument.
Rich,
Bravo, and well said: "Merion East is a great golf course, and better than any course that Macdonald ever created."
Dave
". . . Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds of clubs of importance in the country. He is in charge of of a country club at New Brunswick Nova Scotia, and spends his summers there. While here he will also give instructions as to the game to local players."
Mr. Peacock may have been an "expert in his line" but he was crap at geography. "New Brunswick Nova Scotia" is equivalent to "Connecticut Massachusetts."
Try harder next time. ;D
Rich
If you believe these men thought Wilson & Co. were experts you must believe they were a bunch of dumb asses.
Interesting post Tom, what can you tell me about the club's engagement of Barker?
David
With all due respect, it has become clear that the only way you are going to be satisfied is to see the Merion minutes for yourself. I advise you make arrangements to do that; otherwise, this incessant squabbling about what they really say will go on endlessly.
Have you tried calling them to gain access. The number is (610) 642-5600. Ask for the club manager and go from there
Merion said he was not engaged by Lloyd, but rather by a non-member by the name of Connell. Is that a meaningful difference without falling inside of the bounds of semantics?
If you believe these men thought Wilson & Co. were experts you must believe they were a bunch of dumb asses.
I don't believe they thought Wilson and his committee were experts. I believe they were exaggerating and making intentional misrepresentations to the members. If you don't think that is the most likely scenario, you've clearly never been a member of a private club run by a board of appointed members
David
Please understand that I have no "desired conclusion."
If Merion's committee was telling the truth, it may well be the only time in the history of private clubs that a board has been truthful with the membership about the progress of a major capital project
I hate to delve into more speculation, but why didn't they just ask McDonald to do it? I guess for whatever reason, they were comfortable with their chosen committee
Tom and David,
Please name all of the golf course design work that Hugh Wilson had accomplished that was available for critical viewing or even simple attribution at the time he was called a Lgolf expert" in Philadelphia newspapers in spring 1913?
Please tell us as well what golf courses Robert Lesley had designed by Jan 1915, or which clubs had employed him as a professional when he was called one of the golf experts being consulted by the Philadelphia Press that month?
In the case of Wilson, do you really mean to tell us that the local press was calling him an expert at that time because he sent a bunch of letters to P+O, had a pajama party at Big Mac's house, played pick-up sticks with the commitrtee to someone else's plans, and watched Mr. Pickering supervise the hired hands building the course? How would the press have been aware of any of that?
And yet, you say our use of the proven term "expert" here as referring to Hugh Wilson is one of the biggest travesties ever on GCA?!?!
He was called an expert by the NY Times in 1901 and in the Philly papers by spring 1913, BEFORE any course you credit him with was even into shaping! Are you telling us he somehow lost his expertise somwhere along the line, or that his partner Griscom who had headed Merion's Green Committee back when Merion first started playing golf 15 years prior were simply dunces and novices because Hugh Wilson made a humble, seld-effacing comment during a reminisce years later?
These gentlemen didn't need to brag about themselves, and the low-key, classy style of these men would not have had their names boasted as experts in some inter-club communique.
To suggest that they would just exhibits a complete fundamental lack of understanding of these men and their mores.
Tom MacWood,
I've already shown that Wilson was called a "golf expert" in the spring of 1913, and prior. So was Ab Smith of Huntingdon Valley.
When you tell us they hired the best of the best aren't you really saying that HH Barker could do a better routing job in a day than these men who had all played golf for about 15 years each could do on the ground every day for months? Because he was a golf pro?
Your argument is akin to saying that Gary Player could come onto a 130 acre property for 8 hours and because of some foreign birthright, do a better routing job than you, me, David, Tom Paul, and Jim Sullivan could do if we spent 3 months out there.
p.s. Are you going to answer my question as to what you base your contention on that Wilson and all the other members of Merion's Committee except Francis were also the Green Committee in January 1911?
Mike, your avoidance of my questions is pathetic, and your arguments on this issue have been foolish, ridiculous and disingenuous. Remember your ridiculous but repeat claims that before 1910 "hundreds" club members designed their own courses, and that they were considered "experts" and designing courses merely because they were good but not great club golfers? You have changed your positions on this issue almost as often as TEPaul has changed what he tells us the source material says.
You are wasting our time so, let's agree to disagree. You obviously have nothing to add to a real conversation.
John Collum,That is interesting. I was not aware how McDonald generally went about his course design/building
If that latest episode of Lifestyles of the Rich and Pompous didn't answer your questions, I suggest we turn back to the actual source material to try and address them. From Whigham's Evangalist of Golf, as reprinted in Bahto's excellent book of the same name:
"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was very much a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."
While obviously not directly referring to Merion, this provides a good explanation of CBM's general approach for his courses with which he was not directing supervising things. The primary difference with Merion was that CBM was working with Wilson and his Committee, rather than with Raynor. Ironically, CBM's directinvolvement at Merion was apparently more extensive than at some of his courses he designed and built with Raynor. CBM did not just work on the "plans" at Merion, he helped choose the land, he spent two days at NGLA teaching Wison how to lay out the course, and he went to Merion and determined the final routing!
Additionally, the reference to correcting the plans ought to help put to rest this absurd notion that CBM had to have actually been present at Merion in order to have been helping plan it.
Hope this helps.
I find the following snippet from the NY Sun in March 1896 interesting for a few reasons.
First, it does give Leeds credit for the golf course at Myopia at that early date*, but more importantly to this discussion, it talks about AH Fenn, who also designed some golf courses shortly thereafter, and states that because he can play within six strokes of CB Macdonald he was one of the very best golfers American Born golfers in the country at that time...an expert, if you will.
Yet, five years later, in an article where Hugh Wilson is on the very same first page with Macdonald (four strokes behind him), Emmett, and Travis, and called an EXPERT in the very same article, we are told to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain....that they really didn't mean to call him an expert, or that he somehow lost his golf expertise over the intervening decade even though his handicap fell from an 8 to a 6 during that time, such that only 11 men in all of Philadelphia had a better handicap than him when he was appointed to the Merion Committee.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2593/3724808295_71c8e0299f_o.jpg)
* - Unless, of course, Herbert Leeds simply walked around the Myopia property, Zombie-like, placing sticks in pre-ordained places in the ground to someone else's plans, as the article only says that he "laid out" the course at Myopia, but had nothing to do with planning the routing or designing the holes, much like those multitudes of erroneous news articles from Philadelphia that stated that Hugh Wilson "laid out" the Merion East course. ::)
TEP
Hugh Wilson himself admitted he wasn't an expert. He said that the knowledge he and the rest of the committee had in construction and green-keeping was that of an average club member.
These were savvy men - Lloyd, Lesley, et al - who knew the meaning of the term expert. They had already been involved with Macdonald and Barker, arguably the two top experts in golf design. They would later hire the top contractor in the country and one the top grass experts in the world. In comparison to these men was Wilson an expert?
Mike
Wilson was the first green committee chairman of the new course. Oakley wrote that he was sorry he was stepping down in 1914. I don't recall the article reading the Spring of 1913.
. . .
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2593/3724808295_71c8e0299f_o.jpg)
. . .
As it appears this thread still has miles to go before it sleeps, may I respectfully request that when posting images of news articles to please indicate the date if possible. This has been a distraction for several days
"TEP
Hugh Wilson himself admitted he wasn't an expert. He said that the knowledge he and the rest of the committee had in construction and green-keeping was that of an average club member."
Tom:
I know he did. You don't have to tell me that---we've known that ever since we found all those agronomy letters that just came into the USGA about six or sevevn years ago. Richard Francis also said the only thing he contributed was that land swap he described in that 1950 story. Do you believe that too? ;)
Apparently you don't understand the modesty of some of those men back then any better than you do their culture or the way they looked at the architecture of those times and the men who did it and were asked to do it.
Please let us know when you find a single person on GCA who is in agreement with your theories.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2473/3725759766_bf5df1b7ea_o.jpg)
Mike
Please tell me what Wilson had in common with Macdonald, Barker, Patterson, Wylde and Beale, the well known experts involved at Merion. What were his comparable qualifications?
"The better question is what did Macdonald, Emmet, Travis and Leeds have in common, and what were Wilson's comparable qualifications?"
Excellent question Tom:
That is actually the question and theme for my article for the 2009 Walker Cup progam entitled "Hugh I. Wilson and the amateur/sportsman architect."
"In common" I'm calling their "commonalities" and I'm going with:
Each one of them and my coterie or group of those amateur/sportsmen architects are, in chronological order of their special projects, Leeds, Emmet (alternating with Travis), the Fownses, Macdonald, Wilson and Crump, had in common that they all took years and sometimes decades with their special projects which all became world famous and respected architecture both back then and today; all of them were members or even founders of the clubs of those special projects that became famous; none of them took remuneration for their time and efforts until the "architect exception" to the amateur status rules was essentially articulated and then created and even then most of them didn't; and that they were all very much imbued in those early days with the "amateur/sportsman" ethos (nonprofessionalism in all things golf). But perhaps the most interesting point of all I'd like to make is that their fascinating era came to a distinct end at a particular point and there is a very good and identifiable historic architectural reason for it and another one of those special amateur/sportsman architect projects that became famous as theirs did would never be begun again (after around the end to WW1) with the possible really interesting exception of Marion Hollins and The Woman's National in 1924.
The additionally interesting point is that in perhaps the majority of cases of those special projects and architects mentioned they were essentially their first efforts in golf course architecture!
We have been through the looking glass and back again. :P
The adminstrator's of this site are now long over-due in issuing a verdict on all the evidence that has been posited.
John Collum,That is interesting. I was not aware how McDonald generally went about his course design/building
If that latest episode of Lifestyles of the Rich and Pompous didn't answer your questions, I suggest we turn back to the actual source material to try and address them. From Whigham's Evangalist of Golf, as reprinted in Bahto's excellent book of the same name:
"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was very much a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."
While obviously not directly referring to Merion, this provides a good explanation of CBM's general approach for his courses with which he was not directing supervising things. The primary difference with Merion was that CBM was working with Wilson and his Committee, rather than with Raynor. Ironically, CBM's directinvolvement at Merion was apparently more extensive than at some of his courses he designed and built with Raynor. CBM did not just work on the "plans" at Merion, he helped choose the land, he spent two days at NGLA teaching Wison how to lay out the course, and he went to Merion and determined the final routing!
Additionally, the reference to correcting the plans ought to help put to rest this absurd notion that CBM had to have actually been present at Merion in order to have been helping plan it.
Hope this helps.
If Herbert Barker was one of the Top Designers of golf courses in the country, why in May of 1911 did he advertise that he was simply an expert at placing wooden stakes "on the ground", as in "laying out" golf courses? ::)
We have been through the looking glass and back again. :P
The adminstrator's of this site are now long over-due in issuing a verdict on all the evidence that has been posited.
Bradley,
Which administrator's did you have in mind? What leads you to believe that they are at all interested in being judge and jury to this little dispute? Or, that there will ever be a concluding verdict by anyone, that everybody will agree with?
We have been through the looking glass and back again. :P
The adminstrator's of this site are now long over-due in issuing a verdict on all the evidence that has been posited.
Bradley,
Which administrator's did you have in mind? What leads you to believe that they are at all interested in being judge and jury to this little dispute? Or, that there will ever be a concluding verdict by anyone, that everybody will agree with?
Bryan,
I am thinking of the same administrators who want to be welcome at the great clubs in America, to profile. Let me ask you Bryan, if you were a member at one of these clubs, would you welcome these men to your club after what Merion has endured here?
One can not fully appreciate what is written above if they are not familiar with these times. Read some biographies from this time, and the stories of how people lived then; how they thought about things: these were post-enlightenment men who were not even remotely influenced by the scepticism that stultified progressive men from daring to do the impossible after the first world war. These men were possessed by a kind of fearlessness that would have laughed in the face of being written off as novice or un-expert.
And most of them smoked too.
Some thoughts on the "Expert" posts.
I think Mike has posted evidence that demonstrates that in the time frame in question, Hugh Wilson might have been considered an expert golfer (i.e. he was in the upper percentiles of players), although not a golf (in a broader sense) expert.
I think that David has provided evidence that "those considered "experts" in planning golf courses actually had obtained a level of expertise in planning golf courses. Almost without exception such individuals were professionals and/or had done it before."
So we have two ships passing in the night, proving two different points.
You left out the most important part of Mike's attempted argument. He proposed that good golfers were commonly considered to have been experts at designing courses" based solely on golfing ability. Therefor, Mike reasoned,since Hugh Wilson was an "expert golfer" he would also have been considered an expert at designing courses.
In support of this claim, Mike just pretended that hundreds of club members had planned their own courses before 1910, and that these club members were considered "experts" at designing golf courses simply because they were good golfers. Aside from this, he has offered no support.
My research checked whether Mike's understanding that good golfer equaled "expert" designer was supported by the facts. It was not.
So we don't really have two ships passing in the night. We have one ship passing, and one ship sinking. Mike has not supported his contention that if Hugh Wilson was an expert golfer, then he would have necessarily been considered an expert at designing golf course.
What we don't have is any factual evidence that states who the "experts" are that are referred to in the announcement. So, both sides try to infer that their evidence proves that it was either Wilson or M&W. David goes so far as to say it very likely it's M&W, but, even he can't quite make the leap to absolutely.
We have plenty of evidence, just no necessarily conclusive evidence. That is why I say it is very likely M&W. And, it was very unlikely Wilson and Co. But while the evidence is not necessarily conclusive, standards of proof are very rarely absolutes, and for good reason.
Then there is the Jim/John third side who say that the Board was probably just aggrandizing their own chosen people by calling them experts. I count myself in this camp.
This is the camp that doesn't even bother to figure out the facts or even to believe what the Committee said. I guess the advantage is that no one can criticize your facts or logic if you have neither. (I am joking, sort of)
In the end there is no factual evidence that allows any of us to make an absolute conclusion that we are right. Much like the "blue print" and "approve" debates.
I agree, which is why I did not come to an absolute conclusion. Yet why do I feel I am being criticized for not doing so?
Absolute conclusions are rarely if ever possible in this sort of inquiry. So we have three choices, we can throw up our arms and don't bother trying to figure it out and just go with whatever we are inclined to believe anyway (your middle position) or we can simply insist that we have conclusively proven our position even though we have offered no factual support for one of our key contentions (Mike's posiiton) or we can try and look at all the facts including how the terms were generally used, MCC's level of understanding and sophistication regarding these issues, and numerous other factors and try to figure it out as best we can.
Don't get me wrong, in the end it may turn out that you guys are correct and the committee was just spouting off. But by my understanding of the facts this is not very likely, although maybe more likely than Mike's contention that they were definitely referring to Hugh Wilson and his committee.
As a side thought on David's approach to evidence and logic, I have been trying to understand why it doesn't always fly for me. In this particular case of "experts", David has described how, by searching databases he has found a sample of hits that demonstrate that course designers were "Almost without exception such individuals were professionals and/or had done it before." From this he deduces that since Wilson was neither a professional nor had he done it before, therefore he couldn't be the expert. From Wikipedia, the following about logical fallacies:
"The logical fallacy of converse accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter) is a deductive fallacy that can occur in a statistical syllogism when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for.
For example:
Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white
The inductive version of this fallacy is called hasty generalization."
If I could rewrite the example to our example:
Every course designer of the time that I found in the databases were professionals and/or had done it before, therefore all course designers of the time were professionals and/or had done it before.
To be fair, David did start by saying "almost without exception", so he does allow that there may be an exception, but then goes on to ignore the possible exception that Wilson might have been, or might have been seen to be by others in the club.
When I said "almost without exception" I was referring to the results of my research, and explained the possible exception.
From there, David moves on to inductive logic, reasoning which takes us "beyond the confines of our current evidence or knowledge to conclusions about the unknown." In our case his inductive logic is that experts were professionals or had done it before, therefore Wilson couldn't have been an expert because he wasn't a profession and hadn't done it before, and therfore whoever wrote the announcement couldn't have meant that Wilson was the expert.
Not so and not at all. My argument never moves outside our current knowledge or evidence. Rather it is entirely conditioned upon that evidence. I do not claim that experts were professionals or had done it before. Nor do I claim the rest. I DO NOT MAKE THE LOGICAL LEAP YOU ATTRIBUTE TO ME. Rather I stay within the evidence and condition my conclusions on that evidence. I looked at how the terms were used at the time or the common usage. According to my understanding of how the terms were commonly used in these circumstances, Hugh Wilson was not an "expert" at planning golf courses. Therefore, if Merion used the terms as they were commonly used at the time, then they could not have been referring to Hugh Wilson.
This is a far cry from the kind of absolute conclusion you attribute to me. It is wholly conditional on the evidence, and requires no inductive logic whatsoever.
So, I guess I'm hung up on logical fallacies and inductive generalizations as a way to "prove" the expert reference. Personally I don't think Wilson was an expert course designer and may have been an expert golfer at that time, but, conversely, I don't think it can be ruled out that he was one of the "experts" referenced in the announcement. And, I see no point in discussing probabilities. In the end, we just don't know.
I think you are misunderstanding the nature my argument which was essentially a test of Mike's assumption. Mike claimed that good golfers were automatically considered experts golf course planners; Wilson was a good golfer, therefore he was a expert. This is not the case. Mike's assumptions are false, therefore his argument fails.
Moreover, while my argument does not necessarily prove it was M&W and/or barker it is strong evidence that it was M&W and/or Barker, because so far as we know they were the only "experts" -- as the term was used at the time -- who were at all involved. This leaves open the possibility that they were using the term in a manner inconsistent with how the terms were usually used.
In short, Bryan, I think the problem you have having with my argument stems from the fact that you have misunderstood it.
More importantly, you missed the most important part of Mike's argument. I could not care less whether Mike thinks Hugh Wilson was an expert golfer. But I do care when Mike asserts that this means Wilson was necessarily an expert at designing courses, and therefor that the Committee was necessarily referring to him.
David
With all due respect, it has become clear that the only way you are going to be satisfied is to see the Merion minutes for yourself. I advise you make arrangements to do that; otherwise, this incessant squabbling about what they really say will go on endlessly.
Have you tried calling them to gain access. The number is (610) 642-5600. Ask for the club manager and go from there
John,
Thanks for the suggestion, but I try not to discuss my dealings (past or present) with private clubs on public forums, but I can assure you that if I had the minutes or could easily access them elsewhere, I wouldn't bother trying to get a look at them here. Could you be a little clearer. I know it would be difficult and expensive to get to Ardmore from California, so you can't easily access them in that respect, but have you been denied access at Merion and/or MCC?
But I sure hope it did not take you until now to figure out that I will not be satisfied until I see the minutes for myself. What I don't understand is why, at this point, any of the rest of you would be satisfied with anything less? I'm not satisfied with anything less. But, I'd want to see them myself, not just hear what you've seen. But, I don't believe badgering TEP for material he might or might not have copies of, and that is not his, is going to be successful. TEPaul's version of the source material changes at his whim. I agree, he has recanted on a number of points over the last few months. Good reason to want to see it ourselves.
..............................
...............................
And John, with all due respect to you, why aren't you and others asking TEPaul to come forward with the accurate information? I don't want accurate information, I want to see the documents. He can obviously do whatever he wants to with it. Maybe, maybe not. The source material is Merion's and Wayne has access as a member. I expect Tom is not free to act independently, despite leaking parts of documents. So wouldn't this be a more direct and elegant solution the this problem? After all, he and Wayne and the ones who have injected all this unverified garbage into our discussion to serve their rhetorical purposes, so the burden is theirs to verify that they have done so truthfully and accurately. This is not a legal issue, it's a discussion group issue. There is no burden, no matter how hard you might want to push it. As with the deeds, Tom foolishly did not want to provide them, so we found another way to get them. In this case, if we want the Merion records the burden is on us to get them. Again, have you tried lately to get access, and have you been denied. Do not hide behind the privacy of your dealings with private clubs. If Tom/Wayne won't provide them and you and Tom M have been denied access then we're up the creek on the Merion records.
"No wonder we Canadians sometimes wonder if Americans have any clue about Canada."
Where?
Is that the place that Montreal and Quebec is? I think I went up there last year to play in the Lesley Cup at Royal Montreal GC but I'm not completely sure. I did notice some checkpoint where they asked for my passport but I thought it was just some speed trap in New York state that nailed me for driving 107mph on the Northway. I did notice the people had a sort of strange accent but I thought maybe that was because I forgot to remove some excess wax from my ears. The older I get the more I realize one should never go anywhere without golf clubs, a blue blazer and cue-tips.
One further thought on the announcement. The full sentence with the "expert" reference is:
"The land has been purchased and settled for and experts are at work preparing plans for a Golf Course that will rank in length, soil and variety of hazards with the best in the country." (e & o e)
Now, we know that at the time of the announcement that MCC had not "purchased" the land. It is factually incorrect. Perhaps the writer was trying to create a positive, we're moving forward vibe.
The land had been purchased and settled for. MCC had not yet taken title, Lloyd had. But the land had been purchased and settled for.
In the same vein, perhaps they also tried to create a positive, moving forward vibe about the use of "experts" for planning. How much more buzz could they have generated by saying that M&W, the famous golfers who have studied golf course construction and built NGLA, are at work planning the course? (As a parenthetical thought, in July, 1910, M&W MCC described M&W as "famous golfers" not famous course designers, nor experts, who had studied "construction", not designing.)
I don't think you fully understand the nature of the transaction or have accurately presented it, so I am not sure that any of this follows. Plus it is nice speculation, but without much basis.
The last part talks about "length, soil and variety of hazards". These are three of CBM's are crucial components of an ideal golf course. Didn't M&W suggest a shortish course? No. If measured the way courses are commonly measured, MCC built about the length of course M&W recommended. Didn't M&W slough them off to Piper on soils? If referring them to the foremost experts and continuing to stay involved was sloughing them off, then yes. Variety of hazards - now who was the "expert" on that? Undoubtedly CBM. What an interesting set of three goals for the Golf Course. Read Scotland's Gift and it will all make sense to you. And, it didn't even mention template holes. ;)
David,
I hope your sense of humor is intact for this one. What would you say to a person who would post the following quote:
". . . Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds of clubs of importance in the country. He is in charge of of a country club at New Brunswick Nova Scotia, and spends his summers there. While here he will also give instructions as to the game to local players."
when the actual article:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/110415CharlotteObsPeacock.jpg?t=1247688881)
said (mydeletesand adds to correct the quote):
" . . . Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds for a number of golfing clubs of importance in the country. Heis inhas charge ofofa country club at New, BrunswickNovaNoviaScotiaSocitia, and spends his summers there. While here he will also give instructions as to the game to local players."
Would you admonish the person quoting about being sloppy or accuse them of doctoring the quote?
David
With all due respect, it has become clear that the only way you are going to be satisfied is to see the Merion minutes for yourself. I advise you make arrangements to do that; otherwise, this incessant squabbling about what they really say will go on endlessly.
Have you tried calling them to gain access. The number is (610) 642-5600. Ask for the club manager and go from there
John,
Thanks for the suggestion, but I try not to discuss my dealings (past or present) with private clubs on public forums, but I can assure you that if I had the minutes or could easily access them elsewhere, I wouldn't bother trying to get a look at them here. Could you be a little clearer. I know it would be difficult and expensive to get to Ardmore from California, so you can't easily access them in that respect, but have you been denied access at Merion and/or MCC?
Sorry Bryan, but I do not discuss my dealings with the clubs on public pages as I feel it would be rude. Also, in this case it would not be at all productive.
But I sure hope it did not take you until now to figure out that I will not be satisfied until I see the minutes for myself. What I don't understand is why, at this point, any of the rest of you would be satisfied with anything less? I'm not satisfied with anything less. But, I'd want to see them myself, not just hear what you've seen. But, I don't believe badgering TEP for material he might or might not have copies of, and that is not his, is going to be successful. TEPaul's version of the source material changes at his whim. I agree, he has recanted on a number of points over the last few months. Good reason to want to see it ourselves.
I'm not badgering him. I am encouraging others to stop putting up with his nonsense, and start treating him like he desrves to be treated. We'll never be able to discuss anything productively unitl TEPaul learns that his actions and words have consequences.
..............................
...............................
And John, with all due respect to you, why aren't you and others asking TEPaul to come forward with the accurate information? I don't want accurate information, I want to see the documents. He can obviously do whatever he wants to with it. Maybe, maybe not. The source material is Merion's and Wayne has access as a member. I expect Tom is not free to act independently, despite leaking parts of documents. So wouldn't this be a more direct and elegant solution the this problem? After all, he and Wayne and the ones who have injected all this unverified garbage into our discussion to serve their rhetorical purposes, so the burden is theirs to verify that they have done so truthfully and accurately. This is not a legal issue, it's a discussion group issue. There is no burden, no matter how hard you might want to push it. As with the deeds, Tom foolishly did not want to provide them, so we found another way to get them. In this case, if we want the Merion records the burden is on us to get them. Again, have you tried lately to get access, and have you been denied. Do not hide behind the privacy of your dealings with private clubs. If Tom/Wayne won't provide them and you and Tom M have been denied access then we're up the creek on the Merion records.
There is no formal burden but there is a rhetorical one. We ought not to accept anything this guy tells us unless he backs it up! That is the way these conversations are supposed to work. We should all tell him that his unsupported ramblings serve no productive purpose unless he backs up everything he says. In other words we need to hold him to a standard of civil discourse, and should refuse to accept a single representation without factual support.
He needs to put up or shut up.
In response to Tom MacWood's question of what Wilson had in common with the other great amateur architects I thought about posting Alex FIndlay's opening day article from 1912 that makes the comparison between what Wilson and company did at Merion to what Leeds did at Myopia, perhaps coupled with a 1906 article showing how tight Findlay was with the goings-on at Myopia.
Then I thought about adding the 1914 article that someone here originally credited to Max Behr but that I believe was Robert White who compared the successful, autocratic, almost dictatorial styles of Wilson at Merion, Big Mac at NGLA, and Leeds at Myopia.
Then, in answer to Bryan I was going to point out that the one article I posted last night uses the terms golf expert and expert golfer interchangeably...
Then I read the rest of the stuff posted last night and figure, what's the use?
Do I hear a last call for any new evidence?
Without anything new to consider, this thread is pointless at this point.
Tom,
You've told us that we must think Lloyd and Griscom were "dumbasses" if they thought Wilson was an expert at the time...I've told you what I think of the expert debate, but tell me, what did Lloyd and Griscom say about Wilson's role in the process after the fact? Does anyone have any words from them or their committee(s)?
Dan,
While I don't believe that Merion ever intentionally slighted M&W, if we consider what we was ongoing in golf at the time, we can see that there might have been reasons for Merion not to sing CBM's praises too loudly or too often. This was right about then the Schenectady Putter fiasco broke out, and most of the golfing community in the United States was very much at odds with not only the R and A, but also with CBM personally as he was construed to have sided with the Royal and Ancient and against the United States and its hero of the time, Walter Travis (ironically an Australian) who had beaten them at their own game on their soil with the mallet headed putter. Tempers were running high and scathing rebukes of CBM were written and printed, and his popularity suffered greatly, and American nationalism toward things golf related was in a fervor. But again, I don't think the intentionally slighted him, although a changing attitude toward him and what he represented probably did not make it all that conducive a time to brag excessively about one's CBM course.
That being said, I've always figured that this golfing nationalism might have had something to do with why those in Philadelphia suddenly quit talking about how most of the holes at Merion were modeled after the great holes abroad. It was no longer all that popular to be following what had happened abroad. But that sort of thing is tough to prove or quantify.
Tom,
Here's what I think of your insistence on these guys recognizing talent and expertise and utilizing it at Merion...
I think they recognized that you could go really wrong if you used an inferior builder of the course...just like an actual building, if you have the money you're going to find the best in the business to build it for you so you don't have to come back three years later to do it again.
I think a similar sentiment holds with regards to grass selection and cultivation. I am taking your word for this that they chose the best, but the point remains, in a process like this you want the best start possible.
They recognized expertise was required in building the course and growing grass, but they concluded no such expertise was needed to design the course? Why do you believe they would engage experts in construction and grass, but then rely an inexperienced novices to design the golf course, arguably the most important task? Their stated goal was to build a golf course that would rival the best in the country. The real estate project was also dependent on the golf course.
As far as laying out and modifying the course however, CBM had shown a model of patient, diligent hands on work to create his course. I guess Leeds had as well...but more importantly it was becoming very common for these type of men to want to "OWN" the creation of their course and mold it over time into their vision. CBM was likely more than happy to help in any way asked, but the key is that he was not paid and so had no obligation. Barker was a quick turn around router (probably including many features/hazards), if you were Horatio Gates Lloyd, why would you settle for someone coming in for a day-to-three telling you where to put your holes and then leaving town? Why wouldn't you demand a long-term, on-site committment from your most important person to solve the problems that arise all the time in this type of job?
You are projecting future events on our situation. In 1911 CBM had not been tinkering with the NGLA for decades. When did the course open for play? To my knowledge he hadn't even begun tinkering. And Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow engaged CBM to design their golf courses around the same time. Were they concerned with CBM's wanting to own their courses? In 1911 golf courses were laid in a matter of days, in fact in the 1920s golf courses laid out in a matter of days. Again your projecting future developments on our situation. Regarding Barker if his process was good enough for Columbia, Mayfield, CC of Atlantic City, Detroit, Skokie and Rumson, why wouldn't it be good enough for Merion? His results were pretty darn good in no small part due to skilled constructors, who Merion hired. And if Barker was such an undesirable, why would the Club use his expert opinion so prominently?
The answer lies in what actually did happen...Hugh Wilson was that guy. He received a tremendous amount of tutoring from CBM, the extent of which we may never exactly know...I think the one thing you and David have inadvertantly done throughout this argument is dismiss the character of Charles Blair Macdonald. For your theory (I am only recognizing the CBM theory because Barker is so far afield) to really hold water we would have to accept that CBM demanded obedience from these men...is that how you think he operated?
Hugh Wilson was the guy? Hugh Wilson was the chairman of the construction committee, and he described the committee's level of expertise at the time its formation: "...early in 1911 the Club appointed a committee consisting of Messrs. Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin and Wilson to construct a new course on the 125 acres of land which had been purchased. the members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member." Does that sound like the qualifications that Lloyd & Co. typically sought?
Tom,
I haven't researched the era as extensively as you have. I do think you are smart to realize how much things did change in those 20 years. In many cases, I think we tend to think of "the old days" as sort of all happening at once, but in reality, there were more changes in gca in those 20 years than there have been circa 1989-2009 because the craft was just developing in the US. And, that level of understanding might make a difference in our modern interpretations.
I actually haven't got a clue if the meanings were different in 1890 and 1910. But, I don't think anyone else really does either. Basically, DM and Mike C have both presented contemporaneous examples of the word being used in the ways they support as its basic meaning. It appears to me that people used the word in many ways so we can't rule out just what MCC meant.
Nor do I think parsing words like that means much in this context, other than the basic facts are going against you. Basically, it is the nature of lawsuits and disagreements of any kind. When there is a disagreement, the argument will eventually go to areas that are the least defined as each side makes their points.
That is what is happening here. You and DM want to prove the MCC history is wrong. (yes, I know, you want to find the truth) The basic timeline according to meeting minutes shows one thing. So you start picking around the edges, like parsing every frickin word someone used, including blueprint, expert, etc. You elevate those kinds of incidences - a choice of words - to prime importance in the argument over other documents.
Probably the biggest argument you could use is the old "An expert is a out of towner with a briefcase." That alone makes Barker a bigger expert than anyone at MCC. I am surprised you haven't pulled that one out of the hat yet! Of course, TePaul and Mike C would argue that this saying really impllies that many realize that they know as much as the experts and refuse to pay for expensive advice when they can do it themselves. And so it goes on.
Jim Sullivan is right - we simply don't know. It is getting a lot less fun to be on golfclubatlas.com because of this endless arguments. As a friend of mine says, "when its not fun anymore, its just not fun anymore". Obviously, he is channeling Yogi Berra. But, he is right. The biggest question for me right now is not what expert means, its whether this site is even fun anymore and worth the time.
CB Mac purchased the land for NGLA in 1906 and took MONTHS to layout the course he wanted before turning a spade of dirt.
Rodman Griscom had experience with one-day wonders 1illie Campbell and Willie Dunn as the first head of the Merion Green Committee when they built and opened their very first course back in 1896.
The "sporty" course was a bit of a monstrosity, with 3 of the nine holes slogs between 500 and 600 yards replete with cross bunkers.
Is it any wonder that Griscom is the one who brought in Mac and Whigham after Connell proposed Barker's one-day routing??
THAT is why HH Barker was good enough for RuMson and Mayfield and NOT good enough for Merion.
Mike, your avoidance of my questions is pathetic, and your arguments on this issue have been foolish, ridiculous and disingenuous. Remember your ridiculous but repeat claims that before 1910 "hundreds" club members designed their own courses, and that they were considered "experts" and designing courses merely because they were good but not great club golfers? You have changed your positions on this issue almost as often as TEPaul has changed what he tells us the source material says.
You are wasting our time so, let's agree to disagree. You obviously have nothing to add to a real conversation.
That's fine.
I'm sure you don't want to answer questions related to my direct, contemporaneous proof that Hugh Wilson was called a golf expert before you admit he was a golf course architect, both in 1901 and again in spring 1913.
I understand how you wouldn't have an answer that fits with your theories that you'd want to discuss.
Tom,
It's back a page or two, near a picture of Wilson and Ab Smith with Clarence Geist and Ellis Gimbel and others. I'm sure you can find it.
Guys, I don't have the patience to read all of this anymore, but if you're arguing that Hugh Wilson was the "golf expert" referenced in that Merion letter to the members about the land being secured and golf experts working on constructing the course, I will only say this:
There is no way in hell that the person or persons referenced in that letter as golf experts were members of the club. No Fricking Way.
It is riduculous to take a position that assumes that a person would be referrred to with a descriptive phrase without a name like that when his name was known to the membership and many of them were friends of his. You just don't address your audience that way in formal written English. You only use a description without a name like that when the actual name of the person means nothing to the reader and the description is the only thing of importance to them. Guys, this is one of the most obvious pieces of this whole thing that is really not contestible.
Tom,
You asked, "Did Tilly follow the progress of Merion very closely? If I'm not mistaken he was involved in the design and construction of Shawnee-on-the-Delaware at the time Merion was being built, which is not exactly in the same neighborhood..."
Yes he did and we know this for a number of reasons. First he did write about it during that time. Secondly, for several years now Tilly had been writing about the extreme need in the Philadelphia area for a true championship course that would test the players and enable and inspire them to improve and so he had a vested interest in following it. Third, he was close friends with MANY of those invovled in the project and associated with them regularly. Fourth, and a point that is forgotten by most researchers, Tilly's father was also deeply invovled in all things Philadelphia golf and was already supplying his son local stories and information for his writings. he would do so until he died.
Tom M - Was Fownes an expert when he designed Oakmont?
He mentioned the work a number of times; that is as close as I can say off-hand. I honestly don't have the time to look them up, so accept that answer or not, the point is that he definitely kept up with the project.
Is it your contention that UNLESS he SPECIFICALLY WROTE about it that he DIDN'T talk about it with his friends or visit the site? That would be a ludicrous stance.
Tom M,
The men making the decision on a designer had multiple reasons for choosing one of their own to take the leading role in designing the golf course. One of them was the allure of doing the job themselves. That Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock chose not to is a different matter and totall unrelated. Another is the fact that the very nature of building a golf course asks for a consistent and steady eye on what is happening so adjustments can be made when required. The strategic and aesthetic theme of the course should be developed by a single source so there are no "assumptions". How much time does Tom Doak spend with an unknown shaping crew before letting them go to work? There is a very real comprimise to the end result when the subcontractor has no connection to the designer. The men that created Merion East knew that...very likely from CBM at NGLA and chose to avoid that circumstance in favor of patiently creating their course over a number of years...
...beginning in the summer of 1910!
I had to get that last part in to maintain my independence as well as to reiterate my belief that it is the most logical process...and to have a little fun.
It occurs to me that the experts referred to could be Oakley and Piper, as well as CBM in an adivsory role, no? Nothing in that letter says exactly how the experts are working.
I find it odd that press release or letter to members would refer to a course that ranks in length, character and "soils" would be sent out. With modern agronomy, no gca mentions soils as a selling point.
I think the whole slew of Oakley letters just goes to show that they knew NGLA and most other courses were struggling with turf and how important it was to them.
Tom Mac,
As I have stated before, I don't think any of the word parsing arguments (although I just participated in it!) are worth a hoot, because we are basing conclusions of word selection, which isn't always careful, or understood from 100 years in the future, no matter how hard we try and think we may be right. Its hard to remember that this thread was a timeline thread by Mike, devoted originally to verifiable (or fairly easy to conclude) points along the way.
Diverging from the actual letter that shows when the work began to interpreting it in many different ways goes way beyond the timeline fascination.
I am glad we are all interested in this stuff. It can be fun to a point. But, no one should take themselves all that seriously!
Jim
I'm still unclear on how you read the Club's statement that said experts were at work planning the golf course. Are you saying that Wilson and his committee were considered experts or are you saying the Club just BS-ing the membership and golfing public?
It occurs to me that the experts referred to could be Oakley and Piper, as well as CBM in an adivsory role, no? Nothing in that letter says exactly how the experts are working.
Jim
I'm still unclear on how you read the Club's statement that said experts were at work planning the golf course. Are you saying that Wilson and his committee were considered experts or are you saying the Club just BS-ing the membership and golfing public?
I am saying the club viewed the committee as THEIR EXPERTS...and that they would, and continue to, fully acknowledge the advice and guidance of CBM (a proven expert).
I think, if it were ever possible for all the facts to come out...we would all recognize that CBM was more influential than WE thought...but that is not to say he was more influential than MERION thought. Tom Paul makes an interesting suggestion about correcting what is in the Merion history books...what is in the Merion history books regarding CBM? What if it already acknowledges his role in full? I wouldn't expect it agrees with David's..."CBM was calling all the shots...", but it may well recognize the full scope of what we can agree on.
Jim
I'm still unclear on how you read the Club's statement that said experts were at work planning the golf course. Are you saying that Wilson and his committee were considered experts or are you saying the Club just BS-ing the membership and golfing public?
I am saying the club viewed the committee as THEIR EXPERTS...and that they would, and continue to, fully acknowledge the advice and guidance of CBM (a proven expert).I am sure you have some document of what Lloyd & Co said immediately after the fact...what did they say about the creation of the course? Did they say Wilson was, in the main, responsible for it? If so then you must believe they were liars. Do you believe they were liars?
Jim
To believe that you must believe Lloyd & Co suspended their well documented standards, in other words you believe they were dumb asses. .
Tom MacWood,
Can you provide us with a list of Barker courses that were open for play in June 1910?
Jim
I'm still unclear on how you read the Club's statement that said experts were at work planning the golf course. Are you saying that Wilson and his committee were considered experts or are you saying the Club just BS-ing the membership and golfing public?
I am saying the club viewed the committee as THEIR EXPERTS...and that they would, and continue to, fully acknowledge the advice and guidance of CBM (a proven expert).I am sure you have some document of what Lloyd & Co said immediately after the fact...what did they say about the creation of the course? Did they say Wilson was, in the main, responsible for it? If so then you must believe they were liars. Do you believe they were liars?
Jim
To believe that you must believe Lloyd & Co suspended their well documented standards, in other words you believe they were dumb asses. .
Tom M,
I would like you to address this please.
"Phil, I could be mistaken, but I do not believe he followed the progress at Merion closely. I have all the articles he wrote on the subject in American Golfer and there aren't many. He devoted very little coverage Merion, especially in comparison to his coverage of PV."
Tom, you are. He wrote more about Pine Valley for a variety of reasons, the main one being his OWN INVOLVEMENT in the design of several holes. Remember, he wasjust establishing his own credentials as an architect from 1910-1913 and so made MANY mentions of projects that he was working on or had hopes of becoming invovled with.
Again, he followed Merion very closely for ALL of the reasons that i mentioned earlier, including the times that he did write about it.
Tom,
Tillinghast also wrote multiple times in the local @hilly papers including in April 1911 that he had seen the plans.
I don't believe Lloyd, or anyone else in the club hierarchy, stated Wilson was responsible in the main for the original design of the East course.
I don't believe Lloyd, or anyone else in the club hierarchy, stated Wilson was responsible in the main for the original design of the East course.
Really? Noone?
April 1911
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/3726705533_b16d8fd1eb_o.jpg)
May 1911
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2608/3726705541_fffae838b6_o.jpg)
May 1911
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2636/3726705553_5c86937544_o.jpg)
Tom MacWood....didn't you say some time back that you believed "Far and Sure" was Tillinghast? Should I include him too?
Tom,
Please consider carefully what you wrote:
"Phil, I count two articles in American Golfer between 1910 and 1912. The first is December 1910 when he announces the project, and says M&W had recently visited the site (June is recent?). The second and last article was May 1911 when he said the planning stage was nearing completion, and noted M&W had visited and were assisting the committee. The course opened September 1912. That is not a lot of coverage and tells me he was not observing the progress closely..."
By that definition and logic, H.H. Barker, C.B. Macdonald & Whigham had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Merion because they wrote NOTHING, not a SINGLE WORD about the course, the construction or the design of Merion during that time period!
Again, writing about the course and "OBSERVING THE PROGRESS CLOSELY" are two entirely different things! For you to make that conclusion based upon the line of reasoning you used is ludicrous. Again, Tilly wrote for more publications than the American Golfer during that time period as has already been mentioned. Secondly he was good friends with anumber of the Merion members and associated with tem REGULARLY. Do you believe that they DIDN'T talk about the progress of the project because Tilly hadn't written anything about it that day? Thirdly, His father was well aware and keeping up-to-date on everything Philadelphia golf related and providing details to Tilly for his columns when needed and finally, Tilly was GREATLY INTERESTED because Merion was to be the FIRST GREAT COURSE in the area, something he had written about and spoken about for years.
This is a case where you have CLEARLY made a determinatioon and are attempting to fit the facts to meet and prove it. You are wrong on this one...
"TEP
Allan Wilson said a lot of things, unfortunately not all of what he said turned out to be accurate, and he was not amongst the Club's hierarchy in 1911 aka Lloyd & Co."
Tom:
Another typical generalization on your part that you apparently hope has some meaning. Why don't you list those "a lot of things, unfortunately not all of what he said turned out to be accurate?"
Actually Alan Wilson was amongst the club's hierarchy, at least with golf. Alan was one of the founders and board members of what in 1909 became known as the "Merion Cricket Club Golf Association." And so was Hugh Wilson.
The more we all get into all this the more apparent it becomes how little you actually know about Merion, its people and its history, Tom.
Personally, I think that is your real failing in trying to analyze all this and why I have always said that if you or anyone else really wants to know a club's history you really do need to go there FIRST and completely familiarize yourself with all of it----as Wayne and I have been doing for about the last ten years.
Tom MacWood,
If Tillinghast saw the plans for Merion at Garden City, or even if the saw them hanging on Macdonald's wall, all the better! ;D
He still saw the plans prior to construction, he spoke directly to CB Macdonald about them, he had many good friends among the Merion membership, the best being Howard Perrin, and he also knew what all the terminologies meant from laid out to architecture. Hell, one of his quotes I've only seen one other place and that is in the April 19, 1911 Merion Minutes!! :o
And with all of that, when Merion opened he did not credit CB Macdonald with the course in his length review for American Cricketer, and instead said Hugh Wilson deserved the congratulations of all golfers!
Then, in case there was any remaining doubt, and because it was so sad that so few knew the truth, he wrote the conclusive proof in 1934, as seen above.
Never did he mention anything about Barker, and Alan Wilson also made very clear that Merion did NOT use a golf course architect.
This Barker thing of your's is thinner than an Ethiopian model. We can go over it again, but almost none of those courses were opened in June 1910, or if they were remodels only few had their work done by Barker by that time.
By the way, are you seriously trying to convince us that A. W. Tillinghast didn't really know who designed Merion?!?!? :o :o :o ::)
Tom MacWood,
That's crap and you know it.
Philler asked Wilson to write a rememberance of the origins of the golf courses.
He wasn't talking about the course in 1926; he was talking about the course that opened in 1912.
Dear Mr. Philler:-
You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history, and I warned you that I did this sort of thing very badly. You insisted, however, so I have done the best I could and enclose the article herewith. If it is not what you want, please do not hesitate to destroy it and to ask someone else to write you something which will better suit your purpose.
I am very glad you are writing the club history. It ought to be done because unless put on paper these things which are interesting in themselves are apt to be forgotten,-- and I do not know of anyone who would do the work so well as you.
With regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Alan D. Wilson
By the way, are you seriously trying to convince us that A. W. Tillinghast didn't really know who designed Merion?!?!? :o :o :o ::)
"TEP
It appears Allan Wilson's letter is the source of the story that Wilson first went to the UK & Scotland in 1910 to study the famous links before returning and designing the golf course."
Tom:
Personally, I would say that would be an excellent bet. As you appear to I have long felt that was what created the misinterpretation years later that Wilson went abroad in 1910. Where the latter part of that story of seven months came from I have no idea because Alan Wilson didn't say that and he sure would have known how long Hugh went abroad because the two of them were in business together and worked together almost every day. When Hugh went abroad in 1912 it could not have been more than about six weeks at most and that really is provable.
But that has very little to do with the fact that Alan Wilson also said that every member of Wilson's committee told him that in the main it was Hugh Wilson who was responsible for the architecture of Merion East and West. It would be pretty hard or bizarre for Alan to just make up that every member of Wilson's committee told him that in the main Hugh was responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses and that they were "homemade" and without an architect, since every member of Wilson's committee was alive and well in 1926 to read that. If they hadn't said that don't you think some of all of them would've asked Alan why he said they all said that?
I sure do!
I have said all these years that I believe other than that remark of Alan's that the course was found in 1910 and as a first step the club sent Hugh abroad that the Alan Wilson letter to Philler is the single best source of information about what happened back then and who was responsible for what contributions were made including Macdonald and Whigam. I still very much believe that and maintain that and I believe Merion does too and should.
Mike
If I'm not mistaken Tilly spoke to CBM while covering an event at Garden City. At the time Merion was being built Tilly was working on Shawnee, which may explain why he was at GCGC and why he did not actively report the progress at Merion. Isn't NYc is closer to Shawnee than Philadelphia? The interesting thing about his comments regarding the plans, he does not say when he saw the plans or where he saw the plans.
I think, if it were ever possible for all the facts to come out...we would all recognize that CBM was more influential than WE thought...but that is not to say he was more influential than MERION thought. Tom Paul makes an interesting suggestion about correcting what is in the Merion history books...what is in the Merion history books regarding CBM? What if it already acknowledges his role in full? I wouldn't expect it agrees with David's..."CBM was calling all the shots...", but it may well recognize the full scope of what we can agree on.
Is this your rationale for CBM being a more likely source? The distance from Shawnee to either Ardmore, PA or Garden City, NY? It seemed so moronic that I thought I'd find out. I mean a stab in the dark is fine, but you should expect a total wiff most of the time, no? There are limitless reasons for Tilly to be at GCM as opposed to Philadelphia at any given time, but being closer to Shawnee doesn't seem to be one of them...
To be perfectly frank, this whole Merion timeline/fact chain/storyline is so littered with inconsistencies, illogic and false facts (starting - but certainly not ending - with "Hugh Wilson went overseas first - when in fact it's been proven that he didn't) that the entire thing boils down to whose illogic and inconsitencies are least repugnant to one's intelligence.
David,
Juat as Tom jumped to a very incorrect conclusion, you have as well:
"I haven't reviewed all the articles recently, but my impression is that CBM was AWT's primary source on what was ongoing at Merion, at least for the the crucial articles from the spring of 1911."
That is simply incorrect.
As I've asked Tom to do, so I also do you, HAve you read ALL of Tilly's writings from 1910-1912? What writings do you base this conclusion on?
Mike
If I'm not mistaken Tilly spoke to CBM while covering an event at Garden City. At the time Merion was being built Tilly was working on Shawnee, which may explain why he was at GCGC and why he did not actively report the progress at Merion. Isn't NYc is closer to Shawnee than Philadelphia? The interesting thing about his comments regarding the plans, he does not say when he saw the plans or where he saw the plans.
Is this your rationale for CBM being a more likely source? The distance from Shawnee to either Ardmore, PA or Garden City, NY? It seemed so moronic that I thought I'd find out. I mean a stab in the dark is fine, but you should expect a total wiff most of the time, no? There are limitless reasons for Tilly to be at GCM as opposed to Philadelphia at any given time, but being closer to Shawnee doesn't seem to be one of them...
Tom,
Your statement to Mike that, "Clearly Tilly did not follow the progress on the ground closely. He wrote next to nothing about it. His best source of information appears to be CBM. He does not mention anyone on the committee by name" CLEARLY has NO BASIS whatsoever in fact and your conclusions, ESPECIALLY that his "best source" of information "appears to be CBM"may be the most ridiculas thing that I have seen from you.
You clearly have not read his writings from that ime. You have made a habit of challenging others on this thread in the past asking them over and over why they won't answer a question of yours. The shoe is now on the other foot.
I asked you earlier, "Have YOU READ everything that Tilly wrote during that time period?" I ask it again. I now include this follow-up question. How Much of his writing during 1910-1912 have you read? For you to have drawn the conclusions that Tilly "didn't follow the progress on the ground closely" and that "his best source for information was CBM" needs far more than having read his "Hazard" articles. they are just a small portion of what he wrote.
Of course, there's also the fact that in Alan Wilson's letter to Philler, he says "You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history". So, it's not impossible to know; in fact, it's quite obvious that he's writing about the course in 1912, not in 1926. But this is getting really silly, and I've been contributing to the silliness for too long.
Peter
Tom MacWood,
I believe your response that Alan Wilson was asking the committee in 1926 for the reminisces of the golf course in 1926 is not intellectually honest.
Are you really trying to tell us that AW Tillinghast didn't know who designed Merion??
Tom:
First of all his name is Alan Wilson, not Allan Wilson! ;) You really pretty much are batting zero today on all counts. ARE YOU OK?
He was talking about the beginning, the routing and the design and construction and not the 1920s. That's why he talked to the men on Wilson's Committee since none of them were involved in the 1920s or even the middle teens on. They were only involved in the beginning. Around the mid teens on is when Flynn became involved with Hugh Wilson with the architecture of the Merion courses. I already told you that but as per usual you just totally dismissed and ignored it. That's what you do all the time. I guess that is the only way you could possibly be discussing this subject without appearing to be a complete fool to most people on this subject.
Also PeterP or Phil told you that when William Philler asked Alan to write what he did he asked him to write about the beginning. You completely ignored that incontestable fact too. Why do you do that all the time? Is it intentional diversion or perhaps the fact you really don't even read people's responses to you who know more about this stuff than you do?
I, for one, do not enjoy seeing you increasingly look foolish on these threads and you sure shouldn't want that either but that is what's increasingly happening here.
Did you answer me when I asked you if you're really OK? If so I must have missed it. I'll look back.
Dan:
What is the xenophobia question? Are you talking about that whole Schnecedety Putter fallout thing?
I can't believe this thread is 80+ pages long, and it is nothing more than a continuation of my Findlay/Wilson thread and I hold you, M(erion)Cirba, personally responsible for keeping my name from being the longest discussion in GCA.com history! :)
AWT first wrote for the Philadelphia Public Ledger beginning in April, 1911. I have gathered up every article I could find off of microfilm and have a simple web page of said articles here:
http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/golf/PL/1911/AWT/1911_AWT.html
He wrote for them, it appears, until late 1911. He then moved on to the Philadelphia Press newspaper. He wrote for PP for many years and I have nearly all of those articles in my possession (these have taken many hours to gather up from microfilm from the Free Library of Philadelphia). I will attempt in the coming weeks to put together all these articles in digital form for perusal. However, I seem to remember more than a couple of them included talk about the upcoming course at Merion.
(when this thread becomes more productive and less just rehashing old topics/bravado/insults, I might participate more). ;) ;D
David,__________________
You stated, "As I said, Phillip, I haven't reviewed the articles lately, but I recall multiple articles from the spring of 1911 where CBM was AWT's explicit source. Sorry david, But there aren't any articles where CBM is Tilly's "explicit" source.
Really? Because I cannot imagine him having been more explicit than to describe conversations he had with CBM? Perhaps you have a different understanding of the word explicit.
"If there are other articles from the spring of 1911 where AWT is explicitly or implicitly relying on other sources regarding Merion I'd love to see them." There are a number of them beginning with the December 1910 American Golfer “Hazard” article in which he “announces” the coming new course at Merion. It is quite clear that he hadn’t been given the information by CBM in the way he wrote of his & Whigham’s visit to see Griscom. He wasn’t present at the meeting or the day when they came to Philadelphia and evidently got this information from Griscom (a close friend) himself.
While I don't necessarily agree with what is "quite clear" from it, I am aware of that article and cite it in my essay. But whomever the source, the December 1910 article fails to address my point. I wrote: "If there are other articles from the spring of 1911 where AWT is explicitly or implicitly relying on other sources . . .;" and I am still unaware of any such articles.
As the resident AWT expert, perhaps you can answer my questions:
When did AWT write about first seeing the course, either in progress or finished? I’ll have to look it up for you, but frankly it will take a while as I am swamped with work that will allow for precious little time on here for a bit.
Thanks. I'd appreciate that. No hurry, though, were obviously going nowhere here.
What is the first evidence we have of AWT actually having stepped foot on the ground at Merion East? [font=Verdana]No one can answer that because we don’t know.
Again, you misunderstand. I didn't ask when he first stepped first on the property, I asked for THE FIRST EVIDENCE of AWT actually having set foot on the property.
By the way, do you know how close Tilly actually lived to the new Merion? He could stop there any day that he slept at home. Because of his relationship with a number of the members including Board members it is silly to think that he never stepped foot on the property until he wrote that he did. His father also would have been out there in the normal course of his time as well. I will, though, when I get the time, look up for you the first time he mentioned that he had been there which, if memory serves me correctly, was in a newspaper article. [/font]
Thanks. I'd appreciate that as well.
" Apparently TEPaul is not familiar with my Essay or he wouldn't be repeatedly asking me to tell him where I think the histories fall short."
David:
I’m sure you can’t believe how familiar I am with your essay. I’ve read it over and over again and not just back then, throughout the last year as well. I know some parts of it so well I almost have it down word for word.
Maybe I never told you this but I actually marvel at that essay. I think it is clever as hell and you probably must be too. I just marvel at how anyone can string together that many false premises, passed off as something even remotely close to fact, to come to the conclusions you do about a lot of Merion’s history and still be able to convince anyone that it makes any sense at all and isn’t just a whole string of tortured logic with false premises and fallacious reasoning to arrive at a few preconceived conclusions.
Over some time I came to realize that even as cleverly done as it is no one could get away with something like that unless their audience knew very little about the history of Merion and the details of it in the first place. In fact, that is and continues to be most of your audience on here.
But the ones who really know Merion recognized what that essay was in a day or two and that includes those from Merion itself who run the place and really do know the details of their history and the people who were involved.
I don’t know whether I ever told you this either but before it came out Wayne and I actually sort of built up the expectancy of it at Merion with some central people. We did that because we had no idea what you planned to say; we actually sort of believed you that you had some information previously unknown by Merion and of course you completely refused to let us see it before it was put on here (that alone says a lot of why we think you did it in the first place).
So when those some central people at Merion read it in the first few days they came back to us and said things like: “What are you two talking about? You said there were some really good researchers on Golfclubatlas. That essay is the biggest bunch of tortured logic imaginable and who in the world is this author? Are we supposed to know him? What has he ever known about us?”
Wayne and I were actually pretty embarrassed that we promoted it at all and then saw that thing, again of course never knowing what it was really about beforehand because you refused to show us anything about it beforehand which again says a lot about what you were doing and continue to do to this day.
No sir, the Tollhurst history books tell the accurate architectural history of Merion with pretty much the single exception of that Wilson trip in 1910 rather than 1912, and they explain Macdonald/Whigam’s contributions appropriately too.
And by the way, there are enough on here who saw through it immediately too. One of the best of them who actually participated for awhile was Bradley Anderson. He didn't get involved in the incessant arguing over all this minutiae which is probably something you promote so as not to have to deal with the larger truth of it. He just recognized pretty quick that the only way someone like you can maintain this kind of guise is to keep claiming that those that were there then and who saw it and reported it accurately were mistaken or engaging in hyperbole because their words almost never fit with your tortured logic so you just kept dismissing what they said and rationalizing it away someone. He recognized that one can only do that just so often without a logical mind smelling a rat and seeing the obvious.
No, it was clever, very clever and just about totally fallacious. We knew we'd probably never get you to admit that but what we wanted to do and I think have done is basically convince most of the rest of the audience what it really is.
Considering what-all else they cover about Merion's history other than architecture, for their size (which isn't great) other than that 1910 trip the Tolhurst Merion history books are historically and factually accurate. Too bad more on this website haven't had the opportunity to read at least one of them so they could see for themselves.
David,
I admit that I didn't understand your reply.
Do you have anythig from Merion that stated to the public that CBM, not Wilson, designed the course?
Do you or anyone else have anything from Merion written at that time indicating that Hugh Wilson initially designed the course? I sure don't. And I am not asking for your opinion but documents from the time where Merion credited Hugh Wilson.
If you don't then why not? Does this mean that they were covering up Hugh Wilson's involvement in the initial design from the public?
The problem is that they did not think of these things and write of these things in the same way we did. But if we put ourselves in the context of the time and look at how they commonly discussed these things, we can see that Lesley, Alan Wilson, and Hugh Wilson all acknowledged M&W's extensive involvement in designing the course. Also, internally, the board minutes establsih the importance of their extensive involvement. In addition to that, but moving outside of Merion, so did Tillinghast, Findlay, and Whigham, to name some.
David / TEP / PY,
Who was the first club official, someome involved with club committees, the course, the properties, to write about Merion East after opening ?
Was it Lesley in the Golf Illustrated 1914 ? With just 3 years lapsed Lesley said "The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about 3 years ago by the following committee: Hugh Wilson, chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Grissom, Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers Charles B. Macdonald, and H.J. Whigham."
Wouldn't it have been just as easy to have said....The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it by CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham about 3 years ago and built by the following committee: Hugh Wilson, chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Grissom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin.
Just as easy? Maybe. But inaccurate. CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham did not lay out the course on the ground. Wilson and his committee did. But they did so with M&W as advisors; M&W taught them how to do it and even checked up on them to make sure they had done it right.
So who was the first person, directly involved to write AFTER the course was finished and opened for play ? Who was quoted in the opening day newspaper articles and what was said ? Same question for the first articles in American Golfer and Golf Illustrated ?
What were ATW first writings after the course opened ?
CBM and HJW were credited with advising by all before and after the get-go.
I think Mackenzie made a secret visit and routed out the course with Tom MacWood's great uncle that the family does not like to talk about - but only after intentionally getting Macdonald drunk in a whorehouse before the Green Committee meeting so he and Robert Hunter could take advantage of C.B.'s plans and take credit for Raynor's routing plan .
3124 posts later, my theory sounds more credible than the rest of the argumentative bullshit.
Macdonald gave advice and was enthusiastic about the project. He was enough of a gentleman to insist his name be kept out of the papers so the Wilson's got their well deserved credit. Merion was NOT designed by Macdonald. I can only find 2 or 3 "template holes" - thus he imparted his general wisdom, made a couple visits like all the Golden Age guys did on their friendly competitors, and went back to the bar at NGLA and had a scotch or two with Morgan OBrien.
The rest is just a bunch of pinheads spewing drivel on the internet because either they do not have a tee time or their wives are having a tampon crisis.
This thread is how spontaneous combustion happens.
"I am utterly speechless...."
Mike:
If you really do feel that way you should go with it with this thread which I suggested to you a while ago. I should too. Later you proclaimed this thread a travesty and it probably is in many ways.
However, one post really struck me in one way last night and then in a different way this morning. It's Tom MacWood's #3112. At first it sort of upset me but this morning (didn't sleep much last night so I'm back over in the barn/office really early) I had a very different impression. What that post says in some ways really does seem like a whole new approach, reality and mentality that I at first did not and probably do not or ever will agree with but it sure is real and it's not going to go away in our changing world of approach to information collection, interpretation, dissemination and presentation and clubs and friends are going to have to deal with these changes in the future.
I've got an idea for a subject that might be the most important this website has ever dealt with in what this website is or can be. I'd like to run the idea by you and Tom MacWood. There is someone in the wings mulling over an idea like this; we've talked about it a bit. He has good credibility and a good history in golf architecture/architect research, writing and presentation.
Can we email you about this Tom Mac? If not I'll just go with the guy in the wings who hopefully will take it on somehow.
Well, if anyone were to rewrite Lesley's artcile of 1914, what would you have to write to give more credit to CBM and HJW ?
It would be straight forward to do so. Just cannot get past the articles that CBM and HJW were 'advisers'.
Are we out of fresh articles about Merion ? Any new articles to review ?
In the 1897 'British Golf Links,' Hutchinson uses the word 'laid out' to include alll work. There is no distinction in his description. No other verbs are used. As in.....Tom Dunn laid out the nine hole course to be opened this summer.
Any chance the AWT - CBM article can be posted?
thanks.
. . .
Macdonald gave advice and was enthusiastic about the project. He was enough of a gentleman to insist his name be kept out of the papers so the Wilson's got their well deserved credit. Merion was NOT designed by Macdonald. I can only find 2 or 3 "template holes" - thus he imparted his general wisdom, made a couple visits like all the Golden Age guys did on their friendly competitors, and went back to the bar at NGLA and had a scotch or two with Morgan OBrien.
. . .
David,
You stated, "What I find particularly interesting is that it indicates that not only was CBM "enthusiastic" and heaping praise on the course -- "best inland course in America" -- but that AWT notes that this level of enthusiasm was "only natural" given CBM's level of involvement in the course. Why would CBM be all jacked up about HIW's golf course? Since when did CBM go around bragging about other people's work?"
Perspective is needed here. First of all this is a snippet from a much larger article. That it contains some intriguing comments is a given and has NEVER been "dusted under the rug" as, in fact, it was Mike Cirba who posted it and did so several times. There is nothing to be hidden here.
What is more intriguing to me is what is NOT spoken of. First, Tilly did NOT state that CBM had designed Merion; of course he also didn't say that Wilson did either. But, more importantly, NO MENTION is made of NGLA! It was about 1/2 a year away from officially opening and CBM had spoken of and written about it a great deal. So why didn't Tilly mention it? Simply because he was writing for the philadelphia golfing public, an audience to whom the NGLA was not part of their immediate concern.
They began playing at the NGLA late in 1909. He was writing for a Philadelphia newspaper...you think it is surprising he would discuss Merion instead of the NGLA?
"Why would CBM be all jacked up about HIW's golf course?" For the same reason that everyone else remotely associated with it would; because Philadelphia was finally going to have a true championship golf course!
Was CBM a big advocate of Philly golf?
Maybe it is as Mike said with respect to CB Macdonald and his gushing.
Here Macdonald is, a self proclaimed expert, a tough tenacious competitor finally winning the '1st' national championship after three tries, who says he has found 'THE' way to designing and building great golf courses. The great course at NGLA is really just getting started by 1911. And now these prominent men in Phildelphia have called upon 'him' and HJW to be advisers. 'He' is now recognized by a group looking to build the best inland course in America. They have called upon 'him' for his advise and help on all matters. Macdonald travels to Philly, and is feted by all the important golfers of the area. It would have been a wonderful stroke to his ego, and in fact it was. He was a leading expert.
His gushing might not be totally unexpected given the Merion folks have accepted his advice, that the land is good for a course, jumped through all these land acquisition hoops and they are actually listening to him that a few templates of the great holes overseas might best work. As their style of writing is not exactly as the modern golf vernacluar since 1930s or so, I am not sure that we will ever quit discussing the meanings of the various nouns, verbs, and phrases used in 1910.
As much as CDM and HJW role was mentioned in various articles, I would have to believe they could have easily been given more credit if deserved.
I guess we await a new article or perhaps a snippet or two from Merion records in a few months.
Jim has it right. CBM thought he was part of the team at Merion. The team responsible for the planning. Given that this was a team full of admitted novices, does anyone really believe that think that CBM would have played a subservient or even equal role to the others?
I would rather handle those on another thread because they have NOTHING whatsoever to do with this discussion. If you believe they do simply because the word “consultant” has been used to describe CBM’s involvement with Merion, be aware that there is a MAJOR difference in how that word describes the involvements of the two men with the two projects. In Tilly’s case, he had a SIGNED CONTRACT to do the work, something that CBM DIDN’T. As to why Tilly’s contract used the term “Consultant” as part of the description of his services, the answer lay in the contract that Clifford Wendehack signed for the designing of the clubhouse. No one has EVER claimed that he didn’t design it, yet his contract reads as Tilly’s did… He was a “Consultant in the design and construction of…” That is exactly how Tilly’s contract read as well.
Jim has it right. CBM thought he was part of the team at Merion. The team responsible for the planning. Given that this was a team full of admitted novices, does anyone really believe that think that CBM would have played a subservient or even equal role to the others?
David,
I think the whole debate could revolve around this particular sentence and the implications made...not that it will end the debate, I don't expect that to happen while the protagonists are still breathing...
While I am not the least bit interested in dissecting "expert" and "novice" I think there are two schools on this...how can a novice become expert without, at some point jumping into the deep end themselves? Sure, most choose the protege route where they learn directly from within the world of the expert (Tom Doak might be a modern example)...but they do not all have to. Peter Pallotta identified Orson Welles as an example of the other route. While film is not my area of expertise ;) I trust his commentary from a few pages ago. So, while Hugh Wilson was an admitted novice at the beginning there is precedent for a novice creating a masterpiece on their own. Merion East is not that example. CBM and HJW were very helpful throughout...but the possibility is there.
Jim, as you say, this was not the case at Merion. Wilson not only admitted they were novices, but also that it was CBM who taught them, and Wilson even recommended to anyone planning to change or build a course should go to NGLA (and Pine Valley) and try to emulate the principles expressed in their golf holes.
More concerning to me in that sentence of yours is the question/implication..."does anyone really believe that think that CBM would have played a subservient or even equal role to the others?" If CBM Macdonald were actually asked exactly what has always been reported that he had been asked...'to look over the property and tell us if it can work'...'to educate us on the principles of building good holes etc'... 'and to help us decide the best of five plans'...why would you make him out to be incapable of acting like a gentleman in the spirit of cooperation for the greater good of the game of golf?
You get me wrong. I think Wilson and Committee would have insisted that he play the majority role, whether he wanted to or not. M&W were experts, and the men of Merion appreciated that some things were best left to real experts. Plus, look how Wilson talks about NGLA! He sure wasn't saying anything like 'we bounced ideas off of each other, and came to a consensus.' Wilson was there to listen and learn. And look at what we know about the April Board Meeting. Lesley did not report that Wilson and Macdonald had worked out the plan. He reported that Wilson and his committee laid out five alternatives after visiting NGLA and then M&W came down and approved the plan that went to the board. It doesn't sound like an equal relationship to me. It sounds like Wilson is trying to carry out what M&W told him would work on the land at Merion, and M&W checked up on him and approved the final.
So I don't think your description of what MCC asked of M&W is necessarily accurate or complete. We don't know everything they asked of him, but we do know that he did more that "educate them on the principles of building good golf holes." He taught them how to incorporate those principles into the natural terrain at Merion. We cannot continue to dismiss the NGLA meeting as some sort of a general symposium on the great golf holes of the world. EVEN ALAN WILSON ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE FOCUS OF THE MEETING WAS THE LAY OUT OF THE EAST COURSE. M&W gave them advice and suggestions as to the layout of the East Course.
So when I made that comment I did NOT assume the advice was general and not directly related to the layout of the East. As far as I am concerned this is one of the last vestiges of the old legend that is still floating hanging around despite the fact that there is no factual support for it. Old legends die hard, but this one is all but dead, and I will not continue to prop it up.
- Alan Wilson told us the topic of the meeting was the lay out of Merion East.
- Hugh Wilson's other correspondence inticates that he was of the type that he would have wanted as much help from the these experts as he could get. As he said in another context, he realized the value of CBM's advice, and would follow it.
- Hugh Wilson told us that through drawings and sketches M&W taught them how to incorporate the principles into Merion's natural features.
- Hugh Wilson also told us that while at NGLA they examined CBM's "plans."
- They had at least a contour map by then.
- The timing of the meeting suggests that they were trying to get the plans finished so they could start building the course.
- They laid out the five alternative plans after the NGLA meeting.
-- M&W returned to go over the land again and to chose the final plan, thus indicating that their role was not abstract but concrete.
I mentioned a page or two ago that this was a time when several individuals were looking to create a course themselves, over a period of time, and to take complete ownership of the result...in that environment, hiring an outsider to dictate doesn't fit.
That may be what their attitude became over time, but initially they wanted the best course they could get, and these men knew the value of true expertise and utilized it to the full extent it was available to them. They'd have been fools not to.
This Merion research/passion is yours, how much of it would you let someone else to write and tell you to bind it together?
I'd gladly accept a secondary role if the disparity in level of expertise between me and someone else was as great as between Wilson and Co. on the one hand, and M&W on the other. For example, in my paper I was glad to rely on Tom Macwood for some of the Barker information and greatful for the help, because although the information about his involvement at Meiron was mine, I didn't know nearly as much about Barker as he did.
We all like to things ourselves, but we'd be fools not to yield to real authority and expertise when presented with the opportunity. And Alan Wilson was no fool, especially when it came to seeking out and following expert advice.
. . .
Emmet was "HIRED" and therefor the one who was responsible for the job. At Merion, NO ONE was HIRED and the one(s) responsible for the job was the Committee given that by the Merion Board. THEY are the ones who had the last word and NOT an advising amateur architect.
Not so. CBM and HJW had the last word. They chose the final routing. And when the final routing was presented to the board, lesley informed the board that it had been approved by M&W. No mention of Wilson at all, as far as I know.
If the Committee, which was headed by another amateur architect (Wilson) deferred the decisions to him, that was their choice. There is simply not anything in any public record that states otherwise.
Huh? Where it the public record does it state that Wilson had a choice in the matter? We are told that M&W approved the routing. Nothing about Wilson signing off on M&W's approval. Not only that, but if Wilson did have a choice, but he deferred to M&W regarding design decisions, then as far as I am concerned M&W were the creative driving forces behind the course.
And Phillip, it is my understanding that Marion Hollins was in charge at Women's national, and if she preferred Raynor and CBM's design ideas then it doesn't matter who she had hired. What matters is whose ideas got built into the course. Bahto thinks they were Raynor's and CBM's ideas at Women's National. I think they were M&W's ideas at Merion.
I'm not sure why this is so hard...
We know M+W did not route the course when they visited in June 1910.
No we don't. We know that they did not attach a routing to their letter, and that they did not have a contour map to do an accurate routing. but judging from the facts that they provided hole numbers and commented on using or building a number of specific features, they likely had a good idea at least where some of the holes would fit. We also know that at some point Merion obtained a contour map and that they'd have been foolish not to send it to CBM. We have also been told that Cuyler referred to a golf course in his Nov. letter, albeit one that had not yet been finalized. We also know that the ag letters indicate that there was a "course" already in existence.
We know that the Merion committee laid out many golf course plans prior to thei NGLA visit.
Unless you mean Lesley's committee, then no we don't. We don't know who laid out many courses, or when.
Plus you have added the word "plans" and "golf." Aren't you the one who insists that in the Wilson letters "course" refers to the land without a planned course? Well if you are correct (and I don't think you are) then this could refer to the number of changes to this land that took place before Wilson was ever appointed, including the land swap, and might have nothing to do with planning the actual course.
YOU ARE SKIPPING THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT. THEY SPENT TWO DAYS AT NGLA LEARNING HOW TO LAY OUT MERION EAST. THAT IS, THEY LEARNED HOW TO INCORPORATE THE GREAT CONCEPTS INTO THE LAND AT MERION. THEY EVEN WENT OVER CBM'S PLANS.
We know the committee returned and created five different plans.
NO we don't. We've been told that they laid out five different plans. Nothing about who came up with the five plans.
We know Mac returned for his second and final one-day visit on 4/6/1911 and helped them select the best of their plans.
No we don't. We have been told he approved the final plan, and may have made substantive changes in the process.
They were still the Merion Committee's plans and M+ W provided advice and suggestions of value about Hugh Wilson and Committee's plans for Merion East.
We don't know whose plans they were, but judging from what we know about the NGLA meeting, it seems they were either CBM's or he played a major role in what the plans depicted.
That is what Everyone, including Tilly, told us happened.
Any other interpretation is a stretch at odds with everyone who was there.
Why the need to overreach?
I think the constant misrepresentation of what Hugh Wilson said about he and his committee being "novices" (he said they were novices in agronomy and construction) speaks to a lack of intellectual dishonesty in this discussion.
It would seem with the many articles and the 'avalilable' meeting notes that Lesley gave CBM and HJW the highest praise. Lesly and other articles still had CBM and HJW as advisers. It is certainly established that CBM and HJW advised.
In any case, having 5 'plans' for review and CBM/HJW putting their finger on one of the five would be advice. It just doesn't seem that CBM/HJW would have been, or could likely have been, responsible for one of the five.
John, we don't know who drew up the five plans that were laid out. They may have been created at NGLA, from where the committee had just returned before they laid out these plans. They also could have been Macdonald's plans-- after hiding it for a year, TEPaul finally admitted that the minutes refer to the committee going over Macdonald's plans.
Even if the committee had drawn up these plans, I have no idea how you or anyone else could conclude that CBM was not responsible for at least contributing to these plans. The committee had just been at NGLA, where they were learning how to lay out the course, and how to incorportate the concepts into Merion's landscape!
Isn't it about time we all started being a bit more realistic about what occurred at the NGLA meeting? It wasn't a theoretical symposium.
Presume you could say that construction follows planning.
CBM and HJW reviewed 5 plans.
David,
Are there any articles or letters of CBM or HJW submitting or drawing up plans ?
David,
You accuse me of mireading the evidence but on ech point you simply have to make stuff up and say...see, we don't know that Santa Claus doesn't exist!, as if you've actually made sense or even a rhetorical point.
If I'm the onw with the incorrect interpretation, why is it you arguing with everyone else except your parrtner MacWood?
Is this one of those, "everyone else is crazy...I'm sane I tell you...sane!!" Moments?
David,
I'd be curious to hear your explanation of Alan Wilson's words about "THEY SPENT TWO DAYS AT NGLA LEARNING HOW TO LAY OUT MERION EAST" being in the same letter as the words "in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the design of the architecture of the East and West courses"
Thanks
David,
That would seem to put your argument for M&W in a bad spot because if they were not on the committee, where were they? I am going to make an assumption as to your response to that, so tell me if I am wildly off...I would guess your response to where M&W is that they were directing the committee.
No. I think they he directed them early on as to the initial plan, but I don't think that is what AlanW is writing about here. In the first part of the sentence he is talking about the plan "gradually evolving" and I think this means over the years. I think Alan Wilson is talking about the entire evolution of the course up until Hugh Wilson's death, and iparticularly all the Hugh did after the course the course was buit. He was trying to make the case that of those at Merion, his brother did the most. He sets M&W aside, then compares HW to the rest of the Committee.
Possible...
But then I have to ask about Alan Wilson's words..."they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course"...
"Lay out" can be argued about, as can "expert", but when he says Hugh was responsible for the architecture of the East Course I've got to wonder if this document doesn't really hurt your case.
But Jim, there is no need to debate the meaning of architecture, all you have to do is look at the whole sentence which essentially says . . .
All the committee members contributed to the architecture, but of these Hugh was the person in the main.
The key word in the sentence is not "architecture," but "while." While in this case is contrastive and is synonymous to "although." Something in the later clause is being singled out or contrasted with something in the first.
Although they all contributed to the architecture, Wilson is the person in the main who contributed. M&W are nowhere to be found. The comparison doesn't include them. Their contributions have already been covered and not we are talking about who else did what.
I'd have to see it all together to agree that he was putting M&W aside before discussing who did the most...it seems to me he is recognizing their advisory role but nothing more.
Their entire role was referred to as an "advisory role" but I don't think that was a subordinate role. After all, they couldn't be on the committee, could they? The questions are; what did they advise, and was their advice followed? The Wilson letter confirms that they were involved in the lay out and were of the greatest help and value, from this it we can't tell the extent of the involvement other that to say it was significant. Nothing in the report indicates otherwise.
Also, I think you are wrong in your reading of the term "gradually evolved"...the whole paragraph is talking about that immeidate time frame...ending with the course(s) opening. Gradually seems more suited to a reference to the complexity of the land acquisitions and border manipulations than the re-work over the ensuing 15 years...but I failed English...and aced Logic...
Interesting take, but I am not convinced. Wilson and his committee weren't even appointed during most if not all of the machinations with the land and purchases. We don't know if the land changed after at all during the time Wilson was involved. (I suspect it did not, and that it just wasn't measured accurately when they first agreed to the transaction. Had they had a surveyor do it, the accurate dimensions would have showed up on the "Approximate Road" Plan. Time will tell on that one.) Plus, the plan did gradually evolve after his trip. There was plenty to add still upon his return from his trip, and a number of changes were in the few years after the opening.
So while I agree that the whole thing was the "immediate timeframe, I think that timeframe was after Wilson's trip just like the report says. Wilson came back from overseas and the plan did gradually evolve through the 1916 Am and after. This also more closely parallels the timing of the creation of the West. So while the paragraph indicates that Alan Wilson was somewhat confused, it makes a lot more sense if it was focusing on the post trip period.
_____________________
I still cannot quite put my finger on how much Alan Wilson actually knew first hand, about the design. I suspect it wasn't very much, how else could he botch the trip so badly? Plus, much of the specific information is of the type that he could easily have looked up, price of seed, cost of courses, and the such. For another, his information at issue here was definitely second-hand. The committee told him that of them, Hugh was the man in charge. Had AWilson been around, he'd not have needed the Committee to tell him that. All of the facts about the creation appear to be at least secondhand. d inforamtionin the discussion of the creation of the course that could not have come from someone else. would have had to have looked up. His comments about the design are all very general. Nothing about how any hole came about just a lot of effusive general praise.
Whether Alan Wilson was there or not, I am trying to take his word for it for the time being. And unless we take his words out of contex, the report does not compare Wilson's contribution to that of M&W.
At some point I believe I typed, posted and provided Alan WIlson's five page 1926 letter on the creation of Merion East and West, requested of him by MCC's historian and 35 year treasurer (and sometimes secretary) William Philler. I don't know how to use the search engine on here very well. Could someone find it for me or help me find it?
Moriarty, Cirba, MacWood etc, instead of spending page after page just going after each other or me let's put Alan Wilson's letter up here again and let it and what it says stand on its own.
"Tom,
I know. The last thing I was looking for was another opportunity to have someone point out another person's flaws."
Joe:
I know what you mean. I'm not sure how many generations it'll take my family to live down Auntie Gertrude. That woman was one holy terror! She was into fox hunting galore and around 1896 she burst into MCC and proclaimed at the top of her lungs that any member of her family who played that silly new game called guff or goff in red coats was a God-damn faggot and the family should force them to change their names!
I tried to end this thread....12 pages ago ::)
p.s. She thought I reminded her of one of the support cables of The Mackinaw Bridge....... :D
p.s. She thought I reminded her of one of the support cables of The Mackinaw Bridge....... :D
only older
p.s. She thought I reminded her of one of the support cables of The Mackinaw Bridge....... :D
only older
and still carrying the load..... :)
"Drove Golf House Road this eve on my way to Bryn Mawr and yelled over saying that Tom and David were sending their love."
MikeC:
I was snooping around over there by #15 and GHR the other day. Did you happen to see that traditional property monument stone in the ground about 130 yards from the #15 green alongside GHR and right about in straight line across from the old SW boundary of the Haverford College property?
It has a carved inscription on it that says:
"I added 33.187 yards to the west here from the existing triangle on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan after about 11 1/2 glasses of absinthe around midnight and after getting permission from Horatio Gates Lloyd on March 32th, 1911 but not before explaining it to Hugh Wilson who designed Merion East and was probably the most naturally gifted American architect as our Design and Construction Committee chairman in 1911 and 1912 and even despite attempts by that pompous ass C.B. Macdonald to infect his natural talent, and don't ever let any idiotic, revisionistic, outsider researchers ever try to claim otherwise.
Richard P. Francis, March 34th, 1910"
How are we going to explain those dates? These damn novice architects with their hi-fallutin' Ivy League educations really were a bunch of dumb ducks and silly rabbits.
At some point I believe I typed, posted and provided Alan WIlson's five page 1926 letter on the creation of Merion East and West, requested of him by MCC's historian and 35 year treasurer (and sometimes secretary) William Philler. I don't know how to use the search engine on here very well. Could someone find it for me or help me find it?
Moriarty, Cirba, MacWood etc, instead of spending page after page just going after each other or me let's put Alan Wilson's letter up here again and let it and what it says stand on its own.
David,
Did you even read the Max Behr article?
Mike, I have read the Behr article many times. If I recall correctly, I brought it to your attention a few years ago, and since then it is has been in your regular rotation of articles you repeatedly post and then misrepresent. I am always amazed that you fail to notice that the gist of the article is to praise CBM for his his tremendous contribution to the game and that it only mentions Wilson and Leeds in in passing. Which courses do you suppose Behr was thinking of when he wrote "From Long Island to Saint Louis there were courses that bear the imprint of Mr. C. B. Macdonald and the National."
And what do you suppose he had in mind with this? "And anyone interested in laying out a new course can surely afford a journey to the National where he can get [an] ocular demonstration of what should be done." I've read the article many times, but don't recall him referring anyone to Merion. Did you leave that part out?
As for your claim about what Behr wrote about the routing, you are delusional. Please point out the specific language where Behr suggests the initial routing took months? I don't know why I ask, because you obviously cannot. Here is the language:
"The main outlines of the National were obvious at first glance (provided on knew what he was aiming at) but the details took months to work out.'
Two steps:
1. The rough routing: the main outines of the National were obvious at first glance . . .
2. The detailed plan: the details took months to work out.
That is what CBM wrote. That is what HJW wrote. That is what the articles you quoted on the other thread wrote. And it is what MAX BEHR WROTE. It is not that difficult Mike.
Still don't get it? In April 1915 in the same column, the author (presumably Behr) wrote about the importance of figuring out the course first before the land was purchased (my emphasis.)
"The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business."
Roughly sketched out. Not months of planning and laying out the details. A rough sketch.
Don't tell us the Macdonald myth of he and Whigham on horseback and chaps, dreamy as it sounds. ;)
I am tired of your bullshit insults directed at these two Mike. Imagine your reaction if I treated your the Wilson's like this. Imagine TEPaul's threats if I did that! Behr's account, HJW's account, CBM's account, the various newspaper accounts? All of them say the same thing. You are either unwilling or incapable of understanding that, but either way you should really refrain from trashing these men as it only makes you look even more pathetic.
We know from Joe Bausch's findings that such romantic nonsense was most assuredly not the case, and the process took months before a shovel was turned.
See answer above. Review that thread. Did you forget that even you had to ultimately abandon your position.
And Joe Bausch just provided the articles. Don't degrade him by sticking him with your foolish ideas. Surely he has too much dignity to stand behind garbage that is even discredited by the documents on which it supposedly relies.
I thought you were the guy who says he doesnt buy old myths?
This one is so bad it's ridiculous, asking us to believe the e day routing was done mid-1906 but the course didn't even open soft until 1910.
I don't know whether to pity you for your apparent cognitive shortcomings or or shun you for for your dishonesty and deceit.
I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE ANYTHING. I AM STATING THE FACTS, ACCORDING TO CBM, HJW, AND EVEN BEHR!
- Can you comprehend that there is difference between a rough routing and a detailed layout plan?
- Are you capable of understanding that one might first do a rough plan, and then work out the details over time?
- Can you comprehend that there is no necessary correlation between the time it takes to do a rough routing and the time it takes to finish laying out and building the course?
This is not that complicated Mike.
1. They found generally suitable land.
2. They did a rough routing and secured the land.
3. They worked out a more detailed lay out plan and laid out and built the course.
This was the pattern followed at NGLA. All accounts say so. Who the hell are you to contradict CBM, JHW, Behr, and even the articles Joe Bausch found.
Mike:
Honestly, why bother to keep going on this thread? Look at that last post! The essayist is completely hysterical, lashing out at everything and everybody. I suppose that's what happens when you write an essay like that and end up with maybe one person at best who supports it and that being the one who apparently encouraged you to write it in the first place. Unfortunately, it seems Merion lost interest in it about fifteen months ago.
But maybe there's still hope. Perhaps Part Two will be a blockbuster that includes the information we provided that was found at MCC within the last year after apparently being there unseen and unconsidered for perhaps a century! Or did Tolhurst see that information and simply feel there was no reason to include its details since it was so obvious otherwise who routed and designed Merion East?
I wish we could ask Tolhurst about that but unfortunately that's impossible now.
Tom,
You're right, of course.
I wouldn't even know where to begin to respond to something like that but it speaks for itself, so perhaps this is a good place to just leave well enough alone.
I don't believe Alan Wilson's statement was his misunderstanding of the chronology of Merion East...Alan Wilson was also reporting on the creation of Merion East from a time of fifteen years after the fact and was probably not ONLY looking at it as we are in the specific timeframe of 1910 and 1911 even though he certainly mentioned that time in what he said in his letter to Philler. But I just don't believe that because this might seem somewhat inconsistent to us (or particularly to you) that it means that someone other than the Wilson Committee routed and planned the design of Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911 (including the advice from Macdonald at NGLA and on April 6, 1911).
Mike
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
How many days did it take Macdonald to route Piping Rock or Sleepy Hollow? How many days did it take Barker to route Columbia or Mayfield? How many days did it take Mackenzie to route Royal Melbourne or Adelaide; Alison to route Hirono or Tokyo; Colt to route PV, Old Elm or Toronto?
Mike, they first did an initial rough routing, on horseback, over a couple of days.
Then, over months, they tinkered with the details of the plan.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Mike, they first did an initial rough routing, on horseback, over a couple of days.
Then, over months, they tinkered with the details of the plan.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
David,
When the initial rough routing is 10%, and the "tinkering" is 90% of the architectural planning pre-construction, then I think it's a misrepresentation to say that the routing was done in two days.
Tom,
Yes, and I routed a new course for Merion on a Google aerial overhead in about 2 hours, only using the original Johnson Farm land.
Those guys were hacks! ;)
Seriously, Tom, Barker obviously thought he could. After all, he already routed something in pencil during his one-day visit in June and along with that, told them if they got to it right away the could have the best darn course in the country in 15 months. Of course, I'm sure he told that to all the girls. I'm sure it was brilliant.
These guys were in business long enough to know when they were getting a snow job. The Barker letter to Connell is simply standard boiler plate rhetoric about how special their land was and how he could make it equal to any course in the country...blah, blah...
But does anything in the Merion record indicate ever using Barker. No, instead, there were many golf courses developed before the NGLA visit, and five different plans afterwards.
As badly as you want it to be, there is zero chance that Barker routed Merion.
David,
Did the rough routing take place in 1906, or 1907?
When was Seth Raynor hired?
Also, does anyone know any of the other courses built in the early years where Macdonald was a "friendly adviser" as seen in this 1905 article?
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2433/3738730283_70b8dcbf51_o.jpg)
"TEP
We agree, I do not believe he was confused. I take Allan Wilson's description literally, the first step of Hugh Wilson exerting his architectural ideas on the course occured after the trip in 1912."
Tom:
I'm glad you think we agree then. It's fine if you want to interpret what Alan Wilson said or meant was the architecture Hugh Wilson was involved with was only after he returned from abroad in the beginning of May, 1912. This however, does not preclude the fact that Wilson and his committee were laying out numerous iterations of Merion East and finally five plans of Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911.
That is not what Allan Wilson or Hugh Wilson wrote.
We (Merion) have that all important Wilson report to the board meeting of 4/19/1911 to prove that.
You do have the report, that is true, whether it proves what you say it proves remains to be seen. The fact that you have only given us a disjointed portion of the report, with a confusing narrative mode, does seem to indicate there are portions of the report you would prefer hidden. The question is why?
What else Alan Wilson said in that letter is indicative of what Wilson and his committee did but luckily we do not have to parse and ponder over what Alan Wilson meant fifteen years later when he said: "The course was found in 1910 and as a first step the club sent Hugh Wilson abroad" because the Alan Wilson letter is by no means all we have that indicates what Wilson and his committee did and when including obviously in the winter and spring and before a routing and design was approved by the club.
I'm not parsing it. I'm doing what you told us we should, I'm taking his words literally.
I've said on here a number of times that the Wilson report found at MCC in the last year is probably the single most conclusive material evidence of what Wilson and his committee did with the routing and design of Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911. And we can couple that with the fact that Merion or MCC at no time ever even mentioned any other routing and design plan from anyone else they ever even considered. This is exactly why you are having such a hard time convincing anyone Barker had anything to do with the routing and design of Merion East and why David Moriarty has had such a hard time convincing anyone that Macdonald did as well. But at least MCC always recorded that M/W helped and advised them on those plans something there is no evidence at all of Barker ever doing.
The fact that you continue to call it the "Wilson report" despite the fact Lesley gave it, and it apparently does not mention Wilson or his committee by name, brings further questions. I would also caution you not to jump to the conclusion that "plans" translate to routing. Lesley tells us a course or routing was in existence prior to the NGLA visit, that was rearranged when they returned. Common sense indicates the plans were a tweaking of that course, as opposed to five new full routings. Wilson's ongoing preparation of the ground also indicate this had to be a tweaking.
David,
What I saw on Wayne's laptop on the veranda off the first tee at Merion last year were image files of the MCC minutes.
I know Joe Bausch and I also later this spring saw Word docs that had been transcribed from those minutes, for purposes of inclusion in Wayne's book.
Why don't you take up Tom Paul on his offer to contact Merion and see them yourself?
"That is not what Allan Wilson or Hugh Wilson wrote."
Tom:
I believe Hugh Wilson did write the report about his committee laying out numerous different courses in the winter of 1911 then going to NGLA (second week of March 1911) and then doing five different plans that Lesley read into the board meeting minutes; one of which was approved by the board on April 19, 1911. Wilson was the chairman of the committee, who else would have written the report for HIS committee? Lesley probably didn't write the report because he wasn't on the committee and he probably didn't go to NGLA with the committee.
Again you take liberties with the disjointed portion you have given us. It doesn't give a time frame on when the numerous courses were laid out, only that it was sometime before the NGLA visit. Regarding who else could have written the report I'm not in position to say because I haven't seen it, but the fact remains Lesley gave it and Wilson is not mentioned. Your speculation may turn out to be correct, but at this point its just speculation.
"You do have the report, that is true, whether it proves what you say it proves remains to be seen. The fact that you have only given us a disjointed portion of the report, with a confusing narrative mode, does seem to indicate there are portions of the report you would prefer hidden. The question is why?"
Remains to be seen by whom? You or Merion? If you think Merion should listen to you about the accuracy of their architectural history I think you probably have a pretty good idea what you would need to do about that at this point. As far as I know Merion does not depend upon Golfclubatlas.com to explain, interpret and write their architectural history.
It remains to be seen in the eyes of the golfing world, and those who document its history. Historians will ultimately decide what the report says.
Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba,
If TEPaul has photographs of those meeting minutes, then why do you suppose he keeps changing what he tells us they said? Like a few days ago when he changed THEY went to down to the National to WE went down to the National?
________________________________
Mike Cirba,
Are you now finally clear that there was no olive branch from TEPaul about any of this? He is still hiding the source material same as he has been for years.
Mike,
I don't care because I think its casaul writing (and/or reading of writing and writing what was read) and I do not think the speakers voice change really means a damn thing in terms of what was said in that document, especially as regarding the preparation of many plans by the committee, the trip to NGLA, and the preparation of five more on return.
I do think it matters when you consider the person giving the report was a trained journalist, and former editor. We also have other reports he gave; all are well written and as clear as a bell. You add the transcribers checkered background...
I do understand that poor graphics, presentation, or english can often affect human perception of content. But, I also understand and believe that those making a big issue of the periphery inconsistencies while ignoring the main content are doing it either to hold on to their points, or just to argue endlessly, or both. And that means you!
It says the committee routed the golf course and that CBM helped a lot. In your terms, how hard is THAT to understand and what does a bit of poor grammar really have to do with it?
That seems pretty cut and dried. If that is what it clearly says why then all the mystery and the redacting of sections?
Tom,
I will add you to this last part, but its aimed at David, too - you have absolutely no clue (and niether do I) why Leslie, or whoever, wrote and said exactly what they said. If you want to continue to argue that the train stopped in Philly, so Barker had to have routed MCC, go ahead. I await more info from you saying that, rather than you "taking liberties" in telling me what simple english means.
Not only don't I know why Lesley wrote what he wrote, I have no idea what he wrote. Unlike the other documents that have been shared for everyone to review, TEP and Wayno are keeping this one under wraps. I have argued that Barker travelled through Philly twice in December 1910. I never once said he got off the train. The fact that it was announced he had been hired to design the course on 11/24 and announced he would be staking out several courses in December should be considered when deciding if it is plausible he got off the train or not. The difference is TEP said definitively that many courses were laid out in the Winter of 1911...that is not what Lesley wrote, and IMO that is taking liberties.
You and David have both said we need to take the totality of all the documents to make a decsion. I have and simply come to a different conclusion than you. If I am later proven wrong, I will cheerfully admit it. Like you, I am fascinated, for God knows what reason, but await some new REAL information, rather than the tired old arguments about what you and David think the writings really mean, when to me, they mean pretty much what they seem to mean.
Obviously you are entitled to your own conclusions, but you have to admit some of your conclusions (and mine too) have been partially based on wrong information.
You never did answer the question why TEP would redact portions of the April report if it its meaning is so straightforward.
Tmac,
As I understand it, TEPaul may or may not have changed one word in whatever he posted so long ago from those minutes. I DID say to DM that I think that he made a mistake on one occaision typing. There were, after all, many we's, they's, and whatevers. I think its quite possible to make a human mistake and not have it affect history! As to whether Wilson would have been mentioned, I guess I believe that everyone in the room knew who was on the committee, and the phrase "committee" is a hell of a lot shorter than naming each and every one of them when the word "committee" is used.
Human error is a logical explantion if you have a transcribed copy, but he says he has a photocopy of the original document. He made the exact same error over and over again, and as a result those of us quoting him - Mike, David and myself - have made the exact same error over and over again. How do you explain that? Presumably everyone in the room knew who was on the site committee in June and Novemeber 1910 as well, when that committee was mentioned by name (incuding all the names on the committee). Did they became less formal in 1911?
The fact is, most old documents leave something to be desired from a distance. As you say, no one knows why Lesley wrote it as he wrote it or spoke it. I know its fairly common, perhaps in an effort to be a summary of discussions. Since its so common, I simply don't believe that its likely that this is the one case where they were speaking in code, or covering up, or somehow mistaken. The chances of that are so remote, I dismiss them as unlikely. They just are what they are and the general ideas of them are probably correct, while the nitpicking ones are probably just us building up something in our mind because we obviously (unlike those writing those reports) have too much time on our hands...... ::)
Who said anything about code or covering up? Don't you find it pathetic that you and I are trying to explain and analyze a document neither one of us has read?
As we have gone over, I did consider the Barker train schedule theory for a while, but have concluded that one contradictory (to others) and highly subject to interpretation newspaper article plus a timing coincidence (he went through Philly on a train) simply aren't enough to convince me that the idea merits further discussion. I mean really, can't you see that one source and a coincidence would get nowhere in serious journalism or history writing?
Those are three sources, and those are three more than you have for Wilson. To my knoweldge Wilson's name does not even make it into the press until later in 1912, and there is no mention of him as a designer. The point is I never claimed Barker got off the train in contrast to TEP's statement that the course was routed in the Winter of 1911.
By the way Barker is the only person who is known to have produced a routing. And the only person reported as being hired to design the new golf course.
There are about 20,000 golf courses in the world. Most don't get one post here and MCC gets about 20,000 posts! As our President wants to do, maybe we should spread the wealth around a little bit! Just my HMO (on golf architecture, not policy)
You still haven't given us an explanation why portions of the April 1911 report are redacted.
David,
***EDIT***
I have been asked by Wayne not to discuss the MCC Minutes in any detail on this website as is his perogative as the person who found the information and who no longer wishes to contribute to the information made available here.
I think I've probably said this already half a dozen times but the fact remains that the person who found these documents was booted from GCA some months back and has no interest in adding value to this site, much less satisfying DM's and TM's repeated demands for information here given the history.
.
I think I've probably said this already half a dozen times but the fact remains that the person who found these documents was booted from GCA some months back and has no interest in adding value to this site, much less satisfying DM's and TM's repeated demands for information here given the history.
.
. . .
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf course on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......
That's all that's mentioned about plans and data (the words sketches and drawings are not used) . . . .
I realize Lesley was not on Wilson's committee. That's why it would be pretty odd if Lesley authored that report and said "we" went up to NGLA. Why would Lesley go to NGLA if he wasn't on Wilson's committee?
As far as those minutes, I heard earlier this week that the Flynn book that Wayne Morrison has been working on is now going to press, so I'm hopeful you'll get a copy and we can finally put this matter to rest. My understanding is that it will include verbatim accounts of those MCC minutes, which make very clear that no routing was approved (despite the many iterations of "plans" the committee devised) til late April, 1911, with Robert Lesley reporting for Hugh Wilson and Committee to the Board. They will also make clear that Macdonald recommended which of the Committee's plans to use, and that's the plan that went to the board for final approval. Somewhat magnamoniously, Macdonald says that if they use that particular plan, they will have the finest 7 finishing holes in the country. They will also make clear that both the 3 acres that Macdonald recommended they buy back in July 1910, as well as the land along Golf House Road that was swapped in the Francis Land Swap Deal were both purchased after that approval date in late April 1911, prior to construction. Once you see them, the timelines of everything should become much clearer.
As it turns out, partially due to the work you've put forward and the corresponding research in reaction to it, Macdonald's role as a superb advisor to the Merion Committee was confirmed and probably even accentuated, but what we now also know in much greater detail than ever before is that Hugh Wilson kicked some serious ass, and fully deserves to be known as he always has been as the architect of Merion.
All,
Last night I outlined what I thought the "state of the course" was when Findlay wrote his article, and I think there is enough evidence from Tillnghast and Findlay to support that understanding. "Far and Sure", whoever he was, supports that as well in his writing.
But last night at about 4am I woke up and something pretty fundamental occurred to me that I don't think I realized prior;
I think we've made a collective mistake in believing that if there was an Alps hole, or a Redan, or any of the template holes built in the first iteration of Merion East, that it was clear direct evidence of the routing and planning of one Charles B. Macdonald. That isn't so, and now when looks at the timelines, and the supporting evidence, the whole thing comes pretty sharply into view.
Let's consider the timeline;
June 1910 - The landowner Mr. Connell brings HH Barker to the large plot of land he wants to sell to Merion (Lloyd acting as the angel), and Barker sketches a routing that gets sent in what is essentially a prospectus package packet to Merion.
Later June 1910 - At the invite of Griscom, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham visit the proposed site for what seems to have been a single day with the intent of determining if the acreage proposed, the site specifics, and the inland soil would be appropriate to build a first class course. In July, their very general recommendations are sent via letter to Merion, recommending a 6,000 yard non-specific course, the purchase of 3 additional acres along the creek and mostly concerned with agronomics.
July - November 1910 - Not much written record, but one can reasonably assume that properations to purchase the land and to setup committees to deal with purchasing and possible construction is being done.
December 1910 - Mr. Lloyd purchases the 117 acres for Merion's use as a new golf club.
January - early March 1911 - Hugh Wilson and the newly formed Construction Committee work on putting together various plans of how to use the new land. They report later to the Merion board;
""Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course.....", which we now know happened around the end of the first week in March.
March 1911 - Wilson and Committee visit Macdonald at NGLA. The Merion minutes, and later Wilson writing in 1916, make clear that the first day was spent going over Macdonald's sketches of the ideal holes abroad and the second day spent going over the course at NGLA.
to be continued
Tom,
I agree and I prefer not to type out the timeline again but I do think it's important for making my next point that people understand when Macdonald was originally at Merion in June 1910 and what he did, when the Committee went to visit him at NGLA in March 1911 (and what was discussed), and when Macdonald returned for a day in early April 1911 and what he did at that time.
I say that because it occurred to me overnight that I think many folks here have interpreted the fact that there are/were a few template type holes at Merion as some proof that C.B. Macdonald had to be directly involved with the design.
Coupled with the fact that David's essay discovered that Wilson didn't go abroad until the spring of 1912, how possibly could Hugh WIlson and committee have already routed and seeded those template holes before he even went to see the originals unless CB Macdonald had done it for them?
It's a fair question, and on the face of it seems to make a lot of sense.
However, when one considers the fact that most of the holes as originally grassed in Sept 1911 were pretty much "blank pages", using only what natural features where available, and with very little in the way of bunkers, "mental hazards", or other man-made touches that would ultimately create the various strategies of each hole. Relatedly, if you think about the definitions of the Ideal Holes as identified by Macdonald, the vast majority are largely defined by their pre-prescribed bunkering patterns that serve to create the strategic choices and demands of each hole type.
Alex Findlay's June 1912 article gives us clear insight into the state of the course nine months after seeding when he states that it's too early to even comment on "the possibilities of the new course" and then mentions that it won't be until the late fall 1912 that Fred Pickering "will give it the finishing touches".
But, we also do know that the first iteration of Merion did have a few attempts at Template style holes in the style of CB Macdonald, including the redan 3rd, the Alps 10th, and the Eden green at the 15th.
How could those have been conceived or created by Wilson if he hadn't gone abroad yet?
Well, they likely came from Wilson and Committee's trip to NGLA in March 1911, after which the Merion minutes reflect;
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."
Approximately a month later, on April 6, 1911, M&W came and spent a day onsite with the Committee and selected one plan in particular that they claimed would lead be equal to the seven best finishing holes on any inland course in the world.
Good question indeed. I do have the report and it does not say it was written by Wilson and it is not signed by Wilson. It merely says:
Golf Committee through Mr Lesley, report (sic) as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground they went down to the National.....
This is all contained within the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting minutes.
Since the wording of the report said 'your committee' and then said 'they' I just assumed that since Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee that the report was written by Wilson's committee who were the only ones with first hand knowledge of what they'd been doing through the winter and spring of 1911 and at NGLA (again Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee and apparently did not go with them to NGLA in early April 1911) and since Wilson was the chairman of the Wilson committee and chairman generally write reports for the committees they chair, I have assumed that Wilson probably wrote the report that was delivered to the board by Lesley, the chairman of the Golf Committee that the Wilson committee apparently worked and operated under. But I don't know that for sure and I admit that another member of the Wilson committee may've actually written the Wilson Committee report although I can't exactly imagine why another would have rather than Wilson himself.
If you haven't figured this out for yourself at this point, Hugh Wilson was clearly a very efficient and organized man in these kinds of things and his app. 1000 agronomy letters makes that very loud and clear!
Have you ever even belonged to a golf club, David Moriarty, and do you even have a modicum of personal experience in things like this with these kinds of private clubs, how they work, how their committees work and function and report and so forth and so on?
No, I didn't think so! :'( ;)
HOWEVER, when the Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911 used the term “we laid out numerous different courses on the new ground” in the winter of 1911 BEFORE visiting NGLA and Macdonald that could mean they staked out holes on the property AND/OR they submitted those staked out “courses” on the ground to a paper topographical contour survey “plan” of the property (courses drawn on those paper plans). I know they had topographical contour survey maps of the property that was now in the possession of Lloyd because Wilson mentioned the plan and enclosed it to Russell Oakley in Washington D.C. in his first correspondence on Feb. 1, 1911.
In that case we KNOW that when they used the term “laid out” to describe what they HAD BEEN DOING in the PREVIOUS months in that report (winter months of 1911 and before visiting NGLA) there is no way at all they could’ve meant they were BUILDING or actually CONSTRUCTING a golf course on the ground because WE KNOW from the Merion TIMELINE that was an event (the actual BUILDING of a course) that would NOT TAKE PLACE for a number of months HENCE!
In that Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board Meeting on April 19, 1911, it also said they “rearranged the course and laid out five different plans” FOLLOWING their visit to NGLA in the second week of March, 1911. One can certainly logically assume that by “laid out” at that point they meant submitting a routings and perhaps designs to their paper topographical contour survey plans which Macdonald and Whigam would review on April 6, 1911, help them select one to be submitted to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911, and which “plan” was reported to have been ATTACHED to the Wilson Report and which was reported to have been approved and which would be built in the coming months.
On a related note, the way you interpreted the words of Alan Wilson as comparing and contrasting Hugh Wilson's role in the process ONLY against the rest of the committee and not at all against M&W "because he had already mentioned them and then put them aside" is not exactly an objective view...You and Tom Macwood have both demonstated an ability to read paragraphs by these guys as saying things I couldn't dream of. If I were arguing with you over some specific point I don't think I would give you the material either because what could I have to gain? Your interpretations are not certain fact, they are just your interpretations and are as wildly one sided as you believe Tom and Mike's are in the other direction...
Patrick,
Just the opposite is true.
I don't believe that's the case.
Wayne has asked me a number of times over the past several months to just stop responding to this inanity, in the belief that if Dm, TM, and you have no one to argue with you won't get the satisfaction.
Mike,
You don't get it.
This isn't an argument, it's a search for the truth.
I don't know the full extent of all the details surrounding the origins of the golf course at Merion.
DO YOU ?
IF you do, could you produce all of the details ?
If you DON'T, why are you being an obstructionist ?
Don't you want to know the full extent of all the details surrounding the origins of the golf course at Merion ?
Anything I've posted here was stuff Wayne gave me copies of long ago, or that I found on my own, or with or by Joe Bausch, or had already been posted here or in the public domain.
In fact, I've probably strained our friendship by continuing to respond to this asinine nonsense because to all of us, and particularly to the "historians", Merion is an abstraction.
I believe that David Moriarty and Tom MacWood are SERIOUS researchers and not loose canons.
To Wayne it's friends' family, and community.
Wayno just joined Merion.
He's a rookie, not someone deeply entrenched in membership.
That we would collectively permit this to go on here certainly doesn't say much good about our methods of engagement.
That's an absurd attempt at deflection, something you've engaged in repeatedly.
Moriarty and MacWood have proven to be serious, accomplished researchers who have uncovered interesting facts about Merion and other courses.
Facts that would lead a prudent person to seek more information.
Yet, their attempts to discover more information have been intentionally and repeatedly thwarted.
WHY ?
Lastly,
Could you answer the questions I posed ...... directly ?
Thanks
I may have a couple different passages running together in my mind, but if this is the only Alan Wilson excerpt probably not...I think your leap is in not in that section, it's in not heeding his words about this being a "homemade" course and that M&W were helpful advisors. I think he was being inclusive (of all but Barker...sorry Tom, couldn't resist) of those that contributed when all of the passage is considered together.
It was a homemade course in 1926. The original course with CBM's influences was probably a distant memory in 1926 and there is no indication the routing was considered important or 'architecture' in Allan Wilson's mind.
I'd take a stab at Tom M's repeated question about the discrepancies in the Alan Wilson letter by saying simply that in 1926 it probably seemed like the world at Merion East must have only begun when the Wilson Committee was formed...from that point they tried to get a playable course on the ground as quick as possible (I agree with you both that some rough routing must have been done prior, but I think Wilson would have been involved at that stage) with the knowledge that they would "improve" upon it over time and so the timing of the trip was unintentionally botched AND that the majority of Hugh Wilsons architectural work would happen afterwards.
What discrepancies? He does not say when Hugh went abroad. I assume he knew he travelled to the UK in 1912 and when he returned began asserting his influence, and the news reports seem to indicate that is what was occurring. I also take Hugh Wilson's account literally, which I believe excludes him from an earlier routing.
I also think the goose chase about whether or not Alan Wilson had any first hand knowledge of the goings on is a less than objective view...I can understand if you are suggesting that/asking those questions just to context the debate differently, it doesn't seem like an honest view of reality.
I assume he did have first hand knowledge.
The undulations in the 7th green could be Wilson, CBM, Pickering, Flynn, Whigham, an unknown construction hand or a combination.
The bunker on the 5th could be Wilson, Barker, Macdonald, or Whigham.
When you have so many chefs involved its difficult to pinpoint who suggested a single ingredient.
The undulations in the 7th green could be Wilson, CBM, Pickering, Flynn, Whigham, an unknown construction hand or a combination.
The bunker on the 5th could be Wilson, Barker, Macdonald, or Whigham.
When you have so many chefs involved its difficult to pinpoint who suggested a single ingredient.
Interestingly Tom, I am a believer in taking responsibility for a screw up and the benefit of taking that responsibility is the deserving the credit for a home run. After all, approving something done by someone else makes it your own when you're the one in charge, right?
eMeneMeneM.
At this juncture, after reading your collective biases and misinterpretations and transparent attempts to discredit Hugh Wilson over the past several years for what I can only surmise is some odd academic envy of his Ivy-League roots mixed with personal animosity for Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison, I will tell each of you that your passive/aggressive efforts to try and bait me into providing more info re: the MCC Minutes is really a waste of time.
Frankly, none of you have shown the slightest bit of respect for the naterials and/or the men involved in creating that history and from my perspective, you also haven't exhibited even the slightest modicum of the objectivity necessary to provide a valid, valuable interpretation of the materials.
In a perfect world, this material could be placed on GCA for everyone's edification and enjoyment, but that is no longer possible.
You can cry and pout and hurl insults claiming that someone is hiding the truth but it is precisely that very attitude you've had from the get-go that is largely responsible for creating this unfortunate environment we find ourselves in.
You are asking about two different features. The placement of the bunker is architectural in nature, and who was in charge of the architecture is debatable. The undulations of a green may or may not be architectural. It could be the genius of the construction crew or the person overseeing the construction crew - Wilson, Pickering or Johnson Contractors.
David,Jim, I really disagree with you on this. In the heat of battle I sometimes get dogmatic, but believe it or not I am trying to consider all of the facts, and if you think I am stretching something, I'd appreciate if you pointed it out so I can reconsider. That is how conversations work and how I learn; by presenting and defending positions against any and all challenges.
I am sure you are comfortable with your understanding of the letter...my initial post was meant to suggest that it (along with Tom Macwood's interpretations) is wholly one sided and not based on a realistic expectation of what could have happened...much like I think Mike and TEP are wholly one sided the other way in their interpretation of the timeline.
With the two main combatants being so entranched this might go on for a while...
Tom,Wilson reportedly tried to build a replica of the Eden green on the 15th. Now given he had never seen the hole when he built the green, how do you suppose he planned this? And according to Tolhurst, the front of the 17th was supposedly based on the Valley of Sin.
For example, who do you think conceptualized the really cool undulations on the present 7th green?
How about exact placement of the short right bunker on #5?
Interestingly Tom, I am a believer in taking responsibility for a screw up and the benefit of taking that responsibility is the deserving the credit for a home run. After all, approving something done by someone else makes it your own when you're the one in charge, right?
You are asking about two different features. The placement of the bunker is architectural in nature, and who was in charge of the architecture is debatable. The undulations of a green may or may not be architectural. It could be the genius of the construction crew or the person overseeing the construction crew - Wilson, Pickering or Johnson Contractors.
tom,
I didn't doubt what you were thinking when you typed all those names, but that's just the point, there was only one man named Chairman of the Committee tasked with creating the golf course. There are plenty of men throughout history that botched the job and took responsibility for that, Hugh Wilson got this one right.
Is there more to it than simply saying he did 100% of the work? Absolutely.
"Human error is a logical explantion if you have a transcribed copy, but he says he has a photocopy of the original document. He made the exact same error over and over again, and as a result those of us quoting him - Mike, David and myself - have made the exact same error over and over again. How do you explain that?"
Tom
When you refer to human error and someone making the same error over and over again are you referring to me or someone else? If you are referring to me I wish you would stop just mentioning it and just show me and this website where I made an error over and over again. Don't forget, everything that has been said on this website is in the back pages. Don't just tell me actually SHOW ME where I made some error over and over again! Go find it and put it on a post and SHOW ME the error I made over and over if it is me you're referring to.
My bet is that you will avoid this as you always do when you say things on here like that! ;)
"I believe that David Moriarty and Tom MacWood are SERIOUS researchers and not loose canons."
Patrick:
If you really believe that then why didn't either of them go to Merion FIRST?
Tom,
Let's be practical for a second.
You're well aware that David lives in California and Tom in Ohio.
They don't have the luxury of leaving their driveway and being on Ardmore Ave in five minutes.
In addition, neither one of them have the connections to gain access to Merion's archives.
Afterall Merion is where all the records of Merion are!
One has to wonder why Wayno chose to "selectively, and "incompletely" reveal the results of his research efforts in the MCC archives.
Wayno, who has had unfettered access to those records seems to have chosen to release only the records of his choosing.
You can't fault David and Tom for being "unsettled" with how things have transpired.
Tom Mac,
There is no possibility that one man routed the course! Not if you consider that:
*Francis did little by his own admission, but was responsible for the 15th and 16th via his land swap. You are assuming the swap occured after the routing process and not during
*And that Lesley approved that swap. Lloyd approved the swap
*The (or for DM, "a") Committee did "many" routings The Lesley report does not identify who did the many routings
*CBM approved the rest of the routing CBM chose one five plans, no reason to believe they were five routings.
What about the Francis Land Swap? Surely you cannot give CBM credit for that piece of the routing?
No, I don't think CBM was just a sales pitch, I thought I made that disclaimer...I was just trying to point out that there is a view 180 degrees opposite of yours that could have some merit.
bump
As far as those minutes, I heard earlier this week that the Flynn book that Wayne Morrison has been working on is now going to press, so I'm hopeful you'll get a copy and we can finally put this matter to rest. My understanding is that it will include verbatim accounts of those MCC minutes, which make very clear that no routing was approved (despite the many iterations of "plans" the committee devised) til late April, 1911, with Robert Lesley reporting for Hugh Wilson and Committee to the Board. They will also make clear that Macdonald recommended which of the Committee's plans to use, and that's the plan that went to the board for final approval. Somewhat magnamoniously, Macdonald says that if they use that particular plan, they will have the finest 7 finishing holes in the country. They will also make clear that both the 3 acres that Macdonald recommended they buy back in July 1910, as well as the land along Golf House Road that was swapped in the Francis Land Swap Deal were both purchased after that approval date in late April 1911, prior to construction. Once you see them, the timelines of everything should become much clearer.
As it turns out, partially due to the work you've put forward and the corresponding research in reaction to it, Macdonald's role as a superb advisor to the Merion Committee was confirmed and probably even accentuated, but what we now also know in much greater detail than ever before is that Hugh Wilson kicked some serious ass, and fully deserves to be known as he always has been as the architect of Merion.
All,
Last night I outlined what I thought the "state of the course" was when Findlay wrote his article, and I think there is enough evidence from Tillnghast and Findlay to support that understanding. "Far and Sure", whoever he was, supports that as well in his writing.
But last night at about 4am I woke up and something pretty fundamental occurred to me that I don't think I realized prior;
I think we've made a collective mistake in believing that if there was an Alps hole, or a Redan, or any of the template holes built in the first iteration of Merion East, that it was clear direct evidence of the routing and planning of one Charles B. Macdonald. That isn't so, and now when looks at the timelines, and the supporting evidence, the whole thing comes pretty sharply into view.
Let's consider the timeline;
June 1910 - The landowner Mr. Connell brings HH Barker to the large plot of land he wants to sell to Merion (Lloyd acting as the angel), and Barker sketches a routing that gets sent in what is essentially a prospectus package packet to Merion.
Later June 1910 - At the invite of Griscom, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham visit the proposed site for what seems to have been a single day with the intent of determining if the acreage proposed, the site specifics, and the inland soil would be appropriate to build a first class course. In July, their very general recommendations are sent via letter to Merion, recommending a 6,000 yard non-specific course, the purchase of 3 additional acres along the creek and mostly concerned with agronomics.
July - November 1910 - Not much written record, but one can reasonably assume that properations to purchase the land and to setup committees to deal with purchasing and possible construction is being done.
December 1910 - Mr. Lloyd purchases the 117 acres for Merion's use as a new golf club.
January - early March 1911 - Hugh Wilson and the newly formed Construction Committee work on putting together various plans of how to use the new land. They report later to the Merion board;
""Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course.....", which we now know happened around the end of the first week in March.
March 1911 - Wilson and Committee visit Macdonald at NGLA. The Merion minutes, and later Wilson writing in 1916, make clear that the first day was spent going over Macdonald's sketches of the ideal holes abroad and the second day spent going over the course at NGLA.
to be continued
Tom,
I agree and I prefer not to type out the timeline again but I do think it's important for making my next point that people understand when Macdonald was originally at Merion in June 1910 and what he did, when the Committee went to visit him at NGLA in March 1911 (and what was discussed), and when Macdonald returned for a day in early April 1911 and what he did at that time.
I say that because it occurred to me overnight that I think many folks here have interpreted the fact that there are/were a few template type holes at Merion as some proof that C.B. Macdonald had to be directly involved with the design.
Coupled with the fact that David's essay discovered that Wilson didn't go abroad until the spring of 1912, how possibly could Hugh WIlson and committee have already routed and seeded those template holes before he even went to see the originals unless CB Macdonald had done it for them?
It's a fair question, and on the face of it seems to make a lot of sense.
However, when one considers the fact that most of the holes as originally grassed in Sept 1911 were pretty much "blank pages", using only what natural features where available, and with very little in the way of bunkers, "mental hazards", or other man-made touches that would ultimately create the various strategies of each hole. Relatedly, if you think about the definitions of the Ideal Holes as identified by Macdonald, the vast majority are largely defined by their pre-prescribed bunkering patterns that serve to create the strategic choices and demands of each hole type.
Alex Findlay's June 1912 article gives us clear insight into the state of the course nine months after seeding when he states that it's too early to even comment on "the possibilities of the new course" and then mentions that it won't be until the late fall 1912 that Fred Pickering "will give it the finishing touches".
But, we also do know that the first iteration of Merion did have a few attempts at Template style holes in the style of CB Macdonald, including the redan 3rd, the Alps 10th, and the Eden green at the 15th.
How could those have been conceived or created by Wilson if he hadn't gone abroad yet?
Well, they likely came from Wilson and Committee's trip to NGLA in March 1911, after which the Merion minutes reflect;
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."
Approximately a month later, on April 6, 1911, M&W came and spent a day onsite with the Committee and selected one plan in particular that they claimed would lead be equal to the seven best finishing holes on any inland course in the world.
Good question indeed. I do have the report and it does not say it was written by Wilson and it is not signed by Wilson. It merely says:
Golf Committee through Mr Lesley, report (sic) as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground they went down to the National.....
This is all contained within the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting minutes.
Since the wording of the report said 'your committee' and then said 'they' I just assumed that since Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee that the report was written by Wilson's committee who were the only ones with first hand knowledge of what they'd been doing through the winter and spring of 1911 and at NGLA (again Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee and apparently did not go with them to NGLA in early April 1911) and since Wilson was the chairman of the Wilson committee and chairman generally write reports for the committees they chair, I have assumed that Wilson probably wrote the report that was delivered to the board by Lesley, the chairman of the Golf Committee that the Wilson committee apparently worked and operated under. But I don't know that for sure and I admit that another member of the Wilson committee may've actually written the Wilson Committee report although I can't exactly imagine why another would have rather than Wilson himself.
If you haven't figured this out for yourself at this point, Hugh Wilson was clearly a very efficient and organized man in these kinds of things and his app. 1000 agronomy letters makes that very loud and clear!
Have you ever even belonged to a golf club, David Moriarty, and do you even have a modicum of personal experience in things like this with these kinds of private clubs, how they work, how their committees work and function and report and so forth and so on?
No, I didn't think so! :'( ;)
HOWEVER, when the Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911 used the term “we laid out numerous different courses on the new ground” in the winter of 1911 BEFORE visiting NGLA and Macdonald that could mean they staked out holes on the property AND/OR they submitted those staked out “courses” on the ground to a paper topographical contour survey “plan” of the property (courses drawn on those paper plans). I know they had topographical contour survey maps of the property that was now in the possession of Lloyd because Wilson mentioned the plan and enclosed it to Russell Oakley in Washington D.C. in his first correspondence on Feb. 1, 1911.
In that case we KNOW that when they used the term “laid out” to describe what they HAD BEEN DOING in the PREVIOUS months in that report (winter months of 1911 and before visiting NGLA) there is no way at all they could’ve meant they were BUILDING or actually CONSTRUCTING a golf course on the ground because WE KNOW from the Merion TIMELINE that was an event (the actual BUILDING of a course) that would NOT TAKE PLACE for a number of months HENCE!
In that Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board Meeting on April 19, 1911, it also said they “rearranged the course and laid out five different plans” FOLLOWING their visit to NGLA in the second week of March, 1911. One can certainly logically assume that by “laid out” at that point they meant submitting a routings and perhaps designs to their paper topographical contour survey plans which Macdonald and Whigam would review on April 6, 1911, help them select one to be submitted to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911, and which “plan” was reported to have been ATTACHED to the Wilson Report and which was reported to have been approved and which would be built in the coming months.
No problem, it may be taking a risk with my understanding with Wayne and MCC but I'm willing to take that risk on that at this point if it will AT LEAST help to put a stop to the constant ongoing argument and bickering and mindbendly boring and irrelevent PARSING of words and their meaning on here as to WHAT drawings and sketches the Wilson Committee were referring to during their two day visit to NGLA:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf course on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......
That's all that's mentioned about plans and data (the words sketches and drawings are not used) and I think it's pretty clear that probably means Macdonald's plans and such from abroad even though one could conclude the first part could mean his plans of NGLA itself also, BUT it could not possibly mean Merion's plans or drawings. I hope you all notice the word "his" (so I didn't highlight or capitalize it ;) ) and I hope no one on here will try to contend Merion's plans were HIS (Macdonald's, even though at this point I wouldn't put anything past the essayist)! ;)
"I was referring to you. How do you explain it?"
Tom:
Thanks for the answer. What error are you referring to that was made over and over again that you and Jeff and Mike repeated. Could you find the posts and show me the error I made over and over that you and Jeff and Mike repeated and I'd be glad to address and explain it? Are you referring to the January 11, 1911 date of the appointment of the Wilson Committee that you and Jeff kept repeating? If so, I already explained to you that I never said that and I don't know why you and Jeff thought I did and you kept repeating it.
I will post it again. I was referring to your recent altering of the wording in the Lesley report, in particular your change from 'they' to 'we'. How do you explain it?
"Where does Johnson Contractors fit into quote?"
What do you mean where does Johnson Contractors fit into quote? What quote? Do you mean where does the Johnson Contractors fit into the Wilson report that Lesley delivered to the MCC board meeting of 4/19/1911?
Yes, what is said about Johnson Contractors in the 4/19 report, and why have you redacted that portion?
David, your last post is surprising. If you're researching something and there are people who you feel are in your way, you've got three options. Co-opt them, assault them frontally and hope for victory, or attempt an end run.
You made a choice in deciding that there was no way that going to Merion was going to do you any good. It wasn't done TO you. All of your reasons listed for not going had to do with TEPaul and Wayne. Maybe you would have gotten some information if you'd tried. Maybe you wouldn't have. But you made a decision not to make the attempt.
Jeff & Jim,
Tilly NEVER wrote that CBM had shown him the “plans” for Merion.
In May of 1911 he wrote, “I had a chat with C.B. Macdonald and he told me more about the new course at Merion… from his description of the holes… No description of the links can be attempted at this time, for the work is still in its infancy…”
No mention of his having been shown any plans by CBM.
He wrote on another occasion that he had seen the plans for Merion, but CBM was not involved with that. For some reason a number have been putting those two separate occasions together and stating as fact that CBM showed Tilly the plans for Merion. He didn't.
Hopefully for the final time, the proof that Far & Sure was NOT Tillinghast is because Tilly spent the winter of 1910-1911 and all the way through the May opening of Shawnee in the Philadelphia and Shawnee areas. He didn’t do any traveling.
Far & Sure wrote that he was in Pinehurst for two weeks in the winter of 1911 (January). Tilly could do many things; being two places at one time wasn’t one of them.
Jeff, I’ve been given a few nicknames, mostly a tad bit uncomplimentary, but that isn’t one of them…
What is a 100 page thread without MOM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3455/3238424439_23361f5589.jpg?v=0)
Pink Champain
I have had my say on "Far and Sure" and you know what I believe. Surmise as you wish, I will say no more on the subject...
Eric,
I'm willing to give 50 bonus points to anyone who can provide pictorial evidence to prove the actual existence of Tom MacWood. ;)
As far as those minutes, I heard earlier this week that the Flynn book that Wayne Morrison has been working on is now going to press, so I'm hopeful you'll get a copy and we can finally put this matter to rest. My understanding is that it will include verbatim accounts of those MCC minutes, which make very clear that no routing was approved (despite the many iterations of "plans" the committee devised) til late April, 1911, with Robert Lesley reporting for Hugh Wilson and Committee to the Board. They will also make clear that Macdonald recommended which of the Committee's plans to use, and that's the plan that went to the board for final approval. Somewhat magnamoniously, Macdonald says that if they use that particular plan, they will have the finest 7 finishing holes in the country. They will also make clear that both the 3 acres that Macdonald recommended they buy back in July 1910, as well as the land along Golf House Road that was swapped in the Francis Land Swap Deal were both purchased after that approval date in late April 1911, prior to construction. Once you see them, the timelines of everything should become much clearer.
As it turns out, partially due to the work you've put forward and the corresponding research in reaction to it, Macdonald's role as a superb advisor to the Merion Committee was confirmed and probably even accentuated, but what we now also know in much greater detail than ever before is that Hugh Wilson kicked some serious ass, and fully deserves to be known as he always has been as the architect of Merion.
All,
Last night I outlined what I thought the "state of the course" was when Findlay wrote his article, and I think there is enough evidence from Tillnghast and Findlay to support that understanding. "Far and Sure", whoever he was, supports that as well in his writing.
But last night at about 4am I woke up and something pretty fundamental occurred to me that I don't think I realized prior;
I think we've made a collective mistake in believing that if there was an Alps hole, or a Redan, or any of the template holes built in the first iteration of Merion East, that it was clear direct evidence of the routing and planning of one Charles B. Macdonald. That isn't so, and now when looks at the timelines, and the supporting evidence, the whole thing comes pretty sharply into view.
Let's consider the timeline;
June 1910 - The landowner Mr. Connell brings HH Barker to the large plot of land he wants to sell to Merion (Lloyd acting as the angel), and Barker sketches a routing that gets sent in what is essentially a prospectus package packet to Merion.
Later June 1910 - At the invite of Griscom, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham visit the proposed site for what seems to have been a single day with the intent of determining if the acreage proposed, the site specifics, and the inland soil would be appropriate to build a first class course. In July, their very general recommendations are sent via letter to Merion, recommending a 6,000 yard non-specific course, the purchase of 3 additional acres along the creek and mostly concerned with agronomics.
July - November 1910 - Not much written record, but one can reasonably assume that properations to purchase the land and to setup committees to deal with purchasing and possible construction is being done.
December 1910 - Mr. Lloyd purchases the 117 acres for Merion's use as a new golf club.
January - early March 1911 - Hugh Wilson and the newly formed Construction Committee work on putting together various plans of how to use the new land. They report later to the Merion board;
""Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course.....", which we now know happened around the end of the first week in March.
March 1911 - Wilson and Committee visit Macdonald at NGLA. The Merion minutes, and later Wilson writing in 1916, make clear that the first day was spent going over Macdonald's sketches of the ideal holes abroad and the second day spent going over the course at NGLA.
to be continued
Tom,
I agree and I prefer not to type out the timeline again but I do think it's important for making my next point that people understand when Macdonald was originally at Merion in June 1910 and what he did, when the Committee went to visit him at NGLA in March 1911 (and what was discussed), and when Macdonald returned for a day in early April 1911 and what he did at that time.
I say that because it occurred to me overnight that I think many folks here have interpreted the fact that there are/were a few template type holes at Merion as some proof that C.B. Macdonald had to be directly involved with the design.
Coupled with the fact that David's essay discovered that Wilson didn't go abroad until the spring of 1912, how possibly could Hugh WIlson and committee have already routed and seeded those template holes before he even went to see the originals unless CB Macdonald had done it for them?
It's a fair question, and on the face of it seems to make a lot of sense.
However, when one considers the fact that most of the holes as originally grassed in Sept 1911 were pretty much "blank pages", using only what natural features where available, and with very little in the way of bunkers, "mental hazards", or other man-made touches that would ultimately create the various strategies of each hole. Relatedly, if you think about the definitions of the Ideal Holes as identified by Macdonald, the vast majority are largely defined by their pre-prescribed bunkering patterns that serve to create the strategic choices and demands of each hole type.
Alex Findlay's June 1912 article gives us clear insight into the state of the course nine months after seeding when he states that it's too early to even comment on "the possibilities of the new course" and then mentions that it won't be until the late fall 1912 that Fred Pickering "will give it the finishing touches".
But, we also do know that the first iteration of Merion did have a few attempts at Template style holes in the style of CB Macdonald, including the redan 3rd, the Alps 10th, and the Eden green at the 15th.
How could those have been conceived or created by Wilson if he hadn't gone abroad yet?
Well, they likely came from Wilson and Committee's trip to NGLA in March 1911, after which the Merion minutes reflect;
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."
Approximately a month later, on April 6, 1911, M&W came and spent a day onsite with the Committee and selected one plan in particular that they claimed would lead be equal to the seven best finishing holes on any inland course in the world.
Good question indeed. I do have the report and it does not say it was written by Wilson and it is not signed by Wilson. It merely says:
Golf Committee through Mr Lesley, report (sic) as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground they went down to the National.....
This is all contained within the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting minutes.
Since the wording of the report said 'your committee' and then said 'they' I just assumed that since Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee that the report was written by Wilson's committee who were the only ones with first hand knowledge of what they'd been doing through the winter and spring of 1911 and at NGLA (again Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee and apparently did not go with them to NGLA in early April 1911) and since Wilson was the chairman of the Wilson committee and chairman generally write reports for the committees they chair, I have assumed that Wilson probably wrote the report that was delivered to the board by Lesley, the chairman of the Golf Committee that the Wilson committee apparently worked and operated under. But I don't know that for sure and I admit that another member of the Wilson committee may've actually written the Wilson Committee report although I can't exactly imagine why another would have rather than Wilson himself.
If you haven't figured this out for yourself at this point, Hugh Wilson was clearly a very efficient and organized man in these kinds of things and his app. 1000 agronomy letters makes that very loud and clear!
Have you ever even belonged to a golf club, David Moriarty, and do you even have a modicum of personal experience in things like this with these kinds of private clubs, how they work, how their committees work and function and report and so forth and so on?
No, I didn't think so! :'( ;)
HOWEVER, when the Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911 used the term “we laid out numerous different courses on the new ground” in the winter of 1911 BEFORE visiting NGLA and Macdonald that could mean they staked out holes on the property AND/OR they submitted those staked out “courses” on the ground to a paper topographical contour survey “plan” of the property (courses drawn on those paper plans). I know they had topographical contour survey maps of the property that was now in the possession of Lloyd because Wilson mentioned the plan and enclosed it to Russell Oakley in Washington D.C. in his first correspondence on Feb. 1, 1911.
In that case we KNOW that when they used the term “laid out” to describe what they HAD BEEN DOING in the PREVIOUS months in that report (winter months of 1911 and before visiting NGLA) there is no way at all they could’ve meant they were BUILDING or actually CONSTRUCTING a golf course on the ground because WE KNOW from the Merion TIMELINE that was an event (the actual BUILDING of a course) that would NOT TAKE PLACE for a number of months HENCE!
In that Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board Meeting on April 19, 1911, it also said they “rearranged the course and laid out five different plans” FOLLOWING their visit to NGLA in the second week of March, 1911. One can certainly logically assume that by “laid out” at that point they meant submitting a routings and perhaps designs to their paper topographical contour survey plans which Macdonald and Whigam would review on April 6, 1911, help them select one to be submitted to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911, and which “plan” was reported to have been ATTACHED to the Wilson Report and which was reported to have been approved and which would be built in the coming months.
No problem, it may be taking a risk with my understanding with Wayne and MCC but I'm willing to take that risk on that at this point if it will AT LEAST help to put a stop to the constant ongoing argument and bickering and mindbendly boring and irrelevent PARSING of words and their meaning on here as to WHAT drawings and sketches the Wilson Committee were referring to during their two day visit to NGLA:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf course on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......
That's all that's mentioned about plans and data (the words sketches and drawings are not used) and I think it's pretty clear that probably means Macdonald's plans and such from abroad even though one could conclude the first part could mean his plans of NGLA itself also, BUT it could not possibly mean Merion's plans or drawings. I hope you all notice the word "his" (so I didn't highlight or capitalize it ;) ) and I hope no one on here will try to contend Merion's plans were HIS (Macdonald's, even though at this point I wouldn't put anything past the essayist)! ;)
Tom,
I'm not sure if it was this thread or another prior but everything I quoted here from the minutes had already been posted prior by Tom.
By the way, if you're confused about the paraphrsing Tom used that nixed the pronouns on a post or two, my understanding is the way I have it in the material in quotes is correct. Hope that helps.
Tom M
100 year old documents cannot be "altered" by anyone on this site, even by one as multi-skilled as TE Paul. Maybe misquoted, but that will resolve itself, if true. "Altred?" No chance. They are what they are and will eventually be revealed for what they really are, which may well be inconclusive. I've been through enough source documents to know that the only thing which is clear is that the "truth" is nothing but clear. You should find a thread with more meat on it to gnaw over if you are really looking for a meal. IMHO, of course.
Cheers
Rich
Tom,
I was very careful not to quote anything here from the MCC minutes that wasn't posted prior by Tom because I assumed I did not have permission to do so and maintain that understanding.
As I mentioned many times previously, Wayne has no interest in contributing primary source info to this website and given the history between you guys, do you find that surprising?
Also, lest anyone gets the wrong impression related to Tom Paul or David Moriarty,s dropping out of this thread, I believe it was mutually requested to lower the temperature in the room and hopefully allow this thread to die a natural death.
In the absence of any additional evidence or any new theories to vet, aren't we simply rewording the same old disagreements?
Tom
You do need to calm down and think about what the word "altering" means in relation to documents. I do not think that even you or Dave would accuse Tom of actually altering any of Merion's documents if you really understood the meaning of the word and/or knew Tom.
As to my OTM (and other) articles that you have sometimes kindly cited in some of your research, please let me know where you think I was "misleading and historically inaccurate." One only learns if one is made aware of specifics rather than broad generalities.
Thanks in advance.
Rich
Tom Mac,
I could be wrong, but vaguely recall TePaul pulling off some of his posts, angry at how they were being assaulted, or perhaps at the request of Wayne or MCC in how much info he was putting out there. I can't say for sure, but perhaps that is why you can't find the minutes that he posted originally. Just a possibility.
Like Rich says, I think in some ways you and DM ought to calm down (as TePaul needed to a while back) While I am not a lawyer I wonder if some of the accusations (in reality going both ways here) could be construed as slander. Even if borderlline, we know TePaul has both the temperment and money to find out!
Tom
You do need to calm down and think about what the word "altering" means in relation to documents. I do not think that even you or Dave would accuse Tom of actually altering any of Merion's documents if you really understood the meaning of the word and/or knew Tom.
As to my OTM (and other) articles that you have sometimes kindly cited in some of your research, please let me know where you think I was "misleading and historically inaccurate." One only learns if one is made aware of specifics rather than broad generalities.
Thanks in advance.
Rich
Rich
I'm perfectly calm. Everyone knows what altered means in this case. The transcibed versions were altered to support their case. I suppose they thought they could get away with it since they were hording the original documents. Not only does not reflect well on them, it doesn't reflect well on Merion, or anyone who defends such behavior.
Regarding my essay I thought about using this quote of yours from your OTM article to illustrate how people exaggerate OTM's resume, but I decided against it.
"Most of us know most of these already, but just listing the names of some of the most revered trips off the tongue so smoothly that I can't resist writing them together: Dornoch, Machrihanish, Elie, County Down, New Course, Portrush, Wallasey, Lahinch, Muirfield, Rosapenna, and Nairn."
The acknowledgment was for your Arch Simpson article, which was very good..
Dave
Whatever source material exists, exists. I cannot imagine how it could possible have been altered, deleted or changed. Unless you can explain to me exactly what you mean by those verbs and why you have used them, please stop using them. Now I can agree that maybe some of the "source material" has been "misrepresented" or even misinterpreted by some (if not all) of the major contributors to this thread, but that is what historical research cat fights are all about, isn't it?
Tom MacWood,
Who really gives a damn? And do you have a fucking point?
Anything from the MCC minutes I posted here were transcribed from Tom Paul's earlier posts, whether on this thread or somewhere else.
Tom MacWood,
Who really gives a damn? And do you have a fucking point?
Anything from the MCC minutes I posted here were transcribed from Tom Paul's earlier posts, whether on this thread or somewhere else.
EnoughsEnuff has now offically lost it! ;D
Well said sir.
Tom Paul,
This is about the search for the truth of what happened at Merion about as much as Lee Harvey Oswald was just interested in a better view in Dallas.
Later, all...
In another shameless attempt to get this over 100 pages as a joke...
But I have to ask TMac - why write that nothing has been solved and then present an opinion as "agreed upon" that very few actually do agree upon? I know at least three people here who don't think its pretty clear that Wilson was only involved AFTER seeding......hmm, construction starts April 1911, course seeded late 1911, committee appointed Jan 1911.
I hate to correct you again (I've spent a good percentage of my time on this thread correcting your facts), but we don't know exactly when the CONSTRUCTION committee (note the emphais on construction) was formed, only that it was early in 1911, and they began preparing the ground in late March and early April 1911. And you are correct it was seeded in Septemeber 1911. No one has presented any evidence that Hugh Wilson was involved in any design activity prior his trip in 1912, incuding his own account and his brothers account.
Again, hmmmm, other than in the word parsed world you live in. Has anyone declared Columbus Ohio a truth free and logic free zone that I didn't hear about?
Its pretty clear Wilson design activities did not begin until after the course was laid out and seeded, and after he returned from the UK.
Hey Jeff, be careful. I lived in Columbus from the fall of 1970 to the summer of 1978, and probably spent more time at OSU's Scarlet course than I did in the classroom. Though TMac and I are contemporaries, I never once saw the man nor knew of his existence until joining this site. Personally, I think he really is from Michigan, probably lives in a cabin in the Upper Peninsula, but is too embarrassed to admit it. ;)
Its pretty clear Wilson design activities did not begin until after the course was laid out and seeded, and after he returned from the UK.
Clear to who? You and Moriarty??
That's about it as far as my counting...
Even other's who defended you like Mucci, Kennedy, and Shivas wouldn't go that far, I'm pretty certain.
On the other side, a host of people have tried to disabuse both of you of your illogical assumptions and clearly falllacious interpretations, only to have mostly given up in frustration and/or disgust.
I don't know who you mean by "we" above, Tom, but I think that the great majority of people reading this thread are only waiting for it to reach 100 pages so that it can be humanely put to sleep......
Ha! Eric, is that my alleged fellow Buckeye tracking over to Ann Arbor for a game of golf at the only true MacKenzie university golf course in Ann Arbor? It must be pre-global warming.
Now that there are many more people following this thread, I think it is worth revisiting the review of Merion by Tilly in the Dec 1912 Philadelphia Record newspaper, as well as the January 1913 American Golfer article by the author(s) "Far and Sure".
Gosh, I'm not an English teacher (well, maybe Anthony and I could team teach a class together with spelling lessons), but it sure seems that we have a serious case of plagiarism here! Since Tilly's article was likely written before the AG article (although I don't think this can be proved), I'll assume "Far and Sure" is/are the plagiarist(s)!
And just to make the comparison of the relevant passages more easy, here are a couple of figures I put together:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Merion_East/Tilly_articles_comparison_page1.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Merion_East/Tilly_articles_comparison_page2.jpg)
Or, I think a more reasonable explanation is that Far and Sure was two people, with Tilly being one of the two.
(http://www.paranormalparanormal.com/images/yetilg1.jpg)
COME ON BABY, PUSH IT TO 100!
(http://www.paranormalparanormal.com/images/yetilg1.jpg)
Eric,
Nice find...
I assume that's a pic of HH Barker laying out his version of the "Alps" in December 1910?
Would anyone else here wish to formally put their name to the following statement?
"Its pretty clear Wilson design activities did not begin until after the course was laid out and seeded, and after he returned from the UK."
Time to chime in if you think this revisionist history has been proven. Please don't be shy.
(I think its going to take another 15 posts or so to get this to 100 pages, so maybe I'll try to ask a relevant question to all parties involved)
Do all involved in the research not have access to the same primary source documents? If not, why not?
NO. Because so far only Wayne Morrison has had access to the old meeting minute books from MCC, and he has chosen to use that material to selectively and piecemeal to support his side of the argument and to attack others, but he has not allowed that material to be viewed, verified, or vetted. Since Wayne no longer participates, he has periodically provided copies of this source material to TEPaul and Mike Cirba, so they could continue the charade. Wayne, TEPaul, and Mike Cirba have brought forward snippets and passages and have claimed that they are exact transcriptions of the source material, but over time their supposed exact transcriptions have changed substantively, thus indicating that, intentionally or not, they are misrepresenting the content of the source material.
On that same idea, how, if everyone is reading from the same primary source documents, do 2 groups of people manage to come up with nearly polar opposite conclusions as to what happened?
We aren't all reading the source material. One group is demanding to see the source material for ourselves, and the other is demanding that we take their word for the contents.
Are these primary documents available for public viewing? If not, why have they not been published in some fashion so that the active observer might be able to take a look at the primary material for himself?
See above.
This new paper to be published that I seem to recall Tom Paul mentioning a page or so back, will it be published with proper University of Chicago citations like a normal, peer reviewed scholarly work? If not, why not? Citations add to the credibility of the work. I would put very little stock in the David Moriarity piece that caused the previous engagement in this war last year because frankly the endnotes citing the primary and secondary sources used to write the piece are pathetic. Whenever this next piece comes out, please use legitimate citations for works used, otherwise, it will amount to a pile of garbage to anyone who knows what a proper piece of scholarly writing should look like.
New papers, books, point-by-point counterpoints, works to "make a fool" of me, etc. have been promised since my essay came out and even before, but so far none have been forthcoming. I won't hold my breath.
As far as your comments about my endnotes, your point is well taken. The essay was rushed out due to the near riot that rumor of its existence had caused on these boards, and in my rush I chose substance over form and that may have been a mistake. That being said, my essay was intended very much as a draft for discussion and comment, and I will update all the citations and sources if I ever get a chance to see the actual source material so it can be properly updated. Also, ALL of my source material was made available on these boards and elsewhere immediately after my essay first appeared on here. There was never any attempt to hide information or misrepresent anything.
So, maybe I, and the rest of the observers, can get some answers.
I wouldn't hold your breath.
(I think its going to take another 15 posts or so to get this to 100 pages, so maybe I'll try to ask a relevant question to all parties involved)
Do all involved in the research not have access to the same primary source documents? If not, why not?
On that same idea, how, if everyone is reading from the same primary source documents, do 2 groups of people manage to come up with nearly polar opposite conclusions as to what happened?
Are these primary documents available for public viewing? If not, why have they not been published in some fashion so that the active observer might be able to take a look at the primary material for himself?
This new paper to be published that I seem to recall Tom Paul mentioning a page or so back, will it be published with proper University of Chicago citations like a normal, peer reviewed scholarly work? If not, why not? Citations add to the credibility of the work. I would put very little stock in the David Moriarity piece that caused the previous engagement in this war last year because frankly the endnotes citing the primary and secondary sources used to write the piece are pathetic. Whenever this next piece comes out, please use legitimate citations for works used, otherwise, it will amount to a pile of garbage to anyone who knows what a proper piece of scholarly writing should look like.
So, maybe I, and the rest of the observers, can get some answers.
100 Pages......incredible ??? :'( :-\
100 Pages......incredible ??? :'( :-\
On my death bed a will recieve total consciousnes.
Anthony
"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying....."
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."
THAT is what the minutes say according to my understanding and it's what I've probably copied here at least 5 times previously, and consistently. It is also consistent to what I saw of the minutes in person, on two separate occassions, the second time with Joe Bausch in attendance.
Does anyone not agree that it was Hugh WIlson's committee who went "down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald..."??
If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "after laying out many golf courses..."... AFTER went down to NGLA??!?!?!?!?!?
If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "on our return" rearranged the course and laid out five different plans?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Wayne Morrison found the documents.
He wants nothing to do with this website, nor is he going to provide additional information here. He got kicked off and he has no interest in what David and/or MacWood think or want.
He has asked Tom Paul and I NOT to provide any information here as is his right.
We have what we have and that is all that will be forthcoming.
If anyone wants to talk about that evidence or answer the obvious questions I ask above, then let's do it.
The rest...the charges...the rest...is bullshit and is simply seeking to avoid dealing with the FACT that there is ZERO evidence left that hasn't been disproven of anyone other than Hugh WIlson and Committee designing Merion with CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham as advisors.
Sheesh, Ton....what did I type wrong this time?
Please show me what I did wrong because I haven't the slightest idea what I did wrong?
David,
You state, "I am interested in viewing, verifying, and vetting the source material for myself..."
As the source material is in Merion's possession you HAVE to go to them for it. If you feel that you cannot, then you MUST trust that someone is giving you the correct information. If you can't trust anyone to do this you are out of options.
You can only do one or the other at this point... and that's a tough position to be in.
David and Tom MacWood,
Again. Please show me where I've misrepresented the MCC Minutes.
You made the charge which I take very seriously.
Please back it up or retract it.
All attempts towards productive end such as looking at land aquisition timelines and where the 117 acres may have been have been effectively subverted so now even guys like Bryan Izatt and Jim Sullivan have wisely skipped town.
That's YOUR predisposed conclusion.
Let Jim Sullivan and Bryan Izatt speak for themselves.
So, since there are no further attempts to actually discuss real evidence, or actually even discuss what guys like Tilly and "Far and Sure" wrote, last one out of this room please shut out the lights...
Mike, for a guy who wants to end this thread you sure post and add to it quite frequently.
David Moriarty and Tom MacWood have made reasonable, "prudent man" requests.
What are you so afraid of finding out ?
TE-Wayne-Mike
Isn't the he truth the truth? Please explain to me again why you choose to quote redacted documents instead of releasing a copy of the complete original. What are you afraid of?
TE-Wayne-Mike
Isn't the he truth the truth? Please explain to me again why you choose to quote redacted documents instead of releasing a copy of the complete original. What are you afraid of?
Tom,
We have nothing further to say to each other until you prove your charges that I revised what I originally quoted from the MCC Minutes, or issue a retraction.
You know you are complicit. Not only that, your constant exaggerations of Barker and Wilson's records are among the low lights of this thread.
David,
Construct any strawmen you wish, but this is what the minutes say.
Dan,
Nothing good, that's for certain...
All attempts towards productive end such as looking at land aquisition timelines and where the 117 acres may have been have been effectively subverted so now even guys like Bryan Izatt and Jim Sullivan have wisely skipped town.
So, since there are no further attempts to actually discuss real evidence, or actually even discuss what guys like Tilly and "Far and Sure" wrote, last one out of this room please shut out the lights...
You know you are complicit. Not only that, your constant exaggerations of Barker and Wilson's records are among the low lights of this thread.
Wayne, TEPaul, and Mike need to make amends and set the record straight. Otherwise this will not end.
David,
I'm sorry if my attempt at humor offends. Last night we played the old party game of "Name that old TV theme song" and the Mr. Ed thing came to me.
I have no doubt you want the material and researched a lot. I also appreciate TMacs ability to dig up old documents and think he does golf history a great favor in doing so. Lastly, when I reread your Merion essay a few weeks back (I think we were on page 83 then) I was struck by how respectful of Merion it was, but also by how the tone changed to speculation regarding what we now think is the critical time frame in question - Nov to April.
It was because you didn't have all the documents. that you needed to have to write a complete essay, IMHO. So, I agreed that the MCC guys weren't playing fair (but don't have too) and asked a fair question - does your own paper pass historical vetting in traditional circles if published with less than full info, even though you suspected or knew it was out there?
"Philip, if this is real scholarly work, then the material should be accessible to those who are willing to seek access."
JohnK:
By that statement of yours do you believe that one can then fairly assume if the material is not accessible, for whatever reason, then the so-called scholarly work should not be attempted or at least should not be published purporting to be scholarly work?
Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 04:56:20 AM
"Philip, if this is real scholarly work, then the material should be accessible to those who are willing to seek access."
JohnK:
By that statement of yours do you believe that one can then fairly assume if the material is not accessible, for whatever reason, then the so-called scholarly work should not be attempted or at least should not be published purporting to be scholarly work?
"This seems to be yours and Wayne's modus operandi, cut off all information to and/or intimidate anyone writing on a subject you and Wayne feel is your own. You tried the same thing with me when I was writing my essay on Crump."
Tom:
John K. Moore made an interesting point to Phil Young and I simply asked John K. Moore a question about what he said to Phil. If just asking him a pretty simple question seems to you to be some modus operandi of me and Wayne to cut off all information and/or intimidate anyone writing on a subject then I'm afraid you pretty much need to stop and totally reconsider what you are both doing and saying on this website, particularly on subjects like this one!
When you and Wayne learned I was writing my Crump essay you made every effort to stop me. You saw Crump and PV as your private domain, and did all you could to prevent me from writing it. That is a known to everyone who followed the issue back them. I won't go into the sorted details again but there is plenty of evidence on the back pages of this website.
"Even more disturbing in this case Wayne is the acting archivist for Merion, and has a control of all their documents. He won't let David or I to see the documents but he has shared them with you and others he deems friendly. He is going use these same documents in his Flynn book. That is a conflict of interest."
Now you're saying on a worldwide website that it is disturbing that Wayne Morrison is the acting architectural archivist for Merion?? Perhaps instead of saying something like that on Golfclubatlas.com you should try to discuss it with Merion GC itself so you could at least start to understand what Merion GC believes Wayne Morrison has done for them over the last 5-6 years as far as the architectural portion of their archives is concerned.
Yes, based on his track record it is disturbing they would allow Wayne to control their archive. He clearly has a conflict of interest. If you are going to allow access to information there should be equal access. He allows you and Mike access to the April 1911 report, but doesn't allow access to David or myself. You and Wayne use the portions of this report to attack his essay on the worldwide web, obviously it cannot be that sensitive. And Wayne is clever enough to invite me to view everything they have in their archives, to prove he's not holding anything back, but when asked about access to the April 1911 report I am told it hasn't yet been added to the archive.
As far as Wayne not letting you or David Moriarty see documents that is not the case at all. You contacted Merion's historian and you were told regarding the particular information you had mentioned that you should be in contact with Merion's architectural historian. That's Wayne Morrison. Anyone contacting Merion for that kind of information would be told the same thing in the same way you were. He did not tell you that you could not see anything, he just told you the present disposition of the things you were asking about and told you that like anyone else making these requests of Merion GC you should just follow the procedure for access to their archives (not MCC, just Merion GC). Part of that procedure is actually coming to Merion with the intention of seeing their archives. Apparently you don't want to do that and you never have. Why is that? Do you think you should be treated any differently than anyone else?
How would you know what transpired between the Merion historian and myself?
"II. Professional Relationships
Archivists select, preserve, and make available historical and documentary records of enduring value. Archivists cooperate, collaborate, and respect each institution and its mission and collecting policy. Respect and cooperation form the basis of all professional relationships with colleagues and users."
Tom:
Notice the word "users" in that particular section of what you just posted. Do you actually think it looks to anyone on this worldwide website that you have or are showing any respect for Merion's architectural archivist/historian? In my world, insulting someone on an Internet website and then denigrating them like you just did today just above because you don't seem to like the fact that THEY hold a particular position within a private golf club is definitely in no way synoymous with respect! Matter of fact, since he does hold that postion and Merion selected him and put him in that postion, what you just said shows no respect at all for Merion GC either!
"Philip, if this is real scholarly work, then the material should be accessible to those who are willing to seek access."No, you can publish it and call it scholarly work, that is fine. And like I said, I can even see keeping the unpublished sources a secret until the work is published, though in most cases I don't agree with that. However, once the work has been published, the qouted sources should be at least semi-accessible to someone willing to go through the process of contacting the writer and doing a bit of work, otherwise, credibility would be lost. I tried to tell David he should perhaps wait and see what happens after this work is published.
JohnK:
By that statement of yours do you believe that one can then fairly assume if the material is not accessible, for whatever reason, then the so-called scholarly work should not be attempted or at least should not be published purporting to be scholarly work?
Gentlemen,
I would like to suggest a short intermission from this circular argument so that we all may share a moment with a group that does not care if Hugh Wilson, C.B. Macdonald or Mary Pickford designed Merion.
This must be seen to be believed:
From our friend Dan Kelly.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/23/massive-dance-number.html
Gib,
What a great way to begin a marriage.
I wish them a lifetime of the joy and happiness that's in that video.
As to David's efforts and opinion piece, they were attacked PRIOR to being presented, so how objective has the post-release criticism been ?
If there are flaws in David's opinion piece they should be pointed out and documented.
I'm sure that David would edit his opinion piece to reflect the correction/s
Mike Cirba,
To be accurate, I think it's fair to say that your view of Cobb's Creek "evolved.
Initially, it was "Wilson oriented".
Additional research seems to have revealed that the course was not Wilson's, but rather the product of a collaborative effort.
Joe's research has been helpful, however, newspaper articles always left me with more than a slight element of doubt with respect to irrefutable accuracy.
"More is known about Merion, today, than prior to the creation of this and related threads.
Should that be deemed a "good" or "bad" byproduct of these threads and GCA.com ?"
Pat:
I think that is good, obviously.
Agreed.
Would you care to list what "more" is now known from Merion's perspective becasue of these threads?
NO, because it varies, depending upon each person's prior knowledge of Merion.
Give it a shot, and I'll do the same from my perspective and their perspective since I know all of them and speak with them regularly.
TE, that's a foolish position on your part.
There wasn't one person in a million, including you, Mike and Wayno, who knew or understood how the site originally coalesced.
The amount of information discovered and revealed has been significant.
One can only hope that the process will continue.
Pat,
You are incorrect when you state that I’ve “…taken some of Tom MacWood's remarks out of context, especially the remarks concerning Wayno's perceived or practical role with respect to the disemination of information relating to Merion and/or MCC…”
We disagree
You are doing that in your own statement when you state that Tom stated a “perceived or practical role…” That is incorrect. There is simply no way that the statement, “Wayne is the acting archivist for Merion, and has a control of all their documents…” to mean anything other than that. Merion has given the CONTROL of all their archives and documents contained therein to John Capers III and NO ONE ELSE!
We also disagree on the above point.
Tom MacWood stated that Wayno is the "acting" archivist for Merion.
Wayne appears to be the ONLY participant on this site that has been given access to and has seen and diseminated bits of information related to Merion. Since no one else on this site has been granted access, for practical or perceived purposes Wayno was "acting" as the archivist for this site.
I don't read Tom MacWood's post as extending beyond this website. Perhaps you do, and that's where our positions are at odds.
You further stated that, “Essentially, you have two camps, those protecting, preserving and perpetuating the status quo and those questioning, doubting and rejecting the status quo. I think you'll find examples where each camp's position has merit. The real issue shouldn't be about which camp's particular position will carry a given argument, rather, it should be about the search for the truth, irrespective of whose camp benefits from that revelation and/or whose ego is bruised…”
All of that is true and I’ve never said anything different.
You continued, “While some of the discussion turned heated, if not ugly, it's the relevant content, not the method of delivery that should be focused on…”
I COMPLETELY agree with that. UNFORTUNATELY, despite my directly having asked in public on these threads and through private emails and/or phone conversations Tom Paul, Tom Macwood, David Moriarity, Wayne Morrison & Mike Cirba to be “the BETTER MAN” and to “STOP” other than Wayne the ugliness you cite continues.
Agreed. For some reason Merion and related topics seem to have an inherent angst factor built into them.
“There's nothing wrong with heated debates as long as the topic remains "the issue" and not the typist/poster…”
That is true, unfortunately these haven’t been heated debates but rather they have into an embarrassment for many involved.
“More is known about Merion, today, than prior to the creation of this and related threads. Should that be deemed a "good" or "bad" byproduct of these threads and GCA.com ?”
It SHOULD be deemed a GOOD byproduct. Again, UNFORTUNATELY the poor behavior displayed throughout the “debates” has long ago transcended any “good” that might have come of them.
I don't know that I agree with that.
I think the ugliness has been unfortunate, but, I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water..
Hopefully, the angst factor will subside and meaningful due diligence and discovery can continue.
However, I do understand David's and Tom's frustrations with having to rely on third party disemination, especially when they perceive the third parties as being selective/biased in their disemination/s
Mike
Those are very nice articles, but very nice articles are a dime a dozen. Cobbs Creek was not a golf course of architectural significance nationally.
"There wasn't one person in a million, including you, Mike and Wayno, who knew or understood how the site originally coalesced."
Pat:
What do you mean by 'how the site coalesced?' Do you mean Horatio Gates Lloyd and his part in the deal with the residential developers? Or do you mean Wilson and committee and the actual design and construction of the golf course?
Furthermore, how can you say there's not one in a million who knows whatever about Merion? How do you know what anyone who really knows Merion knows?
The exact answer is you don't. ;)
JohnK:
Thanks for your answer to my question of you. Let me ask you another one. Did my question to you sound to you like I was cutting off all information or being intimidating?
"TE, whom, on this site, and elsewhere, knew and understood the genesis of the site at Merion until Mike Cirba, Bryan Izatt, Jeff Brauer, Jim Sullivan, David Moriarty, Tom MacWood, you and others attempted the reconstruction?"
Pat:
If by the genesis of the site you mean Wilson and Committee designing and constructing Merion East and not for instance Lloyd's part in the residential real estate development and the business structure that was created back then, I would say anyone from Merion who is familiar with Merion's history books and their archives.
Don't compartmentalize, segregate and isolate one issue from all the others.
Neither you nor anyone else on this site was aware of the intricate piecing together of the land parcels that resulted in the ultimate configuration of the clubs property/boundaries/golf course.
I know a good number of members of Merion who weren't aware of the genesis of the property/boundaries/golf course.
The fact that Merion's "official" record/history is still in error leads a prudent man to agree with my general statement.
That would definitely include Merion's historian and a number of others. As I said on here previously, I believe the only thing the Merion history books got wrong was the fact that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and not 1912.
That's not an inconsequential mistake.
In fact, it was a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion.
It would also lead a prudent person to ask for verification with respect to other facets of Merion's history.
They also did not include any references to those early MCC meeting minutes, Macdonald's letter, Cuyler's letters, the Wilson report to the board meeting of 4/19/1911 because that material has always been at MCC and was never transported to Merion GC when it became an independent entity from MCC.
That would seem to indicate that Merion was unaware of those aspects of their history.
It would seem that the discovery and revelation of that information filled in missing elements with respect to Merion's history
The latter material only serves to completely strengthen and confirm what the Merion GC and their history books give Wilson and his committee credit for and what so many other sources around the time of the creation gave him and them credit for. They all also always gave Macdonald and Whigam credit for their help and advice, even though some like MacWood and Moriarty did not know that when they began all this.
TE, you were also unaware of those credits.
It was ONLY AFTER the MCC archives were accessed that this information came to light.
Had it not been for Moriarty and MacWood that information would have remained in a dark, dusty attic or basement.
It would seem that the complete production of the MCC archival material would be in everyone's best interest.
As far as familiarity with those MCC documents, MCC's historian who I've spoken with recently was probably familiar with them as MCC has been and is in the process of really dedicating time and money to preserving, cateloguing, inventorying their own archives.
I'm not so accepting of that statement.
If it hadn't been for Moriarty and MacWood I question whether those documents would have seen the light of day or the public's eye.
They may use the same professional archivist as Merion GC did. Merion GC's archives, room etc is as impressive as it gets as you might be able to tell by that recent article from the Philadelphia Inquirer that was posted on this thread.
I applaud the efforts of those clubs that value and publish their architectural and club records.
Those early clubs are substantively responsible for the popularity and growth of golf in America.
The archival information in their possession is a wonderful asset that should be shared as a part of the history of golf in America.
"For some reason Merion and related topics seem to have an inherent angst factor built into them."
There is absolutely no "angst factor" at Merion or around here. Just because two people on here accused us of having some angst factor and trying to preserve some myth or legend about Hugh Wilson and Merion East definitely does not make it so, that's for sure. They both said there was some mystery attached to who designed Merion. There never was any mystery at all, that idea was nothing more than completely unfounded and unsupported words from those two. Their initial mistake with this whole Macdonald advice and help thing was that since neither one of those two had any relationship with Merion they were not aware when they began this that both we and Merion has always been aware of Macdonald/Whigam's part and it has been mentioned from the very beginning and including in Merion's history books.
I don't know why you're confining your remarks and opinion to this thread.
Don't you recall the "Merion Bunker thread" Hanse, MacDonald & Sons, etc. etc.. That thread and others had ample "angst"
It may sound strange to you to hear that now, Pat, because you've never known much of anything about Merion's architectural history anyway and because this entire thing has been so completely trumped up by those two.
I can assure you that Moriarty and MacWood weren't the first to provide information to my MERION data base.
However, you may recall that Moriarty and MacWood claimed that # 10 was an "Alps" hole and that I refuted their contention.
Subsequently, I changed my position and agreed with them.
Moriarty and MacWood have provided valuable research regarding Merion and other clubs.
They have truly tried to perpetuate a very large mountain out of a very small molehill----eg Wilson went abroad in 1912 and not 1910. Of course the Barker stretch is nigh onto ridiculous but that is not the first time something like that has happened with Tom MacWood. He tried to promote the same idea with Willie Campbell and Herbert Leeds' Myopia. And when asked repeatedly he refused to produce any actual evidence of his claim only saying he would not provide anything for or to any club I was involved with. ;)
Moriarty was correct about the timing of Wilson's trip, despite the heat and attempts at refutation he took from Mike Cirba and others.
Why not give the Devil his DUE ?
"The fact that Merion's "official" record/history is still in error leads a prudent man to agree with my general statement."
Pat:
Still in error how so?
"That's not an inconsequential mistake.
In fact, it was a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion."
Pat, that's where you are wrong---really wrong. The 1912 rather than the 1910 trip was not a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion's.
We disagree.
The premise was that Wilson traveled abroad and studied the great courses of the UK and as a result, he routed and designed Merion based on what he observed, studied and discovered in his travels in the UK.
I'd say that the above explanation of Merion's creation is a substantive error and consequential in the explanation of how Merion came into being.
That's what David Moriarty's essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" tried to make it look like that was the linch pin with a series of specious a priori reasoning; that was his linch pin not Merion's, but that is just not the case at all in the real history of Merion, never was.
I don't know how you deny the significance of the error regarding the date of Wilson's travels abroad, the basis and result of those travels and the fact that Merion was already routed by the time Wilson went abroad, two years after he was alleged to have gone abroad to observe and study the principles of the great courses of the UK for the specific purpose of incorporating them into Merion.
He tried to use that revelation (which I certainly do and have given him plenty of credit for pinning down with his ship passenger manifest searches) to construct a number of his own premises around that mistake in Merion's history that are just not historically accurate and we proved it as completely as any reasonable mind would require proof.
I'm afraid that you lost me with that last paragraph.
If it was alleged that Wilson sailed in 1910 to observe and study the great courses and design principles of the UK for the express purpose of incorporating them into the design of Merion, BUT, he never sailed until 1912, AFTER the course had been routed, you don't think that Moriarty's account is accurate and Merion's account is grossly INACCURATE ? ? ?
The incorrect date of Wilson's trip created and perpetuated the myth regarding the genesis and lineage of Merion.
The fact that Moriarty or MacWood haven't accepted it and probably never will has nothing to do with it----ie Merion's actual history of the Wilson Committee in the winter and spring of 1911. Everybody at Merion back then in the winter and spring of 1911 sure could see what Wilson and his committee did with numerous routings and designs but that Wilson report to the board that may not have been seen in a century definitely sealed the deal for us [today[/size],
But you didn't know that until AFTER Moriarty wrote his position paper.
AND, we're NOT BACK in 1911, we're in 2009.
and getting hysterical over lack of access to information from us (which isn't even true ;) ) or trying to parse the hell out of every damn word such as "we" or "they" ::) in that report is never going to change that fact.
As I've said numerous times, "I don't know what happened circa 1909-1912, but, I'd like to find out", and I don't think hording documents and/or complete information furthers that quest.
You keep on harping on Moriarty and MacWood, but, the issue/s isn't/aren't about Moriarty and MacWood, the issue is about searching for the truth, finding out as much as we can vis a vis varifiable information.
If that leads to the discovery of a routing and design signed by Wilson, so be it.
If it leads to a routing and design signed by Donald Ross, so be it.
It's not about who is right, partially right, or wrong or partially wrong, it's about establishing what actually transpired, as best as can be determined by prudent men.
Tom MacWood.
From the time it opened in 1916 until Bethpage was built in the mid 30s, Cobbs Creek was acknowledged as the finest public course in the country.
It was also the first public course designed specifically as a very challenging, if eminently playable, test of golf, with the idea being that a very difficult course help develop great local players which it did..
Mike
Those are very nice articles, but very nice articles are a dime a dozen. Cobbs Creek was not a golf course of architectural significance nationally.
So because of that Cobbs Creek is not a noteworthy course? There are plenty of courses that are architecturally significant that have not garnered national praise, Tom.
"The fact that Merion's "official" record/history is still in error leads a prudent man to agree with my general statement."
Pat:
Still in error how so?
"That's not an inconsequential mistake.
In fact, it was a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion."
Pat, that's where you are wrong---really wrong. The 1912 rather than the 1910 trip was not a linch pin with respect to the initial design of Merion's.
We disagree.
The premise was that Wilson traveled abroad and studied the great courses of the UK and as a result, he routed and designed Merion based on what he observed, studied and discovered in his travels in the UK.
I'd say that the above explanation of Merion's creation is a substantive error and consequential in the explanation of how Merion came into being.
That's what David Moriarty's essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" tried to make it look like that was the linch pin with a series of specious a priori reasoning; that was his linch pin not Merion's, but that is just not the case at all in the real history of Merion, never was.
I don't know how you deny the significance of the error regarding the date of Wilson's travels abroad, the basis and result of those travels and the fact that Merion was already routed by the time Wilson went abroad, two years after he was alleged to have gone abroad to observe and study the principles of the great courses of the UK for the specific purpose of incorporating them into Merion.
He tried to use that revelation (which I certainly do and have given him plenty of credit for pinning down with his ship passenger manifest searches) to construct a number of his own premises around that mistake in Merion's history that are just not historically accurate and we proved it as completely as any reasonable mind would require proof.
I'm afraid that you lost me with that last paragraph.
If it was alleged that Wilson sailed in 1910 to observe and study the great courses and design principles of the UK for the express purpose of incorporating them into the design of Merion, BUT, he never sailed until 1912, AFTER the course had been routed, you don't think that Moriarty's account is accurate and Merion's account is grossly INACCURATE ? ? ?
The incorrect date of Wilson's trip created and perpetuated the myth regarding the genesis and lineage of Merion.
The fact that Moriarty or MacWood haven't accepted it and probably never will has nothing to do with it----ie Merion's actual history of the Wilson Committee in the winter and spring of 1911. Everybody at Merion back then in the winter and spring of 1911 sure could see what Wilson and his committee did with numerous routings and designs but that Wilson report to the board that may not have been seen in a century definitely sealed the deal for us [today[/size],
But you didn't know that until AFTER Moriarty wrote his position paper.
AND, we're NOT BACK in 1911, we're in 2009.
and getting hysterical over lack of access to information from us (which isn't even true ;) ) or trying to parse the hell out of every damn word such as "we" or "they" ::) in that report is never going to change that fact.
As I've said numerous times, "I don't know what happened circa 1909-1912, but, I'd like to find out", and I don't think hording documents and/or complete information furthers that quest.
You keep on harping on Moriarty and MacWood, but, the issue/s isn't/aren't about Moriarty and MacWood, the issue is about searching for the truth, finding out as much as we can vis a vis varifiable information.
If that leads to the discovery of a routing and design signed by Wilson, so be it.
If it leads to a routing and design signed by Donald Ross, so be it.
It's not about who is right, partially right, or wrong or partially wrong, it's about establishing what actually transpired, as best as can be determined by prudent men.
On the access issue, if someone neutral approached Merion Golf Club historian Capers and was referred on to Wayne, what would be the answer if the request was to review the MCC minutes and letters? Would it be that, sorry we don't have that information. Are the records in question still at MCC? Does Wayne or Capers have a role in the MCC archives? Do they control access at MCC too?
If by the genesis of the site you mean Wilson and Committee designing and constructing Merion East and not for instance Lloyd's part in the residential real estate development and the business structure that was created back then, I would say anyone from Merion who is familiar with Merion's history books and their archives. That would definitely include Merion's historian and a number of others. As I said on here previously, I believe the only thing the Merion history books got wrong was the fact that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and not 1912. They also did not include any references to those early MCC meeting minutes, Macdonald's letter, Cuyler's letters, the Wilson report to the board meeting of 4/19/1911 because that material has always been at MCC and was never transported to Merion GC when it became an independent entity from MCC. The latter material only serves to completely strengthen and confirm what the Merion GC and their history books give Wilson and his committee credit for and what so many other sources around the time of the creation gave him and them credit for. They all also always gave Macdonald and Whigam credit for their help and advice, even though some like MacWood and Moriarty did not know that when they began all this.
Tom.
Why is every muni you listed there simply a celebrity name-drop? Were there any good munis in existence at that time not created by profssional architects?
How many of them have you seen or played? Mark Twain wasn't even opened before 1937.
MIke,
You asked, "Salisbury Links became a public course when?"
From the day they opened. In the first issue of The American Golfer the "Newly opened Salisbury Links" were advertising themselves as, "... a public subscription service, OPEN TO ALL GOLFERS..." (Capital and bold letters were PART of the advertisement).
The course that hosted the PGA in 1927(?) was the #3 course which had been private since it's opening. It would become Nassau Vounty property later on and then opened to all as the Red course of what is today a three-course public park.
TMac,
You and Mike C can start a 100 page thread on the merits of Cobbs Creek if you wish. Its irrelevant here unless the goal is to get to 200 pages. Or start on one early public golf courses. Without the infighting, that would be a very interesting thread on its own.
As to the Tolhurst history (and I am speaking to both you and Pat here) I think its wrong. TePaul has provided the explanation that many in MCC knew that Wilson just missed the Titanic, but Tolhurst wrote it differently because he had heard that he went and it influenced the design, etc. and PRESUMED that it had to have been earlier.
As to the "Wilson understood it better" phrase, I don't know where it came from. However, I always took it to mean that MCC had taken pride in their more naturalistic look, rather than the strategies of the holes.
So yeah, they took pride in Wilson's accomplishements. In large part because of the alterations he made after the initial design. And perhaps because he had the audcacity (my guess) to go away from CBM's artistic principals and even strategic principles (fitting the land instead of forcing those same 18 template holes in) even while trying to generally use the great holes as models.
But the conspiracy logic of arguing over documents produced so much later, vs. looking at the April 19, 1911 minutes or other contemporaneous dox is a straw man. A club history made a mistake. Big Whup. I say we stick with contemp. dox, but either way, I guess this argument will never end.
On the access issue, if someone neutral approached Merion Golf Club historian Capers and was referred on to Wayne, what would be the answer if the request was to review the MCC minutes and letters? Would it be that, sorry we don't have that information. Are the records in question still at MCC? Does Wayne or Capers have a role in the MCC archives? Do they control access at MCC too?
They would be told they are free to make an appointment to see the archive, unfortunately copies of the MCC minutes and the Sayers scrapbook (arguably the most important documents dealing with the early formation of the course) have not been added to the archive yet. They will eventually get around to it but it hasn't happened yet.
On the access issue, if someone neutral approached Merion Golf Club historian Capers and was referred on to Wayne, what would be the answer if the request was to review the MCC minutes and letters? Would it be that, sorry we don't have that information. Are the records in question still at MCC? Does Wayne or Capers have a role in the MCC archives? Do they control access at MCC too?
They would be told they are free to make an appointment to see the archive, unfortunately copies of the MCC minutes and the Sayers scrapbook (arguably the most important documents dealing with the early formation of the course) have not been added to the archive yet. They will eventually get around to it but it hasn't happened yet.
And, does that mean that Merion has the minutes and scrapbook, but they haven't been added yet? Or, does it mean that they don't have them and that they're still at MCC, but they will add them when they get them from MCC?
And, back to Wayne's role, are you still claiming that Wayne is the "acting archivist" at Merion and consequently is acting in place of Capers III?
On the access issue, if someone neutral approached Merion Golf Club historian Capers and was referred on to Wayne, what would be the answer if the request was to review the MCC minutes and letters? Would it be that, sorry we don't have that information. Are the records in question still at MCC? Does Wayne or Capers have a role in the MCC archives? Do they control access at MCC too?
They would be told they are free to make an appointment to see the archive, unfortunately copies of the MCC minutes and the Sayers scrapbook (arguably the most important documents dealing with the early formation of the course) have not been added to the archive yet. They will eventually get around to it but it hasn't happened yet.
And, does that mean that Merion has the minutes and scrapbook, but they haven't been added yet? Or, does it mean that they don't have them and that they're still at MCC, but they will add them when they get them from MCC?
And, back to Wayne's role, are you still claiming that Wayne is the "acting archivist" at Merion and consequently is acting in place of Capers III?
I made several contacts with the club historian, at first I asked if I could get a copy of the Francis article. I had figured out it was in the 1950 US Open program. Some time later I sent an email asking about the Cuyler letter, and that email was answered by Wayne, who requested that all future communications dealing with architectural issues be directed toward him.
Wayne has copies of the key MCC minutes and the portions of the scrapbook dealing with the course. TEP has said he has a copy of the April 1911 minutes too. I've been told they will be added to the archive at some point.
David
Cobbs Creek has never been considered architecturally significant in its own city much less nationally.
Well we know at least Frank McCracken liked it. We are still waiting for you to answer my question, who acknowledged it was the finest public course in the country between 1916 and 1936?
And by the way who is Frank McCracken?
Mike
Why are you avoiding my question? Cobbs Creek was acknowledged as the finest public course in the country by who?
PS: At the time Salisbury Links opened in 1907 it was considered a cutting edge design. Travis wrote an important article on the course for Country Life.
Tom:
Doesn't the same go for you? If you are going to make a bold statement, as you have on here, that Hugh Wilson and his committee only constructed Merion East to someone else's routing and design plan one would presume you have several sources to confirm that, maybe Travis or Tilly or Thomas or Verdant Greene or someone like that.
Do you?
Mike
Why are you avoiding my question? Cobbs Creek was acknowledged as the finest public course in the country by who?
PS: At the time Salisbury Links opened in 1907 it was considered a cutting edge design. Travis wrote an important article on the course for Country Life.
TMac,
To paraphrase your ownself, "Important articles are a dime a dozen". Here is your response to Mike C about various articles he posted.
Mike
Those are very nice articles, but very nice articles are a dime a dozen.
Of course, only you know what an important article is. Not to mention train schedules!
BTW, I have not read the Tollhurst history, save quoted posted here. It doesn't matter. It was written well later and got one fact wrong. Conspiracy buffs have jumped on that to say all MCC history is wrong. Now, we have found documents that flesh out what happened, and you and DM and PM continue to beat the drum on a book that is less relevant than the contemporary documents to figuring out MCC history, which is what you say you are trying to do here.
And, you accuse others of distractions while debating Cobbs Creek, pointing to books that are not as relevant and asking dumb questions designed soley to make someone waste time answering them. But, play on.
BTW, all insults on the Merion thread aside, I really do think you could start a nice thread on early public golf in America and with your background knowledge, it could be quite a thread, perhaps the best thing ever done on golf club atlas. My insults to you are strictly limited to my frustrations on this thread!
David, here is a post from over a year ago on another thread. How prescient!
David Stamm
Sr. Member
Offline
Posts: 3399
The strategy of the course is the soul of the game
Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2008, 11:05:28 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Obviously alot of work went into this. Thank you for the efforts you put into this, David. I look forward to the discussions.
"Regarding Merion I put forward the most likely scenario based on the facts presently known."
Tom:
Understood. I just think it is important to add that your stated scenario that Wilson and committee only constructed the course to someone else's plan doesn't seem to get any support from anyone other than David Moriarty who you apparently helped write that essay or at least advised him on it.
If your scenario on Merion and Wilson and committee's part in it does get support from others who are they other than David Moriarty?
Tom, I have a question for you that remarkably may never have been brought up or actually asked on this website:
The question is----In your opinion does a club like Merion GC have a right (legally or otherwise) to bar someone access to their private material for any reason they see fit?
Tmac,
I cut and pasted your exact quote from GCA>COM so yes, that is exactly what you said. And I qualified it that you would probably say your assessment of an important article would Trump a nice article.
I told you what I felt about sins of omission - just because Tollhurst got that one point wrong is NOT a reason (necessarily) to believe he got everything wrong. Yeah, you can check, but why go back to his later article when you can look at (admittedly transcripts, for which you have yet another conspiracy theory) of the contemporaneous minutes. I think it is WEIRD to use a book from 40 years, later, train schedules and the like rather than primary source dox. And that is the primary reason I disagree with your theory.
I do live in Dallas, so the conspriacy theories smack of what I hear around here. Lets discredit the Warren Comm.....er, I mean, the Merion Historian. Do that and the rest of the Dominos Fall!
Mike Cirba, My essay contained no over-reaching, and there is no overreaching in my post above. At the very least, M&W helped plan the lay-out of Merion East. The evidence is overwhelming. That you refuse to accept even this speaks to your inability to understand and accept the record.
David,
From an architectural perspective, Macdonald & Whigham offered much valuable advice and suggestions as to the Committee's plans for Merion East. They also helped them select the best of the Committee's plans.
That is what ALL of the collected evidence shows and we now have much more of it than when you published your essay and that's all for the greater good.
Was Tom MacWood the real architect of your essay on Merion and you only the "constructor" because he offered valuable advice and suggestions?
Of course not. You deserve full credit for pulling it all together, for doing the background work, for trial-and-error, for authorship, for ultimate decision-making, even if he offered greater expertise than you in certain areas.
And your contention that Hugh Wilson was not the primary architect of Merion was just as overreaching and fallacious as my rhetorical question.
As evidence of your over-reaching, I'd simply reiterate your thesis statement, which you now at least thankfully seem to have moved well away from as a given...
Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan.
"I am not going to argue with TEPaul's misrepresentations about the extent of the inaccuracy in Tolhurst's history book, except to note that one need only look at the history and compare it to my essay (or even my post above) to see the absurdity of TEPaul's latest claim.
My concern is that TEPaul has been misrepresenting my essay and claiming that all I contributed was a date change. That is beyond absurd, as my post above describes."
David Moriarty:
My goal, my only goal actually, in this last year was simply to try to convince as many people as I possibly could that your essay is incredibly fallacious and revisionist of the architectural history of that early phase of Merion East.
You can continue to use retorts like misrepresentation, disingenuous, or even absurd and pathetic but the point is I believe my goal has been achieved at this point as I don't think there is anyone left who endorses the accuracy of your essay other than you and Tom MacWood. Convincing either of you was never my goal or expectation and I don't think it is important.
Are we or Merion responsible to turn over to you material that we have that we used to form our "opinions" of the accurate history of Merion and to criticize your essay so that you can "vet" ;) it?
No, I don't think so and I'm hoping Merion feels the same and will say so or at least for the purposes of this website that Ran Morrissett will say so.
Again, I, for one, have no problem at all with you or a Tom MacWood having whatever opinion of Merion's history you want to have but if you put it out there as an informative and historically accurate piece and its anything like what your essay says I just want to try to ensure that very few agree with it and I feel that has now been accomplished. Because of that I don't see there's much more for me to do or say on this thread or subject.
But thanks for beginning it because as a result of it I think there are some other and arguably far more important issues that will now be addressed by clubs and other entities and such.
"Well there you have it. At least there was no pretense about TEPaul being at all concerned with what really happened."
"TEP
I was never quite sure what your goal was, but I knew it had nothing to do with finding the truth. Thanks for spelling it out."
David (and Tom):
You're welcome; I thought you knew that. You two have always maintained on here there was some "mystery" to who designed Merion East. I've never thought that, Merion has never thought that, and consequently I've never thought there was any truth to find in that regard, and either have they---it was all there at MCC all along and it was always reported that Wilson and his committee designed Merion East and West courses. Obviously MCC (Merion) or anyone else around at that time never questioned it as its own records from back in 1910 and 1911, particularly that Wilson report, are clear it was Wilson and his committee who laid out (routed and designed it before constructing it) Merion East. Apparently everyone back then knew that and there never has been any good reason to doubt it or question it. There never was any mystery about it.
What you certainly did find the truth on, however, and for which you should get full credit, was that error in the 1989 Tolhurst history book (and the previous Merion history book) that had Wilson going abroad in 1910 and not 1912---a story that cropped up some 60 years after the fact of that first phase of Merion East. You should notice in that recent Philadelphia Inquirer article (posted on this thread by Mike Malone) on John Capers and Merion's archives it was mentioned that Wilson went abroad in 1912 so that single error in Merion's history has now been corrected due to your passenger manifest searches. It is also interesting that there are now two other material items in Merion's archives that corroborate the fact Wilson went abroad in 1912.
Tom:
You mentioned this before on here as you just did above. I didn't keep that Francis letter to myself; I mentioned it on here within a day of finding it at the USGA Green Section last year. Perhaps you weren't able to read my post just above before your most recent one. My post just above yours this morning explains that Wayne and I did not have that Francis letter of April 11, 1912 to Russell Oakley until I went back up to the USGA Green Section a year ago and found it. Hope that helps you understand the research we did and what we were researching on at the time 5-6 years----eg FLYNN!!
TEP you had seen those letters before you sent me the rough draft of your Flynn book in 2005. The draft has numerous quotes from those letters. Your apologists maybe naive but not the rest of us.
Merion is a major focus of that book because it played such an important role in his career. A large portion of the book is devoted to Merion, including the development of Merion-East. One of the unknown mysteries regarding Flynn's career was when and how he came to Merion. Would you have us believe you did not search thoroughly through those letters for clues? The first letter of the series is dated 2/1/1911 and mentioned CB Macdonald prominently. Would you have us believe you would brush over that? As you continue through those letters you would find further mention of CBM, including a copy of a letter from CBM. That would be of no interest? And then the letter from Richard Francis announcing Wilson is abroad. You quote RS Francis in your book and he's metioned prominently in Merion's history book. That would not be of any interest either?
Your explanation does not fly.
Your last post is just another of many many examples of how easily you seem to get things mixed up about Merion and what Wayne and I were doing or not doing at any particular time.
You have always said that all we or Merion is trying to do here is protect a "legend" or a "Myth." You've said the very same things about us with Crump and Pine Valley and about me and Leeds and Myopia. Apparently this idea of yours led you to label us here "The Philadelphia Syndrome" that suggested we are conducting some kind of conspiracy here to protect the legends of our own local architects and to minimize the contributions of outside architects.
I think everyone accepts by now that is all you do. Last year you were upset by my essay on the golf architecure of the 1890s becasue it did not jive with your simple understanding derived from Cornish & Whitten.
I think we have shown throughout all the years of you labelling us that way and suggesting such a thing that there is absolutely no factual or historically accurate reason or evidence that we have ever done such a thing. In your attempts to suggest other architects were largely responsible for the things attributed to the likes of Wilson, Crump and Leeds, the best you have done is to imply there is some article in Boston, that you constantly refused to produce that says Willie Campbell designed Myopia or that HH Barker must have stopped at Merion and designed the East course in a day in early Dec, 1912 simply because you found he took a train trip from New York to Georgia at that time.
I told you what I found on Campbell and Myopia, and I told you where you could find the articles. If you are too lazy or incompetent to follow up whose fault is that? I have no idea if Barker stopped at Merion in the winter of 1910. I simply made the point he would have travelled through Philadelphia (twice) during the time in question. And combined with the fact he had just been annouced as the designer of Merion and the other report about him laying out new courses its worth considering.
Tom, I have no desire or interest in ever trying to convince you how foolish these things you say are----my only interest is that all others see how foolish the things you have said and say are and in that I feel, at this point, I have pretty much totally succeeded.
The Crump essay clearly showed who the fools were; the jury is still out on Merion. The fact that you are doing everything in your power to keep the original documents hidden does not bode well for you.
Again, getting you and Moriarty to admit and acknowledge that is no longer my goal. My only goal is to try to get everyone else to see the truth of Merion's architectural history as well as what has happened here on this website!
"TEP you had seen those letters before you sent me the rough draft of your Flynn book in 2005. The draft has numerous quotes from those letters. Your apologists maybe naive but not the rest of us."
Tom:
Yes it did but not from that April 11, 1912 letter from Francis to Oakley about Wilson being abroad. That letter also never mentioned a thing about why Wilson went abroad in 1912 or that Wilson had not been abroad before that. All it said to Oakley was Wilson "is on a hurried trip abroad."
So you are admitting you saw the letter and chose to ignore it? You were aware Hugh Wilson said he only made one trip. You have repeatedly mentioned the story about Wilson and the Titanic in 1912. You were aware of the 1913 Far & Sure article which said Wilson travelled abroad the previous year. By the way the letters are in chronological order so please don't give us any BS about skipping over arguably the most important period.
Matter of fact, before he went and after he returned Wilson himself never said a thing to P&O about why he went abroad or what he did over there. I copied that Francis letter at the USGA Green Section in maybe May/June of 2008. If it was in the copies Wayne and I made 5-6 years ago I'm not aware of it. We were writing about William Flynn primarily and he doesn't appear to have been part of what was going on there in 1910 and 1911 and that Francis letter had nothing to do with Flynn.
Wilson told Oakley that he had just returned from abroad, and a few weeks later mentions info he's received from Suttons. In his own account (and his brothers account too) Wilson only mentions one trip abroad. In your book you wrote Flynn assisted in the construction of the East course. Have you read it? Construction began in the Spring of 1911 just about when the letters begin. In your book you wrote there was a constant stream of correspondence between Wilson and P&O beginning 1911. So please don't insult are intelligence.
But you can just keep saying whatever you want about what we knew or didn't know at any particular time; it really doesn't matter to us because even if you try to act like it you have no idea what we knew or didn't know at any particular time compared to us.
But I can certainly understand why you keep saying those things on here now; after-all what is there really left for you to say at this point?
I think it is obvious you buried that information just as you buried the info about Barker and Macdonald, and are now trying to bury the April 1911 report. Preserving these myths seems to be your goal in life. Why is that?
"The Crump essay clearly showed who the fools were;"
Tom:
Who the fools were? ::)
I guess that includes Crump's friends and Pine Valley all those years who knew of that rumor of Crump's suicide and for some reason chose never to investigate it, dredge up his death certificate and tell the world of that tragedy. If someone like you could do it there is no possible way on earth any of them couldn't had they actually wanted to confirm it throughout all those years.
Tom MacWood, you are really showing this website who you are and your true colors and it's about time and I'm glad of it. I, for one, will never consider forgiving or forgetting this incredible arrogance, egoism and lack of feeling on your part for a golf club and its memberships and the memory of a beloved owner, designer, friend, member that made it all happen for them and the world. At least Geoff Shackelford had the good sense, taste and consideration not to reveal that in an article and he knew about it long before you ever did.
Believe me, for that, if any of my friends in Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia and the other numerous clubs like it ask me for my opinion of you I will be sure to tell them that in my opinion none of them should ever show you their door! At the very least, that is what you deserve for the things you have done and the things you have said on this website. You talked above about something not boding well? Uh huh. Why don't we just stop this nonsense on here and wait and just see about that?
David,
Can we just let it be that you don't trust them, without it having to be a part of every post? I understand, and have understood for a long, long time that you don't trust them.
There's 1500 or so participants here. Most have a reasonable sense of memory and don't need the constant reminder. And, before any of the other combatants join in resounding agreement, we know how you feel as well. We've heard it. For 100 pages now.
Thanks for your understanding.
Joe
David,
You may have missed it a few pages ago, but I think Joe's sentiment here is wise and worth considering.David,
Can we just let it be that you don't trust them, without it having to be a part of every post? I understand, and have understood for a long, long time that you don't trust them.
There's 1500 or so participants here. Most have a reasonable sense of memory and don't need the constant reminder. And, before any of the other combatants join in resounding agreement, we know how you feel as well. We've heard it. For 100 pages now.
Thanks for your understanding.
Joe
Ok, let's discuss the evidence.
Would anyone care to answer the questions below?
If we can't even agree that this whole section of the MCC Minutes is talking about the activities of Hugh Wilson's Committee (no matter how much of their activities were influenced by M&W or not), then there really isn't much point in continuing here, is there?
"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying....."
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."
THAT is what the minutes say according to my understanding and it's what I've probably copied here at least 5 times previously, and consistently. It is also consistent to what I saw of the minutes in person, on two separate occassions, the second time with Joe Bausch in attendance.
Does anyone not agree that it was Hugh WIlson's committee who went "down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald..."??
If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "after laying out many golf courses..."... AFTER went down to NGLA??
If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "on our return" rearranged the course and laid out five different plans??
Would anyone care to answer the questions below?
"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying....."
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."
Mike, my thoughts on the above statement are as follows.
I think "they" had prepared several routings/designs.
I think "they" presented them to CBM.
I think CBM offered a critique on each one, pointing out the strenghts and weaknesses.
I think CBM offered alternative routings/designs.
As a result, I think they went back to Merion, armed with CBM's redrafting of their plans.
They benefited from having examined NGLA with CBM.
The benefited from listening to his on site commentary about NGLA and golf design, and how they might work out at Merion.
I think THAT meeting resulted in the end stage routing/design of Merion and I believe CBM's hand in the routing/design was heavy/substantive.
That's the way I read that passage.
Does anyone not agree that it was Hugh WIlson's committee who went "down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald..."??
If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "after laying out many golf courses..."... AFTER went down to NGLA??
If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "on our return" rearranged the course and laid out five different plans??
If we can't even agree that this whole section of the MCC Minutes is talking about the activities of Hugh Wilson's Committee (no matter how much of their activities were influenced by M&W or not), then there really isn't much point in continuing here, is there?
David,
I'm not "you guys".
I'm not part of a "posse", or a "syndrome", or whatever.
I'm only quoting evidence as was presented here previously from the MCC Minutes. If you believe that either it's incomplete, tampered with, or otherwise faulty, or more specifically, if you don't trust that what I'm provding here is based on my copiying them verbatim from initial posts here, or don't trust me when I say that the wording is consistent with what I've seen twice, then there is no point in discussing it and indeed, it's clearly time for us all to move on because as I said previously, the MCC Minutes are not mine to provide.
Patrick,
So, you agree that if that is what the MCC Minutes actually say, that it is undeniable that all three comments are talking about the same committee?
Mike,
That's NOT what I said.
You asked for a general opinion and I offered one in a limited context.
I did not address tangential and/or specific issues.
I'm not sure where you are seeing evidence of your other interpretations, but I would consider your complete agreement that the statement is coming from Hugh Wilson's committee to be a giant step forward. ;)
Mike, you're jumping to erroneous, predisposed conclusions has been part of the problem with this thread.
I don't need YOU or anyone else to tell me what I said.
I don't need YOU or anyone else to paraphrase or offer their interpretation of what I said.
In addition, you chose to IGNORE the most pertinent aspect of my statement while focusing on tangential issues I DIDN'T discuss.
Please save your spin for political issues ;D
Tom,
That's true.
That's why I prefaced my response to Patrick, "if that's what the MCC Minutes really say".
So, you agree that if that is what the MCC Minutes actually say, that it is undeniable that all three comments are talking about the same committee?
I really want to understand this process and what is happening to these gentlemen in this ongoing debate or argument. I have been reading some exerpts from these Douglas Walton books on argument, and eristic dialogue, and sophist methods,
http://books.google.com/books?id=ef1S81lVT-YC&pg=PA124&dq=Plato,+eristic+argument,+walton (http://books.google.com/books?id=ef1S81lVT-YC&pg=PA124&dq=Plato,+eristic+argument,+walton)
and go to the book, "Plausible Argument" pages around 124-5 and the discussion of Plato's Euthydemus dialogues. I'm afraid I see a lot of applicable comparisons herein this thread.
To some extent I'm not surprised about David M., as he being a trained lawyer probably has studied these methods of argumentation at great length. But, at some point this has to be more about winning the battle for some sort of esoteric recognition of golf historian extraordinare, than enlightening the mildly interested, regarding this whole matter of attribution of Merion's full history, IMO.
While at times I've seen where the combatants had some form of mental telepathy truce on some minor point and struck a more Socratic tone to discover or agree on a point, they continue to vie for king of the archives and keeper of the 'real' story flame, it seems to me.
So if there ever is a debate winner, what do you get?
Your not the first person to try to dismiss me as some sophist and I am sure you will not be the last. The same things have been said at just about every stage of this conversation, yet I have been proven correct far more often than not. I suspect that will be the case again.
It's too damn bad for all of us really as these two dudes are a couple of really sick puppies. A number of us warned this site and some on it. Too bad they weren't paying closer attention.
I just want all the information out so we can then draw our own conclusions.
I just want all the information out so we can then draw our own conclusions.
David,
Many great historians have successfully written history without having all the facts. Just recently, for example, have some WWII documents been placed into the public domain.
I have no idea what is or isn't out there, but complaining here about not having access won't do anybody any good. This isn't like court where the opposition has a responsibility to provide evidence during discovery. (I'm not an attorney, so please excuse my errors if I'm wrong with the details in my metaphor).
I've been saying for sometime Heilman's book is far superior to Tolhurst's. Tolhurst's book is embarrassing I'm not sure how he avoided being sued by Heilman for plagiarism.
Throughout his book Heilman quotes from the minutes, which begs the question how come he got the story so wrong. If he had the minutes (and he obviously had Hugh Wilson's account) he would known Barker and M&W inspected the site in June 1910, the committee was formed in early 1911, the committee travelled to the NGLA in March 1911 and M&W retuned to Merion in April to finalize the plans. He doesn't mention any of that. He would have also known Wilson travelled to the UK after the trip to the NGLA, and therefore after the course was under construction.
Is Wind the source for the legend of Hugh Wilson?
It is also interesting how little they quote from or use Wilson's own account, the most important account. Tolhurst did not use it at all and Heilman barely mentions it.
I also question whether there is any mention of Wilson's trip abroad in the MCC Minutes so I'm not sure how reading them would have clued Heilman in on the specific date.
I don't know one way or another, but on the face of it, a trip abroad by a chair of a temporary, ad hoc committee, albeit an important one, does not strike me as something that would rise to a matter for Board consideration.
Dan,
I agree with David on this one...if the documents are going to be used retorically they should be available...I also agree with David that it is unlikely revealing the documents would solve anything much at all. The materials that have been posted certainly do not generate a uniform opinion of what each means to the two sides.
I disagree with David that it would make a bit of difference for anyone/everyone else to brow beat Tom and/or Wayne into releasing this information...they're big boys.
The subject is in fact a private club and they are very proud of the archives they have maintained...however, it is still a private club and demanding anything of them is out of line for starters and more importantly, the completely wrong way to go about solving this issue of less than full disclosure within this discussion.
That being said, and with both sides completely unzipped and no consensus in site I predict the Open at Merion will pass before the two sides come together...taking all bets!
I agree with David on this one...if the documents are going to be used retorically they should be available...
Careful David...I still have to leave here...
Mike
I don't know why, but for whatever reason Heilman doesn't give us any key dates. He begins with the Annual report of 1910 and then ends with constrcution beginning in the spring of 1911 and the course opening 9/1912. We are left conclude the events he desribes in between happened between 1910 and spring 1911, incuding Wilson's trip abroad. He got that wrong. He also uses Wind's quote comparing Wilson's trip to CBM's trip. We all know CBM studied those holes before designing the NGLA, and the obvious inference is Wilson did the same.
Heilman's greatest mistakes are his multiple sins of omission. Tolhurst can be partially excused because I don't think he had the same info at his disposal (his greatest resource was Heilman's book), and he didn't know squat about golf architecture history. Heilman was clearly more competent, and had the information at his disposal but chose not to use it.
He had Wilson's 1916 account, which mentions the trip occured sometime after the NGLA visit. He would've known when the NGLA visit was from the minutes.
From about post #3707 today and on is really shocking, laughable actually. You people are absolutely all over the place, particularly Tom MacWood. Apparently you don't really read what's been said on here and if you do you don't even come close to understanding what it means. It's easier to herd a horde of cats than to get the primary protagonists on here onto the same page or to come to any understanding on anything. And MacWood and Moriarty, with your constant and continuous insulting and denigrating of Merion's architectural historian, I would be shocked if you two ever see what you're looking for in your lifetime. If I have any influence in the matter with Merion or MCC you never will. You two are a complete disgrace! I forget who I was talking to today on the telephone about this but I mentioned that the main protagonists in perpetuating this subject on here have never belonged to a private club. That person said; "Aha, that explains a ton about all this." I couldn't agree more!
Does that sound like elitism or snobbery to some on here? It might but I certainly hope not. It's more a matter of commonsense which is essentially the bedrock upon which manners and dececeny in life and within these clubs is based on. Moriarty and MacWood sling a bunch of revisionist historical shit on the wall on this website about a prominent American club, course and its architect with the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" and then expect to be treated with open arms by these clubs, their members and friends while all the time insulting and denigrating the very person they need to be in contact with for what they want at that club??
Just unbelievable!!
Think about it GOLFCLUBALTAS.com. Think about it hard! If you do, I'm betting you will come up with something pretty important about commonsense and human nature! You, me, all of us, truly do need that if any of us are going to comprehensively research the architectural histories of any of these kinds of golf clubs!
Is there any other way? Is there a better way? If there is please tell me----I'm all ears!
From about post #3707 today and on is really shocking, laughable actually. You people are absolutely all over the place, particularly Tom MacWood. Apparently you don't really read what's been said on here and if you do you don't even come close to understanding what it means. It's easier to herd a horde of cats than to get the primary protagonists on here onto the same page or to come to any understanding on anything. And MacWood and Moriarty, with your constant and continuous insulting and denigrating of Merion's architectural historian, I would be shocked if you two ever see what you're looking for in your lifetime. If I have any influence in the matter with Merion or MCC you never will. You two are a complete disgrace! I forget who I was talking to today on the telephone about this but I mentioned that the main protagonists in perpetuating this subject on here have never belonged to a private club. That person said; "Aha, that explains a ton about all this." I couldn't agree more!
Does that sound like elitism or snobbery to some on here? It might but I certainly hope not. It's more a matter of commonsense which is essentially the bedrock upon which manners and dececeny in life and within these clubs is based on. Moriarty and MacWood sling a bunch of revisionist historical shit on the wall on this website about a prominent American club, course and its architect with the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" and then expect to be treated with open arms by these clubs, their members and friends while all the time insulting and denigrating the very person they need to be in contact with for what they want at that club??
Just unbelievable!!
Think about it GOLFCLUBALTAS.com. Think about it hard! If you do, I'm betting you will come up with something pretty important about commonsense and human nature! You, me, all of us, truly do need that if any of us are going to comprehensively research the architectural histories of any of these kinds of golf clubs!
Is there any other way? Is there a better way? If there is please tell me----I'm all ears!
Tom,
I think you're being a little too harsh on Heilman. I'm also not certain that we aren't all making broad assumptions about golf course architecture that I don't believe others made years ago.
For instance, even if he did make the connection that when Hugh Wilson said "ever good course I saw later" and recognized that his trip had to follow his visit to NGLA, I'm not sure that seeing that the NGLA visit was early March 1911 would have seemed odd to him.
After all, the course wasn't even under construction yet, and all that was determined in the next month and a half was the final routing. There could have been plenty of time in his mind sometime after that while the course was being plowed and seeded to go abroad.
Firstly, Heilman doesn't even mention the trip to the NGLA, something Wilson emphasized in his account. Second, any way you look at it the trip came after the course was designed and constructed. He leaves the impression the trip proceeded all that, a la CBM.
I think we make a fundamental mistake when we try equate the act of routing the golf course as wholly dependent on the idea that Wilson went abroad to get ideas for his golf holes. Frankly, I don't think any of these early writers made that a dependency whatsoever and it clearly wasn't in this case.
I agree, I've argued that for a while. The routing process was rarely acknowledged as a vital process. It was difficult for many golfing observers and writers to conceptualize. But I don't think that has anything to do with why Heilman in 1976 presented so little details in his account. His account is very misleading. Tolhurst's account is largely based Heilman's, and look how confused that turned out.
If you think about the "principles" of the great holes, or even the strategies of the template holes, almost all of them are dependent simply on generally rote bunkering strategies that define them. We know all of that took place later...the "problems of the holes", or the "mental hazards", if you will, as they were described in the early writing.
Heilman doesn't mention anything about great holes, again ignoring Wilson's report. What gives you the idea Heilman looked upon architecture in that way.
We sit here and think about modern architecture and how everything is planned out in advance and built to spec for day one and that includes all of the dimensions and bunker placements, sizes, depths, etc...
That is another error Heilman made, or leap if you will. He said Wilson was the principle architect of the course.
Hell, we even can 3-D it on CAD and do simulated flyovers.
That isn't what was done here at all. Even the hole with the Eden green, the 15th, was not an Eden hole at all, but a par four instead. The 3rd green is not like a redan green at all, but it was a cool green on a natural plateau so a redan bunkering scheme was employed and the tee set a bit at an angle, and voila! there you had it. We know after Wilson got back from abroad and saw the real original Alps he admitted that he still had a "lot of making" to do to have anything worthy of the original, or even worthy of the one he saw Macdonald build at NGLA prior.
That is why I take Allan Wilson's account literally - he began designing when he returned.
So, I think we are applying our modern prism to something very different than what is done today. This idea that he went abroad to get ideas for the golf course was not dependent on it having to have been prior to a routing of 18 tees and greens, while trying to creatively use what was already on the ground in terms of natural hazards and features at all, and I truly don't think anyone prior to our modern times would have made the assumption that it did....particularly not those documenting early accounts.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Heilman's major omissions. IMO that is still no excuse for Heilman's vague account.
I also think you're inferring too much into what HWWind wrote. I think he was talking about the final product as a comparision between NGLA and Merion, and not referring to the version of 1912 Merion that he could never have seen.
That could be, that was not how Heilman used it.
"I'm not sure how I insulted him in post #3707."
Tom:
Just another one of your unimaginably stupid posts. #3707 is chickenfeed---of limited consequence. You and Moriarty have been mercilessly insulting and denigrating Merion's respected architectural historian for months if not years and for what, your own warped egos and perspectives? It's not going to fly, I'll tell you, at least not with me and I very much doubt with the clubs I know and respect and who know me. I don't give a shit anymore about what the sentiment is on this website, I only care about where it really matters, at least to me, Merion and in clubs across this land like it. You two jerks have hoisted yourselves on your own petards. And I think you've taken a pretty potential architectural website down with you too.
I don't give a shit anymore about what the sentiment is on this website
David,
Finally...at least you finally come right out and say it;
What I said was that Macdonald and Whigham came up with the routing and the hole concepts.
At least let's get our clear positions out here in the open and stop this "I'm just a neutral observer simply trying to find out what really happened" shtick, when you've been an advocate for a pre-determined, pre-disposed position for the past several years.
You are loosing it Mike. I was simply correcting your error. I've said many times that, based on the verifiable facts as I know them M&W were the major creative forces behind the routing and the hole concepts, although obviously Barker and Francis/Lloyd most likely played important roles as well. Surely Wilson contributed the the routing and hole concepts, but he appears to have been working with a preexisting course, and also was heavily reliant to M&W when it came to the layout. If there are verifiable facts that should lead me to change my opinion, bring them forward.
But to be specific to our present discussion, your essay says about Hugh Wilson "...he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes."
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that includes routing and hole design, no?
You are wrong. It includes routing, but my essay makes perfectly clear that Wilson added many elements of the design (bunkers, mounds, grasses, other finishing touches) after his trip. Let me give you an example. As I mentioned before, I think the current 6th hole was meant to be conceptually similar to a road hole. The placement of the tee behind the corner, the length of the hole and the relative placement of the tee were very likely all determined with this concept in mind. The hole was placed on the property (routed) based on the hole concept that fit in that spot (the road hole concept.) Did Macdonald determine the position of the fairway bunkers? It is very unlikely given that he believed that fairway bunkers were best left until later. Did Macdonald design the greenside bunkers and green? Generally and conceptually, I think he very likely did because a certain type of green and and a certain arrangement of bunkers goes with that. But as far as specifically determining the exact contours, and specifically and exactly placing and creating the bunkers, that was most likely all Wilson and Pickering. The hole concept is based on the road hole concept, as is the placement of the hole on the property, but CBM wasn't there for the construction or the addition of features later (at least I dont think he was) so my guess is that is where Wilson contributed the most.
Yet you then contend I'm misrepresenting your position when I say that you're claiming M&W "planned the designs of the holes."You are.
However, in your next sentence, you say exactly that, correct? Not correct. You say, "And Mike, in the case of M&W routing and hole concepts are pretty much synonymous. As they explain at NGLA they are looking for landforms where certain underlying strategic principles will best fit!"
David, I don't agree with that at all.
One of the reasons the template holes popularized by Macdonald and Raynor proved so popular is that their concepts were transferrable from Long Island to the mountains of Tennessee to the low-country of South Carolina, to the coast of Hawaii, to the plains of Chicago and St. Louis, to the hills of West Virginia.
There are uphill, and downhill, and flat redans. There are Alps holes on dead flat ground at places like Yeaman's Hall. There are Shorts, and Biarritz's on all sorts of terrain, as well as Road hole concepts, and all the rest....
On 90% of the template holes, their distinguishing characteristics are the placement, angles, and patterns of bunkering or other hazard to create the fundamental strategy of the hole.
That's true of the redan, the road, the Alps, the bottle, the short, the biarritz (with a dip in the green twist), the cape, the long, the eden, the leven, the sahara, even the punchbowl. In fact, the only two template holes I can think of totallly dependent on a land form would be the hogsback, and perhaps the double plateau, which more describes the green site and was usually manufactured.
This is about the most oversimplified and inaccurate descriptions of how CBM applied the underlying fundamental principles as any I have ever heard. It is no wonder that people don't understand the concepts when those who claim to like CBM's work would suggest something like this. Setting Raynor aside (because he has no relevance here) you are grossly misrepresenting CBM's approach. It is not as if he just slapped preconceived holes anywhere, willy-nilly without regard for the contours and landforms.
CBM, Whigham, others made clear that at NGLA they found landforms which would allow them to use certain underlying principles. They did not build 18 copies of holes abroad because the landscape wouldn't allow for it. So instead they applied principles where they fit with the land. That is why instead of 18 copies there are only three or four quasi-templates.
The Cape at NGLA wasn't just placed anywhere. Nor was the Cape at Mid-Ocean. The Redan wasn't just placed anywhere on any of his courses that I know of. In fact he specifically described the landform suited for a Redan in his article on it. He looked at the land, and found places where the underlying concepts worked best. For you to suggest otherwise is quite arrogant on your part, given that M&W both explained how they routed NGLA! Just look at his description of Merion in the June 1910 letter, he singles out addition of the land behind the club house, even though there were almost 200 adjacent acres that were more available. You think he didn't have some idea of what could be done with that land. Preposterous. He specifically mentions that great use could be made of the quarry. Do you suppose he was plannning on flooding it for swimming, or could he have had golf holes in mind? And what about the meandering creeks he mentioned. By your understanding they shouldn't have mattered because he could just put his holes anywhere then define them with his bunkers.
Yes some bunkers are characteristic to certain holes, and sometimes bunkers were used when the natural terrain did not provide something integral to the underlying strategic concept, but oftentimes the land itself provided all that is needed. To deny this is just crazy.
So, to suggest as I'm sure is coming in the second part of your essay, that many of the holes at Merion were placed on the ground during a half-day of looking over the property nine months prior to fit into some grand design of Macdonald's that no one ever recorded or reported is a fallacious theory on the face of it, and bears no relation to the fundamental truth that even by the time Macdonald designed his next course after NGLA at Sleepy Hollow, he not only turned the redan on it's head with a reverse redan, but created a steeply DOWNHILL one, as well.
As you often do, YOU MAKE MY POINT FOR ME. CBM "turned the concept on its head" because that is what the site gave him! The site dictated the hole, and not the other way around! Same thing at Merion, which was CBM's first reverse redan. The plateau went front left to back right and the steep drop was along the front right side, so a Reverse Redan concept was used, not a Redan concept. The LAND dictated the placement and characteristic of the hole.
And Mike, Just drop the half-day garbage. That isn't my position nor is it a reasonable straw-man for you to keep throwing out there. While he may have only been there for one day in June, he had all winter to contemplate the layout. He commonly worked off of written plans on his other projects, so it is absurd to pretend he wouldn't have at Merion. He also had two days with Wilson and his committee, and another day on site to come up with the final plan. He had six more months than Wilson did, and he knew what he was doing. He may have spent more time designing Merion than some of his other Raynor assisted projects.
To your other point, there is nothing inconsistent in my opinions, or in my contentions. If Hugh Wilson had not planned the course originally, as well as routed it he would not have received the accolades that he did and the evidence shows that he did in fact do that. But he also opened the course as a "rough draft" and updated it and evolved it, and modified it though the next twelve years, and that was noted in his achievements, as well.
You cannot have it both ways Mike. Either many contributions -- laying out and building the course, updating it with final touches before it opened (after his trip), and continuing to do so after either justifies accolades, or it does not. You cannot seriously suggest that the contribution after the trip is enough to justify great accolades, but just not those that he received.
That is where all of the evidence points, David.
Back in the day, we used to get called to these bar room brawls (on a saturday night after the cowboys got paid - as TEP likes to add) and we'd just let 'em fight until they got tired, then haul the whole lot of'em in for disorderly conduct. Trouble with these cyberbrawls is the sum'bitches never seem to get tired when all they're fightin with is their fingers over a key board. Let there be blood'n guts'n and beer spilled. We need to put'em all in a seedy tavern somewhere and let'em have at it with free drinks and smokes, and really loud music, until they engage and tucker out. We'll need the paddy wagon an a big net. A week on baloney samiches n water will shape'em up just fine cap'n.
What did you do when there was one extremely beligerent drunk in the bar who was taking pot shots at everyone else, without cause or justification?
Did you arrest the guy he hit for disorderly conduct? Did it depend on who the drunk was?
Mike
The NGLA was not the only golf course CBM designed. If I were looking for an appropriate example to compare with Merion it would not be the NGLA, which was one of the most unique projects in golf history.
How much time did CBM spend at Sleepy Hollow or St. Louis or Old White - I think those comparisons would be more useful. Also, many golf architects at the time utilized topo maps when designing, which allowed them to be working on a project when not physically on site.
Mike
The NGLA was not the only golf course CBM designed. If I were looking for an appropriate example to compare with Merion it would not be the NGLA, which was one of the most unique projects in golf history.
How much time did CBM spend at Sleepy Hollow or St. Louis or Old White - I think those comparisons would be more useful. Also, many golf architects at the time utilized topo maps when designing, which allowed them to be working on a project when not physically on site.
Tom,
That's a good point, but again one needs to look at the timelines. During the period that you guys are implying that Macdonald would be studiously working away on some topographical map of the Merion course, he was just then beginning to get his NGLA course open after four solid years of work, and he still had a ways to go. We also know that the land boundaries for Merion weren't even determined until after December 1910, and the formal course routing planning took place over the next three and a half months.
You don't believe he could have found time to work on a routing in the winter of 1910-11? The NGLA's first tournament was 7/1910. I think his work was more or less finished, and there is not much to do in the winter anyway. He obviously had time to enter the 1910 US Am at Brookline, attend the USGA meeting in Chicago, and spend two days with the Merion committee in Southampton. He also agreed to design Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow during this period. I don't think time was an issue.
Just as I pointed out earlier when we were told that Macdonald first laid out the course (I believe "roughly routed" was the term used) at NGLA in 2-3 days on horseback, this was not the actual routing process at all, which actually took months and happened AFTER Seth Raynor was contracted to topographically survey the land in 1907. Once again. we need to look at what was happening when.
The examples you're using...Greenbriar and St. Louis, both took place after Seth Raynor had been hired full-time by Macdonald, which was well after Merion. Both were begun in 1912, well after NGLA was in full gear and Macdonald finally had some time to spread his game.
And in both of those cases, although Macdonald did not spend as much time onsite as he did at National, he left his own man, Seth Raynor onsite to act in his stead.
With Wilson & Johnson Contractors on site, Raynor is a non-issue. Anyway that is the construction phase not the design phase. Those issues would have had no bearing on whether CBM could have been working on plans from topo maps during the winter of 1910-11.
Who did he leave onsite at Merion?
By the way I don't think there is a good case that Wilson was involved in either process prior to his trip to the UK.
By the way I don't think there is a good case that Wilson was involved in either process prior to his trip to the UK.
Tom,
Wilson was appointed Chairman in early 1911 and his committee spent two days with CBM at NGLA discussing plans and holes etc...and re-worked the course upon their return.
How is this not involved in either process prior to 1912?
By the way I don't think there is a good case that Wilson was involved in either process prior to his trip to the UK.
Tom,
Wilson was appointed Chairman in early 1911 and his committee spent two days with CBM at NGLA discussing plans and holes etc...and re-worked the course upon their return.
How is this not involved in either process prior to 1912?
By the way I don't think there is a good case that Wilson was involved in either process prior to his trip to the UK.
Tom,
Wilson was appointed Chairman in early 1911 and his committee spent two days with CBM at NGLA discussing plans and holes etc...and re-worked the course upon their return.
How is this not involved in either process prior to 1912?
Jim,
It should also be noted that the committee spent two days with CBM at NGLA "after laying our many different golf courses on the new ground..." during some indeterminate, unspecified time period prior to March 1911.
David,
I'll be happy to have that discussion....are you saying that George's book has it wrong?
I am relying on the original source material, as you should be as well, given it is readily available. But if you insist on relying on George instead of CBM, so be it. Here is what George wrote recently on the subject, in your thread about Raynor's starting date:
"From what CBM wrote, it seems he and Whigham “found” the “holes” they wanted and inside that context he then looked for a surveyor to survey the property and then lay out the holes.
. . ."
And here is what CBM wrote on the subject, in Scotland's Gift:
"However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck, having a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay and laying between Cold Spring Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. This property was little known and had never been surveyed. Every one thought it more or less worthless. It abounded with bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry, blackberry and other bushes and was infested by insects. The only way one could get over the ground was on ponies. So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. We had a little over a quarter of a mile frontage on Peconic Bay, and we skirted Bull's Head Bay for about a mile. The property was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, there thoroughfares and railroads would never bother us-- a much desired situation.
When playing golf you want to be alone with nature.
We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906, and took title to the property in the spring of 1907. . . .
Here is what was in Golf Illustrated in 1915, presumably by Behr, who was at the first tournament:
. . . The ideal links is only to be made in any locality by finding the most suitable situation in a general way and then laying out the best eighteen holes that the nature of the land will admit irrespective of the amount of property used in the process. And this is really the most economical plan in the long run . . .
. . .
Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.
So Mike, this notion that these holes were just tossed out anywhere without regard to the landforms is nonsense. They were located according to the landforms. When it comes to NGLA, is not even reasonably disputable. Yet you continue to pretend that this was not the case. Please stop.
However, as a starting point, please answer my basic question about how many Macdonald courses you've seen or played in person, as well as any of Raynor's. Thanks. Raynor has nothing to do with this. I've played NGLA. What other CBM courses should I have played that were designed before Merion?
. . . I think we are once again disagreeing in matters of degrees, but I see the "rough routing" as not being really a routing at all but more an identification of the location of all the key natural features that one would want to see included in the final product.
Your interpretation is untenable and contrary to the facts and statements of those with a much better and closer understanding than you. The entire point of the Behr article, and the point of Macdonald's description above, is that, as a first step, a golf course should be arranged according to what the natural features dictate. Fit the holes according to the natural features, and not visa versa. Whether Raynor eventually got this backward is entirely irrelevant to what was happening in 1910-1911 with CBM at NGLA and at Merion.
David,
If Macdonald fit the holes to the existing land at NGLA, why the requirement to move so much earth to create many of the key features they wanted?
One place where I respectfully disagree with George is in his description of Macdonald "importing 10,000 truckloads of soil to recontour and sculpt areas to fit his diagrams."
I don't think soil would have been trucked in for that purpose, as he brought in soil, and imported soil would have been unnecessary and expensive if the goal for shaping purposes. I believe the soil was topsoil to grow grass because of the the horrible characteristics of the native sand.
Again, from Macdonald himself on page 158 of Scotland's gift, continuing where the quote above left off:
"We obtained an option of the land in November, 1906, and took title to the property in the spring of 1907. Immediately we commenced development. In many places the land was impoverished. These had to be top dressed. Roughly speaking, I think we have probably put some 10,000 loads of good soil, including manure, on the property . . .."
I don't disagree that Macdonald was willing to move dirt, but I think this focused on green contours and mounding. As Behr said, the land at NGLA largely laid itself out. This doesn't sound like a major earth moving project to me.
I have no doubt that M+W, after exhaustively spending several dedicated days on horseback riding around the property found locations for key features of some of the holes they had in mind, but why if things were so crystalline do you think they spent another three months on the ground planning and staking out the course before beginning construction? Isn't that today what we think of largely as the design process, which often leads to routing changes and other revisions?
For instance, early reports talked about Macdonald wanting to locate his "short" hole on a promontory on the edge of Bulls Head Bay, which we know never happened.
In any case, where does any evidence exist pointing to M+W's involvement at Merion in anything even remotely resembling this fairly gigantic planning effort?
You always compartmentalize M&W's involvement into discrete packets and pretend there could have been no connection between events. But M&W were involved at both ends of the designing process and in between. In other words they weren't just involved in one stage.
1. They were involved in the preliminary routing (starting with their visit in June 1910, and including but not limited to their meeting with the Site Committee and their letter to the board.)
2. They were involved very soon after Wilson was appointed NGLA (evidenced by Wilson's Feb. 1, 1911 letter.)
3. They were involved in the March 1911 NGLA meetings, which focused on "the layout of the East Course."
4. They were involved at the final stage of planning, in April 1911, where they reinspected the course and chose the final layout plan.
5. They even remained involved after the layout plan they chose was presented to the board as such (as evidenced by the Ag. letters.)
So how can you dismiss this as as "a half-day" routing? However large the planning effort was at Merion, M&W were involved from the first month to the last, and after! Even if the initial routing was a rough routing, an initial routing would not have been the end of their involvement but the beginning!
As for Macdonald's mode of operation, rather than pontificate and ramble without offering factual support, why don't we go to the source material? As I have quoted before from Whigham, CBM was an amateur and did not have time to spend extensive time on the ground designing. Raynor would do the groundwork and Macdonald worked off of the plans.
Now if Macdonald worked off the plans on his projects with Raynor, what makes you think he couldn't have done the same with Merion? After all, he and Whigham had already inspected the site, and had some idea of what they wanted to do with it, and indicated that with a contour map they could route the course to see if it fit! HE DIDN'T indicate that it would take a contour map and another month on site, did he?
I mention this on the "perspective" thread, and as I said there, maybe I missed it; but did any or you gentlemen ever come across articles by Fred Byrod that talk about any of the subject matter you are debating, regarding Merion? I would think that with all of Joe Baush's efforts in archives, he must have seen something. Byrod's having lived until age 93, and his rememberances on the Aronimink website history, would seem to me to suggest he knew plenty of the old Philly inside story. Just think, when all this Merion stuff got started, Mr. Byrod was still here on the planet. Pity he wasn't interviewed. Or, is this a dead end, no pun intended?
I guess you just didn't know Fred as well as I did, Sully. When he interviewed you in 1999 Fred was actually 108. I thought he seemed like a pretty young 108 compared to all the other 108 year old people I've known but in 1999 he was 108 nonetheless. I'll tell you something else interesting about Fred Byrod. Up until about 2002 when he was 111 he could actually outdrive ME! Do you believe that? Pretty amazing, huh?
"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying....."
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."
Mike, my thoughts on the above statement are as follows.
I think "they" had prepared several routings/designs.
I think "they" presented them to CBM.
I think CBM offered a critique on each one, pointing out the strenghts and weaknesses.
I think CBM offered alternative routings/designs.
As a result, I think they went back to Merion, armed with CBM's redrafting of their plans.
They benefited from having examined NGLA with CBM.
The benefited from listening to his on site commentary about NGLA and golf design, and how they might work out at Merion.
I think THAT meeting resulted in the end stage routing/design of Merion and I believe CBM's hand in the routing/design was heavy/substantive.
That's the way I read that passage.
I do very much appreciate you at least trying to intelligently discuss what is clearly evidence, much as others may claim it's been tampered with, or otherwise faulty.
I do think your responses deserve serious discussion so let me try to do that.
You said;
I think "they" had prepared several routings/designs.
I agree that this is clear and I also would contend that because we know the same group went to NGLA "after" doing this, and "on our return" laid out five "different plans",
I don't know that it was the same participants that laid out the pre-NGLA trip plans, that went to NGLA, that subsequently crafted revised plans.
I think drawing that conclusion is a leap of faith
we know beyond any doubt that if the minutes are accurate that we're talking about the same group, or Committee.
I'd have to see the supporting documentation before drawing that conclusion.
Further, since we know clearly from other sources who went to visit M&W at NGLA, we also know the Committee in question is Hugh Wilson's committee, would you agree?
I'm not so sure that you can claim it was Hugh Wilson's committee as opposed to individuals who were appointed to Hugh Wilson's committee.
I think you have to be careful when you make declarations based on incomplete evidence.
I think "they" presented them to CBM.
This could certainly be inferred, and it seems reasonable they would have done this.
However, there is also no direct evidence to indicate this being so.
You asked for my OPINION and I provided it.
There's also no evidence to indicate that it wasn't so.
For instance, they do not say "we presented our plans for the new golf course to Macdonald for his review", or anything of the sort.
Instead, they seemed to be much more focused on what HE, Macdonald had been doing and how he had gone about building NGLA, rather than their own efforts to date.
I don't think that you can conclude that.
They went over his plans ( I assume his plans at this point were related to his work in progress at NGLA,
I don't believe that either. I think they probably went over CBM's plans for Merion, or both.
as he had only seen the Merion land one day 9 months prior and wrote a single-page report giving a bit of a wishy-washy recommendation that the land might be suitable for a first-class golf course) and and his sketches of holes abroad, and the next day toured the golf course at NGLA, which I'm sure was a very valuable and instructive use of their time.
Mike, you're returning to wishful thinking when formulating your conclusions again.
You're denying the probability that CBM had crafted plans or rough drafts and I don't think you can exclude that likelihood.
Hugh Wilson himself told us exactly what they did there; "...in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than in all of the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish (bold(s) mine) with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses."
Mike, you're lobbying toward your preconceived, predisposed conclusions.
I've stated my opinion, as requested.
I'd like to see more research such that I can either modify my opinion to conform to the emerging facts or reinforce my opinion based on the emerging facts.
I think CBM offered a critique on each one, pointing out the strenghts and weaknesses.
I think CBM offered alternative routings/designs.
As a result, I think they went back to Merion, armed with CBM's redrafting of their plans.
While you make clear that this is your inference, I do think you are reading a lot into it without much in the way of evidence.
There's not much in the way of evidence to refute my opinion.
Mike, you've done the same thing, over and over again.
You asked for my opinion.
I rendered it.
I stand by it until research produces more facts that will either support or refute my opinion.
It seems to me again that what is mentioned is what HE Macdonald had been doing that was the focus, not what the Merion group had done to date. Given the force of Macdonald's personality, and the respect the Merion Committee had for his opiinion, I can easily see it being much of a one-way conversation, with short Merion questions resulting in long Macdonald answers. I think the short passage here in the minutes is reflective of that dynamic.
Mike, I don't know about you, but, when I was diagnosed with cancer I sought out the most respected physicians, not novices.
I didn't tell them how to treat my cancer, I listened to their recommendations and suggested protocol/s for treating my cancer.
Then, I pursued the most aggressive path based on their professional advice.
Why do you assume that the men of Merion did otherwise ?
Would that be the most prudent course of action ?
They benefited from having examined NGLA with CBM.
The benefited from listening to his on site commentary about NGLA and golf design, and how they might work out at Merion.
Wholeheartedly agreed, and I do think Hugh Wilson makes that very clear in his own reminisces. I think this meeting was somewhat of a turning point in the process, which is why they mentioned it even years later, and it helped them clearly.
I think THAT meeting resulted in the end stage routing/design of Merion and I believe CBM's hand in the routing/design was heavy/substantive.
Patrick, while I agree that this meeting had a big impact on the committee, I think it was in terms of clarifying some of their thought processes around their design, and perhaps giving birth to other flights of imagination. We KNOW it was significant to the final design stage simply because they went back and "laid out five different plans" after the meeting. I think ultimately the question that we will never answer and probably always debate will be one of percentages.
I think the percentages are immaterial, micro, if you will.
My OPINION is that the meeting PRODUCED the final general routing/design of Merion.
That it was the linch pin to the production of the golf course.
I think it's good that we've finally reached a point where it's agreed by many here including you that all of this routing activitiy didn't happen prior to the end of 1910, although some rough or informal routing processses initiated by Merion may have preceeded 1911 (although no evidence of that exists). I think that's progress.
Once again, I don't think that's a conclusion you can draw since we don't know the history of the routing from Barker to the five plans prior to the meeting, to the meeting, to the revised plans subsequent to the meeting, to what was built in the field.
I think it's good that we're now focusing more on the first months of 1911 in our collective search, because this is also clearly when things were determined and no matter how anyone wants to cast doubt on what the MCC Minutes actually say, they clearly do reflect the major design activity taking place in the first four months of 1911.
And, as I mentioned, because the details aren't recorded, unless further evidence surfaces, I think we'll always debate exact contributions that Macdonald was responsible for versus Wilson, and those who favor one side over the other will try to steer the argument in their preferred direction.
From my perspective, in the final analysis, while I agree that Macdonald had a larger role than was previously known, not a single contemporaneous account of his contributions actually pulled that trigger and mentioned the "D", or the "R" words, instead simply saying he "advised" the process and offered "suggestions", however valuable.
Mike, you're lobbying again, and I don't agree with your conclusions.
Let's do more research FIRST, then refine our OPINIONS
To me, a man in charge does not "suggest" or "advise". To me those two verbs clearly refer to someone who is outside the main ongoing process, and it's always been somewhat amazing to me that everyone at that time used nearly the exact same verbiage to describe what they did, whether it was Robert Lesley, Alan Wilson, A.W. Tillinghast, or "Far and Sure". None of them ever pulled the trigger and suggested that the routing or design was of Macdonald's authorship.
Neither does the word "approve" suggest someone who is an author, much like Shvas pointed out months back. To me, it is very clear that they highly-valued Macdonald's opinion, and the fact that they asked him to come down and help them pick the best of their routings is proof-positive of that. But the question remains, if Macdonald was the author of that plan, why would he need to come back to pick it? Of course he wouldn't.
Finally Patrick, I know you're a man who believes in taking direct personal responsibitliy in any endeavor, amd that ultimately, the buck has to stop somewhere. As Chairman of the committee in charge of the new golf course during this period, wouldn't Hugh Wilson ultimately be the one to get the credit or blame, no matter whose advice he took, or who he asked questions of, or how many ideas he solicitied and opinions he listened to?
Mike, you're lobbying again.
AND, Wilson was in charge of the CONSTRUCTION Committee.
I think we need to learn more before drawing finite conclusions.
Max Behr in 1914 wrote that Hugh Wilson was virtually dictatorial in the way he operated at Merion, much like Macdonald at NGLA and Leeds at Myopia. Does that sound like a man to you who would have shirked direct personal responsibiilty and decision-making for what took place at Merion?
Thanks for listening, and thanks for trying to advance the dialogue.
David,
Please show us how you've come to the conclusion that M+W's visit to inspect the proposed site for a day in June 1910 was for the "preliminary routing" and please show us anywhere it specifically states that?
If maps, letters, and routings with golf course plans passed back and forth any time over the next nine months between Mac and the Merion Committee, why do you think not only have all traces of them vanished, but why do you think they weren't even mentioned in reference by anyone, ever, in any of the contemporaneous accounts or rememberances throughout the rest of eveyone involved's lives and beyond?
David,
If they didn't buy those three acres next to the clubhouse they wouldn't have been able to go out the back door without trespassing. ;)
Forrest Gump would have made the recommendation.
David,
If they didn't buy those three acres next to the clubhouse they wouldn't have been able to go out the back door without trespassing. ;)
Forrest Gump would have made the recommendation.
"First, there is a very good chance that CBM's plans were mentioned. While we haven't seen it, we've been told that Whigham and his committee looked at CBM's plans at NGLA. Your explanation that this meant plans from overseas is unpersuasive because the information he obtained from overseas was reportedly mentioned separately. Plus why would they refer to sketches from overseas as his "plans" when they weren't his plans but his drawings and measures of holes already in existence."
What the Wilson Committee reported they went over at NGLA the first evening was Macdonald's plans for NGLA and the data he brought back from abroad:
"...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 that were copied after the famous ones abroad."
Clearly that did not mean they were working on Merion's routing and design plans at NGLA but looking over Macdonald's plans for NGLA and the data he brought back from abroad in preparation to create NGLA.
In the long paragraph in Post #3789 that begins, "There is ample evidence" in fact there is no actual evidence at all to support a single one of the points made in that paragraph; every point is just speculation completely devoid of any actual factual evidence.
Mike,
That would imply that the house already on the property was flush against the boundary...I doubt this was the case...
Mike,
That would imply that the house already on the property was flush against the boundary...I doubt this was the case...
Jim,
While may statement was slightly hyperbolic, this was the view from the back porch once the land was acquired.
The property line ended right around the drop-off.
My lord, I can think of several reasons for recommending buying that land, where today an entry road runs through. Why in heavens wouldn't you want to use that creek on your golf course, or have golfable land available for your routing out to the natural boundary, which is the rail tracks themselves, especially with the adjacency to the clubhouse?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3399/3492398959_692a2587d7_b.jpg)
While not wanting to get into the whole thing about the MCC Minutes....personally I'd love to see them in their entirety and hope someday that can someday happen here, but we also certainly know from Hugh Wilson's account that they arrived in the evening and spent it going over sketches of famous holes abroad and then spent the next day checking out the holes at NGLA....
No. We. Don't. We know they went over CBM's plans and the various data he had gathered. Your conclusion is that this all referred to one thing, but that would have been redundant and it wouldn't have made sense for him to call sketches of other holes CBM's "plans." Not even I credit CBM with planning the great holes overseas.
If the intent of the trip was to route and design Merion, then WTF were these guys doing wasting valuable time the first night looking at sketches from abroad, and then COMPLETELY WASTING the second day just getting the grand tour of Macdonald's work at NGLA?
Exactly. And this should show you that your assumption is mistaken. They were NOT wasting valuable time the first night because the weren't studying the "sketches of famous holes abroad" they were studying CBM's plans for Merion, and CBM was using the data compiled from the holes abroad to explain what should be done at Merion.
And they were "not COMPLETELY WASTING the second day getting the grand tour of Macdonald's work at NGLA." To the contrary, CBM was showing them what the holes they had discussed the night before -- the holes for Merion -- should look like and how they should be built.
In other words Mike, you have finally realized what I have been telling you all along. YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HAPPENED MAKES NO SENSE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A COMPLETE WASTE OF THEIR TIME. IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED THE WAY YOU THINK IT DID.
What most likely happened is what is most obvious and makes the most sense given the totality of the circumstances.
1. The first night they went over CBM's plans for Merion, and CBM explained to them how to fit these holes onto the natural terrain at Merion using his preliminary plans as well as the data he had brought back for Europe.
2. The next day they spent going over examples of the types of holes that CBM had advised them to build at Merion, showing them what they looked like and how they were built.
3. Wilson and his committee returned back to Merion, rearranged the preliminary routing, and laid out a number of attempts at what CBM had advised.
4. M&W returned to Merion shortly thereafter and went over the land again and studied the layouts, and decided upon which one worked best, and approved that one.
5. The layout plan he chose was presented to the board as the plan approved by CBM because CBM was in charge of the plan.
6. The board approved it, and they got busy.
The "absence of evidence being proof of nothing" has to be the most specious argument, and most egregious misrepresentation of actual factually-based scientific theory since the study of golf course archtectural history began in earnest rougly 30 years ago. At it's core, it essentially argues that NOTHING that we know is meaningful, or definitive, or conclusive, but that we should simply wipe our minds free of logic, of knowledge, and of facts, because there exists some remote possibility, however remote, that somewhere, somehow, down the line, some additional evidence will surface that will contradict everything we've known prior.
***EDIT PRIOR POST***
Wow, David...I just read what you posted regarding what you think the MCC Minutes that Tom Paul just posted about the NGLA trip really mean.
No disrespect intended, but if you had a point #7 stating that they then got on a rocket ship to Mars and Macdonald was their captain it would have at least as much direct physical evidence as points 1 through 6. ;)
Tom:
I'm glad you liked the levity and I'm sorry you thought I was so serious about what you've been saying about the Tolhurst book. If you could see me sitting here laughing about some of the things you say on here, including that, I doubt you would say I was so serious about it.
Why am I refusing to share the entire April 1911 report with you? I thought I made that abundantly clear on here. It must have been just another of my posts you failed to either read or understand properly. But if you choose to look back and read then I think it will be pretty clear to you.
What was it you said to me over the last year or so and again recently about that Boston article on Willie Campbell and Myopia? ;)
Mike,
Love the old articles. Keep them coming, if you can. Not so sure I will love the inevitable of someone telling me what they mean......
It does seem to be another example of a course designed by committee, with the occaisional help from an expert from the outside, no? Why is it so hard to believe that Merion did the same process a few years earlier?
David,
Please show us how you've come to the conclusion that M+W's visit to inspect the proposed site for a day in June 1910 was for the "preliminary routing" and please show us anywhere it specifically states that?
Mike, did I tell you the one about the husband who went to the private investigator for proof that his wife was NOT cheating? Well you are the husband.
There is ample evidence that M&W were involved with the routing during and after their June 1910 visit. Remember, a routing had already been done by Barker when M&W were brought in to add their opinion. In addition to inspecting the property and meeting with the site committee, M&W sent a letter which discussed the various advantageous features on the property, as well as its shortcomings and how to address them. They even singled out a small section of specific property for Merion to add to the site, even though that section has not even been offered to HDC, and even though their are over 200 adjacent acres that were more easily and directly accessible. The even provide a description of the lengths of holes they are contemplating, a list of hole lengths that bears close resemblance to what Merion ended up with. Perhaps most importantly, they were there to figure out whether a first class course could be created on that land, and indicated that they could not know for certain without a contour map. Why else would they need a contour map except to see whether the holes they envisioned would fit on the property? And it is unreasonable to assume that Merion would have kept the contour map from M&W. Plus, the Francis statement strongly suggested that there was at least a rough routing in place before November 1910, as does the little bit we have heard about the Cuyler letter, as does the specificity of the Boards November announcement. The Board's next announcement said that experts were at work planning the course and that again points toward M&W and/or HHB. The early Ag letters indicate that a course was already in place at the very beginning of Wilson's involvement, and that CBM was also involved at this time. Lesley's report suggests that there was a course in place before the NGLA trip, yet Wilson's 1916 letter suggests that he "got a good start" with the layout at NGLA, suggesting he had not routed the existing course, but that someone else did. And at NGLA, the looked at CBM's plans and there is a very good chance that this meant his plans for Merion. All of this and more strongly evidences that, beginning with their June site visit, M&W were involved with the preliminary routing.
Now you can and have gone to great lengths to dispute and nitpick every item, even going so far as to claim that Wilson was considered an expert at planning golf courses even though he admittedly was no such thing. Yet taken together, Mike, this is pretty powerful evidence. To not at least acknowledge the possibility that I have it right requires an affirmative act of intentional ignorance on your part, where you simply ignore or deny all facts that cut against you.
. . .
David,
Honestly, I don't see your conclusions as based on anything but your wish that it were so. Not a single contention is based on a factual reading of the actual evidence.
When you say, "To refuse to acknowledge the possibility that it happened as I describe requires an affirmative act of intentional ignorance on your part, where you simply refuse to accept evidence that cuts against you.", I have to say that just because something is "possible" doesn't mean that there is any reason to believe it actually happened.
There is so much counter-evidence here that's been presented, and not a single person at that time who claimed M&W designed the course as to make that possibility a very, very remote one, that grows smaller with each new piece of evidence.
Not even H.J. Whigham claimed Macdonald designed the course. Instead, he just listed it in a grouping of what he termed "Macdonald/Raynor" courses, and we know for a fact Macdonald and Whigham had involvement with helping Merion with valuable advice and suggestions, so from his perspective that was probably true.
But frankly, if the evidence for M&W designing the course instead of Hugh Wilson was actually so "overwhelming" as you describe, then why is it that the only persons here who seem even willing to still consider it are Tom MacWood and Patrick Mucci, one who says he "doesn't know" who designed Merion, and the other who simply states that he thinks M&W had "significantly substantive" input into the routing?
I might be wrong, but my impression here is that at this point, most have simply rejected your contentions out of hand based on the evidence that's been presented. Of course, everyone, including me, is always willing to examine anything new that surfaces, but at this juncture, I think it's pretty much time to call it a day...
David,
I would say the most reasonable explantion is that the Merion viewed it's top golfers as "expert" in the world of golf based primarily on their playing ability, but also their overall knowledge of the game. I believe most, if not all, of the committeemen were at the time, or eventually would be, members of the local, regional or national golf associations in some capacity. Thet were also leaders within the club on golf and green committees. Unless the announcement referred to "expert golf course architects", I think the most reasnoable assumption is that the term "expert" was used in reference to the committee's overall golf accumen in a manner designed to give the membership/audience comfort that the job was being done properly.
C'mon David, as one of the biggest word twisters on here, you should probably go a little lighter on Mike C on that count. How many times are you guys going to argue this? Mike found some examples of where golf experts might suggest that they design golf courses. You have your own ideas. Can you guys figure out a way to resolve that issue?
If anyone wants to know the dates of any article please let me know or just look in the back pages of this thread where they've all been identified prior.
The one calling Hugh Wilson an expert is from May 1913, when according to David's nonsense, he had exactly zero design expereience on any course that was open.
Hell' even good old Robert Lesley was an "expert" and he was neither a pro nor did he design any courses.
It is going to be difficult for me to sit back silently on this thread and watch David continue to spin fiction and flat out fabricate "facts", but I've had enough of arguing inanities and I trust that most of you can smell unadulterated bullshit, even across the Internet.
. . .
My guess is that Mike C will accept your simple explanation about the same time you accept the simple explanation for the words in the April 19 minutes (i.e., they went to NGLA, planned several layouts, etc) . . .
George Bahto in his wonderful book, "The Evangelist of Golf"*, describes the routing process at NGLA as follows;
*as an aside, if you don't own this book, which is edited by our own Gib Papazian, you should go stop reading right now, exit out of this site, and just buy the book! ;D
Agreed
http://www.amazon.com/Evangelist-Golf-Story-Charles-MacDonald/dp/1886947201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1248959823&sr=8-1
For those of you who already have the book, please open it and read along beginning on page 64;
"Macdonald and company purchased the tract in November of 1907*..."
(*My Note - Macdonald secured an unspecified 205 acres of land out of the 400+ available in December of 1906, and it was noted at the time that he and his committee would be spending the next 3 months trying to lay out the course on the land (i.e. routing) followed by 2 months building plasticene, scale models of the holes prior to beginning construction. Macdonald originally believed he would need approximately 110 acres for golf, but ended up using approximately 150-170 acres...Now, back to George's book. ;) )
"C.B. next asked Henry Whigham and Walter Travis, each golf champions and course architects in their own right, to assist him in implementing his plan. Though Travis soon bowed out of the project, C.B. and Whigham continued on with the assistance of Joseph P. Knapp. Also closely involved were banker James Stillman, Devereux Emmett....and a few others"
"Using Raynor's survey maps and Macdonald's personal drawings as a guide, they forged ahead."
Mike,
You left out an important facet.
Macdonald gave Raynor his surveyor's maps of the holes he liked from Scotland and England and told Raynor that he wanted those holes laid out faithfully to those maps. CBM had preconceived notions of the holes HE wanted crafted onto that site, he wasn't just stumbling around discovering holes. He knew the holes he wanted and sited them to best utilize their assets/attributes.
"Once cleared, the site was visually stirking. Knolls, hills, and basins furnished the topography. They also found natural ponds and uncovered a portion of Sebonac Creek which could be used for water hazards."
"Macdonald and company located fairly natural sites for a Redan and Eden, as well as a site for an Alps, requiring only a slight modification. The location for a Sahara hole was selected, as well as spots for a few original Macdonald creations suggested by the terrain. The routing of the course was beginning to take form, and although Macdonald later claimed the majority of the holes were on natural sites, in reality he manipulated a huge amount of soil."
"A number of strategic and aesthetic innovations took place at National, yet often overlooked is the seminal influence Macdonald and Raynor had on early course construction. Macdonald was not afraid to move massive amounts of earth in order to achieve a desired artistic effect, and Raynor had the engineering skills to blend it all together."
"Macdonald eventually admitted to importing 10,000 truckloads of soil to recontour and sculpt areas to fit his diagrams. A meticulous planner, Macdonald knew precisely what he was trying to achieve, and if he could not find an appropriate site, one would just have to be created! It is true that natural sites were located for his Redan and Eden, but to build other replications to his exacting specifications required extensive movement and importing of soil. Heavily influenced by this philosophy, Seth Raynor - and later Charles Banks - would later take earthmoving to new dimensions."
Mike, I'd disagree with a portion of that passage.
I believe that the 10,000 LOADS of soil, including manure were for topdressing, not construction, purposes.
There was ample soil/dirt on site to craft the manufactured features.
I have to ask...
Does this sound like a man who would create a plan for a golf course based on a one day visit to inspect the property in June 1910, followed by another site visit to help pick the best of five plans 10 months later?
Yes, absolutely.
You now want to take and compare the isolated, undeveloped, unsurveyed land in Southampton and compare it to the well established, surveyed, developed farmland in suburban Philadelphia.
Another absurd leap on your part in an attempt to disavow CBM.
David,
If Macdonald fit the holes to the existing land at NGLA, why the requirement to move so much earth to create many of the key features they wanted?
Mike, WHY do you constantly misrepresent/mis-state the facts and make up your own facts to support your predetermined position ?
It's intellectually dishonest.
The 10,000 loads of soil/manure were for TOPDRESSING, NOT CONSTRUCTION.
Macdonald says so in his own words.
The land was "impoverished"
I have no doubt that M+W, after exhaustively spending several dedicated days on horseback riding around the property found locations for key features of some of the holes they had in mind, but why if things were so crystalline do you think they spent another three months on the ground planning and staking out the course before beginning construction?
Mike, if you'd read "Scotland's Gift" without rose colored glasses, you'd KNOW the answer.
Isn't that today what we think of largely as the design process, which often leads to routing changes and other revisions?
For instance, early reports talked about Macdonald wanting to locate his "short" hole on a promontory on the edge of Bulls Head Bay, which we know never happened.
Could you cite that report for me ?
In any case, where does any evidence exist pointing to M+W's involvement at Merion in anything even remotely resembling this fairly gigantic planning effort?
That you would compare the sites at Merion to Southampton, and their respective needs, design wise, is mind boggling.
Once again your desperation is clearly showing.
I understand both David's frustration AND your call to let the earnest research continue.
But I agree with Phil that as long as this thread contains little but sniping, parsing, etc. that it ought to cease and desist.
Jeff, the sniping and parsing should cease and desist, but, the search for more information should continue.
What earnest research has been on this thread lately, comparable to finding and posting little known documents on the Campbell thread, for instance? There hasn't been much new here for the last 55 pages or so.
It would appear that research efforts have stalled as of late and that any and all efforts to structure a joint, harmonious research effort have failed, but, hope springs eternal that progress will be made in the effort to learn more about the genesis of Merion.
Now to my question:
I was reading a book "Keepers of the Green" and I will quote from it a passage or two that further confused me about Merion. Let me first mention that months ago I quoted from the Shinnecock Hills book purchased from SH where a passage seemed to credit Dick Wilson with a lot of the design and while I tried to make it clear that I was not suggesting anything some felt I was saying Wilson not Flynn was the architect. I was only trying to find out why the SH history would have given him so much credit--but that's another story.
In this book under the heading "Other Grenkeepers at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century" and "Joe Valentine, America's Famous Greenkeeper" are theses passages:
"Willian Flynn was the first greenkeeper at the Merion GC when it was laid out by Hugh Wilson in 1911. He stayed for a short time and then became a full time architect. He was succeeded by Joe Valentine who was hired at the Merion Cricket CLub in 1907 before there was even a golf course. He (I am not sure who the he is in this case) became construction foreman when the course was built. Valentine's talents...contributed much to the fame of that old course." (pg. 57).
I also understand that William Flynn had by 1909 laid out his first golf course in Vermont.
In writing about Valentine the book quotes an article written by Valentine's grand-daughter for the "Bonnie Greensward", "In 1907 he (Valentine) became a grounds worker at the Merion Cricket Club in Ardmore, PA. When Merion's East Course was laid out in 1912, Valentine became foreman under greenkeeper William FLynn. When the latter had to take a leave of absence to do war work in 1918, Valentine became temporary greenkeeper. Over the years Valnetine maintained a close working relationship with William Flynn, partly because their skills were complimentary: Valentine an expert on turfgrass and course maintenenace and Flynn, a well-known golf architect skilled in course construction."
Later the book quotes Dean Hill, the Merion Green Chairman at the time of Valentine's death to have remarked that their superintendent had acted "pretty much the part of course architect during his long years of service." I include this last sentence/quote only to show how in perhaps an attempt to eulogize or magnify a person's contribution, people stretch the truth a bit. Please understand I am not trying to make the "Whittenesque" super as architect argument at all--I just found it interesting how that comment got recorded by a club official and preserved so to speak.
My question is what would the Merion experts (I mean that seriously) say about the quotes in the "Keepers of the Green" book? Was Flynn, assuming I got the right guy who had designed and constructed a course in 1909, as the only one with true construction experience by 1911-12 perhaps more helpful than given credit for at the early formation of the East Course? Again, I am just asking and apologize if this seems stupid.
As for Flynn having designed a course in Vermont in 1909, I don't know whether that is true or not, but then I am not privy to The Flynn Bible, King Wayne Version.
Chris
Hartwellville was constructed in 1913, and it is extremely unlikely Flynn designed the course. That course was most likely designed by Alex Findlay. Here is an old thread that tried to separate fact from fiction.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35963.0/
I really hoped to go out better than this, but I do wish to thank the many friends and enjoyable aquaintances I've made here over the years and hope we find a way to keep in touch.
Sadly, many of the people who used to participate here have also left over the years, and perhaps that is natural.
In any case, once any endeavor becomes more combative and argumentative than collaboratively enjoyable, then it's time to move on.
In the past week, two of the most prolific posters on this site have left, and maybe that's natural as well.
Thanks for some great discussion, and for your understanding.
Mike
Anthony Gray,
I'm not sure if I understand your post.
Are you saying that Mike Cirba wasn't combative and/or argumentative ?
That he had NO agenda, NO bias ? ? ?
That he stuck strictly to the FACTS and didn't make any inflamatory statements or jump to wild conclusions ?
I would certainly prefer for Mike to continue to participate on this site, as I would TEPaul and others, but, if Mike wants to leave, he doesn't need to make a grand exit, he merely has to stop posting.
Anthony,
Here's what I don't understand.
We're talking about events that happened at a golf course almost a century ago.
We're not talking, contemporaneously, about a participants family, business, or personal issues.
So how can people get so inflamed, so personal over an issue/event that took place 100 years ago ?
I don't get it.
Pat,
To paraphrase something about faculty meetings I heard-----
The smaller the stakes; the bigger the fight!
So Mike Cirba and who else are gone? Tom Paul?
I make a motion they come back but take a vow of silence on Merion along with everybody else on GCA.com! Do I have a second?
Tom:
I'm glad you liked the levity and I'm sorry you thought I was so serious about what you've been saying about the Tolhurst book. If you could see me sitting here laughing about some of the things you say on here, including that, I doubt you would say I was so serious about it.
Why am I refusing to share the entire April 1911 report with you? I thought I made that abundantly clear on here. It must have been just another of my posts you failed to either read or understand properly. But if you choose to look back and read then I think it will be pretty clear to you.
What was it you said to me over the last year or so and again recently about that Boston article on Willie Campbell and Myopia? ;)
Thanks very much for the article Bryan and Niall. This should clear up some confusion regarding some of the courses Wilson visited. Niall, what newspaper? Thanks again!
A few comments and a clarification . . .
- Notably, the apparent source of the information was Hugh Wilson himself. Who else there would have been able to speak to what happened at Merion? Seems likely that the source was Wilson himself, but is there evidence that demonstrates that he traveled alone? The article provides similar information from others in the Philadelphia press; many (or most) of the holes were based on famous holes abroad. And this again raises the obvious question as to how Wilson could have designed holes modeled after the famous holes abroad when he had never even seen those holes? Without wanting to argue the point, I guess he could have learned of them from M&W and built copies of their copies. The original versions were considered weak weren't they, that were later (after he returned from the UK) remodeled.
- The phrase "green architects" is interesting and apparently applied to the green keeper(s) and/or perhaps the green committee. Interesting indeed. Are there earlier references to "architects" in American golf literature? Or, Scottish literature? Rather than the green keeper or the green committee it could simply refer to the distinct function of golf architect as we understand it today. Niall, in your search of old articles have you seen any other references to "green architects", and how they might relate to other functions?
- I've read elsewhere that Hugh Wilson was an avid photographer. It sure would be nice to find his photographs. I imagine there might be one or two of interest.
- One clarification, Bryan. You wrote that "the writer thought Wilson had already built "exactly similar" template holes." While we may have concluded that Wilson was in charge of building the holes, the writer might not have. Rather than crediting Wilson with building the holes, the writer noted that Wilson "belongs to the club where the holes are constructed exactly similar to the most famous holes in this country." So the question of who built the holes was not addressed. Point taken. I was actually more focused on the oxymoron that "exactly similar" is. I was wondering how journalists can write such odd things. It seems to happen frequently is these old articles. One wonders if the writer was trying to say exact copies or copies that were just similar in concept.
It may seem to be nitpicking, but I think the distinction is worth noting. It seems as if Wilson was focused what to do next, and this fits well with the theory that Wilson's predominate design contribution occurred after his trip abroad. If you want to make that inference, you can, but I don't think that the article above provides any support for or against the inference.
The term "green" could mean "beginner, novice".
This may have been covered, but was HW actually a member of NGLA?
The term "green" could mean "beginner, novice".
Green architect was a fairly common term back then and was used interchangably with golf architect or golf course architect.
Niall
Great find, thanks for sharing it. It clearly spells out his intinerary. From that you may be able to determine which famous holes they were trying to replicate. He must have visited Mid Surrey and Sunningdale in London based on subsequent info that has come out.
Gentlemen,
I'm shocked at your interpretation of this article. Clearly it is positive proof that Willie Fernie designed Merion. After Wilson sent Fernie a topo, Willie sketched out a rough routing sent it to Wilson telling him what template holes to build and where, and then after Wilson had carried this out he visited Fernie at Troon to show him some Polaroids he'd taken of the course and then Willie gave him some further advice by showing him the originals. EASY !
...............
Niall
Thanks very much for the article Bryan and Niall. This should clear up some confusion regarding some of the courses Wilson visited. Niall, what newspaper? Thanks again!
A few comments and a clarification . . .
- Notably, the apparent source of the information was Hugh Wilson himself. Who else there would have been able to speak to what happened at Merion? The article provides similar information from others in the Philadelphia press; many (or most) of the holes were based on famous holes abroad. And this again raises the obvious question as to how Wilson could have designed holes modeled after the famous holes abroad when he had never even seen those holes?
- The phrase "green architects" is interesting and apparently applied to the green keeper(s) and/or perhaps the green committee.
- I've read elsewhere that Hugh Wilson was an avid photographer. It sure would be nice to find his photographs. I imagine there might be one or two of interest.
- One clarification, Bryan. You wrote that "the writer thought Wilson had already built "exactly similar" template holes." While we may have concluded that Wilson was in charge of building the holes, the writer might not have. Rather than crediting Wilson with building the holes, the writer noted that Wilson "belongs to the club where the holes are constructed exactly similar to the most famous holes in this country." So the question of who built the holes was not addressed.
It may seem to be nitpicking, but I think the distinction is worth noting. It seems as if Wilson was focused what to do next, and this fits well with the theory that Wilson's predominate design contribution occurred after his trip abroad.
Why is everyone naturally assuming that the writer of the article is talking about Merion? He used the phrase, "He belongs to the club where the holes are constructed exactly similar to the most famous holes in this country..."
We know that Wilson was there representing Merion, but is it possible that the WRITER of the article thought he was talking about NGLA? To me, that would be the reasonable assumption as it had already been written about in journals in the U.K. whereas no design articles of Merion have yet to be found from that time. The readership would have been very aware of NGLA; I don't believe that is the case with Merion, and yet he wriote in a manner that suggests his audience has that familiarity.
...................
Thanks very much for the article Bryan and Niall. This should clear up some confusion regarding some of the courses Wilson visited. Niall, what newspaper? Thanks again!
A few comments and a clarification . . .
- Notably, the apparent source of the information was Hugh Wilson himself. Who else there would have been able to speak to what happened at Merion? Seems likely that the source was Wilson himself, but is there evidence that demonstrates that he traveled alone? I've never been any mention of him traveling accompanied. So far as I can tell, the travel manifest does not include anyone else that was associated with Merion or American golfThe article provides similar information from others in the Philadelphia press; many (or most) of the holes were based on famous holes abroad. And this again raises the obvious question as to how Wilson could have designed holes modeled after the famous holes abroad when he had never even seen those holes? Without wanting to argue the point, I guess he could have learned of them from M&W and built copies of their copies. The original versions were considered weak weren't they, that were later (after he returned from the UK) remodeled.Findlay considered the Alps weak, and later he seemed to like it, so something could have been changed or added on that hole, but with this exception I don't know if the holes themselves were considered "weak." Some of the bunkers hadn't been added yet.
. . .
Hugh Wilson was not listed as one of the original members of NGLA in CBM's Jan. 4, 1912 Statement to the members. Plus, the article indicates that he was over there learning how to keep the holes on his course as much like the originals as possible. I don't think it reasonable to assume he was there to learn how to keep NGLA's holes like the originals, nor any other course's except for Merion's.Not absolutely certain of the Troon layout at that time but off the top of my head I think that Fernie made the alterations a couple of years previously (1909 ?) which gave us the far loop. ie. new Postage Stamp 8th hole and the Railway Hole (11th), both of which are mentioned in the article. The article also refers to the Sandhill bunker but not sure what that feature was/is, the dune in front of the 10th tee perhaps ?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1897BGLTroonSandhillsBunker.jpg?t=1249920755)
"It seems as if Wilson was focused what to do next, and this fits well with the theory that Wilson's predominate design contribution occurred after his trip abroad."
It doesn't fit well with that theory if one considers these words from the Wilson report to the MCC board of 4/19/1911: "Your committee desires to report that AFTER laying out numerous different courses on the new land, they went down to the National course...." We know from a separate Wilson letter they went to NGLA in the beginning of March 1911 and so they laid out numerous different courses on the new land before that. Before March 1911 was a couple of months before anything was built at Ardmore for the East course so it is both undeniable and an unavoidable fact that Wilson and his committee did a whole lot of routing (and design?) work BEFORE Wilson took a trip abroad and not JUST AFTER he did.
This is the way Merion reads and understands that source material anyway, and well they should as any logical and commonsensical person who read it would too.
I don't know David, Tom would likely participate in a fact based conversation of the holes themselves.
Trying to force an interpretation of whose idea a specific feature may have been is/will be the downfall of that conversation but I think we'll be able to agree that the 3rd does have at least some characteristics of a Redan and the original 10th was an attempt at an Alps etc...
But that's your call...
"What would you expect to to see if M&W were the driving creative force behind a course that Wilson built?"
What I would expect to see if Macdonald (since I am not aware of anything that Whigam designed and built) was the driving creative force behind a course that Wilson built would certainly not be a course that looks much like or plays much like Merion East. That seems to be the consensus opinion of most of the best golf course analysts for close to the last century as well. But perhaps all of them were simply joking, mistaken or all engaging in hyperbole or just out to create some mythical icon! ;)
What would you expect to to see if M&W were the driving creative force behind a course that Wilson built?
I've said numerous times that I don't know MacDonald and Wigham's work much at all, but the number one thing I would expect in the context of Merion is more evidence of their presence and contribution.
One example is what we are beginning to touch on...why would the Alps, Redan and Eden be failures if CBM were really active in the process?
Regardless of the reasons for leaving, it's a shame guys like Mike Cirba & TePaul have chosen to leave the site...
Stephen,
Is an imposter now posting under TEPaul's name ? ;D
I have postulated before that Wilson's legacy probably lies as much or more in his early redos of Merion than in his original contributions as head of a team that routed the course initially.
. . . This vague template attribution bullshit of Moriarty's or MacWood's of the holes of Merion have always been just that in my opinion and the opinion of most intelligent architectural analysts and historians for about the last century but I suppose there is no reason why THAT should stop that "converstion" ;) on here!
Jeff
I don't believe CBM coined the term golf architect.
In the P&O letters there is a letter from Colt to Wilson in the early 20s, asking him when he will return to the UK and see his new place. That he is now living in a small Berkshire village that he believes Wilson would really like. Colt was living near Sunningdale in 1912.
Niall
Merion had holes constructed etc etc. Everyone knew who was responsible for the NGLA; I don't believe the author would be confused. The source is mostly likely Wilson, who else would have the level detail regarding the itinerary.
There was a short article in Golf Monthly in the timeframe mentioning Wilson's mission abroad. In the article it compared Wilson's trip to CBM's trip in 1906. In that article Wilson is referred to as Hugh G. Wilson.
Perhaps this is not the thread to discuss it, but as I mentioned, I see this as possibly a real revelation for Wilson. Having copied the copies, it seems he was surprised to see how naturalistic the originals were compared to NGLA. IMHO (and IMHO only) the naturalistic feel of Merion was a major departure from the then dominant NGLA model and it may very well have come from this trip.
I know others were experimenting with getting away from the geometric look of so many early designs, but since MCC became so famous, I get the impression it may have been more influential in that way than other courses, and all because Wilson took a belated trip to GBI to double check on old Charlie and his thoughts!
Niall/Jeff
I'm confused. Wilson was a not a member of the NGLA. It is well documented the original version of Merion had features and holes based on famous models overseas. Why does it matter what the author of the article thought?
. . .
I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at this juncture to see the question resurface, "How could Wilson have designed holes based after famous holes abroad if he had not yet visited there?"
Of course, as Jeff or Bryan pointed out, we already know the answer to that question. In fact, Hugh Wilson himself told us when he stated, "Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes through the kindness of Messrs. C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham. We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings."
The NGLA visit was of course the source of Hugh Wilson's understanding of the holes abroad, and the visit preceded construction of the initial Merion course. Wilson and his committee had not only seen (and perhaps received copies of) extremely detailed, scale drawings of the famous holes abroad, but they had also seen Macdonald's template holes based on their concepts, and in some cases, attempts at close replication.
I also found one interpretation odd as relates to the writer's term, 'green architects". Someone wrote that the term "apparently applied to green keeper(s)".
Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone could so misunderstand such a very straightforward term as to humorously omit Hugh Wilson from the writer's intent. I did get a good chuckle out of it, though, so perhaps my sense of humor is returning. ;)
Since we agree that this was the case, then what distinguishes Wilson's pre-trip role at Merion from the role Raynor played at other courses, aside from their different aesthetic sensibilities? To put it another way, aren't we getting to the point where you are drawing a distinction without a difference? I don't see much reason to differentiate between Wilson's attempt to lay out a CBM course based on CBM's model, his concepts, his drawings, and his golf holes, on the one hand, and Wilson's attempt to lay out a course designed by CBM on the other. Either way, the original Merion East was intended to be CBM course.
Since we agree that this was the case, then what distinguishes Wilson's pre-trip role at Merion from the role Raynor played at other courses, aside from their different aesthetic sensibilities? To put it another way, aren't we getting to the point where you are drawing a distinction without a difference? I don't see much reason to differentiate between Wilson's attempt to lay out a CBM course based on CBM's model, his concepts, his drawings, and his golf holes, on the one hand, and Wilson's attempt to lay out a course designed by CBM on the other. Either way, the original Merion East was intended to be CBM course.
Who employed Seth Raynor?
I imagine that it was NGLA who hired Raynor, and later Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow, St. Louis Country Club, Yale, etc. I doubt it was CBM, for while CBM was a charitable man, he was not paid for his services at NGLA or anywhere else, and so I doubt he was paying Raynor out of his own pocket.
Who employed/engaged Hugh Wilson?
A good question, and perhaps not as clear cut as you think. I have seen no evidence that Merion's Board of Governor's hired him or even knew officially and specifically of his role. In contrast, they were very aware of CBM's role as they approved both the initially purchase of the land and the final layout plan based on reports that highlighted M&W's involvement and recommendations. So far as we know, Wilson wasn't even directly mentioned.
So I imagine it was the Golf Committee, chaired by Robert Lesley, who appointed Wilson and his Construction Committee. But again Lesley's reports to the Board of Governor's highlight M&W's role not Wilsons.QuoteThe answer to those two questions, David, is a very important point which you must intentionally ignore if you are going to make the claim that Merion was a CBM course.
Ignore them? Why? As an Amateur Architect, CBM was never "hired' by anyone. But he was brought in to help by those lucky enough to get him. Those same clubs usually hired Raynor, not doubt at CBM's recommendation. Merion apparently didn't (nor I am aware of any evidence that this was ever recommended or considered,) but this doesn't change the facts that: Merion went to CBM and HJW for help, M&W provided that help, including (but not limited to) inspecting the site and meeting with the site committee in June of 1910 and reporting on that visit, recommending at least one major change to the property to be purchased, advising Wilson regarding a variety of issues including agronomy issues and the lay out, meeting with Wilson and his committee for two days at NGLA about Merion's lay out in March 1911, reinspecting the site in April 1911 and choosing the final routing plan.
But Jim, this is again a distinction without a difference. If Merion set out to build a course based on CBM's advice, principles, methods, drawings, and golf holes, and CBM approved the final layout plan, then Merion was originally a CBM golf course as much as any, and maybe moreso than some.
First thing I want to tackle is the "at least one major change to the property to be purchased"...what was that?
Again, for posterity's sake, this is the contents of the "Macdonald Letter" to the Site Committee;
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of. What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.
We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly. The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.
The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House. The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee. They had a very difficult drainage problem. You have a very simple one. Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you. Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.
In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for anlaysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.
We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.
With kindest regards to you all, believe me,
Yours very truly,
(signed) Charles B. Macdonald
In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.
That's no digression...that's where I would love the conversation to get to eventually because I can learn about CBM's key principles...but the ball rolling to the right when you hook it does not mean a straight shot will roll right...I can tell you that if the green has a left to right tilt its pretty minor...you would have to hook it to use it...I'll grant everything up to this being a good rendition of MY understanding of the Redan concepts.
I capitalized MY because I may well be wrong on what they are.
Since we agree that this was the case, then what distinguishes Wilson's pre-trip role at Merion from the role Raynor played at other courses, aside from their different aesthetic sensibilities? To put it another way, aren't we getting to the point where you are drawing a distinction without a difference? I don't see much reason to differentiate between Wilson's attempt to lay out a CBM course based on CBM's model, his concepts, his drawings, and his golf holes, on the one hand, and Wilson's attempt to lay out a course designed by CBM on the other. Either way, the original Merion East was intended to be CBM course.
Using that logic, Old Macdonald will be a CBM course.
. . .Multiple sources indicated that the original golf holes at Merion East were based upon great golf holes from abroad. When I asked how could Wilson have designed a course based on holes he had not seen, Mike Cirba responded:
When you see him preface something with "since we agree that this is the case" I warn you all that you should look very very carefully at what it is that he contends that "WE AGREE ON!" ;) ??? ::) :P
. . .
Niall
I don't follow your logic. Please explain.
Niall
I don't follow your logic. Please explain.
Tom,
Firstly I conclude that the author of the article didn't meet or speak to Wilson (otherwise he would have mentioned it) but got info from Fernie or someone else who was there.
Author was given first hand account of what Wilson did at Troon ie play golf and then walk course with Fernie taking pictures of Postage Stamp, 11th etc as he went.
Author also given note of Wilsons itinerary and background on Wilson and reason for visit. As he didn't speak to Wilson I'm suggesting that this is second hand info as it would have been based on conversations or hearsay. I'm suggesting that this info is perhaps suspect. Would the itinerary be wrong ? Probably not, a list of names is easy to get right. Was there something lost in the relaying of the purpose of Wilsons visit or his background ? Possibly, I say this because of the strange wording and the reference to Wilson being a member of THE club that has replica holes. Correct me if I'm wrong but NGLA was THE club with replica holes and Merion was A club with replica holes. Wilson was not a member of THE club, therefore, as Sean Connery might say "Shome mishtake shurely".
Niall
Niall
I don't follow your logic. Please explain.
Tom,
Firstly I conclude that the author of the article didn't meet or speak to Wilson (otherwise he would have mentioned it) but got info from Fernie or someone else who was there.
Author was given first hand account of what Wilson did at Troon ie play golf and then walk course with Fernie taking pictures of Postage Stamp, 11th etc as he went.
Author also given note of Wilsons itinerary and background on Wilson and reason for visit. As he didn't speak to Wilson I'm suggesting that this is second hand info as it would have been based on conversations or hearsay. I'm suggesting that this info is perhaps suspect. Would the itinerary be wrong ? Probably not, a list of names is easy to get right. Was there something lost in the relaying of the purpose of Wilsons visit or his background ? Possibly, I say this because of the strange wording and the reference to Wilson being a member of THE club that has replica holes. Correct me if I'm wrong but NGLA was THE club with replica holes and Merion was A club with replica holes. Wilson was not a member of THE club, therefore, as Sean Connery might say "Shome mishtake shurely".
Niall
Why are those conclusions important in the greater scheme of things? We are discussing Merion and its architectural evolution. It seems to me the important facts to be taken from the article are these:
1. The original design of Merion included features from the famous holes abroad - a la Macdonald
2. Wilson was abroad in 1912 studying those features - a la Macdonald
3. Wilson's itinerary, which may give us a hint into what famous features and holes were included in the original design
Who the source of the information was in the article is immaterial, and the debate over wether the author was confused about the NGLA is not important either.
Niall
I don't follow your logic. Please explain.
Tom,
Firstly I conclude that the author of the article didn't meet or speak to Wilson (otherwise he would have mentioned it) but got info from Fernie or someone else who was there.
Author was given first hand account of what Wilson did at Troon ie play golf and then walk course with Fernie taking pictures of Postage Stamp, 11th etc as he went.
Author also given note of Wilsons itinerary and background on Wilson and reason for visit. As he didn't speak to Wilson I'm suggesting that this is second hand info as it would have been based on conversations or hearsay. I'm suggesting that this info is perhaps suspect. Would the itinerary be wrong ? Probably not, a list of names is easy to get right. Was there something lost in the relaying of the purpose of Wilsons visit or his background ? Possibly, I say this because of the strange wording and the reference to Wilson being a member of THE club that has replica holes. Correct me if I'm wrong but NGLA was THE club with replica holes and Merion was A club with replica holes. Wilson was not a member of THE club, therefore, as Sean Connery might say "Shome mishtake shurely".
Niall
Why are those conclusions important in the greater scheme of things? We are discussing Merion and its architectural evolution. It seems to me the important facts to be taken from the article are these:
1. The original design of Merion included features from the famous holes abroad - a la Macdonald
2. Wilson was abroad in 1912 studying those features - a la Macdonald
3. Wilson's itinerary, which may give us a hint into what famous features and holes were included in the original design
Who the source of the information was in the article is immaterial, and the debate over wether the author was confused about the NGLA is not important either.
Tom
I've tried to explain to you in the best way I can over my last 3 posts that apart from the element of the report that talks about what Wilson did at Troon ie play golf and walk the course with Fernie, the rest should be treated with an element of caution and here you are steaming straight in and stating as a fact above that the article proves Merion had features from famous holes from abroad. Based on what ? Based on the reference to Wilson being a member the club with the replica holes ?
What if the author got confused by a reference to NGLA and assumed Wilson was a member there ? As I said before Merion/NGLA would only have merited passing interest to the author and his readers so its not hard to imagine "facts" being wrongly reported. Basically its not worth parsing about.
Niall
David,
You can discuss whatever you want, I react more than dictate around here so I'll jump in or not as the conversation moves.
I know you didn't mention your shot running onto the 3rd green via an approach which is a frequent component of the redan concept so we're OK there...what struck me about your description was hitting "a draw onto the green that ran to the right"...well that's sort of what they do, isn't it? The green at Merion will not steer balls to the right with any noticeable influence. there are sections that may run that way, but also sections that do not. Regardless, my understanding of the ingredients needed for a Redan today are different than two days ago.
Like I said, Jim, my memory of the hole is that there was a left to right slope, but that is based on my brief experience from a number of years ago so maybe my recollection fails me or has been influenced from excessive conversation on the issue. As for hitting a draw that runs right (and back), that may be what yours automatically do (or the opposite if you golf right handed), but my shots generally need some help from the ground slope especially when I hit hickories, and I think that Redan's are generally designed to provide a little help in this regard. More specifically, I think Redans are generally designed to help a righty draw run back and to the the left, so that the golfer can access a pin behind the bunker without directly challenging the bunker.
Two things to possibly consider here, with regard to Merion's particular Redan.
1. We are discussing a hole that was built 98 years ago. I cannot say for certain that the green contours and the prevailing slope are exactly the same now as it was then. Can you? Before Mike makes Joe post another of his embarrassingly hysterical posts, let me explain. I am NOT suggesting that the green used to slope significantly from front to back. Given the shape of the landforms I would be surprised if this was the case. But on old greens with which I am familiar it is very common for the areas adjacent to bunkers to get built up over time due to sand splash. And it isn't uncommon for green contours and slopes to soften or at least to change over the years due to maintenance, sanding, top-dressing etc. Did any of this happen at Merion? I don't know. But I do know that I cannot make definitive pronouncements about the green contours 98 years ago. For me it is enough that men like Findlay, Lesley and CBM himself thought it a reverse Redan, and so I assume it worked like a reversed redan was supposed to work. .
2. But how was a REVERSED Redan supposed to work? As was noted on a recent thread, the concept of the REVERSED Redan is sort of strange given that for the vast majority of golfers a REVERSED Redan doesn't work worth a damn as a Redan. Many a lefty (including Mike Cirba) has argued that Redans do not help a left handed fade, and I presume that reversed Redans do not do much to help a righty move the ball back and to the right. At the very least, it presents a different set of strategic challenges. Because of this I wonder whether or not the run up area and the slight front to back slope of the green were considered integral to the reversed Redan? I don't know the answer, but it seems odd to criticize a hole for not having a slope that very few golfers would ever be able to properly utilize.
I view these concepts as more functional than formulaic and as much as I hate to admit it as a lefty, a run-up area and a front-to-back slope on a reverse redan would usually be more formulaic than functional. Anecdotally, The green on LACC's reversed Redan (if it is one) doesn't slope from front to back either, or at least it didn't last time I played it.
Now, how about the importance of the "tableland"...I always assumed it was important but CBM mentions #3 at Pine Valley which must by 40 feet downhill from tee to green. The green is slightly higher than the surrounding bunkers, but only by a few feet. He seems to disqualify the tableland requirement in the same paragraph as the Merion reference. Isn't there another downhill Redan that always comes up in this conversation?
M&W did not exactly call Pine Valley hole a Redan. Here is what they wrote:
A beautiful short hole with the Redan principle will be found on the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player overlooks the tableland.
Not sure what they meant by a "short hole with the redan principle" or what principle they meant or whether or not they considered this a true Redan. Does the green slope away? Is there a run-up area? I do notice, though, that they viewed the Pine Valley green as built on a "tableland," but with the tee overlooking the tableland. So I don't think we can throw away the tableland criteria.
(My speculation on CBM's mention of this hole is that it could have been one of CBM's suggestions for Pine Valley that Crump followed, but maybe this is just indication that I too have been impacted by the sour caricature of CBM that has been bandied about for so many years on this website.)
CBM also wrote of Sleepy Hollow's "reversed" Redan, "where the tee instead of being about level with the green is much higher." But again, because it is a Reverse redan, I am not sure the same exact characteristics are necessary. Does Sleepy Hollow's reverse redan front to back? Left to right? Is there an area to run the ball up?
Once we lose the "tableland"...and the front-to-back sloping green...and the orientation of the green...we are left with a big nasty front corner bunker...and if every hole with a big nasty front corner bunker is a Redan than we have thousands (not hundreds) more today than yesterday.
Again, I am not sure we have lost the tableland. Nor am I sure we have lost the orientation of the green. Nor am I sure we have lost slope that allows the golfer to work the ball around the bunker instead of playing over it (especially for conventional as opposed to reversed redans.) But there was obviosly some flexibility in the concept.
I am not here to define/redefine the term Redan Hole, only to point out some inconsistencies or failures of logic...
And I am not trying to claim that the understanding of what constituted a Redan was always consistent or perfectly logical. For example, conventional Redans are much more logical for the vast majority of golfers than Reversed Redan's. Redans varied depending on the setting in which they were built. Recall that M&W noted that there could be "infinite variations" on the concept on any course. And they also noted: "And when you come to think of it that is the secret of most of the great holes all over the world. They all have some kind of a twist."
Well, then perhaps it would significantly help your architectural education and your knowledge of the reverse redan to listen to the opinions of some who remember and played arguably the world's best reverse redan, the way it was designed and the way it played. It might even whet your appetite for your education to hear who it was designed by. Or, on the other hand, perhaps not! ;)
BUT, I suppose there was no reason for me to expect anything from you other than something like that last post response of yours just above. What else is there to expect from a totally adverserial and insecure little shit like you? You are completely marginalized on this website and eveywhere else of a modicum of importance so just blabber on Moriarty as you definitely have NOTHING to lose at this point!
I'm going to let that go; there's no point in pursuing it on here; but this is not exactly the real world we all actually live in.
David,
I see a contradiction in your position on the Redan (especially CBM's words about 'infinite variations') and your reading of the importance of "The Object" of Wilson's trip. I agree with you on the reading of the object of Wilson's trip, it was the first thing that jumped out at me, but when CBM states that there are only 4 or 5 kinds of good golf holes, then it's easy to assume every hole they were building at Merion would have some degree of the principles of the originals in Great Britian.
I guess my point is that, of course Wilson was hoping to learn how to maintain the holes at Merion as much like the originals as possible, he was working on building a world class golf course and he wanted to study the classics AND his advisor strongly suggested that line of research.
That Hugh Wilson was in great Britian studying the great holes and how they work does not, on its own, say anything (one way or another) about Macdonald and Wigham's involvement at Merion.
The article is cool, but not a declaration of anything.
"But others are apparently having trouble coming to grips with this fact."
And is it any wonder most all others are apparently having trouble coming to grip with that fact?
What great holes abroad were the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th and 18th at Merion East based on? One can throw the 6th in there as well if a drive skirting OB on the right is what-all someone thinks constitutes a road hole replication. There is nothing at all about the rest of that hole that replicates the Road Hole of TOC. So that would be 14-15 holes at Merion East that don't seem to use template holes from abroad that were attempted replications.
But of course that does not seem to mean that a couple on here won't continue to try to force that contention on Wilson and Merion East.
David,
It's that CBM states there are only 4 or 5 good hole concepts...that means most every hole built has some degree of those concepts included...if a Redan can have infinite varieties of slope and angle of approach and green-to-tee elevation change and all the other "principles" and really only needs one or two of the principles anyway than it's a pretty wide range so there is no reason Wilson wouldn't have some knowledge of the characteristics of a good hole and a bad one.
PLUS...he spent, at a minimum, a full 24 hours with CBM at NGLA learning his opinion of the best holes, and how they work. He also had at a minimum the benefit of his opinion at Merion in April. So it is very logical that he would have geared his initial attempt around those principles.
My point was that Wilson could have very easily absorbed those features (however debateable) in March and April 1911 without CBM "calling the shots". Please tell me you can agree with that.
David,
It is not a fact that Hugh Wilson was not involved until there was already a course there...and your insistence on suggesting it is ludicrous.
I also think it is unreasonable for you to suggest CBM and HJW were calling the shots for only one reason...it was never mentioned by a single person at the time. They all said the committee, Wilson's committee did it.
What I do think is reasonable is that M&W pointed out a potential routing or two in June 1910. Why else would the small plot of land behind the clubhouse make it into their letter when there was plenty of land all around if it were just a matter of having enough?
I think based on that general idea of how to flow the holes around the property, the committee sketched out some ideas and fine-tuned exactly where GHR would become.
And lastly, I think it is very reasonable to think CBM suggested what made a good hole, on paper and on the ground, and they tried to build good holes.Jim, Why wouldn't CBM have told them where to put the holes? He knew the land, he had some ideas about the routing. So why wouldn't he tell the where to put the holes?
If the strategies of a Road Hole are to tack your way left and then right unless you want to take on some risk, that one also has thousands of new examples today...
Tom Mac
Re your post 3935, are you deliberately being obtuse or are you just having a laugh ?
The discussion was about what a Scottish writer, living in Scotland in 1912, knew about Merion. It was not about what I know in 2009.
Niall
What's more, I think it would be difficult to imagine that swap consisting of exchanging 1.8 acres of unused land somewhere they already owned for 4.8 acres of "triangle" land to net to 3 acres purchased.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionLabeledDeedMap.jpg)
Could anyone give me a brief synopsis of this thread?
A girl and a guy fall in love and then both of them die.
Oh, wait - that's a synopsis for Romeo and Juliet.
Sorry - wrong thread.
Peter
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/merionmeasure_2.jpg)
Could anyone give me a brief synopsis of this thread?
A girl and a guy fall in love and then both of them die.
Oh, wait - that's a synopsis for Romeo and Juliet.