The importance of understanding the details of Mr Francis' Merion landswap story

[TEPaul]

David:

I have a very good idea. Instead of continuing to sling accusations at us or at me in a general way or at each other why don't we treat this website (and Merion) to a most interesting excercise?  I believe this website would very much enjoy that, particularly this issue of the so-called Francis landswap which was an important part of your essay. This particular thread's subject is only about the importance of understanding the details of Mr Francis landswap.

So why don't both sides just go through their feeling and research on those details and what they mean? Essentially it shouldn't be much more than a couple of measurment excercises and it seems from past threads on Merion you enjoy measurement excercises----ie your past thread that Merion was much shorter than its card measurment.

In your essay you claim the entire 130X190 yard triangle into which the 15th green and 16th tee was fitted up into. That's correct right, or would you like me to quote from your essay?

I said some weeks ago I didn't think that whole 130X190 yard triangle was created by that late night Francis idea in 1910 and that the triangle was there on that 1910 plan and that it was simply too narrow to fit the 15th green and 16th tee up into. I also said that I felt Francis' late night idea to fit those holes up into that area happened in 1911 AFTER the committee was formed and that the idea was ONLY a matter of adding the necessary width to the existing triangle on that 1910 plan by reconfiguring the line of the road on the 1910 plan that had not yet been built.

My own idea about that came from my experience with that road on the ground and not from any research material because the fact is at that time I did not even have the so-called Sayer's scrapbook material.

But it was not until a few days ago that I realized the research material has always been there in that Sayer's scrapbook to determine this.

And it appears you have always had all that research material available to you when you wrote your essay.

So, my first question to you is; did you have the so-called Sayers srapbook material available to you when you wrote your essay?

My second question is; would you agree to a step by step analysis of ALL the material in that Sayer's scrapbook RIGHT HERE ON THIS THREAD? THIS thread is only about that Francis landswap event and what land it was about?

Furthermore, I think the way you characterized that Francis landswap event in your essay was pretty important to the rest of the premises and the conclusion of your essay. Would you agree with that? If not then one wonders why you bothered to mention it so prominently.

If you agree to that I believe everyone will see the important details of it, how it happened and when and that Francis' idea did not create an entire 130X190 triangle previous to Nov. 15, 1910 as your essay infers and that his idea only altered the dimensions of a triangle that was on the 1910 plan but too narrow to fit the 15th green and 16th tee up into.

This isn't any more than a straight research and research material analysis excercise and it should not be controversial or adverserial at all. It is basically just looking at the FACTS of this research material you've always had as you constructed and wrote your essay, or at least I think you have, but maybe we are of different opinions as to what actually was in that Sayer's scrapbook that apparently came from the Pennsylvania Historical Society. But we can certainly get that out in the open before getting into this excercise.

I'm willing, are you willing? I can't imagine how it could ever be controversial or adverserial, as it's basically just an analytical excercise based on measurements .

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

I do not understand your post.  I was under the impression that, with regard to Merion, you and Wayne had taken your ball and gone home, refusing to play anymore.

And I said about a week ago that I was done answering questions on here and discussing the substantive issues.  Since then I have just been trying to understand your research methods and use of the source material.

My own idea about that came from my experience with that road on the ground and not from any research material because the fact is at that time I did not even have the so-called Sayer's scrapbook material.

But it was not until a few days ago that I realized the research material has always been there in that Sayer's scrapbook to determine this.

So, while you and Wayne claim great expertise on this matter and have been trying to figure this stuff out for the past 10 years, you guys had never bothered to look at the Ten Volumes of Scrapbooks on Early Merion, compiled by the then Club Secretary?    Aren't these documents stored in the Historical Society Archives in Philadelphia?  Wayne has written that you guys have known about these documents since 2003.  Yet you are just now getting around to looking at them?

And it appears you have always had all that research material available to you when you wrote your essay.

So, my first question to you is; did you have the so-called Sayers srapbook material available to you when you wrote your essay?

No.  As I just said the Scrapbooks are in Philadelphia.  I am not.  I had some, and because Wayne indicated he did not have even the small portion I obtained I provided much of that to him.  Everything he said he needed. 

When he finally bothered to go to the historical society to copy (or photograph) the documents for himself, he indicated that he would provide me with the copies he obtained, like I had done for him.   Here is what he wrote:

David,

I spent a good couple of hours at the Historical Society and took about 100 photos of various pages.  I'll crop them and label them and send them to you in due time.  Please remember to send me the horticultural plan when you get time.
Thanks.
WSM

He reiterated that I could have access to these documents the other day, when he telephoned me and I reminded him of his representation.   Obviously his copies are ready for dissemination, as you and others have had access to them.  Yet they have not been sent to me. 

I wonder why not?  Any ideas?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

I do not understand your post.  I was under the impression that, with regard to Merion, you and Wayne had taken your ball and gone home, refusing to play anymore.

And I said about a week ago that I was done answering questions on here and discussing the substantive issues."



David:

Not at all. I haven't taken any ball and gone home. I want to get to the truth of what Wilson and his committee did and when and what Macdonald did and when as you've always said you do too.

You say you don't understand my last post. It's very simple. One of the ways to get to the truth of this Francis land swap is to conduct an analytical analysis of it, and what was swaped and how and when. Your version of the Francis story and event is a primary premise in your essay and in how you come to your conclusion.

I know you have the Nov. 10, 1910 plan that went out to the membership because it's in your essay. Do you have a 1913 Pennsylvania Railroad map listed as Plate 12 that shows the same area? I think it was part of the Sayers scrapbook at the Pa Historical Society but I'm not certain of that. In any case, it is a public domain item not MCC's or Merion's, and it's a very valuable piece in analyzing the Francis landswap event in conjunction with that Nov. 10, 1910 proposed plan.

You said above that you are done discussing substantive issues that relate to this subject. Does that mean you're no longer interested in the truth of the various events that went into the creation of Merion East?

[DMoriarty]

Do you have a 1913 Pennsylvania Railroad map listed as Plate 12 that shows the same area?

Yes, I have it.  In fact I gave it to Wayne.  Or directed him to the website where he could find it. 

You said above that you are done discussing substantive issues that relate to this subject. Does that mean you're no longer interested in the truth of the various events that went into the creation of Merion East?

Of course I am still interested in the truth about what happened.   But this is not the most productive way for me to get at the truth.  I've answered and answered and answered questions and considered arguments, and it has to end somewhere, so for me it ended about a week ago when I said I was finished with the substantive discussion for now.

Look Tom, I've already conducted "an analytical analysis" of the swap, using that Atlas page and every source I could find.  And I know your position on the issue, and think it directly contradicts Francis' own words.  You can type until we are blue in the fingers and it will not change Francis' words on the subject, and unless you have some new SOURCE MATERIAL that addresses the issue differently, I am sticking with Francis' version of the story.

So conduct "an analytical analysis" if you want, but count me out.

[Mike_Cirba]

*

[TEPaul]

"Yes, I have it.  In fact I gave it to Wayne.  Or directed him to the website where he could find it."

David:

Good. Excellent if fact. I wasn't sure you had that particularly item but it seems you always have. It's important to compare it to the Nov. 15, 1910 plan and I didn't realize why until the other day. 


"Of course I am still interested in the truth about what happened.   But this is not the most productive way for me to get at the truth.  I've answered and answered and answered questions and considered arguments, and it has to end somewhere, so for me it ended about a week ago when I said I was finished with the substantive discussion for now."



Good, I'm glad you're still interested in the truth. You wouldn't have to answer any more questions, merely have a point by point discussion with me of those two maps.



"Look Tom, I've already conducted "an analytical analysis" of the swap, using that Atlas page and every source I could find.  And I know your position on the issue, and think it directly contradicts Francis' own words.  You can type until we are blue in the fingers and it will not change Francis' words on the subject, and unless you have some new SOURCE MATERIAL that addresses the issue differently, I am sticking with Francis' version of the story."




I know you've conducted your own analytical analysis of the swap but I believe you must have missed something very important because you have concluded that the triangle in the Nov. 15, 1910 plan is the RESULT of the Francis landswap idea. It isn't, and I can show you why.



"So conduct "an analytical analysis" if you want, but count me out."


Why count you out?  Why now? Ask anyone you want to come in and moderate a step by step analysis with us then. Ask Ran Morrissett. Ask Kirk Gill, Jim Nugent, Byan Izatt or Peter Pallotta. They've remained interested but neutral. Ask Tom MacWood if you want. It will be edifying and it should show us all the truth. That's what we all want, right?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

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

I know you've conducted your own analytical analysis of the swap but I believe you must have missed something very important because you have concluded that the triangle in the Nov. 15, 1910 plan is the RESULT of the Francis landswap idea. It isn't, and I can show you why.

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

Tom,

I remain interested and neutral, and I for one would like you to show us why it isn't, regardless of how David responds.  You've alluded to this a number of times.  Could you stop alluding and just describe what you think/know?  I'm listening with my mind open.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I remain interested and neutral, and I for one would like you to show us why it isn't, regardless of how David responds.  You've alluded to this a number of times.  Could you stop alluding and just describe what you think/know?  I'm listening with my mind open."


Bryan:

Sure I will, particularly since David Moriarty just said he isn't interested in doing this with me and having a discussion about it as we go through it step by step. I wish he would do it with us, though, because he just said he has that Pennsylvania Railroad map plate and he could put it on here for us. I have no idea who else has it. Wayne has it and I have it because we've shared all our architecture stuff for years on practically everything through Foldershare and otherwise. I'm very sorry to tell you, though, that I don't even know how to put stuff like that on here because you can see I never have in over 30,000 posts. 

But I will tell you about it all.

First of all, you can see the Nov. 15, 1910 plan because it's on David Moriarty's essay. As I think you yourself noticed it has a scale on the bottom of it so anything on the map can be measured. Measuring that triangle off that plan's scale anyone can see it's bit less than 100 yards at the base by about 260 yards.

The triangle on the 1913 Pennsylvania Railroad map plate also has a scale on the bottom! When you use that to measure the the triangle AFTER the holes AND the road were built IT measures just about 130X190 the very measurement Francis described in his 1950 story. The holes even appear in "stick" form on that 1913 railroad map.

Also by putting the two maps side by side one really can see how that road configuration was pretty dramatically changed from the "approximation" (before it was built) all the way from the top of it at College Avenue to the bottom of it at Ardmore Ave, AFTER it was built (I believe Club House Road was actually built in 1912), so the way it shows up on that railroad map is "as built".

I also drove it again the other day and it swings west at the top above the 15th green about 30+ yards down to the 14th green and then back east about a like amount or more to below the 14th tee pretty dramatically compared to that "approximate road location" on the November 15, 1910 map.

About a month ago it just sort of intuitively hit me how different the actual road is compared to the configuration on that 1910 map. I had to look at the road on that 1910 map for a while before it hit me the road wasn't built like that not to mention I've driven it so much. It just didn't occur to me for a while that the "approximate" road on that 1910 doesn't swing much at all making it too narrow at the top to fit a green and a tee into.

And then just a day or so ago I noticed the Railroad map has a scale on the bottom of it too and using that it all works out between the two dimensionally just as I thought it did.

I would like to say something about what the meeting minutes from April 1911 say about this land swap but I better not do that anymore because I just got slammed again by David Moriarty for putting snippets and summaries on here without backing them up with the trancripts and as I've said about a dozen times we can't put those on here before permission is given.

So, we can just use these two maps to make a comparison because David Moriarty already used the 1910 map in his piece and the Pennsylvania Railroad map has nothing to do with Merion's or MCC's archive material. The RR map is public record.

And there's something else to consider as of recently.

David Moriarty just mentioned that he had that 1913 railroad map when he researched and wrote his essay. I wonder why he didn't measure it to see the triangle in it is 130X190 while the triangle in the 1910 map is a bit less than 100X260. Maybe he never even noticed that both maps have scales and so maybe he never measured the dimensions of the earlier triangle against the later one.

Had he done that he probably never would've tried to place both Francis out there before his committee was appointed and probably never would've tried to place the date of his land swap idea back about six months BEFORE it actually happened!

So, I don't know what he'll say about this. If I were him I think I'd just concede that his assumption to place Francis and this land swap event back in 1910 at least six month before it happened wasn't a good one and concede his premise too and concede that it didn't happen in 1910 but in 1911.

I certainly hope this time he doesn't try to use the same rationale he did with Francis' story about the quarryman blowing the top of the hill off in two days that he must have been engaging in hyperbole and the same rationale he has with Alan Wilson that his report of the Merion creation wasn't accurate either because he was eulogizing his brother (not to mention that all the other members of Hugh Wilson's committee agreed with Alan Wilson's report because they ALL told him in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of the East and West course).

In other words, I sure hope this time David Moriarty doesn't try to convince anyone that these maps can't be accurate because the surveyors in both of them made mistakes. 

I think there are only so many times when someone can try to convince others his theory has to be right despite all evidence to the contrary because everyone involved in that other evidence, even back then, had to be wrong somehow. Basically, that has always been the main problem with David Moriarty's essay with most people who really do know a lot about the history of Merion, something David Moriarty had said on here before he doesn't know that much about but would like to learn-----eg he just tried to convince too many people that too many things that are part of the record and history of Merion were wrong.

I knew trying to do something like that so many times eventually wouldn't work and the essay would begin to lose credibilty and I think the foregoing with the Francis story is just another example of that.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'm betting if you email it to Bryan he will put it up here for our review.

I'm also betting if you ask really nice, he will overlay today's present course on the map, much as he did with the November 15th, 1910 map. 

It might be really, really educational to view the 1910 and 1913 scale drawings side by side, without the thick red line that Bryan used last time, simply because it was a bit "thick" and obscured too much of how the golf course crossed the property boundary.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I think David Moriarty is the one who should put that 1913 Pennsylvania Railroad map on here. After-all he has it and he's had it all along for the research and writing of this essay. Furthermore, he's the one who's been screaming at Wayne and me to make available research material for PEER REVIEW. So let him make this 1913 Railroad map available to this ENTIRE website where he hung this essay up for the peer review of all of us!

Furthermore, Mike, I don't really want to see someone drawing lines on an aerial of the course or whatever---that's too hit-and-miss and too potentially inaccurate. Just measure those two maps off their individual scales and that should do it and resolve this Francis land swap thing once and for all.

Of course he may say the surveyors were wrong, but, again, how often can someone say things like that-----eg when a club's record doesn't agree with his theory the club's record must be wrong somehow? That's not scholarship---that's nothing more than a total waste of everyone's time and energy, but most of all it's not intelligent.

[DMoriarty]

MikeC:

I think David Moriarty is the one who should put that 1913 Pennsylvania Railroad map on here. After-all he has it and he's had it all along for the research and writing of this essay. Furthermore, he's the one who's been screaming at Wayne and me to make available research material for PEER REVIEW. So let him make this 1913 Railroad map available to this ENTIRE website where he hung this essay up for the peer review of all of us!

As I explained before, I did not post the atlas because I do not have permission to do so, and there may or may not be some rights issues regarding the atlases because of how they have been reconditioned.  But here is the link to the 1913 map, click on the map to dowload the pdf. 

http://www.lowermerionhistory.org/atlascolor/1913/1913_12.html

This is the exact same theory you have had for a long time, and I addressed it many times before and will summarize the problems with it, but have no interest in discussing it further unless you have something new to offer.  And you apparently do not.
1)  Your version is inconsistent with Francis version.
2) The road was not drawn exactly in the 1910 map, as is indicated ON THE MAP. 
3)  The surveyors were not wrong, but they weren't right either.  As they noted, the location of the road had not been finalized.
4) The problem with your theory is that it does not explain why there is any golf course land north the corner of the Haverford College land.  That is what the Francis swap appears to have been about. 

[TEPaul]

"This is the exact same theory you have had for a long time, and I addressed it many times before and will summarize the problems with it, but have no interest in discussing it further unless you have something new to offer.  And you apparently do not.
1)  Your version is inconsistent with Francis version.
2) The road was not drawn exactly in the 1910 map, as is indicated ON THE MAP. 
3)  The surveyors were not wrong, but they weren't right either.  As they noted, the location of the road had not been finalized.
4) The problem with your theory is that it does not explain why there is any golf course land north the corner of the Haverford College land.  That is what the Francis swap appears to have been about.


David:

At least thanks for essentially posting the 1913 map showing the road as built and the 15th green and 16th tee in that triangle after they were built and in play, AND the different dimensions of the triangle as built (130x190) compared to the dimensions of the triangle in the 1910 map (95x260) in which there was not enough width to get those parts of those holes into that area without "swapping" land with the as-yet-to-be-built residential real estate development to the west (which Lloyd essentially controlled on purpose by Nov. 1910 ).

I'll give any contributors who are interested a chance to figure this triangle measurement problem out between these two maps and respond to how preposterous your first three points are and the 4th one I'll get into later (that as well is completely obvious ). Once again if practically ANY recored fact of Merion's history did not agree with your completely speculative and specious reasoning you simply explain it away by the factual source material must be wrong somehow. This time you say the surveyor's dimensions aren't wrong but they're not right either!!!?? (what are you suggesting now that you've intuited some interview with surveyors from 1910 and 1913?) That could be about the silliest remark ever foisted on this website in then name of scholarship or serious research material deduction.

Apparently, it has never occured to you that Wilson and committee's topo contour maps of the golf grounds they began to use in 1911 to route and design numerous iterations of the course came right off that Nov. 1910 plan so there never was the necessary width on any of them to get those two holes into until Francis' late night bright idea in 1911 of a land swap via a road reconfiguration which is reflected in that 1913 railroad map. (It's interesting how Jeff Brauer, an architect with experience in these things, picked right up on the truth of this land swap and so few others did and still haven't).

But again thanks for going on record with those four points! They should be helpful if an essay is ever done on how not to research and deduce the architectural history of a great golf course with partial material surrounding the event!  

There is a sort of supreme justice in all of this, in my opinion. It would have been most unfortunate if those MCC meeting minutes and supporting letters NO LONGER EXISTED! But THANKfully they do (viz. the T. DeWitt Cuylers letter of 12/21/1910 that essentially structuralized Lloyd's ability to move boundary lines (AFTER the committee was appointed in 1911) between the course and the as-yet-to-be-developed HDC land to the west which he essentially controlled)! Again, thankfully they do exist and they completely disprove a number of your premises certainly including your outrageous manipulations of the truth and the facts of this Francis land swap resolution for the course and when it happened. If anyone takes an event that significanct and just carelessly tries to take it out of its logical progression in a factual timeline it is bound to be discovered eventually! 

At this point, I'm not sure where those transcribed minutes will appear. But even if its in Merion G.C. accessible archives or on the USGA Architecture Archive they will be available to serious researchers when our report is done.

In any case it will be clear from that what happened and how completely specious most all of your reasoning in your essay and on here really is!

There may still be some who actually subscribe to your completely tortured logic with the facts and events surrounding the creation of Merion East, as laughable as they really are, simply because they can't or won't take the time to understand the surrounding facts and events (as you certainly didn't before writing this essay), but at this point that is of virtually no concern, I'm sure, to us or to Merion G.C. and the accuracy of its architectural record.

[TEPaul]

"4) The problem with your theory is that it does not explain why there is any golf course land north the corner of the Haverford College land.  That is what the Francis swap appears to have been about."


I have never understood why you think that's any problem at all. The fact is the old Johnson Farm property went right up to College Avenue on the north in a pretty big squarish block. Why don't you put the 1908 Pennsylvania Railroad map on here too and everyone can see that?

Everybody should know by now that the Johnson Farm was 140 acres and only a little less than 100 of its acres were used for the proposed golf course and the rest was part of the proposed residential development to the west both of which Lloyd controlled the lines of when it really mattered---eg in 1911 when Wilson and committee got to work developing various routings. 

(One of the confusions on these threads may've happened when someone drew a line right straight across from the southern boundary of that Haverford College land to where the proposed road was and colored it in green like the Haverford College land. That was a total misinterpretation obviously borne of incomplete misunderstanding of the facts. That land never belonged to Haverford College, it was part of the Johnson Farm)

[TEPaul]

David:

I have an idea how you can weasel your way out what you must think will be the eventual embarrassment of having your essay's premises and conclusion proven wrong. Why don't you just take ALL this information we have given you on these threads and REWRITE your essay into this Part Two you have always most cleverly proposed??!! 

Of course that would clearly mean you'll need to give up your premise that this Francis landswap took place in 1910 and likely your conclusion that Macdonald routed Merion East in 1910 too! 

Then we can all just call it a day and everyone can go home happy apparently including you, and Merion's architectural record will be vindicated as its been recorded, as it will be anyway.

But why don't you just do it first and then try to take credit for figuring all this out for yourself as you constantly seem to try to do on here anyway with all the information we've given you on these threads? You said a number of times that you didn't know that much about the history of Merion but you wanted to learn. It's been quite a "learning" experience, don't you think, fella?!?! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

As you know, I agree with you on the triangle, as stated in my post way back on page 1.  In reading your last post and Francis words as quoted by Tolhurst and then DM something occurred to me......

IF the land swap occurred in 1911, as you propose, and which seems likely if the course was under construction, AND Wilson was by then the head of the committee, THEN why did Francis go right to Lloyd with no mention of running it by Hugh first?  Granted, Lloyd had the power to make the land swap, but wouldn't the head of the committee in charge of design and construction at least be consulted first?  This would seem to diminish Wilson's role, despite the title, wouldn't it?

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Here are Francis' words. It's pretty easy to tell Wilson and his committee all were well aware they were having problems fitting those last five holes up into the top of Merion's L on their plans as Francis mentioned in his story. The reason for that was that triangle as it existed on their plans was just too narrow!

Believe me, I know you being an architect, understand how some routing obstacle around a single green (#15) or tee (#16) (certainly created by land configuration problems) can cast the problem both backwards and forwards in a routing's sequence---in this case for the last five holes Francis mentioned.

Apparently a lot of the participants on here just don't get that at all because they have no experience with this kind of thing, as you do. After-all how many of the people on here have REALLY tried to develop a full-blown routing of a golf course on a real piece of property? I'm pretty certain David Moriarty never has!!  This is why most of the people on here shouldn't be expected to know something like that and why I've always said routing is something like doing a big jigsaw puzzle on a given piece of land land even if you get to make the pieces to some extent. The problem with this Merion glitch that Francis unraveled was too pieces (#15 and #16) were way too short because that triangle was too narrow to fit about half the holes that're now into!

Why did Francis call Lloyd in the middle of the night instead of Wilson? The material we need permssion to disseminate will show that Lloyd was put in the position to do this VERY THING and everyone involved with the golf course new it. This isn't speculation on our part as one of these letters actually says that very thing!

After-all, it was just an idea and Lloyd agreed immediately. The next day Wilson and the rest of the committee probably said: "Thank God! Problem Solved!" Any they all probably followed this up with; "Richard, really brilliant idea, now let's get the quarryman up there and blow the top of the hill above the quarry off so we can plan a green up there for a hole that's more than about the 250 yarder we only had room for before this."


Francis' words:
"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 golf 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 at all with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some we could use?
          Mr. Lloyd agreed. 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. Within a day or two, the quarryman had his drills up where the the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so that, the green could be built as it is today."
 

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

If you think you understand what I've said here maybe you, as an architect, will have better luck explaining the logic of it to David Moriarty. He's already said on these posts a number of time he thinks everything Wayne and I said or say is just to deceive people! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul.

I was going to ask DM to post exactly why he thinks its the entire triangle and what land was swapped when I responded to you. I read Francis' words that say as much, and understand how he draws his conclusion, but can't figure out where that land might have been to swap that much acreage. The totality of what we know suggests it was a small swap within the triangle and near the clubhouse to me.  Whether I can explain that any better, I don't know.

I am also trying to figure out where the 15th and 16th could have possibly been before the land swap.  16 either used the narrow triangle that existed on the Nov. 1910 plan, with 14 and 15 being much shorter barely par 4 and with quite a walk to 16 tee (or 15 being an extra par 3) or 15-17 were all par 3 holes!

For that matter, they must have owned the 16th green site regardless of routing, so they could have blasted it to build whatever hole they originally envisioned, no?

Slightly OT, I also have to admit that I am still wondering how CBM could have known that the plans would work, in June 1910, with the purchase of the small amount of land from the rr, if he wasn't looking at some plan or another, possibly Barkers or some other rough draft. 

Based on my experience as a gca, I would also wonder if CBM's letter actually had an ulterior motive. Often, we prepare routings that show what land ISN"T necessary, even though we really want it, in order to keep the price down.  In that light, I wonder if CBM wrote the June 1910 letter to be intentionally deceptive with the blessings of the committee, knowing the Dallas estate was desireable, but saying it wasn't, just so MCC could say their expert didn't want it, and it would be a trifle cheaper and easier for MCC to buy it.  BTW, even if correct, my  theory wouldn't affect either theory of MCC creation.

Of course, I am not trying to reopen any can of worms, and that doesn't apply to the Francis land swap. Just noodling still......

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Thanks for bringing some professional expertise and rationality to this discussion.

I'm going to take the advice of quite a few sincere people and bolt these threads.   While I can understand folks here being turned off by the acrimony, I'm more concerned for the future of this website for a number of reasons, the heated Merion threads having little to do with it, frankly.   

Nevertheless, since I know you do care and do know what we mean, I would leave you with the thought that if David is right and the Francis Land Swap was to contain ALL of the land in the triangle, that would mean that whoever routed the course at that point was a complete bonehead, because they would have tried to place the final 5 holes (3 lengthy par fours, a medium length par four, and a long par three) into 25 acres of usable acreage on a narrow strip working around a quarry!   

Since I have enough faith in the skills of BOTH CB Macdonald and Hugh Wilson to at least know that both men understood basic math, and knew that you can't fit an elephant into a thimble, I'm 100% confident that the Francis Land Swap did not include the whole triangle, as you very wisely noted a few weeks back.  When you couple that with the very generic CB Macdonald letter referring only to the purchase, and not the routing, the story becomes quite clear and substantiates what has been the historic record all these years.

Thanks for sticking with the story and being a consistent and much needed voice of reason, Jeff.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Mike,
           I don't understand this stuff about the future of this website.  My guess is most people find this site via google when looking up some golf course and read the course reviews and then find the discussion group. There has always been periods of ugliness on GCA, which are usually followed by elevated times where the quality of postings is exceptional.  People come and people go.

           Even if Ran decided to pull the plug on GCA tomorrow, within a week their would be another one, probably not as nice or as well done but still a place for people to chat.  As you know there were golf architecture related sites long before this and will be after.

           As my  3 year old grandson tells me "It will be ok"

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

I guess your problem, like a lot of people on here, is you just can't seem to appreciate the total interconnection between the proposed golf ground and the proposed real estate land via Lloyd.

The nature of the "swap" was only to fit in the holes they wanted with 15 and 16 and they merely did that by widening enough of the existing triangle on that plan (and their commensurate topo maps) in 1911 to get them in on the north portion of clubhouse road and giving the commensurate amount of land back on the south half where the didn't need it to get #14 tee and fairway and #18 green in.

It's actually all pretty obvious once you understand the details of everything and the goods news is the meeting minutes back it all up actually and via timelining!

The only problem for us, for some reason, is to get people to figure out how obvious this is, and it seems like time's awasting continuing to even try. But all together this stuff is not that easy to wade through unless you know it all and that's probably precisely why Moriarty made so many egregious errors in logic, even though in the final anaylysis we do now more than ever suspect him of a real ulterior motive with this essay of his. He basically just picked up where MacWood left off with his initial stretch on Merion's history over five years ago.

No matter, the baton is passed to you, but I doubt you'll have any more luck with this guy than we have. He doesn't want to know the truth here because it will prove his essay wrong and that's the last thing he wants to see.

But good luck to you pal and if you want any additional info, IM, email or call me. I think you know where to find me. 

Again, one last time----Alan Wilson's my Man, and his report hasn't been refuted in anyway by anyone on here and it never will be refuted by anyone and these meeting minutes add more prove why that is the case.

Did you know there's a few newspaper articles from back then that mention that Macdonald stopped in to see Crump at Pine Valley near the beginning and made a few remarks about the place?

When David Moriarty finds those and speculates via outrageously specious reasoning why Macdonald should get credit for routing that course too, believe me I won't be reading it or commenting on it. 

[TEPaul]

"As you know there were golf architecture related sites long before this and will be after."

Craig:

That's probably not at all a bad idea to consider, at this point.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Yeah, I don't want to be the guy who prolonged the Merion threads at the end when they deserved to die! My usual role is thread ender and not because I have or am the last word!

I have always called what you described "six pounds in a five pound bag" but the original routing must have been five holes in a three hole area.  If the triangle wasn't there, not only would the holes have been entirely too short to finish a golf course, the 16th tee would have probably had to have set way down low in the Quarry!

I am trying to put myself back in those mindset days, rather than look at it from the modern perspective.  Even so, I am having trouble thinking that they started construction with the back nine so completely ill formed without the triangle that the whole thing might have had to have been changed.  If we take Francis' word that it was during construction, then it would almost certainly would have had to have been a minor expansion of the triangle.  

If Francis memory was a bit faulty after 39 years then the idea could have come earlier. In modern times, it almost certainly would have, but I can't say for sure about the old days. 

TePaul, I think I understand the interconnection just fine.  I have been involved (at K State U among others) in deals where separate, but for all practical purposes linked entities controlled the entire parcel.  As I mentioned way back on page 1, possibly before you did, I believe it was a minor road realignment within the triangle.

It may not be possible, but if you can post snippets of the meeting minutes like Wayne did, I gather that would clear up the exact date of the land swap.  Even if you don't have permission to post the whole thing, or even quote parts thereof, perhaps you could just post specifically that the minutes of xx-xx-1911 mention the land swap near 15 green. 

If you can't, I will find you and ask for some private info, as you suggest.  I really have no dog in this hunt, but do like the historical research process, dead ends and all.  Bickering on gca.com? Not so much......

[TEPaul]

"It may not be possible, but if you can post snippets of the meeting minutes like Wayne did, I gather that would clear up the exact date of the land swap.  Even if you don't have permission to post the whole thing, or even quote parts thereof, perhaps you could just post specifically that the minutes of xx-xx-1911 mention the land swap near 15 green."


JeffB:

Are you sure about that?? 

Haven't you seen how Moriarty completely slams us day after day for doing exactly that---eg posting 'snippets and summaries' of that material without backing it up with the transcripts for him to "peer review'?

Think it over and if you really want it from me on here, I'll consider it but only if you absolutely promise me that when Moriarty comes back on here and slams us again for doing that, you will come right on this thread and tell him to take his hysteria and shove it where the sun don't shine! 

As I recall you're a pretty big guy, JeffB, and it might do you good to get into a little rumble on here from time to time like a Friday night at a barroom in Dodge City just after the cowboys got paid. It might keep you in good trim, if you know what I mean. It's probably better than you just punching out some shaper and his D-6 for screwing up a concept!

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I was thinking more of the permissions you might need to post the whole letter.  I certainly don't think I or anyone else is necessarily entitled to see Merions files.

I don't recall DM responding all negatively to the actual CBM letter snippets Wayne posted.  I mean, facts are facts. I promise I will slam him if you post relevant material and he slams you.  I sense some frustration from him and a few others about you posting that you have docs that prove this or that and tell us what they mean, but don't share the substance. 

As to Dodge city, I know a guy circa 1980 or so who was shot six times by an irate husband in Dodge City, and lived to tell the tale. The hubby, a local vs. my acquaintence who was from out of town, got off the rap by saying that his gun accidentally discharged six straight times into this poor chaps face.  I steer away from Dodge City after that!  This skin (and fat layers) don't stop bullets!

BTW, you would think my typing fingers (and yours) would be in pretty good shape, but all I got out of the Merion threads was a case of Karpel Tunnel syndrome.....