Merion's Early Timeline

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

With all respect to Bryan Izatt for his attempt at the overlay, and to your own, they are crude, inaccurate, and misrepresentative.

I've measured it on the drawing every which way and the total width at the base of the triangle is no more than 95 yards wide, or just over 73% of what they actually needed to fit those holes up in there.

Francis told us they needed 130 yards of width, not 95.   Today the width at the base of that triange is 130 yards, not 95.   Francis's Land Swap idea, which happened after this map was drawn, got them the appropriate 130 yards of width, not 95.

You can't have it both ways...you can't say that the way that Land Map is drawn with a hypothetical road supports that the Francis Land Swap happened before Nov 1910 by citing the language "Approximate Location of Road" and then dismiss the actual dimensions of that road, which clearly is "to scale" and is in fact the PROPERTY LINE of the land that Merion originally was looking to buy for their new golf course that was sent to all the membership asking for their financial support.

That triangle is not even close to the final dimensions that Francis described, so your contention that it proves it happened before November 1911 is in error.   The fact that it's a triangle at all proves nothing, by your own words it's only "Approximate", so how could you then also tell us it means everything, and is in fact the corner stone of your essay.   In essence, your argument says, a triangle existed, so Merion had to have been routed prior to November 1911, ignoring the less than 3/4 accessability of that triangle for the golf holes that were eventually located there after Francis's late night idea.

In fact, I'd contend that it says "approximate" simply because it was understood at this time that there may need to be some movement and flexibility in that "soft" boundary to accommodate the inevitable needs of the golf course routing, and also because the road did not yet exist but that it would be placed after all other matters were settled.

Kyle,

The board minutes do talk about prior plans.   On April 19th they talk of the many plans created by the committee prior to the early March 1911 NGLA visit, and also talk about the 5 different plans the Merion Committee created after they came back, and then talks one plan finally recommended to the Merion Board for approval.

[Dan Herrmann]

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.  
  

Thanks - I've never been credited with apocalyptic chaos before

-----------------
Question - is there any synergy seen at the club with their building of the East and the West courses?  Perhaps the way they built West could help clarify their construction of the East.  (Just a swag!)

[JESII]

This comment has nothing at all to do with the timing of the swap, or to whose credit anything else should go...

Unless there is wording that explicitly says so, I do not believe that simply widening that triangle by 35 yards at its base (and obviously, somewhat less as you go up the triangle) was the linchpin that pulled the entire routing together. Why couldn't the last 100 yards of #15 and the first 100 - 150 yards of #16 fit into a width of 95 yards?

I asked Tom Paul this yesterday and his explanation was that the base isn't the key measurement, the width up around the green and tee positions was. I agree completely...especially the green. The 15th green is at least 100 yards from the College Ave. intersection on the 1910 plan. How wide is the triangle at that point? I have to imagine there is enough room for a green which is approached from outside the line of the next hole coming back down...at least as much room as the seventh green / eigth tee complex...

If that area were not wide enough to even fit a narrow green and tee complex, why did they carve it out on their initial proposed purchase?

Why would this group of extremely successful and accomplished people feel the linchpin to this entire endeavor was finding that little bit of, what may be considered, non-essential width?

Also, just occurring to me now; if Hugh Wilson was the chairman of the committee, wouldn't it make sense to ask him about a routing change first? Even if Lloyd owned the land and you were moving his property line (imaginary or not) and he were on the committee, shouldn't the chairman be the first to review the idea?

[TEPaul]

"Has anyone asked why the minutes would mention any prior plans?"


Kyle:

Why the minutes would mention prior plans? Sure, those minutes reflect a report Golf Chairman Robert Lesley gave to the board of governors of MCC on 4/19/1911 that explain to the board in that report what the Wilson Committee had been doing for the last three and a half months since being appointed by the club to design a layout/plan for the Merion East course. The one of five different final plans that was selected by the Wilson Committee and which the report mentioned had been approved by Macdonald/Whigam on their second and final visit to Ardmore on April 6, 1911 as containing the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world was actually attached to the report Lesley gave to the board for the Wilson Committee (the report said "attached herewith").

That report also asked the board to consider and approve two land adjustments:

1. The purchase of the 3 acres we refer to as the railroad land
2. The land exchange we refer to as the "Francis land swap."


The next item in the board meeting minutes reflect the approval of the proposed golf course plan and the approval of the two land adjustments (obviously the board at that point talked about it all, considered it all and decided to vote to approve it all).


That next item in the board minutes record the resolution offered by board member Paul Thompson. Here it is because I just realized its wording really does reflect a point (a date) before which the so-called Francis land swap idea could not have happened:


"Mr. Thompson offered the following resolution:
                                     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. Resolution approved"


Note that Thompson's resolution says the exchange of a portion of land ALREADY PURCHASED for other land adjoining. So now lets look at WHEN that land was purchased for or by MCC (as we know it was purchased for MCC by Lloyd himself and his wife (the deed says "et ux" ) and held for about eight months (from Dec. 19, 1910 until July 19, 1911) on the recommendation of Cuyler so that Lloyd could thereby effectuate boundary adjustments (at will with no need for immediate formal land transfers or deeds and such) if necessary between the new golf ground and the new residential development to the west known as HDC (which at this point Lloyd and his MCC syndicate appear to have effectively controlled through a stock offering or stock increase of HDC)).

The deed shows that the transfer of the land into H. Gates Lloyd’s name that would become Merion East golf course took place on Dec. 19, 1910! That, by the way, is over a month AFTER the Nov. 15, 1910 proposed plan that shows that triangle that the essayist on here contends the so-called Francis land swap idea had to have happened BEFORE and which actually created the ENTIRETY of that Nov. 15, 1910 plan's triangle dimensions.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim/Shiv,

The reason Francis went to Lloyd at midnight is simply because Lloyd was the man in control of all of that land.

Also, I don't have it handy but I do have the 1910 census and if I recall correctly I believe Wilson at the time was living a bit further away than one would want to bike at midnight in March. 

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dave,

That's why it almost certainly happened after the NGLA visit in later March or early April 1911 and not when the committee was working on plans in January and February. 

By the way, this should help.

Just so everyone knows, that first block should obviously be 200ft, not 100ft as it's mislablled.

The scale runs 200, 400, 600, and 800 feet.

The land that was eventually used at the base of the triangel was almost 400 feet...390 or so.

[TEPaul]

"If that area were not wide enough to even fit a narrow green and tee complex, why did they carve it out on their initial proposed purchase?
Why would this group of extremely successful and accomplished people feel the linchpin to this entire endeavor was finding that little bit of, what may be considered, non-essential width?"


Sully:

I think the answer to your questions is just what I told you yesterday----ie when that Nov. 15, 1910 proposed plan was drawn the club had simply not come up with any layouts for the course at that point, so how could they have known at that point the triangle on that Nov 15, 1910 plan was too narrow for two holes they hadn't even conceived of yet?

But the point is Lloyd had put himself in the position to solve something like that very easily when he took the land into his own name on Dec. 19, 1910 just before the Wilson Committee was appointed (including himself and Francis). Cuylers said two days later that Lloyd had done that simply so boundaries could be moved that easily.

I'm not sure why you can't understand that. It's not as if they made some mistake with that Nov. 15, 1910 proposed plan and that triangle, it's that they prepared themselves to solve it so easily if the need arose and they prepared themselves for that potential eventuality a couple of weeks before the Wilson Committee even began to design holes and a course after the beginning of 1911. I hope I don't have to remind anyone, at this point, who is really following this that the only reason David Moriarty seems to have put Francis (and Lloyd ) out there working on a course routing in 1910 and before Nov. 15, 1910 and EVEN BEFORE Wilson and the rest of the committee was even APPOINTED YET  is that is THE ONLY WAY he can explain the Francis story itself against that Nov. 15, 1910 triangle that appears on that Nov. 15, 1910 plan!! He HAS TO maintain that Francis's idea and the swap happened before Nov. 15, 1910 and even before the rest of the committee was APPOINTED  otherwise he couldn't claim the Francis land swap created that entire triangle.

But It just didn't do that and we have proven that now about ten ways to Sunday. It just had not happened at that point. It probably didn't happen until about five months later (around the end of March or beginning of April 1911) and after the Wilson Committee had already done the first thirteen holes as Francis's story also says it had.

It's no problem at all scaling the widths as that triangle moves north from the base up to behind the 15th green and 16th tee where the land goes west to east at the base of the MacFadden (Van Arkle) and Hall properties. I have those width dimensions off the Nov. 15, 1910 plan. I might go over there anyway this afternoon and I'll just park up there and walk off what those dimensions are now up along that road and get back to you.

It was right around this time last year while driving past the now Hall and Van Arkle properties above the 15th green and 16th tee and while looking at the hard right and west deliniation of that road now and how far that turn goes west around the 15th green that it first hit my how this Francis land swap thing actually happened. And of course the key to understanding how it got netted out was when I recognized how far east that road goes down along #14 compared to the line of that proposed road on the Nov. 15, 1910 plan.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

It's raining too hard today to walk it.

Here, this is simpler...

The Committee needed nearly 400 feet to accomplish fitting in a hard-right turning par four and the next tee and fairway.

The November 1910 plan didn't give them that...



This is not rocket science.

[JESII]

Tom,

As I said to you yesterday, I understand the technical reasoning behind all of the dates and transactions, what I do not understand is why a proposed road would be drawn where it was if no golf had been considered for that land up there. If the club was buying X amount of land, why would 3 acres of it be unusable for golf in its proposal to the membership?

[JESII]

Mike,

Didn't the committee say they 'ended up with 400 feet' as opposed to "needed 400 feet"?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Didn't the committee say they 'ended up with 400 feet' as opposed to "needed 400 feet"?

Jim,

Maybe this will help.

Think about the configuration of the holes up there and the way 15 swings in from the right.   Imagine if the land was as narrow as what was originally drawn, as I try to show in Yellow in my crude drawing trying to show the original Land Plan limitations.

How would you fit both the 15th fairway and the 16th fairway in a way to utilize the quarry appropriately without Francis's idea?

[TEPaul]

"The Committee needed nearly 400 feet to accomplish fitting in a hard-right turning par four and the next tee and fairway.
The November 1910 plan didn't give them that..."


Mike:

I know that. This is exactly what I figured out right around a year ago while out on that road. Before that I too used to think the Francis land swap created that entire triangle because of the way Francis mentioned the dimensions of that over-all area thirty nine years later.

It just didn't happen that way and now we know both why and how.

[JESII]

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.

[TEPaul]

"If the club was buying X amount of land, why would 3 acres of it be unusable for golf in its proposal to the membership?"


Sully:

What three acres of unusable land are you talking about?

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

Sully,

Work your way back down to the respective 15th tee and 16th green and I think you can answer your own question.

There was a very, VERY big problem in the way of getting two reasonably lengthy holes in that space besides the original land plan.

Three guesses. 

[JESII]

Tom,

The approximate size of that triangle in the November land plan.

[JESII]

Mike,

Is the big problem the quarry?

If so, why does that impact anything? I don't think the 16th hole really needs to change at all other than maybe shifting it East only slightly.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

The approximate size of that triangle in the November land plan.

Sully,

That's not the three acres they are talking about in the minutes...those three acres are down by the clubhouse.

Also, consider that the 15th tee was located behind and to the left of the 14th green.

Why?   Because a lot of players had to hit their second shot right on 16 instead of at the green.

[TEPaul]

"If the club was buying X amount of land, why would 3 acres of it be unusable for golf in its proposal to the membership?"


Sully:

What three acres of unusable land are you talking about?


I cannot read the minds of Francis and that committee, Sully. I only know what Francis said in his story----viz. "but the last five holes were another problem" (obvious due to the shortness of the 15th and 16th holes because of the narrowness of that existing triangle).

Doing a routing and getting stuck with a hole or two like that I've always said is something like trying to fit fence rails into existing posts---eg you have to keep taking the rails out of the posts often both behind and in front of you just to get those last one or two sections in correctly. I'm certain that is why Francis mentioned not just #15 and #16 even thoug those were clearly the ones causing the problem due to the narrowness up there but he mentioned three other holes along with them. This is why trying to do a routing is a little like doing a big jigsaw puzzle with the only good news being you sort of get to make the pieces too. But when you get cramped into corners and such you can get frustrated in the space limitation in what kind of piece (hole) you would like to have at that point.

That's pretty much the way architects think when they do routings-----always in the back of their minds is where they are at any point with basic balance and variety (par 3s, 4s, 5s and certainly including when they come and the lengths and dimensions of them).

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

The approximate size of that triangle in the November land plan."


Sully:

It wasn't unusable. It is still there and it was used for the 15th and 16th holes. It's just bigger than it was on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan. And then you need to combine that with the fact that Francis realized they didn't need all the width they had on that Nov. 15, 1910 plan (assuming their contour survey maps were taken right off that Nov. 15, 1910 plan which I believe they were) for about 300-400 yards down along #14. So they just gave to the development what they didn't need down there and got it back up near the top.

Actually they increased the width down around #1 too. That's what surveyor/engineer guys like Francis do----they think very dimensionally! 

[Dan Herrmann]

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 weather records for Phily in 1911 don't seem to indicate a late winter:

Courtesy: The Franklin Institute

[Mike_Cirba]

Sully,

Don't forget what Francis said...they had already routed 13 holes and were trying to fit the last five into that long strip with a big freaking quarry in the middle of it.

The quarry presented both a great opportunity and a great problem.   The opp was that it could make for some dramatic holes.

The downside was that it signifcantly narrowed the usable, playable part of an already narry strip.

Also, think about days of hickory and gutta percha...how many people would have been able to carry the quarry on their second at 430 yards??

Most had to play around.   It's also why the 15th tee was stuck back left of the 14th green.

Making more sense?

[JESII]

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_Cirba]

David,

Looks like nice biking weather.

Tillinghast must have been drunk as a skunk or else perhaps we got a ton of rain or late snows.