[Mike_Cirba]

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?

Gotcha on the acreage.

Yes, it was.   It was behind the left side of the 14th green, very close to the road.

[TEPaul]

"6 lows below 20?  I should say not!

Wussies...   "



Shivas:

Well at least us Philly guys don't have frozen brains and that constant honking of snow removal vehicles going into reverse ringing in our ears all winter like you people in Chicago do.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sully,

Again, I drew these original property lines rather crudely, but please note both the location of the 15th tee as well as the fact that there had to be room right of the quarry to accommodate what had to be a majority of the members.

[JESII]

Mike,

Other than your gut, what was your basis for determining the green line?

[JESII]

The 15th tee position definitely helps it make more sense because it makes it clear that they were creating a path for shorter hitters to work their way there...when and why did they move that tee across the 14th green?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Besides gut based on the bottom of the triangle being about 73 pct as wide as what they needed I also used delerium tremens to draw that line. 

I'm not sure when they moved the tee but it was in that location in 1916.

I'll see what I can find.

[DMoriarty]

"This is not rocket science."


Mike Cirba,

You are right Mike, your analysis is thankfully not rocket science.   To put it mildly, there are a number of fatal problems with your methodology.

1.  As I explained before, your source is NOT TO SCALE.   Your source is NOT a scaled map, but  a PHOTO of a scaled map, and one taken from an OBLIQUE ANGLE.  Ever notice how you can close one eye and hold your thumb out, and it covers up a whole building or even the moon or sun?  Well your thumb is not larger than the sun, it just appears so because the sun is far away.  The same applies to oblique photographs; items far away from the camera are larger than they appear.

Here is your source.   Notice how the  RECTANGLE around the map narrows substantially at the top?   This is because of the angle of the photograph.   Look at the bottom of the page as superimposed over the relevant portion.  450 feet at the bottom appears substantially larger than 450 feet in the middle or top.   



Also, notice how the bottom line of the photo is bowed in the center, so that the middle is closer to the camera?  This too exaggerates the scale and minimizes anything to the outside.

Do you understand now why that photo is not to scale and your measure is way off?

2.  You should be measuring from the center-line of the road, not the outside the edge, as that is how the property is measured.

3.  What is your basis for claiming that they USED 400 feet?   That is not what Francis said, and I have seen no evidence of this anywhere.   You can't go by modern aerials because the border is not the same.

4.  You call Bryan Izatt's overlay and my overlay "crude, inaccurate, and misrepresentative" yet have the nerve to post that aerial with the yellow squiggle?    I wish you were joking, because it is actually pretty funny.   I used two scale maps created somewhat contemporaneously (1916 and 1910), and painstakingly tried to match up a number of points on both maps   What was your methodology?  Did you hand a three year old a Crayola lemon yellow? 

Seriously, what should either of us have done to make my overlay less  "crude, inaccurate, and misrepresentative."   What was the problem with my methodology or Bryan's?   Other than that you don't like what you see, that is.
 

__________________________________

As for the weather, it was the middle of the night, so look at the lows.  There were only a few days where it didnt get down below 40.   It sure would have been a pleasant ride back in July when this was going on, though.

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
I'd hardly call Mike's photo a Mercator projection.

(I knew that PHA251 course in cartography would come in handy someday)

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Alright, David, I'll give you a 1% margin for the angle. 

Youre triangle is still 26% shy of what they used. 

And you're now looking for more land out to the middle of the road?   

Give me a break, David...what part of the road might they have used for the golf course??


All,

Let's go back and look at what Richard Francis wrote, and this time let's assume David is correct and that the Land Swap was for the entire 130x190 triangle, even if it was only 90-95 yards wide.   

I'm going to assume he's correct and go back and black out areas of the course they didn't own yet, over today's aerial.

I'm going back, back,...back to the land before Richard Francis and his late night bike ride.

Remember, according to David the land of the triangle didn't yet exist on any Merion plan.

Francis said they were able to lay out 13 holes pretty easily in the upright portiion of the L, or the all holes south of the clubhouse as seen here encircled in red.



Now, the quarry was not playable golf, so that's encircled in yellow.

The light green is the area where according to David, they were trying to lay out the final FIVE holes.   In fact, I've drawn it TOO BIG, because you can see larges parts of 14 and the original 15th tee outside that original boundary.

Also remember that this is the longest stretch of holes at Merion on average, the fearsome final five.   We also know they wanted a championship course, not one of 6000 yards as Macdonald and Whigham both recommended.

The orange line is a rough approximation of the November 1910 land plan proposed boundary.   As mentioned, you can see even there that much of 14 and the old 15th tee was outside of that boundary.

Remember also that Richard Francis told us that the land they swapped was land that "WASN'T PART OF ANY GOLF PLAN" they had conceived of, based on their routings.

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?

[JESII]

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.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

So we don't get into blaming Wayne Morrison's photographic skills, let's discount his picture and instead use yours from your essay, even if his is nice and colorful and more easily read..





Hmm...looks to me to be about 90-95 yards wide.   

Let's stick with yours.

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

Jim,

My orange line is not very good, you're right, and should bend a bit more.

However, the point is the same.

If as David contends that land swap was for the entire triangle, then prior to that swap Merion had to be considering all of the land shy of that triangle, with some to the west, and trying to figure out where to place the final five holes.

Correct?

I guess a number of questions arise...

The had the choice of land all the way up College Avenue...why stop at land about 100 yards north of the quarry??   ESPECIALLY if you wanted to use that quarry as a hazard as M&W had recommended back in July 1910.

Is David contending that M&W only recommended they buy land as far north as 100 yardss beyond the quarry when they could have gone all the way up to COllege Avenue???   What kind of lamebrain routing move was that?!? 

The light green lines indicate all the land they were considering to fit five holes into if that triangle wasn't already part of what they bought.

Francis also told us that the land they traded was not used in any routing plans.    The only land that could be is land west of the 1st and 14th holes.

Bottom line I'm trying to show is that there is not a chance in hell these guys would have been trying to route five holes in the available space if some of that triangle land wasn't already their's

The best you could do is 3 holes, perhaps 4 if two of them were par threes...

[DMoriarty]

David,
I'd hardly call Mike's photo a Mercator projection.

Nor would I. Don't Mercator maps portray a curved object (the earth) on a flat surface?  Mike's problem a bit different, but the error is similar. 

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 1913.  It is also a mistake to assume the road in the 1910 drawing is drawn to realistic width, unless they were building a boulevard.
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 isn't my picture.

[DMoriarty]

What a waste of time this has become!    Mike, you are own your own.   Measure and interpret how you like.  Your mistaken assumptions and flawed methodology are no longer my concern, or are at least not mine to correct.   


TEPaul,

Let's cut to the chase.  Does the Cuyler letter or related documents say or imply or establish that there was indeed a plan, albeit one that was not yet definite, before December 19, 1910?

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

David,

What do you mean the photo isn't your's?   I copied it directly from your White Paper.

It's still less than 100 yards wide, even if you want to use half the road for your golf course which certainly is something that Mr. Richard Francis never intended.

Your number 4 is a bit much, dont you think?   Are you asking us to believe that the road was actually WIDER in those times than today?

As far as number five, the 15th tee was behind the left side of the 14th green and along the road, exactly what I said.

Francis said that the land was 130 yards by 190 yards.

That just happens to be the exact dimensons of the bottom of the triangle today.

I don't see that as a coincidence.

The width of the bottom of the triangle on Wayne's photo of the To Scale drawing, and on your photo of the To Scale drawing is NOT 130 yards, it's somewhere shy of 100 yards.

And yes, those are the FACTS.

You can't make that triangle somehow bigger to fit your theories so now you try to make the road bigger??  Or make Francis measuring his golf course from the MIDDLE OF THE FREAKING ROAD?!?!  

C'mon David...if the land don't fit, you must aquit.

It's high time Hugh Wilson was exonerated in this monkey trial.

[DMoriarty]

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?

1.  Your drawing is wrong.

2.  The swap most likely occurred AFTER Barker and CBM had been over the course.  This is what my essay said, at least. 

3.   So adding the land would explain how the ended up over CBM's recommended yardages.

3.   The original course was close to or perhaps less than 6000 yards.   They measured it wrong then, and continued to do so for decades. 

4.  The holes didnot not quite fit, and that was the problem.    The question is, when did the problem get resolved.

5.  If you plug in CBM's suggested lengths of holes, but shorten 15 and 16, one can see how it would fit.

[DMoriarty]

You are wrong about the measure. 

The road was narrower.


"Francis said that the land was 130 yards by 190 yards.

That just happens to be the exact dimensons of the bottom of the triangle today.

I don't see that as a coincidence."

As I have written what seems like 60 times, the bottom of the triangle today is substantially different than it was then.  How different?  Over 25 yards different!

As for Wayne's photo it is simple perspective.  You are at least 11% off.  I didn't make that number up, I calculated it.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm not even sure where to start.

Initial reports of the course indicated it could be stretched to 6500 yards for tournament play.

I'm incredulous that you're still contending they somehow followed Mac's generic, rote prescription for a sporty little course and now contend they mismeasured it for years so that it fits neatly into the Macdonald "single routing theory".

Perhaps that was also a Philly conspiracy to discredit Macdonald and throw future investigators off the trail. 

[DMoriarty]

How about you start with what you call the triangle.   

1. The east  border changed.   The lower corner of what you call the triangle is over 25  yards east of where it originally was. 
2. They measured from the middle of the road.
3. The road was narrower then, so the fit was not nearly as tight as you pretend.
4.  Your estimate is around 11% off, plus the distance to the middle of the road.

Do you think I am making this stuff up?   When are you ever going to learn that I don't make this stuff up?


Now to the distances.

1.  As Alan Wilson explained years later, they measured along the ground, and not in a straight line.   
2.  Many of the holes at the open were substantially shorter than listed (especially the longer ones, or ones with undulation.)   
3.  Except for fudging with the tees, this is a factual issue.   Go on google earth and check if you don't believe me.   Or are you guys going to tell me again how GPS triangulation is not a legitimate measuring tool?

[TEPaul]

Guys:

Let me ask you all something. Before answering please refer carefully to post #103 as it contains the 4/19/11 board meeting minutes resolution that approved Francis's land swap idea.

Are you ready now?

How in the world can anyone contend that the entire triangle was created by Francis's idea BEFORE Nov. 15, 1910 when MCC governor Paul Thompson offered a resolution at the 4/19/11 board meeting that the land swap be for a portion of land ALREADY PURCHASED in exchange for land adjoining??

Are you with me so far?

We know the land was PURCHASED on Dec. 19, 1910 because we have the deed right here!

Are you still with me? How about this then?

Do you realize that Dec. 19, 1910 is close to five weeks AFTER Nov. 15, 1910 and NOT ON OR BEFORE Nov. 15, 1910???

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Did Stephenson happen to mention how they intended to use the middle of the road as a hazard? 

[Mike_Cirba]

Errr...Thompson I mean.

[TEPaul]

By the way, I've just been over there and I took all kinds of measurments up in and around there and I will guarantee you that road has not changed since it was built around 1911-12 and how it shows up on the PRR Plat map of 1913 which by the way shows the holes in there and is also IN SCALE. I hope no one on here is going to claim the PRR plat maps are dimensionally wrong or there will be about a million people in Pennsylvania who live along those rail lines who are gonna be all kinds of ticked off!  

You guys in the last page are so are just hilarious trying to just estimate that road on some old map or aerial. If you don't believe me why don't you just go out on the ground itself and measure the piss out of it as I just did. Is someone going to now claim the golf course itself as it lays on the ground between its boundaries up in there is inaccurate or engaging in some kind of hyperbole too??  

Ironically I ran into both Bob Hall and I saw Gary Van Arkle who live on opposite sides of Golf House Rd with both their properties bordering on College Ave. I told Bob Hall about this and he was fascinated. The top of that old triangle in that Nov. 15, 1910 proposed plan would've just about cut off most of the east corner of his beautiful house!  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Has the east boundary of the triangle changed since the 1910 Land Plan?

If yes, how so?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Did Stephenson happen to mention how they intended to use the middle of the road as a hazard?   "


No, I'm afraid Thompson didn't get into that with his board resolution that formally finalized Francis's land swap on 4/19/11. Thank God those men didn't engage in the kind of mindless and completely irrelevent trivialities that's going on in the last page or so on this thread.

It also looks to me like some on here are going to take a couple of months at least to even understand the significance of the wording of Thompson's resolution as it related to when Francis's idea could not have happened BEFORE!

Well, maybe not if a real historical revisionist like "The Missing Faces of Merion" essayist puts his mind to this. Maybe Francis did ride his bike over to see Horatio BEFORE Nov. 15, 1910 and Horatio agree to the swap right then but he was so sauced around midnight that he just forgot the whole thing and went and bought the land on Dec. 19, 1910 with a triangle that was too narrow ANYWAY.

In that case, I guess we might conclude that poor Richard might have ridden his bike back over to Lloyd's house around midnight AGAIN around five months later and said: "Horatio shall we go through this land swap idea of mine again, or should I talk to you about it in the morning when you're sober?"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()