Merion's Early Timeline

[Dan Herrmann]

"The unique character of each individual bunker is what provides Merion with the most exquisite tapestry in golf."  - Gil Hanse.

Granted, this has nothing to do with the thread, but I just felt like reminding folks of the masterpiece known as Merion East.

[TEPaul]

"That said, what property configuration does the Hugh Wilson working topos show?  Does it conclude what land the routing was originally trying to be squeezed into?"

Jeff:

We don't have those. If we did a subject like this wouldn't have lasted a day or an hour. As far as we can tell all the preconstruction routing and design plans of Merion East have been lost. That includes the one that was presented to the board 4/19/11 and approved. No history out of Merion we know of reflected that approved preconstrution plan. That's kind of maddening because the report we have to the board says it was attached to the report.    

What I can tell you though is I know the Wilson Committee had topo contour maps by at least 2/1/11 because Wilson mentioned in a letter to Russell Oakley on that date he was sending him one. I think I'll just start at the beginning and put on here for you to analyze the uncontested timeline events from the records, deeds, coorspondence, and we can just work it forward and it won't take you long to pick out what's factual and what's speculative on this thread or all of them about Merion.

[Mike_Cirba]

A friend just asked me to account on the events of opening day at Merion.

A news account read;

"With a great outpouring of golfers and their friends, the new golf course of the Merion Cricket Club opened at Haverford yesterday.  The afternoon was devoted to a medal play handicap tournament..."

Howard Perrin won low gross with a 79.

Hugh Wilson attended and played.  Neither C.B. Macdonald nor H.J. Whigham were there.


In coming across that one I also found a January 1911 Dues assessment letter interesting in light of the timeframes we are trying to nail down.   It seems to me to be very strange language referring to a golf course that David contends had already been fully routed and ready for construction some months prior.

From Edward Sayers, then Secretary of the Merion Cricket Club;

"The Board of Governors takes pleasure in announcing that the financial plan for the purchase and establishment of the new Golf Course as outlined in the circular letter of November 15th, 1910, has been fully carried out."

"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.  To the loyal members of the Merion Club who made the ownership of our own golf grounds possible the thanks of all golfers are due."

[DMoriarty]

"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? 

My post was meant to read "I don't think HG Lloyd was engaging in hyperbole, but he did understand the meaning of 'APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE ROAD.'"  My mistake.

"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?"

My mistake again,  I must have confused your rude and insulting post with outrage.  I forgot that you are almost always insulting and rude, whether outraged or not.   

As for your question, I explained it above.  Plus I measured it.   If you don't believe me I suggest you go spend the day walking off the metes and bounds and do the calculations yourself.   Or you could hire someone to do it for you.

I do believe Francis. I just don't believe your interpretation of when that land swap and his idea of it took place.

Not so.  You don't believe when he said that they could not fit the course into the land before the swap, and you do not believe his specific  description of the swapped land. 

Again Tom,  You continue to ignore my offer.   I'll explain to you where you went wrong on your reading of the minutes regarding the swap, and you provide me what I need to vet the claims you have made against me.   I'll even walk you through how to check the acreage.   

A pretty good deal for you anyway, given that all I am asking for is what any standard of civility requires from you. 

But why do I get the feeling that you already know what is wrong with your reasoning, and that you are just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.   

_____________________________________
Patrick,   

Mike's depiction of what we know about Barker's contribution is inaccurate.    I said almost a year ago that the biggest problem with my essay was that I probably sold Barker's contribution short, and now there is more support for my early comment.    But because I don't want Mike Cirba's head to explode, I will hold off on getting into it until I finish the next draft of my essay.
_______________________________

Jeff,

A simple question based on your area of expertise.   
- Assume: as part of a larger development you are told to design a course on a specific 117 acres of land, as depicted on a "land plan."  Assume that you have trouble fitting a few of the holes, so the developer agrees to let you swap some of the land you have been allotted for a few acres of land you have not been allotted. When you finish you have used exactly 117 acres of land.

?? Compare the acreage of the parcels swapped.  Did you get MORE ACREAGE than you gave up?   LESS ACREAGE than you gave up? Or THE EXACT SAME ACREAGE?   

Stupid question I realize, but I'd appreciate an answer, because some here are having trouble with this concept.  In fact you may be having trouble with the concept, but I am sure that must be because of a misunderstanding of the facts.   I understand you are trying to lead them in a more reasonable direction, but in the process I think you have gotten some of the facts wrong.

A few facts that hopefully we all can agree on:
-  The 2.86 acres behind the clubhouse was not owned by HDC, Lloyd, or even MCC for decades, and it has nothing to do with the purchase. 
-  The amount of acreage to be purchased and ultimately purchased wasn't a non-specific amount like anything under 120 acres. It was exact: 117 Acres.   

So, if there was a swap AFTER Nov. 15, 1910, the swap had to be for equal acreage.   They announced a purchase  of 117 ACRES on Nov. 17, 1910, and they ultimately purchased 117 ACRES months later.     So another question:

??  You noted earlier that on the overlay it looks like MCC gave up a substantial chunk of property across from the clubhouse, land Francis described as "the land now covered with fine homes along Golf House Road."   So what did MCC get in return??   That is, what could they have received other than the "the land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long - the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee?"  Remember, the amounts have to be equal.   

And while I know that designers really hate to second guess each other, perhaps you can make an exception. 

?? Do you think you could have fit the holes into the area given the dimensions of the Nov. 1910 land plan?   In other words, whether that triangle was 95 or 120 yards wide at its based, couldnt they have fit in a green and a tee?  Assume of course you are talking about 1910 liability concerns.  After all these guys played over public road, do you really thing they would have insisted on a playing corridor for a green and a tee of more than that?? 


___________________________

TEPaul, I am not aware of much of anything the Construction Committee did before February 1, 1911.    Do you have the exact date on which they were appointed.

__________________________

Mike, you continue to misrepresent my argument in every way possible.  Obviously you have no interest in what actually happened.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Are you talking about a news article from November 1910 which stated that Lloyd had brought in Macdonald, Whigham, and Barker to inspect the property?

If so, unfortunately that news account is directly contradicted by the club's records, which seem to go to pains to indicate that Barker was brought in by Connell, and not by Merion.

Also,

Your questions to Jeff are again misleading.   We already know that it's possible to squeeze in the 15th green & 16th tee in even the less than 90 yards at the top of the triangle, barely.

The problem, and the traffic jam, is down below back to the 14th green, 15th tee areas and because of the presence of the quarry.  The solution continues up along the left side of the 15th fairway almost to the green.

You simply can't get three par fours of any length and quality into that area without widening it, especially once you consider that they had to create an alternative route around the right side of the quarry to accommodate the average player, particularly in a hickory age.

I've modified this picture to show the original location of where they had to put the 15th tee (in yellow behind the 14th green) to allow access AROUND the quarry on 16.  Mind you in these modern photos you're talking about greatly reduced fairway widths as well, per the USGA.   Mind you as well that even with these alterations to width, the 14th, 15th, and 16th holes were still only 407, 330, and 433 yards long respectively, with 17 and 18 coming in at 215 and 420.   You even contend they were shorter than that!!  



That being said, I'd love to see Jeff or anyone attempt to fit those final five holes in either;

A) The original land plan as per the 90 yard wide base of the triangle per Tom Paul's Francis Land Swap theory

or better yet..

B) The original per-Francis swap land available after the first 13 holes per your theory, as Jim Sullivan bravely tried on Friday.

Why don't you give it a shot, David...either one?

[Mike_Cirba]

This may help, as well.

In particular, note how the final fives holes were configured to work in and around the quarry.

Notice in particular the descriptions of the "options" on 16, and how that optional fairway dictated the rest of the routing constraints.

[Dan Herrmann]

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?

[Mike_Cirba]

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?

Dan,

The range didn't come til many years later, and is a recent event.   I believe they bought the land from Haverford College.

[Jeff_Brauer]

My good Mr. Paul,

In your reply No. 295 you said in part:

" And then there's another factor that has never been discussed on here----ie did the Wilson Committee's working topo maps totally match the dimensional boundaries of that common border on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan?"

I mistook that to mean you had some copy of his working plans, which apparently you don't. Of course not. If you had, they would have probably been discussed by now.

David,

I think I understand the timeline.  I think I understand the land swap.  If you look at Mike Cirba's reply no. 39 that drew me back into this thing, he quotes me as being the first to see that the size of the triangle was widened a smidge back a few years ago. The 120 comment was from memory that the initial idea by Lloyd when buying the whole property was to have MCC purchase an estimated acreage at a certain price per acre. Perhaps the number was 117 and not 120 and my memory is wrong.

I was surprised when TePaul added the twist in post 295 that "Somebody had to pay for the difference and MCC agreed to do that (on that I think we have made a mistake in interpretation of something for years". But, that fact hasn't been officially entered into the debate, I will say that generally I agree with you on the swap - if MCC was taking land they had to give some the same amount.  As I noted in my first reply this morning, then the previous graphic suggests the only way they could get more land is if the entire triangle was included in the land swap.  Even with the area shown in black, the land given and taken along that road looks about equal.

I can certainly see why you think the entire triangle was part of the land swap from that graphic. I am not sure, given other records, that it proves that the design was done well in advance of 11-15-1910.

[TEPaul]

Dan:

I don't have the deed on the 11+ acres of the driving range but as late as 1975 they still leased it from Haverford College. The correspondence suggests they were entering negotiations with the college at that time (to buy it).

[DMoriarty]

Jeff wrote:

I can certainly see why you think the entire triangle was part of the land swap from that graphic. I am not sure, given other records, that it proves that the design was done well in advance of 11-15-1910.

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 because I am unaware of any records that contradict the Francis version of what happened.    Tom would have us believe that the records indicate the swap occurred after Nov. 15, 1910, but he won't even finish the sentence on which he is relying.   Obviously, what comes after the word "adjoining . . . " could be pretty important, and probably is, otherwise he'd have told us what it said.     Plus, I know that TEPaul's logic is flawed, and I suspect that he knows as well, which is why he won't take me up on my offer.    

Is this single record the "other records" to which you refer?  If not, then what are these other records?   Because I think I have a pretty good idea of what records are out there, and I have no idea to what you refer.  

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.

_____________________________

When, exactly, was the Construction Committee appointed?

[Mike_Cirba]

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...

Jeff,

Like I said, it doesn't take long, you cheap tart you. 

Pretty soon you'll be accused of being on the Philadelphia Syndrome's payroll, with your checks signed by the nortorious whoremaster, Mr. Paul. 

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

_____________________________

David,

Why don't you ask the Honorable Mr. Brauer to try to design 5 holes (with only one par three) in the area you are indicating was left available to whoever the designer was before Mr. Francis had his late night brainstorm.

As you know, that area is indicated in light purple.

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.   

Remember, this is all YOUR theory.   

I hold those guys in higher esteem and wouldn't consider them to be such fools.

But I guess that shouldn't be surprising.   Yesterday, you took them from their perch as the true designers of Merion to having absolutely nothing to do with the routing to make a rhetorical point, suggesting that it was more plausible that Lloyd and Francis designed it on their own before Macdonald and Whigham even saw the property than letting that dunderhead Hugh Wilson have any credit.

Please note that most of the widest part of what's left is unusable quarry, unsuitable to locate any tee, fairway, or green.

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

David,

YOU are the one who interpret's Francis as saying NONE of the triangle existed before he had his idea.

Yet Francis tells us that they already had 13 holes designed, and also tells us that the land he swapped was not part of any golf layout.

So, David, if your theory is true, the land is light purple is all that is left.

Please tell me which other land would be available to build the last five holes?! 

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

David,

Which land would they have left to work with according to your theory.

Please...I've been asking you for two days.   

I drew that in purple and asked you to make any revisions or corrections where I have misunderstood what was left for the final five holes on their championship course after they designed the first 13.

So please...tell me where they might have even dreamed they could fit five holes in there or why M&W evidently recommended they only buy land as far north as 65 yards beyond the quarry after first suggesting they could "make much" of that feature. 

We also know that the 14th green, 15th tee, and much of the left side of the 15th fairway don't fit into the Nov 1910 land plan as drawn.  It only takes two seconds to look at that section and see the reason for the bottleneck is the quarry.  It really doesn't require being a presumptuous ass or a complete idiot, as you contend.   It just requires trying to undestand all of the evidence; not only those pieces that require your interpretation.

[TEPaul]

"When, exactly, was the Construction Committee appointed?"


That actually is a wonderful question!

I would be glad to try to shed some light on that question if all will try to agree to only rely not on blatant speculation but only on what MCC or those involved with it at that time said about that! I believe I have everything available on the subject and I would be glad to tell you all what MCC said about that or didn't say about it. Having reviewed it recently it might be quite interesting. As we look at these things I think we are all aware that we certainly do wish THEY would have said more.   

[DMoriarty]

"It really doesn't require being a presumptuous ass or a complete idiot, as you contend. "

I disagree.   It requires both.

According to Francis, he traded for the land measuring about 130 x 190 yards - the site of the 15th green and 16th tee.   NOT the "14th green, 15th tee, and much of the left side of the 15th fairway."     I'd have to be a presumptuous ass to insert the "14th green, 15th tee, and much of the left side of the 15th fairway" into the trade.  Who knows better, me or Francis?

And I'd have to be a complete idiot to assume that "APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ROAD" meant anything other than APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE ROAD.

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul, if you mean that we agree not to do what you and Mike are trying to do by adding "14th green, 15th tee, and much of the left side of the 15th fairway" into the swap, then I am all for it. 

When, exactly, was the Construction Committee appointed?

[TEPaul]

"I can certainly see why you think the entire triangle was part of the land swap from that graphic. I am not sure, given other records, that it proves that the design was done well in advance of 11-15-1910."


Mr. Jeffrey:

Go ahead and try to list what you think those other records are; and I'll be glad to help you with some factual records that bear directly on this issue if you can't remember some.

As for the essayist, I would like to see him provide anything at all that indicates that land swap took place before Nov. 15, 1910 other than his misinterpretation of what Francis meant by the dimensions on that triangle and the fact that the triangle shows up on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan which we known about for years and Merion has known for about a century!  
 
 
 

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul, if you mean that we agree not to do what you and Mike are trying to do by adding "14th green, 15th tee, and much of the left side of the 15th fairway" into the swap, then I am all for it."


I'm not sure what that means. I don't recall saying a thing about the 14th green. And I'm not even bothering, any longer, to read those posts on here that're using Google Earth or Mapquest or whatever else measuring tools and colored lines. I don't think those things can prove much of anything and I don't subscribe to their accuracy or else their accuracy in the hands of those using them on here. I believe the answer to this issue can be found in Merion's own records and deeds, business structure, correspondence and land transfers from back then when it happened.

All I've ever mentioned is I believe the land that was given back to HDC for land used by MCC for the solution to the 15th and 16th problem came from the west side of that proposed road by a redeliniation of that road but we are still actively trying to consider other places it may've come from. Where do you think the land they gave back for that solution was?    

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Presumptuous ass or complete idiot?   Hmmm...do I get a vote?  Is there an answer C?

Seriously, though...

What land do you think was left available to the designer(s) after the first 13 holes were routed before the Francis Land Swap?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, I am not aware of much of anything the Construction Committee did before February 1, 1911.    Do you have the exact date on which they were appointed."


Is that right? So, since you're not aware of what they did before that perhaps someone should ask you again why you got two of them out there many months before the other three, including the chairman!  


Someone should probably ask you again to carefully consider the rest of Francis's story about that land swap such as:

"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."

Who do you think he was spending all those hours with out there talking to? Just Lloyd?  

He also said in the same story:

"The land was shaped like a capital "L" and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion...."


Who do you think he did that with? Just Lloyd?

I hope you at least admit that Francis's story surely does seem to imply that the first 13 holes were gotten in before they ran into the 15th and 16th problem.

I hope you are also willing to admit that if that land swap actually happened BEFORE that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan was drawn which it would pretty much have to have been for your story to have any logic at all, that the Dallas estate wasn't even under HDC's control until very close to that date.

I wonder what Mrs. Dallas thought when she saw Fred and Horatio standing next to her old bank barn talking about what a cool redan green it would make, running instruments around it and drawing it on some golf course plan? What do you suppose they would've said if Hugh I. Wilson happened to show up? Do you think they would've told him to bugger off and just wait a couple of months to be appointed their chairman so he could explain to them how to ONLY BUILD their golf course plan?



You're not aware of anything the Construction Committee did indeed!!  And that's probably because you have assumed in your essay that all they ever did is just CONSTRUCT something, not design it. You're a bit myopically fixated on the word "Construction" don't you think? Particularly since we all had to be treated to, in your essay, an Oxford English Dictionary definition of the fact that lay out could only mean build or construct----or some other such nonsensical rationalization!

[TEPaul]

Mr. Jeffrey Brauer, Sir, expert golf course architect and problem solver:


Let me ask you a few things:

1. Since you now know the numerous course plans we know the Wilson Committee did in the winter and spring of 1911 had to be on contour topo maps, what do you suppose they would've taken the boundary dimensions on those topo maps off of?

2. Why would a club's board be asked to consider and approve a land swap six months after the swap was already done and even before they were even asked to approve an arrangement to move to Ardmore? If the swap HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE AND AGREED UPON BEFORE they were even asked to vote on this over-all arrangement with HDC to move to Ardmore why would they need to consider a swap like that LATER?