News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #900 on: May 27, 2009, 11:11:02 PM »
Gotta Love this one!

So nice to see how Macdonald did the design first, and then bought the land.   ::)






Funny how they bought 210 acres but only anticipated using 110 acres for the golf course, and the rest for a proposed real estate venture! 

What a purist!!!  ;D
« Last Edit: May 27, 2009, 11:20:26 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #901 on: May 27, 2009, 11:23:25 PM »
Patrick:

Regarding your post #967 on the subject of topographical survery maps, or the topo survey maps I'm speaking of that the Wilson committee were designing Merion East on with defined boundaries, I was speaking with Wayne about two months ago and I asked him basically-----"Look Wayno, I'm old but I've been around the proverbial block a bunch of times but is it possible that people are actually as stupid as some on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com? He said; "Oh Yeah, welcome to the club." All I could say is; "Really?" Your post #967 totally reconfirms Wayno's point!  ;)
« Last Edit: May 27, 2009, 11:27:19 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #902 on: May 27, 2009, 11:31:06 PM »
Do you think these novices were skilled at reading topos and interpolating and transposing architectural design onto them ?
I doubt it.

I think they were probably foot walkers, observers of the land who understood golf, and not skilled architects capable of transposing architectural concepts onto the topos.

I can't recall seeing any design schematic layed out on a topo in the very early part of the 20th Century, can you ?

These fellows weren't Tom Doak's equal, they were novices, unskilled, untested amateurs in an arena that they were unfamiliar with, namely, GCA.


Uhh...Patrick....

I believe some Philly amateurs did this one, as well in 1914.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2009, 11:36:24 PM by MCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #903 on: May 27, 2009, 11:33:04 PM »
Let's start again from the top...

From David's essay;;

"The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned."

"Merion Purchased the Land they Needed for their Golf Course."

"It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned. Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion. They first inspected the land and found the golf holes they wanted to build, and then they purchased that land.  In Chapter 10 of Scotland’s Gift, Macdonald explained that he had chosen the best land for golf from a much larger 405-acre parcel."

"The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted."

"In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best. The major difference between the approaches at Merion and NGLA? At NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham did not veer off the large parcel from which they were to choose the course, while Merion had to go outside a 300-acre tract to two additional parcels to suit their requirements."


David had us believe that Macdonald at NGLA would purchase only the land they needed for the already routed and designed golf course.   He then went on to claim that this is also exactly what happened at Merion....that the course was designed first, and then land was purchased based on the routing.   It's sort of a neat little trick to try to fit Macdonald's single, one-day visit in June 1910 into some act of routing the golf course at that time, because that's the ONLY TIME Macdonald could have done it before Merion purchased the land as he only visited one other time in April 1911 and we've already proven that he couldn't have designed it then.   Yet, what do we learn from Macdonald himself??"









« Last Edit: May 27, 2009, 11:43:28 PM by MCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #904 on: May 27, 2009, 11:33:20 PM »
Gotta Love this one!

So nice to see how Macdonald did the design first, and then bought the land.   ::)






Funny how they bought 210 acres but only anticipated using 110 acres for the golf course, and the rest for a proposed real estate venture! 

What a purist!!!  ;D
« Last Edit: May 27, 2009, 11:35:35 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #905 on: May 27, 2009, 11:51:51 PM »
Mike,

Have you lost your mind?   Now you are posting the same thing over and over again?  Are you trying to distance yourself from the issue at hand, or what?

 If you want to talk about the origins of NGLA , start a thread.  That way you might just think about what you are saying, and consider whether or not it makes sense.  If you get that far, I will be glad to address your points.  Let's undestand NGLA, and then we can  see if it relates to Merion.    As it is you are frantically flailing, and appear to be out of control.   Is this really what you think is a productive conversation?   

Start a productive thread free of the excess emotion and hyperbole and nonsense, I will respond.  But I am not interested in this at all.

Seriously Mike, I will discuss it with you if you want, but not like this and not in this thread.   NGLA is an interesting topic and maybe we can get some new blood in the conversation if you start a thread on the origins of NGLA. 

Back to the topic at hand.   I'd like to finish up this Francis thing.  You must have missed my questions above.  I am trying to understand your theory regarding the 15th green and 14th tee.

If you are not basing your theory about the 14th green and 15th tee on the 1910 plan, then on what is it based?   

What other than the 1910 Land Plan ever indicated that there was no room for the 14th green and 15th tee before the swap?
   
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 02:22:44 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #906 on: May 28, 2009, 12:50:26 AM »
TomPaul,

I noticed a few of your posts above address my posts.  Let me save you some time. 

Unless you are presenting facts that allow me to vet your baseless, unsupported claims, we've got nothing to discuss.

I'm tired of cleaning you off the bottom of my shoe, so stay out of my path.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #907 on: May 28, 2009, 02:58:49 AM »
David,

I'll direct this at you.  It seems Mike is off on an Exorcist-type spewing exercise fuelled by gallons of Red Bull, and Tom, well, Tom is Tom.  So here goes.

We established the western boundary of Haverford College with the metes that both you and Tom provided.  Tom subsequently revealed that what he called the squared-off area of the Johnson farm west of  Haverford College and up to College was 12.77 acres.  Since we know that the north-south dimension of that rectangle is 983 feet, that means the east-west dimension must be around 566 feet.  I've mapped that rectangle out as red Area A on the aerial below.

I also mapped out the area west of Golf House Road to the western boundary of the Johnson farm property as green Area B on the aerial below.  I get that area as about 35 acres.  I'm thinking that that is too much relative to the total of 161 acres for the Johnson Farm and the Dallas estate.  Do you see a flaw in the methodology?




Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #908 on: May 28, 2009, 08:15:58 AM »
Bryan,

I think you're exploring an interesting avenue.   I'll be curious to see the results.

Shivas,

You're a funny guy.   ;)   I also like the new red Muccian posting techniques.   Perhaps you should move to all CAPS, as well?  ;D

Seriously, we're covering old ground.

What I "blew the lid off", sort of like the quarrymen (sounds like a Liverpudlian band), is the fact that the only reason a seeming triangle was created in the first place on that map is because the Johnson Farm ran all the way north to College Avenue, and the protruding of the Haverford College land from the east just made that area appear that way once a proposed approximate road was drawn through the entirety of the Johnson Farm land in that northern quadrant. 

Of course, the diimensions of that seeming triangle were nothing remotely close to the 130x190 that Francis described, and were in fact about 100x327, narrowing all the way north, ending in a ridiculous 11-foot wide top of the triangle which makes it absurd to think anyone would actually have purposefully chosen that land for a routed golf course.

David,

Francis and the Wilson Committee were obviously working off Topos of whatever land they measured and believed to be the boundaries of the land allocated for golf.    We know they weren't working off the 1910 Land Plan as it had no topographical dimensions.   We also know that no one has found their original maps, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist because we know Wilson referred to the topo in a letter as early as Feb 1911.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 08:17:54 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #909 on: May 28, 2009, 08:45:54 AM »
Sorry Mike...but there is no reason to believe that because the 11 foot wide section was not intended for golf that the rest of the triangle wasn't either...after all they only needed the bottom 190 yards of that triangle to make the quarry on 16 out of reach from the tee...and besides that point, to suggest you blew anything off by purely hypothesizing (zero evidence whatsoever) that the road was drawn as a purely meaningless aesthetic on this land plan is one of the more 'bizzaro world' arguments you've made in a couple year long trend of bizzaro arguments...only narrowly outdistancing this recent hypothesis that Francis actually meant 14th green and 15th tee...or was it 16th green and 15th tee?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #910 on: May 28, 2009, 09:07:18 AM »
Bizarro World is right.  I always believe that when numerous details are argued, its an attempt to distract from the big picture. Think Johnny Cochran and OJ Simpson, which also went on seemingly forever, until we were happy for a verdict, any verdict.  That won't happen here, absent some new documents.  The ones known now (at least to those outside Philly) will only lead to more speculation and interpretation.  We need a smoking gun!

As far as blowing the lid off anything, I for one always realized that the Nov 10,1910 plan was only a concept.  It is still open for interpretation whether that triangle shows on the map because the land swap took place earlier and the routing was close to being finalized at that point (plausible) or whether it was there just because they wanted to connect a road to College Blvd.  (also plausible)

Here is a thought - and more speculation.  What if the map drawer simply got the green area wrong and the part west of the college was supposed to have been orange?  Frankly, the parcel described as set out for Merion was desribed as an "L" not an ankle and a foot with a grossly oversized toe!  That would prove DM's land swap theory, I think.  And, it would actually make some sense in drawing a preliminary line to end the golf course coincidental with some other boundary, and make it a rectangle type property.

Lastly, I appreciate TePaul getting those topos, if available.  But, there is potential for them to solve absolutely nothing.  Why?  We know they probably existed in June 1910, because it would be typical to survey newly optioned property, and CBM references topo maps in his letter back to the committee.  If found, I supsect the drawing will be dated June 1910 or so, possibly with revsions at the various dates that the property lines changed.  If so, we can only hope that the revisions have some kind of description to them, as most plans do, like "3 Acres added" or "Dallas Estate Added" instead of just dates. 

Draftsmen are usually instructed to note what changes were made, thinking ahead to someone who would actually need to know, but often get in a hurry and don't complete that detail.....but, don't ask me how I know that!

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Patrick_Mucci

Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #911 on: May 28, 2009, 09:30:02 AM »

Excellent point, Jim.  I call that a fallback position.  They did, after all, get to tee it up and hit a driver on 18.

What say you, Mike?  You going to hold firm on this notion that the reason for the swap was that 16 HAD TO BE wider because the bunt hitters couldn't carry the quarry at 16? 

If so, what do you tell them....to just walk in after 16 because if they can't make the carry on 16, there's no way in hell they can make the carry on 17 or 18? 

Mike,

Everyone knows that the carries at # 17 and # 18 are far more heroic than the carry at # 16.
Why do you have a problem admitting what's common knowledge ?


Last night David and Patrick were telling me I was lying about NGLA and Macdonald.

Mike,

I have to tell you that I'm losing respect for your integrity, your intellectual honesty.

I guess desperate men do desperate things.

I NEVER said you were lying.  I said that you didn't understand the nuanced words of CBM himself, choosing instead to rely on newspaper articles which we know are notoriously inaccurate.  

CBM clearly stated, in his own words, that he found the holes prior to the purchase of the property and that the seller allowed them to configure the purchase to accomodate the course which he had already designed.  That's what CBM stated and all the newspaper articles in the world won't change his written words.  Of course you still believe that Dewey beat Truman

With respect to the 1910 land plan, YOU were touting it to the highest praise.
Suddenly, you reject it.

As Shivas stated, you're constantly flip flopping in a desperate attempt to refute anything and everything that David or anyone else brings up that could possible deviate from the "Party Line" at Merion.  I  attribute that to your need to glorify Wilson, ergo, the Cobb's Creek Project.

One only has to look at your desperate attempts to insist that Wilson sailed before 1910 to get an understanding of your primary purpose for posting on Merion related subjects, and that is, to defend the party line at all costs, including attempts to divert the focus, flawed logic and denial of facts.


Tonight, they are focused on what...

the fact that the alternate 16th fairway is "necessary" or advisable"??   

I'm not "focused" on that.
I'm just refuting your subjective and biased statements, explanations and conclusions linked to the 16th hole.


IT"S BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH ABOUT NGLA, and you're just providing them cover while they RUN.  ;D


Rather than try to obscure and divert the search for the facts and the truth concerning "Merion", the subject of this thread, which YOU initiated, why not assist in trying to discover more facts and prudently reason what they imply, instead of trying to come up with hair brained excuses, denials and attempts to divert the focus away from the subject which YOU created, the Timeline at "Merion".

I'm sorry that you feel the need to resort to such foolish tactics.
Your behavior is juvenile and disengenuous.



Patrick_Mucci

Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #912 on: May 28, 2009, 09:42:26 AM »
Patrick:

Regarding your post #967 on the subject of topographical survery maps, or the topo survey maps I'm speaking of that the Wilson committee were designing Merion East on with defined boundaries, I was speaking with Wayne about two months ago and I asked him basically-----"Look Wayno, I'm old but I've been around the proverbial block a bunch of times but is it possible that people are actually as stupid as some on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com? He said; "Oh Yeah, welcome to the club." All I could say is; "Really?" Your post #967 totally reconfirms Wayno's point!  ;)


Yes, you've proven that self incrimination is alive and well  ;D

It's too bad that you didn't understand the primary focus of my post, namely, that perhaps we could obtain the USGS TSM's from 1910.
Certainly, their acquisition couldn't be a bad thing.

As to Wayno, I haven't had any contact with him since he "disolved" his friendship with me. ;D

Patrick_Mucci

Re: My attempt at the Timeline - NOW with NGLA Bombshell
« Reply #913 on: May 28, 2009, 09:46:06 AM »
Do you think these novices were skilled at reading topos and interpolating and transposing architectural design onto them ?
I doubt it.

I think they were probably foot walkers, observers of the land who understood golf, and not skilled architects capable of transposing architectural concepts onto the topos.

I can't recall seeing any design schematic layed out on a topo in the very early part of the 20th Century, can you ?

These fellows weren't Tom Doak's equal, they were novices, unskilled, untested amateurs in an arena that they were unfamiliar with, namely, GCA.


Uhh...Patrick....

I believe some Philly amateurs did this one, as well in 1914.

MIKE, Perhaps your confusing the dates 1909-1910, NOT 1914.




Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #914 on: May 28, 2009, 10:18:43 AM »
I'm copying this from the "Francis" thread because it's my attempt at concluding with what I believe happened, and offers an alternative timeline that is consistent with the original purpose of this thread.

If there are specific questions, I'll attempt to address them, but other than that, unless new facts surface I'm prepared to just sit back and watch the discussion around acreage.

I've said about everything I can on this topic, certainly everything I've wanted to say, and some things I should never have said.

In any case, have a read and then let's see where any new evidence or property acreage discussions lead.

With that preface, let me explain what I think happened;

 
Mike,  you misunderstood my comment to Bradley Anderson.
 
Let me break it down for you.

1. Wilson has long been credited with designing the course based upon principles he learned while traveling abroad.   
2. This assumes he traveled abroad before the course was designed and built.   
3. But he did not travel abroad until after the course had been routed, planned, built, and the tees, greens, and fairways seeded, and at least some of the artificial features built.   
4. Therefore the initial routing, lay out plan, construction, tees, greens, fairways, and at least some of the artificial features could not have been based on what Wilson learned while traveling abroad. 

It is a simple time line.  He couldn't have based Merion on courses he had not yet seen, on a trip he had not yet taken.  Simple as that.

As for whether or not his trip mattered.  All the other accounts of Merion sure think it mattered, otherwise why do they say he based on the holes on courses overseas?
_________________________

As for your earlier post, you claim that "we can add to our list of facts from Francis that Hugh Wilson, and not anyone else was responsible for today's 3rd hole being an attempt at a redan."   

But Francis is talking about how Merion benefited from Wilson's trip abroad.  The trip did not occur until AFTER THE HOLE WAS DESIGNED AND BUILT.   "One hole which benefited was the third.  It was copied from the Redan at North Berwick."

So whatever it was that Wilson learned at North Berwick, it could not have been incorporated into the hole UNTIL AFTER WILSON'S TRIP.  This was long after the hole was planned, laid out, built, and seeded.   

So Francis' statement does NOT establish that Wilson and no one else was responsible for today's 3rd . . . "   

_______________________________


David,

Thank you for that timeline.   I believe that it highlights where we differ, as I’ll explain shortly, but I also want to thank you for what I feel your essay has added and altered to my (and others) overall understanding of the history of Merion and I believe that has been very valuable.

I think Bradley Anderson touched well on a related point, but I’d like to go a bit further down that road.

“I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick,  which he really imagined existed on his new course.  He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot”. – Alex Findlay, talking about Hugh Wilson in May 1912 after Wilson’s return from overseas

What do you think Findlay means when he says that it will take a lot of making in this context?   As you pointed out, the golf course and the holes have already been routed, the holes on the ground, the greens and tees shaped and seeded, and now growing in.   That all happened over the previous year and now the course is months from opening so why would some hole concept still “take a lot of making”, or require much more work to be anything resembling the original?   

Let’s examine your timeline again;

1. Wilson has long been credited with designing the course based upon principles he learned while traveling abroad.   
2. This assumes he traveled abroad before the course was designed and built.   
3. But he did not travel abroad until after the course had been routed, planned, built, and the tees, greens, and fairways seeded, and at least some of the artificial features built.   
4. Therefore the initial routing, lay out plan, construction, tees, greens, fairways, and at least some of the artificial features could not have been based on what Wilson learned while traveling abroad. 

You may be very surprised to learn that I agree with almost everything you’ve written with the exception perhaps that the first point is an overly broad generalization and oversimplification but the second point is where I’d like to get more specific because I’m not sure it’s a valid assumption.

It’s also why I’ve been asking you for any other specific examples of holes on the original Merion course that you believe were directly influenced by great holes overseas.   I want to be sure I address this comprehensively, but I guess we have enough generally agreed examples to work with using holes 3 (redan), 10 (Alps), and 15 green (Eden Green). 

After all, we have outside, contemporaneous support for all of those holes/features being template-based, so we can comfortably work within that construct. 

Let’s start with the redan hole, the third.   

Richard Francis tells us directly that this is one of the holes that “benefitted” from Hugh Wilson’s overseas visit and that “the location of the hole lent itself to this design”.

You’ll notice he doesn’t say that they found that location while looking for a redan hole.   He states that they located the hole first, and only then, working within the possibilities and constraints of their natural conditions, determined that applying some redan principles to that location might work well.

This is wholly consistent with what Francis tells us about the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad.  Francis also tells us clearly that the idea all along was to “incorporate their good features on our course” AFTER Wilson returned in May of 1911.

How could this be?   Weren’t the holes already “designed” before Wilson went abroad, as you rightfully ask?

The simple answer is, no, they weren’t designed.    Eighteen tees and greens were fitted into the property in a routing, again using the natural features and conditions at their disposal on the property that had been selected as their canvas.

None of these tasks required Wilson to go abroad to study first because all they were using at this point was their own carefully studied knowledge of the property, their understanding of good golf holes in the U.S. through their own individual experiences playing golf at a high level nationally for over a decade, as well as what knowledge Macdonald had imparted regarding agronomics and construction techniques, as well has his knowledge of the great holes abroad that he communicated during their visit with him at NGLA.

All of the early accounts mentioned that what was built at first was incomplete, that there were very few bunkers and pits, and that “mental hazards” and additional strategies would be added later.   THAT was the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad…to see in person the type of great hole strategies they had discussed with Macdonald and now wished to apply to their evolving golf course.

Some months ago, and again as Adam Messix questioned yesterday, we had a great debate here re: whether the 3rd hole was indeed a redan, because it does not have the characteristic green sloping front to back, and tilted severely to the low side.  In fact, the 3rd green at Merion slopes back to front, the opposite of what you would expect.

If you think about the definition of the great holes abroad, almost every one of them are self-defined by a few key attributes, and in almost every case it’s not due to some natural feature that needs to be present, but due instead to the placement of artificial hazards which determine strategy.   THAT is what makes them somewhat repeatable.   Almost every template hole is self-defined by its bunkering pattern which defines the hole strategy…the road hole, the redan, the eden, the short, the alps…

I would contend that when the Merion course was first routed, shaped, and seeded, the 3rd hole was simply a tee in a valley, and a green located on a plateau hilltop, much like probably hundreds of uphill par threes in existence, although that barn-top abrupt rise does make it admittedly a bit special.

If nothing else was done to the hole after that it would still be a very good hole…it could even be bunkerless and would be a very good hole.

Yet, to apply some of what they saw as “redan principles”, the Wilson committee decided to build the key “redan bunker” into the face of the hill diagonally to one side (which Francis tells us was the basement of the barn), and also put some “high side” bunkering in on the left to catch the golfer playing a bit too cautiously away from the visually obvious front-right hazard.   

I would contend that those bunkers, and thus the entire hole strategy as a “redan” were added AFTER Wilson’s return from abroad.   The green design doesn’t exactly fit the redan concept because as you mentioned, that was already done and in place.   But we already know they weren’t looking for exact copies…they were simply looking to implement specific features and principles of great holes abroad and apply them to their natural inland conditions.

So it goes with the other examples.   Robert Lesley tells us the “principle” of the Alps Hole they wanted to copy was the large crossing bunker in front of the green, and possibly the large mound behind.    Well, we already know that when Wilson returned from his trip abroad and spoke with Findlay, he admitted that to create anything like the original Alps, “it would take a lot of making.”

But what about the “Eden Green” on the 15th, I’m sure you’re thinking.    Didn’t that require previous intent?   After all, it was built with a large back to front slope and we know that it was roundly criticized as too severe, as was the 8th, which Francis tells us “originally…took the contour of the hillside so that players had to play onto a green which sloped sharply away from them.”   The 8th green was rebuilt before 1916.

In the case of the 15th, we know that Tillinghast claimed it sloped so much from back to front that players had to “skittle” their approach shots up to the front.

But, was it an Eden green because of the back to front slope, which on the uphill 15th also probably originally took much of “the contour of the hillside”, or was it the typical Eden bunkering pattern, where a large front right bunker cut into the face of the upslope is only matched in challenge and difficulty by the “Hill bunker” to the left, where those playing away from the more obvious frontal attack often end up?  By that time, there were thousands of back to front sloping greens, probably many of them too severely constructed, as well.

Once again, I’d contend that the bunkering created the "Eden" strategy of that approach, and defined the principles they wanted to copy from overseas on the 15th.

You mentioned the other day that you thought the 6th hole had some characteristics of a Road Hole, and I agreed with you.   What made it a road hole?

Well, we know it had a property boundary on the right but that was simply happenstance of the routing.   However, Merion CHOSE to utilize that boundary and you told us that they created a tee area that required a carry over the corner, built some large mounding in that corner, and then build a large hazard left of the green to challenge those playing too cautiously away from the boundary on the drive.

Once again, these are/were all artificial touches that created the hole strategies, and that were added AFTER the course was routed, based on what Wilson learned abroad, and based on how the Merion committee determined to apply them to the natural conditions at their disposal.

So, to draw an alternate timeline, and hopefully conclude my participation for the time being (I’ve honestly said everything I can say unless more facts surface), this is what it looks like to me;

Jan – early march 1911 – Wilson and Committee create many golf course layouts, none of which they are satisfied with.

March 1911 – Visit Macdonald at NGLA and gain some great insight.

March – April 6th – Wilson and Committee take what they’ve learned and created “five different” course layouts.   Macdonald makes his second visit to the property and after reviewing the land and the proposed layouts carefully, selects the best one.

April 19th – The Merion Board gives approval to the selected and recommended plan and construction proceeds forthwith.

Late April – Fall 1911 – Construction of 18 tees and greens consistent with the routing that attempts to take best advantage of the natural features of the property takes place and by fall the property is seeded.

Winter 1911-12 – Wilson tells us that the committee worked all winter, although it’s unclear what they were doing at this point.

March 1912-May 1912 – Wilson goes abroad to study.

May 1912 – Sept 1912 – Wilson puts the first “overseas touches” on the golf course, almost certainly in the form of bunkers and mounding influence play and creating internal, artificial hole strategies that he emulates based on great holes he has now both seen and discussed with Macdonald through sketches and Mac’s NGLA versions, as well as the originals he’s seen with his own eyes.

Sept 1912 – Sept 1916 – This work continues up to and including the first US Amateur at Merion.

1922-24 – Much more work is done by Wilson and committee with William Flynn to solve the problems of the increasingly busy Ardmore Avenue and continues to refine the hole strategies.   This work replaces original holes 10, 11, 12, 13, and replaces them with today’s versions.

February 1925 – Sadly, Hugh Wilson dies at age 45.


Thanks again, David.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 10:30:05 AM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #915 on: May 28, 2009, 01:34:48 PM »
Bryan,

This whole thing is is absurd!  We have to figure all this out for TEPaul and Wayne, and they won't even show us the courtesy of giving us the coordinates off of a public document, so we wouldn't have to theorize.   Perhaps we should take our conversation off line and let them figure it out themselves.   

I'll look into the cost of acquiring the deeds, but they are behaving like a couple of jackasses.

David,

Do you see a flaw in the methodology?

The most likely flaw is that you trusted that the information from TEPaul was factual, and extrapolated therefrom.

We don't have the coordinates for the western border of the Johnson farm property, and probably should NOT assume it was "square" with the western border of Haverford College.   Perhaps Haverford College's western border ran at a different angle compared to the johnson farm west border.

In other words, the rectangle at the top might not have been a rectangle at all, but a trapezoid.   If it was wider at the top, this would push your line right at the bottom, reducing the acreage, perhaps significantly depending on difference of the angle. 

In fact, take a look at the direction of the railroad.   A very close match to the direction of the haverford college county line.    Now take a look at the direction of coopertown road, a little west of the golf course, or the top straight portion of Turnbridge, south of College.    They are about 5+ degrees different from the RR, aren't they?   And look at the one straight stretch of Golf House Road, next to the 14th fairway.  It is about parallel to Coopertown Rd and Turnbridge, is it not?

It is rough, but I tried the Johnson farm border using at the approximate directional coordinates as Coopertown road, using the same distance you extrapolated from TEPaul's supposed rectangle.   It looks like the border of the Johnson Farm may have extended directly to the intersection Golf House and Ardmore.    The measure then is much more reasonable. 

Just a theory.  Check it out and see what you think. 

Here is a ROUGH approximation of what I am talking about, in case you cannot visual it from my description.   It is rough, so I would redraw it if you want to measure it.




_______________________________

Mike Cirba,

You have got to stop with this nonsense of the double and triple posts, and now on multiple threads.  It just clogs things up and people who want to follow the conversations have no idea where to look.  We know you think your posts are very important and that we all must read them, and we know you want to distance yourself from your crumbling theories about the land swap, but gives us a break already.  Delete the long post so we don't end up with a bifurcated conversation.  It has no place here.  We are discussing the boundaries.

Speaking of which,  I asked for your FACTUAL BASIS for thinking the 14th green, 15th tee and 15th fairway were part of the Francis Land Swap, and your answer was:

"Francis and the Wilson Committee were obviously working off Topos of whatever land they measured and believed to be the boundaries of the land allocated for golf.    We know they weren't working off the 1910 Land Plan as it had no topographical dimensions.   We also know that no one has found their original maps, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist because we know Wilson referred to the topo in a letter as early as Feb 1911"

Your factual basis is you think they had topo maps, and we haven't found them yet?   Huh?    This makes absolutely no sense.  Perhaps you didn't understand my question.   

Mike:  You seem to think that Merion acquired the land for the 14th green, 15th tee, and 15th fairway as part of the Francis Land Swap;  what is your FACTUAL basis for this theory?

Thanks.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 03:15:32 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #916 on: May 28, 2009, 02:28:19 PM »
David,

Excuse me, but this is my thread that I started and I'm the one outlining my timeline, and it's obviously generated a lot of interest and discussion on related and not so related topics, so if you want less clutter starting your own thread trying to measure the property might be an appropriate course.

As far as your question;

My only reference to 14 green, 15 tee, and 15 fairway was earlier in discussing that they didn't fit within the 1910 Land Plan.   That's a given.

However, I also now believe after looking at the dimensions of the Johnson Farm that ran to College Avenue that the Land Plan has less than zero value because it is not only "approximate" and not drawn to scale, it is also equidistantly drawn with soft curves the length of the Northen parcel of that farm and not clearly not indicative of the lines of some pre-formatted golf course.   It is therefore completely misleading, and I believe we've  ALL collectively been off on a snipe hunt for the past few years.

After coming to that conclusion the other night, I don't believe we can use the 1910 map to make any assumptions because they would be based wholly on a false premise.

So, with that new understanding, here's what we know...

At some point, the Francis Land Swap happened and property originally purchased and not being used for any golf layouts was swapped for land "adjoining".

I do not pretend to know when that was, but I would think it was likely late March, early April 1911.

I don't believe any previously submitted documents or evidence shows that it happened before then and other items like the timings of the board discussion around it make it seem to me that the timelines I've outlined are appropriate.

We also know that Hugh Wilson and Committee were working from topographical maps, and we don't know how close or how far apart they were from the 1910 Land Plan.   They could have been identical, but I'd find that a bit odd because we know the latter is fatally flawed and not to scale.

Frankly, I was hoping to sit back at this point and hope the measurements of the acreage gives us all some better insight.

I hope this helps.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 02:40:40 PM by MCirba »

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #917 on: May 28, 2009, 02:47:42 PM »

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

However, I also now believe after looking at the dimensions of the Johnson Farm that ran to College Avenue that the Land Plan has less than zero value because it is not only "approximate" and not drawn to scale, it is also equidistantly drawn with soft curves the length of the Northen parcel of that farm and not clearly not indicative of the lines of some pre-formatted golf course.   It is therefore completely misleading, and I believe we've  ALL collectively been off on a snipe hunt for the past few years.

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


Mike,

Are you suggesting that HGL and HDC were fraudulently misrepresenting both the real estate and golf course on the land plan?  :o  Say it ain't so.


Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #918 on: May 28, 2009, 03:10:19 PM »
Mike,

Are you suggesting that HGL and HDC were fraudulently misrepresenting both the real estate and golf course on the land plan?  :o  Say it ain't so.


Bryan,

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that there is gambling going on in Morocco.  ;)

No, actually, that's not what I'm suggesting at all.

The proposed, approximate road drawn on that map clearly to me seems to be just indicative of a hypothetical boundary between the 221 acres of real estate and 117 acres of golf course land.

The fact that you and David have measured it and it doesn't equal 117 acres for golf course land simply tells me that my suspicion is correct.

That would also clearly indicate that they drew that map knowing full well that the golf course boundary would be adjustable, and determined later after the routing was complete.

The fact that Lloyd could make either side of that transaction work ensured that there would be no land boundary problem that would surface as insurmountable later.

No fraudulent intent whatsoever.

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #919 on: May 28, 2009, 03:21:10 PM »
*

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #920 on: May 28, 2009, 03:29:55 PM »
Mike,

While you guys have long been confused about the 1910 Land Plan, a few of us have understood it throughout.  I've never used it as an exact measure of anything and don't intend to, but it does provide us with some information.   Please stop representing otherwise.  Thanks.


At some point, the Francis Land Swap happened and property originally purchased and not being used for any golf layouts was swapped for land "adjoining".

There are no facts that establish that the minutes were referring to the Francis land swap.  In fact, the minutes indicate that this could not have been the Francis land swap, because according to your theory, that was a swap of land owned for land owned (not adjoining.)    That doesn't sound like a swap at all to me.  

Quote
Frankly, I was hoping to sit back at this point and hope the measurements of the acreage gives us all some better insight.

Again Mike, you have not offered a single FACT that supports your theory that the 14th green, 15th tee and 15th fairway were part of the Francis land swap.

So since it was solely the product of information that you no longer find reliable, can we finally discard your theory that that the the 14th green, 15th tee and 15th fairway were part of the Francis land swap?   If not, why not?  
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 03:34:48 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #921 on: May 28, 2009, 03:38:59 PM »
David,

So you're now saying you knew all along that the portion drawn as golf course did not measure 117 acres on the November 1910 Land Plan?? 

My theory of what was swapped was based on the assumption that the Land Plan was to scale and mapped accordingly. 

Since it was not, and grossly so (130x190 vs 100x327), any previous assumptions based on that erroneous understanding logically get tossed, as well.

I would hope you'd also see the wisdom in trashing any assumptions based on a fatally flawed document.

I'm truly hoping you guys measuring the acreage can figure this out.   I only know the minutes from April 1911 refer to a land swap and purchase of 3 acres.

As far as measuring and googling and metes and bounds, I'm staying in the bleachers for that one.    ;D
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 03:40:46 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #922 on: May 28, 2009, 04:11:14 PM »
Mike,  I try to investigate the facts before I propose my theories.  Accordingly I had done quite a few overlays of that map long before my essay came out, including the one you mocked in this thread.  I don't remember if I actually measured the acreage, but I knew the road was approximate and that the overlay showed too big a parcel.   My essay noted that the location was approximate, and at one point had a long discussion of what I thought was going on but it seemed like distracting minutia and I cut it (along with a lot of other things.)  This wasn't rocket science since the road is labeled "APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ROAD."

I've explained exactly how and why I am relying on the essay a number of times, so perhaps you should drop it.   Before you do though, you may want to note that you are wrong about your constant 130 yards vs. 100 yards comparison. 

After doing his best to actually locate the original corner of the College property, didn't Bryan determine it was around 110 yards from the corner to the center of the road?   I think he is still a few yards off because of where he places the corner of the college property, but his measure consistent with the figure I came with when I measured the 1910 map.   So, whatever other problems the 1910 map has, it happened to get the width of the triangle about right.   I don't put much weight in this, because the road was approximate, but it ought to put an end to your claims that the 1910 map was so far off that it is unreasonable to assume that the corner was really meant to mean anything at all. 

So Mike, you still haven't answered my question.  We really need some closure otherwise we will be back here in the future:

Your theory that the 14th green, 15th tee and 15th fairway were part of the Francis land swap was solely based on information that you no longer find reliable.

Can we finally discard your theory that that the land for the 14th green, 15th tee and 15th fairway was obtained by MCC as part of the Francis land swap?   If not, why not? 


« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 04:40:23 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #923 on: May 28, 2009, 04:50:07 PM »
Mike,

I don't recall measuring the area off the 1910 land plan.  My main concern with overlaying it was that none of the dimensions seemed to fit.  I think I came to the conclusion that it was a measurement fraud before you had your curvilinear-eureka-moment, and evidently after David reached that conclusion.  As to 117 acres, that's what I'm trying to get to with my measurements.  Where the heck was a piece of property that fit that acreage.  After that then I might have some theories.

Back to the measurement.

David,

Thanks for the thoughts on the green Area B on my map.  I agree that the western boundary should be closer to GHR.  I think I've discovered the error of my ways.  The metes that you and Tom provided were different in the headings.  I was never comfortable with the heading as it related to the boundary.  What I had forgotten is that the headings were magnetic compass readings from almost 100 years.  Magnetic north wanders about over the years.  Hence the difference between yours and Tom's metes.  Through a little research I've determined that magnetic north in PHA has moved about 5*04' west since 1910.  So, the heading of 23*58' from 1910 provided by Tom needs to be adjusted to S29*02E' for todays map.  That'll move the Haverford College boundary to the east from where I had it before.  Hence, also moving the western boundary of the Johnson farm further east to the area where you drew it. 

More precise drawings and acreages to follow as I have time.

   

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #924 on: May 28, 2009, 05:57:01 PM »
Bryan,

I don't care who gets credit for the chink in the 1910 land plan armor.

I'm just saying that my eureka moment was simply recognizing the tie to the Johnson Farm property's northern boundary.

Keep up the good work on the measurements...thanks