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
« Reply #1125 on: June 03, 2009, 10:02:30 AM »
Since Tom and Wayne are ostensibly off on the search for the golden fleece (topo map) I thought I'd help out with this one.  Of course, I'm not sure how accurate the roads are, or how useful it would be for determining acreages or land swaps?  And, of course it's not signed by Francis or Wilson or anybody.   :(







Damnit Bryan...if only you were around in June 1910 and emailed that map over to Macdonald and Whigham they could have expediently routed the course right then and there, signed on the bottom, and we'd all be home in time for supper!   ;D   

I'm still trying to find out why they just didn't use a cocktail napkin for the purpose?   :-\ ::) ;D
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 10:14:08 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1126 on: June 03, 2009, 10:08:56 AM »
Mike, Bryan and Sully:

Just to go back and review;

As I see this entire Francis land swap issue (the idea, the seeking of Lloyd's permission and the fix and approval) it has two distinct and perhaps somewhat interrelated questions to it;

1. When did it actually happened (did it logically have to be within a particular timeframe or not)?
2. Specifically WHERE (some defined area?) and HOW it happen (was it the exchange and purchase of the Thompson Resolution since there is not other boundary adjustment to this property in this timeframe?)?

Since nothing that was left that is available to us today specifically addresses those answers I think we just have to use ALL the material we know available to us surrounding this entire timeframe (June 1910 to July 1911) to determine what are the most logic answers to those questions.

Would you agree?

Tom,

I agree...but I'll continue to believe that Lloyd's position of influence with HDC demands that December 19, 1910 is not the earliest point he could have been in a position to move boundaries...

The other shareholders of HDC would have wanted the very best golf course possible and Lloyd was in a position to make "land swap" type decisions for both sides from mid-1910 on...I would even question whether he was in a position to make that type of decision independently for Committee Wilson was chairing, not for the legal entity mind you, but for the actual golf course. Wouldn't that be run past the committee once it had been established?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1127 on: June 03, 2009, 10:23:22 AM »
Mike Cirba,

You claim you understand what TEPaul is trying to prove with the metes and bounds.  Great.

Can you specifically describe to us what he is trying to prove?

Because I really have no clue.

Thanks.

David,

You say you have proof that the course was routed and existed on blueprint prior to Wilson's involvement.

You've been at this for five years.  YOU are the one challenging the history of this great course.

The burden of proof is your's.

Let's see it,.

This, in a nutshell, is how ineffective this discussion has become. The answer doesn't even address the question.

Joe

Joe Hancock,

I agree completely.

Especially since David's post to me that you copied above was in response to my asking him;

David,

If there is additional evidence that blueprints of the course existed prior to January 1911 that are included as part of the agricultural letters, and you think they prove that the course was routed prior to WIlson's involvement...

...then what the f*ck are you waiting for man?   Let's see them!   


I hope at this point Joe that you're unbiased enough to call out anyone on this thread who disengenously claims they have PROOF that will break this logjam and then purposefully diverts discussion elsewhere.   ::)

Hasn't that been your modus operandi for some time ? ;D

So Mike, how many "wrongs" make a "right".

Why don't you start by answering the simple question David asked of you.


Thanks

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1128 on: June 03, 2009, 10:27:06 AM »
Patrick,

At this point, I think Tom Paul should provide the metes and bounds to Bryan and I thnk David should provide us with his latest supposed proof that ABW* designed the course.




* Anybody but Wilson

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1129 on: June 03, 2009, 10:32:02 AM »
"Are we at the point where we think a metes and bounds comparison of the 1910 Francis Deed and the 1928 Merion boundaries needs to be fleshed out?"

Mike:

Using a 1928 Merion property survey (metes and bounds) has no real relevence here and will be very distorting of the boundaries calculations of Merion East as numerous little pieces were added between the July 21, 1911 deed (120.1 acres) and 1928. If we want a real valid comparision of acreage we have to keep the excercise contained within the timeframe of Dec 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1130 on: June 03, 2009, 10:35:40 AM »
Tom,

sorry if this is a re-tread...would the western boundary of the Johnson farm that HDC bought be delineated on the December 1910 deed?

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1131 on: June 03, 2009, 10:36:53 AM »
"Are we at the point where we think a metes and bounds comparison of the 1910 Francis Deed and the 1928 Merion boundaries needs to be fleshed out?"

Mike:

Using a 1928 Merion property survey (metes and bounds) has no real relevence here and will be very distorting of the boundaries calculations of Merion East as numerous little pieces were added between the July 21, 1911 deed (120.1 acres) and 1928. If we want a real valid comparision of acreage we have to keep the excercise contained within the timeframe of Dec 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911.


Tom,

I can understand that.   What would you propose?   In other words, is there anything that can be gleaned from the 1910 deed as relates to the area along Golf House Road, particularly as relates to differences in the existing northwestern boundary as we know it today? 

{EDIT} - Wait...I guess there really couldn't be cuz the road didn't exist yet and the purchase was for 161 acres.

Is there anything we can learn from that 1910 deed?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 10:40:35 AM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1132 on: June 03, 2009, 11:23:17 AM »
"Tom,

I agree...but I'll continue to believe that Lloyd's position of influence with HDC demands that December 19, 1910 is not the earliest point he could have been in a position to move boundaries..."


Sully:

That's seems to be true. But what Lloyd was doing in his negotiations with Connell before Nov. 1910 appears from everything contained in the MCC committee reports and board meetings that address the negotiations between Connell and Lloyd to have all been well before any golf course routing or hole designing was even considered. It is important to note that Lloyd seemed to be the only one from MCC doing any negotiating with HDC about golf ground. The minutes and reports say so.

I do understand that some people on here just think there must have been some sort of golf course design at this point. Apparently they seem to think that partly due to David Moriarty's completely unfactual contention that that was the case but the fact truly is from everything from MCC itself that it just was not the case.

The fact is MCC began to do routing and design plans for Merion East at some point and for a whole lot of practical reasons that have been either ignored or dismissed on these multiple Merion/Macdonald threads Nov, 1910 was just NOT that point when they began doing that. Again, there are all kinds of practical reasons contained in MCC's record why that was so and why they were not doing that at that early point.

As far a Francis land swap prior to Nov, 1910, Francis, like Wilson and the rest of the Wilson Committee that was appointed in the beginning of 1911 and that included Griscom, Toulmin and Lloyd himself had just not yet become involved in that process of routing, designing or laying out plans for a golf course. All they had accomplished by mid-Nov, 1910 was the agreement that they had enough land with that 117 acres to be able to do it. Probably the single biggest factor holding things up for Lloyd and Connell was the pinning down of the Dallas estate that would not happen until Nov. 1910. After that, and after Lloyd completed his negotiations with Connell (the board minutes refect he did this on his own with numerous meetings and conferences with Connell) HDC wrote a letter on Nov. 10, 1910 from HDC secretary Nickolson to MCC president Evans making the offer of 117 acres. Evan's got approval from the board and wrote Nicklson back agreeing to the terms of the offer. At that point at least a single boundary line was not as exact as it would be after the Francis land swap idea, the approval of the Thompson Resolution and its reflection in the July 21, 1910 deed that Lloyd transfered to MCCGA. 

There is also little question that there was one really obvious elastic boundary line and that is why Lloyd put himself in a position to adjust it. Had the Francis land swap idea happened BEFORE Lloyd's Dec, 19, 1910 deed then that elastic boundary line would have reflected Francis' idea on the topo contour maps the Wilson Committee used beginning at some point in January 1911 but the fact is it just did not and that is why it is reflected on the board level in the Thompson Resolution AFTER Lloyd took the land into his own name and why it is particularly reflected in the deed he transfered to MCCGA on July 21, 1911. That particular boundary line served to enclose the rest of the courses boundary lines which did not change between the Dec, 1910 and the July 1911 deed with the exception of the land of the original Johson farm above Ardmore Ave far to the west that was never considered for golf holes anyway for really obvious reasons.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 11:39:15 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1133 on: June 03, 2009, 11:43:56 AM »
Sully,

Does the initial selection of the 117 original acres as I identified it above make sense to you?

Compare the Johnson Farm property south of Ardmore Ave as well as the adjoning Dallas estate and now look at the land south of Ardmore Ave that is designated as part of the golf course on the 1910 plan.

Really looks like the "bought the land for the holes they designed", doesn't it?  Sure.

Now look north of Ardmore Ave and see how that section of Johnson Farm was merely divided by a hypothetical boundary defined by an "approximate" road that purported to mark the divide between golf course and real estate land.

Do you see how simply and semi-arbitrarily they selected the land for the course?

Does it now make sense why that triangle of land appears on the approx. 1910 Land Plan, albeit running way too far north to College Ave.? 

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1134 on: June 03, 2009, 11:46:29 AM »
"Are we at the point where we think a metes and bounds comparison of the 1910 Francis Deed and the 1928 Merion boundaries needs to be fleshed out?"

Mike:

Using a 1928 Merion property survey (metes and bounds) has no real relevence here and will be very distorting of the boundaries calculations of Merion East as numerous little pieces were added between the July 21, 1911 deed (120.1 acres) and 1928. If we want a real valid comparision of acreage we have to keep the excercise contained within the timeframe of Dec 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911.


Tom,

I can understand that.   What would you propose?   In other words, is there anything that can be gleaned from the 1910 deed as relates to the area along Golf House Road, particularly as relates to differences in the existing northwestern boundary as we know it today? 

{EDIT} - Wait...I guess there really couldn't be cuz the road didn't exist yet and the purchase was for 161 acres.

Is there anything we can learn from that 1910 deed? 

We could learn where the boundaries of the 161 acre and the 117 acre purchases were; and, therefore where the western boundary of the Johnson farm was; and, therefore, given the current location of the road, how much of the Johnson farm was given over to real estate; and, what other areas weren't given to MCC.

I've asked before, but no one has answered yet, do we know when the road was actually built?  When it was built, did it have the same configuration as it does today?  For whatever it is worth, College was opened in 1910.


TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1135 on: June 03, 2009, 11:51:22 AM »
"Tom,

sorry if this is a re-tread...would the western boundary of the Johnson farm that HDC bought be delineated on the December 1910 deed?"


Sully:

Don't be sorry for any question. Believe me I certainly do understand this is all pretty complex the way it all played through in this particular time frame.

Yes, it was on the Dec. 19, 1910 deed; every single boundary line of the old Johnson Farm was reflected in that Dec. 19, 1910 deed of the entire Johnson farm of 140.137 acres (except the old boundary line of the Johnson farm contiguous with the Dallas estate) because Lloyd bought the entire Johnson Farm (140.137 acres) AND the Dallas estate (21). That's why his Dec. 19, 1910 deed shows 161 acres (140.137 acres + 21=161 acres of the Dec. 19, 1910 deed and its boundary line metes and bounds.

Obviously, on the July, 21, 1911 deed that Lloyd transfered to MCCGA that old Johnson farm western boundary line at the top of the "L" was extinguished entirely and the new western boundary at the top of the "L" for the golf course became Golf House Road with its exchange and purchase adjustment (The Thompson Resolution reflecting the Francis land swap) compared to its delineation for the proposed road on the Wilson topo contour maps.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 11:53:51 AM by TEPaul »

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1136 on: June 03, 2009, 11:52:29 AM »
Tom,

Since we are in digressions, can you tell me what 20.05 acre plot was acquired by Merion  on 04/26/1979 for $330,000.00?


Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1137 on: June 03, 2009, 11:54:59 AM »
Bryan,

The road exists in the 1911 photo I posted that shows the huge protective mound behind the 10th green as well as the raw, unbunkered 18th green and 14th tee.

From that pic, one can see the "bow-in" of the road down across from the clubhouse.

I'm not sure that helps nail it down, though.

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1138 on: June 03, 2009, 11:56:29 AM »
Bryan:

That's the Haverford College land east of #16 that is the practice range. Merion leased that land from Haverford College to use as a range for close to thirty years before actually buying it. Today Merion G.C's total property is a bit over 150 acres.

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1139 on: June 03, 2009, 12:04:03 PM »
"I've asked before, but no one has answered yet, do we know when the road was actually built?  When it was built, did it have the same configuration as it does today?  For whatever it is worth, College was opened in 1910."


Bryan:

Somewhere back in these numerous pages of Merion threads I did answer that. Golf House Road was actually built around 1913 or 1914. It had the same configuration when it was built as it has today and it has the same configuration when it was built and today as shows on its metes and bounds on the July 21, 1911 deed that Lloyd transfered to MCCGA.

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1140 on: June 03, 2009, 12:21:20 PM »
Bryan,

The road exists in the 1911 photo I posted that shows the huge protective mound behind the 10th green as well as the raw, unbunkered 18th green and 14th tee.

From that pic, one can see the "bow-in" of the road down across from the clubhouse.

I'm not sure that helps nail it down, though.

Mike,

Could you post the picture again.  I'm not sure which one you are referring to.  Your 1911 date seems to conflict with Tom's 1913-14 date.

Tom,

So, the road was built after the course was designed, built and opened for play?


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1141 on: June 03, 2009, 12:26:34 PM »
Bryan:

That's the Haverford College land east of #16 that is the practice range. Merion leased that land from Haverford College to use as a range for close to thirty years before actually buying it. Today Merion G.C's total property is a bit over 150 acres.

I too thought that that was what it was.  However, I can't get the driving range area up to 20.05 acres, even including the sliver of land from the range down along the tracks to behind what looks like the maintenance barn.  The only way I can get the area to 20.05 acres is to include the 3 acre P&W RR land down by Ardmore.  Was the 3 acre RR land triangle included as part of this deed? I recall your story that the RR land was leased for many years before being purchased.

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1142 on: June 03, 2009, 12:29:06 PM »
"I've asked before, but no one has answered yet, do we know when the road was actually built?  When it was built, did it have the same configuration as it does today?  For whatever it is worth, College was opened in 1910."


Bryan:

Somewhere back in these numerous pages of Merion threads I did answer that. Golf House Road was actually built around 1913 or 1914. It had the same configuration when it was built as it has today and it has the same configuration when it was built and today as shows on its metes and bounds on the July 21, 1911 deed that Lloyd transfered to MCCGA.


Obviously my excercise is intended to determine and prove that when the Francis land swap and the Thompson Resolution of an exchange for land already purchased for land adjoining AND three additonal acres for $7,500 was effectuated it will show the boundary enclosure of the metes and bounds  of Golf House Road and the old Johnson farm western boundary lines to be about 18 acres. This would essentially be the area JW in Bryan's map on post #1140.

Before that on the working topo survey maps the Wilson Committee was routing and designing on I believe that enclosure (basically JW) was about 21 acres.

To get an exact remainder of acreage, however, off of the enclosure of the metes and bounds of the old Johnson western boundary on the top of the "L" and the metes and bounds of Golf House Road may be slightly off because it appears to me that Golf House Road in perhaps one or two small areas actually crosses west of the old Johnson farm western boundary and into what was known then as the Taylor estate. It was all HDC land though that made up the 221 remaining acres of the 338 total to be residentially developed.

I believe in the end only 218 acres of that 221 were developed into residences because the other three acres went to the golf course (in the three acre purchase for $7,500 via the Thompson Resolution (Francis land swap)) which increased Merion East's original July 21, 1911 acreage to 120.1 from the 117 acres as reflected on the topo contour survey maps (blueprints) out of the great whole of Lloyd's Dec. 19, 1910 161 acre deed.

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1143 on: June 03, 2009, 12:37:33 PM »
"I too thought that that was what it was.  However, I can't get the driving range area up to 20.05 acres, even including the sliver of land from the range down along the tracks to behind what looks like the maintenance barn.  The only way I can get the area to 20.05 acres is to include the 3 acre P&W RR land down by Ardmore.  Was the 3 acre RR land triangle included as part of this deed? I recall your story that the RR land was leased for many years before being purchased."


Bryan::

Well, nevertheless it was 20.05 acres transfered from Haverford College to Merion G.C. We have that deed.

No, the 3 acre P&W land was not part of the July 21, 1911 deed. For the longest time we thought it was (probably because it is app 3 acres as the 3 acre additional purchase for $7,500 is). About two months ago I finally realized that additonal 3 acre purchase reflected in the July 21, 1911 deed (and the Thompson Resolution (Francis last five holes fix)) was NOT the P&W 3 acres but 3 acres of HDC residential development land to the west of actual Golf House Road between Ardmore and College Aves.

I also mentioned on here at some point why Merion G.C. bought that app 3 acre P&W land in 1961. Did you not see that? It's pretty funny, actually.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 12:44:14 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1144 on: June 03, 2009, 12:49:34 PM »
"Tom,

So, the road was built after the course was designed, built and opened for play?"


Bryan:

I'm pretty sure it was. I read that in the last month or so over there. I remember where I was, unfortunately I don't remember exactly what I was looking at.

However, there is a perfectly good way of determing if the road was built exactly as its metes and bounds appears on the July 21, 1911 deed for 120.1 acres that Lloyd transfered to MCCGA even if it was not built at that time. That would be to compare the metes and bounds of Golf House Road to a survey by Yerkes around 1928 that also has the metes and bounds of the road long after it was built.

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1145 on: June 03, 2009, 12:58:37 PM »
"Are you trying to say that you  have actually used the metes and bounds to determine the acreages?  Are you just teasing us along?"


Bryan:

Sorry, you put a lot of posts on here today. It takes some time to get to all of them. I have never used any metes and bounds to meaure anything other than the dimensions of the area mentioned in Francis' story in which #15 green and #16 tee sits (the 130x190). And for that I did not use any Google Earthing mechanism, I simply walked it a couple of times! I've certainly played enough tournament golf in my time to know how to walk off yardages that match laser yardages and such of golf holes.  ;)

And that is why I told you some time ago that the actual linear dimension on the east on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan was 327 yards and not 190!  ;)


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1146 on: June 03, 2009, 01:52:13 PM »
Mike,

As for the Agronomy letters,  I will get some of them on here when I get the time, hopefully later today or tomorrow.

But Mike,  Wayne and TEPaul claim they have had these documents for years.  I don't recall you ever persistently demanding that they provide them on here.   

And why do you suppose they kept them not just from us, but from you too?  They are obviously playing you.   Wayne must have figured out that he can no longer take these outrageous positons, because he will look stupid again if and when the real information comes out.   So they operate behind the scenes, intentionally giving you only part of the story so you do their dirty work for them.  What do they care if you are made to look foolish again and again?   You are their perfect pawn, they sacrifice you repeatedly but you always come back for more, apparently oblivious to the fact that you are being mislead along with the rest of us.   And Mike, this is not theory on my part.  They've done this with numerous people - provided them with snippets to try and convince them of their points.  But the others must have been weary enough to not go to the mattresses based on what is obviously only the part of the story they want you to hear.   

And  remember, I was trying to help Wayne at one point, so it is easy for me to recognize when you are parroting his theories, either knowingly or not.   For example, you didn't come up with the outrageous the 10th green was 8 ft. higher than the front bunker claim or the the mound wasn't part of the 10th green but was a safety buffer claim.  I doubt you came up with this crazy NGLA claim yourself either, although you may have.     In short Mike,  whether you know it or not you are shilling for them and and taking shots to your reputation that ought to be damaging theirs.
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 #1147 on: June 03, 2009, 02:23:32 PM »
David,

Can you possibly come across any more pompous, condescending, and insulting?   

Your suggestion that Wayne Morrison is feeding me information is preposterous.   For many moons now he's simply been advising during our too infrequent contacts that both Tom Paul and I ignore you and maybe you'll grow weary of arguing with nobody and perhaps all of this stuff will just fade into the sunset. 

I can certainly understand how anyone looking into this mess from the outside must think the bunch of us are out of our minds, and they'd have a damn good point.

Much of the information I do have is stuff I have from both Joe Bausch and Wayne, but the latter is info he provided to me probably a year or more ago.

I'm perfectly fine to draw my own interpretations of the evidence here, David...no need to make it look like I'm being setup as their patsy.

And if you and Tom MacWood actually do have real proof (this time  ::)) as you've both been threatening to produce here for about five years now, I will say that you'd best get on with it before we're all dead and buried.

It would certainly be a waste of our children's time to be arguing why the triangle is there.  ;D
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 02:34:06 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1148 on: June 03, 2009, 02:37:10 PM »
Okay Mike, if you want full blame for for all these crazy tangents and theories then go ahead.  But you and I both know that many of your theories were Wayne's originally.   All this crazy misinformation and theory must have come from the Holy Flynn Bible, King Wayne's Version. If that is the case then that itself is pretty funny if you think about it. 

And they are playing you.   Why else would they only let you see part of the record.
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 #1149 on: June 03, 2009, 02:41:43 PM »
Okay Mike, if you want full blame for for all these crazy tangents and theories then go ahead.  But you and I both know that many of your theories were Wayne's originally.   All this crazy misinformation and theory must have come from the Holy Flynn Bible, King Wayne's Version. If that is the case then that itself is pretty funny if you think about it. 

And they are playing you.   Why else would they only let you see part of the record.

Jeez David...I know how important it is to you and Henry...er...Tom MacWood to try and prove Wayne and Tom Paul wrong on something, but please, give it a break.   It comes off as petty and crass and not much good in this world ever came out of a personal vendetta.

I'd much rather we have productive discussions without all that crap and I think others would as well.   

I'm trying as much as possible to talk about your theories, and what you're presenting, and not about you personally or how foolish, wrong, immature, or any other comment that flies back and forth between you and Tom.

I've told Tom I think he should give Bryan the metes and bounds, I've offered to get them myself, and I'm not Tom or Wayne, and I've asked you for the additional evidence you keep alluding to as well.