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.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1275 on: June 05, 2009, 11:57:01 AM »
Which is it Tom, did they have zero idea of what they were going to do in 1910 or maybe some idea...you just said both in that last post...

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1276 on: June 05, 2009, 11:58:21 AM »
To clarify what I wrote, I was referring back to a thread a few years ago started by Tom Paul titled "The Francis Land Swap", and stated that very early on in that thread Jeffrey Brauer immediately got the picture of what happened, based on seeing this type of thing many times in his real world experience.

Perhaps we should all agree to creating just one GIGANTIC thread called Merion, and keep all of th discussion/warfare to one place.  ;)

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1277 on: June 05, 2009, 12:06:17 PM »
Which is it Tom, did they have zero idea of what they were going to do in 1910 or maybe some idea...you just said both in that last post...

Jim,

I have to keep going back to the historical boundaries.

If they were simply trying to find the best 117 acres for golf out of the 338 available to them, why would 80% of the course just utilize existing historical boundaries?   Why wouldn't the holes be located all up and around and through the HDC land, much like a real-estate course is today?   If they were seeking the best land for golf out of 338 acres and had ALREADY ROUTED A COURSE ON THAT BEST LAND, it would be coincidence of staggering proportions that everything just happened to fit nicely into land that had been delineated EXACTLY THAT WAY for decades. 




Does that mean that they didn't look at the property overall to determine what natural features they could use, or any other constraining issues like not enough acreage, bad soil quality, too abrupt landforms?

Of course not...and that's part of why they had M&W down in the first place.

And, M&W created a report and that, as mentioned by Robert Lesley, formed the basis of the recommendation that they go ahead and buy that land.


TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1278 on: June 05, 2009, 12:11:47 PM »
That's good Bryan. Do your best and if it's not too damn expensive we will take everything we have with metes and bounds and get a professional survey company to measure everythng; perhaps even the same one that did it back then. Then we can compare our results with your results.

It will be pretty interesting to see how you make out on the metes and bounds of the yet to be built Golf House Road on that July 21, 1911 deed that is a series of arcs to points using Chordes and such! I hope your GOOGLE EARTH plainimeter or what ever it is has a good protractor or arc measuring tool too. ;)

Either through a professional survey company or just comparing the arcs and lengths and numerical directional degrees I will confirm that the metes and bounds up and down from Ardmore to College Aves of Golf House Road on that July 21, 1911 deed are the very same metes and bounds as Golf House Road was actually built to (we can compare all that off the metes and bounds of the road on a 1928 Yerkes survey for Merion's property).

I might also warn you that if that road as built does go west of the old Johnson boundary line at the top of the "L" into the old Taylor estate at a few small points it may throw your numbers off some but I doubt it will with a professional surveyor because if Golf House Road and the old Johnson boundary when enclosed come out a bit low on a 120.1 acre total then I know a professional surveyor could easily find precisely where it may have gone over that boundary by just comparing the metes and bounds of the old Johnson boundary with the metes and bounds of as built Golf House Road and coming up with the remainder from over the old Johnson boundary.

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1279 on: June 05, 2009, 12:28:10 PM »
Mr. Jeffrey, Sir:

I think what Mr, Cirba meant is that you immediately recognized and understood what I had said previously about the key to this Francis swap was the redelineation of Golf House Road. I did not come up with that from you but on my own previously, and maybe well previously. I believe I even started a thread on that particular realization/revelation! Not to minimize the credit to outsiders as we have been accused of on here ;) but all this can be checked in the back page threads of this website. Everything is still back there.

Matter of fact, I even remember when the idea of it first hit me and where I was. I was driving down Golf House Road at the top between the houses of a couple of friends of mine at College and Golf House rds just above the 16th tee and 15th green and I realized as I turned right as the road swung hard to the right that that dimension was nothing like what appeared on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan and probably not much like the proposed road delineation of the working topo contour survey maps the Wilson Committee were using to route and design the course in the winter and spring of 1911.

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1280 on: June 05, 2009, 12:52:29 PM »
"Which is it Tom, did they have zero idea of what they were going to do in 1910 or maybe some idea...you just said both in that last post..."


Sully:

How could I ever know THAT? How could anyone without talking to those men back then or finding something really specific that they had written about it?

THAT is the very same kind of question that Tom MacWood put to us back in Jan. 2003 when all this began. Go back and read what we said then which is no different than what we are saying now.

Back then we were relying on a number of "assets" used in Merion's history and history books about why it has always been said that Wilson and his Committee designed Merion East and West (including with some gracious help and advice from M/W on three separate3 occasions over ten months) and that to man each member of Wilson's committee said "In the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses."

We had no real reason to doubt that back then and we have even less reason to doubt it now. The reason for that is within the last year a few other "assets" have been found at MCC that confirm it beyond anything ever used in any of Merion's history books or history. The primary one is a report of the Wilson Committee itself to the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting describing what they actually did do regarding laying out numerous different courses on the ground and then honing it down to final five plans, one of which was approved by M/W on their single day and last visit on April 6, 1911 and which was taken to the board, presented, considered and approved. That report is really special, in my opinion, because it even describes their visit to NGLA and what they did there over those two days. In none of that report does it say anything about Macdonald and Whigam routing and designing anything for them, it only explains and describes how he showed them the drawings and sketches he had done preparatory to doing NGLA (they called all that "data") and then it explained that they went out on NGLA the next day and analyzed its architecture.

In none of any of this did anyone ever imply or suggest that MCC or Wilson and his committee had ever even ASKED M/W to actually route and design the course that became Merion East much less that he actually did so. Had he and Whigam actually done that can you possibly imagine WHY they never would have said so.

This entire idea has never really been a consideration. The whole damn thing is just this ridiculous hypothetical speculation and conjecture CONCOCTED in the last year or so by David Moriarty who knew or had nothing at all like Merions's and MCC's complete records as we do; and frankly he still doesn't.


Furthermore, Sully, read my posts and what I'm trying to say a bit more carefully, please. I did not say in that post they had zero idea in 1910, I only said we are not saying they had zero idea in 1910.


« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 01:14:25 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1281 on: June 05, 2009, 02:09:09 PM »
...and that they began routing and designing on it beginning in early 1911 and they continued that process with numerous different courses and then five different plans throughout the next three months of the beginning of 1911.


Tom,

You've been adamant for weeks now, in support/defense of your timeline, that Wilson and his committee were not on the golf course doing anything because they were not yet appointed until early 1911...that to me is substantially different than agreeing that the committee had something more than zero idea of what they were going to do.

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1282 on: June 05, 2009, 03:10:38 PM »
"Tom,

You've been adamant for weeks now, in support/defense of your timeline, that Wilson and his committee were not on the golf course doing anything because they were not yet appointed until early 1911...that to me is substantially different than agreeing that the committee had something more than zero idea of what they were going to do."



Sully:

I have no idea if Wilson and his committee were doing anything or something because they were not appointed until the beginning of 1911.   I have no idea if they were out there in 1910. All I can really go on are the actual FACTS from MCC and here are some of them.

1. Hugh Wilson said in an article his committee was appointed in the beginning of 1911
2. MCC told its memberhip in the beginning of 1911 that experts were beginning to work on the creation of the East course.
3. A letter to Oakley from Wilson on Feb. 1, 1911 clearly indicates he was in the designing mode and phase at that time.


Was he out there in 1910? I can't imagine why he wouldn't have been if the club had any idea then about who they were going to tap for the committee that would design and build the golf course most certainly including the CHAIRMAN of the committee. I can also tell you that pretty much any committee I've ever served on the chairman is the one who picks the members of HIS committee! All I'm saying is there is no factual evidence from MCC that Wilson was out there in 1910. There's no factual evidence that Francis was either. Matter of fact the very first evidence we have from Francis himself is when he said he was "ADDED TO" the Wilson Committee! The only ones there is actual factual evidence of being out there in 1910 was the entire search committee including Lloyd. Lloyd was the only one who served on the search committee AND the Wilson Committee. Do you want the names of the men who served on the search committee because they were all certainly out there in 1910?

Those are the FACTS that physically come from MCC, Sully, and the rest is just speculation, informed speculation perhaps on the part of SOME on here but speculation nonetheless. But do I THINK Wilson was out there in 1910? Of course I do, and I certainly find it hard to imagine he wouldn't be or wasn't (as Moriarty apparently does ;) ); I just can't prove it with any actual FACTUAL documentary material from MCC or anywhere else.

There's no actual FACTUAL information of material from MCC proving or even implying Francis was out there in 1910 and I tell you what I think is a truly dumb deduction----this idea in that essay that Francis was out there in 1910 and Hugh Wilson who would become the Chairman of the ONLY committee Francis served on WAS NOT OUT THERE in 1910!

And what rationale did the essayist give for that deduction, assumption, premise, contention, conclusion? Because he could find no actual factual evidence that Wilson was out there in 1910!!! I've asked him about a dozen times to provide some actual FACTUAL evidence that Francis was out there in 1910 and of course he's refused to answer that important question about a dozen times, using as his latest rationale that he now refuses to converse with me at all because I'm too rude and I won't turn over to him private club documents I have.

In my opinion, that's just another excuse to continue to refuse to answer that important question of what factual evidence does he have that Francis was out there in 1910! Obviously he has none and never has and just as obviously he doesn't want to admit that because it won't look good to his house of cards premises and conclusions of his essay! 
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 03:20:11 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1283 on: June 05, 2009, 04:40:03 PM »
According to David's theory, sometime between June 1910 and November 15, 1910 Macdonald and Whigham routed the golf course for Merion prior to purchase.

Yet, the report of M&W's visit that went to the Merion Board mentioned nothing at all about any routing or any golf course design work that M&W did.  In fact, we know that theirr July 1910 letter was realy just a single-page feasibility study making very guarded recommendations to Merion of largely acreage and agronomic advice.

Afterwards, the Merion Site Committee reported the following to the Board;


The Committee, through Mr. R. E. Griscom were fortunate enough to get Messrs. C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham to come over from New York and give us the beneift of their experience.

These gentlemen, besides being famous golfers, have given the matter of Golf Course construction much study, and are perfectly familiear with the qualities of grasses, soils, etc.   It was Mr. Macdonald, assited by Mr. Whigham, who conceived and constructed the National Course at Southampton, Long Island.

After the visit of these gentlemen Mr. Macdonald wrote to a member of the Committee, expressing the views of himself and Mr. Whigham, as to what could be done with the property.   The report, as made to the Board, embodied Mr. Macdonald's letter, but it was not written for publication.   We do not, therefore, feel justified in printing it.   We can property say, however, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the Committee based its recommendation largely upon their opinion.

Mr. Connell and his associates fully realize the benefit to the remainder of the property if a first class Golf Course could be established on the ground, and for that reason, offer one hundred (100) acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the Course, at $825 an acre, which we understand is about one half the average cost of the whole tract; this offer is conditional upon the property being promptly put in shape for a golf course.

It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120 acres) would be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase. 

We particularly desire to impress upon the Board the fact that if this opportunity to aquire a permanent golf course is to be taken advantage of, prompt action is necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert W. Lesley
Horatio G. Lloyd
Samuel T. Bodine
Frederick L. Baily (who later sent the letter to Edmund Sayres asking them to hold a special dinner where they would aware Hugh Wilson with a special gift for his work laying out and constructing Merion - comment mine)
Edgar C. Felton




A few things come to mind here.

We all know what the Macdonald letter contained, which was nothing of a design nature.

David would also have us believe that Merion specifically bought not 100, but "nearly 120" because of a routing done by Macdonald and Whigham that needed this much land exactly...

Yet, here we have the Site Committee recommending to the Merion Board to purchase the land based simply on the Macdonald single-page letter....NOT ON ANY PRECONCEIVED ROUTING THAT TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO THEN!"

If Macdonald and Whigham had done a routing at this time...one land that required "almost 120 acres", SURELY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ATTACHED....OR EVEN MENTIONED! 



In case anyone needs to be reminded of what Macdonald actually wrote based on his single day visit, here it is again;


New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features.  The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.  What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.

We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly.  The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "

As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for anlaysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.

We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.

With kindest regards to you all, believe me,

Yours very truly,

(signed)  Charles B. Macdonald

In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.


David, Sully, Patrick, Shivas...do you still want to contend that Merion bought the EXACT PROPERTY they needed based on an existing Macdonald and Whigham routing of the property??!? 

This exchange of information PROVES THERE WAS NO GOLF COURSE ROUTING PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE and it also PROVES THAT MERION DID NOT BUY LAND BASED ON THAT SUPPOSED ROUTING!
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 02:05:08 PM by MCirba »

Phil_the_Author

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1284 on: June 05, 2009, 04:53:20 PM »
Mike,

Why do you say that the report which the Merion Board considered and embodied "Mr. Macdonald's letter" received only one page, or as you put it,"the Macdonald single-page letter...."?

The copy of the minutes on this in your post makes NO MENTION of a SINGLE-Page letter, just a letter. Anything, including Barker's routing, could have been attached (I'm NOT saying it was!) The minutes simply say they considered what CBM sent them. Clearly it doesn't state that they paid any attention to it other than refering to it, nor does it say that it rejected out-of-hand what he wrote; point of fact it clearly says the opposite and praised by CBM & Whigham for their work at NGLA.

Now I may have missed a post along the way where it clearly stated and was proven correct that the CBM letter was a single-page and nothing else, but I can't find it. That is why I think you need to justify that statement for accuracy purposes, that is all...

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1285 on: June 05, 2009, 04:55:35 PM »
Mike,

Why do you say that the report which the Merion Board considered and embodied "Mr. Macdonald's letter" received only one page, or as you put it,"the Macdonald single-page letter...."?

The copy of the minutes on this in your post makes NO MENTION of a SINGLE-Page letter, just a letter. Anything, including Barker's routing, could have been attached (I'm NOT saying it was!) The minutes simply say they considered what CBM sent them. Clearly it doesn't state that they paid any attention to it other than refering to it, nor does it say that it rejected out-of-hand what he wrote; point of fact it clearly says the opposite and praised by CBM & Whigham for their work at NGLA.

Now I may have missed a post along the way where it clearly stated and was proven correct that the CBM letter was a single-page and nothing else, but I can't find it. That is why I think you need to justify that statement for accuracy purposes, that is all...

Philip,

Please note that I edited my original post to include the Macdonald single-page letter he sent to H.G. Lloyd after his visit, found last year by Wayne Morrison in the Merion Cricket Club attic.

Hope that helps answer your questions...thanks!
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 05:00:42 PM by MCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1286 on: June 05, 2009, 05:08:16 PM »
Bryan Izatt,

Per your request, here's the 1911 photo I mentioned previously.

I'm truly not sure if that's Golf House Road, but the area it traverses looks similar.





And, this might be a good time as well to reproduce the letter written by Frederick Baily just after the Merion course opened, who was on that very site committee referenced above that met with Macdonald and Whigham during their single-day visit in June 1910.

I had forgotten he was on the site committee and was an EYE WITNESS to the process from site selection, through the M&W visit, and through the design and construction phases.




« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 05:10:16 PM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1287 on: June 05, 2009, 05:11:38 PM »
Mike,

Considering Merion didn't buy anything until the second half of 1911 I think it's a safe bet they bought only exactly what they needed.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 05:33:59 PM by Jim Sullivan »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1288 on: June 05, 2009, 05:13:10 PM »
MIke,

That image is confusing...is it placing the mound behind the 10th green to the West of Golf House Rd.?

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1289 on: June 05, 2009, 05:36:29 PM »
Jim.

Yet another amazing coincidence?

They recommended buying almost 120 acres based on not having a routing yet...Clearly...and then purchased almost 120 acres using almost all historical land boundaries BECAUSE that magical, imaginary routing just happened to exactly use those historic boundaries to the foot and also miraculously requre nearly 120 scres!  ;)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1290 on: June 05, 2009, 05:46:21 PM »
Mike,

If possible, please disregard any referrences to CBM while trying to discuss this with me. I don't believe for a second that he did more than has been credited to him.

As to your "coincidence"...they didn't come close to the historical boundaries of the Johnson Farm North or Western boundaries...they added the Dallas Estate...now whether it was to meet some minimum acreage requirement as you suggest, or as I believe because they wanted golf holes to go through there somehow...also, are you certain that the current 7th green goes to the edge of the Southernmost Dallas Estate line?

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1291 on: June 05, 2009, 05:51:21 PM »
Mike Cirba:

I mentioned this a few days ago but I don't know that what you posted is even a photograph; it was on a menu. I believe that road as I mentioned earlier is an old farm road on the Johnson Farm. I'm pretty sure from something I saw at Merion recently that golf House Road was not built until maybe 1912-14.

As far as Macdonald's letter, Wayne didn't find the actually letter he found the letter transcribed into Lesley's report or the board meeting minutes of July 1, 1910.

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1292 on: June 05, 2009, 05:56:47 PM »
Jim,

I'm not in front of the computer right now to answer your question about the 7th green, but I would ask you this;  given how narrow the land they owned was thru the property, and the limits of the HDC holdings, where else were they going to expand if they wanted to increase acreage for golf south of Ardmore than the Dallas estate?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 02:06:39 PM by MCirba »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1293 on: June 05, 2009, 06:23:23 PM »
Quote
After the visit of these gentlemen Mr. Macdonald wrote to a member of the Committee, expressing the views of himself and Mr. Whigham, as to what could be done with the property.   The report, as made to the Board, embodied Mr. Macdonald's letter, but it was not written for publication.   We do not, therefore, feel justified in printing it.   We can property say, however, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the Committee based its recommendation largely upon THEIR opinion.

Mr. Connell and his associates fully realize the benefit to the remainder of the property if a first class Golf Course could be established on the ground, and for that reason, offer one hundred (100) acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the Course[/color], at $825 an acre, which we understand is about one half the average cost of the whole tract; this offer is conditional upon the property being promptly put in shape for a golf course.

It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120 acres) would be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it woudl be a wise purchase. 

David would also have us believe that Merion specifically bought not 100, but "nearly 120" because of a routing done by Macdonald and Whigham that needed this much land exactly...

Isn't that in harmony with the above quote which you posted ?


Yet, here we have the Site Committee recommending to the Merion Board to purchase the land based simply on the Macdonald single-page letter....

That's not true, that's merely YOUR narrow minded view.
You would have us believe that M&W were deaf, dumb and blind during their visit, that they had NO communication with the people from Merion.  How likely is that ?   Mike, please stop jumping to illogical conclusions.


NOT ON ANY PRECONCEIVED ROUTING THAT TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO THEN!"

How do you know that M&W didn't offer a routing when they visited ?


If Macdonald and Whigham had done a routing at this time...one land that required "almost 120 acres", SURELY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ATTACHED....OR EVEN MENTIONED! 


Like the TOPO map ?  ?  ?

Just because something wasn't attached, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Your logic is flawed beyond description.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1294 on: June 05, 2009, 06:35:19 PM »
Quote from Mike Cirba:
Quote
David, Sully, Patrick, Shivas...do you still want to contend that Merion bought the EXACT PROPERTY they needed based on an existing Macdonald and Whigham routing of the property??!? 

I've NEVER contended that.
Perhaps your reading comprehension skills have been skewed by your bias.

Could you quote or cite for me where you allege that I made that contention ?
If not, would you please ADMIT that you're WRONG, AGAIN.  Thanks.

What it may substantiate is the time line with respect to the routing.
The letter is dated June 29, 1910, long before Wilson gets involved.


This exchange of information PROVES THERE WAS NO GOLF OCURSE ROUTING PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE and it also PROVES THAT MERION DID NOT BUY LAND BASED ON THAT SUPPOSED ROUTING!

It doesn't prove either of those things Mike.
It's the conclusion that you WANT to draw

If NO concept of a routing existed, why would CBM write the following ?

"The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House."

Patrick_Mucci

Re: !
« Reply #1295 on: June 05, 2009, 06:42:31 PM »
Even the importance of Hugh Wilson's mention of 117 acres for the golf course on Feb. 1, 1911 has been overlooked, ignored or not understood at all in the context of when the Francis land swap idea had to have happened AFTER!!

Tom,

Yes, I'm sure the chairman of the Construction Committee, or whatever it was called, had no idea how much acreage he was working with.
Mike, you must be kidding.
Why do you make these wild statements absent any substantiation other than your INHERENT bias ?


You know, if the true number was 117 and he said 120, I could think perhaps he might just be rounding up.

It's amazing how you continue to gloss over disparities when it suits your cause


But to already own 120 acres, to say 117 is just UNFATHOMABLE.

Not if the parcels were purchased seperately.


Especially, if as David suggests, the time when they only had 117 acres was WAY BEFORE WILSON WAS EVEN INVOLVED!  ::) ::) ::)

Hopefully, someone will put everything documented in chronlogical order.
That would help in determining what happened.

If it keeps raining like this, we could have that project completed in ten days.
If the sun comes out, perhaps ten months.



Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1296 on: June 05, 2009, 09:08:49 PM »
Patrick,

I rest content that I'm the one who continues to present facts.

You guys have to pretend something miraculous happened with Macdonald and Whigham and some imaginary routing at Merion when there is not a single shred of evidence to support that and every other fact flies in the face of it.

Dream on.  ;D

Little did you realize you've had the power to make it so all along....

so better yet...close your eyes and click your heels together three times and repeat after me...

Macdonald had to be the one

Macdonald had to be the one

Macdonald had to be the one

Oh damn...there goes that big balloon with Professor Marvel!   :o

;)
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 09:15:28 PM by MCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1297 on: June 06, 2009, 07:29:45 AM »
Since we know that Tillinghast wrote that he had "seen the plans" of Merion before it was constructed, wrote that he had personal discussions with CB Macdonald about Macdonald's role at Merion, wrote that Hugh Wilson and Committee "deserve the congratulations of all golfers" after Merion opened, without a single mention of Macdonald, wrote almost certainly as "Far and Sure**" that Hugh Wilson and Committee "conceived of the problems of the holes" at Merion, I thought adding this article from Tillinghast in the 1934 US Open article might be appropriate for this thread;


** Note - Phil Young does not agree that Tillinghast was the American Golfer writer known as "Far and Sure", which was debated here in depth on a previous thread.   For purposes of this post, it is largely irrelevent, but I do think it's important as Phil says that we keep this to proven facts.

« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 11:08:00 AM by MCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1298 on: June 06, 2009, 07:46:41 AM »
Mike,

Considering Merion didn't buy anything until the second half of 1911 I think it's a safe bet they bought only exactly what they needed.


Jim,

I think you're missing the point of the timelines around the Macdonald single-page letter and the Merion Site Committee's report and recommendation to their board.

The Merion Site Committee used this single-page letter as their justification on July 1, 1910 to recommend that the club purchase "nearly 120 acres" just two days after receiving Mac's letter dated June 29, 1910.

They didn't make this recommendation based on some proposed routing.   They based it simply on what Macdonald wrote.

Did Macdonald and Whigham consider the Dallas Estate when they visited?   Hard to say.

Does anyone know how much acreage the entire southern portion and entiire northeastern portion of the Johnson Farm up to College Avenue would measure??


***EDIT*** I just went back and see that Bryan Izatt measured the land of the Johnson Farm north of Ardmore Ave. but west of Golf House road at 22 acres.   The Johnson Farm itself was just over 140 acres, which means if the original HDC offer was simply for the portions south of Ardmore Avenue, and the northeast section above Ardmore Avenue, that would be around 118 acres total.

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but it is certainly possible that this is the portion of land M&W were asked to consider and report on. (drawn crudely in black)


« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 08:36:50 AM by MCirba »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1299 on: June 06, 2009, 08:06:33 AM »
Mike,

Good morning.

One question I always had about the June CBM letter is, if they didn't have any idea of routing, how did he know that they needed to get that little three acre railroad parcel near the clubhouse?

And, it would seem logical that they at least looked at the Barker routing, crude as it may be, to determine the need for that, the Dallas Estate, etc., and that is what made that part of the routing so easy, relatively speaking.  CBM also suggested using the quarry and maybe the whole enchilada just unfolded more slowly on that side for the MCC committee.  I believe, regardless of any other arguments made, that the time period from June 1910 to April 1911 is not really ALL that long a time period to route  a course.  We tend to compress our ideas of the old days (and the routing process) to one EUREKA experience, but in reality, I doubt it happened that way.

As I have said before, I can't imagine that the committee didn't start taking shape well in advance of their official appointment.  You just don't walk into the clubhouse of the old course in January 1911 and pick the first five members you see at the bar!  You pick the guys who were out there and demonstrating some interest in the process as it unfolded, no?

I guess I am saying that I have never seen the importance of tying the land swap to one time frame or another, based on Merion's recorded times and dates, nor arguing this much over exactly what CBM said or didn't say, based on summaries of such in the MCC minutes.

On a related note, I wonder why they hesitated to publish CBM's letter?  My guess is it had more in it than a little general soil advice, perhaps critiquing fellow gca Barker for his one day job, or perhaps mentioning the alternate site, or something else they didn't feel comfortable talking about.  Since the actual letter says nothing about not being published, its not hard to imagine old CBM telling them personally that he would write a letter, but its not for publication, and they would all know why.

Yes, I know its tough to add even more speculation to this thread, but what the heck.

Yes
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach