[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat, with all due respect, while you accuse Mike C of lying and twisting, you then post a letter from Barker showing he did a one hour quickie and use that to suggest that CBM did the same.  Well, I say that if Barker mentioned that he did a routing in his letter that CBM would have mentioned that he did a routing in his letter.  He didn't.  He said he couldn't tell for sure without a topo map in front of him.

I think a competent historian (and granted, none of is) would parse CBM's document for what CBM meant to say, not imply something from HHB's letter, wouldn't you?

While we are at it, I believe your assertion that Barker had far more experience is a bit twisted, too. In June 1910 his routing experice WAS approximately 20 to 2 based on his statements and CBM's accomplishments of the time.  However, I wonder if you are referring to HJ Whigham as CBM's talented partner at this point in time, or interjecting Raynor into the discussion? Not does what happened at NGLA bear on Merion one iota.  He was doing his grand project for himself vs coming down to another club at the request of a friend. IT has no bearing.

Either way your entire post is based on argumentative speculation. Quit pounding the table Johnny Cochran!

For a brief time here,  until you came back, the focus on this thread was to look at documents that exist and are not challenged. It was going pretty well.  Then, you and a few others start back on the UFO track of "coulds" "woulds" and "shoulds" based on no facts and all speculation.

Yes, I will agree that CBM COULD have done a routing quickly. He would have had to if he was abducted by Aliens later that afternoon.

PS - Not sure what you reposting part of DM's essay is supposed to prove.  I have always taken it to mean that Barker did a routing on the Johnson Farm property under contract and it was found wanting for any number of reasons. Since he was hired by Connell, it may very well have been squeezed into 100 acres as Connell originally intended.  If so, it would have been clear to CBM and the committee what the flaws were and that 120 acres were required.

Again, from my professional experience 100 years later, I still see developers offering golf course land of substandard size. I saw one just the other day as a matter of fact!  He says 100 acres, MCC knows that their existing course is about 100 acres and is cramped, and bring in CBM to offer a second independent opinion, perhaps to specifically bolster their desire to purchase more than 100 acres Connell contemplates.

This is a very reasonable scenario based on my experience.  And, getting a general assessment of the land before beginning final negotiations would be a signifigant and logical step, even without routing, given the land wasn't under contract.

Now, I am not trying to play the "I'm a gca, so my opinion is better than yours card" but.....well, I guess I am playing that card!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

In your last two posts you said I was "lying", and "disengenuous".  
I think that's absolutely absurd and completely wrong and I consider you a friend so I'm not sure what I've done to deserve such harsh judgement.

Mike, you lied about your claim that NO ROUTING existed in 1910 when you knew that the Barker routing was presented on June 10, 1910.
Below, I've quoted your statement and quoted my rebuttle.

There is also not a single shred of evidence that anyone did any routing in 1910

That's a total lie.[/b]

[/color]

There is nobody who has come forward with more research and raw material here....the other day I even told you everything I know about the Cuyler letter, including the "definite" wording that David and Tom MacWood and you had been hoping was a last-ditch shred of evidence that would somehow sway everyone to interpreting that it offered some hint of an some existing course by ANYONE except Hugh Wilson prior to then.

I never stated that you hadn't worked hard and/or produced volumes of information.
But, your presentation has tended to have been skewed from day one, when you initiated this thread.[/b]

To say I've been hiding things and "lying" is really below you, Patrick.  

Mike, you lied about the routing.
Let's call it an oversight on your part, one borne of overenthusiams to have your position carried.[/b]

I'm surprised and disappointed in you.
I calls em as I sees em.[/b]

I presented the letters in the order they were presented to the club, and the order in which they were read by the men in charge.

In July, the BOARD OF GOVERNORS of the club were given the Site Committee's report.  

In November, a solicitation letter went out to general membership.

WHAT IS THE ACTUAL RELEVANCE OR MEANING IF THE JULY 1910 SITE COMMITTEE REPORT (which I presented in total) WAS ATTACHED TO THE NOVEMBER SOLICITATION TO MEMBERSHIP OR NOT??

Not overlooking its existance would be one relevant meaning.
[/b]
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE BARKER ROUTING WAS ATTACHED TO EITHER CORRESPONDENCE??

There's NO EVIDENCE that it wasn't attached.
[/b]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Plenty of English and Scottish professionals provided one day routings.

Today we know it as the Dark AGes of American design and its the very thing Macdonald rebelled against and why the 1916 news accounts that Joe Bausch unearthed report clearly that Mac was going to spend months with his committee staking out the basic routing.  It was reported in multiple papers by different writers on the same day including direct quotes by Mac.

I know its a more romantic dream to imagine him and Whigham on horseback figuring the whole thing out in 2/3 days but that's not what occurred.

That is also proven by the fact that Mac secured over 200 acres, thought he'd need 110 for golf, and eventually used about 170.

He did an awesome job...wholly different in style, substance, and methodology from previous slam bam thank you maam courses designed by "experts" who came before him.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

If you weren't so concerned about attributing bad motives to Mike C, I think you could give him the benefit of the doubt on the wording that "no one was doing a routing in 1910" if it was taken into context.

As to your last "double negative" proof requirement I guess we have to conclude that no one knows. All of that "not attached" speculation was based on the fact that MCC no longer has a copy of it, for whatever reason.

But listen to us - we are arguing about the arguers.  What exactly is your purpose in bringing up "well you could be wrong" issues without trying to add anything to the discussion?  Its that type of thing that has occurred on about 52 of these 54 pages.

That is a question you should be able to answer factually, no?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Isn't it standard business practice to refer to ay and all attachments in either the body of the letter or as an enclosure, or both?

There is no mention that it was attached to either Merion correspondence nor any evidence at all that anyone saw it as having any value.

Instead, they just accepted his statement that the land was sutably adapted for a good golf course and he was never heard from again.

[Mike_Cirba]

Where is the evidence that HDC began trying to aquire the Dallas Estate in June 1910?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, with all due respect, while you accuse Mike C of lying and twisting,


Jeff, Mike lied about the existance of a routing in 1910, that's a fact.
[/b]
you then post a letter from Barker showing he did a one hour quickie and use that to suggest that CBM did the same.

Jeff, first, your categorization if Barker's routing as a "one hour quickie" is also disengenuous and you know it.
Second, I didn't suggest that CBM did the same, I said he "COULD" have done the same.
[/b]

Well, I say that if Barker mentioned that he did a routing in his letter that CBM would have mentioned that he did a routing in his letter.  

You can say whatever you want, but, it doesnt mean it's factual or logical.
[/b]
He didn't.  He said he couldn't tell for sure without a topo map in front of him.

I think a competent historian (and granted, none of is) would parse CBM's document for what CBM meant to say, not imply something from HHB's letter, wouldn't you?

I think a competent historian, one who studied CBM, could conclude, that with his personality, it would be doubtful if he DIDN"T offer a routing.
[/b]
While we are at it, I believe your assertion that Barker had far more experience is a bit twisted, too.

I don't think so, Barker had routed 20 courses prior to June 10,1910, Macdonald 2 or 3 ?
[/b]
In June 1910 his routing experice WAS approximately 20 to 2 based on his statements and CBM's accomplishments of the time.

I  think that proves my point.

However, I wonder if you are referring to HJ Whigham as CBM's talented partner at this point in time, or interjecting Raynor into the discussion?
Not does what happened at NGLA bear on Merion one iota.  He was doing his grand project for himself vs coming down to another club at the request of a friend. IT has no bearing.

YOU WONDER IN ERROR.
You're injecting Raynor, not me.
Unless you have evidence that Raynor accompanied CBM on his visit, rather than, or in addition to Whigham.

Ask yourself, WHY were M&W being invited down to look at a vacant piece of property, intended to be a golf course.
Do you think there advice was being solicited ?
IF so, if no routing or hole design existed, they wouldn't have been asked to comment on same.
Don't you think that they would have been asked to provide a routing if none existed ?
If a routing existed, wouldn't they have been asked to comment on it ?
[/b]
Either way your entire post is based on argumentative speculation.

That's  absolutely untrue.

Barker provided a routing on June 10, 1910.
Do you think he was on the train as it passed the site and that he just decided to craft a routing out of the blue ?
[/b]
For a brief time here, until you came back, the focus on this thread was to look at documents that exist and are not challenged.

Then why did Mike Cirba declare that NO ROUTING existed in 1910 ?
Especially when that routing is clearly refered to by the author in a document dated 06-10-10.
[/b]
It was going pretty well.  Then, you and a few others start back on the UFO track of "coulds" "woulds" and "shoulds" based on no facts and all speculation.

Speculation my ass, Mike and others staunchly maintained that a routing could not be done in a day.
And, Mike maintained that NO ROUTING existed in 1910.
Yet, we have written proof, hard evidence, in Barker's own hand, that a routing was done in a day, AND that a routing existed in 1910.
Those are two salient facts.
[/b]
Yes, I will agree that CBM COULD have done a routing quickly.

I'm glad we agree on that.

He would have had to if he was abducted by Aliens later that afternoon.

Was Barker abducted by aliens later in the afternoon of June 10, 1910 ?

PS - Not sure what you reposting part of DM's essay is supposed to prove.  I have always taken it to mean that Barker did a routing on the Johnson Farm property under contract and it was found wanting for any number of reasons. Since he was hired by Connell, it may very well have been squeezed into 100 acres as Connell originally intended.  If so, it would have been clear to CBM and the committee what the flaws were and that 120 acres were required.

I don't believe that anyone ever stated that the Barker routing was perfect.
It is clear that CBM recommended buying the additional 3 acres.
Why do you suppose he made that recommendation ?
Could it have been for the purposes of hole location or routing ?

Again, from my professional experience 100 years later, I still see developers offering golf course land of substandard size. I saw one just the other day as a matter of fact!  He says 100 acres, MCC knows that their existing course is about 100 acres and is cramped, and bring in CBM to offer a second independent opinion, perhaps to specifically bolster their desire to purchase more than 100 acres Connell contemplates.

Except that Connell doesn't state that.
Connell does state that he consents to sell "100 ACRES OR WHATEVER IS NECESSARY FOR THE COURSE."
So, they were well aware that they would probably need more than 100 acres from the get go.

This is a very reasonable scenario based on my experience.  And, getting a general assessment of the land before beginning final negotiations would be a signifigant and logical step, even without routing, given the land wasn't under contract.

Except that this wasn't the first time they had tried to acquire land for the golf course.
They had been through this process before, and failed.
The fact that they had to acquire seperate parcels would seem to indicate that a basic routing existed.

The huge issue that you and others seem to avoid is the fact that the land was secured in June of 1910, yet, it's maintained that nothing transpired between June of 1910 and early 1911 in the way of developing routings.  Is that a reasonable scenario based on your experience ?
That you'd secure land and make NO attempt to route it for seven or more months ?
Especially when a routing was presented on June 10,1910.

Is it your contention that despite the fact that a routing had been produced on June 10, 1910, that the club decided to freeze the project and not work on any potential routings for seven or more months ?

That they would invite M&W to review the property, but then, freeze the routing process ?

Does that seem like a reasonable scenario to you ?

If we accept the speculations by Mike and others, that M&W visited Merion on or about June 16-18, and Barker visited the site on June 10, 1910, it would seem that Merion was hard at work soliciting opinions and advice, including routings.  Are we now to believe that when M&W left the site that Merion closed the project, never to reopen it until seven or more months later in early 1911 ?

Does that seem like a reasonable scenario to you ?

Now, I am not trying to play the "I'm a gca, so my opinion is better than yours card" but.....well, I guess I am playing that card!

Jeff, I don't know what happened at Merion in 1910 and 1911, but, I'd like to find out.

When something doesn't pass the smell test, you have to question it.
When some try to stifle and end the discussion, you have to get leary and ask that more research be done before drawing definitive conclusions.

As I stated, I'm not sufficiently convinced that the currently accepted explanation/history is the factual history.

If nothing else, the date of Wilson's trip should have taught us to question, research and verify before accepting info as facts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Go play golf!

That Dallas Estate acquistion mode in June 1910 started with an off hand comment from TePaul that MCC was apparently considering it early (but we got his cliff notes version and haven't seen what letter or note he was referring to)  Later on, he wasn't so sure.  I still believe that it was acquired by HDC simply in a general desire to both have enough land for suitable developent and/or just have as much control of the area as possible for their fine homes.  How it got put over into golf, I don't know, but as you know, I disagree with you on whether the sliver of land along Ardmore near 2 green was originally wide enough for two holes. I doubt it.

And yes, it is and was even moreso standard practice to refer to attachements.  Not only that, but proper form is to refer to it as a COPY of an attachment if it is in fact a copy.  Those guys were pretty formal back in those days, much moreso than now when I send out emails referring to an attachement, and then send another with the attachement because I forgot to send it originally....D'oh!

As I mentioned, its also standard practice to provide reports on events sometime current to those events happening.  Thus, on April 11, 1911, the Leslie report is more likely to report on stuff happening in March and April 1911, not to routings done back in June 1910, given there were several interim reports on various things, including buying some land.  And, none of those reports mentioned "to accomodate our current routing."

BTW, I took another look at your post on the "little bit of ground north of Ardmore" comment.  I think you might be right, but in reality, they probably needed both sides to fit in their holes 1 and 10-13.  I am not sure when the idea came for both.  Certainly they were planning on the RR land early so you might be right.  But, that would mean that they were already reconfiguring the road (very possible) in their March and April routings but still struggling with holes 13-18 as Francis tells us.

I can imagine five routings just to figure out how to best use the Quarry.  Not hard to figure they started with 18 on their east boundary and started working from there, although in one routing it was probably no 14!  But, they still had the problem of too much width and not enough length for five holes and Francis was the one who apparently hit on widening the triangle to extend two longer holes up there.

I don't know but for me it all seems to fit.

BTW, not to harp on this road width thing, but I noticed that the ROW for Ardmore, College and even Turnbridge Roads were substantially wider than what was proposed for GHR.  At the time, all were pretty much country roads. I wonder how HDC figured they could get away with a less than standard ROW?

BTW 2 - I do know the difference between "dedicated" and "deeded" roads.  The landowners actually keep title to their half of the land under the ROW, but its given to the city/county/state to maintain after construction.  Again, all of that is very typical and common.  Having very narrow ROW even for residential roads is not, unless they were originally intended to remain a private road of the development.  It would be interesting to know what the records said about that.

Now, the only questions to me are what planet the aliens who abducted CBM are from, and should this course be credited to Joeseph Burbeck?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat, with all due respect, while you accuse Mike C of lying and twisting,


Jeff, Mike lied about the existance of a routing in 1910, that's a fact.
[/b]
you then post a letter from Barker showing he did a one hour quickie and use that to suggest that CBM did the same.

Jeff, first, your categorization if Barker's routing as a "one hour quickie" is also disengenuous and you know it.
Second, I didn't suggest that CBM did the same, I said he "COULD" have done the same.
[/b]

Well, I say that if Barker mentioned that he did a routing in his letter that CBM would have mentioned that he did a routing in his letter. 

You can say whatever you want, but, it doesnt mean it's factual or logical.
[/b]
He didn't.  He said he couldn't tell for sure without a topo map in front of him.

I think a competent historian (and granted, none of is) would parse CBM's document for what CBM meant to say, not imply something from HHB's letter, wouldn't you?

I think a competent historian, one who studied CBM, could conclude, that with his personality, it would be doubtful if he DIDN"T offer a routing.
[/b]
While we are at it, I believe your assertion that Barker had far more experience is a bit twisted, too.

I don't think so, Barker had routed 20 courses prior to June 10,1910, Macdonald 2 or 3 ?
[/b]
In June 1910 his routing experice WAS approximately 20 to 2 based on his statements and CBM's accomplishments of the time.

I  think that proves my point.

However, I wonder if you are referring to HJ Whigham as CBM's talented partner at this point in time, or interjecting Raynor into the discussion?
Not does what happened at NGLA bear on Merion one iota.  He was doing his grand project for himself vs coming down to another club at the request of a friend. IT has no bearing.

YOU WONDER IN ERROR.
You're injecting Raynor, not me.
Unless you have evidence that Raynor accompanied CBM on his visit, rather than, or in addition to Whigham.

Ask yourself, WHY were M&W being invited down to look at a vacant piece of property, intended to be a golf course.
Do you think there advice was being solicited ?
IF so, if no routing or hole design existed, they wouldn't have been asked to comment on same.
Don't you think that they would have been asked to provide a routing if none existed ?
If a routing existed, wouldn't they have been asked to comment on it ?
[/b]
Either way your entire post is based on argumentative speculation.

That's  absolutely untrue.

Barker provided a routing on June 10, 1910.
Do you think he was on the train as it passed the site and that he just decided to craft a routing out of the blue ?
[/b]
For a brief time here, until you came back, the focus on this thread was to look at documents that exist and are not challenged.

Then why did Mike Cirba declare that NO ROUTING existed in 1910 ?
Especially when that routing is clearly refered to by the author in a document dated 06-10-10.
[/b]
It was going pretty well.  Then, you and a few others start back on the UFO track of "coulds" "woulds" and "shoulds" based on no facts and all speculation.

Speculation my ass, Mike and others staunchly maintained that a routing could not be done in a day.
And, Mike maintained that NO ROUTING existed in 1910.
Yet, we have written proof, hard evidence, in Barker's own hand, that a routing was done in a day, AND that a routing existed in 1910.
Those are two salient facts.
[/b]
Yes, I will agree that CBM COULD have done a routing quickly.

I'm glad we agree on that.

He would have had to if he was abducted by Aliens later that afternoon.

Was Barker abducted by aliens later in the afternoon of June 10, 1910 ?

PS - Not sure what you reposting part of DM's essay is supposed to prove.  I have always taken it to mean that Barker did a routing on the Johnson Farm property under contract and it was found wanting for any number of reasons. Since he was hired by Connell, it may very well have been squeezed into 100 acres as Connell originally intended.  If so, it would have been clear to CBM and the committee what the flaws were and that 120 acres were required.

Again, from my professional experience 100 years later, I still see developers offering golf course land of substandard size. I saw one just the other day as a matter of fact!  He says 100 acres, MCC knows that their existing course is about 100 acres and is cramped, and bring in CBM to offer a second independent opinion, perhaps to specifically bolster their desire to purchase more than 100 acres Connell contemplates.

This is a very reasonable scenario based on my experience.  And, getting a general assessment of the land before beginning final negotiations would be a signifigant and logical step, even without routing, given the land wasn't under contract.

Now, I am not trying to play the "I'm a gca, so my opinion is better than yours card" but.....well, I guess I am playing that card!

Pat,

With all due respect, you are pounding the table again. I find it funny that the only thing in my post you DIDN'T green type is the last part, where I mention that things like reports without routings ARE very common in the industry, at least now.  Of course, there is not much you can do to counter that argument, is there?

To your other assertions,

1. I believe I could go back and find a post somewhere where Mike C admits there was a Barker routing.  He didn't lie, its just his opinion that its been proven that it was not part of any final routing for reasons I stated in my last paragraph.  If you want to go out of the way to point out an inconsistency in someones typiing, then so be it.  My suggestion is - and I mean this as nicely as possible - is to quit being a prick about this by doing that.

2. I WAS wondering if you were calling Whigham an able partner. You can read my "son in law thoughts" above, but I could be wrong.

3. I have asked myself why CBM came down.  These threads have made the reasons very clear.  My opinon is that MCC was in the initial stages of considering property, Connell made an attractive offer of land that they were checking out.  Connell brought in Barker to see if the property was generally suitable.  MCC brought in CBM for a second opinion, not tainted by being paid for by the developer. 

Its clear since the Dallas property and the RR property were acquired later that their main mode was property acquistion and acreage determination.  At least the facts say we know that for sure.  That they were interested in routing, prior to even knowing what land they would have is speculation, pure and simple.

At least, I know I wouldn't be inclined to route a course if on my first visit, it was clear that the client didn't have all the land they wanted or needed, in my opinion and/or theirs.  What exactly would be the point of CBM doing a routing if he couldn't be sure of what land they had?

Riddle me that Batman.....

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Yes, I agree that it makes perfect sense.

The only question left open as far as I'm concened is whether it was Macdonald or Whigham who used Barker's one-day Dark Ages routing to wipe his arse with it?

I'll speculate that it was probably Charlie as Whigham would have almost certainly deferred to his dad-in-law in line for the outhouse! 

Thanks again!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

By the way, as to your dissing me about saying he did a one hour routing, YOU were the one that highlighted the fact that his report and routing were delivered THE SAME DAY as he visited the site.

If you want to be a jerk and argue that I said it was an hour routing then fine.  In truth, if he arrived in the morning, and toured the property for a few hours, had lunch, and then wrote up his little report and sketch, I guess we could agree that his time might have allowed 2 hours for the routing, maybe 3, if he did it after all his other duties and activities.  If you want to assume that they all worked until 11:59 PM that night before he delivered his routing and report, then we could stretch his routing time to maybe 6 hours or so.

What is the point of arguing against a point you make an hour earlier about how quick the routing is?  You make the point that it was a one day routing. I was just being funny.  Sorry. I will say its a one day routing if it makes you happy.  I will also concede that CBM could have routed a course but didn't mention it anytime.  Should we agree that he pitched for the Yankess that day and didn't mention it either? Why the hell not, since we are spending time conjecturing what he MIGHT have done in your addled little brain.

Again, I am protesting you wasting everyone's valuble time and energy arguing over minutiae just to be argumentative.  be constructive or go home.

[Mike_Cirba]

Let's also not forget where M+W "came down" from.

They were already in Philadelphia for the 1910 US Open and Mac's bud Griscom asked if they would come by to look at the land Connell was offering.

BIG difference than a special trip down from NYC.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Yeah, but according to Melvin, they had a professional responsibility to be prepared with topo maps, site analysis and have the thing all checked out.

Not to be rude to Melvin, but I just don't have that impression of the meeting. I am not sure if the meeting was worked out well in advance of the US Open by letter (how much in advance could it be?  When did Connel propose the land to MCC?) or if he was asked while at the tourney as a favor.  Either way, he wouldn't have come prepared, and also admitted in his letter that he had no topo maps upon return.  That is enough for me to surmise that he wouldn't route a plan without the topo maps and that was his method of working.

[Mike_Cirba]

Its funny, Jeff...

These guys still want to pretend that there is a "mystery" to Merion's design when all of the actual facts and timelines prove otherwise.

I think its time to rap the gavel and close this case.

You should go play golf too,,,you've earned it! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

By the way, as to your dissing me about saying he did a one hour routing, YOU were the one that highlighted the fact that his report and routing were delivered THE SAME DAY as he visited the site.

Jeff, you deserved to be dissed for that remark.  You knew it was meant to diminish and/or dismiss the effort.
Barker's report was drafted the same day as his on site evaluation.
I do the same thing when I meet with a client.
That night I draft a summary of the meeting.  It's a prudent business practice, especially in the days before dictation equipment.

If you want to be a jerk and argue that I said it was an hour routing then fine.  In truth, if he arrived in the morning, and toured the property for a few hours, had lunch, and then wrote up his little report and sketch, I guess we could agree that his time might have allowed 2 hours for the routing, maybe 3, if he did it after all his other duties and activities.  If you want to assume that they all worked until 11:59 PM that night before he delivered his routing and report, then we could stretch his routing time to maybe 6 hours or so.

That's all conjecture on your part.
He might have spent the night before with his host or nearby, been on the property at 6:00 am, spent all day until sundown at about 9:00 pm and then drafted his routing and letter.
Don't be so quick to dismiss his efforts

What is the point of arguing against a point you make an hour earlier about how quick the routing is?  You make the point that it was a one day routing. I was just being funny.  Sorry. I will say its a one day routing if it makes you happy.  I will also concede that CBM could have routed a course but didn't mention it anytime.  

YOU continue to miss the point.
Mike Cirba and others argued that it was impossible for anyone, including M&W to provide a routing based on a visit of just one day.
YET, we find out that that's exactly what happened.  That's a material fact.  And, Barker wasn't just some amateur armchair architect.
He was a skilled professional.  The same could probably be said of CBM.

Should we agree that he pitched for the Yankess that day and didn't mention it either? Why the hell not, since we are spending time conjecturing what he MIGHT have done in your addled little brain.

There's no conjecture on my part.
The conjecture was on Mike Cirba's part when he stated that NO ONE could provide a routing based on a day's visit.
We know he was wrong despite your attempts to protect him.

Again, I am protesting you wasting everyone's valuble time and energy arguing over minutiae just to be argumentative.  be constructive or go home.
I am being constructive by pointing out egregious errors.
Errors in facts and errors in thinking.

Do you now want to disavow the existance of the Barker routing ?
Do you now want to disavow the ability to route a golf course in one day ?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

By all means dismiss my suggestions, if that is the way we do research on GCA.com, but please don’t try and expand on what you think I meant. All I said was that I would expect a professional to do a professional job. Reputations may have been slightly more important back in those days.

Melvyn

[Mike_Cirba]

And by these guys, I'm really just talking Pat, David, and Tom MacWood in absentia.

I think Bryan Izatt deserves our thanks as well!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

With all due respect, you are pounding the table again. I find it funny that the only thing in my post you DIDN'T green type is the last part, where I mention that things like reports without routings ARE very common in the industry, at least now. 
Of course, there is not much you can do to counter that argument, is there?

Of course there is..... context.
You want to equate how things are done in 2009 to how they were done in 1909, 100 years earlier ?
And you offer that wild contrast as proof positive of your position ?  Shirley, you jest.

To your other assertions,

1. I believe I could go back and find a post somewhere where Mike C admits there was a Barker routing.  He didn't lie, its just his opinion that its been proven that it was not part of any final routing for reasons I stated in my last paragraph.  If you want to go out of the way to point out an inconsistency in someones typiing, then so be it.  My suggestion is - and I mean this as nicely as possible - is to quit being a prick about this by doing that.

Baloney,  Mike has been so biased it's comical.  His reasoning ..... absurd, and he lied when he stated that NO ROUTING existed in 1910.
Mike drew his conclusion long ago and is searching for a path to get there, no matter how convoluted and distorted it is.

2. I WAS wondering if you were calling Whigham an able partner. You can read my "son in law thoughts" above, but I could be wrong.

Why don't you read up on Whigham and see how accmplished he was before automatically dismissing him as a mere "son-in-law"
You're guilty of the same smear campaign as Mike and others.

3. I have asked myself why CBM came down.  These threads have made the reasons very clear.  My opinon is that MCC was in the initial stages of considering property, Connell made an attractive offer of land that they were checking out.  Connell brought in Barker to see if the property was generally suitable.  MCC brought in CBM for a second opinion, not tainted by being paid for by the developer. 

Second opinion of what ?
The land ?
The routing ?

Or, was he requested to provide a routing ?

Do you know exactly why CBM was summoned to Ardmore Ave.
I don't, but, I'd like to find out.

Its clear since the Dallas property and the RR property were acquired later that their main mode was property acquistion and acreage determination.  At least the facts say we know that for sure.  That they were interested in routing, prior to even knowing what land they would have is speculation, pure and simple.

I'm not so sure.
Why did M&W advise them to purchase the additional land if not for hole location/routing ?

At least, I know I wouldn't be inclined to route a course if on my first visit, it was clear that the client didn't have all the land they wanted or needed, in my opinion and/or theirs.  What exactly would be the point of CBM doing a routing if he couldn't be sure of what land they had?


You're forgetting who controlled the land and the club's ability to obtain same.

Riddle me that Batman.....

Hopefully, you'll find my answer sufficient to create a quest for more information before making any unequivical statements as to the history of the club.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's also not forget where M+W "came down" from.

They were already in Philadelphia for the 1910 US Open and Mac's bud Griscom asked if they would come by to look at the land Connell was offering.

BIG difference than a special trip down from NYC.

Mike,

I don't believe that either Macdonald or Whigham were contestants in the 1910 U.S. Open

Could you verify that ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is there any documentation with respect to the date of Macdonald's site visit at Merion ?

Or, is it just speculation that he was there around June 16-18.

If his date of visit wasn't June 16-18 does that cast a different perspective on his visit

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Your last post is a good enough question.  I am sure some of the Philly boys have more documentation than I can recall from numerous Merion threads.  When first discussed, it was felt that CBM was at the US Open as an important official of the USGA, and not as a contestant.  

I don't recall any discussion about whether it was a last minute invite or a pre-planned visit.  Given the formality of the times, my guess would actually be that they asked him somewhat in advance, as in polite society a "Hey Charlie, would you mind coming over after the Open?" would be seen as impolite.  On the other hand, just a few months later, Wilson nearly begs Oakley to come see them, which I thought was less formal than would be suitable for the times.

I also don't recall off hand when the land offer was first made to MCC. It wasn't too much before the Open so any type of invitation might have been sort of rushed.

I doubt it makes that much difference, at least to me.  At that point, they simply had some potential for the land and wanted some preliminary opinons as such.  I do believe the only true documentation of the date of his visit is the letter dated June 29, 1910, which narrows, but doesn't pinpoint the visit date.  I also don't know the dates of the Open that year, but we could look that up easily enough.

I still question why you think he did a routing without mentioning it at all in his followup letter, or anyone else from MCC mentioning it in any correpsondance, as they did with Barkers routing?  In his followup letter, which has been posted here a few times, he mentions overall course length, general suitability (providing you get those 3 RR acres) and specifically says he cannot tell for sure without a topo map.  He adds a PS but still doesn't mention his routing, if it existed. He discusses soil tests.

And if MCC would have asked him to specifically come down and offer a routing, don't you think his letter would have addressed something like "Pursuant to your request for a routing" much like Barker started out summarizing the reason for his visit?

Wouldn't it just be too fantastic a coincidence if no single piece of correspondance from any of the participants mentions a routing if in fact there was one?  I think not.  While you may not be sure, I am 99.9% sure and if on a jury, would consider that beyond reasonable doubt.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I also don't know the dates of the Open that year, but we could look that up easily enough.

Jeff, I believe the Open dates were June 16-18.

I still question why you think he did a routing without mentioning it at all in his followup letter, or anyone else from MCC mentioning it in any correpsondance, as they did with Barkers routing?  

I never stated that Macdonald did a routing.  My comments were more to the point that it can't be unequivically stated that he didn't offer a routing, basic or detailed.

If M&W visited subsequent to June 10, 1910, which seems to be the presumption, doesn't it stand to reason that he was shown Barker's routing.

My uneducated guess is that he did see Barker's routing.

If so, did he accept it, fine tune it, modify it, or do nothing ?

If he saw Barker's routing, did that cause him to advise purchasing additional land ?

I don't think you can rule out any of the above, close the books and simply state that none of the above was possible.

Barker provided a routing on June 10th, M&W visit shortly thereafter.  CBM advises them to buy additional land to improve the golf course, but, how would he know that UNLESS he'd seen a routing or a basic plan ?

I think these are valid questions.

In his followup letter, which has been posted here a few times, he mentions overall course length, general suitability (providing you get those 3 RR acres) and specifically says he cannot tell for sure without a topo map.  

The recommendation that they obtain 3 measely acres seems telling to me.
As to the topo, might that have been more to the individual holes than the basic routing ?
It doesn't seem to be a land parcel that would lend itself to an infinite variety, or even a multiple, of routings

He adds a PS but still doesn't mention his routing, if it existed. He discusses soil tests.

I can't tell you why his letter is brief.  I can only offer possibilities.
Perhaps he was miffed that Barker's was called in first or visited first.
Perhaps because he was asked if Barker's routing was palatable.

And if MCC would have asked him to specifically come down and offer a routing, don't you think his letter would have addressed something like "Pursuant to your request for a routing" much like Barker started out summarizing the reason for his visit?

One would think so, but, the fact that Barker beat him to the punch may have miffed him.
Perhaps, due to his reputation, deeds and personality, Merion respected him but didn't want Merion to be NGLA South.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Barker's basic routing was accepted, that M&W were asked to comment on its viability and that CBM advised that they needed specific acreage in order to make the plan work better.  But, again, that's speculation.  And that's why I'd like to learn more about this topic.

Some things that have been presented seem counter intuitive and/or impractical.

Who secures a land parcel for a golf course, after actively looking for and losing sites, calls in two of the foremost experts of the day shortly thereafter, obtains routings and comments, and then ABANDONS the project for 7+ months ?

It doesn't add up.

Wouldn't it just be too fantastic a coincidence if no single piece of correspondance from any of the participants mentions a routing if in fact there was one?  I think not.  While you may not be sure, I am 99.9% sure and if on a jury, would consider that beyond reasonable doubt.

But that only addresses ONE scenario, it doesn't address the others.
It doesn't address the fact that Barker presented a routing on 06-10-10 and that M&W visited subsequently, along with some of the scenarios I presented above.

Just because you choose to eliminate one scenario doesn't mean that the other scenarios fall as well.

I think there's more to be discovered, especially from Mid 1910 to early 1911.

But, that's just my opinion, TEPaul could still be wrong

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Sometimes I wonder if you read anyone's responses even as you interject your green type between them. In fact, I did agree with your presumption that CBM most likely saw Barkers routing. That said, I was also recently in a similar meeting where the client refused to show me the other consultants routing, which also happens.  If they call in an expert, they don't want their opinions skewed by others opinions.  It could have happened either way.

What couldn't have happened either way is the ACTUAL timeline of events.  I have no problem using facts to narrow down the possibilities and get frustrated at someone like you who simply wishes to keep all possibilities open. The point of this excersise (for me) is to get to the ACTUAL time line of events, period and with 99% certainty, knowing 100% is out of the question at this point.  But, I see no need to argue a 1% possibility endlessly other than if that happens to be your hobby, which sometimes, I suspect it is!

I see no evidence that "Barkers routing was accepted" by MCC.  Like you, I can envision CBM's reactions, given his legendary ego.  It is fun to contemplate.

Once again, even if CBM saw it and used it as TP as suggested by Mike earlier, subsequent events rendered whatever Barker did mute.  Even if CBM did some kind of routing that day (which I doubt, but lets move on) the record shows it was superceded by other events - the purchase of the Dallas Estate, the committe prepared many routings, and then visting CBM, which somehow caused them to work up even five more routings.  At some point, all the earlier work, whatever that was, was rendered moot by the final routing, the land swap, etc. perhaps even including CBM's good advice in March and April 1911.

If you are asking if CBM did some routings at that point in history (1910) just to complete the record, you can ask away.  I know David has been looking for more documents between CB and MCC for quite a while now.  I know they don't exist or haven't been found in any MCC collection and Wayne and TePaul are still looking after over a year. 

For a while, a few of us were simply trying to connect the dots on a timeline based on documents and known facts. 
I personally think all that has been discovered is all that is going to be discovered. I was particpating in this thread based on that assumption and even said that if more info came out, I would be glad to revise my opinion. 

Based on that, we are currently simply trying to figure out how the land parcel bought went from 117 to 120 acres.  That is why your posts seem like such a distraction to me.

I would like to keep this one focused on what the main participants have generally agreed to and narrowed things down to.  Of course, I understand that I have no control over anything.  But, it just seems to me that if you wanted to, you could again start another thread to drum up support for your CBM speculation about his routing efforts if any in June 1910 and see where it goes.

Thanks for your consideration.

[Jeff_Brauer]

One last topic that I wanted to touch on related to CBM doing a routing.  To that date, he had only routed his own courses.

My question is how did his amateur status affect his work?  Was the his amateur status a factor in him being vague, in their not publishing the letter wihch might appear to make him look like a professional, etc.

Would he undertake to route a course for another client at that point or would that have affected his amateur status?

Like most of the other stuff talked about regarding MCC here, I vaguely recall this being discussed but with Pat bringing up the CBM routing card again, perhaps a refresher course in how that affect things might help some of us

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Pat has zero evidence, has contributed nothing of value to this thread, and is trying to divert attention from the real facts while personally calling me a liar.

Its sad and pathetic and he's not worth discussing this with.   He seems intent on burning bridges and insulting people needlessly instead.

Neither Tom nor Wayne want to have any of their research here any longer, much less the supposed infamous Cuyler letter, which is another red herring, because they are tired of dealing with the same nonsensical, non_factual, erroneous, and totally speculative crap you've been dealing with all day.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()