[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

But for the January 1911 "130 acre" article to have any relevance, you'd have to believe that they still hadn't done the Land Swap by that time, because the 130 acres includes all of the land BELOW the triangle.

[JESII]

I think it's fair to think the newspaper could be dated...

Why would the newspaper article need to know about an internal discussion of the course committee?

[Bryan Izatt]

Re the boundaries of the 117 acres, Tom said he had metes for it, which implied a deed.  I reposted Tom's post a few pages back.  He did post it.  Just because it's not in your correspondence from Tom doesn't mean that he didn't post it.  Sorry for the double negative.    In any event, if he is retracting the post or the statement, that's fine.  I wasted a fair amount of time parsing deeds looking for the boundaries, based partly on Tom's post, so I'm a bit frustrated by it too.  For whatever it's worth, I don't believe there is a deed that details the boundary of the 117 acres.

Bryan,

I talked to Tom Paul on this and he thinks you have read much too much into what he wrote when he said that the 117 acres were encapsulated within the 161 acre purchase by Lloyd.

OK.  Tell Tom that I accept that that wasn't his intent.  But, I didn't read too much into it.  It was pretty clear.  But, water under the bridge, let's move on.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think it's fair to think the newspaper could be dated...

Why would the newspaper article need to know about an internal discussion of the course committee?

Jim,

The newspaper reports on a KNOWN event...the December LAND purchase "transaction" made by Lloyd.

We KNOW it had to have been written AFTER THEN.

[JESII]

You think he took an additional 13 acre option after buying 161 acres?  Where would that land have been? Remember, it was "likely to be taken up by the club..."

[Bryan Izatt]

I'd also ask those who are stating that the 130 acres included the Johnson Farm below Haverford College as well as the Dallas Estate to tell us where the "almost 120 acres" were that the Site Committee recommended they'd need in July.

Let's stick to the 130 acres for a while, without tangents.  Do you accept the newspaper article that they had secured and optioned 130 acres.  Do you have anywhere else that you'd like to suggest that the 130 acres was?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I think the newspaper article is wrong.   There is no mention anywhere in Merion's records of an additional optioned 13 acres.

But beyond that...

Let's assume it's correct.

It is impossible to believe that the November 1910 Land Plan shows proof of the Francis Swap before then because of the existence of the triangle and then also argue that the land Lloyd purchased (with the option of 130 acres for Merion all below Haverford College Line) in December 1910 didn't include that triangle in the 130 acres as Bryan's floated theory contends.

In other words, if one believes the 130 acre news account is correct, they also BY DEFINITION have to believe that the Francis Land Swap happened AFTER December 1910.

To me, this is simply MORE evidence that the Francis Swap did NOT include all of the triangle and that it certainly happened sometime AFTER November 1910. 

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Yes, it needed to net out to two acres, but only because we KNOW the Land Plan measures 122 acres and we KNOW they purchased 120.

So, if either of the gives or putbacks (out of a possible range of X acres on either side of the transaction) was different and not netting out to 2 acres, Jeff's theory wouldn't work.

What are the odds of that?

Just using a maximum swap of either side of the transaction at 5 acres (which is extremely conservative because you are arguing that they swapped 14 acres for 5), the odds of both of his calculations of gives and putbacks netting out to 2 acres is 1 in 45.

The odds of matching both 1 precise number of 5 possible and 1 precise number out of 14 = 1 in 171.   



p.s.

Tom does not agree it's the railroad land.   He believes it's the additional HDC land that moved the purchase from 117 acres secured to 120 purchased.    The Lloyd letter to members outlines the 2,500 price tag.

To quote from Tom,



OH MY GOD!?!??!




I'll have to get back to this later.  No time now.

[Bryan Izatt]

I think it's fair to think the newspaper could be dated...

Why would the newspaper article need to know about an internal discussion of the course committee?

Jim,

The newspaper reports on a KNOWN event...the December LAND purchase "transaction" made by Lloyd.   The December land purchase was for 161 acres to Lloyd.  The story is about Merion securing the 117 acre from HDC that was in the November letter, and presumably agreed to before it showed up in the letter.

We KNOW it had to have been written AFTER THEN.  We don't know when the reporter came into the knowledge.  It might have been after November 15 or it could have been before, if he had any connections to the players at MCC or HDC.

[JESII]

Sorry, going Mucci on you...

Jim,

I think the newspaper article is wrong.  Of course you do...


There is no mention anywhere in Merion's records of an additional optioned 13 acres.

There's no mention of 122 either...

But beyond that...

Let's assume it's correct.

It is impossible to believe that the November 1910 Land Plan shows proof of the Francis Swap before then because of the existence of the triangle and then also argue that the land Lloyd purchased (with the option of 130 acres for Merion all below Haverford College Line) in December 1910 didn't include that triangle in the 130 acres as Bryan's floated theory contends.

In other words, if one believes the 130 acre news account is correct, they also BY DEFINITION have to believe that the Francis Land Swap happened AFTER December 1910.

To me, this is simply MORE evidence that the Francis Swap did NOT include all of the triangle and that it certainly happened sometime AFTER November 1910. 


I just cannot get my hands around your logic here...why must the 130 acre purchase / option need to include the triangle area...the numbers say it does not...

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

I think the newspaper article is wrong.   There is no mention anywhere in Merion's records of an additional optioned 13 acres.  I thought that it was generally conceded that there are many gaps in the Merion records and that Tom and Wayne have only been filling in those gaps over the last year or so.  Are you now contending that the Merion records are complete?  If you think the article is wrong, what do you suppose the reporter's motives were for fabricating a 13 acre option, that just happens to perfectly fit one part of the Johnson property?

But beyond that...

Let's assume it's correct.

It is impossible to believe that the November 1910 Land Plan shows proof of the Francis Swap before then because of the existence of the triangle and then also argue that the land Lloyd purchased (with the option of 130 acres for Merion all below Haverford College Line) in December 1910 didn't include that triangle in the 130 acres as Bryan's floated theory contends.

In other words, if one believes the 130 acre news account is correct, they also BY DEFINITION have to believe that the Francis Land Swap happened AFTER December 1910.

To me, this is simply MORE evidence that the Francis Swap did NOT include all of the triangle and that it certainly happened sometime AFTER November 1910. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim/Bryan,

Please explain to me how Merion could simultaneously have the triangle in their possession on Nov 15, 1910, while still having option on the 13 acres you say they traded to HDC for the triangle.

[John_Cullum]

Mike

You are losing sight of the forest for the trees. Quit worrying about this.

[Mike Hendren]

With respect to newspaper accounts:

"You expect newspapers to tell the truth?  Heck, they only cost a quarter.  If you want the truth, we'd have to charge $9.95!
- Lewis Grizzard

 
Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

not pissed, didn't take anything personally.  Just realized that this is a no win battle for both the logical arguments put out there or lack thereof, all of our tendencies to call our arguments logic and opposing arguments speculation, and in this latest flurry, the realization that we don't even all have the same basic understanding of points not even in contention.

The prime example is the RR land. I think someone brought it up a while back.  In my mind, it was pretty well conceded that this came later and that MCC is really 123 acres 120 from HDC and 3 from the RR.  And yet, here it comes back up today.  Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that was settled.  Ditto on Pat and the role of Barker.  I was pretty damn sure that everyone agreed that Connell brought him in June 1910, and MCC brought in CBM.  Then we spend a week debating whether double negative logic means that Barker's routing MIGHT be included somehow, somewhere in MCC.  I was pretty damn sure that we agreed that it was done at the start, but not the end.

Old arguments keep popping up like brushfires here.  So do new ones, like the 130 acres option.  That is new to me, so I have no answer for you, other than the newspaper may be wrong.  And, to simplify Mke C's contention, how on earth could there have been a land swap if the working boundary was 130 acres?  It would have had to have been a land give back to the tune of 10 acres, not a swap.

Have you done your Google measurements to see if Johnson Farm less land adjacent to Haverford CC equals 130 acres?

[Mike_Cirba]

Have you done your Google measurements to see if Johnson Farm less land adjacent to Haverford CC equals 130 acres?

Jeff,

I think Bryan is using the following math;

140 acres - Johnson Farm

less 10.5 acres - rectangle of JF above Haverford College line

=129.5

less roughly 22 acres JF land west of GHR, north of Ardmore Avenue.

= 107.5

plus roughly 22 acres Dallas Estate

= 129.5


The contention then follows that Merion traded back something like 14 acres to HDC to gain a 4.8 acre triangle of land.

I still would like to hear someone explain how on November 15, 1910 Merion could simultaneously own the land of the triangle and also have option on the 13 acres that some contend they swapped to buy the triangle, but I'm sure we'll get a reasonable rationalization.  

[JESII]

I still would like to hear someone explain how on November 15, 1910 Merion could simultaneously own the land of the triangle and also have option on the 13 acres that some contend they swapped to buy the triangle, but I'm sure we'll get a reasonable rationalization. 

Mike,

In my opinion, Lloyd optioned that land prior to purchasing the whole 161. They had the whole thing figured out prior to 11/15/1910 in order to present the Plan to the membership. The fact that the Plan includes the triangle Francis references tells me that, despite the exact date of deeds and newspaper articles, this was a fluid transaction with several moving parts completed in theory well before the reality of a transaction such as Lloyd's December purchase of 161 acres.

Surely you don't think Lloyd optioned an additional 13 acres in January?

Do you think the writer, clearly familiar with many other details, would just manufacture 13 acres?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

You realize this theory also assumes that there were 14 acres right across the street from the clubhouse of the same type of land that today's 1 and 14 sit on that "were not part of any golf layout", even though 13 holes had already been routed and they only had 22 acres left to work with?

Also, why would Cuyler advise Lloyd to take the whole 161 acres under title in December to create a moveable boundary for the golf course land if everything was already nailed to the wall?

[Mike_Cirba]

Do you think the writer, clearly familiar with many other details, would just manufacture 13 acres?

I don't know Jim....we have this article that mentions the 13 acre option but also gets wrong the acreage of the old, existing course...




Then, we have this one that incorrectly the total acreage purchased, the money per acre paid, and the previous owner of the land;




Then this one which seems factually correct, if lacking details;




Then, finally this one (in two parts), which also mentions 130 acres, but which gets wrong the total acreage of HDC's holdings (350) the price per acre Merion paid ($3000) , the source of Barker's involvement (Lloyd), hyperbolizes the price of a recent adjacent land deal ($8000 per acre).

Somehow, they have the mysterious 12 or 13 acres in there..

[Jeff_Brauer]

Of course, if we want to believe these articles, then we take them at face value that Barker, CBM and HJW were brought in simply to assess the land, not route a course, and the routing started after they bought the land, no?

There are just too many of these types of statements in newspapers and articles and minutes to put the routing ahead of 11-15, at least IMHO.  Please feel free to disagree. Its a free country.

[henrye]

I'd be curious to know where these articles keep surfacing from?  Any more out there?

[Mike_Cirba]

I'd be curious to know where these articles keep surfacing from?  Any more out there?

HenryE,

They are part of the Edward Sayres Scrapbook, of which I'm very gratefully thankful to Wayne Morrison who provided me with an electronic copy of it probably 18 months or so ago.  Wayne knew of my interest in Hugh Wilson as part of my Cobb's Creek research and was very generous in providing me source material.

Sayres was the long-time Secretary of the club, and I would only add that David Moriarty has had all of this information for a few years, as well, so it's not like anyone has been holding it back or sandbagging anything.

[Mike_Cirba]

Speaking of Sayres, in November 1915 he presented an address at a dinner celebrating the 50th year anniversary of the Merion Cricket Club, the following is noteworthy to those incliined to think like Patrick Mucci and Tom MacWood who insist that Merion just HAD to hire a professional like H.H. Barker..."THE BEST", as Tom MacWood termed it...to design their new golf course.




In that regard, it's important and relevant to remember what Alan Wilson told us;

There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect.


Given this evidence, I move that in the interest of productive discussion, and in light of Jeff B's point about people like Patrick continually rehashing points we all thought were long dead and buried, can we at least agree to take Barker off the table as the supposed architect of Merion??  

[Patrick_Mucci]

You do a little twisting yourself. Are you related to Chubby Checker?

Had a lot of fun listening to Chubby, loved the twist, the music and times.

Chipoat,

Is the black swan relevant?  No one saw it because no one was looking, and no one was there.

Patrick's assertion that "even though there is no proof that something happened, one cannot declare unequivocally that it did not happen". 


Jeff, the Texas sun must have fried your brain.
That's NOT my assertion.
It's my rebuttal to Mike's assertions.

Mike Cirba has repeatedly announced conclusions, conclusions that are absent supporting facts and structured logic.

ChipOat and others understand and recognize the legitimacy of my logic and the logical arguments I've put forth.

For example, Mike Cirba declares that no part of the Barker routing/sketch found it's way into the golf course since the Barker routing/sketch doesn't appear to have been attached to the Barker letter contained in the Merion Board report.

Yet, when I counter that Mike can't make that declaration because he's never seen the Barker routing/sketch, you claim that I'm just being argumentative and nit picking.  

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mike is wrong.  He's hit the trifecta, he's been wrong with his facts, his logic and his conclusions

Yet, you want us to accept Mike Cirba's absurd conclusions ?
Conclusions that have been proven wrong time and time again ?
Are we to just roll over and accept everything that you and Mike write and reject everything in green ink ?

YOU and MIKE have constantly misrepresented my position, despite my repeated efforts to clarify it for you.
In terms of my arguments, my facts are those that have been recognized as being accurate, and my logic is irrefutable.

So stop ranting and raving that my position/s has/have no merit other than their decibel levels.
You're all wet on this one.

Okay, I agree, sure.  I am dealing in likihoods, not OJ type conspiracy theories.  If there is no proof, then I have little trouble concluding that something didn't happen.

Now you're joining the theatre of the absurd.
Barker's letter is a matter of the documented record at Merion, as is his reference to his routing/sketch.
You've accepted that letter as rock solid proof.
Yet, you defend Mike Cirba's absurd conclusion that no part of Barker's routing made it into the golf course because the routing/sketch wasn't attached to the letter IN the Merion Board report.

You don't know that.
And, you don't know whether parts of Barker's routing/sketch were part of the plans presented to CBM or whether parts were eventually put into the ground at Merion circa 1912.  

Yet, you chastize me for not accepting Mike Cirba's flawed conclusion/s that NONE of Barker's routing went any further than Connell.

Either the Texas sun, your ex-wife or both, have rendered part of your brain useless.

As to Wilson and Co being primarily responsible, well we have proof.

We don't have proof that Wilson was primarily responsible for the routing and/or the hole design.
And, we don't know the genesis of the five plans presented to CBM.
Until we know the genesis of those plans, the issue of the routing and hole designs remains unresolved.

But conspirancists will discredit the club record, spend 10 posts trying to discredit Mike and I for nit picky little things and then espouse that the big picture just can't be true, etc. 


I'm begining to think that it's neither the Texas sun nor your ex-wife, but, a genetic predisposition to stupidity.

"Nit picky" little things ?   Like Mike's insistance that Wilson sailed to the UK prior to 1912 ?
"Nit picky" little things ?  Like the absence of proof for a great number of Milke's flawed conclusions.
I've cited example after example of Mike's radical, ill founded and flawed conclusions.
It doesn't take rocket science to do so, only a simple course in "common sense or logic 101"

When you and Mike are questioned about your premises or conclusions, suddenly, you're the victims, set upon by unreasoned individuals who are merely seeking to satisfy "Prudent Man" standards.

Get off your defensive and lecturing high horse and see the issues for what they are, not their color.

Its lawyering at its worst in Pat's case. 

Baloney.
It's lawyering at its BEST.
SEEKING FACTS, NOT FICTION, and,
USING LOGIC, NOT UNFOUNDED LEAPS OF FAITH/BIAS

What a way to break up a nice little friendly discussion. 

I see, when the discussion isn't going your way you accuse those opposed to your premise and/or conclusions as disrupters.
How convenient.


Like you, Pat has NO idea what Barker's role is, but argues that it HAS TO BE bigger than MCC says, just because they acknowledge he was there in June.]

Jeff, you've just crossed the threshold from stupid to moronic.
Why don't you try something new, like thinking BEFORE you type.
I'm probably more familiar with Barker's role than you are.
Do you think you knew more than I did about Barker prior to this thread ?
Don't be so quick to draw conclusions where you don't have the facts to support your claims.


What a waste of my time.

Believe me, I've got better things to do than act as a tutor for "Logic 101"

[Mike_Cirba]

Sometimes, no response is necessary to prove one's point.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()