Merion's Early Timeline

[Mike_Cirba]

Dear Moderators,

This thread has obviously hit the wall.

There was a time when some of us felt progress was being made here and some of us were actually trying to establish factual timelines and determine how what we know about the Francis Land Swap stood up to those facts.

That progress has yet again been derailed.

This has become an embarrassment, such that professionals like Jeff B. wish to have their name removed, only I can only remove it from the first page, not any subsequent pages.

Yesterday, a thread was started asking if Hugh Wilson had been asked to do ANYTHING with the architecture of the Merion East course, perhaps not realizing that the appointment of a temporary subcommittee to a permanent standing committee is not something that would be reported at either a Board of Governors level at what was essentially a multi-sport facility with a focus on Cricket at that time, nor would an inter-club matter prior to even purchase and construction be a matter for press reporting.

Similarly, we're also told here that because Hugh Wilson started turning over (plowing) land that was half covered with corn stalks a week prior to the settlement of the routing that there was some type of course already in progress.   Or, because Wilson and Piper referred to it as a "golf course" in ther February letters, it must mean that a formalized course existed already, even though it's clear that construction wouldn't even begin until late April of that year.

This has become a trainwreck and a circus and I don't believe it reflects well on anyone, much less this site.

No matter which side you think is correct, it doesn't matter anymore, frankly.   Is this supposed to be somehow in the best interest of Merion?   Is this supposed to be somehow helpful to golf course architecture??

Does anyone really think this is actually about finding the TRUTH??

Enough blood has been spilled here already, enough relationships permanently severed, and enough valuable contributors have been lost to this site already.

For my part, I won't contribute to this civil war any longer, and hope you will respect my wishes as the person who regretably started this thread and permanently delete it.

Thanks.


 

[Jim Franklin]

I have not read any of this. What was the problem? Why can't we just get along? It is only golf for crying out loud.

[Jon Wiggett]

I have not read any of this. What was the problem? Why can't we just get along? It is only golf for crying out loud.

Jim,

can you define 'only golf'

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, I noticed the newest edit to the title of this thread.  I certainly haven't followed it into what I personally think is a labyrinth of pedantic historical debates that shed more heat than light to a very narrow issue of full attribution to the origins of what by all accounts is a great classic golf course.  As TD said, the end result or evolving stewartship of the course is more important than its specific origins, IMO.  

But, while I think you are one of the true great ones on GCA.com, tenacious and principled in your views that I find myself agreeing with most often, I think your call to put this thread out of its misery is too curious, considering your vigorous and persistent participation.  I never expected you to roll over for DM, but to now call for its demise is somehow a waste of ones own mind (or however Dan Quale put it)  

No, I think what this thread needs is an editor.  I hope you at least copy the 68 pages on hard copy or disc, before anyone does in deed delete it.  Then, do the whole GCA.com community a big favor and edit out all the BS and nattering and repetition, and do a synopsis of the issue, the heart of the debate, and put it upon the table for due consideration by those interested.  No one in their right mind and not completely personally invested in this whole Merion cult is going to read all these pages.  So, for us lazy and unwilling, summarize, S’il vous plaît!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

It's "only golf course design attribution" to me and ,quite frankly, I don't care if  Wilson, Wilson's committee, Old MacDonald, Whigham , Barker, Valentine, Flynn, Maxwell and Fazio all get credit.It's much easier for Johhny Miller to say Wilson designed Merion than to add this minutiae. It's one of the top courses in the world as it is now and as it was back in the day. What's been going on is an academic exercise and belongs elsewhere-in academia or Golf Digest,GolfWeek or a major newspaper,for example. Moriarity,Morrison, Paul and Cirba and others should get another degree based on their efforts.

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ Daley,

A LOT of people whose opinions I respect have been urging me to step away from this discussion for a few weeks now.

When Bryan, Jeff, Jim, and I were making progress in a very helpful, civil way, despite an occassional green-inked attempt at deflection from Patrick, this was actually beginning to get enjoyable, as we were trying together to solve some of the mysteries.

However, much as anyone thinks I'm biased, and I am, yesterday's return of David and Tom Mac, much as I enjoy the latter's research if not always his analysis and conclusions, made very clear to me that this would go on forever.   I'm convinced that a routing map signed by Hugh Wilson could be found and we'd be told by David and TMac that Macdonald and/or Barker and/or Francis and/or ANYBODY but Hugh Wilson had their fingerprints all over it.    Then thrown in pages full of green-ink stained deflections from Patrick every third day or so and it's simply a trainwreck needing to be cleaned from the tracks.

Yesterday, I asked David why if he knew all along that the 1910 Land Plan didn't measure out to the 117 acres it was purported to be, and if he knew that the "triangle" of land on that plan didn't measure out to remotely what Richard Francis told us they needed, why wasn't this pointed out to his reader as it was the only real piece of physical evidence from the club he presented?   How could this information not be relevant??

You would have thought I'd accused him of stealing babies.  

So, we're at an impasse here, and before we go deeper into the abyss of name-calling, vitriol, and embarrassing ourselves, I'm pulling the plug.

I have no ill will towards anyone here, but this conversation has lost focus, relevance, and once again, civility, and it's time to draw the line.  

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, after I met my dairyland farmer's daugher wife, and was brought into the farm community that I knew nothing of previously, I learned one of their old expressions about animal husbandry among other matters... 

"you name it; you feed it"

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike, after I met my dairyland farmer's daugher wife, and was brought into the farm community that I knew nothing of previously, I learned one of their old expressions about animal husbandry among other matters...  

"you name it; you feed it"

Actually, RJ, I'm hoping to starve it to death.

Someone used a Star Trek analogy to me where in one episode whatever Kirk and Spock and crew were fighting would simply gain more energy and become stronger through their efforts.

Once they stopped fighting against it, it withered and died.

I thought that made a lot of sense, and was an appropriate analogy...albeit it less entertaining to those watching at home.   

[RJ_Daley]

Well then, I won't feed it with my thoughts... hmm, hmm, hmmm, la-la-la-la, I'm not thinking about Merion, hmmm hmmm hmm...

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan
Yes, the 117 acres is in the first letter dated 2/1/1911. What is your email address?

The info regarding CBM making the final decision comes from TEP. I'm not sure I would call anything coming from TEP a hard fact but its the best we have for now.

Tom,

I've IM'ed you my address.

As to the hard fact, I got that impression from David's use of the information.  I was trying to pin down what document it was in and what the exact words were.  So,

David,

Can you identify in which post you saw the snippets of the April Board meeting that lead you now to state categorically "that Macdonald and Whigham had determined the final layout plan"?

Thanks.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Are you going to answer my five questions?

Perhaps now you that we've been derailed from any productive discussion with more goose chases you can see why this has become such a frustrating exercise in complete futility for me that I'm going to wrap up my participation today, and would really hope to hear your perspective on those questions.

Thanks.

 

Mike,

Yes, I was intending to answer them.  I, too, have been distracted by trying to keep up with the numerous new posts and threads.  But, I will answer. 

As to your desire to delete the thread, that seems silly to me.  A lot of information has been brought to light and discussed (in between the less savory parts of the thread).  If you cannot stomach the on-going debate, then let it go, but leave the thread up.  It has a lot of information in it.  I trust, in any event, that Ran and Ben won't arbitrarily delete it anyway.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

As your last official act before leaving your own thread, perhaps you could take my name out of the title thread. I have always been uncomfy with it in there, and especially since there has been no untying of any knot!

Jeff,

I see that Mike has acceded to your request.  As I recall the myth of the Gordian Knot, it was not untied in any event, rather Alexander the Great slashed the knot with his sword and went on to fulfill the prophecy of being the king of all Asia.  In an attempt at leveity, I hope you don't have your sword out, waiting to slash at this thread.     Although being king of Asia might be fun for you.

[Bryan Izatt]

To start discussion, allow me to ask you and Bryan a few questions;

1) Could you identify where you think the "nearly 120 acres" was located that Merion thought they required for their new course as of July 1910?

I think in July 1910 the 120 acres was an undefined subset of the Johnson Farm (south and northeast sections equaling 119) and the Dallas Estate 21 or 22...so a subset of about 140 total.  I think it's reasonable to conclude that if Barker looked at the property, CBM and HJW inspected and advised on the property, and the Merion committee were studying their options pretty diligently AND old man Dallas was dead and Mrs. Dallas was hoping to sell the Estate they knew they could get it and the land would be needed. If the deed finalizing the Dallas sale is October 1910, I'd bet it's safe that they began that process in the summer

As I recall the quote it was probably nearly 120 acres, so I didn't put too much stock in trying to find a place where there was a neatly packaged 120 acres.  It could be that they were just saying that the old course was on 100 acres and that wasn't enough so likely 120 acres, or so might be better.  As to where it was I'd just reiterate what Jim has said above.

2) Could you identify where you think the 117 acres that Merion secured in November 1910 were located?

The Johnson Farm south of Ardmore, the Dallas Estate, and an undefined subset of the Johnson Farm northeast section...the formal boundary having room to wiggle, but with a dollar value per acre already tied down at ~$725...including A triangle slicing into the northern rectangle that goes up to College Ave.

The Johnson Farm south of Ardmore, the Dallas Estate, and an undefined subset of the Johnson Farm northeast section.  There is no information available that defines exactly where it was, beyond that.  Since I choose to accept the 13 acre option story, I have stated in previous threads where I think the 130 acres is.  It could be that the 117 acres was never that real a number.  It could have been just that they wanted to pay no more than $85,000 and they had a per acre price from Connell.

3) Where do you think the difference between the 117 acres Merion secured in November 1910 and the 120 acres they purchased might have been located?

Along GHR...although not necessarily west of the border of that Johnson Farm original western boundary...Lloyd owned that whole thing and at some point they had to get it back to HDC to sell as home lots. I think they zeroed in on 117 for the specific reason that they knew where the holes were going to go...ie, the first green was going out into that corner and the 15th fairway was going to swing out west when they drew up the November 1910 Land Plan...what they didn't know was the exact length they wanted #1 to be, or the exact width the 15th fairway and green were going to be...those two areas very likely resulted in a net enclosed area of 120 acres...plus the RR land.

I think that the three acre difference netted out from give and takes within the 13 acre option and the Francis triangle that was outside the 130 acre tract.  I will, someday, when I find time, draw the 130 acre tract and the gives and takes that accommodate the Francis land swap.

4) If the 130-acre theory presumes that Merion at some point swapped the 13-14 acres of land on the far side of GHR across from the clubhouse for the 4.8 acres of land where today's 15th green/16th tee are located, how would it have been possible for Merion to simultaneously have secured 117 acres of land (which I'm presuming includes at least some of the triangle land), while still somehow retaining option on an additional 13 acres (which I'm presuming that the 130-acre theory assumes is the land across from GHR)?

I don't think Merion swapped 14 for 5, I think Lloyd took option on that land so he could make some of those decisions...I do not believe Culyer's letter date (December 1910 IFIRC) was the first day they all thought a movable boundary would help...I think Merion swapped for the triangle for an equal amount of land across from the clubhouse with neither boundary being formalized until later...They had previously agreed to 117 acres and were under that assumption until sometime in the spring when they had a real clear idea of where the road could go and learned that they had enclosed 120 acres.

I'm not sure I understand the question in your question.  I think the Francis triangle was outside the 130 acres, hence the need to "swap" for it.  Anything west of GHR as finally laid out would have not been taken up from the option.  If you want to use the 122 land plan road area as a surrogate for the 117 acres, then there would be gives and takes relative to that road, the 130 acres and GHR.  I'll draw it out for you, hopefully soon.

5) The Thompson Resolution of April 1911 describes a swap of "land already purchased for land adjoining", along with requesting approval of three addtiional acres.   To what do you think they might be referring to.

I think my opinions above probably cover that...I can't tie down the RR land deal at all, one way or another...Bryan asked a good question of Tom pages ago about a note in the May meeting minutes regarding the April approval for $7,500 being unnecessary anymore based on a better lease arrangement...short of a note like that I would guess the purchase of 3 acres was the result of the designing up phase of holes 1 and 15...and/or possibly the need to own half of GHR which was about to be built.

As to the swap, I don't know what they were referring to.  All we have is the snippet from the minutes, and it is completely non-specific about what land it was referring to.  I find it hard to fathom that a Board as bright as Merion's would approve a swap without being specific about what they were talking about.  Why do you think they were being so vague?  Or is there more information in these minutes, or previous minutes, or subsequent minutes that would help us understand what they were referring to?

I think the additional 3 acre purchase referred to the RR land.  You, and now Tom, having changed his mind, don't agree.  In any event, there is no evidence in deeds that the 3 acre purchase happened.  So, I guess it's really irrelevant.

Thanks for your help in advancing the discussion...

Thank you for sticking with it, tell Tom what I told him on the phone yesterday...Man up and get back in the game!

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

If you want to figure out what really happened then I'd advise you to stick with factal information.

The related news articles from the time as I showed the other day are chock-full of factual errors and inconsistencies.  I also suspect there was some speculation, some positioning, some misinformation being fed, and other backroom maneuvering as negotiations took place.

There is NO record of a 130 acre option.  None.

There IS a 117 acre offer sent by Micholson in early November, 1910.

There IS a Nov 15th letter soliciting bonds from Merion to members sent 11/15/1910 that states the club has secured 117 acres.

There IS unaniminity in the subsequent news articles that 117 acres had been secured, except for one that had a plethora of other information wrong such as the total among of acreage HDC held, as well as the price per acre Meriod paid which was vastly overstated.

There IS a December purchase by Lloyd of the entire 161 acres of combined TOTAL Johnson/Dallas properties per Cuyler's advice regarding moving the boundary to suit the needs of the course.

There IS January 1911 club documents talking about lawn tennis courts and skating rinks being on the new site.

There IS Hugh Wilson's writing P+O in Feb 1911 that they have 117 acres for their new course.

There IS the Thompson resolution of Apr 1911 that approved the purchase of 3 acres as well as a swap for land  adjoining for land already purchased.

There IS the purchase by Merion of 120 acres in July 1911.

The rest is smoke and mirrors.

Also, Joe Bausch can concur if he wishes, but we've regularly seen top area golfers referred to as "experts", particularly if they were involved in some aspect of planning or advising on new course building and or significant changes to existing clubs.

Consider also that this document was going out to a general membership, many if not most of whom were non-golfers in 1910.  .

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

The MCC Minutes tell us that the Committee created many plans for the new golf course prior to their visit to NGLA the second week of March 1911.

Why would it then be surprising or unexpected to find that one of those preliminary routings was drawn atop a topo map sent to P+O in early Feb 1911?

[Phil McDade]

"For my part, I won't contribute to this civil war any longer, and hope you will respect my wishes as the person who regretably started this thread and permanently delete it."

-- posted by Mr. Cirba at 8:55:28 AM today (July 6, 2009).

Posts by Mr. Cirba on this very thread since then: 4 (and counting...)

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

Thanks for counting.  

Perhaps now that I have Shivas, Patrick, MacWood, and Moriarty all at the same time against lonesome little ole me I should at least get some hazardous duty pay!?  

Shivas,

The minutes say the Committee "after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground" went down to the National course.

I know this has been portrayed here as ultra confusing and just so, so, soooo difficult to understand so please try to keep up.  

On the Committee's return from NGLA, "we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans."

Now, I know that is somewhere between brain surgery and nuclear physics, but I know you're sharp and won't be shocked any longer when you consider the stunning revelation and NEW EVIDENCE from Tom MacWood that Hugh Wilson might have sent a preliminary routing to P&O in early February.  

[Mike_Cirba]

and perhaps the most relevant topic for this thread...

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,

Cirba is playing fast and loose with the facts again. Surprised?

1.  It is not clear which committee "laid out many different courses on the new ground."  For that matter, it is not even clear that it was either  committee that did the laying out!    Supposedly the report begins:  "Your Committee desires to inform you . . . "   but it was Lesley who gave the report, and he was chair of the Golf Committee, and not on the Construction Committee.    Mike and TEPaul pretend that this was Lesley speaking for Wilson (like Mike is for TEPaul?) but my understanding is that this is just one of TEPaul's questionable assumptions.   No proof has been offered.

2.    It is not clear WHEN whoever "laid out many different courses on the new ground."   I have no idea whether it happened before or after January 1, 1911, or before or after Nov. 15, 1910.   No facts have been produced.

3.    It is not clear what the supposed minutes mean by upon returning from NGLA "we arranged the course and laid out five different plans."  They rearranged ONE course, "the" course.   So what is this business about 5 different plans?   Seems like variations rather than entirely different plans.

4.   It is not clear that Wilson's committee came up with five different plans.   The minutes supposedly say "laid out five different plans."  I take this to mean that they laid out five variations based on five different plans.   But they did not necessarily come up with the plans.  
______________________________________

Jim,

You don't think that M&W were important in determing whether Merion should purchase the land?    

I am going by the July 1, 1910 Committee report, which notes that M&W have indicated what could be done with the land and states that the Committee's recommendation (to purchase the property) is based largely on M&W's opinions.  

[DMoriarty]

Wait a minute,  let's back up here:

Mike Cirba wrote (with my emphasis):

"Now, I know that is somewhere between brain surgery and nuclear physics, but I know you're sharp and won't be shocked any longer when you consider the stunning revelation and NEW EVIDENCE that Hugh Wilson might have sent a preliminary routing to P&O in early February."  
[/quote]

What NEW EVIDENCE that Hugh Wilson might have sent a preliminary routing to P&O IN early February?  

[Mike_Cirba]

[Mike_Cirba]

And when did the laying out of the many plans prior to the March meeting at NGLA happen?  In January?  February?  Or maybe early March perhaps, right before the trip?  I can just see these guys trapsing through the snow trying to lay out a golf course prior to 2/11...  The minutes don't specify.   This was the first report of Hugh Wilson's temporary committee who reported up through Robert Lesley's permanent Golf Committee.   Lesley, as Chairman for the permanent committee was in attendance at Board Meetings.   What is so confusing about this?   Haven't any of you lawyers been part of an organization before?    Why couldn't they lay out the various iterations of possible layouts on paper or on the ground ANYTIME prior to visiting NGLA?   There is nothing that said that Hugh Wilson wasn't involved prior to early 1911, only David's interpretation.   The only thing Hugh Wilson told us is that he got appointed to a committee in early 1911, not that he wasn't involved prior.    Why is it in your quest for fair information, Shivas, that you don't question the absurdity of HH Barker coming in early December to do a one-day routing as the train passed through town yet somehow act dumb when asked to consider that the Merion Committee...who actually LIVED THERE...were out on the property for months?   Please be fair because your questions are ridiculous and slanted.   Thanks.  

And from those five different plans, one was picked - after the April meeting with CBM.  In other words, the Committee had no set plan prior to the NGLA trip.   So what is the new evidence, exactly?  That something might have been sent to P&O?  Might have been?  Oh, be still my beating heart....and honestly, do you have any way of knowning how Wilson would have chosen one of these many plans to overlay on the topo he sent to P&O in February?   The "new evidence" is the stunning new stuff that Tom MacWood and David Moriarty have presented these past two days.   The stunning revelation is apparently that Wilson sent P&O a topo map that they refer to as a "blueprint" in early February 1911, and OMG!!!  , the Merion Committee PLOWED DOWN CORN FIELDS IN LATE MARCH WHEN THE GROUND THAWED!!!  

Be still MY beating heart!  

I mean, is this all they've got??!   Is this the stuff that Patrick Mucci told us we'd all be SHOCKED BY!?!?  

There's more stinking fresh manure in these latest set of revisionist theories than in the Wilson Oakley letters!!!  

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

Cirba is playing fast and loose with the facts again. Surprised?

1.  It is not clear which committee "laid out many different courses on the new ground."  For that matter, it is not even clear that it was either  committee that did the laying out!    Supposedly the report begins:  "Your Committee desires to inform you . . . "   but it was Lesley who gave the report, and he was chair of the Golf Committee, and not on the Construction Committee.    Mike and TEPaul pretend that this was Lesley speaking for Wilson (like Mike is for TEPaul?) but my understanding is that this is just one of TEPaul's questionable assumptions.   No proof has been offered. No David, it was the Children's Auxiliary Committee;  they were getting ready for the easter egg hunt in April and it's been a common historical myth and mistake we've all made in thinking they actually "planned" and plotted where to hide the eggs and drew it on the topo map.   In truth, they actually "laid" the eggs "on the ground"...they did not themselves conceive of where to place the eggs or what colors to apply to each egg.    

2.    It is not clear WHEN whoever "laid out many different courses on the new ground."   I have no idea whether it happened before or after January 1, 1911, or before or after Nov. 15, 1910.   No facts have been produced. I agree, but most evidence would indicate it was likely after January 1911, and almost certainly after November 15th, 1910.

3.    It is not clear what the supposed minutes mean by upon returning from NGLA "we arranged the course and laid out five different plans."  They rearranged ONE course, "the" course.   So what is this business about 5 different plans?   Seems like variations rather than entirely different plans.Exactly how many golf courses do you think they were planning to build at the time?   I agree they were likely variations on a plan, and I would surmise most of the course was "settled" with just certain areas (last five holes?) under special consideration.

4.   It is not clear that Wilson's committee came up with five different plans.   The minutes supposedly say "laid out five different plans."  I take this to mean that they laid out five variations based on five different plans.   But they did not necessarily come up with the plans.   No, the minutes say that they came up with the plans, clearly.   And the minutes also clearly say that THEY laid out five different plans upon their return.   Twist words all you like but this is unambiguous.
______________________________________

Jim,

You don't think that M&W were important in determing whether Merion should purchase the land?    

I am going by the July 1, 1910 Committee report, which notes that M&W have indicated what could be done with the land and states that the Committee's recommendation (to purchase the property) is based largely on M&W's opinions.  
David, we've SEEN the Macdonald letter in its entirety.   You and Tom remind me of the last two Japanese warriors on an island somewhere who are still fighting in 1970 25 years after the war has been lost.  

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,

Ever seen those videos where the outfielder backpeddles so far and so fast, he goes right through the fence . . .

Notice how Cirba has shifted and is now trying to establish that maybe Wilson was working on the course before he was appointed to the committee in early 1911?   No evidence of that, but that never stopped Mike.

As for the "new evidence" it isn't new at all.   TomM got copies of these letters a month or two ago, and I wrote about the contents of these letters a month or two ago and noted that throughout the refer to Merion's "course"  I offered to provide them but no one took me up on it.    I believe Tom offered them up as well offline, but until this week, I believe I was the only one who took him up on it.   I guess Mike wasn't interested in them until Tom sent them to Bryan.

Query why TEPaul never mentioned that these letters indicate that Merion already had a "course" and a "blueprint" by at least February 1, 1911.    I guess it must be another innocent omission.  
________________


Again Shivas, despite Mike's song and dance, we don't know whether or not they laid out different courses before Wilson was even involved, or who did the laying out.   And we don't know it was Wilson's committee who planned 5 different courses.  All we know is that they laid them out after meeting with M&W to discuss the layout plan(s)

We'd need to see the minutes for that, and obviously something in them makes Wayne and TEPaul rather uncomfortable.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

You don't think that M&W were important in determing whether Merion should purchase the land?    

I am going by the July 1, 1910 Committee report, which notes that M&W have indicated what could be done with the land and states that the Committee's recommendation (to purchase the property) is based largely on M&W's opinions.  
David, we've SEEN the Macdonald letter in its entirety.   You and Tom remind me of the last two Japanese warriors on an island somewhere who are still fighting in 1970 25 years after the war has been lost.  

We've seen no letter.   We've only seen what Wayne told us was transcribed in the minutes.  I am sure you understand why I don't take this as gospel.   Besides, we know that M&W met with the SITE committee.   Do you think they were talking about baseball, or the golf course?  And who knows how much other communication he had with them?  

Also Mike, whatever you think of the transcription of the letter, Lesley's Committee was pretty impressed with M&W's opinions, at least enough to base his recommendation topurchase the land largely on their opinions.   I don't give a hoot what you think.  I do care what they thought.   And they decided to purchase the land based on whatever CBM told them.