News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2300 on: July 06, 2009, 07:52:01 PM »
Peter Pallotta,

I don't believe that Tom MacWood meant that they had a "fixed" routing.

"Fixed" would seem to imply finality or permanency.

I would tend to ascribe to the theory that a routing or routings existed.

Mike Cirba,

Your remark/s to Tom MacWood with respect to the use of the property are far off the mark.

Corn is usually harvested in the summer and/or fall.  Jersey corn and tomatos are at their best in August.
After the corn is harvested, the stalks are shreded and disked into the soil.

Thus, in the winter, there's nothing there.   At least nothing to impede the laying out of a golf course

With respect to planting corn, the optimal time to plant corn is when the soil reaches a temperature of 62 degrees "F".
Typically, that's not January, February or early March in Ardmore, PA.

In addition, Corn is a rotational crop, with beans and clover being the prefered off-cycle crops.

The use of substantive quantities of manure was/is a active practice.

Hope that helps

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2301 on: July 06, 2009, 07:56:40 PM »
Tom MacWood,

In January to April 1911 do you know what they had on the ground?

A freaking corn field!! 

Not in Jan to April.


They hadn't even started plowing down the stalks!!!

Are you telling us that they don't plow down the stalks UNTIL six (6) months after the Harvest, AFTER the following SPRING THAW ?


Holy cow, you guys are too much.

Mike, are you sure that you know what you're talking about when it comes to planting, harvesting and cultivating corn and related crops.


Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2302 on: July 06, 2009, 09:08:47 PM »
Where did the corn stalks go?

Guys, I live in the farmland of Berks County PA.   They plant corn around here.   Lots of it.

Tom MacWood in Ohio in the heartland of America I'm certain knows exactly what I'm talking about.

You can harvest all you like in the autumn...come spring you still have a rotting corn stalk several feet high coming out of the ground, usually broken in half from the winter snows.

Hundreds, thousands of them.

I don't care if you wanted to furrow fair green from here to Fayetteville, you still have to turn them over and dispose of them and plow them under.

I guess if you want to get technical you could just plow the fairways, but since half of the land was a corn field, it sure would make a hell of a hazard come opening day if you left it untouched!   ::)

It is absolutely insane that we are even seriously discussing the idea that someone did a one-day routing in December in the middle of a corn field in PA and in February during what was reported to be a tough winter they suddenly have a...presto chango...golf course!!   Voila!!!   ::) ::) ::) :-\


Tom MacWood,

You missed the next phrase in that same sentence in the article on the yardage of the Merion course, somehow.

It says that the course has enough extra tee space that it can play an additional 255 yards (6500).    


Tom Mac & David,

The date of Cuyler's letter to Allen Evans is November 27th, 1910, transcribed into the December 1910 MCC Minutes.

I guess Barker's "definite" golf course was done before his train arrived.   ;)

« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 09:20:36 PM by MCirba »

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2303 on: July 06, 2009, 09:16:24 PM »
Mike is right about corn, especially the corn the used for feed in these parts.

Our 2nd tee is adjacent to a large farm that grows corn and soybeans.  The corn stays up a lot longer than you'd ever imagine.  They really only plow the stalks down here in Cheser County (just west of Delaware County) in the spring.

I know, because I remember seeing a fox attack something really big this spring right in the field with the old corn stalks.  

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2304 on: July 06, 2009, 09:17:41 PM »
These are the dates:

April 3, 1911
April 8, 1911
April 10, 1911
April 11, 1911
April 13, 1911
April 18, 1911 (Wilson)
April 18, 1911 (Oakley)

Tom,

Could you send me those letters?   I only have Wilson's 4/10 (which I posted), Wilson's 4/18 (which I posted), and Oakley's 4/18, which I thought was simply technical with no new info and I was tired of cutting and pasting.

Thanks!

Also, the only date I have for that Merion Dues Increase letter is January 1911, and don't have anything specific on the other article either.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 09:19:57 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2305 on: July 06, 2009, 09:23:13 PM »
Tom Mac & David,

The date of Cuyler's letter to Allen Evans is November 27th, 1910.

I guess Barker's "definite" golf course was done before his train arrived.

Voila! Yet another "fact" changes before our eyes and suddenly suits the argument de jour.  

And once again, Mike, you have forgotten that Barker did a routing in June of 1910.   Are you sure you don't want to change the Cuyler date to sometime in May?

And while we are getting our dates straight, how about you give us the date of the MCC announcement that Bryan has asked for about three or four times?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2306 on: July 06, 2009, 09:24:24 PM »
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,

I think if you're selling something, it helps for the product to be endorsed by an"expert"...the fact that they only showed CBM one piece of land when they had considered more than that is indicative of the stage of their decision.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2307 on: July 06, 2009, 09:35:28 PM »
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,

I think if you're selling something, it helps for the product to be endorsed by an"expert"...the fact that they only showed CBM one piece of land when they had considered more than that is indicative of the stage of their decision.

Jim, I am not so sure the facts support your argument, no matter to whom you thought they were selling.

1.  If you think they were selling to Merion's members, then I don't think the facts support your logic.  Lesley's report was dated July 1, 1910 and was addressed to the Board of Governors.

2.  If you think they were selling to the Board of Governors, then my point remains the same.  

Plus, I don't see the significance of whether or not they had showed him more property.  A better question might be what would have likely happened if CBM had trashed the place, and told them it was to small and horrible for golf.   I cannot imagine that they would have gone on with it, can you?  

Plus, I am not sure we are in a good position to second guess Lesley here, are we?  He told us that they based their decision largely on M&W's advice, and I think we ought to take him at his word.    

« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 09:37:11 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2308 on: July 06, 2009, 09:40:57 PM »
Where did the corn stalks go?

Guys, I live in the farmland of Berks County PA.   They plant corn around here.   Lots of it.

Tom MacWood in Ohio in the heartland of America I'm certain knows exactly what I'm talking about.

You can harvest all you like in the autumn...come spring you still have a rotting corn stalk several feet high coming out of the ground, usually broken in half from the winter snows.

Mike, under your scenario, when would you plant your corn if you still have rotting corn stalks several feet high in the spring.?

Are you aware of corn's ability to amend the soil and that it should be a rotational crop ?


Hundreds, thousands of them.

I don't care if you wanted to furrow fair green from here to Fayetteville, you still have to turn them over and dispose of them and plow them under.

And the best time to do that is after the harvest !
Not in the spring when you're about to plant.


I guess if you want to get technical you could just plow the fairways, but since half of the land was a corn field, it sure would make a hell of a hazard come opening day if you left it untouched!   ::)

As a rotational crop how do you know it was being used as a corn field that year, as opposed to being labeled a corn field ?


It is absolutely insane that we are even seriously discussing the idea that someone did a one-day routing in December in the middle of a corn field in PA

Mike, by December many corn fields have already had the stalks shredded and disked into the soil.


and in February during what was reported to be a tough winter they suddenly have a...presto chango...golf course!!


I can't recall anyone but you claiming that a functional golf course existed in February.
This is another one of your wild,  unsupported claims.



JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2309 on: July 06, 2009, 09:42:57 PM »
David,

I would be more than happy to take everyone of these guys exactly at their word...to the letter...not sure I have any compadres with me, save the Canadian moonlighter...Bryan Izatt.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2310 on: July 06, 2009, 09:46:43 PM »
Pat,

Just because it might be better for the soil have the stalks tilled in doesn't mean they were. Many things could have caused a non-harvest....rain, lack of subsidy funding to bring the crops in, death in the family.... :)

Also, golf courses perform better with certain amounts of irrigation, yet most apply more than that. What's best isn't necessarily proof.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2311 on: July 06, 2009, 09:51:02 PM »
Pat,

Just because it might be better for the soil have the stalks tilled in doesn't mean they were. Many things could have caused a non-harvest....rain, lack of subsidy funding to bring the crops in, death in the family.... :)

Joe,  I agree completely.
But, Mike Cirba can't state unequivically that the property was nothing but corn stalks.

In addition, we've seen AWT, Ross and others route wooded areas and hostile land.



DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2312 on: July 06, 2009, 09:56:53 PM »
David,

I would be more than happy to take everyone of these guys exactly at their word...to the letter...not sure I have any compadres with me, save the Canadian moonlighter...Bryan Izatt.

I'm with you there, or at least I try to be.  

The Committee report is a bit confusing, because it is dated July 1, 1910 but was presented to the members with the Nov. 15, 1910 Evans letter.   It is written in past tense and I have wondered if it was not written or modified sometime after the fact, so as to better document the decision or perhaps to make a stronger case to the members but I don't have any compelling facts to back up this speculation so I am taking it at face value.  

Wayne and Tom likely know since they claim to have have seen the Minutes, but since the transcript of the transcript of the CBM letter, they have been strangely silent about minutes from the the July 1, 1910 meeting.   Not like them if there was anything there helpful to them, or even neutral.  
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Peter Pallotta

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2313 on: July 06, 2009, 10:12:13 PM »
David - you ask about context, but what's the point of keeping the discusision (at this stage) focused solely on whether or not CBM offered advice about the land Merion was thinking of buying -- CBM's letter makes it clear that he does. My questions are about what I assume is the bigger/more interesting question, i.e. the nature and detail of that advice. And my point is that the same letter suggests to me that this advice was of a general (if expert) nature. Two reasons - one is the thread you started quite a while ago asking what the professional architects here thought of the yardage breakdowns/6,000 yard course that CBM outlined in his letter, in which one of the archtects answered that it struck him as "boiler-plate" stuff. I have used that word, and the word "generic", but Tom M's post about the opening-day yardages of Merion and NGLA reminded me that maybe the term I could also be using is "ideal" -- as in CBM's notion (often discussed here in un-related threads) of the kind of yardages and the number of Par 3s, 4s, and 5s, that an "ideal golf course" should have. Again, as you note, we've been over this before...and you're not the only one who feels he's had to repeat himself. We obviously disagree -- and, while I recognize of course that you have studied this and delved into this whole subject much more deeply and thoroughly than I have, my view of only the letter itself is that it seems to offer a general (if expert) nod of approval of the land Merion was considering.        

Tom - No. From the quotes we're discussing, I'd say that what I believe is that the committee had developed a number of possible routings (much like decades later architects talk about finding a lot more possible holes and a lot more possible routings than the ones they finally settle on), and that after their two days at NGLA they came back and worked over those possible routings for a month to come out with five potential plans, from which CBM helped them choose the best one. I don't think that's as unreasonable a reading as you seem to think; only the idea you shared previously that the committee had already started seeding makes it a nonsensical reading (and as I said, I just don't know enough to agree or disagree with you re the timing of the seeding)

Peter  
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 10:16:22 PM by Peter Pallotta »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2314 on: July 06, 2009, 10:37:54 PM »
Peter,

Do you realize that Merion fits into the ideal hole length template CBM wrote in that letter...nearly to a T?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2315 on: July 06, 2009, 10:49:12 PM »
Peter
Lesley said they had a golf course, singular, when they went to the NGLA, which they re-arranged when they returned. Wilson in his first letter to Piper, talks of a single golf course and sends one map. And Wilson continues to mention a golf course in his subsequent letters before and after the trip NGLA.

Re-arrange implies they kept the golf course but arranged its components in a different way. It does not mean they scrapped it and started over, and arranged five new routings.

The most likely scenario is they kept the routing but altered the design of the individual holes, thus not effecting Wilson's ongoing work preparing the ground, and their investment in time and money. The fact that many of Macdonald's concept holes appeared in the finished product would also seem to support this.

When was the committee formed?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2316 on: July 06, 2009, 11:05:00 PM »
Tom MacWood,

If plowing makes little sense in early spring, bringing out the horse and scoop to move earth in December or any part of winter makes less sense. Even to this day, modern earthmovers don't start work in that area in winter.  If the ground is frozen, you compact the ice and it costs you more time later, and usually, its just too wet to move around, finish, etc.

Saying that golf course construction started in Dec-Jan makes no sense.  Saying it started before they had the land legally and finally acquired in Dec. 1910 makes no sense.  I even think the records show that construction started in April, 1911, which is still normal to early for golf construction to start in Philly.

Based on that common sense and knowledge, I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that your theory of a golf course in existence anywhere other than paper is correct.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2317 on: July 06, 2009, 11:16:24 PM »
Who said they brought out the horse and scoop in December? I said yesterday I believe construction began in late March when they began plowing.

A golf course was staked out in December. The same (staked out) golf course Wilson refers to on February 1 and the same (staked out) golf course Lesley said needed re-arranging when they got back from NGLA.

Peter Pallotta

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2318 on: July 06, 2009, 11:23:09 PM »
Peter,

Do you realize that Merion fits into the ideal hole length template CBM wrote in that letter...nearly to a T?

Jim - yes, but I figure "how the hell couldn't it"?  I mean, the range of yardages and the number of Par 3s, 4s, and 5s that he suggests probably fit NGLA on opening day nearly to a T, too.  (That’s just a guess.)  What I’m saying is that in proposing “five 360-420 yards holes” and “six 300 to 340 yard holes” CBM seems to be leaving a LOT of latitude; what I’m saying is that this “boiler-plate” set of yardages seems to describe not a SPECIFIC golf course but an IDEAL golf course.  (Even then, CBM specifically suggests a 6,000 – and specifically NOT a 6,300 – yard course; Tom M tell us that Merion’s opening day yardage was 6,235.)   And the thing is, CBM’s ideal golf course really was a good golf course – i.e.  the yardages/holes he suggests in the letter offer a short, medium and long Par 3, a long Par 5, a bunch of short and medium and long Par 4s etc.  It makes complete sense that a club like Merion would want that kind of ideal course, that kind of variety.  But not knowing much of anything else except what I see in CBM’s own letter, he seems to basically be saying to Merion that he believes an ideal golf course can be built on the land they are thinking about buying. I don’t know (literally) how we can infer more than that.

Peter  
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 11:25:01 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Phil_the_Author

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2319 on: July 06, 2009, 11:51:57 PM »
      A single phrase certainly seems to be causing much disagreement. “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground…”
      What could this possibly mean? How does one go about “laying out many different golf courses on the new ground” especially after the committee that wrote of this followed it by stating that “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
      What could they have possibly meant?
      Some have argued that to “Lay Out” a golf course at that time required that it was being constructed. Others have argued just as hard that it refers to the design of the course and not the building of it.
      Why, though, is it not possible for both sides to actually be at least partially correct?
      David Moriarity wrote, “I think that, generally, "to lay out" a golf course meant arranging the golf course on the ground, whether staking it out, marking it out, or even by building it.  This is distinguished from planning a golf course, which can be done on the ground as one marks, stakes, or lays out the course, but can also be done on paper…”
      Now whether one agrees with David’s interpretation of what a proper definition of the phrase “Lay Out” means in regard to a golf course is correct or not, he is right in stating that “laying out” a golf course can be done by “staking it out.”
      Isn’t it simply most reasonable to believe that the “committee” of Merion men STAKED OUT a “golf course” of their own design on the ground? And that after doing so they made changes, rearranging holes and lengths and sites and even routings? After all, the only thing that would have been required was a bunch of wooden stakes and energy.
      Especially that makes sense because of what the entirety of that portion of what they wrote states: “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
      They didn’t state that they laid out five “variations” but rather “five different plans” and this in a single day. The only way this would be possible is if they simply moved stakes to different locations. A lot of work and a daunting task; that goes without saying, but they certainly could have had enough committee men and others there to do it. They certainly had the motivation for it.
      Now Mike wrote that, “It is not clear which committee ‘laid out many different courses on the new ground…’”
      Again, whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, the FACT is that SOMEONE LAID OUT five different plans ON THE GROUND after visiting with CBM & Whigham. What can be stated UNDENIABLY is that it WASN’T CBM & WHIGHAM!
      Did they advise the “committee” including Wilson and the other members when they visited on how to go about properly “laying out” a golf course. Assuredly so! But that “advice” could NOT have been the final word since if it was they would have simply returned and staked out what they were told to; this they did not do. How do we know this? Because they wrote that, “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…” Not a mention of the “plan that CBM just gave us” nor any mention of even “as he advised, simply that they “laid out five different plans.”
      For me, and I am sure that I will face an onslaught of arguing against this, I must conclude then that the “Committee” designed Merion and that the SIMPLE proof is staring at all of us in that single paragraph…
     

Peter Pallotta

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2320 on: July 07, 2009, 12:03:51 AM »
Phil - that makes sense to me. Tom M (in post 2417) says that a course was staked out in December 1910, but I don't understand that.  In a previous post (the one that included the letter from Merion to its members, and then the newspaper article), Tom noted that the first was from January 1911. The newspaper article (which I assume must've come out AFTER the Merion letter, since Merion would presumably tell its members first before making the news public) mentions that work would soon begin on laying out the new course. So the course couldn't have been layed out/staked out before, say, mid-January 1911 at the earliest, and since that was in the cold part of winter, maybe not until the early part of spring.

Peter

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2321 on: July 07, 2009, 12:34:51 AM »
David - you ask about context, but what's the point of keeping the discusision (at this stage) focused solely on whether or not CBM offered advice about the land Merion was thinking of buying -- CBM's letter makes it clear that he does. My questions are about what I assume is the bigger/more interesting question, i.e. the nature and detail of that advice.  And my point is that the same letter suggests to me that this advice was of a general (if expert) nature.

Peter, I was not trying to keep the discussion on whether M&W offered Merion advice, I was trying to keep the conversation focused on whether or not Merion relied on that advice when deciding whether or not to buy the land, because some have speculated that this was not the case. But if you think your point is more interesting or important then I guess we'll move on.

Before we get into the letter, let me just say that in my opinion your entire approach is flawed.  We cannot determine the nature and detail of M&W's advice based solely on the letter, because in all likelyhood their advice was not limited to just the letter.   You treat the letter as the only contact, yet we know that M&W stayed involved throughout the entire process.  Indeed, Hugh Wilson's first action that we know of was a conversation with CBM.  He referenced it in his February 1 letter.   We also know that M&W met with Leslie's Committee during his visit.  

We don't know how many contacts there were, or what all these contacts entailed, but we'd be fools if we pretended that there were no more contacts than what are mentioned in the Minutes.    Minutes don't record such things!   We wouldn't even know about the hundreds or thousands of Wilson agronomy letters if we relied on the minutes.  Should we pretend that they did not exist either? 

Don't get me wrong,  I am not saying that we can just make things up.   We cannot.   Likewise, we should not pretend that we know that M&W's advice was of a general nature just because one document contains information that you consider to be of a general nature.   Instead we have to take all of what we know and consider what conclusions fit best with the entirety of everything we know.

That being said, let's move on to the letter, and whether it really was as general as you seem to think it was.
 

Two reasons - one is the thread you started quite a while ago asking what the professional architects here thought of the yardage breakdowns/6,000 yard course that CBM outlined in his letter, in which one of the archtects answered that it struck him as "boiler-plate" stuff. I recall that the architect commented that the list of yardages struck him as boiler-plate stuff, but as I recall the architect did not comment on the rest of the letter.    The mention of using the quarry was obviously not boilerplate, nor was the mention of using the various streams or building mounds where necessary.

Nor was the suggestion that they purchase land behind the clubhouse.  That land was neither n the control of HDC nor offered to Merion.   If CBM had nothing in mind then what is he doing recommending they use an extremely narrow peice of land pinched between the RR and the clubhouse, with Cobb's Creek meandering through it?  This is a pretty bizzare recomnendation for a boiler-plate recommendation, isn't it?


I have used that word, and the word "generic", but Tom M's post about the opening-day yardages of Merion and NGLA reminded me that maybe the term I could also be using is "ideal" -- as in CBM's notion (often discussed here in un-related threads) of the kind of yardages and the number of Par 3s, 4s, and 5s, that an "ideal golf course" should have. Again, as you note, we've been over this before...and you're not the only one who feels he's had to repeat himself. We obviously disagree -- and, while I recognize of course that you have studied this and delved into this whole subject much more deeply and thoroughly than I have, my view of only the letter itself is that it seems to offer a general (if expert) nod of approval of the land Merion was considering.  

Here again, I disagree.  You focus solely on the yardage list and completely ignore the rest of the letter.  But even with the yardages I think you are jumping to conclusions.    As Jim noted, the holes built match what M&W recommended.     I see you dismiss this below by asking "how could they not" and guessing that NGLA would  also have fit.  Wrong.  NGLA does not fit.   Most obviously, NGLA does not have 4 par threes like CBM recommends for Merion.   For another NGLA has one more long hole that is recommended for Merion.    

But this brings up a good point, if this is generic or ideal, then how come it doesn't match NGLA?   For that matter, why doesn't it match the hole distances given in CBM's "The ideal golf course" article in Golf Illustrated?  

In short, it is too much for you to assume that the hole distances come out about the same because this was CBM's ideal formula.  It wasn't his ideal formula.    It is also too much for you to assume that it would inevitably work.  It wasn't inevitable at all.  Look at NGLA.  

« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 01:08:39 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2322 on: July 07, 2009, 01:06:54 AM »
Phillip wrote:
      A single phrase certainly seems to be causing much disagreement. “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground…”
      What could this possibly mean? How does one go about “laying out many different golf courses on the new ground” especially after the committee that wrote of this followed it by stating that “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
Not sure that it was the same committee in both cases, Phillip, or even if it was a committee in the first place.

      What could they have possibly meant?
      Some have argued that to “Lay Out” a golf course at that time required that it was being constructed. Others have argued just as hard that it refers to the design of the course and not the building of it.
      Why, though, is it not possible for both sides to actually be at least partially correct?
      David Moriarity wrote, “I think that, generally, "to lay out" a golf course meant arranging the golf course on the ground, whether staking it out, marking it out, or even by building it.  This is distinguished from planning a golf course, which can be done on the ground as one marks, stakes, or lays out the course, but can also be done on paper…”
      Now whether one agrees with David’s interpretation of what a proper definition of the phrase “Lay Out” means in regard to a golf course is correct or not, he is right in stating that “laying out” a golf course can be done by “staking it out.”
      Isn’t it simply most reasonable to believe that the “committee” of Merion men STAKED OUT a “golf course” of their own design on the ground? And that after doing so they made changes, rearranging holes and lengths and sites and even routings? After all, the only thing that would have been required was a bunch of wooden stakes and energy.
      Especially that makes sense because of what the entirety of that portion of what they wrote states: “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
      They didn’t state that they laid out five “variations” but rather “five different plans” and this in a single day. The only way this would be possible is if they simply moved stakes to different locations. A lot of work and a daunting task; that goes without saying, but they certainly could have had enough committee men and others there to do it. They certainly had the motivation for it.
Note that this also leaves open the possibility that they are staking out these courses based on someone else's plans.  One need not have come up with the plan to stake out a golf course.
      Now Mike wrote that, “It is not clear which committee ‘laid out many different courses on the new ground…’”
      Again, whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, the FACT is that SOMEONE LAID OUT five different plans ON THE GROUND after visiting with CBM & Whigham. What can be stated UNDENIABLY is that it WASN’T CBM & WHIGHAM!
I think you are confusing two things here.   It could have been CBM who laid out one of the many courses on new land.  While CBM and Whigham could not have staked out the five different plans, they could have provided the plans or at least helped create the  plans that CBM gave them.  
      Did they advise the “committee” including Wilson and the other members when they visited on how to go about properly “laying out” a golf course. Assuredly so! But that “advice” could NOT have been the final word since if it was they would have simply returned and staked out what they were told to; this they did not do. How do we know this? Because they wrote that, “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…” Not a mention of the “plan that CBM just gave us” nor any mention of even “as he advised, simply that they “laid out five different plans.”Why do you require that they must have said something like this.  I think it may be clear from the context that they were talking about CBM's plans.  Whether either one of is correct, we are not Necessariliy so.
      For me, and I am sure that I will face an onslaught of arguing against this, I must conclude then that the “Committee” designed Merion and that the SIMPLE proof is staring at all of us in that single paragraph…

Phillip, I am surprised you'd come to this conclusion as if it were a NECESSARY conclusion, especially after warning us recently and repeatedly on not confusing fact with opinion.  You state that the advice at NGLA "could NOT have been the final word . . . "  Of course it could have been the final word, at least as to the plans that were laid out.  M&W could have given them five different variations to stake out, so M&W could later inspect these options on the ground.

Also, you are reading to0 much into this paragraph.  

1.  Recall that the source is well less than reliable and has only provided us what he wants us to see.  The reality is, we don't know what this paragraph consists of, or whether it is complete or accurate.   In fact, it has internal inconsistencies and ommissions that suggest that it is PROBABLY NOT ACCURATE OR COMPLETE.  

2.   You  base your conclusion on your observation that there was not "a mention of the 'plan that CBM just gave us' nor any mention of even, 'as he advised' . . .
    -  It is YOUR OPINION that the paragraph would have contained this language if CBM came up with the plan.  It is  by no means necessarily so.
    -  They had just mentioned going over CBM's plans, and these could be the plans to which they refer.  

3. Lastly Phillip, you overlook the fact that the staking out of the five different plans was definitely NOT THE FINAL WORD.   M&W returned to Merion to go over these five possible layouts and to chose the best one, possibly even altering it in the process.  If you are looking for the final word, it was  the plan determined by M&W that went to the board and was approved.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 01:18:04 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2323 on: July 07, 2009, 01:10:36 AM »
David,

I would be more than happy to take everyone of these guys exactly at their word...to the letter...not sure I have any compadres with me, save the Canadian moonlighter...Bryan Izatt.

Jim,

The moonlighter returns.  I'm with you compadre.  The trouble I'm finding with taking these guys exactly at their word is that their exact words even conflict with themselves.  For instance, in the two November 15th letters, one says HDC have acquired 338 acres, while the other one says that 338 acres will be acquired.  Both written by Lloyd at the same time.   ???  So much for taking them exactly at their word.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #2324 on: July 07, 2009, 01:16:41 AM »
David,

I would be more than happy to take everyone of these guys exactly at their word...to the letter...not sure I have any compadres with me, save the Canadian moonlighter...Bryan Izatt.

Bryan wrote:
The moonlighter returns.  I'm with you compadre.  The trouble I'm finding with taking these guys exactly at their word is that their exact words even conflict with themselves.  For instance, in the two November 15th letters, one says HDC have acquired 338 acres, while the other one says that 338 acres will be acquired.  Both written by Lloyd at the same time.   ???  So much for taking them exactly at their word.

Bryan,   I am not sure Lloyd wrote both letters.  Wasn't one of the letters written by Evans?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back