[DMoriarty]

David,

Ab Snith was responsible at HVGC for the design changes, not Laing.

Tell it to Tillie.  And quit avoiding my questions.

[DMoriarty]

Also Mike,  

You claimed that those involved with Cobb's were called experts for their golfing ability.  That is not the case.

From Joe Bunker's 1-24-1915 Drives and Putts article in the Inquirer:
 

Note that they are considered experts because of their past involvement in designing, laying out, constructing, and improving other courses. 

So where were these 100's of golf courses designed by members before 1910?  And who ever referred to these club golfers as experts?

And my other questions are still there.  Why not answer them?

[john_stiles]

In the year 1915,  article explains Hugh Wilson 'laid out' Merion and Seaview.  Yet George Klauder was  'one of the constructors' for Aronimick.    So those two plus Ab Smith have 'laid out' the course in Cobb's Creek Park and work will 'begin' in the spring.

Seems a difference between laid out and constructed that I had not noticed before in the same article.

Also noted that the term golf 'architect' was used.

And as Lesley said in 1914 Golf Illustrated,  CBM and HJW were advisors to Merion committee.

[DMoriarty]

John, is there a point to these observations?   Because as far as I can tell all the terms are being used as I would expect them to be.    You haven't bought into Mike's repeated disingenuous characterization of how I view "to lay out" as having the exact same meaning as "to construct," have you.  Because as I have explained to him many, many times, this in not at all true or accurate.    

As a general rule, it is a terrible idea to learn what I think from Mike Cirba.  After all this time he hasn't the faintest idea of my position on most of these issues.  He just makes up whatever most suits him.  

If there is anything that needs explaining, just let me know.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

After reading this over, I agree that it does seem like semantics and nit-picking and that it's full of speculation.  You're a lawyer and I'm not, but what the heck is the difference between holding title and owning?  A quick Google search came up with this simple statement - "Title is the legal document that gives you ownership or evidence that you own a specific piece of land.".  I'm not sure why you would be more comfortable using holding title in his own name?  The nuance of the difference is certainly lost on me.

 

John,

Lloyd, personally, owned the property in January 1911, not HDC.

Bryan, it may seem like semantics and nitpicking but I think that in time we will find out that this was not really the case, at least not in the way we usually understand the verb "to own."   I agree that Lloyd technically held title at this point, but there had to have been other agreements that impacted his legal rights and obligations with regard to this property.  For one example, there is the Cuyler letter, which supposedly indicated that Lloyd would hold title for HDC, indicating that he was acting on their behalf.  For another example we have MCC announcing the purchase of the property, and Wilson apparently thinking that the land had already been purchased, and Wilson working the land before title transferred to MCCGA.   And for what it is worth, the newspaper article above mentions that "financial difficulties"  that delayed the deal. What do these unspecified fiancial difficulties have to do with title or owership? 

So I am still sticking with my original position-- Lloyd was most likely acting as a bridge or Guarantor on behalf of one or both parties, and was holding the land pursuant to this role.  For example he may have put up the money and held the land as collateral until HDC and MCC got their ducks in a row.    Given that the Taylor option was exercised at about the same time, HDC may have needed money quickly to exercise before expiration, thus necessitating Lloyd's intervention.

I realize that this is all very speculative, but while it may sound odd I think it is also speculative to say that he "owned the property" in that the status of the land at this point is still very much unresolved.  How is the status of the land unresolved?  Lloyd owned it, or, he had title to it, whichever you prefer, since they mean the same thing.

I guess I am saying that I'd be more comfortable with he held title in his own name, but perhaps  I should have just said that.  You could have, but I'd still ask what makes you more comfortable.  Holding title to land means you have ownership of it.  If you are hypothesizing that there were some side deals or contracts that encumbered his ownership, then just say so.  Have you ever seen any hard evidence of such side deals for the Merion property?  Not inferences or speculation, but real evidence?  

___________________________

...........................

 

As a separate question, the article below that you refer to, says in the last line that the new links adjoin the McFadden and Catherwood Estates.  McFadden I can place.  All the deeds start at the corner of that property up at the end of the Francis triangle.  But the Catherwood Estate, I can't place.  Anybody got any ideas on where it was?

[Bryan Izatt]

Just for fun let me propose a new theory of the evolution of the Merion property that fits many of the known "facts".

Starting in July 1910, MCC thought they'd need nearly 120 acres.  By that time negotiations were probably underway with PALCO, HDC and the Syndicate to pick some land out of their speculative 338 acre tract (not all owned, but all in play).  Given the odd shape of the Johnson Farm, they decide that they should also include the Dallas Estate in the consideration.  So, in the fall of 1910 they are looking at the 161 acres as below:




In the fall, realizing that they couldn't use parts of the Johnson Farm, they focus in on needing 117 acres, with an option for 13 more along the GHR (to be) boundary to give them some flexibility in planning.  Total area they're looking at is 130 acres. 





With Barker's plan in hand and their own noodling and doodlng and M&W's advice they lay out a few possibilities on paper in the fall of 1910. They figure out how to fit in the first thirteen holes, but the last five are more difficult.  In November, Francis has his swap idea and since Lloyd is going to solicit MCC members for money, both for Merion and for HDC, he has Pugh and Hubbard create the land plan and tells them to put in an approximate road, reflecting Francis' idea, so that they still have some room to maneuver as the course design is refined.





Over January to April, there is more planning activity and reviews with M&W that leads to the final course design being approved by the Board in April.  Some further swapping is required to accommodate the last five holes, so they do the Brauer swap and it is minuted in the Thompson Resolution.





So, there you have it.  A two swap scenario that fits with the "facts" as we know them at this point.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

We are arguing minutae, and me repeating for the umpteenth time the evidence that's been put out here to date followed by your rebuttal will not get us any closer.  

The Barker theory is flat-out wrong based on the timing (although it's possible some hole corridors were the same as his June plan given the narrow property) , as is the idea that the golf course was routed and the Land Swap accomplished before November 15, 1910.   Everything that happened followed the Lloyd purchase in December.  While it would seem to be reasonable that the Merion team might have been out there looking at possible holes and routings prior to then, there is no record of it and no boundaries were determined on the western end of the Johnson Farm.

In 1911, M&W advised the committee and helped them by reviewing the plans they had been working on over the previous months while they were at NGLA, probably suggested some changes (they came back and rearranged the course and created five different plans) and then he came out the next month and helped them to select the best one during a day's visit.   There is no records of any exact changes he proposed, or where they were located on the course but he did "approve" of one of the Committee's plans that went to the Board for final approval and implementation on April 19, 1911.   As part of that approval, it was mentioned the 3 additional acres needed to be purchased, (bringing the total to 120 acres that we believe was the Francis Land Swap), and that motion was approved as well.

It is truly as simple as that.    


Bryan,

Thanks for all of your work on this thread.  Your new theory isn't impossible, but one would have to explain why Francis was working out there before he was part of the Committee.   His recollections do seem to indicate that the work he did was all after he was "added" to the Committee.

What is the date and source of the article?   I will see what I can find on the Catherwood estate.


For anyone who thinks the golf course was routed prior to 1911, ask yourself 1) Why Lloyd bought the whole 161 acres on Cuyler's advice in December? and 2) Where the Lawn Tennis and other amenities were supposedly going to go?

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Scratch that...it is impossible unless the committee was formed prior to 1911 which there is no evidence to support.

[Tom MacWood]

David,

We'll both get to see all of the evidence including the Cuyler letters when Wayne and Tom's book is released, per my understanding.

I think they might be holding back to generate buzz.

If the length of this thread is indication of interest in the topic, it may be marketing genius on their part.

In the meantime, we can continue to speculate.

For instance, what would you think about the Francis Swap and timing of the course routing if you learned that the boundaries for the golf course had not been definitely located as of late December, 1910?

I think personally that it meant the course hadn't been routed yet and probably not even started to be routed but that's just me.

Mike
I hope you are right. Do you think they'll be able to overcome the difficulty they've had getting permission from MCC to share the documents? If they do get permission I hope they include the original documents and a not a transcribed version.

If you look back through the history of this Merion debate all the original documents/articles have come from David, Joe B, yourself or me. TEP & Wayne have not provided any original documents (at least none that I can think of). They have provided transcribed versions of CBM's letter, Allan Wilson's account, and the confusing disjointed excerpt from the April report. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for any  information in any form, but we now know the Allan Wilson letter was altered. But I'd rather have a doctored document than no document at all.

[Tom MacWood]

With Barker's plan in hand and their own noodling and doodlng and M&W's advice they lay out a few possibilities on paper in the fall of 1910. They figure out how to fit in the first thirteen holes, but the last five are more difficult.

Bryan
Who are 'they'? Wilson said the club appointed a committee early in 1911.

Mike
What did Francis do for a living...is it possible he had some prior involvement with a member of the committee? From what I understand Francis only moved to Philadelphia circa 1909-10. Any idea when he become a member of Merion?

Whatever the case his was a pretty quick accession into the inner circle.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

What is the date and source of the article?   I will see what I can find on the Catherwood estate.

David posted the article.  He said it was from the Philadelphia Inquirer from January 7, 1911.  It would be interesting to see where Catherwod Estate was since they seemed to use it to define the boundary.  I don't see it on any of the RR maps.

For anyone who thinks the golf course was routed prior to 1911, ask yourself 1) Why Lloyd bought the whole 161 acres on Cuyler's advice in December? and 2) Where the Lawn Tennis and other amenities were supposedly going to go?

I'm not claiming that it is the final routing.  A preliminary routing or routings.  They had at least Barker's.  Why not some of their own.  And, yes, I know they didn't make it into the MCC record as Tom and Wayne currently know it.  They'd buy the 161 acres to allow themselves the opportunity to realign, redesign or refine whatever routings or ideas they had at the time.  The tennis could easily have fit in the 161 acres, say across the street from the clubhouse, but it never happened, so it's a moot point.

Tom,

Who are 'they'? Wilson said the club appointed a committee early in 1911.

I don't know specifically who "they" were.  It's a theory.  But, it seems likely to me that the Merion men were doing something between July  and November 1910.  It could have been drawing plans on the back of napkins in the grill room.  Possibly Lloyd, the site committee, Wilson, Francis .....?  You don't need to formalize a committee before you actually start to work on a project.

[Tom MacWood]

I don't know specifically who "they" were.  It's a theory.  But, it seems likely to me that the Merion men were doing something between July  and November 1910.  It could have been drawing plans on the back of napkins in the grill room.  Possibly Lloyd, the site committee, Wilson, Francis .....?  You don't need to formalize a committee before you actually start to work on a project.

Bryan
What evidence leads you to believe the "Merion men" were doing something between July and November? In order for a theory to be plausible shouldn't there be at least a few facts.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

Maybe an example would help?   At various points in time Rothwell apparently held title to just about all the property we are discussing.   But it would be a mistake and overly simplistic to say that he ever really owned the property, because he was obligated -- by agreements we have not seen -- to pass the title and money on to the various real owners.   I think Lloyd was in a somewhat similar position; effectively holding title for the real parties and severely constrained in what he could and couldn't do with the property, and obligated by agreements that we don't yet have to pass the title along to the real parties as soon as certain obligations were met.

Because while title evidences ownership, the agreements between the parties also evidences ownership in that it defines the nature and extent of the the various rights and obligations with regard to the property.  Cuyler wrote that Lloyd was taking title on HDC's behalf, which should mean that while title was in his name, he was acting as an agent or representative of HDC, and that would have made HDC the owner in fact, subject to whatever deal Lloyd had made with HDC.   Likewise MCC claimed that they had purchased the property and that certain members made this possible, implying that Lloyd was acting on their behalf.    

So in my layman's opinion, until we better understand the various agreements to the parties it seems overly simplistic and misleading to treat Lloyd as the actual and unencumbered owner.  

_______________

I don't have the info with me regarding Catherwood, but I will look later.

___________________

Did you get a chance to look at the statements by TEPaul and Shivas regarding the term "approved?"   They leave little doubt that TEPaul is claiming that the minutes say "approved" and that it is not synonymous to "liked."    

_________________________

Can you tell us where TEPaul claimed that there was a Construction Committee Meeting on January 11, 1911?

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

The reason I don't think it was an early routing is simply that Francis said they had already located 13 holes and were struggling with the final five.

It seems that the swap was really the turn of the last combination lock that allowed everything to fall into place.

Francis also told us that it was the committee's responsibility to layout the course and that he made one contribution to that layout which enabled today's 15th and 16th holes so it had to be late in the process.

Also, I have the Catherwood info I'll copy and paste when I get home.  ***EDIT***The D.B.C. Catherwood estate was across College Ave from the McFadden estate. It was probably 15-20 acres that was part of the 63 acres HDC developed above College Ave.

I also agree with David that the timeline wording should be "approved", not "liked".  Macdonald approved one of the committees final five plans which he evidently believed would give Merion a first class course and the final seven holes would be the equal of any inland course in the world.  To accomplish that plan however, they needed to purchase an additional 3 acres which was subsequently approved in the Thompson Resolution.

Finally, I know TP said it here before but when we last spoke he told me that he doesn't believe any longer that Lloyd took title for HDC and had been confused by some convoluted language.  Personally, my understanding is that Lloyd outright purchased it, but that he did it for Meroin, in the form of their new golf corporation they incorporated in Dec 1911.

Hope that helps.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

One more way to look at it. The "first principle" or fact here is that Lloyd held title to the land.  While that may be "evidence" of ownership, ownership does not necessarily and always flow from holding title.  Why not just list the facts, and leave the conclusions until later?

______________________________

MCirba wrote:
We are arguing minutae, and me repeating for the umpteenth time the evidence that's been put out here to date followed by your rebuttal will not get us any closer.

Minutiae?  Since when is Wilson's design contribution minutiae?   I have no interest is having you again set out various after the fact articles noting that Wilson laid out the course.  I want specific evidence of what he did?    The same sort of thing you demanded of me and I provided.   When specifically did he "design" the course?   How?   Based on what?   We have a great deal of evidence concerning the lay out and construction, but I am aware of no evidence of his actual design of the course, except for after the fact, second-hand conclusions that you periodically spew out.    What specifically did he do between January and September 1911 to lay out the course?

Mike, the rest of your post is speculative nonsense.  You need to learn the difference between typing whatever comes into your head an stating facts.  You've perfected the former, but haven't touched the latter.

1.   Please tell me exactly what Hugh Wilson did with regard to designing the golf course from January to September 1911, 1911?

2.   I take it that you now agree that in the context of designing golf courses, "expert" meant golf professional or someone with design experience.   If not, please point me to contrary evidence.

3.  Turning again to the article about he York Rd. course, do you acknowledge that in that example, "planning the course" was a distinct step from "laying out" the course.

Please quit wasting your time and mine, and answer these simple questions.  [/color]

For anyone who thinks the golf course was routed prior to 1911, ask yourself 1) Why Lloyd bought the whole 161 acres on Cuyler's advice in December?
- Mike, when TEPaul first brought up this Cuyler letter, he noted that there were five or six points in the letter about why Lloyd was purchasing the 161 acres.   Get us the rest and we can answer your question.  But so far we have part of one of those points, and to me it indicates that a) There was already a golf course, but it had not been definitely finalized, and b) the changes had already been made to the golf course.
- TEPaul has thrown Cuyler and his letter under the bus, insisting that Cuyler was wrong about Lloyd acting on behalf of HDC, and thus throwing the whole thing into confusion.   
- There are many other reasons why Lloyd may have taken title to 161 acres besides the one you insist upon.   Most obviously he was facilitating the deal, and he and his group were planning on buying close to 1/2 of the HDC stock to make the deal work.  The 161 acres happens to be right around 1/2 of the land controlled by HDC, so it makes for pretty good collateral.

and 2) Where the Lawn Tennis and other amenities were supposedly going to go?

How about the location of the current parking lot?  Or the location of the current 13th hole?  Or both?  As for other amenities, the ice skating went in the quarry.

[DMoriarty]

Finally, I know TP said it here before but when we last spoke he told me that he doesn't believe any longer that Lloyd took title for HDC and had been confused by some convoluted language.  . . .

Are you f'ing kidding me?   TEPaul is again recanting on the content of the material he is hiding from us?    What a joke.  

As for the "convoluted language" that is absolutey preposterous, because TEPaul gave us a DIRECT QUOTE.  Or at least he pretended to give us a DIRECT QUOTE.  

Here is what he wrote, with my emphasis:

. . .
Certainly one of the points of Lloyd taking the entire 140 acre Johnson Farm into his own name in 1910 plus the Dallas estate (do you deny that?) was so that the designers had some latitude with land for routing and design. Cuylers said as much in his Dec. 21, 1910 letter to president Evans (viz. "It was found advisable that the Haverford Development Co. should take title in Mr. Lloyd's name, so that the lines be revised subsequently"[/b]).

Do you see those quotation marks?  That means that TEPaul is representing that this is a DIRECT QUOTE from the letter.   And there is NOTHING confusing about this transcription.

Sorry Mike, but tell me how this is not just another example of TEPaul doctoring the source material to suit his needs?  Either he doctored it when he gave us the DIRECT QUOTE, or he is doctoring it now by recanting his DIRECT QUOTE.  Either way it is disingenuous and misleading crap, is it not?  

How long are you and others going to stand behind this guy and his constant misrepresentations?   Is access really that important that you'd all sacrifice your dignity by aligning yourself with this kind of dishonest garbage?   Are these courses really worth your integrity?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Perhaps I misunderstood him;  I'm telling you my understanding and I know he said the language is confusing.

In either case, your post is insulting to the both of us...Tom has not purposefully omitted or changed any info here.and after a response like that one from you I'm certainly not going to ask him for clarification.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Perhaps I misunderstood him;  I'm telling you my understanding and I know he said the language is confusing.

In either case, your post is insulting to the both of us...Tom has not purposefully omitted or changed any info here.and after a response like that one from you I'm certainly not going to ask him for clarification.

Mike.  He posted what he represented was AN EXACT QUOTE.   He cannot change an EXACT QUOTE on the basis that the language was confusing.   His understanding makes no difference to an EXACT QUOTE.   No interpretation should be necessary.

You think my post to be insulting, but to me is is about the most charitable description of your role in this as I can think of.   That you blindly chirp what these guys tell you to chirp (whether you understand it or not,) that you accept their lame excuses and even make excuses for them, that you will not even attempt to try and get it right when there is obvious monkey business going on; all these things speak very loudly to your own honesty and integrity as well as the honesty and integrity of all the other TOMPAULOGISTS who pop in and out of this thread.  

It is absolute NONSENSE for you to claim that TEPaul is recanting an EXACT QUOTE because he misunderstood confusing language.   The EXACT QUOTE IS NOT CONFUSING. Even you can see that, can't you?    

Either he misrepresented what the letter actually said when he purported to give us an EXACT QUOTE, or he is misrepresenting it now.  What other explanation could their possible be?  
____________________________

And Mike, my other questions?   Why not answer them?   I continue to answer your questions so surely you can do me this courtesy.  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I don't speak for either Tom or Wayne.   In some cases, Tom has forwarded me specific information that I've copied verbatim here attributing it to him.    I've probably spoken to Wayne one time in the past two months, since a day together at Merion West.   I've been busy and I know he is.

In other case, such as what I wrote about "taking title", I'm trying to reconstruct a phone conversation and it based on "my" understanding of something we talked about a few weeks ago.  

I do know that he felt that whatever it specifically said is not as meaningful as the fact that Lloyd simply purchased the 161 acres himself, not representing either entity.   In thinking about it, I think that's what he meant when he said that Lloyd didn't take title for HDC; not that Cuyler didn't recommend it, but instead he purchased it under his name.  

I think your example of Rothwell is not a good one to compare to Lloyd.   Rothwell was clearly a middle-man, holding title from 1 to 3 days at most.   Lloyd had the land that became Merion for almost seven months.

I'd also like you to know that what I wrote this morning is not speculation.   The boundaries for the golf course were not definitely established as late as the second part of December, 1910.   It's why Lloyd purchased the whole shooting match.

Also, I'm cooking dinner right now, but let me leave you with the following;

"Robert W. Lesley, president, stated on behalf of the Committee on the Park Golf Course, that he had seen plans for an eighteen hole public golf course prepared as the result of many consultations with himself and other golf experts laid out at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park."  

"...He added further that he is assured that work on the preparation of the course will be begun as soon as the weather permits in the Spring.  The new links will be of championship length and character and will give Philadelphia a public golf course second to none in the United States."

- Philadelphia Press, 1/21/1915


Sound familiar?





I don't know David;  I thought the fricking New York Times calling Hugh Wilson a golf expert was evidence enough.

Do you think there is some coincidence that 4 of the top five golfers at Merion were on the Merion Committee in 1912 and Toulmin is referred at the time as being on their first team??   It must have been their expertise in Construction that landed them the assignments, don't you think?

Here's another amateur, albeit a very good one, who was still in college when this 1904 story was printed.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I don't speak for either Tom or Wayne.   In some cases, Tom has forwarded me specific information that I've copied verbatim here attributing it to him.    I've probably spoken to Wayne one time in the past two months, since a day together at Merion West.   I've been busy and I know he is.

Of course you speak for them.  Almost on a daily basis.  Whether based on emails from them or direct conversations, you are repeatedly relaying what they want you to.  If you ask me, the whole thing is a bit disrespectful to Ran since TEPaul is not currently a welcome participant on these boards, is he?   But then you've created the impression that TEPaul is absent by his own choice, so maybe he has mislead you into thinking that this is the case.

In other case, such as what I wrote about "taking title", I'm trying to reconstruct a phone conversation and it based on "my" understanding of something we talked about a few weeks ago.  

I do know that he felt that whatever it specifically said is not as meaningful as the fact that Lloyd simply purchased the 161 acres himself, not representing either entity.   In thinking about it, I think that's what he meant when he said that Lloyd didn't take title for HDC; not that Cuyler didn't recommend it, but instead he purchased it under his name.  

This is a new story on your part Mike.   You said it was because of confusing language, and then said again that you know TEPaul said the language was confusing.  But now you are saying that it wasn't a misunderstanding based on confusing language but that TEPaul just changes his mind??   Which is it?

I think your example of Rothwell is not a good one to compare to Lloyd.   Rothwell was clearly a middle-man, holding title from 1 to 3 days at most.   Lloyd had the land that became Merion for almost seven months.

Thanks for your opinion, but how long they each respectively held title is irrelevant since IMO both of them were limited on what they could do with it because of their duties and obligations to the real interested parties, HDC and MCC.  In other words, as I have been saying all along, Lloyd played the role of a bridge, middleman, or guarantor, in order to expedite the deal.   At least that is what the facts as I understand them indicate.

I'd also like you to know that what I wrote this morning is not speculation.   The boundaries for the golf course were not definitely established as late as the second part of December, 1910.   It's why Lloyd purchased the whole shooting match.

I wish you were joking Mike, but I am sure you are not.  

MIKE, YOU HAVE JUST CLAIMED THAT THE SUPPOSED SENTENCE FROM THE CUYLER LETTER DOES NOT SAY AND/OR MEAN WHAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN TOLD.   YOU CAN'T NOW DRAW A CONCLUSION FROM THE VERY SAME SUPPOSED SENTENCE AND CLAIM YOUR CONCLUSION IS NOT SPECULATIVE.  

I feel for you Mike.  These guys have so manipulated the record that you apparently cannot even keep track, and are claiming the same information is both true and false in the very same post.   It is really unfair of TEPaul to leave you to try and keep track of all his deception.  
  

Also, I'm cooking dinner right now, but let me leave you with the following;

"Robert W. Lesley, president, stated on behalf of the Committee on the Park Golf Course, that he had seen plans for an eighteen hole public golf course prepared as the result of many consultations with himself and other golf experts laid out at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park."  

"...He added further that he is assured that work on the preparation of the course will be begun as soon as the weather permits in the Spring.  The new links will be of championship length and character and will give Philadelphia a public golf course second to none in the United States."

- Philadelphia Press, 1/21/1915

The quote doesn't quite make sense as you have it written.   Do you mind rechecking it?    

Did you notice that quote is treating "had plans created" and "laid out" were different processes?  

Surely you are not making anything out of the reference to unidentified experts are you?   If so could you show me the portion of this article where these experts are clearly identified?  And please don't tell me that because you think you otherwise know who these experts were, that this is definitely to whom the article applies.  

Sound familiar?

No, not really.




My questions, Mike?

[Mike_Cirba]

I decided to look at 1910.

Tillinghast reported that over 800 golfers in the Philadelphia District had handicaps of 18 or better (the max they would handicap), and listed the top players;

Tillinghast stated;

"The Golf Association of Philadelphia's handicap list has just been completed, and although the committee only rated players to the limit of eighteen strokes, over eight hundred names appear..."

"In rating the first twenty or thirty players the performances of last year were considered to a great extent, and those players who have been rather inactive have only to exhibit a return of form to receive in the fall revision of the list that recognition which the excellence of their play warrants."

"Mr. H. B. McFarland, of Huntingdon Valley, has been placed alone at 4 strokes. His work in the Patterson Cup contest and his win of the Pennnsylvania State championship entitled him to this honor. The handicaps from 4 to 10 follow:"

Handicap 4: McFarland, H. B.

Handicap 5: Carr, Simon; Hanson, R.
E.; Perrin, H. W.; Pfeil, Walter; Reynolds,
W. H.; Satterthwaite, E.; Stull, C.
S.; Smith, W. P.; Tillinghast, A. W.;
West, W. T.

Handicap 6: Buxton, C. B.; Crump, G.
A.; Edwards, J. P.; Griscom, R. E.; Horstman,
F. O.; Mather, J. S.; Service, E. A.;
Smith, A. H.; Smith, H. P.; Thompson,
W. L.; Tyson, W. A.; Wilson, H. I.

Handicap 7: Alcorn, J. S.; Bartholomew,
B.; Francis, R. S.; Harrison, W. F.; Harvey,
R. W.; Hill, F. P.; James, R. C;
McCurdy, J. A.; Mott, Richard; Scott, G.;
Wendell, Herman; Williams, A. C. ;
Wright, M. R.; Heyburn, H. B.; Cooke,
Geo. J.

Handicap 8: Bohlen, F. H.; Brown, Jr.,
G. B.; Brumbaugh, S. L.: Castner. P. A.;
Clark, 3d, E. W.; Colahan, 3d, J. B.; Farnum,
C. S.; Francine, H. H.; Humphreys,
E. B.; Jones, Jr., W. S.; Kemble, F. W.;
Klauder, G. C.; Lewis, Ben.; Lineaweaver,
C. P.; Mackie, F. M.; Major, H. T.;
Mitchell, E. E.; Neiffer, M. K.; Race, B.
O.; Reyburn, W. S.; Rhodes, H. W. ;
Schofr, C. H.; Smedley, Walter; Starr, C.
S.; Taylor, F. W.; Toulmin, Harry; Watson,
J. W.; Weir, Robt.; Wendell, H. F.;
Worthington, H. R.

Handicap 9: Baldwin, R. J.; Blair, K. E.;
Collins, Abbott; Comfort, E. T.; Cutler,
G. L.; Deacon, H. P.; Dixon, C. G.; Downing,
W. C.; Dunlap, Jr., Jas.; George, W.
H.; King, J. B.; Kirchner, H. P.; Kribbs,
Jr., H. G.; Large, R. M.; Lineaweaver, J.
I.; Lloyd, H. G.; Mackey, H. A.; McNeely,
R. P.; Nalle, J.; Sherman, F. S.; Smedley,
H. W.; Steel, R. W.; Webster, Jr., C. B.;
Willoughby, Jr., H. L.; Wilson, W. W.

Handicap 10: Ashby, A. H.; Atherton, G.
E.; Bergner, G. W.; Bolton, Saml.; Bosler,
L. C; Brown, H. W.; Buck, S. T.; Clark,
C. M.; Clark, J. S.; Clementa, H. M.;
Conn, J. W.; Cowperthwait, C. T.; Daly,
I. G.; Davis, E. S.; Gilmore, J. C.; Green,
J. S.; Hancock, W. W.; Houston, W. C.;
Lindsay, G.; Lippincott, Geo.; Lippincott,
R.; MacDonald, Robin; Mills, C. S.;
Moorhouse, W. L.; Newton, H. B.; Patterson,
G. S.; Peet, E. B.; Potter, Wilson;
Richmond, G. N.; Roberts, Walter; Rolls,
T. M. S.; Steel, H. J.; Suddards, G. O.;
Thayer, W.; Thompson, J. M.; Whitaker,
A. L.; Wilson, W. E.; Zebley, J. W.


***ADD***

David, I just saw your response.

If you don't see the similarity between the announcement by Robert Lesley as the head of Merion's Golf Committee, and Robert Lesley as the President of GAP at the time speaking for the Commttee then you're simply in denial.

Lesley was an amateur.   He did not design any golf courses.   He is referred to as an "expert".

"Robert W. Lesley, president, stated on behalf of the Committee on the Park Golf Course, that he had seen plans for an eighteen hole public golf course prepared as the result of many consultations with himself and other golf experts laid out at the northwestern end of Cobb's Creek Park."  

"...He added further that he is assured that work on the preparation of the course will be begun as soon as the weather permits in the Spring.  The new links will be of championship length and character and will give Philadelphia a public golf course second to none in the United States."

- Philadelphia Press, 1/21/1915

I double checked and the wording of the article is verbatim.


Sound familiar?





I don't know David;  I thought the fricking New York Times calling Hugh Wilson a golf expert was evidence enough.   Do I need to post that article again? 

Do you really think it is mere coincidence that 4 of the top five golfers at Merion were on the Merion Committee in 1912 and Toulmin is referred at the time as being on their first team??   It must have been their expertise in Construction that landed them the assignments, don't you think?

Here's another amateur, albeit a very good one, who was still in college when this 1904 story was printed.

  




So, let's drop the nonsense that Hugh Wilson and these guys were not referred to as experts, shall we, and move on to more productive topics.


I'll start...

There were no boundaries determined for the golf course (except for the boundaries of the land purchased by Lloyd) as of late December, 1910.

How could that be if the Francis Swap happened before then and the November 1910 Land Plan is supposed proof of that?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

As far as your other questions about "laying out" "layout" "planning", "construction", "laid out", etc., as well as what Hugh Wilson and Committee were specifically doing design-wise in 1911, I think I'll just combine the questions and let Tom Paul answer from something he sent to me a few months ago.   I think he summed it up very well, frankly;


"So what does the use and beauty of a timeline prove when one considers the meaning of a term like "laying out courses" or "laying out plans" in the context of Wilson and his committee or Macdonald/Whigam?  Well, when one fits the known and agreed upon dates into the puzzle or question, it's totally obvious; proof, in fact."

"The wording of Hugh Wilson's report to the Board, given by Golf Chairman Robert Lesley in the middle of April 1911 proves that Wilson and his committee "LAID OUT many different courses" before the second week of March 1911 and "FIVE DIFFERENT PLANS" FOLLOWING their NGLA visit.  In neither case was Macdonald on hand at Merion to help them do this.  Again, no one claims he was, not even the essayist Moriarty (although who the Hell really knows what he may "claim" next?  ).  No newspaper or magazine does, no report does, nothing does or ever has!"

"But the most telling point that proves the words and term "laying out a plan" could not have meant in this case with Merion, the actual constructing or building of a golf course to a plan, is that no course, no plan had yet even been considered or approved by the Board of Directors of MCC.  Therefore when Wilson himself used those words and terms ("laying out numerous courses" and "laying out different plans") to describe what he and his committee had been doing throughout the winter and spring of 1911, the Merion timeline proves that no actual building had yet happened and wouldn't happen for at least a couple of months!!"

"Of course I'm now assuming that no one would be silly enough to claim that Merion was actually out their building and constructing a golf course BEFORE their Board of Directors of the club considered and APPROVED (and obviously funded) what the golf course was to be!  I make that assumption while always understanding that some people, and one or two in particular, on these Merion creation threads have made some remarkably silly claims!"  

"When the TIMES various events TOOK PLACE are agreed upon by analysts considering some situational subject (in this case Macdonald/Whigam only saw MCC and the Wilson Committee three times---eg June 1910, at NGLA for two days in the second week of March, 1911 and the last time for a day on April 6, 1911) what a bullet-proof TIMELINE can prove is a very beautiful thing indeed!"

"Therefore, with the case of the meaning of the term "laying out" with Merion East it could not possibly have meant to those men involved with Merion East JUST the actual CONSTRUCTING or BUILDING of the golf course.  It had to mean the routing and designing of it FIRST on a paper plan that we know existed from Wilson and his committee because the board meeting minutes state that paper plan was ATTACHED  (the m.m.s state "attached here-with") to Lesley's Board report in the middle of April 1911 to be CONSIDERED by the club's board for APPROVAL."


So, quid pro quo, Dr. Lecter...  

I'll start...

There were no boundaries determined for the golf course (except for the boundaries of the land purchased by Lloyd) as of late December, 1910.

How could that be if the Francis Swap happened before then and the November 1910 Land Plan is supposed proof of that?

[DMoriarty]

One of the many problems with your methodology is that it ignores virtually all of those were actually referred to as "golf experts" in conjunction with designing courses

There are no professionals on these lists, and if you care to actually read the old articles you will find that in the context of designing courses, the phrase "golf expert" applies to professionals and/or those with design experience.   Wilson, a good but not great club golfer, was neither of these in late December or early January 1910.

_____________________

Mike, there is something wrong with your quote.  Will you please recheck it because as written it does not make sense. 

-  And if not, then could you explain why you think it says that Lesley was an expert?

-And could you please look up the meaning of the word "verbatim" and then specifically point out the portions of the two articles that are verbatim?

-And could you please tell me why you are crediting Lesley with an announcement apparently by Sayres?

-And could you please tell me why you are crediting Lesley with language in a Phil. Press aritcle by an author you don't name?

-And, while we've always known that some of the members at Merion were good but not great club golfers, what does that have to do with whether they were experts at designing golf courses, as the term was commonly used at the time?   

-And could you please explain to me what that reference to H. Chandler Egan as a "golf expert" in that context has to do with designing courses?   

-And while your at it, take a look at H. Chandler Egan's golfing accomplishments by 1904, and tell me that you are seriously comparing his level of expertise in golf to Wilson, Francis, Toulmin, Lloyd, and Griscom?  Or all of them combined for that matter!     Let me help you . . .   Start with the 1904 US Amateur Championship, and work your back through time . . .  multiple Western Open Championships and Multiple NCAA Championships, an Olympic Team Championship, and an Olympic Silver Medal.   And that was 1904 or BEFORE.  In other words, if there ever was an amateur "golf expert" in the United States, Egan was it.   Had he resided from Philadelphia we'd never hear the end of him.   It is telling that you have to go all the way to H. Chandler Egan to find an example, and even there not one about design. 

- And after all that, PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike, there is something wrong with your quote.  Will you please recheck it because as written it does not make sense. I copied it verbatim.

-  And if not, then could you explain why you think it says that Lesley was an expert?"...himself and other golf experts."   Please don't be purposefully obtuse, because it's transparent, it's crap and it makes you look disengenous.

-And could you please look up the meaning of the word "verbatim" and then specifically point out the portions of the two articles that are verbatim?I was stating in answer to your question that copied the Lesley as expert quote verbatim from the newspaper,and yes, I double-checked.

-And could you please tell me why you are crediting Lesley with an announcement apparently by Sayres?You don't know it was Sayres, but even if it was...Sayres, Evans, and the Board of Governors all received their official info on golf at Merion from the Golf Committee, headed by Robert Lesley.   But, you already know that...

-And could you please tell me why you are crediting Lesley with language in a Phil. Press aritcle by an author you don't name? Their is no byline.   You can look it up in the 1/21/1915 Philadelphia Press in an article on the annual GAP January meeting, titled Townsend, Golf Secretary, Quits, and it's the third paragraph in the story.  

-And, while we've always known that some of the members at Merion were good but not great club golfers, what does that have to do with whether they were experts at designing golf courses, as the term was commonly used at the time?   I'm done with this subject on how "expert" was used at the time.   Let's let others decide whether I've proved my point because I'm very confident that people can read.

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul,

What is your status in this discussion group?  Are you back?  Or are you still suspended? 
- Because if you are back, then shouldn't you just post under your own name instead of creating the fiction that you no longer want to participate when you are actually participating through Cirba on a daily basis?
- And if you are still suspended, then why are you having Mike Cirba post messages for you?   If Ran doesn't want you posting, shouldn't you show him enough respect to abide by his suspension? 

As for your post, how about you provide us with the exact wording of the meeting minutes, because the version you gave us makes no sense.
-  It refers to Wilson's committee as both "we" and "they" which is nonsensical.
-  It has Lesley referring to himself on Wilson's committee which he wasn't, so it is nonsensical.
-  It has either Lesley or Wilson (depending on the speaker) at NGLA the second day, but not the first, which is nonsensical.
-  In other words it is nonsensical.   
-  More importantly, because of this nonsense it is impossible for us to tell who "laid out many different courses."
-  Plus, it is impossible for us to tell who planned the five courses that Wilson's committee supposedly laid out after NGLA.

As for the majority of your post, it is based on your continued (and purposeful) misunderstanding and misapplication of the meaning of "to lay out" as I understand it.     Surely Wilson's committee did not need permission to place stakes on the ground after the NGLA meeting, according to the 5 plans, did they?  Because that would constitute "laying out the five plans" in my understanding of the terminology.   If they did need permission for this, then they were even more powerless than I suspect.   

While you are here TEPaul,

1.  Can you explain why you are recanting on the Cuyler letter?   And why you gave us the same date?

2.  Can you explain why you and Wayne doctored the Alan Wilson Report, first typing out the correct version (about 3 years ago) then promptly deleting it, then reposting it without the phrase "as to the lay out of Merion East?"

3.  What other inaccurate information have you given us that we have not yet discovered?

And TEPaul, one more thing. I am willing to wager that what you have told us about the April 6, 1911 Merion Board Meeting is neither accurate nor complete.  For what shall we wager?     I offered this wager the other day and not a single participant had enough faith in you to take up the bet.  How about you?

__________________

Mike Cirba,  your post above is a good example of how title can be deceptive.  It has your name on it, but it is obviously TEPaul's post.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()