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.


Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #75 on: August 09, 2010, 02:45:01 PM »
Here's a bit more from Heilman's book.   I mention it only in the context that Tom MacWood basically said he felt Heilman should have sued Tolhurst for plagiarism on an earlier thread, so Tom and I agree there are a lot of similarities in their accounts.

In the Acknowledgments he mentions his heavy reliance on the MCC Minutes;








« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 02:47:52 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #76 on: August 09, 2010, 04:07:44 PM »
I'll assume by your use of the words "...stated to the membership" in that first sentence is because you see that it's not feasible that cost was their only reason for initiating the move.

Your assumption is incorrect.    I don't just think feasible, I think it likely that the reason they bought the Merion site was because they wanted to make their own site a permanent site yet were unable to pay the asking price.

The reason I went with what was "stated to the membership" is because regardless of what I think or you think might have been feasible, this is what Merion's Board said.   There is always analysis involved in these things, but when the facts are as blatant as a statement by the Board to the Membership directly addressing the issue, I just do see where anyone gets off leaving the Board's stated reason out and substituting their own reasons in.  This isn't like trying to figure out direction begins.   It is an unequivocal statement of the reason they moved!   

As for me personally,  I see no indication that it was the Haskell ball.   Remember that by this time the Haskell had been around for a dozen years and had been universally accepted for nine or ten years.   So the timing of this explanation is not exactly a tight fit.  As I said, I personally think it might have been partly an overcrowding issue, but that is too speculative for me to run with when the Board has spoken on the matter.

I don't get it Jim?  Why was the financial reason not a feasible reason?   Is it because some of these guys were rich?   Do you really think someone like Richard Francis or Hugh Wilson would have wanted one of these rich guys to own the club's golf course?   They seem like guys who would've ran away from an arrangement like that faster than Francis rode his bike to Lloyd's that summer night in 1910!   If would have had to make sense for the membership as a whole, and they all weren't Griscom's or Lloyd's.

What specifically does the 1910 Board report say about the establishment of MCCGA and/or its purpose in the 1909 - 1913 time frame?

Nothing.  At least not explicitly.  But I wouldn't have expected it if the MCCGA really had nothing to do with how the course was found and the reasons for the move.   If one understands what happened next, however, one can get an idea of how all this confusion came about.     

In the 1910 Report, the Board wrote that in its opinion the actual land should be held by a Corporation separate from the Club but with its stock owned by the Club and then this Corporation wold lease the land back to the Club.   This was the arrangement of the non-golf related main clubhouse and grounds at MCC.   The confusion comes in because, while the 1910 Report refers to this as the "Corporation," the Corporation used was the MCCGA.     And this would have made a lot of sense, given that in the Report outlined that this stock would be paid for (financed) through a  $3.00 increase in fees on the "Golf Members."   In other words, it wasn't the entire membership that would pay for this, it was the "Golf Members" only.    Thus it made a lot of sense to put it in the name of the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association because
these were the Golf Members at Merion.   

Complicated and convoluted, but I think important and interesting, because it indicates that even at this early date there was a club within a club at Merion.   The fact that the MCCGA precedes all of this indicates that this may have been the case since the beginning of the golf course.   

By the way, I explained all this to Wayne shortly after my essay came out, back when he was pretending to want to cooperate with me so that I would give him my information.   That ended abruptly once he finally bothered to copy the Sayres Scrapbook and review the Minutes.    Unfortunately for him, having the documents and figuring out the documents is rarely as easy as getting them.
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: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #77 on: August 09, 2010, 04:09:26 PM »
Mike I don't have time to get into it now but will later.   
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: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #78 on: August 09, 2010, 04:22:46 PM »
David,

Considering what is known about the financial transactions in the move to Ardmore, it's not accurate to say an inability to pay the asking price for the current land was the absolute only reason for the move...but no, it's not vital to my overall understanding and so I'll take the words of the Board.

What do you have from the club which establishes the date of MCCGA? And what was its purpose up to about 1909?

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #79 on: August 09, 2010, 05:10:17 PM »
The following is the November 15, 1910 Letter from the Merion Site Committee to the members that is being referenced, and which talks about the formation of the corporation David mentioned.






The following enclosed scale map indicated the aea in green which was identified in the letter as the location of the 117 acres that had been secured.




DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #80 on: August 09, 2010, 06:04:13 PM »
Mike, still no time yet to address your post, but just so no one gets confused, what you posted as a "letter" is misleading.   It was actually a report consisting of the documents you posted as well as the Lloyd letter, a subscription agreement, and the Lesley report, which contained the Connell letter which contained the Barker letter.    

I'll address the rest later.
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)

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #81 on: August 09, 2010, 06:12:50 PM »
Mike,
"Land is being taken up so rapidly..."  Knowing that area today, it's obvious to me that this was the catalyst for obtaining the land.

Want to see another local course that waited too long and found themselves landlocked - Phoenixville CC.  Started as a 9-holer, and it's still a 9-holer.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #82 on: August 09, 2010, 06:19:26 PM »
Aaaaannnnddddd they're off!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #83 on: August 09, 2010, 06:25:47 PM »
Jeff,

I am going to try to be polite to Mike.  But I am still going to correct the errors.

Mike,

While the drawing may have been "to scale" the photograph of that drawing really distorts it, making the top what appears to be  at least 15 or 20 percent narrower than the bottom.   This may be what threw off your measurements in the first place.
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)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #84 on: August 09, 2010, 06:46:57 PM »
David,

I didn't mean to imply that you were.  I am just amazed that with the posting of the old Merion map, that we are going to relive the 100 page saga.  In the end, I guess this was as predictable as sunrise!

BTW, I didn't mean it was okay for TePaul to go Mel Gibson on you, only that I could understand the frustration behind it from his perspective.  Most of us just bash a wall out or something and then forget it..... 

As to "bad form" on a Merion thread....answering any question that extends the thread qualifies.......and I am currently exhibiting bad form.  One look at these threads and I am considering watching some reality TV.  Dancing with the Stars anyone?

But, I jest.  Carry on, good sirs.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #85 on: August 09, 2010, 07:47:41 PM »
“It was impossible to secure the present course, as the price at which it could be acquired, was more than the Club was able to pay.”



What does a statement like that mean to the MCC board or even to the MCC memberhip in 1910 really?

1. Was there actually some asking price for the land the Haverford course was on? Did the current owners even have an asking price anyone's aware of? Did they even offer it for sale as HDC was doing in Ardmore?
2. Who owned the land? Does it matter who owned the land to anyone on here or even to the MCC Board in 1910 and whether they wanted to sell it to MCC or not; particularly Clement Griscom? Is that relevent and if not, why not?
3. What was the current acre value of the land around the Haverford course in relation to the value of the land at Ardmore in 1910? What were the potential possibilities around the land of the Haverford course in 1910?
4. Does anyone on here know if acre value in the Haverford course area was more valuable (expensive) compared to the Ardmore area value or particularly WHY or how much more or why?

There are obviously other pertinent statements or even influences that in reality influenced the decision to try to stay at the Haverford course land or move the MCC course to Ardmore but for the time being those questions  and those seemingly relevent issues are enough. Who on here feels they have enough material information from the club back then to even begin to answer those questions and why do they feel you have enough material or material information?


"In 1909 the golfers of the Merion Cricket Club formed the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association to examine the problems presented by the Haskell ball, namely that it had made their course obsolete. The moving spirits of this organization were Rodman E. Griscom, Charlton Yarnall, Robert Lesley, William Stephenson, Alan Wilson and his younger brother, Hugh."



As far as what Tolhurst meant in his book about MCC forming the MCCGA in 1909 who on here has looked at the MCC board meeting minutes IN 1909 (NOT 1910) or anything else like that other than his book to see if and what they say about this issue? Is anyone on here who hasn't at least looked at something like that actually suggesting Tolhurst just made up the above statement out of whole cloth or out of his imagination, and if so, then why exactly are they suggesting that?

Who on here even has the vaguest idea what Desmond Tolhurst was looking at when he researched and wrote his book and made a statement like MCC formed the MSSGA in 1909?


And lastly, someone on here-----I think it may've been Tom MacWood but I'm not sure, made the statement on here that Tolhurst should have been sued by Heilman for plagarizing his previous book. If whoever made a statement like that actually believes that is something that might happen then all I can say is that person sure doesn't know very much about how most clubs like Merion get their history books done.

« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 08:17:44 PM by TEPaul »

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #86 on: August 09, 2010, 08:10:17 PM »
David,

As a totally impartial observer, I think you may be taking a too literal meaning of the phrase "able to pay."

If that phrase was changed to 'willing to pay" you would come to a totally different conclusion, right? But it is quite possible that the speaker simply chose the word "able" as a polite way of saying that the club did not want to meet the railroad's price.

I have read every page of my club's minutes (not Merion...) from 1899 to 1930 and I am amazed at how many different words they used than we normally use today, and it requires a careful reading and re-reading to fully understand what the writer was trying to convey.

And as a reasearcher, you should at least have some other proof that the club was not ABLE to meet the seller's price.

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #87 on: August 09, 2010, 08:19:40 PM »
Bill - good point.  Our language changes with amazing rapidity, and it's always important to try put historical documents into the perspective of the period in which they were written.

I love reading US History books from other eras.  My favorite is one from the 1930's.  To say the language differs would be an understatement.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #88 on: August 09, 2010, 09:22:24 PM »
Mike,

I am glad you posted Heilman, so others can see that whatever extensive independent research TEPaul claims Tolhurst did, it apparently must not have involved the history of Merion East.  He seems to have basically just tried to put Heilman into his own words, and unfortunately lost something in the translation.

As to your questions:

1.   I’m no clubby but I will be very surprised if there is an 1910 Annual Report to the Members with more detail about the move than that November Report, which wasn’t merely a letter.  It was a collection of letters, reports, a plan, and a subscription agreement including a report from the Board, a report from Lesley’s Committee to the Board, including a letter/report from Connell, and a report/letter from Barker.   It seems that Heilman was referring to this November report as the Annual report, but if not then I’d like to see the annual report.   

2.   I don’t doubt that it was a pain for Mrs. Sullivan to repeatedly retrieve the minutes from the storage at MCC.  At least that is the impression that I was given when I inquired about getting a look at them myself long before my essay came out.    In fact I got the impression that this had something to do with why I wasn’t given access, that and that I wasn’t a member of MGC or MCCAs I said above, if there was another Report written only a few weeks after this one yet contradicting this one, then I’d like to see it.  And surely we’d have seen it by now if there was such a report or such minutes as Wayne is obviously still providing the minutes to TEPaul (as evidenced by TEPaul’s post above.)   Also, any such reports should have shown up in the Sayres scrapbook, because as Secretary Sayres kept a pretty detailed record of what went out to the members, yet there were no such reports.

3.   I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but one thing I find very frustrating about the way that you and TEPaul and others have trashed my essay, is that whenever you come up with something you seem to think is new, it was actually already covered in the essay itself.    It is almost as if you guys never bothered to read it or carefully consider it.   For example, that November newspaper article is not only discussed in my essay,  I quote verbatim the portion about the need for a larger site, and explain what I thought it meant.   As I wrote in my essay and discussed above (here or in the deleted thread) there were a number of these articles all loosely based on either the Board’s report itself or someone’s representation of the Board report.    Comparing the various newspaper reports with the Board’s report, it seems that the passage to which you refer is most likely a misunderstanding of the section in the board report dealing with how the club would soon not be able to find a large enough parcel for golf. At any rate, there are a number of mistakes in that article.   I can’t remember if this is the one, but I got the inpression that one article may have been leaked by someone from the Connell camp as opposed to from Merion.   One of the articles is actually dated Nov. 14th, the day before Merion’s report, and made me question whether it was based on a draft, or whether Connell didn’t let the cat out of the bag too early and thereby lead Merion to scramble to set the record straight.

4.   You wrote ”One thing I do know well about Robert Lesley at both Merion and as President of GAP is that he loved his committees, he loved using Hugh Wilson on them, and they were all very effective. Do you think Heilmann and/or Tolhurst just made up these names out of thin air?”    Heilman didn’t pull anything out of thin air, or at least not much.    Heilman doesn’t claim that Hugh and Alan Wilson were driving forces in MCCGA or try to link them to the move.   He put Hugh on the Construction Committee and that is accurate.   And Heilman didn’t claim that the MCCGA was appointed to examine issues created by the Haskell ball.   Heilman only wrote that the MCCGA was formed to purchase the land and lease it back to the club.    While technically not quite correct this is much closer to the truth than Tolhurt’s version, because MCCGA was ultimately used as the vehicle to hold title and lease back to the club.  Apparently, Heilman just didn’t know MCCGA was the association of golfing members for years, and that is understandable. 

I have no idea why Toulmin changed all this and other aspects of the history.    My guess is that he was just trying to understand Heilman and put his own spin on it, just like Heilman tried to understand the 1910 Report and put his own spin on that.  Neither was trying to make stuff up, but obviously their work was not properly vetted either, and that is one of the fundamental problems with these inside jobs.   Mistakes are always possible even with proper vetting, but without proper vetting mistakes are inevitable, especially with inside “vanity pieces” where everyone has a strong interest in putting the most positive spin on everything.   

Quote
Isn't it basically true that you don't know what the MCC Minutes or any Annual Reports say in any of those regards, other than that one November 15, 1910 letter?

I am not playing any more of these ridiculous games with you and your cohorts.  Frankly, this sort of rhetorical tactic is far too objectionable to even merit discussion.   If you or anyone else has any source material which adds to or subtracts from the record as we know it, then bring it forward.  Otherwise, you are just trying to play sleazy games.
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: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #89 on: August 09, 2010, 09:25:37 PM »
David,

Considering what is known about the financial transactions in the move to Ardmore, it's not accurate to say an inability to pay the asking price for the current land was the absolute only reason for the move...but no, it's not vital to my overall understanding and so I'll take the words of the Board.

Jim,  I'm sorry to be disagreeing with you about almost everything you write, but I get the opposite impression from the later transactions.   Cost was definitely a key factor in getting the deal done and was a large part of the pitch to get the club to accept it.  And even then the success of the deal might have been a close call, with at least one news report noting that the deal was  only finalized after financial difficulties were overcome.  And while Lloyd did ultimately step up and bridge the deal, his actions weren't necessarily purely altruistic in that that he held the land as security, had his investment in the land company to protect, and had the potential to make a lot of money if things went well.  I don't know of any such factors at the old course.  

Quote
What do you have from the club which establishes the date of MCCGA? And what was its purpose up to about 1909?

I don't think I have anything from the club on MCCGA, but from early newspaper articles  it seems like it was the association of golfing members of Merion.  Remember that MCC was primarily a cricket and tennis club, not a golf club.   So golfing was initially at the periphery of what was going on at MCC, and surely many viewed it as a passing fad.   I think existing country clubs it was fairly common for the golfers within the club formed sort of a subgroup within the club to deal with issues relating to golf and to pay for things like courses.   But again, other than knowing it existed from very early on and was made up of golfing members of Merion, I don't know that much about it.  

David,

As a totally impartial observer, I think you may be taking a too literal meaning of the phrase "able to pay."

If that phrase was changed to 'willing to pay" you would come to a totally different conclusion, right? But it is quite possible that the speaker simply chose the word "able" as a polite way of saying that the club did not want to meet the railroad's price.

Bill, to me it makes no difference to me whether it was "willing to pay" or "able to pay."  These are both financial decisions and both are perfectly legitimate as far as I am concerned.   I am not trying to cast aspersions on Merion of old.   My point is that they wanted to stay put, but whether they were unable or unwilling to pay, they didn't get the deal done.  

Besides, while TEPaul and others are obviously uptight about the very notion of cost or price ever being an issue at Merion, but I don't think those there at the time had the same concerns.

I agree that one must read carefully and consider the context to get an idea of how differently they may have used certain words and phrases, but fortunately in this case there are more than one source and they are all saying basically the same thing.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 09:33:57 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)

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #90 on: August 09, 2010, 10:11:32 PM »
There are four or so points in your post I'm taking the following out of, but no, even in your first point you are entirely wrong in your interpretation:





"As to your questions:

1.   I’m no clubby but I will be very surprised if there is an 1910 Annual Report to the Members with more detail about the move than that November Report, which wasn’t merely a letter.  It was a collection of letters, reports, a plan, and a subscription agreement including a report from the Board, a report from Lesley’s Committee to the Board, including a letter/report from Connell, and a report/letter from Barker.   It seems that Heilman was referring to this November report as the Annual report, but if not then I’d like to see the annual report."






The 1910 annual report is on record, and even the lead-up to the finalization of the 1910 annual report is found in the board MEETING MINUTES leading up to the formal 1910 annual meeting report (this is essentially what boards have always done and still do today. Apparently you have never served on one at a private club like Merion and wouldn't know, Have you served on one, and if so, please tell us about it and your experiences and impressions. If you have never served on one how would you know much about them?).

No, from your posts and logic on here apparently you sure aren't what you just called a 'clubby." All the supporting contemporaneous material that is dealt with and is put into the record and into the MINUTES of those BOARD MEETINGS is dealt with in Board meetings and NOT Annual Meetings (In person) and certainly not the formal Annual Meetings REPORTS!

What goes into the annual report to the membership is only a managed SUMMATION of the discussions and correspondences, salient workings and whatever, that Boards and Board meetings deal with in their club responsibilities during an actual or fiscal year.

Let me ask you something quite pertinent, Moriarty-----have you ever been part of board meetings (not an annual meeting) of a private golf club?  And if so, how, when and where? Have you even belonged to a private club anything like a Merion?   
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 10:15:21 PM by TEPaul »

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #91 on: August 09, 2010, 10:25:28 PM »
Mike, still no time yet to address your post, but just so no one gets confused, what you posted as a "letter" is misleading.   It was actually a report consisting of the documents you posted as well as the Lloyd letter, a subscription agreement, and the Lesley report, which contained the Connell letter which contained the Barker letter.    


Mike,

While the drawing may have been "to scale" the photograph of that drawing really distorts it, making the top what appears to be  at least 15 or 20 percent narrower than the bottom.   This may be what threw off your measurements in the first place.



David,

I agree that the mailing to the membership contained other items, which you've mentioned.  I'd be happy to post those other items if you see them as relevant, but at present I was simply trying to provide a physical copy of the letter you referred to that recommended the formation of a corporation.

Not to get caught up in semantics, but I'm not sure I'd call the mailing a "report".   Not in the sense of a "Annual Report of 1910" anyway, which Heilman refers to as the source for his information regarding the reasons for the move.    An Annual Report normally includes things like goals, accomplishments, financial reporting, etc., and is sometimes published and distributed to the members, and sometimes just entered into the record and formally approved.

In followup references, certainly Merion didn't view it as a report, but instead as a "circular letter".  

No biggie, but just so that we're all on the same page, please see how it's referred to in this subsequent January correspondence.  




As regards the image of the scale map of the secured 117 acres, I agree that the photo I posted is distorted and I only posted that one because of the green coloring referred to in the letter.  

And I only measured it initially on that map, but others showed that there was some distortion present.   So, at that time, Bryan Izatt did an accurate measuring based on the metes and bounds of the property deeds, and came up with this map, based on your much less distorted black and white image you included in your essay.   The dotted inside line to the east is the Golf House Road boundary closest to the golf course, so even though you can "see through" the road in the illustration, that isn't the case in reality.

« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 10:30:43 PM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #92 on: August 09, 2010, 10:30:41 PM »
Before we get too far a field here his Tolhurst's account again. Let's focus on it and its major flaws (or not).

"In 1909, the golfers of the Merion Cricket club formed the Merion Cricket GC Association to examine the problem presented by the Haskell ball, namely that it had made theri course obsolete. The moving spirits of this organization were Rodman E. Griscom, Charlton Yarnall, Robert Lelsey, Walter Stephenson, Alan Wilson and his younger brother, Hugh.

They explored the possibility of acquiring land around the old course so that it could be lengthened. However, no such land was available. They eventually settles on a 120-acre tract, located a little south of the Phila and Western Railroad tracks on both sides of Ardmore Avenue. The golf association bought the property and leased it back to the Cricket Club. Much of the land had been part of a William Penn grant. Since 1744, it had belonged to the Johnson family. Originally a farm, the place was now neglected. On the property stood a stone farmhouse, built in 1824, and large bank barn.

The Annual Report of 1910 informed Merion Cricket Club member of these developments.

The MCC Golf Association appointed a committee to lay out the new course. Its chairman was Hugh Wilson. The other members were Rodman E. Griscom, Dr. Henry Toulmin, Richard S. Francis and Horatio Gates Llloyd, who originally acquired the land.

This was a fine Committee for the job. Griscoms' accomplishments have been outlined in the first chapter. Francis was an officer of a construction company, an engineer and a surveyor, and his skills were invaluable. However, the chief burden fell on Wilson, who was the principal architect of the course.

Hugh Wilson was an excellent golfer, and learned the game on Merion's Haverford course. At Princeton, he was captian of the university's golf team. Graduating in 1902, Wilson returned to Philadelphia and joined his brother Alan in the insurance business. Eventually, Hugh became the president of the business.

A golf pilgrimage
In 1910, the Committee decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for thr new course. Before he left, he visited the site of the NGLA, America's first modern golf course, then under constrcution in Southampton, NY. While there he discussed his itinerary with Charles B. Macdonald, the designer of the National and winner of the first US Amateur in 1895. Macdonald had made a similar journey for the same purpose some eight years earlier.

Wilson spent about seven months abroad, playing and studying course and sketching the features that struck him most favorably. When he returned, he carried a pile of notes as well as sheaves of sketches and surveyor's maps of outstanding holes and features. All of these avidly studied by the Committee.

One mystery still surrounds Wilson's trip to Britain, and that is the origin of the wicker flagsticks now so much a part of Merions' mystique. For years, it was said Wilson first saw them at Sunningdale Golf club located in Berkshire, England. However when the Captain of Sunningdale visited Merion in September, 1987, for the 75th Anniverserary, he averred that Sunningdale never had wickers! So where did Wilson see them?

Some say that it was another course near London with a similar name to Sunningdale. Others tell the story of a lady member of Merion who married an English lord and then put in a nine-hole course on his estate, using flower decorated baskets instead of flagsticks. Since she was a Philadelphian, Wilson is said to have visited her on his British trip and borrowed the basket idea. However, so far both the 'other course' near London and the lady from Merion have proved elusive.

When Wilson returned from England, both Macdonald and his son-in-law HJ Whigham (an Oxford player and 1896 and 1897 US Am Champion) freely gave him their advice. So the Club had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill and knoweldge of the committee.

Francis takes a hand
An interesting sidelight on the design of the new course comes from Richard Francis, who wrote the following in 1950:
"Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the layout of the course.
 The land was shaped like a capital “L” and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion – with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore avenue – but the last five holes were another question.
 I was looking at a map of the property one night when I had an idea. Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr. Lloyd on the telephone, found he had not gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him. (Richard Francis lived next to the Haverford Station of the PRR) The idea was this: We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some good use?"

A great team
Besides the expertise of Francis, Wilson also had a first-class crew. Supervising construction was Merion's first greenkeeper William S. Flynn, who had been groundskeeper with the Cricket Club. Also involved was Howard C. Toomey, another groundskeeper at the Cricket Club, and civil engineer. After World War I, the pair formed the golf course architecture firm of Toomey and Flynn and designed such outstanding courses as Rolling Green in Philadlephia, the Cascades course at the Homestead, Hot Springs, VA, the James River course for the CC of Virginia, and Cherry Hill Country Club in Denver. The firm was also chosen to finish and revising the bunkering at Merion after Hugh Wilson's untimely death. Flynn appointed Joe Valentine as his construction foreman. Valentine had also worked as a groundskeeper at the Cricket Club, and as an immigrant from Italy, his knowledge of Italian was invaluable in supervising the largely Italian-speaking constrcution crew with their horsedrawn roadscrapers.

Flynn and Wilson were close friends and thought alike on the subject of golf architecture. For example both agreed that hazards should be plainly visible and abhorred the invisible pot bunker so often encountered on older British courses. 'A concealed bunker has no place on a golf course,' Flynn declared. 'When concealed, it does not register on the players' mind as he is about to play the shot, thus loses its value.' He added, 'The best looking bunkers are those that are gouged out of faces of slopes, especially when the slope faces the player. They are much more effective in that thaey stand there like sentinals beckoning the player.' When the course was under construction and later, during revisions, Valentine would spread bed sheets on the sire of a proposed bunker so the Wilson, standing on the tee or the area from which the shot would be played, could be certain that the hazard could be plainly seen by the golfer.

Merion, a masterpiece
The payout that Wilson fashioned at Merion was masterly. It was even more remarkable considering it was his first effort in course architecture. He fitted the holes onto the land as compactly as jigsaw puzzle. As a result, player only had to step a few yards from each green to the next tee. The trip to the Old country had certainly paid off.

While Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England--the third hole was inspired by North Berwick's fifteenth hole (The Redan) and the 17th, with its swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrews' 18th hole--none of the holes at Merion is an out and out copy. They are all original holes in their own right. Wilson had absorbed the principles underlying the great hole, then applied them to the terrain at his command.

It has been said that Hugh Wilson grasped these principles of Scottish and English course design and conveyed them in his work better than Charles Blair Macdonald. However, to compare Merion to the NGL is somewhat of an 'apples and oranges' proposition. Macdonald set out to 'model each of the 18 holes (at the National) after the most famous holes abroad.' that is, to duplicate these holes. Wilson never intended to design Merion under such constraints. His objective was to build a course that would rival the finest British parkland course in beauty and shot values. He succeeded admirably.

If it were possible to physically lift Merion and set it dons at an appropriate site Britain, the native golfers would feel right at home on it in not time at all. they would appreciate the artfully set tees, aligned toward trouble rather straight down the fairway, and the sloping fairways, which so often present a hilly lie that makes the best shape of a shot doubly difficult, the naturalness of the bunkers and their plantings of dune grass and Scottish broom, the variety of green shape and the subtle contours of the putting surfaces, which sometimes almost defy reading, as well as their fast pace. The British love a course where you have to use your head, place your tee shots and hit precise shots with every club in your bag; that's Merion East, exactly.

Construction of the new course began in the early spring of 1911. By September, the grass seed, a German variety chose after much investigation and tests, had been sown. It was allowed to grow that autumn and the following spring and summer. On September 12, 1912, the old course at Haverford was closed, and on the 14th, the new course and the clubhouse were opened to members.

Incidentally, that date work started on the new course lays to rest an oft-told, rather romantic story that Wilson, on his return from Britain, miraculously avoided a planned sailing home on the pride of the White Star line, the SS Titanic. The liner struck an iceberg and sank on the night of April 14-15th, 1912. Obviously, if work started on the course in the spring of 1911, Wilson was already safely back in the United States before the ill-fated ship ever set out on its maiden voyage.

A report of the opening said that the course was 'among experts considered the finest inland links in the country.' This was the assessment that has been echoed down through the years."
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 10:34:15 PM by Tom MacWood »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #93 on: August 09, 2010, 10:34:43 PM »
...And while Lloyd did ultimately step up and bridge the deal, his actions weren't necessarily purely altruistic in that that he held the land as security, had his investment in the land company to protect, and had the potential to make a lot of money if things went well.  I don't know of any such factors at the old course.  


David,

This is really close to my point, Lloyd was able to make the deal work in Ardmore, and I have a hard time believeing that if they really wanted to stay in Haverford they couldn't have come up with something creative. That's it from my perspective of the multiple motivations for the move. Money is always a better selling point than the other more superficial possibilities.

What can you give me about the early newspaper accounts of MCCGA?

It seems wholly logical to me that MCCGA, or something similar was formed to represent/facilitate the golfing membership of Merion Cricket Club. My argument about the establishment date being meaningfully accurate is that in 1909 it was the vehicle used to facilitate the whole golf course transfer process...not the committees that found and built the course, but the corporate vehicle that facilitated the deal. Whether or not it functioned as a golf committee prior to that point means virtually nothing in this context.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 10:37:42 PM by Jim Sullivan »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #94 on: August 09, 2010, 10:38:43 PM »
Tom M,

Believe it or not, we're not off course, just going unbelievably slow...

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #95 on: August 09, 2010, 10:44:38 PM »
Tom MacWood,

I agree with Jim.   We'll get to all those points, but let's be sure we've politely covered all of the evidence related to those first few points first, lest we enter circle-jerk mode again.  ;) 

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #96 on: August 09, 2010, 10:49:40 PM »
What is the purpose of the map?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #97 on: August 09, 2010, 10:56:49 PM »
TEPaul, So it sounds like I had it about right, then.   The annual report wasn't sent to the members and therefore didn't inform them of anything.  It was entered into the record.  And it would not contain the November report did about the purchase.  Seems pretty clear they were talking about the November report.

To answer your question which you declare "something quite pertinent," I am the two time past president, founding member, long time board member, and secretary emeritus of the West Los Angeles Branch of the Southern California Chapter of the California Association of the Western Division of the U.S. Delegation of the World Wide TEPaul Fan Club.  We had our semi-annual meeting and sing-along last night.  Pity you missed it.

_________________________________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

Post whatever you like.  Don't know why you keep posting that map, though.  I'd just as soon eat nails as discuss that with you again.   It is all there in the archives for anyone who cares.  
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 10:58:24 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)

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #98 on: August 09, 2010, 11:03:41 PM »
Mike,

I am glad you posted Heilman, so others can see that whatever extensive independent research TEPaul claims Tolhurst did, it apparently must not have involved the history of Merion East.  He seems to have basically just tried to put Heilman into his own words, and unfortunately lost something in the translation.

As to your questions:

1.   I’m no clubby but I will be very surprised if there is an 1910 Annual Report to the Members with more detail about the move than that November Report, which wasn’t merely a letter.  It was a collection of letters, reports, a plan, and a subscription agreement including a report from the Board, a report from Lesley’s Committee to the Board, including a letter/report from Connell, and a report/letter from Barker.   It seems that Heilman was referring to this November report as the Annual report, but if not then I’d like to see the annual report.  David, I'd be extremely surprised as mentioned above to find that the Merion Ciricket Club referred to this correspondence as their "Annual Report".   Otherwise, why wouldn't Sayres simply refer to the Annual Report instead of the "circular letter"?   That would be odd, don't you think?  

2.   I don’t doubt that it was a pain for Mrs. Sullivan to repeatedly retrieve the minutes from the storage at MCC.  At least that is the impression that I was given when I inquired about getting a look at them myself long before my essay came out.    In fact I got the impression that this had something to do with why I wasn’t given access, that and that I wasn’t a member of MGC or MCCAs I said above, if there was another Report written only a few weeks after this one yet contradicting this one, then I’d like to see it.  And surely we’d have seen it by now if there was such a report or such minutes as Wayne is obviously still providing the minutes to TEPaul (as evidenced by TEPaul’s post above.)   Also, any such reports should have shown up in the Sayres scrapbook, because as Secretary Sayres kept a pretty detailed record of what went out to the members, yet there were no such reports. David, believe what you'd like, but we are not all one monolithic Philadelphia group conspiring against you.   Frankly, I wish you'd been given access to the MCC Minutes, because I believe we all could have saved ourselves a lot of time and energy.   And, I don't have access to the complete MCC Minutes, but have seen enough of them to say confidently that I think one of the deficits you're working against is that you haven't, and it makes for very frustrating discussion at times because it's one of those "his word against your's" deals that gets nowhere.   However, the way this all went down, whether right or wrong, ended up alienating Wayne Morrison and probably many others at Merion, and I can't say I blame him at all for not wanting to share private club minutes here, or contributing whatsoever.   In a perfect world, we'd all be looking at the same evidence but that's not the way events transpired so we have to piece together the remaining questions based on what we collectively have here, and I'm hopeful we can do it more productively and with a better tenor than previous attempts.    

3.   I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but one thing I find very frustrating about the way that you and TEPaul and others have trashed my essay, is that whenever you come up with something you seem to think is new, it was actually already covered in the essay itself.    It is almost as if you guys never bothered to read it or carefully consider it.   For example, that November newspaper article is not only discussed in my essay,  I quote verbatim the portion about the need for a larger site, and explain what I thought it meant.   As I wrote in my essay and discussed above (here or in the deleted thread) there were a number of these articles all loosely based on either the Board’s report itself or someone’s representation of the Board report.    Comparing the various newspaper reports with the Board’s report, it seems that the passage to which you refer is most likely a misunderstanding of the section in the board report dealing with how the club would soon not be able to find a large enough parcel for golf. At any rate, there are a number of mistakes in that article.   I can’t remember if this is the one, but I got the inpression that one article may have been leaked by someone from the Connell camp as opposed to from Merion.   One of the articles is actually dated Nov. 14th, the day before Merion’s report, and made me question whether it was based on a draft, or whether Connell didn’t let the cat out of the bag too early and thereby lead Merion to scramble to set the record straight. I would agree that the article in question has some errors, and I'd also agree that there is a decent chance that this article came from information from the Connell camp.   As far as whether they misinterpreted information about the "large enough" parcel of land for a course, I wouldn't completely rule that out.

4.   You wrote ”One thing I do know well about Robert Lesley at both Merion and as President of GAP is that he loved his committees, he loved using Hugh Wilson on them, and they were all very effective. Do you think Heilmann and/or Tolhurst just made up these names out of thin air?”    Heilman didn’t pull anything out of thin air, or at least not much.    Heilman doesn’t claim that Hugh and Alan Wilson were driving forces in MCCGA or try to link them to the move.   He put Hugh on the Construction Committee and that is accurate.   And Heilman didn’t claim that the MCCGA was appointed to examine issues created by the Haskell ball.   Heilman only wrote that the MCCGA was formed to purchase the land and lease it back to the club.    While technically not quite correct this is much closer to the truth than Tolhurt’s version, because MCCGA was ultimately used as the vehicle to hold title and lease back to the club.  Apparently, Heilman just didn’t know MCCGA was the association of golfing members for years, and that is understandable.  I generally agree, but don't know exactly what MCC Minutes info Heilman was looking at related to the role of MCCGA in the 1909-1910 timeframe.  

I have no idea why Toulmin changed all this and other aspects of the history.    My guess is that he was just trying to understand Heilman and put his own spin on it, just like Heilman tried to understand the 1910 Report and put his own spin on that.  Neither was trying to make stuff up, but obviously their work was not properly vetted either, and that is one of the fundamental problems with these inside jobs.   Mistakes are always possible even with proper vetting, but without proper vetting mistakes are inevitable, especially with inside “vanity pieces” where everyone has a strong interest in putting the most positive spin on everything.   I'm sure you meant Tolhurst, not Toulmin, but generally I agree that club histories do not necessarily go to the lengths and depths that we archie afficianado's wish they would, but I don't agree with the term "spin", which connotes purposeful deception.   I don't find that to be true in any of the Merion accounts.  

Quote
Isn't it basically true that you don't know what the MCC Minutes or any Annual Reports say in any of those regards, other than that one November 15, 1910 letter?

I am not playing any more of these ridiculous games with you and your cohorts.  Frankly, this sort of rhetorical tactic is far too objectionable to even merit discussion.   If you or anyone else has any source material which adds to or subtracts from the record as we know it, then bring it forward.  Otherwise, you are just trying to play sleazy games.

David...that comment wasn't meant to cause offense, but to state something I stated yesterday, and earlier on this post, which is, you don't know what you don't know.    You did a hell of a lot of good research, but by your own admission were denied access to some items that I believe would have cleared up some things for you.   I wish you had been given access, frankly.   Whether you believe it or not, I speak for myself, I don't have "cohorts", and I'm not trying to play games.    I'm trying to have a productive discussion related to the remaining open questions, and hope we can keep the tone collaborative and civil.  If that comment came off as too directly brusque, I apologize.   I'm not looking for a fight here, only to bring our differences into the light in a productive way.   Thanks.  
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 11:05:51 PM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #99 on: August 09, 2010, 11:13:36 PM »
What is the purpose of the map?

Tom,

The Circular Letter from November 15, 1910 to the Merion Membership referred to the enclosed map, with the area of the secured 117 acres illustrated in the color green, so I posted the map in question.

David then suggested that the photo of the map is taken at an angle which was distorted, and may have been the source of what he believes is an inaccurate measuring of the land around the northernmost "triangle", which Richard Francis referred to in his 1950 recollections..  

In response, I posted Bryan Izatt's accurate rendering of the same based on the metes and bounds of the original deeds, coupled with a more flush-on black-and-white photo of the scale map that David included in his essay.  

If nothing else, it gives one a sense of the differences between the November 15, 1910 Scale Map drawn by Pugh and Hubbard Surveyors versus the course as built, as well as answers any questions related to distortion.

I'm sure we'll get around to discussing it's meaning in detail at some point, but for now, let's keep pushing on.

Thanks.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:06:04 AM by MCirba »