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.


TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1250 on: September 02, 2010, 09:40:41 PM »
That's funny. By that I mean that is really humorous. That's a far worse ratiionalization than the essay itself. And the numbers don't work at all. With that green and purple scenario for the swap MCC would've ended up giving back more land then they took and then there's the little problem that the left side of the triangle (the curvilinear Golf House Road) looks very lttle like it did on the Nov. 10, 1910 Land Plan which according to your scenario was the reflection of the result of Francis' land swap fix.

That post is really funny and it's logic has more factual holes in it than Swiss cheese.  ;)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1251 on: September 02, 2010, 10:52:51 PM »
David,

I agree with points to a large degree. They are supported by primary documentation.  I don’t want to prolong this, or insult you or anyone, but as I look at this with fresh eyes after a year, and after about a week on this thread, I realize why I came to a different conclusion than you on the timing of the land swap.

First, there is only one document that specifically discusses the final routing of Merion – The April 11 committee report.  That tells us in NO uncertain terms, that routing work was done (or at least contour maps) before the March NGLA meeting.  It tells us they did five more second round preliminary plans between that meeting and the CBM visit of April 6.

The report also tells us that CBM chose the layout.  For that alone, we know it was the final routing, but some more details are known, too.  He mentions the last 7 holes specifically, the same ones in the Francis Swap.  And, the club knows on that date that they need 3 extra acres, within a week after they finalized the plan, probably after drawing an engineer survey of the final line. 
So, we know they are talking about the final routing and the final land configuration – with the details finalized AFTER CBM approved the routing as best.  In this light, it makes little sense if any that the three acres were finalized months earlier, except for details.  How could they, if CBM gave his blessing on April 6, or if they were deciding on five plans up to that date?  Each of those plans would have presumably had a slightly different acreage requirement.
There is not a reason to believe that this document isn’t the final word on the final routing.  Just because
•   * Tollhurst messed up a few details 50 years later, or
•     Some of us think it should have or could have gone down some other way, arguing, for instance that they would have used the “best” Golf Course Architect out there, when in fact they did, when they picked CBM to assist them, or
•   Because Wilson only discusses agronomy with an agronomist (duh!) 
This report and the action resulting from it, tells us all we need to know.  If we don’t believe it, and are looking for contradictory “evidence” in a million other documents, I suppose we can conjure up any theories at all.  Some people just think that way.
The details of the time frame of routing are right there.  Supposing that “it doesn’t preclude routing beforehand” is possible, but very unlikely.  They were documenting the process and they took official action on that report, and spent real money, too!
Those are facts, based on the record.  All else is speculation.  Now, for my own theorizing, just because…..well, that is what we do.

It struck me the other night that this document strongly suggests the timing of the Francis swap idea.  As you know, I had postulated that the story either took some literary dramatic license, OR reflected some urgent need to get a new plan before a deadline.  I had thought the Nov.15 meeting was a good possibility, or that construction had started and he wanted to avoid building something in the “wrong” place.  But, with the five plans being done before CBM approved them, I now see that the deadline was the April 6 meeting with CBM himself!  They needed a good plan for him to approve!
I suspect the land swap idea occurred on April 5, or maybe April 2-4.  Expert researchers could check the weather that night to see which night was “fairest” for a bike ride, although we don’t know for sure he didn’t ride in the rain or even snow.
Given the fact that they started plowing up the land in anticipation of construction, as per Oakley, this accounts for the blasting of the 16th green a “few days later.”  Once it was located on plan, the Quarrymen, who as David suggests may have still been hauling out rocks, were sent to the top of the hill to blast out rocks so it could be covered with better soil, even if the final design wasn’t in place.
This is perfectly reasonable, unless one of you experts here want to argue that you can grow grass on rock better than dirt!
Again, I have no quibble with anyone, but I really believe the quest to find any other document that the primary one that tells us what happened and when, is as much a result of an attitude to find something wrong as it is to get at the truth.  Such discussions can be fun (to a point) and also cause hurt feelings.

But, for me, I think the committee report tells us all we need to know.  The other stuff is mostly BS, whether well intentioned, or not.   TEPaul has mentioned fallacious logic on here a few times.  Here is a link for those interested in what that means, since there is SO MUCH of it on these Merion threads.

http://bus-plunge.blogspot.com/2009/03/logic-and-fallacies-constructing.html
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1252 on: September 02, 2010, 11:15:53 PM »
Sheesh.

My lord.

Don't even know where to begin.

Thank you, Jeff Brauer.

Thankfully, sanity prevails.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1253 on: September 02, 2010, 11:30:54 PM »
Ok, let me ask a serious question.

We know Wilson and his committee were amateurs, we know they were inexperienced, but do we also think they were certifiably INFRIGGINGSANE??!@?!?!!?   :o :o :o :o :o ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Are we actually saying that they routed their first thirteen holes, knowing they had their final five holes on their proposed championship course to go, and they had just expended their first par three on the back nine, YET THEY THOUGHT SOMEHOW THEY WERE GOING TO GET FIVE MORE HOLES IN TO THE AREA IN BLUE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  



And THAT FOR SOME EVEN MORE FRIGGIN INSANE REASON THEY DECIDED THAT THE PERFECTLY GOOD LAND IN GREEN CROSS_HATCH WAS NOT GOOD FOR ANY GOLF PURPOSE?!?!?!?!!?!?

AND THAT THE LITTLE BIT OF LAND THEY HAD IN BLUE ALSO HAD A BIG FRIGGING QUARRY DRAWN IN ORANGE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, MOST OF WHICH COULD NOT BE USED FOR PLAYABLE FAIRWAYS OR GREENS??!@?!!@?!?!

Yet on their fricking merry way these insane men went, until one moonlit night when Sir Richard Francis looked at a map and said...

"HOLY FRIGGING SHIT... WE HAVE NO LAND TO WORK WITH TO PUT FIVE MORE HOLES ON OUR GOLF COURSE...MAYBE MR. LLOYD WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF HIS FRIGGING MIND WHEN HE DECIDED TO SUB_DIVIDE THE JOHNSON FARM ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WITH NO REASON AT ALL, AND AFTER CBM TOLD US THAT WE COULD MAKE GOOD USE OF THE QUARRY.

I"D BETTER RIDE OVER THERE AND BOUNCE HIM OUT OF HIS RUBBER ROOM SO HE CAN SEE HOW FRIGGING STUPID HE IS, BECAUSE WE CAN BARELY GET THREE DECENT  HOLES IN THE REMAINING LAND, MUCH LESS FIVE!!!!   WHAT THE FRICK WHERE WE THINKING?!?!?!?

I'm sorry...this is like the twilight zone...do you guys actually believe this could have possibly happened??

There is more chance that the earth will fly out of its orbit tonight and crash into Saturn than for this to have happened unless these men were certifiably insane and FRICKING IDIOTS TO BOOT.    ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 11:42:14 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1254 on: September 03, 2010, 01:27:16 AM »
I think I agree with most of that based on what we've seen here over the last couple years...with a couple questions:

- Why do you assume CBM's recommended hole lengths were specific to Merion, as indicated in point #4?

Good question.   

1.  Had CBM been giving a rote response simply listing out what typical hole lengths should be for a 6000 yard course, then I'd expect the holes to match those provided by CBM for his ideal 6000 yard golf course from Outing magazine.  They don't.   And the hole lengths CBM gave Merion differ from what CBM had done at NGLA.

2.  CBM mentions using the quarry and the creeks and the land behind the clubhouse, and I find it impossible to even imagine they hadn't been looking for how golf holes would fit as they were out there.  We assume they didn't have a map, but all we know is that they didn't have a contour map.  We always assume that his only communication with Merion was that letter.  But that is not the case.  For example, he mentioned meeting with the Committee in the letter, and we don't know if there was other correspondence (it wouldn't necessarily show up in the minutes.)

3.  CBM's hole lengths match remarkably well with the actual yardages (as opposed to the stated yardages) of the holes which were actually built at Merion.    Essentially we end up short one 440-480 yard hole and long one 360-420 yard hole.

Quote
Assuming you're correct about the land Barker was using for his plan, how can his plan carry any weight whatsoever when the land used was so much different?

I don't know.   My original thought was that his plan might not have carried much weight, but it is impossible to know without seeing his plan.  It is possible that his plan is the reason they decided they needed the Dallas Estate, but even that could be because his plan extended onto the Dallas Eastate, or because he tried to make the course fit without using it and Merion wasn't satisfied.   Either way it is possible that he could have located some of the same green sites as CBM.  Unfortunately we don't know much about what he did, but we do know he did a routing, and it would be foolish to think no one ever even looked at it or considered it.
____________________________________________
Jeff,   You seem to placing a great significance on this extra three acres.   So far as I know that had nothing to do with the swap.   Could you point me toward the reference in the record for this extra three acres?   And how much they paid for it?   And could you explain what it has to do with the swap?

I have always thought this was a read herring, but I'll consider your theory if you explain it.   I just don't understand it right now. 

My other comments are . . .
1) I don't think it would have been reasonable for them to commit to a purchase at all until they knew their golf course would fit, and
2) I don't think a literal reading of the land Francis described is consistent with this theory.  But maybe I just don't understand your theory.  (I see how it solves the blasting issue, but don't necessarily thinks it solves it any better than my explanation.)
_________________________________________

Within in TEPaul's otherwise gratuitous and pointless swipe was:

"With that green and purple scenario for the swap MCC would've ended up giving back more land then they took and then there's the little problem that the left side of the triangle (the curvilinear Golf House Road) looks very lttle like it did on the Nov. 10, 1910 Land Plan which according to your scenario was the reflection of the result of Francis' land swap fix."

1.  All this occurred before any purchase took place or agreement was made, and no one ever said it was an "equal amount" trade.  Merion wanted to buy as little land as they needed and HDC wanted to keep as much land as they could, so Merion giving up more and getting less worked great for both parties. 

2.  The Nov. 1910 Map was for illustrative purposes only and the road was marked "APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ROAD".  And even on this rough map, the land where the fine homes would be built had already been given up, and there is golf course up their where the 15th green and 16th tee are now.  It looks a heck of a lot more like what they ended up with than does what they were originally offered!

__________________________________________________

As usual the height of Mike Cirba's indignation and outrage is inversely related to the soundness of his argument.

Prior to the swap, Merion could have used all of the land to the western border of the Johnson farm, except for the rectangle next to the College.   

So Mike's scenario is nonsense.  He treats the final FINAL location of the road (which wouldn't even be determined until the following spring) as if it had always been a drop dead final border limiting where the golf course could go.   It never was.  In fact the opposite was true.   The road was "laid off" to fit snugly fit around the golf course AFTER the golf course had been fully planned in detail.

Francis wrote that there was "some land" to the west of the current course which didn't fit into any layout (presumably because it is not that interesting) but he didn't write there was a hard border at the current road which no plan had ever even breached!   Mike just made that part up. 

With Merion having all that width to work with, it is obvious that they could fit the holes width wise, even without going too far west of the current road (if west at all.)  The problem was the length of the holes.  That is why they gave up all the excess width to fine homes and  in exchange got a bit more length to fit the 15th green and 16th tee. 

______________________________________

Mike and TEPaul,

Your reactions to my restatement of my position from my essay seems to have put you both back to square one, and you are both starting in again on the exact same arguments you tried many times starting long ago.

That is a pretty clear indication that you guys have nothing more now which addresses my essay as then.   You post and post and post and make no progress.   

I AM NOT GOING THROUGH IT AGAIN. Come up with something new or let it go.
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 #1255 on: September 03, 2010, 01:39:42 AM »
By the way the Evans acceptance reads in part:
I note that you agree to sell a tract of one hundred and seventeen (117) acres, as agreed upon with Mr. Lloyd, to a corporation to be formed on behalf of the Merion Cricket Club, for the purpose of establishing Golf Links thereon within reasonable time, clear of encumbrance, for the price or sum of Eighty-five thousand dollars, ($85,000.00), payable in cash on or about December 10th, 1910.

They had already "agreed upon" a tract at this point.

TEPaul has repeatedly mentioned that Lloyd was negotiating with HDC all fall.  Surely Merion's files have a record of this and a record of what they had agreed to buy. 

_________________________________

No one bothered to address the most important part of my post.   Merion's Board described what was going on here the exact same way I did in my essay.     CBM said that if Merion would lay it out according to the plan which M&W had approved then the 'last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world.

That is what Merion did, as I described in my IMO.   Merion, particularly Hugh Wilson and his Committee, "laid the course out on the ground and built it according to plan." 

So can we finally move past this mistaken belief that it was impossible to have a course planned before it was laid out?   And the mistaken belief that it was impossible to have different people lay out a course than who initially planned it? 
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 #1256 on: September 03, 2010, 06:29:25 AM »
"Mike and TEPaul,
           Your reactions to my restatement of my position from my essay seems to have put you both back to square one, and you are both starting in again on the exact same arguments you tried many times starting long ago.
           That is a pretty clear indication that you guys have nothing more now which addresses my essay as then.   You post and post and post and make no progress.    
            I AM NOT GOING THROUGH IT AGAIN. Come up with something new or let it go."





David Moriarty:

A 'restatement' of your position from your essay?? What does THAT mean? Do you now consider Replies #1248, #1254 and #1255 to be a "RESTATEMENT" from your position in your essay? Again, what do you mean by restatement of your position from your essay? Would that mean an alteration of your position in your essay?

And when you say 'I'M NOT GOING THROUGH THIS AGAIN,' it sure looks like you just did!

Once you answer the questions in the first paragraph, I think we could quite easily move on to the next very logical question about your essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion."
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 06:37:58 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1257 on: September 03, 2010, 06:44:40 AM »
"As usual the height of Mike Cirba's indignation and outrage is inversely related to the soundness of his argument."




David Moriarty:

You are right about that. It seems Mike Cirba's Reply #1253 to your Post #1248 is filled with a rather large degree of profanity and screaming or profane screaming or screaming profanity or whatever description would logically and reasonably (not fallaciously, by the way) or at least not impossibly convey the least "meaningfully inaccurate" interpretation. Or should I just say "presumably?"

And, I can gratuitously admit to you, however we decide to agree on the speculation of the tone of #1253, that his post hurt my ears and offended my sensibilities, as I am, after all, a rather quiet and civilized man who never could and never would.........etc, etc, et al.  
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 06:54:14 AM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1258 on: September 03, 2010, 06:48:03 AM »
Tom,

There are no errors in my last post other than typos. Feel free to show me any I've missed.

You asked two questions. "No I've not seen any photos of Manwalamink or his other estate course in NY. Are you saying he would have been better off hiring an experienced golf architect with clear track record of good design?" Surely you jest with this question as it ceertainly cannot be a serious one.

"Speaking of crude have you seen any early photos of Shawnee?" I have copies of every photograph published of early Shawnee and many, many that were not. It is amazing what one can find when one has access to the ACTUAL records in person.

Now it is time that YOU no longer evade but answer my series of questions asked previously. In case you forgot, here they are:

"The Shawnee story has never fully been told." Now this statement is amazingly priceless and gratuitous. It hints at things without ever saying anything. It implies knowledge which is not known by others. Where did you get this "knowledge" Tom? From Shawnee? From the records of the Shawnee Inn? From the Shawnee Country Club records? From the Monroe County Historical Society?" I bolded and underlined them so that you can't miss them...

Worthington's estate at Shawnee was called Buckwood Park not Manwalamink. Manwalamink was the name of one of the homes at Buckwood Park, and that was what the golf course was named after. The golf course was built in 1907, not 1899-1900. Ignoring Worthington's previous design experience was a major error of omission on your part. If you don't believe Worthington was involved in laying out Shawnee I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to interest you in.

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1259 on: September 03, 2010, 07:01:45 AM »
Tom MacWood and Phil Young:

Is it possible for you both to take this apparently incipient discussion of whether or not CC Worthington of mowing product fame was the actual router and designer or at least the "driving force" behind Shawnee and that the theretofore inexperienced Albert W. Tillinghast merely constructed (built) the golf course to his plan to another thread and off this one that began as a discussion of the inaccuracy or accuracy of the Merion history book writer, Desmond Tolhurst's Merion history book (1989 and 2005)?

Thank you; Thank you; THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1260 on: September 03, 2010, 07:04:59 AM »
We'll get back to Desmond's account in no time.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1261 on: September 03, 2010, 07:08:55 AM »
Sheesh...I don't even know where to start.

How about little missing details like the Committee saying they'd likely need 120 acres in July 1910, NOT 100 acres or how about them securing 117 acres in November, only to have Lloyd purchase 161 acres in December because Cuyler said that the boundaries between golf and real estate weren't determined yet, or Hugh Wilson saying that they had 117 acres in February 1911, or the MCC Minutes of April 1911 saying to implement the selected plan it is necessary to purchase 3 acres additional?

I didn't see any of those inconvenient facts in the synopsis??

Or how about statements such as this one?   After telling us that Merion precisely laid out the course and then bought only the property they needed, OOOPS...I guess having an engineer and surveyor on board like Richard Francis didn't turn out to be such a good idea after all.   He only somehow missed an entire three acres!   ::)

9.  Once the Dallas Deal was finally finished, Merion and HDC agree to the purchase/sale of what they believed to be 117 acres (turns out it was 120) and that land was approximated, for illustrative purposes only, on the Nov. 1910 map.

After mapping everything out down to a foot, Merion sends it's members a picture of their new golf course that does not include the new border they supposedly meticulously negotiated and calculated, and which doesn't SHOW ANY GOLF HOLES??

More importantly, I would like David to point out where he thought the 117 acres were that were secured.   NOT that they made an OOPSIE....where those acres were.   YOU DON'T JUST LOSE 3 ACRES.

Similarly, David tells us that Merion's course really did measure out to what Macdonald had mentioned even though the records clearly indicate that they do not.   Instead, David tells us that Merion and Richard Francis somehow MIS-MEASURED their golf course, and his precise calculations 100 years later using Google Earth (not that he knew where the original tees were) indicate that this is so.   ::)

It neglects the entire Richard Francis essay, which says he was added to the Committee...actually, strangely, Mr. Francis seems to have disappeared everywhere except where convenient from the story.

David tries to make great bones about the fact that "Wilson and his committee laid the course upon the ground to a plan of Macdonald's choosing", yet neglects the fact that Wilson and his committee laid the course upon the ground to a plan of their own creation!

Here is the land that David tells us was wide enough to fit the final five holes in...somehow, even though the ground west of today's Golf House Road has no real difference to the land used on today's 1st and 14th holes in topology, they supposedly somehow only had this little rectangle left yet chose not to use any of the land across from the clubhouse it "on ANY golf layout", or so Richard Francis told us.   Oh...and in January 1911 that land was not only going to fit the final five holes of their championship course but was still needing to fit the parking lot AND the Lawn Tennis Courts.  

Talk about painting yourself into a corner!!   :o ::)    Apparently that surveyor was a total dolt!!

But again, David picks from Francis those things he wants and forgets to include every other inconvenient fact.  





Tom MacWood,

I honestly do not think anyone here besides you gives a flip about the Tolhurst account, do you?

What do you think of David's latest attempt to explain this?

Do you think he gives Barker enough credit or does our itinerant pro get the shaft again?



« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 07:30:15 AM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1262 on: September 03, 2010, 07:21:24 AM »
"As usual the height of Mike Cirba's indignation and outrage is inversely related to the soundness of his argument."

David Moriarty:

You are right about that. It seems Mike Cirba's Reply #1253 to your Post #1248 is filled with a rather large degree of profanity and screaming or profane screaming or screaming profanity or whatever description would logically and reasonably (not fallaciously, by the way) or at least not impossibly convey the least "meaningfully inaccurate" interpretation. Or should I just say "presumably?"

And, I can gratuitously admit to you, however we decide to agree on the speculation of the tone of #1253, that his post hurt my ears and offended my sensibilities, as I am, after all, a rather quiet and civilized man who never could and never would.........etc, etc, et al.  



Tom Paul,

Yes, after a night of dinner and drinks and carousing I came home to find THAT gawdawful atrocious drawing with those unsightly cross-hatchings on my computer.

Visually, I was stunned, but then I began to read the accompanying prose and I have to say I was like an epileptic in a room with a strobe light.

I temporarily lost my mind and beg the court's forgiveness.

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1263 on: September 03, 2010, 07:41:56 AM »
"Sheesh...I don't even know where to start."



Mike:

I DO!

And I think the place to start would fit perfectly into what I discussed at length with Ran Morrissett about two weeks ago and specifically about some of the content and subject on this particular thread.

Would you like to hear about it?

I hope so and if Sully and Jeff Brauer and Phil Young and David Moriarty and Tom MacWood would like to hear about it too that would be wonderful for all of us for sure----and I firmly believe for this website and all who participate on it, view it, use it etc.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1264 on: September 03, 2010, 07:48:50 AM »
A separate Merion Asylum on GCA? 

Phil_the_Author

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1265 on: September 03, 2010, 08:10:58 AM »
Tom Paul,

You are right, this is a thread about Tolhurst. I promise you this is my last post on here re: Shawnee as I have no interest in starting  another thread and yet Tom the Mac's VERY INCORRECT reply to me must be addressed.

Tom the Mac, you are incorrect in nearly everything you stated. "Worthington's estate at Shawnee was called Buckwood Park not Manwalamink. Manwalamink was the name of one of the homes at Buckwood Park..."

WRONG! Manwalamink was the original name of Fort Depuy which Worthington purchased and refurbished into the estate home for his family to live in and which was at the heart of the entire estate. It is less than 1/2 mile from the present day Shawnee Inn and one can tour it, as I did just this past Monday with Peter Kirkwood, part of the owning family of Shawnee. Worthington restored the name Manwalamink as the name because of what the name means in the Leni Lenape Indian dialect from which it originated. I'll let you look that one up. I will tell you that it had special meaning to Worthington. Buckwood Park was a separate area CREATED by Worthington through multiple purchases through the years. As a result, a number of people have MISTAKENLY referred to it as Worthington's estate when it wasn't. It was the site of, among other things, his separate HUNTING LODGE, and if you look in my Tilly bio you'll see a photograph that Tilly took from the mountainside where it sat and you'll notice you are nowhere near Worthington's home. It also became part of Worthington's gift to the people of Pennsylvania and makes up part of Worthington State Park.

"The golf course was built in 1907, not 1899-1900."

Once again, WRONG! Manwalamink was built and being played on in 1900, the same year that the CHARTER for the MANWALAMINK GOLF CLUB was applied for and granted. By the way, I have a copy of all those documents and they quite clearly define where it was built and on whose property. Worthington walked out of his front door to the first tee after he built the golf course on it. That is why the golf club bore the SAME name as his home. There were but a few members as it was simply for himself and his friends. As he continued to invite more and more people every year, including Tilly & his family, it became apparent that a REAL Club and Golf Course was needed and so in August of 1910 the Shawnee CC was founded and the course opened in May of 1911.

"Ignoring Worthington's previous design experience was a major error of omission on your part. If you don't believe Worthington was involved in laying out Shawnee I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to interest you in."

Here again you make the usual mistake you make a habit of doing. You want to rewrite history because you ASSUME that some "facts" are relevant when they aren't. That is the case with the vast design experience you are attempting to ascribe to Worthington. Now if you would have gone to Shawnee and examined both the Inn and Club's records and archives you would have CLEARLY SEEN that Worthington had NOTHING to do with the golf course design and that he left it up to Tilly. I know this because I have done that very thing and have copies of many of the documents sitting in front of me as I am working away on the 100-year anniversary book for the owners of Shawnee.

If you'd like to confirm this, as you clearly doubt everything I say, call Shawnee and ask for the Manager of the facilities, Rob Howell. He'll confirm...

This series of posts has been ridiculous and all because you can't accept that someone would hire one who was inexperienced and untested in golf course design and construction to design a major golf course in 1910-12, whether it be Shawnee or Merion.

As I said when I started, Tom Paul, I apologize, but he needed correcting and on here. Regardless of what he posts I will not address this issue again on this thread.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1266 on: September 03, 2010, 10:17:39 AM »
Jeff Brauer,

Regarding your theory on the timing of the Francis Swap...your "deadline" notion rings true to me and the CBM meeting would certainly represent a deadline that would resonate 40 years later...but I wonder why they would have been stuck unless they were using the "approximate road" as a hard border...

- For it to be a light bulb type idea, they surely must have been looking at that line as their fixed western boundary
- Once he/they saw the opportunity of going up above it, the course fell into place
- The triangle, as drawn on November 15th provided more than enough room to put an approach, a green and a tee coming back the opposite way because there are 4 or 5 other instances at Merion in which two driving areas or a driving area and a green are in close proximity and the others all have less width than the original triangle represents for 15 and 16.
- Mike has suggested it was the carry over the quarry that scared them into offering a wide path around it, forcing the 15th tee off further west...this seems to me more of an improvised add-on because the true carry over the quarry is shorter on 16 than on the two following holes. Mike makes a case for 16 being a tougher carry than 17 due to elevation and having your ball on a tee, but it's still only about a tie and 18 is exponentially more than either so I'm not buying the swing out on 16 being "The Swap".

So my question is, why would they have been stuck until April 1911 if they had access to the as-drawn triangle since November when there's no reason the as-drawn triangle presents a real problem? 

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1267 on: September 03, 2010, 10:53:35 AM »
Phil-the-author
Worthington's estate was called Buckwood Park. He purchased the old Depui property, which was about 3000 acres, but Buckwood included outher property and was considerably larger. He used the old Depui home Manwalamink as the clubhouse for his golf course. C.C. lived in a larger newer home on the estate. You are correct the golf course was built in 1899, the invitational tournament was initiated in 1907. Manwalamink golf course was designed to be a replica of Ardsely-on-the-Hudson. Worthington was involved in the establishment of the Caldeno Links near Shawnee as well. So there were three courses he was involved in laying out, four if you included St. Andrews. History is constantly being re-written as new information is uncovered. Your brushing under the rug Worthington's experience in laying out golf courses was a major omission, althought not totally unexpected considering your lack of objectivity.

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1268 on: September 03, 2010, 10:54:14 AM »
"As I said when I started, Tom Paul, I apologize, but he needed correcting and on here. Regardless of what he posts I will not address this issue again on this thread."


Phil:

No need to apologize in the slightest. The post you made to Tom the Mac seems to be excellent and comprehensive in a number of ways. He has your detailed research information and you gave him a seemingly excellent place and source to try to check out his beliefs or what the truth of the situation and question is. If he does neither and just continues to drone on as if he has not gotten much of a response I would just ignore him and not respond again. Your last post is the most anyone could ask you to do or ask you for, in my opinion.

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1269 on: September 03, 2010, 11:08:16 AM »
"So my question is, why would they have been stuck until April 1911 if they had access to the as-drawn triangle since November when there's no reason the as-drawn triangle presents a real problem?"



Sully:

My answers to that would be:

1. As the history of Merion and the supporting material evidence seems to indicate, the Wilson Committee was not formed until January 1911 and may not have started to work on routing and designing a course until the end of that month or even the beginning of the next month (February). And that is certainly what an actual written announcement from MCC to its membership in early January 1911 seems to suggest.

2. The as drawn triangle on the Nov. 1910 land plan (or as it was translated and transposed onto their working contour survey map) really was too narrow to fit #15 green and #16 tee up into where they are today and the Wilson Committee had simply not realized it until they got around to really doing routings and hole designs, particularly the last five holes as Francis explained in his 1950 article (the first thirteen came first), which given the timing of the formation of the Wilson Committee and given what was reported in the so-called Wilson Committee Report to the April 19, 1911 about when they did routings, and including Francis' ENTIRE article, seems to indicate.

It may seem counter-intuitive to you that they actually began in 1911 and progressed through the routing sequence as they did but that most certainly does not mean it isn't true and it most certainly does not mean that is NOT precisely what actually happened.

Again, that is precisely what much of this recently found MCC meeting minute material seems to indicate----MCC material, I might add, David Moriarty did not only NOT have when he wrote his essay but was not even aware of when he wrote his essay. Matter of fact, judging from what he said on a few posts today he still does not seem particularly aware of what it is or what it says.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 11:18:02 AM by TEPaul »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1270 on: September 03, 2010, 11:13:42 AM »
Jim,

I think one tends to get stuck on things once a line is on the paper. I know I do, and my young associates always have. If those beginners react the way other beginning designers do, it is possible.

I disagree that the sliver shown on the Nov 15, 1910 plan is enough for a tee and a green.  And, since Francis mentions the 15th green and 16th tee by name and NOT the alternate route to 16 green, I guess I disagree with Mike, too.  Based on what is written by those there, not speculated by us.

As to why they were stuck until April 6, 1911 on the routing....well speculation but

1.  They started no earlier than Jan 1911 when the committee was formed,
2.  They started routing no earlier than they got the topo maps.  IF the topo maps were commissioned AFTER the purchase (and no topo shows on the Nov 15, 1910 plan) and that took some time, it is quite possible that no routing took place until even later, like February.  (I had a topo commissioned for a golf course in 2006 and even then, it took several weeks)
3.  They started no earlier than March.  Why go to CBM for an education and draw plans before going to see the teacher?  It makes just as much sense that the waited until after their visit, no?  And the only SPECIFIC mention of routing plans is the five done AFTER that meeting.

BTW, as to your earlier general question about why they would buy land before doing any routing:

It’s 100 years later and the land requirements for golf courses have doubled.  If my phone rang right now, and a client emailed me a map showing a gently rolling, regularly shaped parcel of land with 200 acres, I could probably take a look pretty quickly and tell him if there were any hindrances to building a golf course on it, as CBM did.  If I was offered that kind of land at 240 acres (the same 20% increase over the minimum that Merion was getting) I would send a contract and get started on design!

Of the 50 courses I have designed, I would guess 90% of them bought the land, then started routing. Only a select few have added or changed land later. Out of the 300 jobs I have interviewed for, 90% of them bought the land before engaging a golf course architect.  

Out of 15,000 USA courses I will wager that the 90% rule holds true.

More specific to Merion, the record also shows that they didn’t bother to study the soils until after the property was bought.  While modern due diligence would indicate some soil testing be done before purchase, things in general just weren’t that sophisticated back then, at least in golf, and it is evidence that they plunged in without full study of the property.

More later, in response to David.




Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1271 on: September 03, 2010, 01:16:34 PM »
Jeff:

Thanks for the info from your career experiences on projects buying land first and then beginning a routing. I don't know if that was just a question from Jim Sullivan or his opinion or something of both but it's good to know some real statistics on that from your career in golf architecture.

I'm afraid there has been far too much on this thread of people just offering their opinion that is unsupported by fact and then just trying to make it look like fact or make it look like a given.

Moriarty's essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" is just riddled throughout with that kind of thing. When I get back tonight I'll list the many examples of it in that essay. And of course one of his apparent collaborators on that essay, Tom MacWood, seems to do it on here even more often than Moriarty which is saying a lot.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 01:19:25 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1272 on: September 03, 2010, 01:18:22 PM »

Of the 50 courses I have designed, I would guess 90% of them bought the land, then started routing. Only a select few have added or changed land later. Out of the 300 jobs I have interviewed for, 90% of them bought the land before engaging a golf course architect.  



Thanks Jeff...the quote above is really compelling in this argument coming from a professional. You should have said it 400 pages ago...

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1273 on: September 03, 2010, 01:23:45 PM »
Sully:

He probably should have but maybe he didn't notice it stated as a given 400 pages ago. I'm glad you accept what he said as you did. That's the kind of give and take some of these threads need a lot more of.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1274 on: September 03, 2010, 02:33:42 PM »
Half the courses in this country were not routed when we stated this 400 pages ago. ;)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back