[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Have you not been following this thread and the previous thread? It began when TEP said the claims that Tolhurst's account was full of errors was an empty claim. I then posted a link to this old thread, and pointed out that TEP never did address the mistakes I pointed out. He then said he would address them point by point. Sully began with the first three, and we on number two. Why don't you wait until we get to through 1 to 13 before you address mistake #14?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Call me inpatient, but I sometimes like to read ahead to the final chapter to see if anything really important happened.

I don't think my question is that difficult that we first need another 50-100 pages of haranguing about meaningless and minor details that Tolhurst wrote about 80 years later, do you?

When do you think the course was routed, before November 15, 1910, or during the spring of 1911?

Pre-Wilson's involvement or after Wilson became head of the Committee??

It's an easy question, I've already given you the answer.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Someone will have to remind me of the importance of discussing mistakes of others on this board, or opinions of others on this board, or qualifications of others on this board, rather than golf course architecture.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
This thread is about the accuracy of Tolhurst's account. Why don't you start your own thread and I'll answer your question over there?

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
If you don't like this thread don't read it or post on it.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I'm heading out for a few days, but will be in limited contact.   I really only have passing interest in exploring the minor details where Tolhurst might have made some errors, but will continue to read.

I really will be looking to see if you answer my simple question, though.   It seems pointless to me to go through the rest of these details again if you and David are no longer disputing that Hugh Wilson and his Committee routed the original golf course, with Macdonald's valuable help and advice.  

In any case, I'm sure we'll type more soon.   Take care.

  

[JESII]

Tom m,

I think it's important to realize that the task is yours to prove those underlined sections are in fact false. Tolhurst wrote them, you disagree with them, prove it! I am willing to go through your post one by one...and point #1 was conceded (by me and only me) out of exhaustion, not belief...but MY concession stands.

Point #2 - How can you prove that they did not explore acquiring more land around the Haverford site?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

As usual, you don't address the questions do you? Either mine specifically, the reason for this thread, the big picture, or even the meaning of life......

I took a look back at your original July 2009 post, which was also apparently in response to some other older thread, no?

You underlined so much stuff, I seriously doubt any of us can go through it. Yes, I know, Jim Sullivan asked just three questions.

Can you recall if you posted this thread in July 2009 in response to something? Or was it really just a new, separate topic and endeavor?  If, as you suggest (and probably rightly so) it is your accounting of a general history of Merion and its inadequacy historically, then you are right, I will bow out.   

I know you and DM have different opinions, but something written 55 years later cannot possibly have affected the how Merion came to be and I have no intersest in endlessly discussing minor (and/or a few major) errors (or your opinions of what constitutes and error) in a club history book, whereas I was somewhat interested in seeing how Merion actually developed.  And frankly, if I was going to discuss that kind of topic, I would be more interesting in starting with some kind of general survey of other histories, and maybe arrive at some consensus as to what perhaps they should include, rather than endlessly bash Merion for whatever some guy wrote a few years back, or whether he copied too much (I actually agree with you it seems to)

My question stands - what is the point of this and where do we hope to go or learn? 

[JESII]

Mike Cirba,

My answer to your question is that I think the whole goal of Lloyd on behalf of both Merion and HDC was to get Merion to buy as little land as possible for their discounted price to maximize the land available at the escalated price.

IF we agree on that basic premise (or something close to it) how could they not have informally routed the course prior to agreeing on which land to buy?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I'm going to have to agree with TMac on this one. Its a separate thread.  Only difference IMHO is that particular thread has already happened.  Maybe TMac can post the reference to that one, too. 

I think, BTW, that we thrashed that out, again to the satisfaction of most.  I had postulated that over the several months that the deal took to come together, guys like Hugh Wilson, curious sorts they seemed to be, had to have taken a swipe or two at it.  They might have even used Barkers routing for the developer as a starting point.  I was soundly thrashed for that viewpoint, and it was pointed out that the "formal" routing process had to be sometime after that colored map was presented because:

*If it was routed, they probably would have shown it on that map for the members
*They met with CBM in March the next year to go over plans
*They had to swap some land out and add 3 acres (actually 6, since there was another PRR parcel that became the 13th hole) in 1911,  which they wouldn't have had to do had the routing been done in November 1910.  The actual land swap was legally formalized later in 1911, indicating the probable flexible relationship between the two entities.

But, there I go, thread jacking.

Nothing like multiple Merion threads, but there is precedence!

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I think Jeff covered most of it, but also because Wilson and his Committee came back back from NGLA in early March and "re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans".  

But most importantly, in case there was any question that we're talking about course routings here when we refer to "plans",   because there was no final routing decided until April, 6th, 1911, at which time Macdonald and Whigham, "...after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself...", recommended one of them that they felt would not only result in a "first class course", but one where "the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world."

Later that month, that recommended routing went for approval to the Merion Board of Governors, was accepted, and construction began forthwith, as recorded in the April, 1911 MCC Minutes;

"In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional."….

“Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.…………..and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500”


Jim...we also know that Francis himself said the first 13 holes had already been routed and his brainstorm helped them create enough room to fit the final five.    If he had his idea prior to November, 1910, why would they have needed to grab up an additional six acres after then?   Six acres is not insignificant to a routing...I used to have a 2-acre property, and I can tell you it was a bitch to mow! 

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Well it was an interesting exercise while it lasted.   I guess it was inevitable that Mike would get excited about something or another and try to take over the thread.   What is this . . . the 9,432nd time he has proclaimed he's figured it all out once and for all?   Sheesh.

Mike,

Why are you doing this to this thread?   It is the first thing resembling a reasonable conversation about Merion in quite some time.   Are you trying to torpedo it because you know what is coming next?

Why don't you take your exciting theory and put it in an IMO and then put it out there for all to critique.   But be sure to include all the other horrible errors you think I made in my essay, too.  I'll be glad to address it all then.
Or why don't you start a thread on it, and then sit and wait for me to respond.    I'm sure I'll get to it at some point.  Really. 

[Dan Herrmann]

Mike - a bit off topic, but I'm curious...  What was the condition of that land in 1910?  (Forest, farm, prairie, etc)?

[Mike Cirba]

Mike - a bit off topic, but I'm curious...  What was the condition of that land in 1910?  (Forest, farm, prairie, etc)?

Dan,

It was mostly farmland, a large portion had been a cornfield.


David,

Discuss all the meaningless minutiae about the Tolhurst book you'd like and use whatever sleight of hand you need to avoid answering the direct and simple question.

Did the routing of Merion East happen before November 15th, 1910 as your essay contends, or after then?

It's not a rude question...I'm just trying to see if we're all on the same page here as far as the timing of what we're discussing, because until we get agreement on that point there will be no progress.

[JESII]

Jeff and Mike,

I know I'm on an island on this one.

Everybody seems to want to take these guys at their word some of the time but not all of the time...I'm willing to fudge just about everything they said to make my point...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

You are a rare bird here, in at least you ADMIT you are trying to fudge it up.

In the end, its all interpretations. I am as strong in my belief as DM, TMac, TePaul and Mike are.  I just don't know how this will ever be solved on here.  Different people see it different ways, although in some cases, it might be that they are splitting fine hairs but wouldn't even admit to how close they are in principle.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I definitely take Francis at his word...I just don't interpret what he said in the way you do...and the way David did.

I think he was talking about the final dimensions needed in that area to fit both the end of 15 and the start of 16, because I doubt he'd trade "the land that's now covered by fine houses (plural) along Golf House Road" for a 130x190 plot, especially considering that they started with 117 acres in November 1910 and ended up needing 123 after Francis's brainstorm.

I'm off to Arizona.

Want to bet whether either Tom or David will answer my simple, either/or question before I get back?   

[DMoriarty]

Mike I can tell you right now that I won't.   It is like talking to a seven year old.   But just answer this one question.   Just one.  I only want to to say just one thing.  And just one more.  And just one more.    Does the attention always have to be on you all the time?

I've answered plenty of times in the past.  Dig it up in the archives if you forgot my answer.   If you like your theory, put it in an IMO along with all the rest of your critique and let's see it.   Or start a new thread and see who responds.  But I am NOT discussing the swap with you again. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

To be fair, you have repeatedly asked questions over and over, and seemingly need to be the center of attention.  Kettle, call Mr. Black.  I blame everyone equally, and am back to wondering if all of this is really necessary.  I mean, you said it all above - you won't agree. Neither will Philly guys.

Neutral parties (if any exist) see both sides, how you came to conclusions but just know there is no agreement to be had.  Never will.  So again, what is the point?

I think TMac has it right. Most of us need to stay away from this train wreck.

Did you know they used to stage train wrecks, using old locos that were going to be torched anyway?  Before TV and the internet, that was considered some mighty fine entertainment.  I have some old pictures of one staged on my grandfathers farm in Ohio.

Not sure why I brought that up.  On the other hand, it seems as relevant as most other posts here......

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,   I understand if you think it is pointless.   I don't understand why you try to convince others it is pointless.   I don't understand why you guys are derailing this thread.    If it is pointless for you then don't participate.   

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I do understand why you refuse to concede and just state the obvious as I know you put a lot of work into this, but arguing useless minutae about a book that has nothing to do with anyone's histic undestanding of the origins of Merion rather than trying to actually move the conversation forward seems a waste to me.
Besides, if yo and Tom's contention is that M+W didn't get their due I think you'd have a better argument focusing on the period they actually were involved in spring 1911 instead of trying to convince us they did some mystery routing in 1910 that there is no record or mention of anywhere, by anyone.

Getting past that whole 1910 nonsense is the only way I can see to get more productive and perhaps all actually learn more about what really happened.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  this thread was heading toward a specific discussion of CBM's and HJW's role in the spring of 1911, or at least Merion's misunderstanding of it.  The only thing holding it back is yet another final-answer-once-and-for-all Cirba tangents.

[Mike Cirba]

David

Ok...I'll check back in a few months to see if you're up to 1911 yet. 

Carry on.

[JESII]

Tom M,

I think it's important to realize that the task is yours to prove those underlined sections are in fact false. Tolhurst wrote them, you disagree with them, prove it! I am willing to go through your post one by one...and point #1 was conceded (by me and only me) out of exhaustion, not belief...but MY concession stands.

Point #2 - How can you prove that they did not explore acquiring more land around the Haverford site?

Tom? David?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,   Your question is a good indication of the futility of this approach and the incredible weight that you and others place in favor of Tolhurst.    Tolhurst wrote what was supposed to be a historical work, but he didn't provide any references to sources to back up any of his points, and looks to have just loosely borrowed from Heilman.  Yet you want to treat his work as gospel truth until it is proven otherwise.   That is not the way these things are supposed to work.  If we are going to treat Tolhurst's as a history book, then the contents were his to prove true, not ours to prove false.   The reasons for this are manyfold, not the least of which is that it is almost impossible to prove certain types of claims to be false.    

How on earth would you expect that we could prove that Merion did not try to buy surrounding land?  No matter what we came up with you could always speculate as to some other way that it could have happened.   If Merion's Board stated that they didn't try to buy the surrounding land, you'd probably take this as evidence that they did!  I'm not saying that Tolhurst should have backed up his claims like he would have in an academic work, but I am saying to demand absolute proof of every single false detail before you doubt him is unreasonable, especially because we now know that substantial portions of Tolhurst are wrong.   Whatever benefit of the doubt you and others might have given him, it ought to have worn out by now.  

It seems a more solid approach was the one that TomM suggested and the one that TEPaul was supposedly doing.   Since Tolhurst didn't meet the burden, TEPaul was supposed to doing it for him.   TEPaul has access to all the records, and if there was any basis for claiming that Merion tried to buy the neighboring land, TEPaul would have and could have brought it forward.   But their isn't any basis.

A possible scenario is that Tolhurst realized that it didn't really make sense for the club to have been trying to buy a site that was too small, so he had them trying to buy the neighboring sites instead.   That would have made more sense, but there is nothing in the record of which I am aware that indicates that it happened this way.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()