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.


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1575 on: April 26, 2011, 10:33:38 AM »
Jeff
You to admit its not a good comparison....the Wilson scenario is a highly implausible one IMO, bordering on impossible.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1576 on: April 26, 2011, 10:54:53 AM »
Except that it happened. But, according to your logic, HHBarker designed the golf course because the train ran through Philly, which in itself is enough to discount any of your logic or opinons.

Your opinion just happens to be wrong, no matter how you cut it.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1577 on: April 26, 2011, 12:20:11 PM »
Jim, you asked for my thoughts on this passage from Wilson's February 1, 1911 letter:
"Mr. Charles McDonald spoke of you and said that you could help us out if anyone could. We realize the value of his advice and immediately decided that we would write to you and see if you would be good enough to help us out."

I think that, sometime shortly before this letter was written, Wilson had spoken to CBM about Piper and CBM said that Piper could help them.  Shortly thereafter Wilson wrote to Piper for help. This seems to me to be the most logical, obvious, and straightforward reading of this passage and this letter.  All the rest seems like word parsing and stretching beyond reasonableness.

Did Wilson Immediately Decide to Write Months Before Writing?  You try to read this statement into your theory about Wilson having been out there much earlier and reason, "Deciding to write, and writing are two different events, wouldn't you agree?"   Technically yes, but when it comes to reasonably understanding what Wilson meant, NO.    It would make no sense for him to have meant, 'we immediately decided to write eight months ago, and then didn't bother to write until now.    It just doesn't make sense.

Was Wilson Referring to the June CBM Letter?   Others have suggested that this letter was referring to the last sentence in the June CBM letter.  That doesn't make sense either.
1.  Wilson is referring to a conversation, not a letter:   "CBM spoke of you and said . . ."
2.  The immediately expresses urgency which just doesn't apply to a letter that was written eight months ago.
3.  The June letter does not mention Piper.
4.  The June letter does not mention the specific inquiries Wilson is making.  

Given Wilson's Personality and Mode of Operation, What Makes Most Sense?

Tom MacWood tried to inject some logic and common sense into this only to be insulted by the usual suspects. While I am sure they will declare that my theory "sucks" as well, I will nonetheless also try to inject a little common sense into the discussion.  

Read the letter in the context of what we know about how Hugh Wilson operated.  As I noted above, it is not as if he was shy about asking experts for help!   We only have one database of of letters - the Piper Oakley Letters - but from these we can see that Wilson sent letters constantly, sometimes wrote multiple letters a week, looking for help with this project.  The only letters we have are those he sent to Piper and Oakley, so is it reasonable to conclude that he only wrote to Piper and Oakley?    Of course not!  The Piper Oakley letters are evidence of how Wilson operated and would be unreasonable to think that he would have limited this behavior only to dealing with them!   So, given that Wilson was admittedly in way over his head, and given that he had the two foremost experts at his disposal, is it reasonable to believe that Wilson would have refrained from contacting them?   Honestly, do you think it reasonable that Wilson wasn't contacting CBM for help just as much or more than he was contacting Piper/Oakley?  I don't think so.  In fact, later letters in the Piper/Oakley files confirm that Wilson and CBM were corresponding.   We have no idea how much they were corresponding, but one can get an idea of that by looking at Wilson's methods with Piper and Oakley!  

But then this is where common sense comes into play, and also where we have to understand the limited nature of historical records.   There are bound to be periods of time where records are lacking, and databases (such as a complete set of CBM Wilson correspondence) which would be terrific to have but are not available.   We cannot pretend that nothing happened when we know something happened, or when common sense gives us a very good idea of what likely happened!  

And frankly, it is unfathomable to me that Wilson would not have contacted CBM once he became involved in the project.
-  Especially given the weight Merion was had placed and would continue to place on CBM's and HJW's recommendations!
-  Especially given the fact that within a few months  Wilson would be traveling up to NGLA so that CBM could continue to help them with the layout plan!
-  How do you suppose that came about if CBM and HJW weren't even in contact?   Do you suppose Wilson just showed up at his door, hoping that CBM was home?   Or do you suppose it was something they had been discussing?    There is no evidence of them discussing it, so by the logic around here I guess that Wilson must have just knocked on the door and introduced himself and demanded a few days of CBM's time!  

I mean, come on, we need to be reasonable here.  We are not idiots.  Wilson would have been all over CBM for help, just like he was all over Piper and Oakley.  Even contacting P&O was at CBM's directive!   So pretending that the letter refers to anything else is a stretch beyond the breaking point.  

Same goes for the late December or early January statement that "experts were at work" planning the course.  We need only look to who Merion treated as experts to see who was meant. The only experts involved were CBM, HJW, and HHBarker, and at that stage Merion seems to have been focused on CBM and HJW.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 12:22:10 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)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1578 on: April 26, 2011, 12:50:17 PM »
David,

I assume Macdonald mentioned Piper and Oakley while he was at the site in June 1910, and followed up in the letter...don't you think that is most reasonable? Regarding the 6 or 7 month delay, they didn't need to grow any grass until then so why bother writing yet. Just a hypothetical, yet logical, reading of the words. As you know, I agree CBM was corresponding with the Merion folks to some degree between July 1910 and March 1911 but there is a logical readin of that paragraph that does not rely on a recent conversation.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1579 on: April 26, 2011, 01:19:35 PM »
http://tinyurl.com/5rm5jvt

Here's Whigham's eulogy as printed in George's book. It begins on page 263.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 01:36:57 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1580 on: April 26, 2011, 01:35:59 PM »
David,

I agree that Wilson probably contacted CBM right after being named to the committee. It might be, because of protocol that Lloyd set them up to start the relationship, and Wilson as head of the committee kept it going.

As you say, they didn’t just show up at NGLA in March without notice, so MCC and CBM must have spoken not only about setting up that meeting, but about other steps in “getting the committee off to a good start” which might include information on soils, getting a contour map, etc.

As we assume more, there is of course, a greater chance for error.  My opinon of us putting CBM on site in late 1910 is summed up almost perfectly by your last paragraph in 1569 speaking of Wilson in the same light. Nothing in this logical pattern of contact suggests they were in contact any earlier.


For that matter, in re-reading Mike’s post of Francis’s memories, the following logic applies:

Wilson appointed to committee Jan 11
Francis appointed later (his own words)
Francis looking at maps, Francis comes up with land swap

So, how can we conclude the Francis land swap occurred prior to 1911, when there is no evidence of him being involved, either, prior to that time?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 02:00:06 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1581 on: April 26, 2011, 01:59:02 PM »
Tom MacWood,

So you've now deemed it "impossible" that Hugh Wilson and his committee designed Merion.   Too funny.

I know you are still on your Barker thing, despite any evidence to support that contention, but when you keep mentioning that Merion had two of the best architects at their disposal, I'm guessing that you are including Barker in that group, despite a general lack of credentials and/or many courses of quality that survived even the 20s before being completely revamped, with the possible exception of Mayfield, but that seems like a place that Bert Way put lots of effort into over many years to build it into what it became.

In any case, my related question for you is this;

Why do you think the December 1906 articles that reported on NGLA's securing of land pointed out clearly that no professionals would be used and no professional advice would be sought?

Why do you think CBM, Whigham, Emmet, and Travis were also reported to say in late 1906 that the only 3 good American courses were Myopia, Garden City, and Chicago, ALL designed by amateurs?

Do you think CBM thought Barker was the best architect of the time before him?

Do you think CBM would have advised Merion to use Barker??

Besides, I'm not sure what you mean when you say Merion had two architects "at their disposal"?   Barker was brought in to assess the property by Joseph Connell of HDC, not Merion.   With the amateur ethos at Merion being very strong, it seemingly was not a good fit.

Secondly, as seen on this thread, CBM had his own hands full trying to get his course open and clubhouse built.

He had a soft, informal Opening Day Invitation tournament just 3 days after he wrote his letter to Merion on July 2nd, 1910 and didn't open the course formally until the next year.   Reports of the course conditions were very raw...

There is no record that Merion ever asked CBM to design their course and no record that he did.

There is no record that Merion ever asked Barker to design their course and no record that he did.

This whole theory is made of cheesecloth and ALL the physical evidence disputes your logic and disbelief.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 02:17:01 PM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1582 on: April 26, 2011, 02:10:49 PM »
I've never quite understood why people read Francis' words to mean he was a late addition to the committee...beyond his words which are subject to multiple interpretations...is there anything to support his being a late addition to the committee? I think just the way he wrote that paragraph twisted you guys a bit...

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1583 on: April 26, 2011, 02:33:09 PM »
David,

I assume Macdonald mentioned Piper and Oakley while he was at the site in June 1910, and followed up in the letter...don't you think that is most reasonable?

No I don't think that is the most reasonable or even all that reasonable.  It makes no sense that Wilson meant:   I had IMMEDIATELY decided to write about eight months ago, but I am just getting around to writing now!   "Immediately" puts a sense of urgency and immediacy on this whole thing that aptly described what he know about how Wilson operated.   He wouldn't have waited seven or eight months to write!  And if for some reason he had waited, then he certainly wouldn't have written that he immediately decided to write.

Also Jim, so far as we know, Wilson wasn't out there.

Quote
Regarding the 6 or 7 month delay, they didn't need to grow any grass until then so why bother writing yet.

You are grasping here, Jim.  You don't grow grass in January either, and there is plenty one can do ahead of time to prepare to grow grass.  And Wilson didn't know how to grow grass which is why he was writing.  So assuming he was on some sort of schedule relating to the growing schedule makes no sense to me.   Plus it doesn't fit with the immediacy expressed in the letter.

Quote
Just a hypothetical, yet logical, reading of the words.

Hypothetical yes but not all that logical, and certainly not the most logical.   Wilson expressed immediacy, and your "hypothetical" has them biding their time for seven or eight months.  Wilson connects the immediacy to CBM's advice. There is no reasonable way to put seven or eight months between the advice and the letter when Wilson described reacting IMMEDIATELY.

Quote
As you know, I agree CBM was corresponding with the Merion folks to some degree between July 1910 and March 1911 but there is a logical readin of that paragraph that does not rely on a recent conversation.

This is why I keep saying that these guys were not dumb and we need not pretend we are idiots when we read and consider this stuff.  One cannot twist and stretch passages beyond recognition to come up with alternate theories and then proclaim these theories to be "logical readings" and therefor equal or better than more straight forward and consistent explanations. Yet that is what is going on here.  You guys (or those guys) don't like the implications of the logical and straight forward reading of this passage.   So they try and twist it to fit with some alternate reading whether it fits well or not.   That way they can keep up the fantasy of extremely limited involvement by CBM despite the records to the contrary.  

The letter described CBM speaking and Wilson immediately reacting.  This is exactly fitting with what we know about how Wilson acted.   We just cannot stretch this out over seven or eight months and call that a "logical reading."
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 02:43:00 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)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1584 on: April 26, 2011, 02:41:41 PM »
Jim,

You might be right on the Francis deal.  He may have been on the committee from the start, and I might be parsing words too finely. That said, its a minor point that doesn't affect anything as far as I can tell. 

There is nothing to suggest that either Wilson or Francis was involved prior to Jan 1911, which by association means the Francis land swap had to have taken place after that.  From memory, the timing of that swap was also subject to great debate.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1585 on: April 26, 2011, 02:47:08 PM »
Jim,

I'd agree.   I think Francis was named at the same time the committee was formed.

That being said, if Francis had done anything prior to January 1911, ESPECIALLY if he had come up with the idea that FINALIZED the routing prior to January, don't you think he would have made that eminently clear?

Instead, he makes clear that his work was accomplished within the context and timeframe of serving on the Committee, which we know was formalized in January 1911.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 02:51:55 PM by MCirba »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1586 on: April 26, 2011, 02:56:19 PM »
One cannot twist and stretch passages beyond recognition to come up with alternate theories and then proclaim these theories to be "logical readings" and therefor equal or better than more straight forward and consistent explanations. Yet that is what is going on here.  

You, betcha! (insert Sarah Palin voice here if you wish, or Tina Fey)  

Only problem is, David does it more than anyone.

You guys (or those guys) don't like the implications of the logical and straight forward reading of this passage.   So they try and twist it to fit with some alternate reading whether it fits well or not.   That way they can keep up the fantasy of extremely limited involvement by CBM despite the records to the contrary.  

And which records are these?  As far as my last reading of your essay, and some of your proclamations, there is really no evidence docuented of CBM's involvement after June 1910 and before March 1910, although I just coneded in another post that we can ageree they did correspond to set up the March meeting, and may have covered other preliminary matters.

Even if I agree with your interpretation of the Wilso 2-1 letter to Oakley meant there had been some recent contact, stretching that beyond that point would require, IMHO, some documentation.  Have you offered any?

One of your best (or worst) tactics is to accuse others of doing just what it is you do as another form of deflection.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 02:58:48 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1587 on: April 26, 2011, 03:00:26 PM »
Really...this is ridiculous already.

If anyone has ANY physical or even anecdotal evidence of ANY communications between Merion and CBM in the EIGHT MONTHS between his one-day visit in June 1910 and March 1911 when Hugh Wilson's committee visited him at NGLA, please produce it now.

Never has so much been written about so little.


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1588 on: April 26, 2011, 03:06:50 PM »
But Mike, we do have the answers from that magnificent, mysterious visitor from the East, (well east L.A.), that famous seer & sage, the all-knowing, all-seeing, omniscient, Moriarity the Magnificent!

"I hold in my hand the envelopes. As a child of four can plainly see, these envelopes have been hermetically sealed. They've been kept in a #2 mayonnaise jar under Funk and Wagnall's porch since noon today. No one - NO ONE! - knows the contents of these envelopes, but Moriarity the Magnificent, in his borderline divine and mystical way, will ascertain the answers having never before seen the questions."

(With apologies to Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon) but somehow, David’s proclamations about his (and only his) ability to divine what must have happened from nearly out of thin air, it just reminds me of Carnak!

Only Moriarity the Magnificent can take two words from a letter and divine six months of detailed design involvement by Charles Blair McDonald!  Truly mystical.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 03:44:21 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1589 on: April 26, 2011, 03:56:46 PM »
Jim,

I keep saying we are not idiots and don't have to behave like idiots, but these guys keep trying to prove me wrong on this point.  

They have no interest in figuring this stuff out.  And neither of them can reasonably explain how "immediately" can connect to an event seven or eight months before.     Brauer even admits that there was communication going on, but still can't resist wading in with his foolish garbage and mockery.  

Its like the joke where the guy says "give me a sign, any sign" and then gets struck by lightning, and then says, "like I was saying, just any sign at all . . . "

« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 03:58:47 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)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1590 on: April 26, 2011, 05:32:19 PM »
David,

Here's another old joke that sums up some of your recent contentions:

Kids eat mashed potatos as babies
Some kids try pot in their early teens
Some kids who use pot go onto cocaine
Therefore, a baby who eats mashed potatos will use cocaine

Let’s look at your logic, oh mystical one, and see what flies and what doesn’t.  From your post 1580, I have the following comments, cut and pasted.

Read the letter in the context of what we know about how Hugh Wilson operated.  As I noted above, it is not as if he was shy about asking experts for help!  Fair enough.

We only have one database of of letters - the Piper Oakley Letters - but from these we can see that Wilson sent letters constantly, sometimes wrote multiple letters a week, looking for help with this project.  The only letters we have are those he sent to Piper and Oakley, so is it reasonable to conclude that he only wrote to Piper and Oakley?    Of course not!  

Possible, but still an assumption, upon which you build yet further assumptions.  


The Piper Oakley letters are evidence of how Wilson operated and would be unreasonable to think that he would have limited this behavior only to dealing with them!    

So having no evidence is as good as having evidence, so it must be true?  We have seen that from you before.  A nice sleight of hand that allows you to draw any conclusion you want.


So, given that Wilson was admittedly in way over his head,

Actually, Wilson didn’t admit that until 1916, saying had they know that at the time they started, they might not have done it.  This was right at his start.

and given that he had the two foremost experts at his disposal, is it reasonable to believe that Wilson would have refrained from contacting them?  

Possible, and I agree he did contact CBM, if nothing more than to set up the March meeting.  But, if CBM had already designed the course, why go there?  Even if only for discussing FEATURE designs, why your contention that they brought routing maps for CBM to look at in MARCH, if he had routed the course by November?  How exactly was he deeply involved?

Honestly, do you think it reasonable that Wilson wasn't contacting CBM for help just as much or more than he was contacting Piper/Oakley?  I don't think so.  In fact, later letters in the Piper/Oakley files confirm that Wilson and CBM were corresponding.   We have no idea how much they were corresponding, but one can get an idea of that by looking at Wilson's methods with Piper and Oakley!  

You are right, we have no idea how much they corresponded.  But since face to face meetings were also a feature of the CBM/MCC contacts, and it took them to March to meet him, and discuss preliminary design ideas, how does this play into your contention that CBM was helping them design the course before January?  For that matter, its just as possible that obtaining desig information would have been handled differently (and it was in part) than getting soil tests and the like.  We are starting to get further afield of what is readily supported, and more into ssumptions, which critical thinkers will always question.

But then this is where common sense comes into play, and also where we have to understand the limited nature of historical records.   There are bound to be periods of time where records are lacking, and databases (such as a complete set of CBM Wilson correspondence) which would be terrific to have but are not available.   We cannot pretend that nothing happened when we know something happened, or when common sense gives us a very good idea of what likely happened!  

We know things did happen (land acquired, corporations formed, and some other stuff in the actual record we do have.  Common sense or your Carackinan (sounds like a breakfast cereal) methods cannot help  us fill in with certainty beyond that, but that is what you have us believe ONLY YOU can do.
And frankly, it is unfathomable to me that Wilson would not have contacted CBM once he became involved in the project.
-  Especially given the weight Merion was had placed and would continue to place on CBM's and HJW's recommendations!
-  Especially given the fact that within a few months Wilson would be traveling up to NGLA so that CBM could continue to help them with the layout plan!
-  How do you suppose that came about if CBM and HJW weren't even in contact?   Do you suppose Wilson just showed up at his door, hoping that CBM was home?   Or do you suppose it was something they had been discussing?    There is no evidence of them discussing it, so by the logic around here I guess that Wilson must have just knocked on the door and introduced himself and demanded a few days of CBM's time!  

We are already in agreement that Wilson contacted CBM to set up the March planning meeting.  Again, I am asking two questions of you:  If you think HW would have contacted CBM immediately, and been all over him for help, but also say that help came in March, how do you square that with CBM having already routed the course in 1910?  Also, if after first contact with CBM, he immediately wrote to Piper/Oakley, how does that square with him being in constant contact with CBM prior to his Feb 1 letter?  He couldn’t have meant “immediately” if he had been in contact with him earlier, right?  Or would he have written ‘After CBM got on my ass for not writing you after he told me to in several calls and letters, I decided to do it immediately?  It would appear that HW first contact would have been the morning of Feb 1, or just before by your reading and interpretation of the words.

I mean, come on, we need to be reasonable here.  We are not idiots.  Wilson would have been all over CBM for help, just like he was all over Piper and Oakley.  Even contacting P&O was at CBM's directive!   So pretending that the letter refers to anything else is a stretch beyond the breaking point.  

Same goes for the late December or early January statement that "experts were at work" planning the course.  We need only look to who Merion treated as experts to see who was meant. The only experts involved were CBM, HJW, and HHBarker, and at that stage Merion seems to have been focused on CBM and HJW.  

There was long debate over the use of the term experts.  Within Merion, their committee were their experts, and even if referring to CBM, this reference ties his work only forward to about the same time as the land purchase and committee formation, entirely consistent with the committee doing the work, with an assist from CBM.

Say what you want.  You took two works "immediately contacted" and try to tell us that ti gives us a reat ieda about what happened over six months time.  Amazing Carnak!  To be charitable, its just a bit of a stretch.  BW, if your answer is that its quite possible that CBM started helping more than was known about Feb 1 when Wilson first contacted him, then its a lot easier to swallow.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 05:36:30 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1591 on: April 26, 2011, 05:42:46 PM »
As you can see, I could probably come up with several inconsistencies each time Moriarity the Magnificent tries to spin his theories from a few snippets, rather than read the simple meaning of the words in the actual records.  Of course, we have already done that over several 100 page threads, and it hasn't slowed him down.

The Philly boys are just following the club records.  David and TMac build their arguments on documents that aren't there, logic that says no evidence allows us to know what happened, the assumption that the club members writing their documents and records consistently didn't write what they really meant to write, assumptions that certain terms, like "laying out a golf course" don't mean what they really mean, that clubs, individuals and universities are conspiring against them to withhold the truth, etc.

Which makes more sense to you?  Simple explanation based on actual records, or complicated explanations where 1000 words still doesn't convey it, and then, they have to tell the rest of us we just aren't smart enough to understand?

I know how I am casting my vote!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1592 on: April 26, 2011, 07:03:03 PM »
Jim,

As I recall you had two related issues you put out for discussion:

1.  Was HWilson involved in the design process prior to January 1911; and
2. Was Wilson's February 1, 1911, letter referring to a recent conversation with CBM, or one which took place many months before. 

I hope I addressed both of these issues to your satisfaction.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1593 on: April 26, 2011, 10:41:59 PM »

I've never quite understood why people read Francis' words to mean he was a late addition to the committee...beyond his words which are subject to multiple interpretations...is there anything to support his being a late addition to the committee? I think just the way he wrote that paragraph twisted you guys a bit...


Jim,

I've always wondered about a "Francis-Raynor" connection.

Surely, like lawyer to lawyer, doctor to doctor, they must have had communications about issues vital to any golf course.

I have to get up at 5:00 am tomorrow, which is completely contrary to my circadian rhythm, so I'll try to get back over the weekend

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1594 on: April 26, 2011, 10:58:26 PM »
I have no idea who originally laid out Merion, but there are only two options that make sense to me - Barker or CBM - or some combination. Wilson and his committee were in charge of overseeing construction...please read Wilson's own account and his numerous letters.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1595 on: April 27, 2011, 12:09:43 AM »
Tom,

The Barker mention is a good reminder.  These guys have been so busy trying to discredit CBM and HJW, it is easy to overlook that when CBM showed up in June, Merion already had the rough routing Barker had drawn up.   At least we know Barker did an original routing, that is more than we know about everyone who came after.  

They can mock your theory about him passing through in December all they like.  It is in Merion's records that Barker had already done a rough routing in June, whether he came by train or not!  
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 12:11:50 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1596 on: April 27, 2011, 07:06:26 AM »
Tom MacWood,

So you've now deemed it "impossible" that Hugh Wilson and his committee designed Merion.   Too funny.

I know you are still on your Barker thing, despite any evidence to support that contention, but when you keep mentioning that Merion had two of the best architects at their disposal, I'm guessing that you are including Barker in that group, despite a general lack of credentials and/or many courses of quality that survived even the 20s before being completely revamped, with the possible exception of Mayfield, but that seems like a place that Bert Way put lots of effort into over many years to build it into what it became.

Who had better credentials in 1910 than Barker? I've been asking this question for a couple years now and I'm still waiting for an answer. Many of his courses were revised (including Merion if turns out to be one of his), but quite few of his routings are more or less intact, including Mayfield, Columbia, Westhampton, and CC of Virginia. I don't know of any architect operating in 1910 whose courses have not been changed.

In any case, my related question for you is this;

Why do you think the December 1906 articles that reported on NGLA's securing of land pointed out clearly that no professionals would be used and no professional advice would be sought?

I'm not familiar with the letter, and fail see what it has to do with Merion. Merion has a history of hiring professionals before 1910 and after 1910.

Why do you think CBM, Whigham, Emmet, and Travis were also reported to say in late 1906 that the only 3 good American courses were Myopia, Garden City, and Chicago, ALL designed by amateurs?

Myopia was originally laid out by a professional; Emmet and Hubbell were reportedly assisted by Findlay (and Barker assisted Travis with the redesign); I thought Chicago was a group effort of CBM, Whigham, James & David Foulis. I think you have tendency to over play and over romanticize this amateur thing.

Do you think CBM thought Barker was the best architect of the time before him?

I have no idea who CBM thought were the best architects in 1900, 1910, 1920 or 1930, here or abroad. To my knowledge he never commented on any individual architects, beyond Raynor.

Do you think CBM would have advised Merion to use Barker??

It is difficult to say, if I was to guess I'd say probably not. I do know Travis was recommending Barker, and a lot people were listening because he was getting hired by a boat load of prestigious clubs. Whoever recommended him the fact remains he some how became involved at Merion.

Besides, I'm not sure what you mean when you say Merion had two architects "at their disposal"?   Barker was brought in to assess the property by Joseph Connell of HDC, not Merion.   With the amateur ethos at Merion being very strong, it seemingly was not a good fit.

Amateur ethos? Please explain Merion's amateur ethos?

Secondly, as seen on this thread, CBM had his own hands full trying to get his course open and clubhouse built.

Too busy? We know he made at least two trip to Merion and made time for Merion to come to him....

He had a soft, informal Opening Day Invitation tournament just 3 days after he wrote his letter to Merion on July 2nd, 1910 and didn't open the course formally until the next year.   Reports of the course conditions were very raw...

There is no record that Merion ever asked CBM to design their course and no record that he did.

There is no record that Merion ever asked Barker to design their course and no record that he did.

There is no record of Merion ever asking anyone to design their golf course, which is why this debate continues.

I have no idea who originally laid out Merion, but there are only two options that make sense to me - Barker or CBM - or some combination. Wilson and his committee were in charge of overseeing construction...please read Wilson's own account and his numerous letters.


This whole theory is made of cheesecloth and ALL the physical evidence disputes your logic and disbelief.


« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 07:08:24 AM by Tom MacWood »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1597 on: April 27, 2011, 08:53:59 AM »
Another great example of how these guys can argue right around all the relevant facts, such as the fact that McConnell brought Barker in, and MCC specifically mentioned that they didn't, and never mentioned him again.

I think its great to know the back story, and even speculated at one time that CBM and the committee did in fact look at Barkers routing, perhaps making them realize they needed the Dallas estate to get the length they wanted, and maybe more.  We don't know just how if any it influenced them but boy would it be fascinating to see that Barker sketch routing!

That said, its clear that Barker deserves no credit for the design of Merion. If I (or any architect) took any co-credit for courses because we did some preliminary work for developers, but owners, land parcels, or other factors changed, our portfolios would each have another fifty courses in them, because that happens a lot.

No one cares what TMac thinks is logical and we have seen his logical sequence that led him to credit the design to Barker.  BTW, no one was making fun of railroads in any post, just TMacs tortured attempt to use the train schedules and his trip down south to somehow magically put Barker on site in December, just as the land deal was finalized to magically spend one day designing the course.

If TMac believes that the Wilson Europe story in the 1980's Tollhurst history discredits all of Merion's history, then others are surely allowed to believe that his Barker excersize taints nearly anything he might say about Merion, no?  Clearly agenda driven, and it needs to be discounted for that reason alone.

Just MHO.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1598 on: April 27, 2011, 09:58:02 AM »
Fellows,

Can we now finally at least ALL agree that there is no way in God's green earth that the golf course at Merion was routed by November 15th, 1910?  


I keep hearing people hedge their bets with terms like "rough routing", which is ridiculous, because the same person argued that Merion secured EXACTLY the land they needed before the end of 1910 based on the routing already being completed.

So, you can't have it both ways.   It was either routed before the end of 1910 or it wasn't, and the reason why is very clear when one reads Francis' account.

First, Francis tells us that they were working within land constraints of an already secured property, not creating a routing and then buying the land that supports it.   Listen again to his words;




Francis tells us that while they were working on the routing, or "layout";

1) The land (already secured) was shaped like the Letter L, indicating definitive borders.

2) It was not very difficult to "get" (or fit) the first 13 holes into the upright position of the L, with the help of "a little ground" (likely the 3 acres of rail property) on the north side of Ardmore Avenue.

3) But the last five holes were another question.   In other words, they still couldn't fit them correctly in the land that remained.

Fit them to what?   To the existing boundaries of the property in question, which is surely the 117 acres secured under Lloyd's name in December 1910, along with the 3 acres of railroad land.

So, I think it's indisputable that they were working on routing the course within the confines of land already secured (which happened in late December 1910), not routing the course and then securing the land.    In fact, if they had routed the course first, there would have been no need at all for the "Francis Swap" because they would simply use whatever land they needed for their routing and then secure and purchase it, but that is NOT what Francis tells us happened.    Are you listening Jim Sullivan?  ;)  ;D

Second, Francis tells us that his contribution came at the END of the routing, not midstream.   He tells us that his brainstorm permitted the LAST five holes to be located or put into position on the land, provided that they swap land they weren't using "along Golf House Road", which is clearly the land across the street from the clubhouse extending up #14, and swapped it for land up near the quarry, specifically naming the area of the 15 green and 16th tee.

We also know from the minutes and the deed that Merion ended up purchasing 120 acres, not 117, so this was likely a result of reshaping these borders, as well.   The final course measured just over 123 acres, given the leased 3 acres of railroad land.

So, we know that what Francis did FINALIZED the routing that was ultimately approved, and allowed Merion to move forward.

So, was the course routing FINALIZED on November 15th, 1910, and then specific land secured based on that completed routing, as some have argued?

I would refer for your consideration the following letter from the Merion Cricket Club minutes, copied from "The Nature Faker", by Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul;

The following letter from Thos. DeWitt Cuyler, Esq., was ordered to be spread in full
on the minutes, viz.,

Philadelphia, December 21, 1910.
Mr. Allen Evans,
President, Merion Cricket Club,
Haverford, Pa

My dear Sir:

Re Merion Cricket Club Golf Association,

In accordance with Mr. Lloyd‘s request, I enclose herewith letter from the Haverford
Development Company of November 10th and copy of your reply thereto showing the
terms of the agreement to purchase the land for the golf grounds. I also enclose copy
of my letter to you of November 23rd. As I have duplicates of these three papers, I
would thank you to return them or copies of them to me.

I would report that proceedings for the incorporation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf
Association are underway with a slight modification of the details of my letter of
November 23rd.

In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon.
(bold & color for emphasis mine)

I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon.

I should be much obliged if you would at your convenience let me have a copy of the
lease of the Cricket Grounds from the Haverford Land and Improvement Company in
order that the lease of the golf grounds may conform therewith.

Yours very truly,
(Signed) Thomas DeWitt Cuyler

It is moved, seconded and carried that the Board organize, and that the present
Committees continue for the present until the next meeting of the Board.

It is moved, seconded and carried that the Secretary postpone ballot.



So, gentlemen, can we finally put to rest this notion that the golf course was routed by November 15th, 1910??  It seems to me that if we can't accept these very basic facts as reality we'll never get anywhere, and it's clear that the design of Merion happened starting in 1911.   What say ye?  


Having said that, let's move back to the June 1910 timeframe when both Barker and then CBM & Whigham came to view the property.

First of all, do we even KNOW exactly what HDC property they were looking at specifically at that time, or what land was used on Barker's routing?   We don't.

The land of the Dallas Estate, which makes up 21 acres of the existing East course was not under the control of the Haverford Development Company until FIVE MONTHS later.   There is no mention of the need for HDC to acquire additional parcels in the July 1910 internal club records that talked about Connell bringing in Barker or CBM's and Whigham's visit.   None.

Instead, we learn that HDC is offering at the time "100 acres, or whatever is needed" for the golf course from their existing holdings.   We also know that Merion, likely as a result of conferring with CBM and Whigham, felt they would need to purchase "nearly 120 acres" instead, which is consistent with Macdonald's writings.

We can also safely assume that some of that land would be needed near the farm house on the property, up along the quarry, and along the creek, as related in the CBM letter.   However, we don't know for certain the entire holding and it's even possible that the entire property looked at during that time was all north of Ardmore Avenue.  

So, while we know that Barker submitted a routing on some HDC land for Connell, we don't know where it was, or if any of it was used in the final routing.   We do know that no one at the time saw fit to credit him.

We also know that CBM did NOT submit a routing based on his one-day visit, but instead wrote a very general letter which has been reproduced here countless times.

Hopefully, such useless and unsupported speculation such as what's taken place over the past day won't go on (i.e. the secret relationship of Raynor and Francis, or the idea the Merion stole Barker's routing yet never credited him), but I won't hold my breath.

In any case, the facts are becoming clear, finally.



« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 10:02:43 AM by MCirba »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1599 on: April 27, 2011, 10:08:12 AM »
And now for the important breaking news - President Obama must be reading this thread, since he finally just released the long form birth certificate that should satisfy most people.

Coincidence?   I think not.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach