The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[JESII]

I don't recall where Culyer recommended this, can you show us?.

My main point in clarifying Lloyd's technical role here is that I believe this was a very friendly transaction...both sides knew each other and had plenty of desire to make it work well. Would you agree with that?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Agree with the friendly transaction, but it still was a legal transaction and these guys weren't shy about protecting their interests.

In answer to an earlier question, the MCCGA was incorporated sometime after November 27th, 1910, which is when it was first proposed to the board.   The purposes of the organization was to be to be purchasing, holding, selling and leasing real estate, so it's VERY unlikely that the Wilson Committee reported through them.

Check your PM.

[JESII]

Jim,

Agree with the friendly transaction, but it still was a legal transaction and these guys weren't shy about protecting their interests.

In answer to an earlier question, the MCCGA was incorporated sometime after November 27th, 1910, which is when it was first proposed to the board.   The purposes of the organization was to be to be purchasing, holding, selling and leasing real estate, so it's VERY unlikely that the Wilson Committee reported through them.

Check your PM.

Sent back a PM, thanks.

I agree with the friendly transaction and the protecting own interests.

What real estate did MCCGA purchase, hold, lease and sell? The golf course and associated buildings, correct? Why wouldn't Wilson's committee report through that vehicle?

[DMoriarty]

2) Legally, Francis found himself with decision-making authority . . .
. . .
3) Legally, you're correct, but we also know that . . .

The wonders here never cease.  Now Mike Cirba is providing his expert opinions and conclusions regarding the legal obligations of the various parties involved in the various Merion/HDC transactions. Who knew Mike was a legal scholar versed in agency law, among many other areas of the law. He must have stayed at one heck of a Holiday Inn last night!

This is too much.  Really.

Still, I'm sure the Committee, of which Lloyd was a member, would have been very comfortable with saying "we had some land" anytime after Lloyd's purchase in December 1910, and really not comfortable saying the same thing at any time before November 15th, 1910.

More fascinating analysis.  But I am not sure why it matters when the Construction Committee thought the property had been secured. (Wilson stated that 117 acres had been purchased his Feb. 1 letter.) The Construction Committee was not charged with acquiring the land or negotiating the transaction with HDC.  Rather, the so-called "'Special Committee on New Golf Grounds'" was charged with finding and securing the land, and Lloyd a member of the the 'Special Committee on New Golf Grounds.   Judging from the correspondence first brought to light in my essay, this Special Committee reported directly to the Board of Governors. If my memory serves, H.G. Lloyd was also then a member of Merion's Board of Governors.   Also various documents indicate that Lloyd was the Merion's point- person throughout the earlier part of the process!  

So despite Mike's charade, it seems pretty certain that Lloyd was the go-to guy from June through the creation of he Construction Committee.
________________________________________

Jim,

I am not sure anyone said that CBM selected the site, and I don't think anyone said he chose between alternate sites.  If I wrote either of those things (and I don't think I did), then I let me set the record straight.   What I recall writing is that, according to the so-called Special Committee on New Golf Grounds, said Committee recommended the purchase based largely on the CBM's and HJW's opinions of what could be done with the land.

Also Jim,  I've tried to quitreading Mike's inane attempts to explain the intricacies of the various legal obligations surrounding this deal because frankly it makes me livid to see him pretending he has the first idea of what he is talking about in this regard.  The hubris behind such pretension blows me away, especially when one considers his past failings at incredibly simplistic things compared to this legal analysis.

Anyway, I hope it will suffice to say that he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, and I encourage you to ignore him when he starts pontificating about what were the various parties' "legal" obligations.

[Mike Cirba]

Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:

Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.

On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans (bold mine).
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.

After the Committee Reported, a Mr. Thompson proposed the following;

Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion
Resolved, that this Board approve of the purchase and exchange, and agree to pay as
part of the rental the interest on the additional purchase.


If the golf course routing was completed before November 15th, 1910, then why did it take another FIVE MONTHS, til April 19th, 1911, for Merion to even propose the aquisition of the land?

If the golf course routing was completed before November 15th 1910, then why did Cuyler say that the boundaries were not determined on December 21st, 1910, further advising that since it was still going to be months away, he would hold off on the second bonds needed by the proposed MCCGA to finance the endeavor;

He wrote on December 21st, 1910;

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.

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. (bold mine)

Why if the routing was already completed through the brainstorm of Richard Francis, a surveyor and engineer, before November 15th, 1910, was the boundaries of the proposed golf course still undetermined seemingly months later??

[DMoriarty]

I see that Mike is done with his cogent legal analysis and is now changing course and launching into another one his fits where he reposts the same  old information and re-asks old questions about that information.   In an attempt to keep this more productive I propose that we stay away from these digressions and tangents and stay focused Bryan's and Jim's questions.  We'll get to Mike's digressions in due course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim Sullivan,

why do you think its odd CBM looked at only one piece of property?  The record shows MCC was offered a sweetheart deal by a developer to use their property, too good a deal to pass up?  It does seem apparent that in June, 1910, CBM did help them realize they needed 120, not 100 acres, and that within the general parameters laid out by the developer for land to use, using the existing farm house as a club house made sense, but only if they got the RR land next to it.  Lastly, while speculation, he probably helped them see that the Dallas Estate was required for the best course.

Once again, CBM was not in charge, and many things were set by factors beyond his control, even if they weren't, NGLA was the only project he got involved in where he got to pick land (I think) and even then, on his first go round, he offered for 120 acres within a development, with no mention of a routing plan!  He sort of lucked into the ideal method by virtue of land Alvord had available that allowed him to choose his 205 out of 400 acres.

David,

We finally agree on something - Your post 1746 tells us you don't think your conclusions are factual and we all have been saying the same thing for years!  Glad to have you on board......

As to not answering Mike's question, in all seriousness, to me its the basic question of this whole debate.

Here we have the most direct, contemporaneous report of what happened and when regarding the routing process, and by implication of the dates and changes of acreage, the land swap.  You choose to tell us that the committee preparing five routing plans doesn't mean that they prepared five routing plans.  And, by dismissing this direct fact, it allows you to launch into many different directions as you wish with a simple wave of your hand.

I'm like Mike. I simply don't recall what direct documentation you have that is more persuasive than the participants own words, recorded as they happend (in the case of the motion to swap land) or just before?

Why tackle other questions when you can't tackle the most germain, direct question of the entire debate?

I call horse apples.

Do you understand?  He basically found his ideal process by ACCIDENT, because others controlled the land.

IMHO, too much has been made of the NGLA/MCC connection in that regard.  The record shows why MCC is where it is.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

You obviously have nothing to add to my discussion with Bryan about proper methodology.  It has become quite apparent to me that you have no clue even of what is historical analysis.  So why don't you do yourself and us a favor and sit this one out? I have a feeling Bryan and Jim can handle this.  

In fact, rather than continuing to insult me and misrepresent both me and Merion's historical record, why don't you let me deal with Bryan's questions in a more coherent and orderly manner than would be possible with you or Mike running the show?  

After all, my understanding is that TEPaul is not supposed to participating here.  Yet his filthy paw prints are all over your posts, and I'd rather not deal with either of you.

Thanks.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

These are straightforward questions that go right to the heart of our disagreements.

I can see why you avoid them but please don't tell us they aren't relevant.

[Jeff_Brauer]

You obviously don't want to deal with obvious facts either, nor have anything to add to any factual discussion about what happened based on relevant documents.

In all seriousness, your post covering your method was enlightening to me.  I still don't agree that your method is sound, but rather than be insulted by your posts I can at least sort of see where you are coming from.

Still, having read all your "contemporaneous docments trump all" posts, I have a hard time reconciling your method here with your method for all other golf courses.

And, I have always been of the opinion that the simplest, connect the dots type answer is most likely to be the actual explanation, and the longer connect the dots process less likely to be true.  And it seems your process does ignore things like the committee report in favor of parsing words, figuring out triangle dimensions and what not.

For my money, if the committee reports and legal records describe a final routing in April, and motions on land deeds to support that, its very unlikely that any theory that ignores or deflects that fact as a basis, can only go further astray.  But, if you have a similarly convincing and direct documentation of something other than that happening that I don't recall, I would love to see it.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to take the time to try to understand MY method. (insert smiley)  You just assume I cannot come up with my own pithy remarks to challenge your theory, or think for myself.   Not true, Not true, I assure you.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

And you are right about one thing. I don't have a clue about how historical analysis can read "We laid out five plans" to "I don't believe there were five plans." Or how "CBM approved the final routing April 6" can be analyzed as "CBM routed the plan with Lloyd, Francis, and Whigham at some other date" Or how three documented meetings between CBM and the committee can be reasonably construed to mean constant contact.  Etc.

You are right...I don't have a clue, but perhaps not for the same reasons you do.  I know you hate to assign percentages, but I wonder what percentage of your theory is based on documents of participants being incorrect in some key way that allows you to analyze it to some weird place?  From memory, it seems a lot of your theory, but like you, I won't put a percentage on it, other than to say I think its "high."

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Here are the relevant questions again, in case you missed them;

If the golf course routing was completed before November 15th, 1910, then why did it take another FIVE MONTHS, til April 19th, 1911, for Merion to even propose the acquisition of the land?

If the golf course routing was completed before November 15th 1910, then why did Cuyler say that the boundaries were not determined on December 21st, 1910, further advising that since it was still going to be some months away until cash was actually needed, he would hold off on the second bonds needed by the proposed MCCGA to finance the endeavor, postponing it "until the boundaries of the property have been determined upon"?

Specifically, in that regard Cuyler wrote on December 21st, 1910;

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.

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. (bold mine)


Why if the routing was already completed through the brainstorm of Richard Francis, a surveyor and engineer, before November 15th, 1910, were the boundaries of the proposed golf course still undetermined seemingly many months later??

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

From memory, much of David's theory on the golf committee doing only construction came from his tortured definition of the words "Laying Out".  I also recall others found several different uses of the word that did NOT entail what David required for his theories to work.  In your re-posting of the critical minutes, I noticed this passage:

"Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new Golf Ground".

I think its significant not only that the committee presented a plan (presumably drawn by Francis?) but that they considered the words layout to mean a plan.  How much bandwidth was wasted discussing David's contention that they didn't use the word layout in regards to planning?

Again, this all seems simple enough to me.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Bingo.

They were not nearly as confused in the use of golf course planning terminology as David and some others here apparently are.

They had five paper "plans" with golf "layouts" drawn on them, and attached the one CBM recommended to their report for the April 19th 1911 Merion Board of Governors meeting.

They also make clear that they "laid out" numerous plans over the course of their assignment, which by definition has not a freaking thing to do with driving stakes into the ground as has been so humorously proposed here.

The funny thing is this;

I agree with you that David can make a legitimate case for an enhanced role for CBM, although I'd argue that it was probably commensurate with the thank you's he received at the time from the Wilson's, Lloyd, and Robert Lesley (although curiously Richard Francis didn't seem to think they warranted mention).

It's just that he (and Tom MacWood) want so badly to eliminate Hugh Wilson and settle whatever old Philadelphia scores they are still holding onto that they drown the baby with the bath water.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

Well then we are in agreement.  You have no clue.  

To tide you over while we wait for Bryan to reengage, I'll explain one of the main reasons why, from a from a methods perspective, you are completely clueless.  Whether it is because you have become emotion-driven or because of some argumentative need to try and score petty and trite rhetorical points or because you are under the sway of your dishonest pal (and you are,) you have repeatedly proven that you are unwilling and/or incapable of accurately dealing with the the source material and my analysis thereof.

We need go no further than a few posts above for an example of such methodological shortcomings on your part.  

In post 1766 you wrote:  
Here we have the most direct, contemporaneous report of what happened and when regarding the routing process, and by implication of the dates and changes of acreage, the land swap.  You choose to tell us that the committee preparing five ROUTING plans doesn't mean that they prepared five ROUTING plans. (my bolds and caps)

But the source material does not mention five ROUTINGS or ROUTING plans.  You added the word ROUTING so you could pretend I was directly contradicting the source material when you knew I was not.  Why else add the word?

Then you did the same thing in the opposite direction a few posts later.

In post 1770 you quoted me(!) "I don't believe there were five plans."   But that is not what I had written.
What I really had written was, "I don't think there were five routing plans."   Five ROUTING plans.

This time you dropped the word ROUTING from my quote so you could again pretend I had directly contradicted the source material.

What I find despicable about this whole thing and your methodology in general is that it seems intentional. One doesn't just accidentally add key words and then drop key words so precisely as you do here.  You knew exactly what I wrote and, more importantly, what I meant.   Yet you misrepresent for rhetorical gain.  First you misrepresent the source material. Then you misrepresented (and misquoted) my position.

So explain how this is an honest and honorable approach to historical analysis?  Explain why this isn't, for lack of a better word, disingenuous?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Instead of continuing on with the endless rhetoric, why not just wait and see where Bryan takes the conversation?  I've obviously touched a nerve with him and he seemed raring to go last night and I am curious as to what set him going. Frankly I am looking forward to a real challenge, and hopefully I'll finally get some real constructive criticism and critique. You two must realize by now that he is far more capable at this sort of thing than either of you, so why not chill for a while?

In the meantime, Mike, why don't you explain to us how you obtained the requisite expertise to pontificate about the rights and obligations of the respective parties to the multiple transactions involving MCC in 1910-11?  Villanova Law?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

I'd like to question the "logical factual analysis" approach that you seem to generally use.

That's fine, but I hope you aren't quoting me with your mention of "logical factual analysis."  Is that as opposed to 'illogical factual analysis?'   Regardless, I doubt I would have written that.  But whatever you call it, I don't think there is anything particularly novel about my approach to historical analysis.  So far as I can tell is quite similar to your general approach, at least when I am not exchanging insults with these guys and when you aren't taking shots at Patrick or setting out lists "for context" as above.

When you do this kind of analysis do you assert that the conclusions you draw are "factual" and "true"?  Or do you attribute a likelihood to them?  What level of confidence do you place on likelihood, if that's what you are using?  Are you 95% certain?   Or 99%?  Do you accept that others might not agree with your logical factual analysis to the same degree as you do?

I think you may be presenting a false choice here.  While my goal is to figure out what happened, I generally don't think of conclusions as "factual."  And while I may indicate the level of confidence I have in my conclusions, I don't assign specific numerical probabilities.  Doing so would be unjustifiable pseudo-science so far as I am concerned.  

I guess you haven't noticed that I have been roundly criticized by Brauer, TEPaul, and Cirba for failing to state my conclusions as absolute facts.  Words like "likely" or "unlikely" or "probably" or "possibly" are dirty words to these guys, I guess because they know it all for certain.

Here is an example from my essay:

The Board of Governors also announced to the members that “experts are now at work preparing plans for the course which will rank in length, soil, and variety of hazards with the best in the country,” and the Inquirer reported the same. Unfortunately, neither the Board nor the Inquirer identified just who these “experts” were. While it is possible that the paper was referring to Hugh Wilson and his Committee, it is also highly unlikely, unless the Board was engaging in pure hyperbole. Hugh Wilson was by no means an “expert” when it came to planning or building golf courses. Rather, he and his Committee were complete novices. In 1916 Wilson wrote . . . .

As you can see, I did not assert my conclusion as fact.  Rather, I wrote that I thought it "possible" but "highly unlikely" that Merion's board was referring to Wilson and his Committee as the experts preparing plans for the course.  I then went on over the next three or four paragraphs explaining some of the reasons why I thought it was "highly unlikely" that Merion's board was referring to Wilson or his committee.

I'd like to ask a few questions.  I've highlighted some sections in the quote.

That's fine as well, but there are no highlights that I can see.

Are the three points in your list indicating CBM/HJW's extensive involvement complete or just representative?

They are representative.

If just representative, what are the other points?

I provided a few representative points because listing them all would be tantamount to another, longer IMO.  I am not willing to do that at the moment.  

Who do you think drew the five routing plans that CBM chose from?  In your opinion, did CBM draw them?  Did he instruct somebody else on how to draw all five of them?

I don't think there were five routing plans. Beyond that, see the answer above.

When you say that the selected plan was presented to the Board as his plan, are you saying that it was presented as a plan that he personally drew up? Or, was it presented as one of five plans that someone else drew up, from which he selected one and gave it his stamp of approval?  In other posts you have described the routing plan as CBM's plan, not just that it was presented as his plan.  Do you see a difference between it being his plan vs being presented as his plan?

See above.

You've used CBM/HJW  collectively.  Do you feel that HJW deserves more recognition too?  On a par with CBM?

It isn't about recognition as it about understanding what happened.  Beyond that see above.
______________________


These are good questions Bryan but there is no way I can answer in them in a sentence or two.  You started off questioning me about my methodology but have moved into asking me to provide you with an IMO broader than my first.  

Don't get me wrong.  If you really want to go through it all, we can, even though most has been covered repeatedly before.  But if we do so you are going to need to patient and we need to do it in more manageable bites.   And before we get into any of these substantive issues, I'd like to make sure we are on the same page regarding my methodology.

Thanks.

David,

Upon checking out my quote re "logical factual analysis", you are right, I misremembered it.  You actually said "reasonable factual analysis".  

Thanks for your further clarification of your approach.  I thought that that was the way you were doing it.  In my reading of your work you don't state your conclusions as facts.  You couch them in caveats.  What I find problematic is that it seems to me that you then proceed on in your analysis and in referrals back to your previous conclusions you state them without the caveats, making them sound like conclusive facts.  But, that's just the way I read them.

I also notice you sometime say you are trying to figure out what happened, as if it is some mathematical formula that if you study it enough, that it can be figured out.  I'm not sure that that applies in this kind of research.  Whatever happened back then, happened.  Absent "factual" information that documents what happened, I don't think that anybody can figure it out.  I didn't think you put probabilities on your conclusions, but I needed to check.  Your caveats imply a range of certainties, which is enough I guess.  In the end though, I think you need to accept, as do your opponents in this bun fight, that your caveated conclusions may not be the same as another person who is looking at the same information.  And, the vice versa is true as well. Your "highly unlikely" may be another persons "likely". I expect you and the Phillie crowd will be throwing this back and forth five years from now, each remaining unconvinced of the other's position.  MacWood had it right - is there any new information in the last two years?  The Cuyler letter?

I guess you haven't noticed that I have been roundly criticized by Brauer, TEPaul, and Cirba for failing to state my conclusions as absolute facts.

Well, actually, I did notice the criticism, although it didn't strike me that the were criticizing you for failing to state your conclusions as absolute fact.  It was, in my reading, for your penchant for caveating your conclusion at one point and then using it as a definitive conclusion later.  But, I'll leave you and them to sort that out.

As for the remainder of the post about the 5 plans, I don't get your response. Can we pursue it further?  As far as I know, I thought everybody agreed that there were 5 routing plans at that point.  As far as I know nobody has any direct evidence about who (specifically) put pen to paper to create the 5 plans or even the one that CBM recommended and the Board approved.  If you have further information I'd like to hear and discuss it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

If they weren't five routing plans, then what were they?

Bryan,

I agree with your post, re Caveat to Fact in much of David's analysis. I once called him out for using his own essay as a source document (which he does, but denies) and backup to claims of his own essay.  He (and most) would demand one source plus a backup source from anyone else.

And, now that you mention it, while he states his essay as opinions, he defends it as a real piece of historic research.  So, if I am confused as to which it really is, then I guess he is partly party to that misconception.

He is a real disingenours arguer.  Note above where he says I am "unwilling and/or incapable of accurately dealing with the the source material and my analysis thereof."  Now in the base of his post he argues that I change his words, etc., but in his conclusion, by adding the that I cannot deal with his analysis, his statement reads as perfectly true, but implies that I can't understand source material.  Quite clever, and just one example of how he uses words to convey something, other than real facts and real truth.

Again, I just can't imagine why he won't answer simple questions with simple answer, unless he can't.

[DMoriarty]

And Jeff, if you are going to continue to plead with me about how you are your own man and not in cahoots with TEPaul, you might want to have him stop forwarding me his advice to you.

And you may also want to ask him to quite forwarding me YOUR emails to him.  Especially the ones where you discuss your take on my position and seek TEPaul's approval for your interpretation!  It makes you look even more foolish in my eyes, and it really exposes how little you understand about how historical analysis works.

But then to plead with me that this isn't going on?    What is that "D" word again?    

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike

Bryan,

A couple of things, in response.

I could look at a deed's metes and bounds and it may as well be Latin so I appreciate you bearing with me.  Wink  As I thought.  

What can you tell me about the average width of the land for the last 44 yards going southward towards today's 16th tee boundary from the initial 11 foot wide 76 yards going south from College Avenue?  I think you can measure that yourself.  It encompasses the back part of the 16th tee.

Also, I would wholly agree with your statement;

"The land plan you've posted is distorted and bounded by an approximate road.  IMHO it is useless as an indicator of where or whether there was a routing at that point in time."

And isn't that what this whole debate is really about?   The contention by some that since this Land Plan indicates that the golf course goes north above the Haverford College southern boundary (and to College Avenue) that it's somehow representative of a fully routed golf course, even though every other single bit of contemporaneous evidence tells us clearly that the course was NOT routed at this time??

Isn't this the whole premise of David's argument that attempts to exclude Hugh Wilson from the original design of the course...the idea that this otherwise "to scale" land plan somehow represents a finalized routing completed prior to it's publication (Nov 15th 1910) despite the obvious facts that;

1) There are no holes indicated on it.

2) It does not reflect the golf course land that the course was eventually built on.

Isn't the entire conspiracy theory based on this single bit of admittedly flawed evidence??


David's theory attempts to negate Wilson's design efforts by trying to move back in time the work to route the course and his entire theory excluding Wilson hinges on this Land Plan, which he argues is proof positive that the course was routed before November 15th, 1910.

I don't want to get into your arguments with David.  All I'll say is that the land plan could be indicative of one reading of the land swap.  We did that debate in detail two years ago.  No need to rehash.


As far as the road...I would think that once Merion's Board approved the final plan work on that bordering road could/would commence in the same time frame....around late April 1911.  Merion's Board?  Even though Lloyd was holding it for HDC at that time?  

I have no idea how long it took to build a road in 1911, whether it was asphalt or chip and tar, or even gravel initially.   I do know that many of the Merion men like Robert Lesley were engineers (he actually owned a Cement factory) and had access to local labor, so it doesn't seem on the face of it to be preposterous to have it completed in 2-3 months time.  Well, that's quick.  Road building takes longer today, but then there's probably more regulation today.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

Thanks for the response.   I've wasted all my free time with useless banter so I will have to respond later.  

Reading how Brauer manipulated my quote and the source material will probably give you a hint where I am coming from on this one.

_________________________

Jeff Brauer,

You wanted to talk about your methodology, so lets talk.  Why did you manipulate what the source material said by adding the word ROUTING?   And then why did you manipulate what I wrote by removing the word ROUTING?

It seems to me you were playing games for cheap rhetorical gain?  Was this your idea or your buddy's?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Okay, I won't use the D word again, even when it happens to fit.

As to "routing" what other kind of plan would it be, as I asked above, that would set boundaries and borders?  In my world, the only plan it could be would be a routing plan.

So, please enlighten me as to why it wouldn't be that way, and while you are at it, why or what documentation you have to discern that the committee didn't prepare five routing plans?

To me, the simplest explanation is that they prepared five routing plans.  The text talks about how placing the last seven holes (the ones in question with the land swap) would make for the finest inland course, etc.

What is that talking about other than routing?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

OK, I think maybe I get it now.  I have interchangeably used "plan" and "routing plan" even though the source document says "plan".  So, for future responses, just take my post and forget the word "routing" in front of plan.  I do note that you also have in the past inserted "routing" in front of "plan" when referring to the plan CBM chose from the five.  For example, in post 1739:

As the project progressed, CBM/HJW's extensive involvement's more evident --the NGLA meetings working on the plans, the return to Merion to reinspect the land and choose the final routing plan, that the plan was presented to the board was presented as CBM/HJW's plan and approved on that basis

[JESII]

Maybe we can discuss the word/term ROUTING as specific to the Merion site.

I think we're all familiar with the aerial view of the property so I would like to suggest several distinct plans for the course that would have fallen within the exact same parcel. I would then ask who thinks it is these type of differences that could have been worked through in the winter/spring of 1911.

The second hole and current 6th hole (originally the third) run in the same direction almost end-to-end. If the 2nd were 100 yards shorter and the 6th 50 - 100 yards longer, would this equate to a different plan?

The current 7th, 8th and 9th do the same thing, could different variations on these holes have been considered different plans?

The 12th and 13th do the same...

I understand Jeff and Mike feel a "routing" is a completed project but I'd be curious if anyone else does. Specifically, I'd be curious if a completed routing leaves latitude to add a little width to certain holes...afterall, they were hoping to "shrink-wrap" the road to the course in order to purchase as little land as possible...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I don't feel a routing plan is a final project.  I typically do 10-30 routings before getting to a final.  Some only have minor differences (in different areas).  Some may have different spacings to save trees, whatever.  So, there are preliminary routings and final routings.  And again, I don't know that their use or non use of the word routing is signifigant.  

Again, what else would they be working on to set final boundaries, if not the routing? And why would anyone spend time parsing whether the word routing meant anything to change the meaning?  I know I beat up David for intuiting things from limited data points, but for me, this one is a no brainer, unless I can be proven wrong.  

In the case of Merion, they seemed to be looking at five preliminary routings, and selected one with the Francis land swap, got it approved by CBM as the best and only then was it final, and we know it was because they immediately at the same meeting moved to finalized the boundary.

Francis tells us the first 13 holes were "easy" and that side of the road may have been fixed early, or some of the holes might be in the same corridors but reversed, lengthened shortened, etc.  Both Francis and the minutes tell us that those last seven holes were on everyone's mind, and it seems many of the differences in plan were probably related to those holes.  But, we cannot be sure.