The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Tom MacWood]

In the last 24-hours we have been told that changing narrative forms mid-steam is normal for former newspaper editors; that the phrase re-arranging a course actually refers to producing multiple routings; that it is understandable that an inexperienced novice would do a dumb thing like send a blank topo to Oakley, but there is no question about the plausibility of that same inexperienced novice being selected to design Merion; that a colorized black & white photo is proof Merion plowed, harrowed and manured their rough (despite any mention from the well documented first hand sources); that the term golf course actually means abandoned farm.

And my logic is being questioned? And I'm sure there are more but this best I could do off the top of my head.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

We know Barker's wasnt on a topo.  We know CBM had no topo in June 1910.  We know the Nov 1910 plan wasn't drawn on topo.  We know there was a topo by Feb 1, 1911 because Wilson sent a (presumably blueprint) copy to Oakley.

I have always wondered when the topo was obtained and how that might shed light on the process.

I suspect Pugh and Hubbard did it, but weren't contracted until the deal was final in December 1910.  Knowing CBM used topos, and knowing when it was obtained would be key to some understandin, I think.  But, just a guess.

Now, how do blueprints affect routing of the golf course more than manure?

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I would suspect that they employed Pugh & Hubbard to create the topo.   They were apparently quite well regarded.

However, that's speculation and it may have been Richard Francis, but given that the Committee was only being formed around that time I'd suspect they'd go outside for the big picture drawing.

Tom,

Totally insignificant point but what was written into the minutes was likely the Club Secretary's transcription of Lesley both paraphrasing and directly reading from Hugh Wilson's written report.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Our posts crossed again, but yes, I always question your logic, for reasons I won't repeat again!  But, seriously that is what this debate has always been about.

I don't recall a whole lot of discussion about this, but the focus on what CBM did for Merion has always been based around them not doing it themselves because they were novice.

On the other hand, since CBM designed his courses with is committees, and no professional help, why have we never discussed the logic of him sitting down in June 1910 and upon hearing a profession gca had been there, informing them that the better way to do it was an amateur design committee, as he had done at NGLA?

I think him recommending that they get together the best golfers (experts) they could assemble makes perfect sense in the bigger scheme of things.  Its what he did.  And, he offered to periodically assist them, as he apparently did for so many other clubs designing there courses the same way.  Right?  Is there any record that CBM assisted an Eastern Club that had already contracted with Campbell or Barker?  Or just committees?

Why is it logical for CBM to have helped so many clubs in an advisory way, designed his own courses with committees, and yet when it comes to Merion, do something completely different?

Truly, maybe to get some perspective on why Merion would have been such a special case, not following the method before or the method CBM used soon thereafter, we really need to find and study some other easter course where he may have consulted.

Repeating all the usual crap from all sides really makes not a lot of sense, does it?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Do you really think Wilson, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, and Francis were out there in the snow during the winter of 1911 driving stakes in the ground and then playing pick up sticks and "rearranging the course" with perhaps five different colored stakes?

What exactly do you think they were doing during this period?

I think it was all on paper.   They were already very familiar with the property they had considered for the previous many months and had just had a topo created.

[DMoriarty]

1.  Wilson and Oakley repeatedly tell us what land they prepared. Fairgreens and greens.  We know how many tons of manure per acre they spread on the fairgreens and greens.  If the spread it on the rough, tell us how much they used?  

2.  Wilson and Oakley repeatedly refer to "the course" and we can see what Wilson meant by the phrase because he uses the same description in his letter to Oakley about having seen NGLA.

3.  It hasn't dawned on you guys yet that Lesley's reference to the  "many courses" laid out "on the new land" cuts directly against your argument. While they didn't draw plans "on the new land" there were plans before March 1911, and we know at least one of these plans was written --the Barker plan.  There would also have been whatever changes (if any) CBM and HJW suggested for the Barker plan.  This may have been written somewhere, perhaps right on the Barker plan itself.  And I think the evidence indicates that the swap (and whatever else Merion considered to get the course to fit) happened pre November 1910 and this was well before March of 1911.  So there you have your "many courses" they tried to lay out on the new land.  

4.  You guys keep acting as if the records say it was someone at Merion who planned the "many courses" Merion tried to lay out on the new land.   First, that is NOT what the record says.   Second, who was it and what is your proof?   Wilson tells us he didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing until he went to NGLA, so surely it wasn't him.  So who?  And when?  And what is your proof?  

If I am wrong, the please show me exactly where the record indicates that it was anyone at Merion (other than what I mention) who planned the courses that Merion tried to lay out on the new land?  And please show me when this happened?   Thanks.

5.  No one at Merion was out there "laying out courses on the new land" between the time Wilson became involved and the NGLA meeting.    It was winter.   Wilson mentioned that he wasn't even going to bother to get soil samples until the snow melted and he didn't do this until mid-March, after returning from NGLA when the "new problem" was in place.  

6.  You guys keep forgetting that Lesley did not say when Merion tried to lay out these many courses on the land. All he said was it was before NGLA.   June and July of 1910 came and went before NGLA, it was not winter, and Merion brought in people capable of planning their course.

At this point you guys aren't even bothering with the actual record.  Your posts are nothing but wishful thinking.

[DMoriarty]

___________________________________________

Tom,

Do you really think Wilson, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, and Francis were out there in the snow during the winter of 1911 driving stakes in the ground and then playing pick up sticks and "rearranging the course" with perhaps five different colored stakes?

They rearranged the course AFTER NGLA, not in the snow during the winter of 1911.  

But you are correct that there is no way there were out there during the winter.  Thus they must have tried to lay out the many courses on the ground before winter, most likely in the Summer of 1910, based on plans by Barker, then CBM, and then with changes to try and make work including the swap by Francis and Lloyd.  

What exactly do you think they were doing during this period?

Very little.   Wilson was apparently working for the Golf Committee and had been in contact with CBM and pursuant to his instructions he was trying to get in touch with Piper and Oakley to get prepared on the agronomy side of things.   Other than than, they weren't doing much of anything and wouldn't until they went to NGLA so CBM could instruct them on how to lay out their course.  

I think it was all on paper.   They were already very familiar with the property they had considered for the previous many months and had just had a topo created.

Your speculation on this matter is directly contradicted by the record.   They laid out many courses "on the new land."

Your speculation about their familiarity with the property is also unsupported by the record.   Maybe Lesley and H.G. Lloyd were familiar with the land, they would likely have been the ones going over it with HJW and CBM.  What is your evidence that they were very familiar with the land at this point?   Who exactly was very familair with the land and how did the come by that familiarity?

I can put CBM and HJW on the land at least twice, once in summer 1910, and again in the spring of 1911.  Wilson didn't even get soil samples until after the NGLA meeting!   Can you definitely put anyone from Merion on the land before the NGLA meeting?   If so, who and when, and what is your evidence?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

On what date did they meet at NGLA ?

On what date did Wilson sail to the UK ?

[DMoriarty]

In his March 13, 1911 letter to Oakley, Wilson indicated that he had just returned from spending a couple of days at NGLA with Macdonald.   So the NGLA trip must have been shortly before March 13, 1911.

Wilson's trip overseas did not occur until over a year later, in the spring of 1912.   I don't remember the specific dates offhand. 

Interesting that in the March 13, 1911 letter Wilson doesn't say anything about any committee or anyone else accompanying him to NGLA. 

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I assume that these are the questions you have referred to a number of times.

.............................

What if you took my word for it?   Let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that there was only one other CBM Alps hole at this time.  Would you then agree that "many of the others" referred to holes at Merion, and not CBM Alps holes?

If CBM had only designed or advised on 36 holes (Chicago and NGLA) at the time of the article, and if Findlay knew that, then it seems likely that many of the others didn't refer to Alps specifically.  But, the articular string of sentences doesn't make sense to me.  If you want to take it as proof that CBM "laid out" many of the other holes (in whatever number you think the wording implies, feel free.  I think that despite all the haranguing on both sides we have no new information and no conclusive proof on who specifically drew the 5 plans (and individual hole designs) one of which CBM approved.  In the [past few pages you have tried several time to further explain your interpretation of "laid out".  I must admit that I still don't get it. Could you please, in a separate, concise post describe your interpretation.  Can it mean "laid out" on paper only?  Or "laid out" on the land in the form of stakes in the ground or some other measure?  Or, both together?  Or, something else?

Also, let's assume, again for the sake of argument only, that CBM had designed and built 10 Alps holes by then. Even then, for the section to make sense, we'd have to read this as confirming that Merion's 10th was CBM hole, wouldn't we?

It seems likely in this proposition that CBM would get credit for, at least, showing them the principles of the hole, in his opinion.  If Merion took his principles of an Alps hole and designed it themselves, does that make it a CBM hole? The hole apparently turned out badly, at least in Findlay's opinion, and doesn't appear to share much in common with either the original at Prestwick or even CBM's at NGLA.  Would CBM have "laid out" such a pale imitation of the template?  Seems more likely to me that Merion would have muddled the design up moreso than CBM.

But, doesn't Merion give CBM credit for his useful advice?  There seems little doubt that he planted the idea of template holes, including the Alps, with Merion.  I am not convinced that planting the seed (no pun intended) means that he actually designed the hole on a piece of paper or staked it out on the ground.  But then you already know that.
____________________________________

..............................

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

.................   that a colorized black & white photo .............

You surely must understand that this is a painting and not a colorized photo?

The picture is an artistic interpretation of reality.  The artists perspective appears to be that there was no distinction between greens, tees, fairways and rough. 

Why do we care about whether the rough was manured?  Does it prove anything about the routing and design and who should be more or less credited for it?

____________________________


Jeff,

Here are where I think the features are that are mentioned in the caption.  And I think the perspective of the painter is from the red X in the following picture looking in the direction of the red arrow.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Anyone with a modicum of common sense, even a complete novice, would not send a blank topo map to an expert and ask him where to take samples. The reason Wilson contacted P&O was to get their advice on preparing the ground and seeding. He did not approach P&O with the question, we are about to route a golf course, could you please tell us what portion of this property is best suited for greens and fairways, or alternatively which portion is least suited for fairways and greens. With less than 120 acres that would not be practical anyway. Asking for specific advice about fertilizing and seeding is something you would do after you have a routing, not before.

Could you tell us about the depth of your experience in the agronomy issues involved in fertilizing and seeding a golf course? 

I am not an  agronomist, but it would seem common sense to me to test various sections of the property  to see if the soil has uniform properties across its entirety or whether there are areas with different characteristics that might require different treatment.  All this before I designed or laid out the course.  If I already laid it out, which green(s) and which (parts of) fairway(s) would I sample?  All of them?  Some?  Which ones?

I think, on this subject, I'd defer to Jeff who has some practical experience in this field.  Experience trumps common sense.



 

[Tom MacWood]

It was hand colored photograph, which was a very common technique used with post cards and other similar images. Here is a brief history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-coloring

You will have to ask Mike why it is important they manured the rough. I believe his thinking is if they treated and fertilized the entire property, every square foot of it, it is proof there was no routing prior to April. If they only treated and fertilized the golf course (as Wilson explained in his 1916 report) then it is more likely there was a routing when they began the process in late January - early February.

The question regarding the map is not a matter of experience, but of common sense. Wilson tells Oakley their goal is to get the best short grasses growing as possible and he needs his help with getting the soil analyzed and his advice on fertilizing. He sends him a contour map and asks him to indicate where he'd like samples taken.

If I am Oakley and there is no routing on the map my response would be I need to know where the short grasses are intended to be, those are the areas we need to sample. Otherwise take out blindfold and dart, and start throwing.

[Mike Cirba]

The 100 or so acres that they needed to develop was based on this letter, where Hugh Wilson said that there were about 25 acres of turf that they thought was good enough.   That actually makes it less than 100 acres, but hey, I was trying to be conservative.

You can also see that its pretty clear the location on the map did not correspond to golf features, but simply different areas of the property.

[Mike Cirba]

You will have to ask Mike why it is important they manured the rough. I believe his thinking is if they treated and fertilized the entire property, every square foot of it, it is proof there was no routing prior to April. If they only treated and fertilized the golf course (as Wilson explained in his 1916 report) then it is more likely there was a routing when they began the process in late January - early February.

The question regarding the map is not a matter of experience, but of common sense. Wilson tells Oakley their goal is to get the best short grasses growing as possible and he needs his help with getting the soil analyzed and his advice on fertilizing. He sends him a contour map and asks him to indicate where he'd like samples taken.

If I am Oakley and there is no routing on the map my response would be I need to know where the short grasses are intended to be, those are the areas we need to sample. Otherwise take out blindfold and dart, and start throwing.



Bryan,

Actually, it's just the opposite.

Tom (and David, when it suits his ever-changing scenarios) have tried to make the case that because Hugh Wilson said he was going to begin plowing and doing rough work in late March 1911 that there must have already been a golf course routing in place.

They've argued, humorously, that Wilson would only have plowed tees, fairways, and greens.   This would be hysterical if they weren't actually serious.

In earlier letters in March Wilson asks if they should add manure before plowing.  

Half of the property had been a corn field.   It was clay-based soil, with some standard rock content.

We KNOW they planted the roughs with grass seed.   Perhaps they simply laid seed between the corn stalks on the hard-pack ground to feed the local birds?    

They plowed all of the property as any sane person would instead of trying to create some line of agronomic destruction between tees, fairways, greens, and roughs.

If they plowed, they also harrowed, or they'd be insane not to.

Later in the year, before planting, they harrowed again, perhaps more precisely before adding specific seed mixtures per golf course feature(s).

But this idea that is being promulgated here is simply insane and once again, very, very bad history.

I sense from your response citing experience over supposed superior "logic" that you realize this, as well.

Here's the supposed "Smoking Gun" proving that if they plowed, they must have previously routed.   You'll notice that Wilson asks how much lime and manure should be added "PER ACRE", not by golf course feature.



Other related letters;

[Mike Cirba]

Here's Oakley's response on what to lime, manure, and plow and when.






Does this sound to anyone like they were only going to plow, harrow, lime, manure, and seed only the tees greens and fairways?

Of course not.

Can we now put this nonsense of a pre-routed course existing "on the land" in March of 1911 to it's final and long overdue death??

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I understand why you would want to defer to Jeff on these matters, but over and over again Jeff's attempts to apply the way he does things to the way things were done 100 years ago has fallen flat. He apparently doesn't build courses like Merion built theirs, so I am not sure why we are looking to him as on expert on what Merion might have done. His claim about courses being plowed and grassed wall to wall is a perfect example.  It may be what Brauer does, but I don't think this is what they did 100 years ago, and have never seen anything to suggest it was done this way.

Moreover, Jeff's claims of "expertise" on these matters has become increasingly biased and unreliable. I'll even go further, and suggest that Brauer's repeated claims of expertise based upon his "practical experience" have become a farce.  Look at his analysis of the image Mike posted.  
-  You think it is a painting, I tend to agree with Tom MacWood that it is most likely a colored photograph.  Either way, the image reflects the subjectivity of an artist's touch, and I wouldn't think it necessarily tells us much about what land was treated for seeding.
-  In contrast to your view or mine,  Jeff, with his "practical experience," sees much more.  To Jeff, the image not only indicates that they prepared the ground "wall to wall," Jeff can even tell the mix of seed from the image, "the pic Mike showed looks like what I thought it would - blue grass mix seeded wall to wall."  Wow! Impressive! I wouldn't know how to begin to paint the growth of "blue grass mix seeded wall to wall" much less identify such from a painting.  If you ask me, Jeff's expert observation seems a bit too impressive to be true.  And it moves from questionable to outright absurd when one considers a bit more about the image.

The image is apparently from November 1911.* The fairways and greens had been seeded in mid-September 1911.

Now I am no expert on how things worked 100 years ago like Jeff Brauer keeps telling us he is, but something - common sense maybe - tells me that this picture does not accurately portray the  condition of "wall to wall bluegrass mix" in November 1910 when that bluegrass was only planted in mid-September 1910.  Especially when it was reported in June 1911 that the course was still just growing in and we know that the course wasn't ready to open until September 1912!

Either Hugh Wilson had already developed God-like powers to create lush turf conditions out of "drab" and "worn out" land in a few fall months, or Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer are again B.S.ing us by using this photo as evidence of the growth and existence of "wall to wall bluegrass mix."  I am sure no one is surprised that Mike would pull this, but Jeff Brauer is supposedly providing his expert opinion on agronomy issues.  How else could he surmise that this image showed "wall to wall blue grass mix?"

His expert opinion becomes even more absurd when we consider the photograph more carefully.  I am not sure I quite agree with you exact depiction of line of view in the image, but I do agree that you have correctly labeled Golf House Road. Fancy how the turf on the west side of Golf House Road - across the road from the golf course - appears the same as the turf on the golf course itself. From the photo, it looks as if Merion not only prepared and seeded "wall-to-wall bluegrass mix," they also prepared and seeded the adjoining future neighborhood as well!  Either that, or the photo CANNOT be taken as proof of what Merion prepared and seeded, as do Cirba and his personal expert, Brauer.

So it seems that our expert is blowing smoke up our behinds, and leveraging his supposed expertise well beyond the breaking point and to try to pass off pure rhetorical speculation as weighty expert opinion.    
__________________________________

Don't get me wrong.  While things were obviously more different back then than Brauer realizes, perhaps Jeff could offer some interesting and helpful perspectives based on his experiences, but he has become way too close to these issues and the personal battles within, and way too partisan in his opinions.  For a long time now this has been about the personal bickering for him, and it ought to be no surprise how is "expertise" always manages to fall in the same direction, even when Wilson and Oakley directly contradict his speculation.

He has become such a tool in these conversations that he has no qualms about falsely accusing me of lying just like his buddies have (and continue to) falsely accuse me of lying.  And like his buddies, he does cannot even bring himself to apologize or admit his was wrong and set the record straight, or in the alternative to back up his accusation.  That says quite a lot about him and his approach and perspective on all this stuff.  He obviously has no concern over setting the record straight if he will let stand an outright falsehood just to try and save face.

Bryan, you and I have disagreed much more than we have agreed, but neither of us has resorted to such a sleazy move as falsely claiming the other was lying.   But Jeff is obviously playing by different rules than we are, rules not aimed at a clean record or at getting to the truth and rules allowing for such sleazy rhetorical tactics, and this ought to be taken into consideration before any of us looks to him for unbiased "expertise" on these matters.

Would you have much faith in his credibility if he falsely accused you of lying but refused to back it up?

*[The image is from a menu for an annual Merion Cricket Club Dinner. (A black and white copy appeared in my IMO and was sent to Wayne Morrison at his request after shortly after my essay came out.) The dinner took place on December 2, 1911.  So the image - whether a painting or a colored photograph - must have been created a long enough time before this to have been reproduced in color and in large enough quantities so that the menu could on each place setting at the annual dinner for a very large membership.  The course was not even seeded until mid-September 1911, about two and half months before the dinner, and most likely even closer in time to when the image was created, given the time it took to create it in mass.]
______________________________________

Jeff Brauer,  
- Did you notice how Cirba didn't ever answer your questions about whether an early photo of the Alps mound existed?  (I answered you long ago, but you apparently missed that.) Why do you suppose that is? 

- In all your practical experience, have you ever seen such an incredible growth of turf November when the turf was just seeded in mid-September?

- Can you distinguish the grass on the Merion property versus the golf across the road?  Was it "bentgrass mix" across the road as well?  Do you really think that prepared and seeded the surrounding neighborhood as well as the golf course?

- A few days ago you indicated that I have been lying in these discussions.   Back up your claim.  Either that or set the record straight and make things right.   Surely you are not such a lowlife that you will let your false accusation stand without either backing it up or setting the record straight.  

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Just in case I wasn't clear, I don't think that the photo, or whatever it is, is useful in answering the plowing, harrowing, manuring seeding etc debate.  Nevertheless, I don't think Jeff's position on that necessarily detracts from his experience.  I'd still go with experience over self assured certitude based on common sense. For one thing, our common sense may have nothing to do with common sense in 1910.  Remember that to the best minds of history common sense once said the earth was flat. 

Don't get me wrong.  While things were obviously more different back then than Brauer realizes, perhaps Jeff could offer some interesting and helpful perspectives based on his experiences, but he has become way too close to these issues and the personal battles within, and way too partisan in his opinions.  For a long time now this has been about the personal bickering for him, and it ought to be no surprise how is "expertise" always manages to fall in the same direction, even when Wilson and Oakley directly contradict his speculation.

I think that your comments about Jeff being too close to these issues and way too partisan would apply to all the regular participants here, with the possible exception of Jim and I.  As to the personal bickering, I don't think any of you can claim the high moral ground on that front.

[Bryan Izatt]

The 100 or so acres that they needed to develop was based on this letter, where Hugh Wilson said that there were about 25 acres of turf that they thought was good enough.   That actually makes it less than 100 acres, but hey, I was trying to be conservative.

You can also see that its pretty clear the location on the map did not correspond to golf features, but simply different areas of the property.

Mike,

As I read this letter and the subsequent one, the letter samples "A" and "B" related to samples of sod/grass, not soil.  "A" is described as "very excellent grass growing around a small house". The "B" sample is grass/sod of the "usual sort" (presumably Kentucky Bluegrass) of which they have 25 acres.  I don't read it that these two "lettered" samples are soil samples per se. It seems to me that they were just trying to identify two types of grass that were already there that might be useful to them going forward.  I would assume that there were other soil (not grass/sod) samples taken. 


Tom,  I'm still not persuaded by your common sense approach.  Do you think that the topo map had a stick routing on it?  Or a full fledged drawing showing green shapes, fairway lines and tee box areas?  Or, something else?  Applying your 2011 common sense, where would you have requested them to send samples from?  A random subset of tees, fairways, and greens? All of them?  From the middle of greens?  Centerlines of fairways?  It still seems to me to be more commonsensical to request samples from areas where it looks like the soil characteristics might be different, so that you could route away from any area that had bad soil.  A topo map (without a course on it) might give some suggestion of where there might be areas where the soil could be different.  Of course, on a small 120 acre site, common sense would tell me that the soil was probably pretty uniform, at least at the level of sophistication that they would have had in soil testing in 1910.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

You know as well as I do that there is no way in hell Brauer could tell that Merion had been prepared and seeded "wall-to-wall" with "bluegrass mix."   He is claim is so far beyond reasonable it reeks of bias.   Not a good quality in one we look to for expert opinion.  

As for 1910 vs. now, your comments apply equally to Brauer's experience, if not moreso.   His experience was obviously not their experience.  

And it is not experience vs. common sense.  It is jeff's speculation 100 years after the fact vs. Oakley and Wilson's words.   

Here is what Wilson wrote:


Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways. Three fairways were in old pasture turf. These will be mentioned later. We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had largely been on farm land. We used an average of fifteen tons of horse manure to the acre on the fairways and eight tons of various kinds of manure to a green, the greens averaging about 10,000 square feet in area. At time of seeding, we added 300 pounds of bonemeal to the acre and 100 pounds to a green. After completing the construction of the greens, and thoroughly harrowing and breaking up the soil on both fairways and greens, we allowed the weeds to germinate and harrowed them in about every three weeks. We sowed from September 1 to 15 and made a remarkably good catch, due to two things — good weather conditions and a thorough preparation of the soil. We opened the course September 14, 1912, just a year after seeding, and it was in good playing condition.

He did not describe preparing everything from wall to wall.  He described preparing fairways and greens.   He used fifteen tons per acre manure on fairways, eight tons per green.  If he prepared everything thing the same wall to wall, then how did Wilson come up with these figures?   He had to know where the greens and fairways were in order to treat them differently didn't he?

As for higher moral ground, I don't see it that way.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

David and Tom, now that their primary evidence (the P&O letters) has been shown to completely disavow their claims, now point to Wilson's brief 1916 summary of what was done over many months to say, "see, it's not in here...how come you guys don't believe Hugh Wilson?", while pretending that what Wilson and P&O wrote back and forth contemporaneous with events is suddenly beyond their ability to comprehend.

It's quite comical and an interesting turn of events, really.

As far as the sections of sod labelled A and B, yes, you're quite correct that they represented the bluegrass found near the "house", and the primary grass found over a large section of the property.

That second section and sample is what I want to call your attention to, however.

If you re-read that section, Wilson claims to have 25 acres of it, and suggests that the grass cover is so good that they really don't need to plow that area, but instead just harrow, treat, and add some seed.

This is exactly what happened.   It was the only section of the property to not be plowed and became fairways 10, 11, and 12 at the time, and possibly sections of other adjoining holes.  The rest of the property was plowed, harrowed, treated, and seeded.

Yesterday David took me to task for saying that they had to develop about 100 acres of the 120 they had.   This is where I got that number from, and my estimate was probably quite a bit high once you consider the areas for clubhouse, roads, parking, etc..

In any case, this turned out to be a mistake on Wilson's part, and those fairways had to be scrapped and completely stripped, re-seeded and grown prior to the 1916 US Amateur.

The funny thing is that neither of those guys believe the wild claims of the other, yet have to support each other's ridiculous leaps of logic here lest they risk losing the others support.

Patrick, for his part, couldn't care less what the actual historical record shows, but is only interested in sitting cheerleader-like on the sidelines rooting for his man-love Charles Blair Macdonald, perhaps hoping that his undying devotion will someday lead to a long desired invitation.

It's an interesting sideshow.  

[DMoriarty]

Cirba is blowing smoke again.

This latest irrelevant tangent started when Cirba proclaimed, without offering any factual support:

They harrowed and turned over the entire property, and treated it with lime as well.

 
When Tom MacWood challenged him to back up his claims and he did his usual reposting of a bunch of stuff, none of which supported his claim.  Since then it is has been a bunch of tenuous wishful thinking on their part, because nothing in the record supports Mike's claim that the entire property was prepared for seeding.  Not the Ag letters. Not the 1916 statement.  Not the koda-colored image of the mature golf course a few months after seeding.  

Despite Cirba's and Brauer's claims to the contrary, the photo evidences nothing of the sort.  And both the Ag letters and the 1916 Wilson Chapter cut directly against Mike's claim.  

As for the 25 acres, more wishful thinking on Mike's part. The area of the 10th through 12th fairways was around 1/2 of  25 acres. And the 25 acres mentioned in the Ag letters were to be harrowed, treated, and seeded, whereas Merion evidently used the old pastureland as is for the 10th through 12th fairways.  (See 1916 description)
______________________________________________________

Bryan,

Above you asked why it matters what was done with the rough?   It doesn't.

As usual, the whole tangent is generated by Cirba's and Brauer's unwillingness to accept the words of those there.  They claim that Merion must have prepared the whole property, wall-to-wall, because they don't want to admit that the the course had been planned before Wilson became involved.  In order to create this impression, they are trying to explain away the many references to "the golf course" and the reference to "our new problem" in the Ag letters.

Ironically, they have apparently forgotten that we know they already had at least one plan (and I think many plans) long before early 1911. They have also have apparently not fully considered the ramification the portion of the supposed Lesley report indicating that at some point in time before NGLA, Merion had already tried to lay out "many courses on the new ground."

So then when was Wilson out there "laying out many courses on the new land?"  Evidently Wilson did not become involved until early 1911 (likely shortly before February 1,) and even Mike admits that they weren't out there during the winter trying to lay out many different courses "on the new land." Wilson wasn't even planning on going out and getting and sending soil samples until after "the snow goes off" (the samples weren't sent until mid-March, after the NGLA meeting) so it is highly unlikely he was doing anything on the new land before the NGLA meeting.  

This pushes us back to before the winter of 1910-1911, and there is no evidence Wilson was out there then.   In fact it is a stretch to put anyone out there in 1910, other than Barker and then HJW/CBM.  I think Francis and Lloyd must have been involved in trying to make the plans work at some point before mid-November 1910 (maybe  months before) but Brauer and Cirba reject that, so I don't think they can put anyone at all out there!

Aside from the evidence I have provided regarding the swap, what is the evidence that anyone from Merion had anything to do with planning the course (or laying it out) in 1910?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

In fact it is a stretch to put anyone out there in 1910, other than Barker and then HJW/CBM.

Do you mean this literally?  Do you suppose that someone at Merion called Charlie and said that they had some land near College and Ardmore in lower Merion and would he drop by to take a look at it, but sorry can't meet you there?  And, that they bought the land without actually going out there?  That seems very unlikely to me.  Sometimes you overreach in your zealousness.  As does Mike.

Just because there is no document that we've found that says who from Merion went where and did what in this timeframe doesn't mean that they weren't there and doing things.  It seems highly unlikely that they weren't doing something, or a lot of things.  It was after all their baby.

[Tom MacWood]

Here's Oakley's response on what to lime, manure, and plow and when.

Does this sound to anyone like they were only going to plow, harrow, lime, manure, and seed only the tees greens and fairways?

Of course not.

Can we now put this nonsense of a pre-routed course existing "on the land" in March of 1911 to it's final and long overdue death??

Mike
Is that right? This is what Wilson wrote actually happened, and there is no mention of the rough:

"We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on the ground which had largely been farm land. We used an average of fifteen tons of horse manure to the acre on the fairways and eight tons of various kind so manure to a green, the greens averaging about 10,000 square feet in area. At the time of seeding, we added 300 pounds of bonemeal to the acre and 100 pounds to a green. After completing the construction of the greens, and thoroughly harrowing and breaking up the soil on both fairways and greens we allowed the weeds to germinate and harrowed them in about every three weeks. We sowed from September 1 to 15...."

In a subsequent letter from Oakley to Wilson:

3/23/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "As indicated previously in a letter, it is possible to provide only general suggestions from an examination such as we are to make. This examination, however, is really as valuable in determining the course of treatment of the soils as if the soil were analyzed chemically. I think the whole course needs liming...We have found on our Arlington Farm on heavy clay soils that it is frequently impossible to correct acidity even with a very heavy application of lime, but where we have used a dressing of barnyard manure in connection with the lime the soil has been sweetened very materially. It would hardly be practicable, of course, at this season of the year to use manure on your fair greens, but I would suggest that you bear this in mind and apply it next fall if it can be secured. You will find that manure in conjunction with lime is very beneficial, indeed....The grasses to be used on your fair greens, I think, without question are redtop and Kentucky bluegrass...A fine leaved bent grass, with creeping or Rhode Island bent, I feel quite certain will be most satisfactory for your putting greens. I judge however that this feature of the course is not the important one at the present time, and that you are mostly interested in getting the fair greens in a playable condition."

This is the quote from Wilson, on May 9 1911, you gave us to support your theory that the rough was treated equally to the fairway and greens.:

"In regards to the amounts of seeds, we have been recommended to plant the greens, which are roughly 100 feet square, 75 to 100 lbs per green. On the fair green, where we want a specially good condition, 100 lbs to the acre, and in the rough, where it does not make much difference, 30 lbs."

I don't get the impression the rough was much of a consideration especially when you realize this was the first time rough was ever mentioned - the 19th letter between the two men.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,  I'm still not persuaded by your common sense approach.  Do you think that the topo map had a stick routing on it?  Or a full fledged drawing showing green shapes, fairway lines and tee box areas?  Or, something else?  Applying your 2011 common sense, where would you have requested them to send samples from?  A random subset of tees, fairways, and greens? All of them?  From the middle of greens?  Centerlines of fairways?  It still seems to me to be more commonsensical to request samples from areas where it looks like the soil characteristics might be different, so that you could route away from any area that had bad soil.  A topo map (without a course on it) might give some suggestion of where there might be areas where the soil could be different.  Of course, on a small 120 acre site, common sense would tell me that the soil was probably pretty uniform, at least at the level of sophistication that they would have had in soil testing in 1910.

Not a stick routing, a full fledged drawing showing green shapes, etc. They had been working on this project since June 1910, or November if you wish. It would've been extraordinary in those days if they did not have plan by February 1. In 1910/1911 it did not take the architects long to come up with a routing plan. It was usually done within a week...a month at the most. And weren't they in the process of making changes to the routing in December 1910 when Cuyler wrote his letter? That is my impression.

Not only would the soil be pretty uniform at 120 acres, it was an oddly shaped somewhat confining property, which ultimately resulted in one of the most compact routings of our great courses. It wasn't like they had a lot of land to discard.