[JESII]

Mike,

"Technically", Merion bought 120 acres in July 1911 and didn't own anything prior to that.

The gist of what I am saying is that once an agreeable price for land near the creeks and quarry was established (what? July 1910?) these were two very closely linked organizations that had every reason to make this deal work out and these hard and fast timelines you, Tom and David have been married to could be thrown out.

It was made a big deal that Merion was able to acquire their parcel for half the average rate of the total 340 HDC would spend. Do you think the lowlands, the quarry surrounds and the stretch along the creek and tracks were worth the same as the rest? No way. They paid mrket value and sold their members on the value of the property based on the "average". This is one example o why I think HDC would have been motivated to let Merion do just about anything they needed to figure out how to fit a course on the land they were offering...the lower value land.

[Bryan Izatt]

Thanks Mike.  As I recall, this is one piece of information where we were relying on a transcription of the original by Tom.  Do you now have the original minute document that you could post an image of?  For what its worth (not much), I would think that definition 1 is as likely as definition 2, but we really don't know what they meant when they wrote the minute.  It just strikes me as strange that one point of agreement around here is that this minute means that CBM "chose" the final routing and had some kind of authority to do it.

Bryan,

Here you go, from the April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes;

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. 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.


While we're considering definitions, which of these would you feel is appropriate to the context?

ap·prove (-prv)
v. ap·proved, ap·prov·ing, ap·proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.
3. Obsolete To prove or attest.
v.intr.
To show, feel, or express approval: didn't approve of the decision.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

Your numbers for the acreages of the roads look more accurate than mine.  In any event, they don't add to 3 acres.  I don't know whether they would have to have bought both sides of part of Ardmore.  Ardmore predated the golf course or HDC. I guess it depends on whether Ardmore had already been dedicated to the town or township by that time.

Just thinking    ................  that 117 acres is such an odd number that maybe they had a plan for the golf course that they felt fit on 117 acres when they "secured" the 117 acres in November.


Mike,

I don't suppose you have an image of the November 1910 Evans letter "securing" the 117 acres or Nicholoson's offer?  The 338 acres wasn't available at that time.  HDC didn't own it at that point.

Re the little piece of land around the first green, which piece did you have in mind that was on the Taylor estate?  You'll remember this map from a couple of years ago which demonstrates what was sold to Lloyd in December 1910.

[DMoriarty]

David,

It looks like your position would hinge somewhat on this interpretation when you put CBM/HJW in the third category as you've already speculated. Your interpretation has Robert Lesley saying CBM/HJW solve the problems of the hole designs. You say your reasoning for interpreting "problem" in the context written in that article is due to the hundreds of other articles of the time in which "problem" referred to the strategic architecture, can I ask, was it ever used to simply discuss a problem...as defined as a difficult situation?

1.  My position doesn't hinge on fitting CBM/HJW into the third group.  Lesley tells us that CBM and HJW were advisors. They advised the Committee.

You guys try to read this as if "advisor" was some sort of diminutive characterization. I disagree. Advisors are oftentimes experts who provide expert recommendations as to the proper course of action.  While CBM/HJW provided expert advice free of charge, advising clients is at the root of many professions.  Attorneys advise their clients on legal matters, accountants advise their clients on accounting and tax matters, doctors advise their patients on medical matters, financial planners advise their clients on financial matters, consulting architects advise their clients on architectural matters.  In all these instances the "client" may have final say, but it is the expert advisor who came up with the plan of action.  Clients ignore expert advice their peril.  

Merion called CBM and HJW "advisors" because Merion sought out their expert advice on what land to purchase and how to lay a first class golf course out on that land.  And all indications are that Merion realized the value of CBM/HJW's expert advice and acted according to that expert advice.  Merion was so dependent upon their advice that Merion wouldn't even go it alone after having spent two days working on the plan with CBM at NGLA.  Instead they brought CBM and HJW back to the site so CBM/HJW could choose the final lay out plan.

2. "Problem" usually means "a difficult situation." My "problem" with your understanding is that I don't think Lesley's acknowledgements make sense with your reading.  
   First, Lesley seems to be thanking distinct groups for specific contributions. Was he thanking the men who built the courses, the men who bought the stock, and the men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem of congestion and spoiled sport by reason of the greatly increased membership?   I don't think so.  Does that even make sense?  
   Second, I don't think that "the working out of the problem" meant solving the problem.  Working out the problem could mean solving it, but I think that "the working out of the problem" meant that they created the problem.  They came up with "the difficult situation" that others would have to try and resolve.  

But under your reading, who exactly gave their time and trouble "to the working out of the problem" and what exactly would this have entailed?  And why was only the third group thanked for giving their time and trouble? Didn't those who built the courses also give their time and trouble?  Or were a few deserving special recognition for giving their time and trouble?

Again Jim, I understand your interpretation and you might be correct, but to me your reading doesn't make as much sense as the one I have suggested.   Reasonable people can disagree.  
________________________________

Bryan, I am not sure if the definitions make very much of a difference.  

But why do you think Lesley's report mentioned that CBM approved the plan? (Not approved of the plan. Approved the plan.)

Was this just idle chat?  Why do you suppose Merion brought CBM/HJW back to Merion after just having spent two days with them a few weeks earlier?  

For that matter, why include the bit about going to NGLA and "looking over his plans?"  And why are CBM and HJW the only ones mentioned?   If Wilson was running the show, then why isn't Lesley telling the committee whether Wilson approved the plan?  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Once again, both the MCC Minutes as well as Hugh Wilson's account are clear.

They did NOT spend two days at NGLA working on plans for Merion.   

Both tell us that the first night was spent looking over CBM's drawings and materials and photos from famous holes and courses abroad and learning about their principles.   The next day was spent on the ground seeing CBM's application of those principles on his course at NGLA.

Why did he need to come back to Ardmore?

Why, that's obvious, isn't it?   He hadn't been there in almost a year, had seen the property one day, and this committee now asked him to come back and look at their various plans and help them to choose the best one.   Why is that such a difficult thing for you to understand?


Bryan,

ALL the letters are in Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison's book.   Is there particular information you're hoping to find that I can help with?   

As far as the 117 acres, it's no mystery.

As far back as July 1910 the committee thought they'd probably need about 120 acres.   That was based on any number of discussions with local and other experts.   If they had in mind that they needed to rent 3 acres of RR land, then they'd need to buy 117 from HDC to get to that number.

As it turned out, they needed to actually buy 3 acres more, for a total of 123.   Therein lies part of the remaining mystery.

But 99% of this is cut and dried and much ado about NADA.

[JESII]

David,

Your paragraph about different types of advisors sheds a different light on this whole tpic to me. I agree with every word of what yousaid. I think they viewed CBM/HJW in that capacity and even though we only know with certainty about the four instances of direct communication (the June visit, the June 29 letter, the March NGLA visit and the April 6 MCC visit) I'm as positive as you are that there were other touches. The substance of them is yet to be determined but I'm certain the Merion committee(s) thought of CBM/HJW as they would any other professional advisor.

As you said however, the advisor doesn't call the shots. In this instance did Merion follow alot of what they offered? Sure. But it goes back to my question about how important is it that MCC only showed CBM/HJW one possible site to build their course. Even though they used CBM's approval in thei letter to the membership one cannot argue that CBM actually selected their site for them.

The final five plans is a similar possible scenario, we just don't know what that conversation entailed.

In any event, I have a different, and I believe better, perspective on your postion now, thanks.

[JESII]

Jim,

Your numbers for the acreages of the roads look more accurate than mine.  In any event, they don't add to 3 acres.  I don't know whether they would have to have bought both sides of part of Ardmore.  Ardmore predated the golf course or HDC. I guess it depends on whether Ardmore had already been dedicated to the town or township by that time.

I don't know. I added 50% to the width of Ardmore Ave as compared to GHR because it was an established road...maybe a bit aggressive. Google Earth looks like it's 28 feet across, not 34. You'd have to get into the ditch to equal 34. What's the proper way to do it? Along these lines, if you use another few feet outside the pavement on each side we would get to 3 acres...but I'm not sure this is the right trail...

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I believe I was possibly wrong earlier on my speculation about the Francis Swap possibly taking place sometime AFTER April 1911.

I say that because of something Francis said that I forgot about.   He said that the land across the street from the clubhouse did not fit with any golf plans, which to me connotes that there were still more than one possible plan at that point.   Of course, once one sees how the first hole was routed across the property, which dictated having to come up the back side of the clubhouse to get to the land north of the clubhouse (as happened on 13), it's pretty obvious why that land across the street from the clubhouse didn't fit with any golf plan!

Of course, we know that after April 19th, 1911, there was only one plan, not multiples.   Unless Francis was simply stating that the land over there never fit with any plans they conceived of, and part of his brainstorm was to jettison it to open up the northern end a bit during construction, it likely happened before April, and not after.

In any case, given the rest of the timing that we know about and which is detailed in the MCC Minutes, I think it's highly likely that the Francis Swap happened after the NGLA visit in March 1911.

If the course was already routed by November 15th, 1910, and Francis already had his brainstorm that necessitated a land swap (although they nor Lloyd owned NOTHING at that time, which makes even talk of a swap a bit preposterous) that got the last five holes in place, then I can't imagine what they were doing for the next five months working on five different golf course plans and waiting til April 19th to bring the matter to their Board?

[JESII]

Thanks Mike,

I'm open to the swap occurring aftrer 11/15 but I've never quite figured out how you and Jeff think it was possibly after April 19th.

Jim,

Technically, Merion secured 117 acres on November 15th, 1910 when President Allen Evans accepted in writing Mr. Nicholson's (of HDC) offer to sell a tract of 117 acres at 85,000 out of the 338.6 acres they had available.

When do you think the absolute earliest possible date would be that Merion felt they had a deal in place to buy the amount of land they would need ot build the course? Serious question, and I'm not going to hold you to your answer. I'm just trying to establish an understanding of how the transaction may have played out.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

One other thing that makes no sense to me if the Francis Swap happened before November 15th is why that western boundary was still not determined six weeks later, per Cuyler's letter....and months later, actually, if one reads the MCC minutes.    Francis was an engineer/surveyor looking at a map of the property when he had his brainstorm..would he not have been very precise, especially as relates to a land swap??  

One advantage we should have in trying to figure all of this out, as well as the timelines, is that we're working with fixed historical borders and known quantities on every side of the equation with the exception of the western boundary separating golf course from real estate north of Ardmore Avenue.   We know that Merion originally secured 21 acres of Dallas Estate, leased 3 acres of Railroad Land, and thought they would need 96 acres of the Johnson Farm (117 secured, 3 leased).  

Since the only moveable boundary was that northwestern border of the Johnson Farm, we know at the end of the day that they needed 99 acres of that, not 96, so we know that this was where it had to come from.   We also know that it wasn't the "triangle" because that portion is 4.8 acres, not 3.   And in any case, Francis talks about a "swap", which one would guess meant that it was an even trade so that doesn't explain it either.

It may be roadways that make up the three acres as you're speculated, but I'm not sure.   This should be easy enough to determine though, yes?   Bryan Izatt has the July 1911 metes and bounds and if they include the roads in the 120.1 acre purchase that might be the difference.   Bryan?

As regards your question about when Merion felt comfortable that they had a deal, it's hard to say, exactly.   Although much of the initial discussions with Connell and Nicholson of HDC seem to have taken place in the June/July 1910 timeframe, it seemingly wasn't until HDC was actually able to get the Dallas Estate under their wing in November that things started actually taking off.   At that point, on November 10th, Nicholson sent Evans a letter stating that they were offering an organization MCC might create for the purpose the ability to purchase 117 acres of Lloyd's choosing for $85,000 out of the 300-plus they had available, and itemized each of the respective properties under their control along with the acreage of each.

A few days later, Evans wrote back telling Connell that Merion would form a corporation that would make that purchase.

Then, Cuyler wrote his letter essentially saying that Lloyd should take title.   On December 21st Lloyd purchased the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate.

You really should purchase Wayne and Tom's book...much of what you're hoping to find in terms of documentation is in there.



The following is from Tom Paul, which I'm happy to relay to clarify a few matters on questions that were asked.
   
Jim Sullivan said this:
"Lloyd didn't buy the land on behalf of Merion in December, he took title for HDC and paid them $85K for the priveledge."
 
 
Technically that is not accurate. Lloyd did not pay anyone $85,000 when he took deed to 161 acres on December 19, 1910 from James Rothwell (a transfer agent). Rothwell took deed to the 161 acres (the entire 140 acre Johnson farm and the 21 acre Dallas estate) from HDC on the same day SUBJECT TO the payment of $85,000 for 117 acres. Lloyd took deed to 161 acres from Rothwell for $1.00 (the minimum payment to constitute a formal real estate contract). Lloyd took that deed (161 acres) SUBJECT TO three payments----eg one for $85,000, one for $60,000 and one for $34,000. The $85,000 for the 117 acres for MCCGA Corp (actually 120.1) was not actually paid until Lloyd (The Grantor) transferred the property (120.1 acres) by deed back to Rothwell on July 19, 1911 for $1.00 who transferred it by deed to MCCGA Corp the same day SUBJECT TO an immediate payment (by mortgage et al) of $85,000. So what were the payments of $60,000 and $34,000 that Lloyd's December 19, 1911 deed was SUBJECT TO? I would assume the $34,000 was for the 21 acre Dallas estate and the $60,000 was for the approximately 40 acres of the original Johnson farm that MCC (MCCGA Corp) did not use and would not buy (it probably was transferred back to HDC or perhaps held by Lloyd since he essentially was a large part of HDC). I could determine at some point what the deed transfers were with the remainder of the Johnson Farm (app 40 acres) in the future by simply going to the County Recorder of Deeds and checking that 40 acres since all specific land transfers are recorded in Pennsylvania.  
 
 
 
Bryan Izatt said this:
"I don't suppose you have an image of the November 1910 Evans letter "securing" the 117 acres or Nicholoson's offer? The 338 acres wasn't available at that time. HDC didn't own it at that point."
 
 
HDC did not technically need to own those 338 acres at that point as they had all of it in five parcels "secured" with a purchase by a "purchase agent" (Freeman with the Dallas estate) and deeds and options "assigned in blank" for the Davis and Taylor farms and the land north of College Ave. The transfer of the Johnson farm was basically between two development entities that were the same or an evolution of one into the other (Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co into the Haverford Development Co).
 
All this stuff is essentially Real Estate 101. This is what I used to have to get involved with when I sold real estate, mostly farms. So why go through all these technicalities with transfer agents and purchasing agents and deed transfers between various people the same day for a payment of $1.00 "SUBJECT TO" a later payment for the agreed upon price between ultimate buyer and seller? It is generally done that way between development sellers and potential buyers and entities such as golf clubs because it often takes some time for the buyer (in this case the MCCGA Corp) to raise the money by stock and bond subscription or cash generation or to raise the money by mortgage placement (in MCCGA's case the Girard Trust Co). This was the case with the MCCGA Corp and if you will note Cuyler's correspondence with MCC (Evans) he mentions precisely this (that MCCA has some months to actually come up with the money to buy the land and raise money to construct the course and redo the potential clubhouse et al). The other reason deeds are transferred back and forth like this for $1.00 is so that real estate transfer taxes are essentially negated in these kinds of technical business transactions.  

[Mike Cirba]

We often talk about Wilson and his Committee having learned the "principles" of what made up an "ideal" golf course from CBM, but how many of us actually know what that means?

I believe the following 1926 article by Dr. Piper, a long-time friend of Hugh Wilson's with the USGA, give us some inkling into how the thinking on these matters had evolved by that point.   To a large degree, and in applied practice, I think the article could have been written by Wilson himself, so well does it articulate what one finds on the ground at Merion and other courses Wilson was involved with designing.

Several items struck me, including the mention of a "year" spent by one amateur architect in routing a particularly challenging course.

There is also a Part 2, that was published in Golf Illustrated in March 1926 (searchable on the USGA Seagle Electronic Library website), sadly finished just a few days before Piper's death.   While it is interesting, it mostly just talks about different types of par 3, par 4, and par 5 holes.

One item of note is that it bemoans the modern practice of building up artificially created greens sloping from back to front as too similar and predictable and argues that natural-grade greens should always be considered due to variety.   Those having played holes like the 5th at Merion, or many of the greens at Cobb's Creek would feel likewise.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,    As usual Mike is playing games.  None of these letters and board minutes are in the Flynn Faker pdf.   There are only transcriptions of the letters.   And who knows how much material is not transcribed.  
_____________________________________________________________________

Jim, I am glad you better understand my take on CBM being an advisor.   I am not sure why the disagreement over the phrase "calling the shots."  In all those examples, the reality is that it is often the advisor who is calling the shots as I understand the phrase.  Perhaps our disagreement is more semantic than anything else.
___________________________________________________________

Above Mike Cirba scoffs and mocks the idea of an advisor planning a golf course, and suggests that CBM was much more than this at the courses he actually planned. Mike rhetorically asked:

Was CBM called the "advisor" at Piping Rock?   At Sleepy Hollow??   Lido??  Mid Ocean??  St. Louis???  White Sulphur Springs??

Did he offer "suggestions and advice" at those courses, or was he in charge??

 

CBM was a member at some of these courses (like Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow,) and working directly with Raynor at all of them.  But out of curiosity I took a look at reports about one of these early courses where CBM was not a member.  Turns out that Mike's latest attempt at a rhetorical question backfired again . . .  

Golf Illustrated, October 1914.  About White Sulphur Springs. (My emphasis)
The distance for the eighteen holes will be 6,250 yards, an ideal length for a first class course. And the holes will embrace many of the features which are associated with the National Golf Links at Southampton, L. I. Mr. C. B. Macdonald, the founder of the National, who is recognized as the greatest authority on golf architecture in the country, has kindly lent his assistance, and his advice has been carried out by Mr. Seth Rayner, who did a great deal of work on the new Piping Rock course on Long Island. As might be expected, many of the holes will be reminiscent of the National and Piping Rock. The short holes, by which a golf course generally stands or falls, are all first class. They include a "Redan" and an "Eden" hole, and a full drive hole taken from Biarritz in France which has also been used at Piping Rock.

Golf Illustrated, October 1915, again about White Sulphur Springs (my emphasis):
Nothing could demonstrate better the difference between how to make a golf course and how not to do it than the making of this links. For many years the old "White" beloved of Southerners and almost unknown to the North had been content with a nine-hole course which though exceedingly pretty to look at was about as unsatisfactory as any resort golf links could be—and that is saying a good deal. The holes were poor in length and the putting greens were bad and the fair green was inclined to be muddy.   When the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Undertook to bring White Sulphur within the ken of the Northerner it became apparent that an eighteen-hole course was one of the essentials; so the old nine were extended by laying out nine new holes across the river.   But the nine new holes were flat, stale and unprofitable.   And it looked like a pretty hopeless job. Pessimistic people said that so long as the river flowed down the valley the links would always be wet, and where the ground was dry the fair green would always consist of stones and crab grass. Fortunately it occurred to Mr. Fred Sterry, the progressive manager of the Greenbrier, to ask the advice of Mr. C. B. Macdonald of "National" fame.   Mr. Macdonald sent down Mr. Seth Rayner to report on the situation, and between them they discovered the simple fact that it was not the river that made the old course muddy but the healing springs in which the place abounds. And since the springs could not be moved the only practical thing was to move the golf course. Thereby the first principle of laying out a golf course was exemplified; and that is to choose for your links a place where golf can properly be played.
    The next rule is to cultivate the land before laying out a course on the top of it. In the good old days this little matter was generally overlooked, partly because the makers of golf courses did not realize that fine grass will no more grow on barren soil than fine roses or fine vegetables, and partly because the expense seemed prohibitive. They did not realize that the subsequent expense of the superficial method was bound to be much greater. Mr. Macdonald figured out what it would cost to convert stones and stubble into fine turf, and expected to stagger the directors of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad with the estimate.   But they were not staggered.   They wanted as good a golf course as could be made, and they wanted it made properly from the beginning and they swallowed the estimate. The money was spent, and now at the end of two years they have a real golf course, one of the best inland courses in America. If they had gone on tinkering with the old course they would soon have spent just about as much money, and they would have ended exactly where they began with a links that would just have enabled them to advertise golf among the attractions of White Sulphur without positively perjuring themselves.
  More than a fair green, however, is necessary to make a golf links. It went without saying that when the founder of the National and the Lido lent his advice there would be plenty of character as well as fine grass in the new course.  We find here many traces of the National, especially in the short holes which are exceptionally fine. The first to be encountered is the eighth, a very pretty modification of the Redan. The next is the fifteenth, a fine example of the Eden hole at. St. Andrews with the river as a hazard for a topped ball. And the third is the mashie pitch across the river at the eighteenth to a plateau green almost surrounded by bunkers as at the sixth hole of the National course.   Only here there is no bunker in front of the green, but only a grass bank, a weakness which will doubtless be remedied; for it allows many a bad shot to struggle on to the green. Take them all in all, however, and the three short holes are about as good as any to be found on any course.   The long one shot hole is rather lacking, since the third hole of 210 yards is not very interesting. Here again refinements will doubtless be made.
By its natural features, however, a course makes its chief impression . . .

So let's see . . .   Mr. Sterry "ask[ed] the advice of Mr. C. B. Macdonald of 'National' fame"  and CBM "lent his advice" and "lent his assistance."   Not only that, but holes featured on other CBM courses were also found at White Sulphur.  

By the logic around here, there is only one possible conclusion.  White Sulphur is NOT a CBM course and that CBM have very little to do with the design.  

This has gotten a bit silly, hasn't it?

[Mike Cirba]

Yes, David, it's gotten more than silly.

If you have any information that details the advice and suggestions that CBM provided to Merion, beyond that which is clearly documented and available for anyone to see (i.e. the generic June 29th, 1910 letter), and the references to what he provided during the Committee visit to NGLA included in Hugh Wilson's 1916 account and the April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes, please provide them.

It's been years now you've been looking for this stuff, to absolutely no avail...apparently you've spent the last 24 hours doing Google searches on "Macdonald" "advice", "advisor", "suggestions", "golf", and "fill in the course name".   Apparently you've struck gold, as at least one writer in one setting at one golf course saw fit to call what Macdonald provided as "advice".   Hurrah.

When was the last time you produced ANY evidence here of ANY type that actually provided insight on any remaining questions about Merion?   A TON of information has been uncovered and disseminated here since you originally wrote your paper and I don't recall any of it coming from you.

If you have ANY evidence that CBM participated at Merion at any time for any purpose between June 29th, 1910, and his hosting the Merion Committee overnight around March 7th, 1911, it's time to produce it.

If you have ANY evidence that CBM visited Merion at ANY time beside looking at the raw land in June 1910 and coming back for a day in early April 1911 to help them pick the best of their five routings, it's time to produce it.

If you have ANY evidence that CBM had any ongoing communications or involvement in the building of the course at Merion, or at ANY time after that, it's time to produce it.

Otherwise, your continued twisting and shading of actual facts, word meanings, and history has not only gotten old, it's gotten incredibly boring.

As far as the letters and board minutes, if you're really interested then make some arrangement with the club to see the scanned originals, as you seem to have found a way to procure the book.

The only one who is playing games is you and it's boring, David.   Really really childish.   If you are truly interested you'd go to the source and end the nonsense.

[JESII]

...

"The next rule is to cultivate the land before laying out a course on the top of it. In the good old days this little matter was generally overlooked, partly because the makers of golf courses did not realize that fine grass will no more grow on barren soil than fine roses or fine vegetables, and partly because the expense seemed prohibitive.

...

Good post David. This sentence from ther middle of it also caught my eye as it's context is similar to that of Wilson's February 1 letter to Washington.

[DMoriarty]

Here we have articles using the same and similar terminology as was used to describe CBM's involvement at Merion. Typically, Mike's response is to fly off the handle and to try to change the subject.  I really like when Mike throws these little fits.  It shows my point has really hit home and must be so crystal clear that even Mike can understand its significance.  

Mike tries to discount the articles by wrongly claiming it must have taken me 24 hours of google searches to find these articles, as if trying to understand how the terminology was actually used is some sort of degenerate activity.  It didn't take long at all, but who cares other than Mike, who apparently prides himself in his ignorance about such things?  The point is that these are good examples of how CBM's contributions were described during this early time period.

Mike also tries to dismiss these articles as being the  the views of "one writer in one setting at one golf course saw fit to call what Macdonald provided as 'advice'."   In fact there are quotes from two different articles from Golf Illustrated, published a year apart.  The first is an unattributed one page profile describing the course.  The second is from "Our Green Committee Page" which is commonly thought to have been authored by Max Behr.  These were hardly one-off mentions, which is why they were so easy to find.  
___________

In closing Mike again spouts off about access to Merion's documents.  In fact he has no idea about this topic and apparently his cronies have no idea either.  It is really bad form for them to pretend that they know when they don't. They should let Merion speak for Merion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You stated to David:

"If you have ANY evidence that CBM participated at Merion at any time for any purpose between June 29th, 1910, and his hosting the Merion Committee overnight around March 7th, 1911, it's time to produce it.

If you have ANY evidence that CBM visited Merion at ANY time beside looking at the raw land in June 1910 and coming back for a day in early April 1911 to help them pick the best of their five routings, it's time to produce it.

If you have ANY evidence that CBM had any ongoing communications or involvement in the building of the course at Merion, or at ANY time after that, it's time to produce it."


Do you have any evidence that he didn't ?

[DMoriarty]

Do you have any evidence that he didn't ?

Patrick, this is what Mike always does when we take a step toward understanding what really happened, he falls back into his standard argument that if I cannot prove CBM did every last list thing from beginning to end then he must not have been the driving force behind the design.  Well one need only look at the course, with its Redan, its Alps, its Road, its double plateau's, etc., to understand that CBM was the driving force!   It would be one thing if Merion had come up with these things without involvement from CBM but this is definitely not the case!  

It wouldn't matter how much evidence there is, these jokers will always demand more.

And by the way, there is evidence that CBM was involved in between the July and March, and even evidence that he was involved after he chose the final routing.  Mike always chooses to forget or ignore facts he doesn't like.
_____________________________

And ask Mike those questions about Wilson.  While CBM and HJW are mentioned again and again in Merion's meeting minutes, Wilson isn't even mentioned during the relevant time! 

CBM chose the final routing.  Not Wilson.  And the routing was presented to the board as the one CBM had approved! How much more evidence of CBM's involvement could they possibly want?

[Steve Wilson]

I am definitely not choosing a dog in this fight, but the query "Do you have any evidence that he didn't?" calls to mind a letter that appeared in the WVU student newspaper the Daily Anthenaeum nearly forty years ago.

In what was purported to be a report, by a pre-law student nonetheless, from a council meeting, the phrase occurred that "it was emphatically not stated."

I no longer recall what it was that was emphatically not stated, but we conjured for sometime with what facial contortions must perforce accompany emphatically not stating something.  It was the first and last time I ever worried about someone pulling a muscle in his face. 

Carry on.
   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ah yes, the Mucci and Moriarity special - just because I can't prove my, doesn't mean it isn't true.  Tough to prove a negative, but I would think that most would intuit that if you take the contemporaneous evidence at face value - i.e. the committee routed five layouts, including the land swap layout, and then asked CBM for his advice on which one was best - would trump eulogies and what not.

What happened happened.  What they wrote is what happened, not some twisted verion that requires a captain marvel decoder ring to unravel......not something that no one kept records of, and worse yet, kept wrong records of.

With that kind of logic, its no wonder these threads go on forever.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I never asked for proof that he wasn't involved.  But at some point after so many gaps have been filled in, it is reasonable to infer what else might have happened during those periods when we have less than perfect records.  We are well past that point here, especially given the utter lack of contemporaneous information that Wilson or anyone else planned the course!  Mike's questions have been answered repeatedly. That you guys don't believe Wilson when he indicated he was talking to CBM is really your problem and has nothing to do with what happened.

And your incessant habit (and Mike's) of misstating the record has much more to do with why these things go on for so long.  There is no indication that it was Wilson's committee who came up with those plans or that there were five distinct plans rather than five iterations of one routing.  Given that they "rearranged the course" after the NGLA meeting it is more reasonable to infer that at NGLA they had chosen one routing and were laying out five iterations, either according to CBM's instructions or because CBM's instructions left some holes for them to fill in.  

And it is not clear that all CBM did was give advice on which one was best.  He approved the plan.  Even TEPaul has acknowledged that CBM may well have altered these plans, combined them, or came up with some things that weren't in any of the plans.   Of course we don't know what it is that prompted TEPaul to admit this, but surely it wasn't out of his sense of reasonableness.

What we do know is that the committee went up to NGLA so CBM could help them plan the layout and then a few weeks later they needed CBM to come back down and choose the final plan.   You think he was there for moral support?

Everything points to CBM, including the golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

My query to Mike was meant to put us on an equal footing when it comes to burdens of proof and the production of supporting documentation.

I think that's reasonable, don't you ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

No, its not reasonable.  Saying "Do you have any evidence that he didn't ?" when the record shows he didn't is...well, I won't go there.  Its argument by trying to prove a negative.  The documents that have been availalbe for 100 years show what days CBM was there and involved.  If they aren't going to show up by now, they ain't gonnar show up (most likely)

Please don't ask anyone to prove a negative.  Its not history.

David,

Well, you jumped on the bandwagon.  I won't keep repeating the opinion that reasonable inference from thin air doesn't equate to good history either.  Let's face it, Mike is right. If, at least for now, there are no documents saying CBM was involved more than he was involved, its time to let that drop until some come to light.

And as you know, I believe the time line portion of your theories always seem to be prefaced with the "facts" that none of these men ever seemed to write what they meant, that they don't mean what they say, etc.  Seriously, I would think most would feel that those portions of your essay aren't nearly as strong as finding ship manifiests for Wilson's trip.

By finding those, you set a pretty high standard for yourself, and fail to match it consistently throughout the essay.  When some parts are supported by undeniable fact, its only natural that the theories made up of what you consider to be plausible inference come under more scrutiny.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

I didn't jump on any bandwagon.  I just pointed out a different reason why Mike's questions aren't worth addressing.  

New information has come out.  New to you at least.  There has been new information further proving that Merion built an road hole to go with their other "template" holes.  What better indication of CBM's involvement could you want than CBM holes on the course?  And there are the quotes from two articles above indicating that "advice" was not the slight you guys pretend it is, but was rather used in a manner consistent with my theory.  

Of course you guys just ignore, belittle, and dismiss new information you don't like.

And I am still waiting for this supposed list of contemporaneous articles where Wilson was acknowledged as the designer by those involved.  So far the only article that has been suggested and it has provided good evidence supporting my theory and little information supporting the alternative.

As for what you believe about my theories, I could not care lass.  I don't know a thing about your design work, but when it comes to dealing with this stuff I have seen enough of your analytical abilities here to know better than to take what you think seriously.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

It looks like your position would hinge somewhat on this interpretation when you put CBM/HJW in the third category as you've already speculated. Your interpretation has Robert Lesley saying CBM/HJW solve the problems of the hole designs. You say your reasoning for interpreting "problem" in the context written in that article is due to the hundreds of other articles of the time in which "problem" referred to the strategic architecture, can I ask, was it ever used to simply discuss a problem...as defined as a difficult situation?

1.  My position doesn't hinge on fitting CBM/HJW into the third group.  Lesley tells us that CBM and HJW were advisors. They advised the Committee.

You guys try to read this as if "advisor" was some sort of diminutive characterization.   For the record, I don't read the use of the word "advisor" as a diminutive characterization.  I read it as written - CBM/HJW gave them advice.  While I agree that accountants, lawyers, doctors, etc provide advice in their respective specialties, they also provide services such as tax returns, trying cases, performing surgery, etc. I guess the point of contention is whether CBM/HJW provided advice or service or both around the routing and design of Merion.  We're back to the question of who drew the 5 plans.  At the moment we don't know definitively.  In that circumstance how can we give primary or equal credit to CBM/HJW for the routing and design.  Equally, I guess, we cannot give the Committee (whichever one it was) primary or equal credit.    I disagree. Advisors are oftentimes experts who provide expert recommendations as to the proper course of action.  While CBM/HJW provided expert advice free of charge, advising clients is at the root of many professions.  Attorneys advise their clients on legal matters, accountants advise their clients on accounting and tax matters, doctors advise their patients on medical matters, financial planners advise their clients on financial matters, consulting architects advise their clients on architectural matters.  In all these instances the "client" may have final say, but it is the expert advisor who came up with the plan of action.  Clients ignore expert advice their peril.  

Merion called CBM and HJW "advisors" because Merion sought out their expert advice on what land to purchase and how to lay a first class golf course out on that land.    These are both suppositions on your part.  In the former were they not brought in to advise on the suitability of the HDC land for a golf course.  That's not the same as advising on what land to purchase. And all indications are that Merion realized the value of CBM/HJW's expert advice and acted according to that expert advice.  Merion was so dependent upon their advice that Merion wouldn't even go it alone after having spent two days working on the plan with CBM at NGLA.  Instead they brought CBM and HJW back to the site so CBM/HJW could choose the final lay out plan.  As they said, they valued CBM's advice.  Perhaps they brought him back to assure themselves that their plan was good and right.  That he approved of it.  No response required; I know you don't agree.

..................................
  
________________________________

Bryan, I am not sure if the definitions make very much of a difference.  

But why do you think Lesley's report mentioned that CBM approved the plan? (Not approved of the plan. Approved the plan.)  Because the Committee on whose behalf Lesley was reporting, felt that CBM approving "of" the plan would help them sell it.  As good an explanation as any.  Do you really think that CBM had some formal hierarchical authority over the Committee's work to approve it or disapprove it before it was submitted to the Board?  Do you not think that the Committee may have just wanted their expert adviser to tell them that the plan was right and good?

Was this just idle chat?  Why do you suppose Merion brought CBM/HJW back to Merion after just having spent two days with them a few weeks earlier?  No, it wasn't just idle chatter.  They wanted to know that their expert adviser felt the plan was right and good and fit on their land.

For that matter, why include the bit about going to NGLA and "looking over his plans?"    As debated ad nauseum, we don't know what his plans were of.And why are CBM and HJW the only ones mentioned?   If Wilson was running the show, then why isn't Lesley telling the committee whether Wilson approved the plan?  Wasn't Lesley reporting to the Board on the Golf Committee's behalf.  Why would he need to mention Wilson was running the show.  The Board already knew that.  Lesley was presenting their report.  Mention of CBM was noted because they weren't part of the Committee and as I suggested above, it would no doubt have helped sell the Board on the plan knowing that the expert advisers were in favor of it.  

With  my few little editorial changes, here is the minute as transcribed by Tom.  BTW, why do you accept on faith the "approved" statement when you question virtually everything else that Tom has put forward from the minutes?

Bryan,

Here you go, from the April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes;

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

Your committee desires to report that the Committee 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 of NGLA studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.

On our return, we  the Committee re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. 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 one plan they approved felt was right and good, 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.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

It may be roadways that make up the three acres as you're speculated, but I'm not sure.   This should be easy enough to determine though, yes?   Bryan Izatt has the July 1911 metes and bounds and if they include the roads in the 120.1 acre purchase that might be the difference.   Bryan?

As far as I recall there has never been a definitive conclusion on where the 117 acres was or what the 3 acres was.  In any event, the July deed metes and bounds shows 120.01 acres (not 120.1) and includes half of GHR as well as a 11 feet of half of College Ave and half of Ardmore to the west of GHR and all of Ardmore to the east of GHR.  Not sure how that helps you out with the Cirbian New Math.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()