USGA Architecture Forum at 4 PM Today

[DMoriarty]

Dan Moore,

You say it seems clear that the Board at Merion was the final decision maker.  In what sense?   If you mean that as Governors of the club they had ultimate say over what happened at Merion, then I agree, but then that doesn't really have anything to do with who had final say over the layout plan, does it?

You wrote: "I am very interested in knowing if there is more primary source factual material about Wilson's role in the routing process as that does seem to be a factual hole here."   So am I.    In fairness, I do think he was involved at least near the end of the planning process - for example he was at NGLA and wrote about how CBM taught them what what could be done with the natural conditions at Merion, etc.

But Merion's Board Minutes and other contemporaneous records leave no doubt that Merion was repeatedly turning to Macdonald/Whigham, not Wilson, for guidance throughout the planning process.   Wilson doesn't even come up!  That is what I don't think many people realize. From the purchase of the land through the finalization of the routing plan, Merion's Board (and Merion's Golf Committee) were resolved to do what Macdonald and Whigham had advised.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Yes, frankly the record shows that Wilson was:

The head of the committee.  By extension from Francis' recollections, they all spent many hours talking, etc.  He was part of those meetings, however frequent and long.

He was the first recorded person to handle that topo map, marking it up and sending it to Oakley for some soil analysis.  At least in modern day work, analysis logically precedes design (or it should) Of course, there was also a certain level of spatial analysis done earlier.

He made the trip to NGLA and learned all of what the others on the committee learned, presumably in an effort to put it to use.  At one point, we agreed that it was most logical that he actually set up that meeting by calling or writing CBM. 

He was probably there at the April 1911 meeting as well, but we don't know for sure.

A year later, he was sent to GBI to make the hole study, etc.

From that we can only make "logical extensions" of what he did, and of course, any deeper comments would be speculation....

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

You are mistaken. Hugh Wilson was NOT head of the committee dealing with the early planning process.  Robert Lesley was the Chair before November 23, 1910, and H.G. Lloyd was Chair of the Committee thereafter, and Lesley became Chair again at at some point in 1911. Hugh Wilson was added to this committee sometime in 1911, but he was not the Chair. Wilson was chair of the Construction Committee and charged with constructing the course.  This committee was reportedly formed early 1911 after the land had been purchased, but it is not clear when exactly this committee was formed.

Francis went to Lloyd, not Wilson, with his idea for the land swap. Wilson was not head the committee.

You mention the contour map was mentioned in Wilson's February 1, 1910.  In the letters, his uses for the map were focused on building the course -- namely getting the soil right.  

Also, you fail to mention that Macdonald is discussed even in this first letter!  Namely, in that same later, Wilson also indicated:
  - Wilson had been communicating with Macdonald shortly before Feb. 1.
  - Wilson realized the value of Macdonald's advice.
  - Wilson was contacting Piper at Macdonald's direction.

You and others can pretend that Merion must have been playing hide-the-countour-map from Macdonald during this time period, but isn't this a little bit silly given the circumstances?
  
It seems rather unreasonable to me especially given Macdonald's previous comments on the need for a contour map to see if he could fit the holes on the property, and given that Macdonald was still guiding them (see Wilson's letter,) and given that they would soon be going to NGLA to have Macdonald teach them what they could do with their land, and given that they would leave it up to Macdonald to choose the final routing from a number of options!
  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Your post seems to presume that I agree with your still speculative theory that the routing was done in 1910 on a topo that isn't mentioned until Jan 11. I read the record differently than you do, not seeing where they would accurately record those three visits, but omit any implied agreement that they wanted CBM to route their course, or even any other communications.  So, we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

In reading your posts, it seems we really agree on the broad bones of CBM’s involvement and agree the rest IS speculation on all our parts.  It doesn’t seem we are five years of arguing apart on the basics, does it?  It seems like the major disagreements, other than the 1910 routing mostly by CBM are semantics and emphasis. 

I doubt CBM would spend any time on MCC’s behalf  while the land parcel deal was still in question, or that he would start routing without that topo map he recommended.  I wish we knew exactly when that contour map was produced.  There are only a few options -

   The Development Company started it upon their purchase of the land, and agreed to add the Merion land to it.  No record of that, but plausible.


   MCC did it sometime after June 1910, before purchasing the land.  While they had wealthy members, the record does say they were cost conscious.  And, given the semi-secret nature of the 3rd party land purchase of the Dallas Estate I am pretty certain no one set foot on that parcel until that was a done deal.  Also, we have to believe that in an era where some routings took place in a day (with Barker as an example) that they felt they needed to go to that expense to gain extra time.  I believe they felt they could route it after purchase and still start construction in April.

   Or, MCC did it AFTER the approval to buy the land in Dec. 1910.  Given its first mention in Jan 1911, I have always believed this to be the case.  I know from surveying similar sites back in the 70's, using similar equipment that it can take a month to take all those shots and hand draw the map. (Believe me, that old surveyor’s level Killian and Nugent had might have been from the 1920’s or so)
   
That puts the topo map production (and, I believe, routing) back to November 1910 at least, and IMHO probably later.  IF the developer had commissioned the surveyor’s/engineers to do topos back in June upon completing their land deal, wasn’t that enough time to have shown that on the map their engineers drew?  Not much reason not to show it.  Ditto with the land swap if it has occurred prior to then.  Few surveyors are comfortable showing a map that is wrong for any reason.  I doubt Merion would show members a wrong map for a vote, either.

Ditto any routings, although those would have been by the club.  The only reasons NOT to show them would be that they weren’t started, or started but so far from anything they were comfortable as final they didn’t care to get anyone’s hopes up, so I can understand some “in between” in the process, regardless of contract dates, committee appointments, etc.

I will give you this - one later reference to the 1924 re-routing mentioning something to the effect that it was the routing the committee favored originally, does suggest they were considering other parcels of land including the current holes 10-13 before land purchase.  And, presumably considering them in some level of detail similar to what you suggest.  I can understand why you call it routing. but it certainly wasn't a detailed routing of any kind.  But, it is all part of the narrowing process.

We just have to speculate as to how much further than basic land allocation studies they did and to a large degree how much CBM was involved in between visits.  You mention that we KNOW there was communication…..  but we really don’t know, and as far as I can tell, CBM offered (or could have offered) most if not all of his valuable advice within those three visits, given the sophistication of the day.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Your post seems to presume that I agree with your still speculative theory that the routing was done in 1910 on a topo that isn't mentioned until Jan 11.

If you are talking about my statements about Wilson's Committee, I don't think my post makes any such presumption.  The April "Golf Committee" report was not a super-secret Construction Committee report.  Wilson was NOT the Chair of the Golf Committee in 1910, nor was he even on this Committee in 1910 when the planning began. We'd have to speculate to say when the Construction Committee was created.

In reading your posts, it seems we really agree on the broad bones of CBM’s involvement and agree the rest IS speculation on all our parts.

I guess it depends on are and aren't "the broad bones," but I am not sure we agree on what is speculation and what isn't. Virtually everything about Hugh Wilson's involvement in the planning of the layout is speculative.  This isn't the case with Macdonald and Whigham.  For example:
- We know they were involved beginning in June.  
- We know they were considering the "difficult problem" of how to fit eighteen first class holes on the land.
- We know they wanted to add the land around the clubhouse.
- We know they realized the potential of the creeks and the quarry, and that they anticipated the need for some artificial mounding.
- We know that they had specific hole distances in mind, and that those holes are a pretty good match for what was eventually built.
- We know that they mentioned the need for a contour map so they could tell how the holes would fit on the land.  
- We know that Merion decided to purchase the land based largely on what their opinions as to what could be done with the land.
- We know that they were communicating with Merion beyond the scope of the June 29 letter.

That is just from the first visit, and it isn't everything. Compare that to what we know about Hugh Wilson's involvement from this period.  

This is a very important distinction.  We know a heck of a lot about CBM and HJW's involvement, and so when we do speculate, that speculation is at least informed by the factual record. This is not the case with Hugh Wilson.  The tenuous speculation only comes in when we start trying to figure out a way to inject Hugh Wilson into the process with little or no factual support whatsoever.

Also, Jeff, I think you again overstate my theory.  I believe that a rough routing was in place in the fall, not that the "routing was done" or that it was a "detailed routing."  Whatever rough routing was in place could have changed before April 1911 (I think it may have changed even before Nov. 1910.)   But by November 1910 they knew enough about how the holes would fit to box themselves into a pretty unusual parcel with only minor flexibility, and from the map it looks as if they had already added the Francis land to that parcel.)

As for the contour map, I don't think it is reasonable for you to assume that CBM and HJW wouldn't have even begun to considering how the holes would fit before they had a contour map, especially since they were already considering how the holes would fit in June.  I thought we had already agreed that at the very least they'd have had to consider how some of the holes would fit, around the clubhouse and behind, and in any other tight spots?

As for the timing of the creation of the contour map, interesting speculation on your part, but nothing about my opinion depends upon the contour map having been created earlier in 1910.  CBM/HJW could have easily explained to them in June how they envisioned the holes fitting, they could have drawn it in the dirt, they could have put it right on top of Barker's layout plan, or they could have walked them through it on the phone.  My point is that they communicated enough about the holes they envisioned that (with the Francis adjustment) they could go ahead and commit to purchase the property  I am talking about a rough routing here, not a finished routing or detailed plan!

As for my speculation on when the map was created, I don't think I've done much of that because I don't think it matters.  But at the very latest I think it is a pretty good bet that the contour map was finished and sent to CB Macdonald by the time that Merion announced to their membership that "experts are at work planning the course" in early January 1911.  Do you agree that once they had a contour map, that they'd have sent it to CBM?

I still think your expectation that a rough routing would show up on the developers map is unreasonable, especially because that map was most likely created by the developer and not Merion.  As I said, I believe a rough routing was in place, but not a detailed plan.  And I don't think it reasonable to assume they should have included a rough routing before CBM finalized the plan. If the Francis swap occurred when I think it did, then CBM had neither personally seen nor approved those changes yet.

You seem to think Merion members voted on the map.  I don't think they did.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good morning and I hope you had a good Father's Day.

Not really worth going into much more, since we often talk past each other.

Suffice to say, I don't agree that there is any record of CBM's continued involvement beyond the stated "He came to Haverford twice, and hosted us at NGLA".  So, to me, that is pure speculation.  Again, beyond CBM's advice which is well documented, there is little direct written evidence he ever took pencil to paper on their behalf to create a routing, nor that they asked him too.  And, again, hard to believe CBM says he cannot tell too much detail without a topo in front of him, and we presume that this means he was going to route it out anyway.

Really, after thinking about it last night, I guess it was only my speculation that consideration of the parcel containing the current 11G and 12T might have occurred in 1910.  Maybe it occurred during the routing in 1911, after they realized they had to cross Ardmore after several routings, but word was out, and the price of that land became too high.  They might have made an inquiry and decided it couldn't be done price or time wise with construction looming.

I think the timing of the topo is important, as well as the fact that it shows up in Wilson's hand first, at least according to the record.  Whatever his title, he is the first one we know was working with it, indicating a hevay role.  Working with plans is planning, no matter how you cut it.

And, I do think (given drafting techniques of the time) that the developers engineers/surveyors would have prepared a separate exhibit without topo lines, if they had them.  Why wouldn't they?  You keep telling me that "things were different" back then, although I have no idea how you would know.  Basically, engineers and architects present what they know at the time the plan was drawn.  It would be a real coincidence of timing to have the topo and not show it on that map.  That would presume it got done a few days before the map was due and there just wasn't time to add it. (not totally impossible, but a tremendous quirk)

Ditto all the fancy explanations as to why the Francis swap, if it occurred in 1910, wouldn't show up on the map of Nove 1910.  Basically, you have to say that all the information you say they had by that time was purposely left off the map - topo, rough (or in today's parlance, preliminary) routing.  It takes a lot of mental maniupulation to explain why that map did not accureatly reflect what was the basic agreement in place at that time.  I mean, we have to presume that they all agreed to not portray things as were, no?

Saying that the timing of the topo has no importance, and doesn't affect your theory seems like too casual a dismissal of a pretty seminal event in any routing to me, and a very convenient deflection of an important issue, if you are concerned with what really happened at Merion.

Well, there I go again, saying we shouldn't hash it out, and then I do.......I think we are back to the point of not discussing it until some new document comes up for the benefit of this website.  Our opinions/speculation/analysis just really don't matter any more!

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

Thanks for your last response.   It is in many ways typical of the way these conversations go.   Like others, you are obviously quite willing to freely speculate when it comes to Hugh Wilson's involvement.  And you are also willing to come up with all sorts of speculative theories, inquiries, and requirements when it comes to trying to minimize the extend and importance of CBM/HJW's involvement.  Different standards are at work here.  One for Macdonald and quite another for Wilson.  It is more of the Wilson-as-Architect-by-Default approach.

While I cannot fill in every detail, I know that during the planning phase Merion was repeatedly turning to CBM/HJW for guidance regarding how to lay out their golf course, and that Merion was repeatedly basing their decisions on CBM/HJW's recommendations.

A couple of small points.

1. The francis swap does show up on the Nov. map. 

2. The timing of the contour map is important, but all we know is that it was created between June 1910 and the end of January 1911.   I don't see the point in all the speculation beyond that when I know that there was a contour map in existence in plenty of time for CBM to have worked out the details of "his plans" before and at NGLA.

3. You didn't answer my question and I wish you would:   Do you agree that once they had a contour map, that they'd have sent it to CBM?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dave,

You could turn your first paragraph statement about speculation around, and it would apply to my feelings about some of what you write!  Right or wrong, I have always felt like no one would attempt a detailed history, such as your IMO piece, with the idea of merely confirming what was already known.  It is almost implied that you wanted to contribute something different, such as the timing of the Wilson trip, but also the proper amount of CBM attribution/contribution.  As such, I have always felt that you presume the conclusion in some of your writings, but, we have discussed that before.

I am not trying to minimize CBM's advice and help at all, just merely trying to confine it at the moment to what the record shows.  And, the record doesn't specifically record him doing a routing that I can see.

I don't know, but don't doubt that they would share a topo with CBM when available, which is why I feel the timing IS important.  Wilson first writes of it in late January 1911, and they go to NGLA in early Feb 1911.  They could have mailed it ahead of time, or just taken a copy of it over there for CBM if it shows up around when the record shows it showed up.  

And, I have no doubt that it is logical that he had it after NGLA and maybe before slightly.  I am not sure he prepared any routings (they never mentioned it, other than in your linguistic liberty of inserting words into their report) or if he ever got copies of those five routings that he reviewed in April.  Again, we just cannot know that, although they seemed to state that his review was done mostly by what he saw on the ground and from their plans that day.

Just how do you know it was in existence well in time for you to reword the record to say that he made plans for MCC before they got to NGLA?  I don't think it was, for reasons stated.  It seems you conclude that CBM had a routing (even though I don't read it that way) and use that assumption to conclude the topo was ready earlier.  I don't think we can know that, nor do I think it logically follows.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

Your aspersions on my approach notwithstanding, my record on Merion's history is quite sound and any speculation is (and always has been) supported by the record. This isn't the case with those trying to prop up Wilson.

I am not trying to minimize CBM's advice and help at all, just merely trying to confine it at the moment to what the record shows.

I'd say this pretty well summarizes it. Except you fail to mention that you and others take a very different approach with regards to Hugh Wilson.  

With Hugh Wilson you and others make all sorts of unsupported and unsupportable suppositions, regardless of the actual record.  Yet with Macdonald and Whigham, if it is not explicitly spelled out in the record by multiple sources, well then it just couldn't have happened. The documented record of Macdonald's involvement is at this point overwhelming, and all arrows point to Macdonald.  About all you guys are clinging to is the fact that every single minute detail of what he contributed wasn't spelled out.

Just how do you know it was in existence well in time for you to reword the record to say that he made plans for MCC before they got to NGLA?

What are you talking about?  I didn't reword any record. I believe, given what I have explained before, that he may have been working plans before NGLA.  But when I extrapolate from the known facts, I am accused of "rewording the record?"

And for "the record," the Lesley report does say that they went over "his plans" at NGLA.  The minutes said they spent the first evening "looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses." You guys read this and insist it couldn't possibly be referencing his plans for Merion, but that is NOT the only viable interpretation.   I don't stake my argument on it, but "his plans" could mean his plans for Merion.

It seems you conclude that CBM had a routing (even though I don't read it that way) and use that assumption to conclude the topo was ready earlier.

Jeff, I've explained this again and again.  I don't think he needed a contour to in order to communicate to them a rough idea of the routing he had in mind.   You keep trying to say I that I insist he had a contour early on and that I insist he had worked out a detailed routing before Nov. 1910 but this is not my position.  Please read what I write and quit assigning things to me that I am not saying.  We are going around and around with these last two points. with you insisting that I am arguing something that I am not.    And all the while you ignore what I have actually written!  
______________________________________

A few random points and questions. . . .

- You are off on the date of the NGLA trip.   They didn't travel to NGLA until March, a few weeks before CBM and HJW would return to Merion to determine the final plan from among various options and finally approve the plan.  

- Why would he not have the contour until "after NGLA?"  That makes no sense whatsoever.  You think they were going up to NGLA so he could help them plan they layout, but they didn't bother to send him a contour or even bring one with them?  This even though he told them he needed one to fit the holes? This is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.  If it is not explicitly spelled out in no uncertain terms, you guys just bury your heads in the sand, refusing to make even the most obvious connections.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

It appears we are inching closer to "angrying up the blood" again, which is not my intent. This will be short.

To answer your questions, I think the topos arrived in January, and Wilson, being the kind of guy he was, quickly sent them off to Oakley, and most likely, CBM, at exactly the same time.  So, I wouldn't mind presuming CBM had the topos before the NGLA meeting, and if not, probably got a copy at that meeting.  We do know they brought "many plans" presumably their first routing attemps on the topo.

Where you lose me is that of all the CBM assistance they recorded, niether he nor they ever mentioned what would have been the most important - that they asked him to do a routing.  Why? I have never believed he would have put time in until land deals were final, as he was a busy man and wouldn't waste too much time on a routing for what might not become a real parcel.  Nor do I believe he would over step his bounds and prepare a routing if they hadn't asked him to.

We generally agree that in June 1910, CBM carefully considered whether a golf course would fit on their property.  I agree he probably saw the 13th as a gem location for his favorite short hole, and I have always figured that he studied the property enough to know that they needed an 11/7 split of holes across Ardmore, based on space available.  I figure he knew there were 4 hole corridors south of Ardmore - two each side of the creek.  He probably did quick length studies to see how those 11 or so holes might fit.  I believe they discussed the necessity of the Dallas property that day, and it took all of July and August to finish that land deal, in secret, of course.  I am speculating, but having written such letters myself, it wouldn't surprise me if his "100 acres is enough" letter comments were actually a ruse to assist in negotations with the Dallas Estate (We don't really need it, but......)

Whether all of that known fact and even speculation about what he did over a few days of study qualifies as a rough routing, I do not know, but understand how you think it was.

As to few mentions of Wilson in this era, I argue that it was viewed as a committee function and only later did it become clear just how much Wilson worked on the course, adding perhaps incorrectly, to his legend.  But they only say the committee spent many hours, and that the committee went to NGLA, etc.  So, I agree, he may not have been the prime mover in drawing the actual routings.  But, I believe the committee when they wrote that they had many plans, went to NGLA, and then drew five more.  Of course, it was based on CBM's advice there, and it would be hard to argue that he didn't wave his arms, suggest holes, etc. when viewing their first attempts.  So, there is some probable CBM routing input whether you believe he drew holes before that or not.  I always imagined that he dismissed those first attempts pretty abrubtly, but again, who knows.

Lastly, I didn't say there was anything sinister (to paraphrase your recent quote about Merion building up Wilson over time) but do believe that considering any biases of the writer is generally part of the review process.  And, specifically part of reviewing your work, since you leave little doubt in your original essay or current tag line what your biases are.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff, My blood isn't boiling. I think our tone here has been relatively civil and I appreciate that and hope you do as well.  Much in your post seems very reasonable and probably is about as close as we'll come to agreement.  I’ll focus on the issues where we have some agreement, and leave aside as unresolvable those few remaining issues where we seem to still be talking past each other.  

1. The Contour Map.  You wrote: "I think the topos arrived in January, and Wilson, being the kind of guy he was, quickly sent them off to Oakley, and most likely, CBM, at exactly the same time.  So, I wouldn't mind presuming CBM had the topos before the NGLA meeting, and if not, probably got a copy at that meeting.  We do know they brought "many plans" presumably their first routing attemps on the topo."

I think these are reasonable assumptions and share in them to a degree.  Wilson certainly seems to have been the type who would have sent the contour map out to Oakley and CBM as soon as he got them.  And I agree that the "various plans" they laid out on the land after returning NGLA were probably first created using the contour map.  I think this is what they were doing at NGLA - working on these plans - and below you seem to agree to that as well.  I don't agree that they necessarily had the contour map when they had tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to "lay[] out many different courses on the new land."  But I'll touch on that below.

My quibble regarding the contour map (and it is a minor one) is that while we agree that it seems like Wilson would have sent the contour our out as soon as he got it, we don't really know how long Merion might have had the contour map before Wilson became involved in project.   The map was created sometime July through January, and so it is at least possible that CBM could have had the contour even before Wilson became involved in the project.   This would help explain why Merion reported to membership that "experts were at work planning the course" in late Dec. 1910 or early January 1911.  But as I said in posts above, I don’t really view the exact timing of the contour is worth arguing over.  I don't know when CBM got it exactly, and (if CBM didn't already have it) we agree that Wilson probably would have sent it to CBM and Oakley as soon as Wilson got it.

2. The Early Planning Process. You wrote: "We generally agree that in June 1910, CBM carefully considered whether a golf course would fit on their property.  I agree he probably saw the 13th as a gem location for his favorite short hole, and I have always figured that he studied the property enough to know that they needed an 11/7 split of holes across Ardmore, based on space available.  I figure he knew there were 4 hole corridors south of Ardmore - two each side of the creek.  He probably did quick length studies to see how those 11 or so holes might fit.  I believe they discussed the necessity of the Dallas property that day, and it took all of July and August to finish that land deal, in secret, of course."

This is a heck of a lot to generally agree upon, don't you think?  My opinion might go a bit farther than yours, in that think they'd also have been looking to see how they could fit their other favorite golf holes.  But nonetheless it looks like we are general agreement as to at least some of of the types of things CBM and Whigham would have been considering June 1910.

3. Wilson's Early Involvement. You wrote: "As to few mentions of Wilson in this era, I argue that it was viewed as a committee function and only later did it become clear just how much Wilson worked on the course, adding perhaps incorrectly, to his legend.  But they only say the committee spent many hours, and that the committee went to NGLA, etc.  So, I agree, he may not have been the prime mover in drawing the actual routings.

I agree with this.   My only caution is that we have to play attention to which committee was active at the different stages.  For example, Wilson wasn't a member of the Committee active on the project throughout 1910, and he wasn’t chair of this committee in April 1911. I don’t know whether or not he had yet been added to the Golf Committee at this point.

4. The Planning Before and at NGLA. But, I believe the committee when they wrote that they had many plans, went to NGLA, and then drew five more.  Of course, it was based on CBM's advice there, and it would be hard to argue that he didn't wave his arms, suggest holes, etc. when viewing their first attempts.  So, there is some probable CBM routing input whether you believe he drew holes before that or not.  I always imagined that he dismissed those first attempts pretty abrubtly, but again, who knows.

I agree with much of this.  My main point of contention is that I think he’d have been been inclined to “wave his arms, suggest holes, etc.” from when he first examined the property well back in June.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but here you seem to be suggesting CBM didn’t have any real input on the plans until NGLA, but this doesn’t really seem consistent with what you wrote above about how, when he went over the property in June 1910, he “probably saw the 13th as a gem location for his favorite short hole . . . studied the property enough to know that they needed an 11/7 split of holes across Ardmore . . . knew there were 4 hole corridors south of Ardmore - two each side of the creek . . . did quick length studies to see how those 11 or so holes might fit.”   I consider all of what you suggested to be part of the planning process, so I don't quite understand the position you seem to be taking now.

5. Conclusion. In short, we agree on quite a lot.   I guess I disagree to the extent that you exclude CBM from possibly having had input into whatever planning had taken place before NGLA.  But even here we don't have drastically different ideas of they types of things CBM was contributing in June 1910.  It is just that you seem to disconnect what he was doing in June from the rest of the planning process, while I don't.  

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good to know we are still on good terms.

Not a lot to say, other than the truth of that early period is probably somewhere in the broad middle.  In general, I believe the intent in that period was solely to nail down an appropriate site, but agree that its impossible to completely separate routing from land acquistion into two separate functions.

So, I might still classify the routing as <10% done (hard to estimate, we don't know) and I suspect you feel it was far closer to the finish line, including the Francis land swap, which I have never agreed with.

One question, but was Francis on the site selection (or whatever) committee working in 1910?  From memory, I didn't think he was, which is another factor that makes me wonder how he might have been involved in an uncredited way.  I mean, if we are to believe Wilson couldn't have shown up because of the committee structure, wouldn't the same hold true for Francis?

[DMoriarty]

Francis was not.  Lloyd was. 

We've debated the Francis Swap to death.  It is one of the areas where we have no chance at any agreement.  No use discussing it yet again.

[JESII]

David,

Not sure if you have lingering questions for me...I'll go look.

How can you reconcile Richard Francis not being on the committee but working on the routing in 1910?

Remember, I agree that the Swap he thought up had to happen prior to the November proposal to the membership but don't have any evidence other than the triangle's existence on that planning map.

[DMoriarty]

I think he was involved in the fall of 1910 for the same reason I think Griscom was involved in June 1910.  Because the record as I understand it indicates they were involved.   Show me facts placing Wilson out there and I'll be glad to put him out there as well.  

If you guys want to argue that Francis's involvement somehow means that Wilson must have been there as well, then knock yourselves out.   I don't  agree with the logic, but I am sure you won't let that stop you.   It makes at least as much sense as Cirba's Green Chair argument, but then that isn't saying much.

[JESII]

David,

What part of the record indicates Richard Francis was involved in 1910?

Forget Wilson, just Francis.

[DMoriarty]

Nothing we haven't discussed repeatedly.  For reasons I have explained dozens of times, I think the swap must have occurred before Nov. 15, 1910, based on the club documents from that time, plus the (much) later Francis statement.  That is all I mean.  As for Griscom, the club documents indicate he is the one who got Macdonald and Whigham to come down and go over the land.

[JESII]

David,

I agree that the swap occurred prior to the land plan being drawn for the membership.

I agree that this puts Francis on the course then.

You need to agree that there is absolutely nothing that substantiates this.

You also need to realize that when Francis says he was added to the committee Wilson led, he would not have been involved prior to Wilson...

Tom Paul tells me the swap couldn't have occurred prior to buying the land in December 1910 because they didn't own it. Two issues with that:

1) They certainly had an agreement of sale well before the formal settlement date
2) They , Merion, didn't buy the land until July 1911. HDC took title in Lloyd's name.

[DMoriarty]

Jim, I understand what you are saying, but please don't tell me to what I "need to agree."  For the same reasons as you, I think the swap occurred before Nov. 15, 1910. While some might disagree, we have good reason to think so, otherwise I wouldn't so think. That is all I meant.

I understand why you would want to think that Francis would have been added to the process after Wilson, but I don't see it that way.  As I see it, there was a need for Francis in the Fall of 1910 because, as he said, he was an engineer and he understood plans. Just as there was a need to have Griscom involved in June of 1910 because he ran in the same social and golfing set as Macdonald.  I see this as how they got involved in the project.  I know what Francis wrote 40 years later, but it doesn't sway me to your view.

[JESII]

David, surely you realize how ridiculous it sounde to suggest Griscom was only involved so that he could get CBM to design the course for them...

[DMoriarty]

And surely you must realize that that is not what I said.  We know he was involved at this because the July 1, 1910 Lesley report mentions that Griscom facilitated Macdonald's and Whigham's visit.   You and I think Francis was involved because we believe that the record indicates that this is when the supposed land swap took place.

[JESII]

Just as there was a need to have Griscom involved in June of 1910 because he ran in the same social and golfing set as Macdonald. 

Griscom was involved because he knew CBM...

[DMoriarty]

You are twisting my words.

[JESII]

If so, it's not intentional...simply how it reads.

[DMoriarty]

I think maybe that is how you choose to read it, but not what I wrote or meant.   I never suggested "Griscom was only involved so that he could get CBM to design the course for them..."  Those were your words, not mine.   

Here is what I know about Griscom's direct involvement in the summer and fall of 1910: He arranged for CBM and HJW to travel to Merion so that Macdonald and Whigham could go over the land and advise Merion "as to what could be done with the property."   Do you have anything else from the contemporaneous record about his involvement in 1910?

[I know that those arguing for Anyone-But-Macdonald are hoping to bootstrap Griscom into some sort of an international expert on golf design, but such supposition will fall flat for reasons which are beyond the scope of our current discussion.]