Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Steve_ Shaffer on June 14, 2004, 02:47:59 PM
-
Has he been in touch with Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison?
www.golfdigest.com/majors/usopen/index.ssf?/majors/usopen/shinnecock.html
-
This is a great article and really details the history and evolution of the course. Ron details the work done by Seth Raynor and what remains today. Here is the text:
Course Critic
by: Ron Whitten
Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, Southampton, N.Y.
One of the questions of golf design that had long nagged me was why William S. Flynn, when he totally remodeled Shinnecock Hills Golf Club in 1929-1930, retained its Redan hole, now the par-3 seventh. It's certainly a great one-shotter, with the green sloping from front to back and right to left. But it wasn't a hole in Flynn's usual repertoire. It was built in 1917 by Seth Raynor, who reproduced the trademark par 3 on nearly every design he and his mentor/partner C.B. Macdonald ever did. I can't think of another William Flynn course that features a Redan green. That didn't seem to be Flynn's style. So why did he keep it?
A quick history lesson is in order. The original 12-hole course of Shinnecock Hills was designed in 1891 by Willie Davis, a Brit who had emigrated to Montreal in 1890 and was summoned to Long Island by Shinnecock's founders. Shinnecock's club history, which credits the original design to young Willie Dunn, has it wrong. Willie Dunn was brought in after Davis moved on to lay out Newport (R.I.) Country Club in 1894. Dunn remodeled and expanded the original course to an 18-hole layout in 1895. (Dunn had previously added a nine-hole ladies course, called the Red Course.) As the New York Times reported on March 8, 1896, "After Willie Davis went to Newport, Willie Dunn, one of the most celebrated Scotch professionals that has ever come to America, was secured to take charge of the grounds, and a great deal of the excellence which they possess today, as well as some of their most characteristic features, are due to Willie Dunn's ideas."
(An aside here, relevant since Shinnecock Hills is hosting the 2004 U.S. Open. Dunn had won a four-man professional match-play event at New York's St. Andrews Golf Club in 1894, defeating, of all people, Willie Davis in the first round and Willie Campbell in the finals. Dunn always contended that made him America's first "national champion" and he had a gold medal from that victory proclaiming him as such. But the U.S. Golf Association wasn't formed until the following year, and it started the tournament to determine a national champion, the United States Open, that fall. Dunn finished second in that inaugural event, the closest he came to a real U.S. Open title. Shinnecock Hills hosted its first U.S. Open the very next year, on its Willie Dunn redesigned course. Dunn finished 12th, but he wasn't the first designer to play the U.S. Open on a course of his design. Willie Davis was, having played in the 1895 event on his own Newport Country Club design.)
Back to the evolution of Shinnecock. Charles Blair Macdonald unveiled his National Golf Links next door to Shinnecock in 1911, and the two clubs had a semi-comfortable relationship for a few years following that, even sharing a pro-greenkeeper during World War I. In 1916, Macdonald (a Shinnecock member) and his associate Seth Raynor were hired to remodel Shinnecock, but since C.B. doesn't list the course in his grand book, Scotland's Gift - Golf's, as one of the 17 courses he designed in his career, we can assume that Raynor did most, if not all, of the redesign. (Raynor, by the way, had been a 17-year-old grunt carrying rods and chains for his father David when the latter first surveyed Shinnecock during construction of its original 12 holes.)
Raynor's job was to realign the course to eliminate several holes bisected by the Long Island Railroad. He expanded the course to the northwest, closer still to National, and added his (and Macdonald's) four pet par 3s, the Short, Eden, Biarritz and Redan, as well as a version of St. Andrew's famous Road Hole, all holes they invariably installed on every one of their designs. The result was a quaint course of just 6,108 yards, par 70, a pleasant companion to National Golf Links across the fence.
But in 1928, Suffolk County announced it would route the new Sunshine Highway (now Route 27) right through the southern holes of Shinnecock. Faced with the prospect of holes bisected by a steady stream of automobiles, club president Lucien Tyng bought new land for replacement holes and hired William S. Flynn to design a new Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. That course opened July 1, 1931, on land still owned by Tyng. He didn't sell it to the club until 1948, for $20,000.
Flynn's design is the course that exists today, with a few modifications. He retained only three holes from the Raynor design, the present third, seventh and ninth. (He also followed existing corridors in designing the first, second and eighth, but made different holes of them.) The third is a fine, strong par 4, only slightly rebunkered by Flynn by the addition of carry-bunkers off the tee. The ninth, the least beloved hole on an otherwise universally-admired U.S. Open course, was a strange one to retain, with its roller coaster fairway and its half-blind green perched 40 feet above the landing area. But it was originally the 18th, on both the Raynor layout and the Flynn plan (the nines were switched in the early 1930s), so we can assume club members insisted the course finish right in the shadow of their 1893 Stanford White-designed clubhouse. The ninth, too, was rebunkered by Flynn. As for the Redan hole, he filled in a long strip bunker behind the green, but otherwise left the hole intact.
The proof is in Flynn's sixth hole at Shinnecock Hills, a long dogleg-right par 4 with alternate fairways and a pond in a hollow well short of the green. That hole is an unabashed imitation of the classic "Channel Hole" at Lido Golf Club, the ill-fated 1917 Macdonald & Raynor design that didn't survive World War II. Some say that course was their greatest effort. It certainly was a great engineering feat, built on sand dunes pumped from Reynolds Channel onto a barrier island of the Atlantic, and featuring a great combination of imitation holes and bold originals. The Channel, one of those originals, was the 505-yard par-5 fourth, proclaimed by Macdonald as "the greatest two-shot hole in the world." It had a boomerang fairway to the left, and an alternate, narrow, gambling fairway dead ahead, both guarded by tidal lagoons.
On Shinnecock's sixth, except for a retention pond well short of the green, Flynn substituted sand dunes for the lagoons of the original, but otherwise his design, and the options of play, are clearly copies of the Macdonald & Raynor Channel Hole, although he always intended it as a long par 4. Unfortunately, the dunes were subsequently grassed over (probably during World War II, when maintenance was minimal, since a 1938 aerial still shows the dunes), and more conventional bunkers now delineate the optional routes. But it's still a remarkable golf hole. (All the more remarkable: photos of Shinnecock's sixth taken soon after completion even show a beach bunker extending across the front of the pond, a design feature not seen again in American golf architecture until the 1980s.)
Until I closely studied Shinnecock Hills, I had no idea that Flynn admired Macdonald & Raynor. I can find nothing written by Flynn that praises their work. I can find no other course of his design where he consciously copied any their ideas. But he clearly did so at Shinnecock, perhaps because he was remodeling one of their courses and felt a slight obligation to honor their work. Whatever the reason, Shinnecock Hills is better for his decision to retain the Redan hole, and for his idea to fashion the sixth hole into a tribute to what may well be the most provocative Macdonald & Raynor's hole of all time.
(One last aside. The present Lido Golf Club is a Trent Jones design of the 1950s, on land near, but not atop, the original Lido. On that design, Trent also fashioned a version of the Channel Hole. It says a great deal about the esteem with which architects hold both C.B. Macdonald and Seth Raynor that both Flynn and Trent Jones would consciously copy an otherwise extinct Macdonald & Raynor concept.)
-
A terrific piece by Whitten. Congrats Ron. I hope you will do more like it.
Makes me want to re-up my Golf Digest subscription.
Heck, it's so so good that about half way through I wondered if I wasn't reading a GCA post by Wayne or Tom. ;)
Bob
-
The wildest read on Golf Digest's web site is this whopper on
Trump and his desire to get a U.S. Open (check out the pic
of Tom Fazio mock-cutting Trump's infamous 'do):
egofest within (http://www.golfdigest.com/majors/usopen/index.ssf?/majors/usopen/gd200406trump.html)
-
The ninth, the least beloved hole on an otherwise universally-admired U.S. Open course, was a strange one to retain, with its roller coaster fairway and its half-blind green perched 40 feet above the landing area.
Really? The least beloved hole on an otherwise universally admired course?
If so: Why?
-
Bob,
Thank you for thinking of Tom and I while you were reading the Shinnecock piece by Ron Whitten. But if Tommy and I wrote that piece, we would not have wondered so much about why Flynn kept a Redan. I'm not at all certain it is an original M/R Redan, more likely Flynn's adaptation especially considering the Flynn tee that makes that hole play far superior--too bad the club went back to using the M/R tee. In addition, the bunkering is a lot different than Mr. Whitten states. Flynn built a number of Redans as well as reverse Redans.
I wouldn't call the 6th at Shinnecock a clear copy of the Channel Hole at Lido. Unless all alternate fairway holes are considered clear copies. Maybe Paul Turner, Tommy Naccarato, Tom MacWood, or someone knows when the first alternate fairway hole was built. Flynn's design of the 6th at Shinnecock Hills postdates and reminds us of his design for a reverse channel hole long par 4 at Opa Locka in Florida (there's an airport on the site now) which was built for Curtiss (of aviation fame) but folded soon after completion as a result of the land bubble bursting in FL and the 1926 hurricane.
Most everything else Mr. Whitten wrote was not only quite good but quite accurate--except the 9th hole comment--I agree with you Jimmy. Maybe it is his least favorite hole but I don't think it comes close to universal agreement there. I'm hard pressed to think of a least beloved hole. I think there are 18 great holes in the golf course with a routing iteration that flows really well. I know Jim Finegan thinks the approach shot into 9 a great one. The Flynn bunkers built into the hillside on this hole are reminiscent of Flynn bunkers on other courses such as Brookline and Pine Valley and add great color and texture to the hole. The M/R version had no bunkers near the green.
-
(http://content-golf.live.advance.net/images/gd200406/trump1.jpg)
What does worthy of a U.S. Open mean?
Has Mr. Whitten cutback on his specualting this year?
-
Although William Flynn may've had real admiration for Macdonald and Raynor and some of their holes there's no real reason to think that was why he retained some of their holes at Shinnecock!
If one carefully reads David Goddard's excellent chronicle of the evolution of Shinnecock's course(s) in the 1927 to 1932 time period (Goddard took some of his facts from Hugh Alison's review for Shinnecock of Flynn's preconstruction design plans) it's fairly plain to see there was probably another very functional reason for the retention of some of the Macdonald/Raynor holes---but only for a time in their preexisting form.
Basically Flynn built 12 new and original holes on land that was purchased in 1927 by Lucien Tyng in three lots or sections that include what is now the entire back nine (with the exception of present #18 which was not a hole but was on the club's property) and holes #4,5,6.
Initially, the new Flynn plan called for three nines retaining some of the old Macdonald/Raynor holes basically as one of the nines south and west of the clubhouse. Flynn's initial Shinnecock design blueprint iterations show not an 18 hole course but three nine hole iterations that were color coded as "nines". (Some of the proposed holes on one iteration were on the land to the north and east of #12, #13 and #15) and were not used as that land was not purchased (Alison's report labeled those holes as not on the best land).
For whatever reason----Goddard speculates due to maintenance costs or perhaps the fact that Rte 27 was not built exactly where Tyng thought it might be---=most of those Macdonald/Raynor holes were let go in favor of only 18 holes at Shinnecock.
But the real reason those six Macdonald/Raynor holes (#1,2,3,7,8,9) were somewhat reused (in landform use and partial green-site reuse) was the club was trying to keep 18 holes in play continuously with Flynn's new original 12! That is until Flynn came back in 1931 and redesigned in one way or another those six Macd/Raynor holes. (As they were being redesigned the club may have used some of the other Macdonald/Raynor holes to the south of the clubhouse during that one year 1931-32 as those holes were given up in 1932 when Flynn's redesign of the Macd/Raynor holes #1,2,3,7,8,9 came back into play after redesign)!
So it looks to me like the retention and partial reuse of app. six of the Macd/Raynor holes (#1,2,3,7,8,9) had more to do with routing considerations that included a continuous use of 18 holes in play at all times at a reasonable place than anything else.
Otherwise, I think Ron Whitten did a excellent job of research and writing of that Shinnecock article with one glaring exception---Flynn redans!! Ron says he's not aware of Flynn doing any redan holes. Flynn redan holes are all over the place---although they're very much Flynn's interpretations of the redan. He did reverse redans, including a good downhill reverse redan at Lehigh, two at Philly C.C and an excellent one at HVGC. Even Lancaster's #8 is a high mild reverse redan iteration. Flynn's HVGC redan (#3) is actually quite similar to Shinnecock's #7, in one way, as it's pretty hard to get a ball running up properly on its front slope!
And I agree with what Wayne said about Shinnecock's #6 being a copy of the famous Lido Channel hole. If it is it's a sort of loose interpretation. But the channel hole he did at NLE Opa Locha in Florida was a very exact copy of the Lido Channel hole, only a mirror image with the high risk tee shot out to the left.
-
Wayne & TE
When it was first introduced in 1930, the Pond Hole (#6) was compared to the Channel Hole. What is interesting--especially within the discussion of the relative merits of #9 and #18 as a home hole--the Pond Hole was at that time the 10th hole.
The current 10th was the 1st hole, followed by the remainder of the back nine (then the front) until you got to the current 17th (at that time the 8th). From there the routing changed to the current 5th (then the 9th), the 6th (10th), followed by the 4th (11th), the 18th (12th), 1st (13th), 2nd (14th), 3rd (15th), 7th (16th), 8th (17th) and finishing with the 9th--the Macdonald/Raynor finish.
Regarding the first alternate fairway....I'll have to think about that one. It may be Macdonald at Lido....I'd say the genesis of the alternate route can be traced back to the Old course.
-
Scott Burroughs,
Donald Trump is very bright, hard working, and a visionary of sorts, but, just because his pockets are lined with gold, doesn't mean he sings well in the shower too.
But, he's a known achiever, against all odds, so I wouldn't take his dream or vision off the tote boards yet.
Anything is possible.
TEPaul & Wayne Morrisson,
Your work on Flynn continues to be exceptional, keep it up.
-
Tom MacWood:
It's sort of early and so I'm not sure I'm following your post #8.
The present #6 hole was the 10th hole on Flynn's new 12 hole course (the Flynn original holes that when opened were considered a separate 12 hole course). Once you played those holes you could switch over to six of the old Macdonald/Raynor holes that were below the clubhouse to the south. For about a year 1930-1931 this was a "temporary" course (I have the card here). The final six holes on that temporary course were listed as;
13-Old 4th-356yd par 4-Eastward Ho
14-Old 5th-381yd par 4-Shinnecock
15-Old 6th-200yd par 3-Biarritz
16-old 7th-461yd par 5-Emabankment
17-old 10th-380 par 4-Lowlands
18-11th (Eden) tee to 2nd (Montauk) green-196yd par 3
This temporary course (routing) was obviously being used because at that time Flynn was redesigning present holes #1,2,3,7,8,9 from the old Macdonald/Raynor course (#1,12,13,14,15,18).
-
TE
That makes perfect sense....allowing for the tweeking of the 6 Raynor/Macd holes without interupting play.
-
Tom MacWood;
1930-1931 must have been an interesting year for golfers at Shinnecock. Some were still playing the old Macdonald/Raynor course in its original configuration while other golfers coming off Flynn's new 12 hole course were stepping into those six Macdonald/Raynor holes used to make up the "Temporary" course. There were temporary club rules that anyone playing the "temporary" course had to give way to anyone playing the original Macdonad/Raynor configuration.
When you start to think about this you can begin to see that in that year 1930-1931 when Flynn was redesigning those six Macdonald/Raynor holes (he began in the fall of 1930) there was no necessary reason for him to leave them as they were unless he thought they worked well for his new Shinnecock course. This very much brings into question the way the redan is today. Did he leave that green as it was or did he redesign and rebuild it? It's sort of hard to say at this point (although we think we can figure it out) but if the contour lines on the original topos Flynn was using (that might have included the elevations on the original MacD/Raynor redan) it sort of looks to us like he redesigned and rebuilt that green as the elevations on it today look higher than that original topo seem to show (with the Macd/Raynor redan)!
At this point it looks to me like the hole that may be the most retained in design was #3 (although it was rebunkered, reteed and the green was possibly worked with some). The same for present #9--the old #18. These whole course routing and design topo maps we have are really fascinating but what we don't have is Flynn's usual hole by hole drawings. If we had those (as we do with so many of his other courses) with the detailed "construction instructions" on them answering all this about what exactly was retained and what exactly was redesigned in detail would be a piece of cake!
-
Tom M and Tom P, thank you for this great thread. GCA.com lives up to its potential when the posts contribute this kind of insight. Fascinating stuff.
-
I just read this for the first time...very good, although it's an old post, I thought it would be good to share again.
I haven't played Shinnecock myself, but very much enjoy playing Raynor designs and Flynn designs (who doesn't?) and found this very interesting.
-
Steve,
Short answer, Yes.
Although you asked the question originally over 10 years ago. ;)
Shinnecock has recently restored to the original William Flynn plans and yes, the two of them were involved.
-
And Flynn did NOT retain the Redan. He dramatically changed it...
-
On another note, the 4th at the Cascades COULD have been a Redan like hole, but probably would have been problematic. However, it is a longish downhill par 3, green canted to the left, but with a pretty sharp back to front slope with a steep drop off the back, bunker left and a bail out landing area short right. Going long on this hole risks OB on US Highway 220.
The 15th hole could have been a Redan, also.
-
Carl:
For point of reference, here's the 4th at Cascades.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/488/18697307961_dce3b8b807_c.jpg)
-
And Flynn did NOT retain the Redan. He dramatically changed it...
Bill,
Are you talking about the recent changes? Or back in 1930?
-
From "The Lurker"
"This old thread is very interesting in its details of the transition in 1928-1931 to the present Flynn course from the Macdonald/Raynor Shinnecock course (1916-1917). I learned a lot reading it just now. I guess if one is my age, 10-11 years ago is enough time to forget some stuff.
I have heard recently from those Flynn historians, the remarkable golf architecture historian/Flynn biographer, Wayne Morrison, and his long time Flynn collaborator/analyst/consultant/appendage, the somewhat controversial and somewhat infamous TEPaul, that the golf course right now is amazing looking and playing what with the club has accomplished restoration-wise in the last 5-10 years. The latter fellow also met for the first time last week or so Shinnecock's superintendent, John Jennings, who moved from Chicago GC to Shinnecock GC 4-5 years ago, and was mightily impressed with him."
Carl:
Flynn's Cascades #4 is a bit "Redanish." Cascades' #15 is actually very close in design to his #10 Rolling Green, as it (Cascades) #15's tee was originally considerably to the left and played to 240 yards or so. Rolling Green's original #10 was very similar and played to app. 250 yards. In my opinion, Philadelphia in those days pretty much stood out for those kinds of ultra long par 3 designs. Even for a crack player they were intended to require a driver. Of course, Flynn was "hired on" to finish off Pine Valley after Crump died so he was certainly familiar with the famous ultra long par 3 5th hole on that famous course.
Thus sayeth The Lurker
-
The comment about Flynn holes that could have easily been Redans makes me think about Philadelphia Country Club's seventh hole. It's a terribly wonderful par three, but the way the land lays, it could have easily been built as a Redan. I love Redans, but I am kind of glad this one isn't.
-
Matt,
Why isn't it?
How about if I told you the third at Merion was/is viewed as a version of the Redan...kind of broadens the scope a bit doesn't it?
-
Jim:
You make a good point about broadening the scope of the definition, but I suppose meant that Philadelphia Country Club's No. 7 isn't the "typical" Redan with a large kick plate in front of the green.
I haven't played Merion...I'll have to take your word for it on No. 3 ;D
-
How about if I told you the third at Merion was/is viewed as a version of the Redan...kind of broadens the scope a bit doesn't it?
Jim, do you understand how/why #3 Merion was/is viewed as a Redan?
-
I think so...care to enlighten us all?
-
Here's the 7th at Philly Country Club:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/540/18530182109_ee5bddccfe_c.jpg)
and the 3rd at Merion East.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/458/18716429565_103b86c407_c.jpg)
-
I haven't played Merion either, but here is Golfweek's write up for the 2013 US Open, doesn't seem to encourage a typical Redan approach, maybe a reverse Redan?
"The longest par 3 on the course, as well as the largest green on the course, this hole is what Tiger Woods jokingly called “a drivable par-4.” Now 8,700 square feet large, this putting surface was expanded in the back to hold a low-trajectory shot. It’ll play as long as a fairway wood or utility club, though on two days the hole will likely be moved up to 219 yards and play to tighter, more forward hole locations. The green’s shape and the positioning of the three bunkers that frame the surface all call for a left-to-right approach shot; otherwise the ball flight is fighting against the long axis of the green and taking the shallowest line across. Here’s where shot shape becomes all-important – there’s at least twice as much room for the ball to run out when it’s been flighted in from the left."
Am curious as I have seen other write ups that call it a Redan either Jon or Jim or anyone else want to share.
Josh
-
Merion's third hole was intended as a (reverse) Redan, and was referred to as such throughout the course's early history. CBM highlighted it as an example of a reverse Redan in his article on the Redan concept in 1914.
The Redan was just one of the template holes (and template features) at Merion. The original and since changed tenth hole was referred to as an Alps Hole, the current sixth hole was referred to as Road Hole. There was also reportedly at attempt at an Eden green. These were CBM four core templates, but there are other holes and features at Merion which fit the with the design approach espoused by CBM.
____________________________________
As for the original post, it is a very interesting write-up but there are some errors regarding the early history of Shinnecock. The original course at Shinnecock was 9 holes and designed by William Davis. In 1893, Dunn redesigned the course and created a 12 hole layout, which he expanded to 18 holes a few years later.
Here is a link to a thread where I set out the early history in some detail. If you ignore the usual embarrassing nonsense from the usual people, there is some pretty interesting information.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46842.0.html
-
And Flynn did NOT retain the Redan. He dramatically changed it...
Bill,
Are you talking about the recent changes? Or back in 1930?
1930. Flynn altered the hole and IMHO, it is no longer a Redan. He eliminated the very long angular front left bunker and repaced it with two small bunkers. He eliminated the very long back right bunker, and inserted a front right bunker on top of the old kick mound. Still an awesome hole, but no longer a Redan. That's why I go a little crazy when people start discussing the great Redans and list this hole...
I belong to a Banks course with a Redan hole that was badly altered by William Gordon in 1960 (goodbye back right bunker, hello raised floor of the Redan bunker), well intentioned tree planters in 1970 (hello rough on the kick mound, hello narrow corridor and no more wind influence) and Rees in 1995 (hello dumb little bunker in front of the Redan bunker.) Thankfully, the green remained untouched, the white pines are gone, the kick mound is back, and Banks' bunkers will be restored.
Happily, the Redan hole concept is so strong that it is really hard for Flynn and others to completely muck it up... :) Macdonald knew what he was doing!
-
Josh:
I agree with Bill regarding the 3rd at Merion - while it displays Redan-like symptoms, I don't consider it a Redan (reverse or otherwise). I've never played it as such, nor do I find that the ball reacts as I would expect it to on a Redan. There is no meaningful kick slope to the left of the green that can be used to direct the tee shot. And the green doesn't slope significantly or consistently from front left to back right.
Here's a view of the green from off the left side:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/271/18698797906_9ba03f8867_b.jpg)
And here's a view from on the front left side of the green looking up the length of the green toward the right rear:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/559/18537330558_3c4d9f2281_b.jpg)
You can see that while the front right part of the green slopes downward, the majority of the green actually slopes upward from low front right to high back left. So a putt from the back right of the green will be downhill to almost all pin positions.
As Bill notes, this is still a fantastic (and intimidating) par 3. But it's not a Redan in my book.
-
Jon,
To be clear, I was writing about what Flynn did to the Redan at Shinnecock, not what Wilson built as Merion's third hole. So when this thread devoles into Merion Part Tres, I take no responsibility, ok? However, I caution you not to make the same (rookie) mistake that I once did: stating that Merion #3 is not a Macdonald-inspired (reverse) Redan based upon what is on the ground now.
-
Bill:
My fault - I'm not sure how I misread your post or crossed your name with someone else's. But I've fixed my post above.
And I appreciate your fair warning. I've read the prior world wars on Merion, and I'm certainly not looking to start the third. But Josh asked a question and I'm happy to give him my opinion. Which remains: that regardless of what the original architects (whoever they might have been ;) ) intended for the third hole at Merion, my opinion (as a Redan-lover myself) is that the hole currently does not play like one would expect a Redan to play. The critical omission for me is the tilt of the green (the "tilt it a little from right to left," or in this instance, left to right) which isn't present here.
But that's just me. Differences of opinion welcomed, as always.
Jon
-
Jon
Calling Merion's 3rd a Redan is purely a case of believing what was written 100 years ago against what our eyes tell us today. Then people will trot out the heavy guns and say they trust McD more than some schmuck today...makes no difference...Merion's 3rd is not a Redan. The term was an easy way for some to describe holes (still is) that may or may not have been Redans or inspired by the Redan.
Ciao
-
Here's the 7th at Philly Country Club:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/540/18530182109_ee5bddccfe_c.jpg)
I've never played the Philadelphia Country Club. Is this hole a Redan? From this photo is does resemble Tillinghast's version at Somerset Hills.
-
William Flynn was not a fan of template holes. Except for those of his own creation. ;)
-
Mike, I have no doubt that Flynn, Tillinghast and others were not a fan of template holes. From a business standpoint, these guys were probably in competition with Raynor on many projects. It is only stands to reason that they would develop a professional rivalry, and their design style, and sales pitch, would have to be quite different. I know for a fact that Tilly, Ross and Styles & Van Kleek were asked to submit "propositions" for Hackensack, but Banks won the job. I would have love to have the transcripts of each of those guys making their pitch, which almost certainly would have included their comments on the other styles...
I can't prove this, but I think they all took a bit of pleasure erasing much of their rivals work when they got their hands on one of the other's courses. That is evident at Shinnecock with Flynn, and Tillinghast at many MacRaynors when he consulted for the PGA.
-
The latter fellow also met for the first time last week or so Shinnecock's superintendent, John Jennings, who moved from Chicago GC to Shinnecock GC 4-5 years ago, and was mightily impressed with him."
Thus sayeth The Lurker
Having been a round John a few times when I worked for GCSAA, I can't imagine anyone meeting him and being unimpressed.
-
Bill,
I think there's some truth to the competitiveness of the Golden Age architects, although when Flynn did Shinny Raynor was unfortunately quite dead and CBM was no longer practicing. I wonder what he thought of the changes?
Also, although I started a thread many years ago titled, "Did Tillinghast Sell Out?" based on his PGA tour during the 1930s, I think we have to be fair to him and the economic circumstances of the day. Certainly he recommended the removal of a lot of bunkers he himself earlier might have thought good ideas, but he was definitely trying to help clubs cut costs to remain viable.
-
Here's the 7th at Philly Country Club:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/540/18530182109_ee5bddccfe_c.jpg)
I've never played the Philadelphia Country Club. Is this hole a Redan? From this photo is does resemble Tillinghast's version at Somerset Hills.
Here's a look from the tees, courtesy of Joe Bausch:
(http://pgamagazine.com/wp-content/media/2015/06/pcc7.jpg)
-
I thought #11 at Philly CC was the redan
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m1xgXu8bHqw/UcmfsA9YwrI/AAAAAAAABL0/0FVmIVVo68U/s1600/Philadelphia+Country+Club+-+32)
-
Bill,
I think there's some truth to the competitiveness of the Golden Age architects, although when Flynn did Shinny Raynor was unfortunately quite dead and CBM was no longer practicing. I wonder what he thought of the changes?
Also, although I started a thread many years ago titled, "Did Tillinghast Sell Out?" based on his PGA tour during the 1930s, I think we have to be fair to him and the economic circumstances of the day. Certainly he recommended the removal of a lot of bunkers he himself earlier might have thought good ideas, but he was definitely trying to help clubs cut costs to remain viable.
I don't know much about the relationship between Macdonald and Shinnecock, but it is not much of a reach to assume that he would have been extremely disappointed with what Flynn did to the Redan hole, especially the new front right bunker placed on the kick mound.
-
It's interesting that you say that Bill. Macdonald lived through what most of us today view as the Golden Age of Ross, Mackenzie, et.al., but other than what was related about Pine Valley I can't recall a single comment he made regarding another architects work.
-
So we are left to speculate on what CBM thought of Flynn's work. We know that he believed that he had created a masterpiece at NGLA and he wrote highly of the playing qualities of the Redan at N.B., so he could not possibly have approved of Flynn's changes. Then again, hadn't CBM been asked to resign before Flynn did the work? Maybe CBM never saw the work!
It is interesting to note the similarities of the current greenside bunkering at SH #7 and Philly CC #7, especially the "split" bunkers on the left diagonal cut of the green. This contrasts with the one long bunker on Macdonald's Redans.
You know much more about Flynn than I do, so I'll accept that he did not like templates. If he truly was a "nature faker" then the boldness of a true Redan would not have appealed to Flynn. I have little problem assuming Flynn took much satisfaction in erasing CBM's work on this hole and the other Macdonald-Raynor holes.
-
So we are left to speculate on what CBM thought of Flynn's work. We know that he believed that he had created a masterpiece at NGLA and he wrote highly of the playing qualities of the Redan at N.B., so he could not possibly have approved of Flynn's changes. Then again, hadn't CBM been asked to resign before Flynn did the work? Maybe CBM never saw the work!
It is interesting to note the similarities of the current greenside bunkering at SH #7 and Philly CC #7, especially the "split" bunkers on the left diagonal cut of the green. This contrasts with the one long bunker on Macdonald's Redans.
You know much more about Flynn than I do, so I'll accept that he did not like templates. If he truly was a "nature faker" then the boldness of a true Redan would not have appealed to Flynn. I have little problem assuming Flynn took much satisfaction in erasing CBM's work on this hole and the other Macdonald-Raynor holes.
Bill,
Your assumption on the part of both men is likely correct. ;)
Can you imagine those two on GolfClubAtlas? ;D
-
We know a bit about CBM, how would you describe Flynn's personality? Is there a current figure to whom he might compare?
-
Jim,
Good question. I'd hate to characterize him but imagine a very stocky Boston athlete who was meticulously detailed in virtually all of his endeavors who managed to come into Philadelphia, conquer it (he designed almost everything of note in the area during that period) and rubbed elbows with the wealthiest men in the country at places like Shinnecock and Boca Raton.
He had to be a charmer, I'd say.
-
Bill,
The following 1925 article unearthed not long ago by Joe Bausch probably is a good indication that Flynn was indeed striving for natural effect in his courses and also it's likely fair to say that some degree of civic competitiveness colored the writer's piece.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/TedHoytEPL/mediafiles/l35.jpg)
-
. . . I can't recall a single comment he made regarding another architects work.
Was Raynor not an architect?
Was including MacKenzie's award winning hole at the Lido not a comment/endorsement of MacKenzie's work?
What about repeat mentions of the ideas of Low, Hutchinson, and others?
How about the mention of the work of Dealy, Lucas, and Hutchins at Sandwich, which CBM referred to as "the last word in golf?"
-
Jon
Calling Merion's 3rd a Redan is purely a case of believing what was written 100 years ago against what our eyes tell us today.
These two options are really two different approaches to answering two different questions. If one is concerned with understanding the history of golf course design in America and the contextual framework in which Merion's third was created, then the only approach is to look at how the hole was understood at the time. In this regard, the historical record leaves no doubt. Merion's 3rd was designed and built to be a reversed redan hole, and it was understood as such by men such as Macdonald, Whigham, Robert Lesley, Findlay, Travis, Tillinghast, etc.
Alternatively, if one is concerned with one's own contemporary definition of what a golf hole needs to be to qualify as a "Redan", then that is a different (and largely semantic) discussion. I'd think that some might look to the history for guidance in this, but others (like Sean) disagree. To each his own.
As for me, I don't much care what qualifies as a "Redan" today, absent what the description meant historically. That is why I limited my comments to the historical context.
-
I figured you would have something to say....and it would be more meaningful if you used my entire post.
The term was an easy way for some to describe holes (still is) that may or may not have been Redans or inspired by the Redan.
Ciao
-
Jon
Calling Merion's 3rd a Redan is purely a case of believing what was written 100 years ago against what our eyes tell us today. Then people will trot out the heavy guns and say they trust McD more than some schmuck today...makes no difference...Merion's 3rd is not a Redan. The term was an easy way for some to describe holes (still is) that may or may not have been Redans or inspired by the Redan.
Sean,
What would you call the 8th at The Creek ?
-
I have never seen The Creek's 8th...have a photo?
Ciao
-
Sean, And I figured you'd have something to say when I posted originally.
Your whole post is still there for everyone to read. The sentence you highlighted - "The term was an easy way for some to describe holes (still is) that may or may not have been Redans or inspired by the Redan" - didn't seem to me to apply to Merion's 3rd. There is no "may or may not" about it with that particular hole. According to the historical record the hole was inspired by North Berwick's Redan and was considered a Redan. That it doesn't fit with your contemporary definition is really a different discussion altogether, and one I'd just as soon not enter.
-
I have never seen The Creek's 8th...have a photo?
Here is the link. And as you can imagine, there was much discussion.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=4070
WOW, thanks for the link! There are some great pictures on there.
-
David...but then you entered the discussion...in a most obvious manner ::)
Pat...the link doesn't work.
Ciao
-
David...but then you entered the discussion...in a most obvious manner ::)
Ciao
Sean, Did I? And here I thought I merely commented on how Merion's third hole was viewed historically, and tried to distinguish that inquiry from yours.
-
Here is a photo of the "redan" at The Creek club, from http://www.golfcoursegurus.com/photos/newyork/creekclub/
(http://www.golfcoursegurus.com/photos/newyork/creekclub/large/Creek-Club-8th-redan.jpg)
-
Now that we have established that you are well and truly in the discussion (I know, you a sick man)...forget what you read in a magazine, book or newspaper. Do you think Merion's 3rd is a Redan (in the true sense of The Redan) or a facsimile inspired by The Redan?
Pat...Creek's 8th looks like a typical US idea of a Redan inspired by the original or perhaps even a copy, but imo not a true Redan if the image depicts what the hole truly is. This version looks to be not only visible, but downhill. Blindness and uphill (at least to the start of the green) are critical components of a Redan as oppossed to a hole inspired by The Redan...a critical and important difference if visual and playing characteristics are at all important in determining what is and isn't a Redan.
Ciao
-
Sean A, the Russian judge! :)
Seriously, if all Redans required Sean's stamp of approval, there would be very few Redans. I understand and appreciate his ideals. Blindness is a HUGE factor at the original hole at North Berwick, and Sean seems to make that a prerequisite before a hole can be called a Redan. CB Macdonald felt differntly, and chose to build some of his Redans playing downhill. Having played NB's and many MacRaynor versions, the one key element Macdonald wanted was significant movement once the ball reached the putting surface. He obviously also was extremly faithful to the greenside bunkering, including adding the short carry bunkers.
But David is 100% right, all of these holes are inspired by N.B.'s and Macdonald certainly led the way in bringing the hole into such prominence. As far as I know, Macdonald, Raynor and Banks built a version on every course they designed. Sean woud give failing grades to some, perhaps many. But they are still Redan holes. And when you bring in a man like CB Macdonald to help route a course like Merion did, no one should be surprised to see a Redan on the plans. How Wilson actually built the hole, and how it plays today are irrelevant to the inspiration of the design.
-
Now that we have established that you are well and truly in the discussion (I know, you a sick man)...forget what you read in a magazine, book or newspaper. Do you think Merion's 3rd is a Redan (in the true sense of The Redan) or a facsimile inspired by The Redan?
Sean, I don't really cling to hard and fast definitions like you do with regard to such things, and I don't know what it takes for a hole to be a Redan "in the true sense of The Redan." I think when you say "true sense" you are talking about your understanding.
I will say that, keeping in mind what I have read about the concept of the hole as applied in the United States, and keeping in mind the harder conditions of the prior era, and keeping in mind that I am left-handed, I think can understand why they considered the hole a reversed redan. O think that a left-handed golfer can hit a low draw at the opening and have the ball work its way to the right and behind the bunker. (I've hit such a shot on the hole, with old equipment, and although I am horrible it worked for me.)
But of course it is nowhere near an exact copy, and it is missing certain elements that you and others view as essential. That is the end of the discussion for you, but not for me, and not for CBM, as none of his examples (not even NGLA, which is slightly downhill) would qualify by your standards.
"The principle of the Redan can be used wherever a long narrow tableland can be found or made. Curiously enough the Redan existed at the National long before the links was thought of. It is a perfectly natural hole. The essential part, the tilted tableland was almost exactly like the North Berwick original. All that had to be done was to dig the banker in the face, and place the tee properly. . .
There are several Redans to be found nowadays on American courses. There is a simplified Redan at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket Club (the green being approached from the left hand end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about level with the green is much higher. A beautiful short hole with the Redan principle will be found on the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course."
-
Here is a photo of Merion's 3rd from the 1934 Open Program, at http://www.trenhamgolfhistory.org/PTHGUSOpen20131934.html
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/MerionRedanfrom1934OpenProgram.jpg)
Maybe one has to be left-handed to see it, but I can see why the experts of the earlier era considered this hole to be a reversed Redan.
-
Bill
"Inspired" is the right way to look at it. Beyond that and we are really talking about ease of conversation...a way to talk about a hole which many will generally understand. In the case of many so called Redans in the US, the idea of a green tilting with perhaps the opportunity to use the slope to safely play close to the hole.
I would say that how a plays today is really the most relevant aspect of a hole. The design intent may be a quaint idea for a few wing nuts, but some would say those folks are irrelevant :D But even for a wing nut, how in the heck does Merion's 3rd function as a Redan? I understand that back in the day the hole was more Redanish with a left to right slope running up to and through the green, but the hole has changed...no? I don't recall any such opportunity to run a ball up to the green as it rests atop a steep plateau with no area for a run up or a usable let to right slope. So why refer to it in the same way as the ODGs when the hole is different?
David
You seem to insist that a hole inspired by The Redan makes it a Redan. I don't buy that premise so there is no point in carrying on.
Ciao
-
The 3rd at Merion is a tough as nails hole, arguably a great hole, but it really is a crappy redan, although as David and others point out, it was intended to be one.
I've played a bunch of redan holes including the original, and many reverse redan holes as well, including the very good one at Los Angeles CC with David Moriarty some years back. All of the best ones allow you to use the ground short and adjacent to the putting surface as part of the inherent challenge/opportunity. The one at Merion does not.
-
David
You seem to insist that a hole inspired by The Redan makes it a Redan. I don't buy that premise so there is no point in carrying on.
Ciao
I don't insist on any such thing, nor do I feel the need to come up with a hard and fast definition. But you can define "Redan" any way you like. All I am saying is that the historical record indicates that the hole was modeled after the Redan, and the was considered a reversed Redan by many of the leading commentators of the era.
_________________________________
Mike Cirba, I don't know if that was true then. There is an early report of Flynn wanting to grow rough short of the green because he wanted to stop golfers who were running their ball up the hill and onto the green.
-
Sean,
Merion #3 does not play like a Redan. You are right, there is no run up possibilty and I have no problem disqualifying it as a Redan.
But for those of us who love history, and truly enjoy comparing what is on the ground today with the architect's original intent, it is important to keep the term Redan. Macdonald called his holes Redans before you were or your father were born. CBM outranks you! He taught Raynor who taught Banks. They built their versions of Redan holes, even though they never traveled to Scotland. You might feel they are poor tributes holes, but they were absolutely inspired by North Berwick's, that cannot be in question.
Remember the game sometime played in school where a message is whispered in one person's ear who whispers it to the next person, and by the end of the line the message is completely changed? Perhaps that is what happened on the ground in the US. Macdonald saw and played N.B.'s Redan and selected what he thought were the most important characteristics. He explained that to Raynor, who "heard what he heard." Macdonald most certainly explained the hole to Wilson, who "heard what he heard" and he built Merion #3. So go ahead and take certain holes of the Sean A Approved Redan list, but the holes all pay homage to North Berwick and the retired military officer who first applied the name Redan to a golf hole.
-
I agree Bill.
It's interesting to read what Richard Francis wrote about the hole years later.
-
Sean,
Agree on a "true" Redan, but what qualities qualify a par 3 as a "true" Redan ?
Does it have to be an uphill approach ?
-
David
You seem to insist that a hole inspired by The Redan makes it a Redan. I don't buy that premise so there is no point in carrying on.
Ciao
I don't insist on any such thing, nor do I feel the need to come up with a hard and fast definition. But you can define "Redan" any way you like. All I am saying is that the historical record indicates that the hole was modeled after the Redan, and the was considered a reversed Redan by many of the leading commentators of the era.
_________________________________
Mike Cirba, I don't know if that was true then. There is an early report of Flynn wanting to grow rough short of the green because he wanted to stop golfers who were running their ball up the hill and onto the green.
David
Yes, you are saying "inspiration" equals Redan....if not, put it in your own words, but it will amout to the same thing with a load of lawyer gibberish tossed in. In any case, my opinion on what is a Redan doesn't matter a tosh. We actually have the original in damn near original state. Its not hard to compare. You choose to side with the ODGs in a loose interpretation of what charactersitics make up a Redan, which btw is very unlike you if the posts on other threads are any indication.
Bill
Well at least I got you responding (if briefly) from the 21st century ;)
Lets say Joe Bloggs decides to build his own Parthenon. But because the slab in Greece isn't quite to his taste he decides to add windows, a few entrances with porches and name his house Parthenon. Now, any intelligent person can look at the new creation and readily admit it was inspired by The Parthenon, but just as readily draw the conclusion that it is not a Parthenon. There is a world of difference between the two concepts...even if the ODGs didn't see it that way. But, I think they did see it that way and merely used the term "Redan" to convey a general idea rather than a specific set of criteria that would very closely match the original. It was an easy way to converse among what was a very small group of people....most of whom understood what was meant. Now that group of interested parties remains small, but is much larger than in the ODG's time. Using the term willy nilly (such as for downhill holes...which is entirely incorrect) causes great confusion...so much so as to distort (and I think ultimately change) what "Redan" actually means...just as in the case of your Chinese Whispers.
Patrick
I think the salient charactersitics of The Redan have been combed over many times. Which is why it is frustrating, given that we have the original in damn near original state, that people can call a blatantly downhill hole a Redan. But because some ODGs labelled some holes as Redans we are now in a position whereby many people use the term which describes holes that do not convey the salient characteristics of The Redan. So these days, any angled green with a hazard in the crook is called a redan. Very sad.
Ciao
-
Sean and I have had this argument before but let's do it again...
I believe a great Redan has these playing charactristics:
Uphill, at least partially blind approach
Cross bunkers well short of the green
Significant right-to-left tilt to the green and surrounds
Windy site
Angled green
Green runs slightly downhill
Kick mound on the right that will feed a rolling ball towards the green
Very deep angled bunker along front left side of green. (The Redan Bunker)
Greenside bunkers on the right beyond the kick mound
Last, and certainly not least, very fast and firm turf so that the ball will roll to the green, and balls flown to the green will most likely run long.
Taken together, the tee shot on a great Redan makes you take all of this in and give much thought to the shot you plan to play. Shot shape, intended loft and rollout are critical.
I would use the above as a scoring sheet to judge a Redan. Sean would use each question as pass/fail. Downhill hole? Sorry Charles Blair Macdonald, you failed to build a Redan!
For me, I would take a lot off for being downhill, which is why I don't like the one at Sleepy Hollow. The one at NGLA loses a point or two for being slightly downhill, but there is an element of blindness since you cannot see the putting surface from the tee. And NGLA's hole scores very high on every other category. From the drawings I've seen, the one Macdonald built at Shinnecock was superb, perhaps better than Piping Rock's.
-
Richard Francis wrote that the 3rd hole at Merion was one of the holes that “benefitted” from Hugh Wilson’s overseas visit and that “the location of the hole lent itself to this design”. You’ll notice he doesn’t say that they found that location while looking for a redan hole. He states that they located the hole first, and only then, working within the possibilities and constraints of their natural conditions, determined that applying some redan principles to that location might work well.
This is wholly consistent with what Francis tells us about the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad. Francis wrote that the purpose was to “incorporate their good features on our course” after Wilson returned in May of 1911.
Perhaps he got his notes mixed up? ;)
-
Sean, the Parthenon is in Athens. Do you mean the Pantheon? :)
-
Cascades 4th ... sorry I could not get this up earlier. This was taken about 3 weeks ago. Relative to Jon's photo, has there been some tree clearing?
(http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b454/cwptrogers/cascades%204%20tee_zpsaae3ogbn.jpg?t=1434118519)
-
David
Yes, you are saying "inspiration" equals Redan....if not, put it in your own words, but it will amout to the same thing with a load of lawyer gibberish tossed in. In any case, my opinion on what is a Redan doesn't matter a tosh. We actually have the original in damn near original state. Its not hard to compare. You choose to side with the ODGs in a loose interpretation of what charactersitics make up a Redan, which btw is very unlike you if the posts on other threads are any indication.
No Sean, I'm NOT saying inspiration equals Redan. I'm not saying anything else equals Redan either. I'm neither qualified to make nor interested in making broad normative pronouncements about such things.
As for the old dead guys, I always "side with the ODGs" in the sense that I try to take what they've written seriously and try to understand their words in the context in which they were written. I also try to avoid substituting modern myths, legends, and understandings for their ideas.
Yours is an inquiry about what should be considered a Redan. Mine is an inquiry about what has been considered a Redan.
-
Richard Francis . . . states that they located the hole first, and only then, working within the possibilities and constraints of their natural conditions, determined that applying some redan principles to that location might work well,
Speaking of not substituting our ideas for the ideas of the old dead guys . . . Richard Francis did NOT "state" any of what that. Mike is substuting his theory for Francis's words. Francis did say that Merion's Redan benefitted from Wilsons trip abroad, but the hole had already been designed built and seeded before the trip.
But let's please not get into this here. Anyone interested in reading the Francis account without Mike's spin can do so at the link below.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39891.0.html
-
Adam
Its all Greek to me!
Bill
I don't think we really disagree...our difference may be more about emphasis.
BTW - One of the short bunkers is called The Redan (it may no longer exist as on old maps). The bunker in the left crook definitely has another name...maybe Lamb Bunker?
David
As for the old dead guys, I always "side with the ODGs" in the sense that I try to take what they've written seriously and try to understand their words in the context in which they were written.
Of course, which begs the question as to how they could get it so badly wrong with their label "Redan". Which makes me believe that something else was going on rather than merely trying to recreate the playing characteristics of The Redan. I think it is very plausible the word was used to convey a general rather than specific set of criteria which was easily identifiable. The idea of master designers designing name sake holes so blatantly inconsistent with each other let alone with the original and yet thinking they meet any sort of specific criteria which matches the original playing characteristcs seems very far fetched. People who believe that are essentially saying these guys were stupid.
Ciao
-
CBM set out his ideas on the Redan principle in detail in his 1914 article, and gave examples of its application in the US. Merion is one example but the other examples wouldn't meet your criteria either. I don't think CBM was "stupid." Rather, I think he was focusing on more general principles which could be applied in a variety of situations to create quality golf holes.
I don't think that even NGLA's Redan would qualify as a Redan by your standard, so I think your standard would have had limited utility to CBM and his mission.
-
Sean,
Other than North Berwick, is there a Redan hole you like, or would even call a Redan?
-
Of course, the Redan at North Berwick was named from a fortress in the Crimean War, and most of the principals 100 years ago understood that the word meant "fortress", so it's possible that they used the name for par-3 holes that didn't play exactly the same as the 15th at North Berwick.
I agree with Sean that a severely downhill [drop shot] hole mutes the strategy of the Redan ... yet Macdonald [or Raynor] built such holes at Sleepy Hollow and Yale and used the name just to spite us.
However, Sean's criteria that the hole should play uphill, I don't get. I don't have a topo map of North Berwick, but the original Redan cannot be more than about 5 feet uphill, if at all. The green is barely visible because the front edge of the bunker is higher than the putting surface, which falls away. I don't think playing uphill is essential to Redan-ness and neither did C.B. Macdonald ... the only uphill Redans I can think of in his oeuvre are the 3rd at Piping Rock and [slightly] the 7th at Chicago Golf.
-
More from William Flynn in 1927 concerning templates and related;
There has been in the past considerable copying in the designs of greens. The custom has been to select so-called famous holes from abroad and attempt to adapt them to a particular hole. While it is a simple matter to copy a design it is almost impossible to turn out a green that resembles the original. This is not due to any technical reason but is on account of the surroundings being different from the original.
Copying greens in detail is not generally a good plan but there should be no hesitation about copying the principal connected with any green particularly when it is good.
It has often been said that architects have designs for 18 greens and that the same ones are used over and over again on the various layouts.
A successful architect of today does not follow that system. His greens are born on the ground and made to fit each particular hole.
In constantly designing greens it is very easy for an architect to acquire a pet type and to apply this frequently, thus creating greens of great similarity. A tremendous amount of study must be given each site on the ground and also on paper so as to get distinctive types, thus avoiding sameness.
-
The 3rd green at Merion's low point is in the front left and had a high point in the back right. Short of the green is a steep bank requiring an aerial carry.
It is not a green that sets up for what we traditionally think of as either a redan or a reverse redan. I guess if I hit a slinging left-handed duck hook in there with a driver I might get the desired ground game result but otherwise, not a chance in the world.
Here's what Richard Francis wrote exactly, lest I stand accused of misconstruing his words;
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/398/18592746870_50fce81ee8_b.jpg)
50 GCA Bonus Points for the person who can tell us how the hole "benefited" from Wilson's trip abroad and which "good features" do we think were incorporated there and more importantly, when? Recall we've been told that the hole was previously designed, built, and seeded prior to Wilson's trip abroad.
So, what did Richard Francis mean? It really is an easy question.
-
Of course, the Redan at North Berwick was named from a fortress in the Crimean War, and most of the principals 100 years ago understood that the word meant "fortress", so it's possible that they used the name for par-3 holes that didn't play exactly the same as the 15th at North Berwick.
I agree with Sean that a severely downhill [drop shot] hole mutes the strategy of the Redan ... yet Macdonald [or Raynor] built such holes at Sleepy Hollow and Yale and used the name just to spite us.
However, Sean's criteria that the hole should play uphill, I don't get. I don't have a topo map of North Berwick, but the original Redan cannot be more than about 5 feet uphill, if at all. The green is barely visible because the front edge of the bunker is higher than the putting surface, which falls away. I don't think playing uphill is essential to Redan-ness and neither did C.B. Macdonald ... the only uphill Redans I can think of in his oeuvre are the 3rd at Piping Rock and [slightly] the 7th at Chicago Golf.
Tom
I agree that it is likely the rear of the green is more or less at tee level. However, the forward bunkers and front of the green are at about the same level and higher than the tee and this rise is enough to disguise the nature of the green's defense...so blindness is always an issue. To me, not seeing the landing zone with severe penalties left and right and with a sharp rise to the green is a critical aspect of the hole.
Bill
There are plenty of holes with Redan-like qualities that I like and think are good. While not a true Redan, YHC's 6th is a hole I admire just the same. Same for Swinley's 4th, but this may be more a Gibralter type hole :D
Ciao
-
Don't start with this again, Mike.
-The hole was planned, built and seeded by September 1911, which was months before Wilson traveled abroad to study the great golf holes. The record is crystal clear on this. Reportedly, the Redan bunker had previously been a barn built into the side of the bank, so it was there already.
-Before Wilson returned from his trip, the course had already been reported to have been based on the great holes abroad.
-Before the course had even opened, Findlay had already discussed the existence of the Redan hole at Merion, and he had previously written about Merion after spending the day at Merion shortly after Wilson's trip. At that time, Findlay confirmed that CBM was responsible for the layout of the Alps at Merion and (at least) a number of other holes at Merion. (Findlay mentions a number of courses seen by Wilson on his trip, but does NOT mention North Berwick.)
I have no idea how Francis (who was writing in 1950) thought the hole "benefited," but even Francis noted that this hole "was copied from the Redan at North Berwick." Given that we know that the hole was designed, built, and seeded before Wilson ever went abroad and saw the hole (if he did) this tells us a lot.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mike's suggestion that this hole wasn't built as a Redan from the beginning is untenable, and conflicts with a number of contemporaneous accounts. Does he really think they rebuilt and reseeded the hole in the summer and had it ready for opening by September of 1912? Or does he think that after studying and planning with CBM at NGLA and at Merion, that Wilson hadn't ever quite figured out that the hole was a Redan. Does he think that when CBM came to Merion in March of 1911 and (again) went over the land and approved the layout plan, that he it hadn't occurred to CBM that this was to be a Redan? Silly.
-
There are plenty of holes with Redan-like qualities that I like and think are good. While not a true Redan, YHC's 6th is a hole I admire just the same. Same for Swinley's 4th, but this may be more a Gibralter type hole :D
Sean, Plenty of holes with "Redan-like qualities?" This doesn't really seem to stand up to your own standard, does it?
I too am curious as to whether you view any other hole anywhere as a true Redan, other than The Redan. How about NGLA's so-called Redan?
-
Richard Francis wrote that the 3rd hole at Merion was one of the holes that “benefitted” from Hugh Wilson’s overseas visit and that “the location of the hole lent itself to this design”. You’ll notice he doesn’t say that they found that location while looking for a redan hole. He states that they located the hole first, and only then, working within the possibilities and constraints of their natural conditions, determined that applying some redan principles to that location might work well.
Mike,
You know that the course was laid out prior to Wilson's trip abroad, that's undeniable.
This is wholly consistent with what Francis tells us about the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad. Francis wrote that the purpose was to “incorporate their good features on our course” after Wilson returned in May of 1911.
Perhaps he got his notes mixed up? ;)
-
Having spent a good deal of time looking a the Redan at North Berwick last year, it became obvious to me what Macdonald was trying to replicate when choosing the sites for his Redans: he want the gently sloping tableland like this:
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNB30yardsshortright.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNB30yardsshortright.jpg.html)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBkickmound.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBkickmound.jpg.html)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBrightback.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBrightback.jpg.html)
-
Sean A,
You didn't answer my question.
Does a Redan have to play uphill to be deemed a Redan by you ?
-
There are plenty of holes with Redan-like qualities that I like and think are good. While not a true Redan, YHC's 6th is a hole I admire just the same. Same for Swinley's 4th, but this may be more a Gibralter type hole :D
Sean, Plenty of holes with "Redan-like qualities?" This doesn't really seem to stand up to your own standard, does it?
I too am curious as to whether you view any other hole anywhere as a true Redan, other than The Redan. How about NGLA's so-called Redan?
David
You are starting to get the idea...The Redan is a very special hole whose many subtleties are difficult to capture. The ODGs were absolutely correct in thinking the Redan concepts are ones which should be used again and again. And yes, there are plenty of good holes with Redan-like qualities...not sure what the problem is with that statement.
Pat
In theory, I don't think a Redan has to be uphill. In practice, to achieve the running shot option and create doubt as to the line by blindness, it would be difficult to make a Redan which intended to offer the playing charactersitics of The Redan without being a bit uphill. But, I have no doubt that a clever archie could pull off this feat on a hole which may even be a bit downhill.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I'm really glad to see you use the words "playing characteristics" with respect to the Redan at N.B. Like you, I used to be critical of NGLA's because it played slightly downhill. I said it was not a great Redan for that reason and I really wondered why Macdonald chose that site to place his Redan. Why didn't he re-create this look?
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBfrombehindwall.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBfrombehindwall.jpg.html)
But then I finally had the chance to visit North Berwick. While the rest of our group was at breakfast, I spent an hour studying the actual hole. When I was on the greensite it hit me like a ton of bricks: Macdonald wanted to mimic the paying characteristics of the green site, and he did this beautifully at NGLA. Standing from either side of N.B.'s green this became SO obvious to me, and I finally understood what Macdonald wanted. I've asked Jon Cavalier to post his photos of NGLA here and I think you'll see how amazinly similar the green sites are shaped. Most importantly, but holes play really firm, there is no way to avoid the influnce of the land.
-
Bill,
I think you are correct. After all, it was the "principles" and playing characteristics of the great holes abroad that Macdonald wanted to capture and not necessarily their exact likenesses. Just as importantly, Macdonald felt he needed the right kind of soils and maintenance for those holes to play similarly. To me, that's one of the reasons a soft, soggy inland redan or Road Hole often misses the mark.
All,
There is no doubt that Merion was inspired by what Macdonald had done at NGLA and wanted to also model holes with the principles and playing characteristics of the great holes abroad, but had to do so in a way that made sense with their inland setting. As David points out, they stated that intent before Wilson's trip abroad; furthermore, it was the entire purpose of the trip. This may seem counter-intuitive to us today when our expectation is that a golf course is "finalized" upon opening, but golf course construction philosophy was very different in those days.
In late 1907/early 1908 after the National Golf course had been built and seeded, C.B. Macdonald wrote to his friend Horace Hutchinson in England, who reproduced the letter in "Country Life". It read, in part;
Of course, we have not yet put in the bunkers - that is, but very few of them - and these have been put in where we must put them in because they are where the bunkers are in the holes which we have copied from the other side.... Before I put in the trap bunkers we will do some playing over it in the next year....We have been wonderfully successful with the fertilizer and grass seeds which we have put in."
Even upon opening, Merion similarly was termed a "rough draft". That Merion would make revisions to the course after Wilson's return from abroad in the spring of 1912 prior to a soft opening in the fall of that year wasn't just some anomaly but the entire intent of the trip.
Francis, who was on Wilson's committee tells us that the location of that hole on the ground at Merion "lent itself to this design". Further, all that what was left of an old barn's basement on that location was a retaining wall, which they converted into the redan bunker, leaving the retaining wall in place. Why doubt Francis who was there and tells us why they did it, when it happened, and exactly what they did?
Again, here is exactly what Richard Francis wrote;
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/398/18592746870_50fce81ee8_b.jpg)
It's also important to note here the direct connection between Merion and North Berwick.
On Wilson's committee along with Richard Francis was Rodman Griscom. Griscom was the long-time Green Committee chair and had been part of the committee that had designed the second nine holes at Merion's first course.
Rodman Griscom was apparently the man who arranged for George Sayers of North Berwick to come to America and Philadelphia in the and become the pro at Merion. George was the son of the famous North Berwick pro, Ben Sayers, who had personally trained his famous golfing sister Frances and Rodman at North Berwick in the early years of the 20th century, and apparently even for a month or two at a time during summers abroad. All of this is well documented in Jeff Silverman's excellent, "Merion - The Championship Story", published in 2013.
From 1896 until 1946, the 5 golf professionals and 4 assistant professionals at Merion were from North Berwick with Ben Sayers was the point of origin of all of them.
The connection was so tight that Ben Sayers even drove off the 1st tee ball to inaugurate Hugh Wilson's (and others) Cobb's Creek Golf Course in May 1916!
-
Bill:
Per your request, the fourth at National.
Hole 4 - 195/181yds - Par 3 - "Redan"
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7748/17953954809_ed84888048_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7750/18141289891_19ef98b152_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8836/17953958939_e409834f19_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8870/18113710666_10d52c0674_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8758/17953958599_ea7ea0c1d7_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7784/17952491190_5622ef7b07_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8691/17664509176_3a8dde5309_c.jpg)
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,61105.0.html
-
Jon,
Stunning pics, thanks!
-
Mike,
You're being disingenuous...... Again
Merion was laid out, designed, routed with all of the individual holes in place BEFORE Wilson sailed for the U.K.
Wilson and Merion's intent was to "fine tune" the existing course subsequent to Wilson's return.
That included bunker placement, etc., etc., but, the holes were already set in the ground before he sailed and you know that, so why pretend and put forth the idea that the 3rd hole didn't exist as a Redan until after he returned.
That's intellectually dishonest
-
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/255/18184293303_0eee127aea_z.jpg)
If anyone can show how most of this green slopes left to right please call Galileo and Euclid because the laws of physics and geometry are suddenly null and void.
-
Patrick,
Every time the actual facts don't support your speculation and fast-held beliefs you have this habit of questioning the integrity and character of the messenger delivering those facts.
Mike,
That's not the issue and you know it.
We've been through this before and you were intimately involved in previous Merion threads were it was incontrovertably proven that the golf course was designed, routed and the individual holes built BEFORE Wilson ever sailed.
You know that, yet, you disingenuously try to rewrite history based on some article.
Strange how you dismissed Whigham's statement that CBM designed Merion, but, accept every statement supporting the agenda of you and the Merionettes
If you have an issue with what Richard Francis spelled out in simple English you should tell us all why.
I'm content to accept what Whigham spelled out.
In addition, you KNOW that the course was set into the land BEFORE Wilson sailed, so why pretend that it wasn't.
Why pretend that the 3rd hole Redan didn't exist until Wilson returned ?
Please either desist or provide factual evidence to support your position...something stronger than your opinion, or what you think is logical, please. Thanks.
The factual evidence presented was overwhelming.
Either you've lost your memory or your principles, your call.
Here's the 3rd green at Merion.
That's not the 3rd green, it's someone's rendering of the 3rd green.
It clearly doesn't slope like a redan or reverse redan and if you'll note the steep slope coming into the green I think it's much more in line with Tom Doak's original interpretation of a redan in that it was a "fortress" green. In fact, if I was able to supply you with a larger version you'd see that the front left is the low green point and the back right is the highest with over six feet over overall elevation change between those points. It is just over 358 feet elevation change on the front left to just under 365 feet back right. The only way that green could ever play like the original redan would be from the parking lot of St. George's Church! ;)
NO ONE, REPEAT, NO ONE EVER CLAIMED THAT THE 3RD HOLE PLAYED LIKE THE ORIGINAL.
You do this time and time again.
You make outlandish, unrelated claims to try to support your agenda.
But, why is it that you're denying what Richard Francis wrote, which you posted.
He states that the 3rd hole at Merion is a Redan.
He tells you that the 3rd at Merion was copied from the Redan at NB.
So why are you now trying to deny that the 3rd is a Redan ?
You can't have it both ways.
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/398/18592746870_50fce81ee8_b.jpg)
The idea that anyone would try to land a shot on the front left hoping that it would sling to the back right is just silly, frankly.
Anyone who has been there or played it would note those distinctions.
Once again, you're being disingenuous, and you know it.
It isn't surprising that the Merion Committee thought to use that elevated, fortress-like landform as the site to implement some redan characteristics, such as the steep bunker built into the hillside on the lower side of the steep upslope.
Oh, so now you've changed your mind again and admit that it's a Redan like hole.
How would you describe the 8th at The Creek ?
-
There is no doubt that Merion was inspired by what Macdonald had done at NGLA and wanted to also model holes with the principles and playing characteristics of the great holes abroad, but had to do so in a way that made sense with their inland setting. As David points out, they stated that intent before Wilson's trip abroad;
Quit playing games Mike. They did not state their "intent" to do so. They stated it had already been done. There is a big difference. In the Spring of 1912 - before Wilson had even returned from abroad - it had already been reported that Merion had been modeled after the great holes abroad. For example, from the April 14, 1912 Philadelphia Inquirer: "Many of the holes at Merion are patterned after the famous holes abroad . . .." The Inquirer reported similarly on September 15, 1912, "Merion has a course in which nearly every hole is patterned after some famous hole abroad."
It had already been done. The course had already been planned, the tees and greens built, and key features created. Yes they left some bunkers and "finishing touches" to be added later, just as CBM had done at NGLA, but just like at NGLA, the holes had been planned based on the great holes abroad from the beginning.
That Merion would make revisions to the course after Wilson's return from abroad in the spring of 1912 prior to a soft opening in the fall of that year wasn't just some anomaly but the entire intent of the trip.
There is nothing in the record about "revisions" in the summer of 1912 before the opening. Sure, finishing touches were added, and bunkers may have been added. But the greens were there. The tees were there. The hole concepts were there. And as had already been reported, much of the course was based on the great holes abroad; holes Wilson had never seen at the time the course was built.
Why doubt Francis who was there and tells us why they did it, when it happened, and exactly what they did?
I don't doubt Francis. He said the hole was the hole "was copied from the Redan at North Berwick," and it was copied from the Redan at North Berwick when it was built in the Spring and Summer of 1911, before Wilson traveled abroad. He also said that the hole "benefited" from Wilson's (later) trip abroad, but he DOES NOT explain what this benefit was. It could have been putting the finishing touches on the proper look of the Redan bunker for all we know, but whatever it was, the hole had already been designed and build as a Redan before Wilson's trip.
It's also important to note here the direct connection between Merion and North Berwick.
As for TEPaul's oft repeated and extremely attenuated attempt to link design elements at Merion to Griscom through his sister, it is sort of funny just how far you guys will go to avoid admitting the obvious. Merion was originally built with an Alps, a Redan, an attempt at an Eden green, a Road Hole, a Double Plateau, and a number of other features and holes straight out of the CBM playbook. Not only that but had been working with Merion's Committees on the purchase and the plans throughout the entire planning process, and his suggestions were said to be of the greatest help and value. The board minutes even note that Merion determined to lay out the course based on the plan as approved by CBM and Whigham!
So the two of you (and others) can pretend that the influences for the course came from elsewhere, but at this point, based on what we know, that is a complete joke.
______________________________________________
As for the topo of the 3rd, it shows the hole as I remember it. There is a flat area in the front right behind, and there is a little plateau in the back left which filters running balls to the right. A left handed draw will work its way from left to right off of the plateau in the back left. You keep saying that the high point of the green is back right, but this just isn't the case. It is back left.
Here is how the hole was described in the Walker Cup guide:
Hole No. 3
“The ‘Redan’ Fortress”
Hugh Wilson’s design of the East Course was deeply influenced by his observations of many of the great courses of Great Britain. As one views the third hole, it looks like an old fortress perched on a hill, and it patterns itself after the famous “Redan” hole (15th hole) at North Berwick in Scotland with its sloping green from left to right.
Once again, Wilson injects deception into his design, as the player has difficulty from the tee determining the hole location. It can be hidden in so many places behind the large right bunker, or distorted due to the uphill shot and raised front portion of the green.
The length of the green, which is the deepest of all of the holes on the course, also requires the golfer to choose either to hit a high soft shot and fly the ball to the hole, or hit a low shot onto the front of the green and have the ball roll to the hole. As Merion’s Director of Golf Course Operations Matt Shaffer remarks, “The third green is very diabolical with many subtle breaks. It is the most distinctive green on the course.” Compounding this challenge is a teeing ground that points the golfer to the right of the hole, and a subtle, swirling breeze that is often underestimated.
The stuff about Wilson's observations is pretty funny, since the hole was designed and built before he traveled abroad, but note that it says the hole was patterned after the Redan, and that the green slopes from left to right. Note also that one option is to "hit a low shot onto the front of the green and roll the ball to the hole." This is the position you just called "just silly, frankly."
-
Macdonald's description of the Redan hole from Golf Illustrated 1914 was:
Take a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have
the Redan.
He did go on later to add a bit about a back bunker and also thoughts on how to play the hole in different winds.
Seems to me that there are three main principles he gleaned from the original:
1. narrow tableland tilted from right to left
2. a deep bunker on the front side
3. the tee shot should approach the green diagonally
He made no mention of a principle of it being uphill or blind.
He made no mention of the ridge crossing the fairway half way to the green or the Redan bunker in its face.
I guess these features weren't principles he wanted to take from the hole.
At NGLA he adhered to his three principles. He even put in the ridge and the bunker in its face, but he did not make it high enough to make the green blind from the tee. Here are Jon's picture of the Redan at NGLA and my picture from NB. The most noticeable difference from the tee is the difference in height of the ridge. So, NGLA is not a strict copy but it does meet Macdonald's three principles and goes beyond that with the ridge and Redan bunker.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8624/15809678469_2b0a62fc66_h.jpg)
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7748/17953954809_ed84888048_c.jpg)
Merion, on the other hand appears to have half of principle 1 (lacking NB's tilt) and principle 2 and 3. There is no ridge or Redan Bunker and consequently it's not blind. So, Merion appears to be less of a copy and misses one major part of the principles in the tilt. But, various people called it a "Redan" at the time, so in their opinion it was a Redan. But, for me the lack of tilt like NB is a critical miss as far as considering it playing like a Redan. But, if the people of the time called it a Redan, so be it.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/MerionRedanfrom1934OpenProgram.jpg)
Now, back to your regular attack/counterttack programming.
-
Bryan
Because Mac didn't mention other aspects of the Redan doesn't equate to them not being important elements of the original. What it means is that Mac didn't consider those elements important or he even may have thought they were poor elements of the original that were best eliminated. Fortunately, these days, an element like blindness has been reconsidered by many and not found a negative feature of design.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Understand and agree.
A few years ago I made the mistake of saying that Doak's Leven hole at Old Macdonald didn't match up very well with the original. It didn't, but everyone else wanted to call it a Leven hole because Tom did, so a lot of people think that's what a Leven hole was.
Most named holes are not copies of the original and some don't even match many of the principles, even if we ever agreed on what the principles are.
-
There is only one playing characteristic of N.B.'s hole that Macdonald did not capture: the element of blindness from the tee. That is a huge difference, for sure, but I would submit that it is far from being the most important feature making N.B.'s such a great hole. IMO, it is all the other features, and Macdonald was true to those. It is easy to focus on the bunkering and right to left tilt and the angle of the green, but it is the downslope of the green, coupled with really firm turf, that makes the hole so challenging.
Merion's third hole has so few of N.B.'s characteristics; I wonder if Macdonald encouraged Wilson to move dirt to shape the hole so it played more like North Berwick's? I also wonder what Wilson thought when he finally saw the original. Was the front left approach ever maintained to accept a running shot that would reach the green?
-
Macdonald's description of the Redan hole from Golf Illustrated 1914 was:
Take a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have
the Redan.
He did go on later to add a bit about a back bunker and also thoughts on how to play the hole in different winds.
Seems to me that there are three main principles he gleaned from the original:
1. narrow tableland tilted from right to left
Bryan, In general, yes, but, NGLA's Redan has a counter tilt, from left to right just over the fronting bunker.
2. a deep bunker on the front side
3. the tee shot should approach the green diagonally
He made no mention of a principle of it being uphill or blind.
The blindness is there in that the leading edge of the green's footpad blocks the view of the putting surface.
He made no mention of the ridge crossing the fairway half way to the green or the Redan bunker in its face.
I guess these features weren't principles he wanted to take from the hole.
At NGLA he adhered to his three principles. He even put in the ridge and the bunker in its face,
but he did not make it high enough to make the green blind from the tee.
That's not completely true.
Large portions of the green are blind from the tee.
What you see in Jon's photo is the right side of the green, the interior kick plate.
What you can't see is the enormous portion of the green to the left.
Here are Jon's picture of the Redan at NGLA and my picture from NB.
The most noticeable difference from the tee is the difference in height of the ridge.
So, NGLA is not a strict copy but it does meet Macdonald's three principles and goes beyond that with the ridge and Redan bunker.
Bryan, more likely, it's the uphill versus almost level relationship between tee and green at the two holes.
Does anyone know what the prevailing wind/s is/are at NB ?
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8624/15809678469_2b0a62fc66_h.jpg)
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7748/17953954809_ed84888048_c.jpg)
Merion, on the other hand appears to have half of principle 1 (lacking NB's tilt) and principle 2 and 3. There is no ridge or Redan Bunker and consequently it's not blind. So, Merion appears to be less of a copy and misses one major part of the principles in the tilt. But, various people called it a "Redan" at the time, so in their opinion it was a Redan. But, for me the lack of tilt like NB is a critical miss as far as considering it playing like a Redan. But, if the people of the time called it a Redan, so be it.
Does anyone have a photo of Morris County's Redan and Fisher's Island's par 4 Redan green
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/MerionRedanfrom1934OpenProgram.jpg)
Now, back to your regular attack/counterttack programming.
-
Sean,
Understand and agree.
A few years ago I made the mistake of saying that Doak's Leven hole at Old Macdonald didn't match up very well with the original. It didn't, but everyone else wanted to call it a Leven hole because Tom did, so a lot of people think that's what a Leven hole was.
Most named holes are not copies of the original and some don't even match many of the principles, even if we ever agreed on what the principles are.
Bryan,
You see that "loose" interpretation in many of Raynor's and Banks's work.
I think you have to differentiate between a "replica" and "in principle"
There are "templates" and there are "template lights"
I'd be reluctant to declassify # 4 at NGLA as a "Redan"
Piping Rock's 3rd hole more closely resembles the Redan at NB, but, I don't think that dilutes # 4 at NGLA's claim.
-
Feb. 1916 Golf Illustrated -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Merion%207th%20-%20Golf%20Illustrated%20Feb.%201916_zps2tl8kue5.png)
Sept. 1916 Golf Illustrated -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Merion%207th%20-%20Golf%20Illustrated%20Sept.%201916_zpsm5dunorl.png)
-
Sven,
I've seen those photos. It looks to me like today's 3rd green which we know was called a redan from the git-go.
Is there something we should be seeing beyond the obvious?
-
CBM also wrote: "The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course." So he gave himself quite a lot of leeway, thus holes like Sleepy Hollow's Redan and Merion's Redan. (Same goes for the Doak's Leven, I think. The hole at Old Mac captures something about the principles even if all the elements that you want to see aren't there.)
CBM is (and was) sort of between a rock and a hard spot. Some vehemently criticize him for rote copying rather than showing creativity and originality in his designs. Others criticize him for not being rote enough in his copying. Perhaps he should have followed Henry Leach's advice and copied when it suited him while keeping quiet about it.
_______________________________________________
Sean, It has been asked a number of times, but I don't think I've yet seen your answer. Do you consider any hole a "true" Redan other than The Redan?
____________________________________________
In the first photo from post by Sven from GI, February 16th one can see that the green tilted from the golfer's left to right for much of the green.
-
Pat:
Here you go:
Fisher's Island No. 12 - par 4 "reverse redan":
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/377/18629779318_05e5bf8b6d_c.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/532/18631474279_7bc76fa515_c.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/526/18196859353_722fa414f9_c.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/326/18194920994_46060f568f_c.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/272/18629803210_f5d87154ab_c.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/380/18629868998_d2518e8017_c.jpg)
Morris County's "reverse redan" par 3:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/284/18194875074_838a45c248_c.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/318/18820106571_31a0e31837_c.jpg)
-
Honestly, if we're to define it this loosely, is there any par three short of one with a dead flat island green that couldn't be termed a redan?
I really think we need some historical perspective here and I think Tom Doak's "fortress" description bears merit.
-
David
I haven't come across a Redan version which is as good as the original and it usually gets back to the blindness (mainly of the landing zone for the kick up) of the orginal which makes it stand out from the crowd. Folks keep talking about not seeing the putting surface, but the landing zone is visible in the examples I see...making the guess work for the line(s) MUCH easier to determine. I understand that when the ODGs were doing their thing that blindness was not a favoured feature and of course these days its probably even less favoured by archies...plus many archies don't really want to do Redans because they have been done to death. So it may take some searching to find an undiluted version of The Redan. I am sure there must be some out there. Afterall, I came across an excellent Road Hole once...if anything probably more difficult thn the original!
Mike...I really do think the ODGs used the term Redan very loosely...basically just an angled green if they were even calling downhill versions Redans.
Ciao
-
Merion's third hole has so few of N.B.'s characteristics; I wonder if Macdonald encouraged Wilson to move dirt to shape the hole so it played more like North Berwick's? I also wonder what Wilson thought when he finally saw the original. Was the front left approach ever maintained to accept a running shot that would reach the green?
Bill,
Rodman Griscom played the original redan a zillion times more than the one time CBM played at North Berwick through 1906 during the prior years Griscom and his sister spent studying under Ben Sayers during summer vacations at the turn of the 20th century.
The idea that the Merion Committee would need external advice about building that redan hole are ludicrous and the result of partial study and premature conclusions.
-
Honestly, if we're to define it this loosely, is there any par three short of one with a dead flat island green that couldn't be termed a redan?
"Honestly" this is nonsense. In the case of Merion, CBM, Findlay, Travis, AWT, Lesley, and Golf Illustrated, and others described the hole as a Redan and they did not describe every par three other than "a dead flat island green" as Redans. Mostly it was just those par threes of a certain length, built on an angled plateau, with a large fronting bunker guarding much of the green and an opening on one side and contours so that that one could access the area behind the bunker without directly attacking the bunker. This hardly includes every par three except for flat island holes.
And "honestly" most of the holes the old dead guys described as Redans in America were designed either by CBM or one of his proteges.
-
Merion's third hole has so few of N.B.'s characteristics; I wonder if Macdonald encouraged Wilson to move dirt to shape the hole so it played more like North Berwick's? I also wonder what Wilson thought when he finally saw the original. Was the front left approach ever maintained to accept a running shot that would reach the green?
Bill,
Rodman Grissom played the original redan a zillion times more than the one time CBM played at North Berwick through 1906 during the times he and his sister spent studying under Ben Sayers during summer vacations at the turn of the 20th century.
The idea that the Merion Committee would need external advice about building that redan hole are ludicrous and the result of partial study and premature conclusions.
Mike,
It seems apparent that Macdonald's advice was limited to the routing and not the fine details of how the hole should be finished. I was just speculating as to why the hole at Merion had so few of the characteristics of North Berwick's. I've only seen what is on the ground now at Merion, and was asking if a runup was ever possible.
-
Rodman Griscom played the original redan a zillion times more than the one time CBM played at North Berwick.
A zillion times more than CBM? Care to document this outrageous claim, Mike? You think that because his sister spent time there that he played it zillion times?
While you are at it, care to document your claim that CBM only played it once?
Or maybe you should just quit embarrassing yourself by making stupid shit up?
The idea that the Merion Committee would need external advice about building that redan hole are ludicrous and the result of partial study and premature conclusions.
What a Joke. Hugh Wilson himself told us he needed help, and that he went to CBM for that help, and that CBM gave it to him, and that everything he saw later overseas confirmed what CBM had taught him. Stop this idiocy Mike.
______________________________________________________________________
Bill, regarding whether or not a run-up was possible, I recall reading a quote from William Flynn from around 1916 about his plan to grow the grass short of the green so as to stop golfers from running the ball up onto the green. (Flynn was known as very good golfer himself and apparently not a big believer in such such being rewarded the same as aerial shots.) I'll try to see if I can't track down the article again.
-
Redan is the first word every beardpuller learns. It's best just to let it go and let them bask in the glow.
-
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/255/18184293303_0eee127aea_z.jpg)
If anyone can show how most of this green slopes left to right please call Galileo and Euclid because the laws of physics and geometry are suddenly null and void.
-
Here is the quote from the August 6, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, the month before the Amateur, in a discussion about what Flynn was doing to the course to toughen the course:
Redan Seventh an Illustration.
The seventh hole, for instance, is a one-shot Redan type of hole. Here the play is over the ditch running in from the left to connect with a big trap under the green at the right. These two hazards meet in a ravine. From there up to the green is a sharp slope. At present the grass is of the short order, so that if a ball just clears the traps, it may run up to the green. It is the intention of Greenkeeper Flynn to let this grass become real rough, so that a ball after clearing the traps, if not properly hit, will be checked in its effort to sneak up to the green.
So it sounds like before Flynn's "real rough," the golfer could run the ball up onto the green despite the slope, but that Flynn wasn't a big fan of the aerial game at this point.
I guess Mike knows better than did Flynn as to how the course played before 1916.
-
David,
That's just desperation, sad to say.
Exactly what bunker will be carried to allow a ball to release onto the green?
The green and surrounds are pictured in my previous post. Please feel free to show us what William Flynn was protecting the hole from where the going game could be utilized? Have at it.
-
It said "traps" not bunker. I assume they were talking about the ditch running in from the left to underneath the Redan Bunker.
As for the rest, who do you think was lying in that newspaper article, Mike? The author, or William Flynn?
-
Ok. That's that.
Let's get back to Shinnecock.
-
Of course, the Redan at North Berwick was named from a fortress in the Crimean War, and most of the principals 100 years ago understood that the word meant "fortress", so it's possible that they used the name for par-3 holes that didn't play exactly the same as the 15th at North Berwick.
While I have no problem with people emphasizing the "fortress" aspect of the definition of a redan, I do think it is important to remember that the hole was not designed with a fort in mind. Rather, the hole received it's name from a retired soldier who saw the sleepers on the front left greenside bunker and was reminded of his time fighting in the Crimean War. It does not take much imagination to envision why soldier came up with the name:
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/North%20Beriwck/NorthBerwickoriginalredan-1.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/North%20Beriwck/NorthBerwickoriginalredan-1.jpg.html)
You can see how the bunker was re-constructed with fill after the sleepers were removed:
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBfrombackleftofgreen.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBfrombackleftofgreen.jpg.html)
I'd like to hear more from Sean about the specific bunker names at North Berwick. I think Redan Bunker is a more apt name for the front-left greenside bunker; that is the one that truly provided the fort-like look, but it would be cool to learn what the club named each bunker.
In any event, the golf hole was built before it was named. That means the original architect was NOT trying to mimic the Redan at Sevastopol. So criticizing a current golf hole because it lacks a "fortress" look is misguided. Judge the hole by how well it compares to what is on the ground at North Berwick.
It seems clear that Sean A, the Russian judge, requires this view of the flag :)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBshortright.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBshortright.jpg.html)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBhole15.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBhole15.jpg.html)
-
More on the Merion and Griscom family ties to North Berwick.
Anyone still think they needed Macdonald and his one visit there in 1906 to tell them what a Redan was or looked or played like?
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/top-stories/us-open-venue-owes-much-of-its-heritage-to-north-berwick-1-2968247
More about the visit of Rodman Griscom and his sister in 1906 and 1911.
http://www.northberwick.org.uk/sayers.html
Does anyone think the "old retaining wall" in the barn might have suggested this hole to them?
(http://www.northberwick.org.uk/images/sayers_perfection.jpg)
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/398/18592746870_50fce81ee8_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
If it is true that Macdonald only saw North Berwick once, that only raises my admiration for his skill. What he built at National so thoroughly captured all the playing characteristics of the hole (except for the blind approach) at North Berwick. This should be evidenced by the photos Jon and I have posted. And it makes me question how the committee, with zillions of rounds of playing experience, could reproduce so few at Merion.
From the very little I know about routing, I think architects first find green sites. So if there was a small plateau (the barnyard?) at the top of the slope, that might very well have looked like a green site to a skilled architect. I'm pretty sure anyone could then envision a golf hole without the barn. And if the natural green site angled left to right with a steep slope underneath, you have the beginnings of a reverse Redan.
-
Bill
A few years ago I was trying to find if/when the two fore bunkers were added to the hole. I took a good look at the 1877 Plan and noticed the names of the bunkers. Alas, I still haven't found out why or when the bunker scheme short of the green was altered. Not long ago somebody else also noted the names in a thread.
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/NORTH%20BERWICK%20GC%20-%20West%20Links/North20Berwick20187720Routing_zpssnxx83ft.jpg) (http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/NORTH%20BERWICK%20GC%20-%20West%20Links/North20Berwick20187720Routing_zpssnxx83ft.jpg)
Ciao
-
Sean, that is very interesting. The short cross bunker is drawn as one bunker, not the two spectacle bunkers that exist now. I wonder if the original cross bunker was also constructed with sleepers? If both bunkers featured wooden faces that would certainly have enhanced the "fortress" look!
-
Bill,
Mike has no idea how many times CBM might have seen the Redan (and I don't either.) He just pretends the shit he makes up is fact because he thinks it suits his argument. He seems to have forgotten that H.J. Whigham (of the famous golfing family from Prestwick) was also right there with CBM when they were advising Merion how best to use their land. He also has apparently forgotten that CBM did more than just play The Redan, he studied it and had plans and/or measures and specifications drawn up so he could reprodice it, that he had already built his masterpiece Redan at NGLA, and that Wilson spent two days at NGLA with CBM studying the holes Wilson planned on reproducing at Merion.
That Mike (and his mentor) would even suggest that somehow R.E. Griscom was CBM/HJW's superior when it came to recognizing, understanding, and applying the Redan principle goes to show just how attenuated (and idiotic) their position has become.
_______________________________________________
Bill and Sean,
Historically, I think the the short cross bunker was called the Redan bunker, not the left greenside bunker.
-
Bill,
From a thread last year, there is a "plan" showing all the bunkers and their names that hangs in the starters hut at NB. Here is detail from that "plan" for the area of the Redan hole. This "plan" shows a routing that mirrors the 1895 stick plan, so it comes after the one Sean posted above.
From the plan, I'd venture a guess that the Duffers and Redan bunkers did not have sleepers
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3901/14958617189_ab556700fc_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
If it is true that Macdonald only saw North Berwick once, that only raises my admiration for his skill. What he built at National so thoroughly captured all the playing characteristics of the hole (except for the blind approach) at North Berwick. This should be evidenced by the photos Jon and I have posted. And it makes me question how the committee, with zillions of rounds of playing experience, could reproduce so few at Merion.
Bill,
Now you're getting it! ;)
Richard Francis told us that the hole's location lent itself to a redan design.
You'll notice which came first, the hole and it's location, prior to determining that it would be a redan. As David has pointed out, the course already had been routed, tees and greens built, and grassed prior to Wilson going abroad.
On his return the committee sought to incorporate the good features Wilson sketched and photographed from abroad on their golf course, and the fortress location, and likely the back barn wall that was/is still standing suggested itself as a place to introduce elements of the redan.
I guess they could have blown up the existing green and started over, just to make it tilt left to right and front to back but perhaps they saw no feasible way to introduce the ground game to a green fronted by a steep embankment? Perhaps they didn't want to introduce the ground game? Perhaps they thought direct copies were a bit forced and wanted something more authentic to the site and its heritage as a barn yard? Perhaps they thought it would look hokey and unnatural to have a steep rise and then a green falling away in the other direction? Perhaps they didn't want to compete directly with their friends Macdonald and Whigham and what those guys built at National?
Some have suggested here that perhaps the green was changed and I'm not sure if that was the point of Sven's early photos. Frankly, I've seen no evidence of that and if someone can see that in those photos I think they are seeing what they want to see. Now that we have a detailed topographical map of the green here that will hopefully end that debate. You've played there and you're a lefthander Bill, and I think you'd agree with me that the green has no redan characteristics, correct?
As far as Macdonald and the version he built at NGLA, it's awesome.
And yes, he did a stunning job capturing much of what's found on the ground at the original in North Berwick. Originally he was disappointed when one of the members who was to be his host was unable to come and show him around, but the club scurried and found their most knowledgeable caddy to accompany Macdonald, who later commented how impressed he was with the caddy's knowledge of strategy.
(http://www.northberwick.org.uk/images/sayers_perfection.jpg)
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/398/18592746870_50fce81ee8_b.jpg)
-
This is a farce. Mike is ignoring all that we already know about the history of the course, and is blatantly distorting a single account, written in 1950, to rewrite the history of how this course was created.
Francis DID NOT write that the hole became a Redan after Wilson's trip. In fact he suggests the opposite. This hole was designed and built before Wilson's trip, and as Francis confirms that Merion's Redan had been "copied from the Redan at North Berwick." Before Wilson's trip, not after. The hole "benefited" from the subsequent trip, but Francis did not say how it benefited (and frankly by 1950 Francis may not have even remembered how it "benefited," if he ever knew in the first place.)
A few indisputable facts:
- This hole was designed, built, and seeded BEFORE WILSON EVER TRAVELED ABROAD.
- It was reported that many of the holes had been based on the great holes abroad BEFORE WILSON EVER RETURNED FROM HIS TRAVELS ABROAD.
If the tee had been built and seeded, the green built and seeded, and the bunker already existed, then just what is it that was supposedly done to this golf hole in the summer of 1912 that turned it from just another golf hole into a REDAN?
-
Bill,
It should be noted that others in the US built holes based on Redan concepts during that time period as well. In 1908 Herbert Windeler and others at The Country Club (Brookline) determined to build some new holes in a wooded area they had procured.
From "The Happy Golfer" 1914, by Henry Leach;
The tenth hole is a very delightful short one, with the green in a glade far below the tee. They call it "The Redan," because Mr. G. Herbert Windeler (long resident in America, but English in nationality still, despite his past presidency of the U.S.G.A.), who is largely responsible for the golf at Brookline, and designed and superintended the construction of these holes, had the famous piece of golf at North Berwick in his mind when he planned this one, but before the end he departed far from the original conception, and all for the good of the hole. When it was being made the place for the green needed raising from the swamp, and nearly two thousand loads of broken rocks were deposited there; and after soil to a depth of eighteen inches had been laid upon the stone foundation a splendid putting green was made.
From "American Golfer";
Then the second new hole, a short
one, which is sure to become famous.
Here the difficulties of construction
were fully as great as at the first hole.
Where the green now is, formerly
was an uncompromising marsh. This
was filled with the stone from the
blasting operations. The green sets
high and is banked by railway sleepers.
The shot must land the ball on
the green, for to be short means burial
in the trench filled with sand at the
base of the sleepers which rise almost
perpendicularly; on the right is a
brook and beyond the green are the
woods which will be out of bounds.
A very pretty iron shot hole which
suggests the —— at ——, but
we will not mention Scottish links.
Evidently the whole topic was a controversial one even back then! ;) ;D
Here's the Redan hole at Brookline, circa 1909;
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3753/18215933413_acf79b47e4_b.jpg)
-
Bill,
From a thread last year, there is a "plan" showing all the bunkers and their names that hangs in the starters hut at NB. Here is detail from that "plan" for the area of the Redan hole. This "plan" shows a routing that mirrors the 1895 stick plan, so it comes after the one Sean posted above.
From the plan, I'd venture a guess that the Duffers and Redan bunkers did not have sleepers
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3901/14958617189_ab556700fc_o.jpg)
Bryan, thanks for posting this detail of that "plan" again. What would lead you to guess that neither Duffers or Redan did not have sleepers. I ask because there is a line rapping around behind "Redan" which might suggest otherwise for that that bunker at least. Note that the bunker right of the green ("KAIMEND"(?)) has a similar line, and I've seen a photo of that bunker with sleepers.
Mike keeps posting the following photo, which (because it is Mike) he posts unattributed, but the caption from the modern articleit comes from is titled "Ben Sayers in the 'Redan' Bunker" from a modern article he posted. Unfortunately that article doesn't provide a date. Is it clear that this is the greenside bunker and not the real "Redan" bunker? Also, the link to the image suggests was actually "sayers_perfection" which was a different bunker (and hole) altogether.
(http://www.northberwick.org.uk/images/sayers_perfection.jpg)
-
Unattributed? It came from the article I linked to about Ben Sayers.
It includes a lot of good information pertinent to this discussion. Such as;
Young Ben, a member of the PGA in 1902, entered the 1905 and 1906 Open Championship from North Berwick. George Sayers lived at 10, Quality Street where he had a golf equipment shop. George taught Lord Kitchener, the conqueror of the Sudan the game of golf at Archerfield. Kitchener played his first game at North Berwick in September 1910 with his closest friends Mr and Lady Winifred Renshaw of Instow. When Ben Sayers Jnr returned to North Berwick he took over the house and shop in Quality Street when George emigrated to the USA and was appointed golf pro at Merion Golf Club in Pennsylvania.
George Sayers contact in America was Rodman E Griscom of Berton, Griscom & Co. Stockbrokers, 40 Wall Street, New York. Rodman Griscom was a founder member of Merion Golf Club in Philadelphia and his sister Francis C. Griscom was US Woman's Amateur Champion in 1900. Francis came to Scotland in 1902 and was tutored all summer at North Berwick by Ben Sayers Snr. In August that year Ben partnered Miss Griscom in a match against Arnaud Massy and British Open Ladies Champion Rhona Adair. The match was halved in front of a large gallery. Rodman and Francis visited North Berwick again in 1906 and 1911 and were both under the supervision of Ben Sayers Snr.
Here again is the link, as well as the other one that points out that every single pro at Merion from inception in 1896 through the 1940s were North Berwick men.
http://www.northberwick.org.uk/sayers.html
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/top-stories/us-open-venue-owes-much-of-its-heritage-to-north-berwick-1-2968247
-
Mike,
If it is true that Macdonald only saw North Berwick once, that only raises my admiration for his skill. What he built at National so thoroughly captured all the playing characteristics of the hole (except for the blind approach) at North Berwick. This should be evidenced by the photos Jon and I have posted. And it makes me question how the committee, with zillions of rounds of playing experience, could reproduce so few at Merion.
Bill,
Now you're getting it! ;)
Richard Francis told us that the hole's location lent itself to a redan design.
No, Mike. What I'm "getting" is that Macdonald was a genius at fitting his holes to the land. And Wilson was a smart guy, smart enough to solicit Macdonald's help in routing the course and deciding what parcels to purchase. I'd like to think that if I was charged with building a new course and Tom Doak or Bill Coore offered to show me around Stonewall or Hidden Creek, then come to my site and help me with the routing for free, I'd listen pretty carefully.
So Richard Francis confirmed that the already decided upon redan location leant itself to a redan. Big deal.
-
Mike,
As for your post with the Leach quote, you are churning once again. We've covered this repeatedly. The hole at Brookline was a 130 yard drop shot, and while it was named "Redan" it was actually based on a different hole altoghether. Here what Leach originally wrote about the hole, from the January 1913 American Golfer, with my bold:
The tenth hole is a most delightful short one,
called the 'Redan,' after the famous piece of
golf at North Berwick; but Mr. Windeler
had the second at Prestwick largely in mind
when he designed it. Yet it is a far better
hole than the second on the Ayshire links.
Did you get that? It was based on an entirely different hole.
_______________________________________________________
As for the photo you posted, I had figured it was from that article. It was unattributed nonetheless, by both you and the author of the article you linked.
Or if it was attributed, then tell me, when was the photo taken?
And of which "Redan" bunker; the actual bunker called "Redan" or the greenside bunker?
And why does the address indicate it was actually Perfection?
-
David,
How is what I wrote incongruent with what you wrote in your own essay, reproduced below?;
Early newspaper reviews indicated that many of the hazards were yet to be added, with one paper also noting that Wilson had traveled overseas to find “ideas for the new course.”
A few months after the opening, Far and Sure also wrote that the course was still very much a work in progress; that many of the holes were still “rough drafts,” and Wilson had recently (“last summer”) traveled abroad “searching for ideas, many of which have been used.”
The “ideas” specifically described by Far and Sure were of the type that could have been added after the core of the course was built.
Many of the imported ideas of hazard formation are good, and the grassy hollows of Mid Surrey have been well introduced. On some of the sand mounds I noticed the growing of something which looked suspiciously like the bents of Le Touquet.
Hazard formation . . . grassy hollows . . . bents of Le Touquet . . . these are the types of finishing touches that Wilson could easily have added after his trip abroad in 1912.
Bill,
Why would Richard Francis bring it up for the 1950 US Open program if it wasn't related to Wilson's trip abroad he just described? He told us that the hole "benefited" from Wilson's trip. What do you think that means, he cut the grass nicely? ;)
I understand that you and David and Patrick are dyed-in-the-wool Mad-for-Mac's but it has nothing to do with the hole in question and its origin at Merion. Merion had CBM come in and help them select their best of five possible routings they had designed prior to construction. He was a big help. Big deal.
-
As for actual attribution to that photo Mike keeps posting, it comes from The Golf Book of East Lothian (1896) by John Kerr, page 339.
The caption is "Ben Sayers Bunkered." Assuming this was the source, the modern author seems to have just added the bit about the "Redan." (Apparently he is of the Cirba school of historical analysis.)
No date is given, but the implication from the photos placement in the book is that it may have been a photo from Sayers' famous match against Kirkaldy in 1891, or perhaps at one of the other matches discussed.
Here is the photo and caption from the Golf Book of East Lothian:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/SayersBunkered.jpg)
-
David,
I do think it's funny that you seem to think if you keep referring to the author as "modern" in an oblique effort to discredit him/her, that we'll somehow forget that Rodman Griscom and his sister stayed in North Berwick under the tutelage of Ben Sayers in 1906 and 1911.
Perhaps he invited his good friend Charles B. Macdonald to come for his first visit?
;D
-
David,
How is what I wrote incongruent with what you wrote in your own essay, reproduced below?;
You've got to be kidding, right? Do you really not understand the difference between planning golf holes "based on the famous holes abroad" and adding finishing touches like fancy grasses, hollows, mounds, and maybe some bunkers?
Think of NGLA if you can't figure it out. The holes were designed based ideas and principles "based on the famous holes abroad." Then, with time and experience, bunkers were placed and finishing touches were added. Same goes for Merion.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Mike, I refer to the author as "modern" because he was not writing contemporaneously with the events in question, and is thus not a primary source, but rather is just another researcher trying to piece things together. Thus his apparent mistake/overstatement with the caption of the Ben Sayers photo.
I could not care less about your Griscom nonsense. He could have lived half his life in the Lamb and/or Redan Bunkers for all I care. It doesn't change the well documented fact that Merion went to CBM and HJW for help planning Merion, and that it was was CBM and HJW who provided Merion with the ideas for their golf holes.
-
I had this article for some time but don't recall the source so shoot me for lack of attribution, but another part of this same article related a personal story told by Merion pro George Sayers so I would assume he's the source.
If nothing else, I think it gives a good idea of how the challenge of the Redan hole at Merion was viewed at the time.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3836/18814398286_eb438f54d7_b.jpg)
David,
I think it's funny that every pro since the club began in 1896 at Merion was a North Berwick native and Rodman Griscom, a member of Hugh Wilson's Committee studied there under Ben Sayers and you're still telling us that Macdonald gave them the idea for the hole. Classic. ;D
You're a smart guy so you must realize how completely absurd that is, right? :-\
-
Mike,
What I take exception to and resent is your deliberate attempt to distort the facts and misrepresent what has been irrefutably established in previous threads on Merion.
My position has nothing to do with my admiration for the CBM/SR./CB style of architecture. And I take no umbrage at your classifying me as "Mad for Mac".
However, I do find it comical that you've now cast Bryan and I into the same net.
You KNOW that Merion was designed and routed, with all of the individual holes determined PRIOR to Wilson's trip abroad.
So why try to imply otherwise ?
Why try to put forth a position that you know is false ?
This is exactly why I've called you both "disingenuous" and "intellectually dishonest".
Why are you doing this ?
To gain access to courses thru the Merionettes ?
To curry favor with the Merionettes ?
You look like a fool for acting as their schill !
-
David,
No great insight on the sleepers. The Lamb bunker had a straight line where the sleepers were shoring up the side of the green. The Redan and duffers bunkers were drawn with more rounded edge and are situated on the sides of hillocks so I guessed that they didn't need sleepers.
If you have pictures that say otherwise, I'd be happy to retract my guess.
Re the following picture, I think, based on the background trees and hill that it is the Lamb bunker. There are/were no trees at that angle on the Barricade bunker on Perfection. Bill's picture from a similar but higher up and wider angle shows the bunker face and trees in the background.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/SayersBunkered.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Reda%20at%20North%20Berwick/RedanatNBfrombackleftofgreen.jpg)
-
Mike,
.......................
However, I do find it comical that you've now cast Bryan and I into the same net.
........................
Uh, where did he cast us in the same net? That's not comical, it's a travesty. I want a retraction of anything that suggests or even hints that we're in the same net, or forest or clubhouse site or .......... >:( :o ;)
-
If nothing else, I think it gives a good idea of how the challenge of the Redan hole at Merion was viewed at the time.
At what time? Given the article is unattributed it is pretty tough to say. Sometime after the west course was built, but that doesn't narrow it down much. Whenever it was written, note that yet another author indicated that the green was meant to be a "duplicate" of North Berwick's Redan, and that the green sloped toward the traps. Are you still denying that the green had a left to right tilt?
I think it's funny that every pro since the club began in 1896 at Merion was a North Berwick native and Rodman Griscom, a member of Hugh Wilson's Committee studied there under Ben Sayers and you're still telling us that Macdonald gave them the idea for the hole. Classic.
And I think it is "funny" how desperate you are to credit anyone but CBM for the ideas behind the course. The historical record leaves little doubt where those ideas came from. Yet you keep throwing out these wildly speculative theories rather than listening to what we have been told by H.J. Whigham, Merion's board, Hugh Wilson, Alan Wilson, Robert Lesley, AWT, Findlay, etc. In contrast your stories are NOT supported by the actual record, and sometimes they even conflict with each other!
- For example, earlier you tried to convince us that no one had ever considered this hole could have been a Redan until after Wilson traveled abroad! Yet now you try to tell us that it must have been Griscom or one of the Scottish pros who came up with the idea, and that it is "completely absurd" for anyone to think any different? Well what about your previous attenuated interpretation of Francis?
- For another example, you are now suggesting that because a club maker/ teaching professional from North Berwick had been employed at Merion's old course, that this person must have somehow been responsible for the design elements of Merion East. What about the crusade of you and your mentor to deny that any professional ever had anything to do with Merion East? Not that it matters, because there is NOTHING in the historical record suggesting that Merion's club professional had anything to do with the initial design.
-And then of course there is this Griscom nonsense, where you making the leap from Robert Griscom having played the played at North Berwick (a claim I have thus far been unable to confirm) to the claim that he must necessarily have been responsible for deciding to use the Redan at Merion! As if there was no difference between playing a hole, on the one hand, and studying it, advocating it, and building it, on the other. If all it took to be a golf architect was playing experience, then we'd all be architects!
You're a smart guy so you must realize how completely absurd that is, right? :-\
I am smart enough to remember the many times you have tried to indignantly dismiss my ideas, interpretations and theories as "completely absurd," and the corresponding many times that it turned out my interpretations were accurate and your outlandish speculation and indignation was flat out wrong. (How's the search for that mystery Hugh Wilson trip going, by the way? Or how about that mystery NGLA site you had stretching from the canal to Shinnecock Hills? Or how about your theory that CBM and HJW didn't yet have a reputation for architecture by 1910? How'd that work out for you Remember your reaction when I first explained that the original course at Merion had an Alps hole? Remember your reaction when I explained you that the 3rd was intended to be a Redan? I could go on and on, but it would take up pages. If you hadn't quit the site and changed your name so many times, you could search your posts for the word "absurd" and you'd see how many times you called me or my positions "absurd" and been proven wrong.)
In short, whenever you start throwing out these attenuated conjectures and start telling me that my position is "completely absurd," then I know I am on the right track.
-
Thanks Bryan. I see what you are saying regarding the Lamb bunker, but if the actual Redan bunker had sleepers (as I think that the "map" might suggest) then the angle and background would be similar, would they not?
-
Mike, One more point about this Griscom theory from you and the Stalker. I've read Merion's Board Minutes regarding the creation of the course, read the reports to the membership, read every newspaper and magazine article that I (or anyone else) could dig up, read the various actual books (and fake(r) book) that purport to cover the issue, however thinly and inaccurately. In all of that I can only think of one single instance where R.E. Griscom was singled out for a specific contribution to the design and creation of the course at Merion. And admittedly, when it comes to the planning process (as opposed to the financing or the layout/construction of the course on the ground), R.E. Griscom's contribution may have been the most important of anyone at Merion.
According to Merion’s Board, R.E. Griscom aided Merion's Site Committee in obtaining Macdonald’s and Whigham’s assistance. He must have known CBM, possibly from golf circles, banking circles, or both, and he convinced CBM and Whigham to travel to Merion in June of 1910 to go over the land and advise Merion as to what could be done with the property, and CBM and HJW continued advising Merion as to what could be done with the property right up until they approved the final routing plan.
Ironic, isn't it? R.E. Griscom and Merion knew they needed Macdonald's and Whigham's help and sought that help, yet you haughtily claim that the ideas must have come from Griscom, and that it is "completely absurd" to think otherwise.
-
Thanks Bryan. I see what you are saying regarding the Lamb bunker, but if the actual Redan bunker had sleepers (as I think that the "map" might suggest) then the angle and background would be similar, would they not?
I think not. The Redan bunker is built into the ridge that runs across the hole well short of the green and is angled more to the right. You can see in this picture that there is a ridge rising up to the right of the player's head. That would probably be the ridge that the Redan bunker is on the other side of. If this were the Redan bunker in the picture there would be no ridge rising to the right. There is no other ridge between the Redan bunker and the tee.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/SayersBunkered.jpg)
-
I agree with Bryan. The interesting thing in all this is so far as I can tell the Redan Bunker no longer exists.
Ciao
-
Uh, where did he cast us in the same net? That's not comical, it's a travesty. I want a retraction of anything that suggests or even hints that we're in the same net, or forest or clubhouse site or .......... >:( :o ;)
Bryan,
I'd never cast you into the same net as Patrick. However, someone should clearly throw a net over the big fellow before his next green, mean outburst! ::) :-\ ;D
-
Sorry David, but I'm not going to get sucked into this morass again no matter how many times you follow me from thread to thread trying to re-open this turgid can of worms.
There is no theory here. Despite your claim of being unable to find proof of Rodman Griscom spending time under the tutelage of Ben Sayers at North Berwick in multiple years prior to Merion's opening it is a fact. The fact that you're looking and my speculation that you're now pouring over shipping manifests tells me you know it's relevant information. Here's a hint though...his family owned the shipping company so I'm not sure you'll find it on Ancestry.com.
It's also a fact that every single professional at Merion from inception in 1896 through the 1940s were North Berwick natives, brought there by the close association between the Griscom Family and Ben Sayers of North Berwick. No theory, just fact.
Richard Francis also wrote that the 3rd hole "benefited" from Wilson's trip abroad and that the location of that hole, with it's basement barn wall still intact, "lent itself to this design". That's fact. Would you kindly explain how you think the hole "benefited" after Wilson's return from abroad? After all, Richard Francis was there and is providing a first hand account. Francis also wrote that, "The Committee in charge of laying out and building a new course was composed of.."Wilson, Griscom, Toulmin, Lloyd, et.al. without a mention of Macdonald or Whigham. Again, fact, not inference or supposition.
Hugh Wilson later wrote; "May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses. Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.”
Another fact is that Griscom and Macdonald were friends through business and golf. Having just spent several years conceiving, designing, and building NGLA it would have been wise and prudent for Griscom to ask Macdonald to come down and provide the benefit of his experience and study once Merion decided to create a new golf course, similarly amateur-led. It would have also made eminent sense to go up to see his course at the National. These were years-long relationships through the inter-city matches and business connections. I wouldn't be surprised if Rodman Griscom was one of the men Macdonald sought input from "both here and abroad" in his polling of the best holes as he conceived his Ideal Course.
Your suggestion that there is no record of Rodman Griscom participating in the design process because we don't know what work he did for Wilson's Committee is again, meaningless. We similarly don't know what Macdonald's design committee of Walter Travis, Dev Emmet, and HJ Whigham each did to contribute to the holes at NGLA. To suggest that these clubs would have formed committees of amateurs to design and build their golf courses and then specifically recorded who did what on what hole for their greater glory or for posterity is absurd.
Macdonald and Whigham aided Merion in three well-documented ways. Let's not go down that road again. Thanks.
-
Duplicate post, sorry
-
Mike,
.......................
However, I do find it comical that you've now cast Bryan and I into the same net.
Uh, where did he cast us in the same net? That's not comical, it's a travesty. I want a retraction of anything that suggests or even hints that we're in the same net, or forest or clubhouse site or .......... >:( :o ;)
Bryan,
Sorry, I inadvertantly substituted your for that intelligent fellow, Bill Brightly ;D
-
Mike,
Which came first at Merion, the golf course or the Head Professional ?
-
Richard Francis also wrote that the 3rd hole "benefited" from Wilson's trip abroad and that the location of that hole, with it's basement barn wall still intact, "lent itself to this design".
That's fact.
Would you kindly explain how you think the hole "benefited" after Wilson's return from abroad?
Mike,
Sure, there are a multitude of ways that the hole could have benefited upon Wilson's return.
It's called "fine tuning" and it's done almost universally.
The FACT is that the Redan was already in place BEFORE Wilson sailed abroad.
As to how the hole may have benefited from Wilson's trip there are a number of ways.
The slope/s of the green
The altering of the perimeter of the green.
Bunkering
Tee location.
Tee distance
After all, Richard Francis was there and is providing a first hand account. Francis also wrote that, "The Committee in charge of laying out and building a new course was composed of.."Wilson, Griscom, Toulmin, Lloyd, et.al. without a mention of Macdonald or Whigham. Again, fact, not inference or supposition.
We're aware that M&M were not members.
We're also aware that the committee traveled a good distance to meet with M&M at NGLA.
Think of M&M as "design consultants" and not club/committee members.
I know that's painful for you and the Merionettes, but, it's a FACT.
Hugh Wilson later wrote; "May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.
Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.”
Isn't that everyone's problem when building a new course ?
The FACT that Wilson himself mandates visits to NGLA should tell you how NGLA and M&M influenced him.
Another fact is that Griscom and Macdonald were friends through business and golf. Having just spent several years conceiving, designing, and building NGLA it would have been wise and prudent for Griscom to ask Macdonald to come down and provide the benefit of his experience and study once Merion decided to create a new golf course, similarly amateur-led. It would have also made eminent sense to go up to see his course at the National. These were years-long relationships through the inter-city matches and business connections. I wouldn't be surprised if Rodman Griscom was one of the men Macdonald sought input from "both here and abroad" in his polling of the best holes as he conceived his Ideal Course.
Mike, they did just that, the committee visited NGLA and M&M visited Merion. But, you know that.
Your suggestion that there is no record of Rodman Griscom participating in the design process because we don't know what work he did for Wilson's Committee is again, meaningless.
We similarly don't know what Macdonald's design committee of Walter Travis, Dev Emmet, and HJ Whigham each did to contribute to the holes at NGLA. To suggest that these clubs would have formed committees of amateurs to design and build their golf courses and then specifically recorded who did what on what hole for their greater glory or for posterity is absurd.
I think we do.
And, if you've read "Scotland's Gift" you too should know the answer.
Macdonald and Whigham aided Merion in three well-documented ways. Let's not go down that road again. Thanks.
-
Richard Francis also wrote that the 3rd hole "benefited" from Wilson's trip abroad and that the location of that hole, with it's basement barn wall still intact, "lent itself to this design".
That's fact.
Would you kindly explain how you think the hole "benefited" after Wilson's return from abroad?
It is quite possible that it was something like a Redan, based on what they thought was a Redan, based on what they saw on their two day visit to NGLA, and upon return from GBI, Wilson made improvements to it to make it more like the true Redan.
And, it isn't really a Redan. There is not reverse slope. It is not a reverse Redan, if we use the strictest CBM standard of a fall away green at 45 degrees angle. It is about in line with play and slopes back to front.
The only real feature I can see is the old barn foundation would certainly be like the original Redan bunker, and maybe was uncovered to make it more like the key bunker. Just a guess, obviously.
-
Is there any mention of the hole being called a redan prior to 1912?
-
It is quite possible that it was something like a Redan, based on what they thought was a Redan, based on what they saw on their two day visit to NGLA, and upon return from GBI, Wilson made improvements to it to make it more like the true Redan.[/color]
Jeff,
Even today, golfers confuse what constitutes a "Cape" or "Leven" hole.I don't think anyone ever claimed it was a "true Redan" so I don't know why you'd interject that qualifier.
Surely, the 4th at NGLA had to make an impression on them.
Surely, their visit to NGLA had a major impact on their design.How else would you explain the "Alps" at Merion ?
And, it isn't really a Redan. There is not reverse slope. It is not a reverse Redan, if we use the strictest CBM standard of a fall away green at 45 degrees angle. It is about in line with play and slopes back to front.
Once again, you're using a strict interpretation.The written, contemporaneous word states that it was a "Redan"Now it may not meet your criteria, or my criteria, but, it met their criteria.You, me and the others on this site have the benefit of 100+ years of GCA history, they had virtually none.
The only real feature I can see is the old barn foundation would certainly be like the original Redan bunker, and maybe was uncovered to make it more like the key bunker. Just a guess, obviously.
-
Patrick,
I only interject that "qualifier" as fact as to what has always been out there.
Agreed they called it a Redan, and we don't know why. They liked the name? It was close enough in their thoughts? (again maybe the deep bunker was all it took to remind them of the original?) Francis, writing some time later said they copied the Redan, but again, we don't know exactly what he means, only that Wilson's trip had some benefit on the hole.
BTW, I didn't use my strict interpretation, I mentioned something CBM said about creating Redan holes.......
We generally agree that they didn't use the word strictly at Merion. We know they saw the Redan at NGLA, and that CBM showed it to them. And, we know their Redan is much different.
I think that is all we know for sure.
Cheers.
-
I had plum forgotten they also saw Macdonald's version at NGLA prior to design/construction, as well as the Alps, et.al.
Maybe they were sleeping in Macdonald's class? ;) ;D
There is no question they thought they were building a Redan at some point before opening in the Fall of 1912 or they wouldn't have called it one.
I think this description, basically a par three tee shot to a green set on a diagonal over a deep bunker set on the lower side of a rise is what defined it as a Redan for them. After seeing those sleepers on the original I'm guessing also that the still existing cellar wall of the barn would have been a good reminder.
I don't think they were concerned at all about building the front to back side-slope into the green and I really don't think that landform would have supported such a strategy very well, coming as it does after a very steep, abrupt rise which provided the golfer little ability to use the ground short of the green to effect.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3836/18814398286_eb438f54d7_b.jpg)
-
Jeff,
It is not a reverse Redan, if we use the strictest CBM standard of a fall away green at 45 degrees angle.
Just in case you some day build a Redan and want to be reasonably exact in some of the principles, the angle of the green at North Berwick is about 32* from the line of play. Not surprisingly, Macdonald got it pretty close at NGLA at 35*. Wilson was not so close at 20*.
I agree that Merion missed the boat more or less on capturing the key principles of the Redan as the hole stands today. It seems David and Patrick are asserting that it was more Redan-like in its early state. In the end, it was referred to as a Redan at the time, however like or different it was from the original.
If the argument is whether Macdonald deserves credit for the design of the hole or for turning Wilson et al on to the hole, then it would seem to me that the credit should be tempered with the fact that the design of the hole is not close to either his rendition at NGLA or to the original.
As I recall, Merion's version of the hole named the Alps was found significantly wanting before Wilson went overseas. It apparently also was well short of either Macdonald's Alps at NGLA or the original at Prestwick.
I would think that if Macdonald did the design for these two holes that they would have turned out more like what he had done at NGLA than what actually turned out.
-
Brian,
I'm not sure how it could have ever played more like a Redan than it does today as there is no record of it ever changing.
Your point about the degree of diagonal is a good one, as here again is the topo of the 3rd. Slight diagonal, yes, nothing like the original or the one at NGLA. I also don't think the table-top landform is quite as long or extended as at either of those courses, so that was likely a limiting factor, as well.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/255/18184293303_0eee127aea_z.jpg)
For instance, take a look at how long that ridge that extends from the right kicker down into the green runs at NGLA by comparison.
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7748/17953954809_ed84888048_c.jpg)
-
For the record Mike, you opened this "turgid can of worms" when you turned a discussion of the Redan into a discussion about Francis by blatantly misrepresenting what Francis wrote ("He states that they located the hole first, and only then, . . . determined that applying some redan principles to that location might work well.") Since then you've been throwing out your usual attenuated and nonsensical theories in your usual Anyone-But-CBM crusade.
And yes, I do mean theories, although that word probably gives what your baseless conjectures much credence.
- I don't know whether or not Griscom visited North Berwick in 1906 and 1911. But whether or not he did, it is baseless conjecture for you to suggest that this automatically means he must have been source for the Redan idea at Merion.
- Likewise regarding your "fact" that Merion got its professionals from North Berwick. You take this to mean that the idea for the Redan must somehow have come from this connection, and there is nothing in the record to support this conjecture.
- Likewise your contradictory conjecture that, although the hole had already been designed and built, no one thought to to make it a Redan until Wilson traveled abroad.
As for your conjecture that, because his daddy owned the shipping lines, Rodman Griscom was somehow exempt from appearing on the passenger and crew lists required by the laws of the United States and Great Britain, the facts don't seem to bear this out. Members of the Griscom family (including Clement, who was president of the conglomeration of shipping lines) appear on the manifests just like everyone else. And Frances was a frequent traveler overseas, although she most often traveled with her father and mother (including in 1906 and 1911.) There is no record of her having traveled with her brother in the years you claim she did. It is possible that Rodman met up with her in North Berwick at some point I suppose, but as I said, it makes no real difference. You can't just pretend he must have designed the hole at Merion based on the fact (?) that he saw the hole in North Berwick.
Richard Francis also wrote that the 3rd hole "benefited" from Wilson's trip abroad and that the location of that hole, with it's basement barn wall still intact, "lent itself to this design". That's fact. Would you kindly explain how you think the hole "benefited" after Wilson's return from abroad?
It is a "fact" that he wrote that. It is also a "fact" that he didn't explain how the hole "benefited." Unlike like you, I don't take this as carte blanche to make up shit to suit my whims. I don't know how the hole "benefited" and neither do you. It is not even clear to me that "Francis" definitely remembered how the hole "benefited." We can guess at how the hole might have "benefited." For example perhaps, Wilson got a glimpse at how intimidating the original bunker looked, and set out to make his greenside bunker equally intimidating. Just a guess. But what is NOT a guess is that the hole, including the tee and green (and reportedly the hole for green-side bunker) had already been designed, built, and seeded BEFORE Wilson ever traveled abroad, and it reported that many of the holes were based on the famous holes abroad BEFORE he returned from his trip.
After all, Richard Francis was there and is providing a first hand account.
He wasn't overseas with Wilson, and there is no evidence he was with CBM and HJW when CBM and HJW came down to Merion to first go over the and in June of 1910. It is possible he went to NGLA, but knowing what I know of the parties involved, I would be very surprised if he was included in the trip to NGLA in March of 1911 when CBM was advising Wilson as to the layout plan. And we have no idea whether he was on hand when CBM and HJW returned to Merion a few weeks later to again go over the land and to determine and approve the final routing plan from among the various options.
As Francis himself put it, he "was added to [the construction committee], probably because I could read drawings, make them, run a transit, level, and tape." We don't have a date certain when he was added, and Merion's Minutes make no mention of the existence of this committee during the time period in which CBM and HJW were helping with the design. In short, it is not at all clear what if anything Francis has to tell us about CBM and HJW's contributions to the plan.
Hugh Wilson later wrote; "May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses. Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.”
I love how you ignore that Wilson is strongly suggesting that he was copying CBM'S GOLF HOLES, and all you can see is that he used the word "our." Of course is was Merion's problem. CBM wasn't a member of Merion. CBM used similar language in the summer of 1910 when he told Merion: "The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House." It was their problem, and according to Merion, CBM was instrumental in helping solve their problem.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rodman Griscom was one of the men Macdonald sought input from "both here and abroad" in his polling of the best holes as he conceived his Ideal Course.
Statements like these are a good reminder of just how naive you remain about this early era. The men who were polled were the preeminent men in all of golf. There is record of their opinions on the matter in various issues of the British Golf Illustrated beginning shortly after the turn of the Century. Rodman Griscom was not one of these men.
Your suggestion that there is no record of Rodman Griscom participating in the design process because we don't know what work he did for Wilson's Committee is again, meaningless. We similarly don't know what Macdonald's design committee of Walter Travis, Dev Emmet, and HJ Whigham each did to contribute to the holes at NGLA. To suggest that these clubs would have formed committees of amateurs to design and build their golf courses and then specifically recorded who did what on what hole for their greater glory or for posterity is absurd.
So in your previous paragraph Rodman Griscom was being put on the same pedestal as John Low and Horace Hutchinson, and now Griscom is comparable in design to MacDonald, Travis, Emmett, and HJ Whigham? The one thing worth considering from this paragraph is that if prominent golfing luminaries like Travis, Emmett, and HJ Whigham were essentially brushed aside by CBM's ideas, will, and drive (as he said, he operated as a "Committee of one") then it is probably a bit much for you to suggest that, when it came to ideas for Merion's design, that the likes of Rodman Griscom and Richard Francis would have asserted their will over CBM's.
Also, while I know you hate hearing this, the record strongly suggests that Wilson's committee was formed to lay out and construct the golf course according to the plan CBM and HJW had approved. (". . . we would lay it out according to the plan [CBM and HJW] approved, which is submitted here-with . . .") Most definitely Wilson and others had input into the design, but according to Merion's board the final determination and approval of the design was left to CBM and Whigham.
Macdonald and Whigham aided Merion in three well-documented ways. Let's not go down that road again. Thanks.
If you don't want to go down that road, then quit misrepresenting what happened. CBM and HJW spent at least four days with representatives of Merion during the design process.
- CBM and HJW visited the site in June of 1910 to advise Merion as to what they should do with their land, and according to Merion's board, Merion determined to make the purchase based largely on what CBM and and HJW had told them.
- Wilson and others spent two days at NGLA in March of 1911 and, according to Wilson's brother, during their time there CBM offered advise and suggestions as to the layout of the course and those suggestions were of the greatest help and value.
- CBM and HJW returned to Merion a few weeks later to again go over the land and over various options for the layout plan, and from these various options CBM and HJW determined and approved the final layout plan, which was submitted to the board as the plan "approved" by CBM and HJW, and the board determined to lay the course out on the ground according to that plan.
These are the instances of face to face contact, but we have no record of the extent of additional contact through letters and/or phone calls. You want to assume there were none, and that Merion representatives just showed up on CBM's doorstep unannounced, and then that CBM just showed up at Merion unannounced a few weeks later. But a more reasonable theory is that CBM and HJW were communicating with and working with Merion throughout the planning process.
-
I had plum forgotten they also saw Macdonald's version at NGLA prior to design/construction, as well as the Alps, et.al.
Maybe they were sleeping in Macdonald's class?
So you "had plum forgotten" that while in the midst of the design process Wilson and others spent two days with CBM at NGLA going over his plans and studying his golf holes, and that his "advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value." Did you also forget that a few weeks later CBM and HJW returned to Merion to again go over the land and the various potential layout plans, and that they determined and approved a single, final plan which was submitted to the board, and the board determined to lay out the course according to the plan CBM/HJW had approved?
No wonder you think the idea for the Redan must have come from RE Griscom. You seem to have blocked out all the evidence of CBM's extensive involvement in the planning process.
-
David,
Phew. I can't keep up.
One question.
Who created the five different layout plans after returning from their visit to the National in March/April 1911, after which CBM came down for a day and gave his approval to the one he thought best.
Since Macdonald had no capacity within the club to approve anything I trust you mean the definition found at this link? http://i.word.com/idictionary/approval
-
Bryan wrote:
It seems David and Patrick are asserting that it was more Redan-like in its early state. In the end, it was referred to as a Redan at the time, however like or different it was from the original.
I haven't suggested that the hole has been changed. I don't know whether it has been or not (except that they've long grass short of the green to stop the ball from bouncing up.) Conditions are obviously different today, though, it may be that with conditions, equipment and abilities of 100 years ago, that the hole played a bit more Redan-like. (Although given that it is a reversed Redan I'm not sure the same playability characteristics even apply.) If the argument is whether Macdonald deserves credit for the design of the hole or for turning Wilson et al on to the hole, then it would seem to me that the credit should be tempered with the fact that the design of the hole is not close to either his rendition at NGLA or to the original.
This has never been my argument. My point has always been that CBM was instrumental in determining the routing and the hole concepts, but that Hugh Wilson was responsible for the execution (or lack thereof.) As for what this means with regard to "credit for the design" I don't know and I really don't care. I am more concerned with figuring out what influence CBM had over the course,and it looks to me like the influence is strong, even if Wilson's execution wasn't was Raynor's would have been. As I recall, Merion's version of the hole named the Alps was found significantly wanting before Wilson went overseas. It apparently also was well short of either Macdonald's Alps at NGLA or the original at Prestwick.
I think you are cherry picking here. The hole was around for over a dozen years and it was often highlighted when the course was described. It is true that Findlay (who credited CBM as having been responsible for Merion's Alps and many of the others) was negative about the hole when he wrote about it in July of 1912, but he was positive about the hole when he wrote about it a few months later. So it isn't exactly clear what his beef was with the hole initially, other than that it needed a lot of work to match Prestwick's.[/size]I would think that if Macdonald did the design for these two holes that they would have turned out more like what he had done at NGLA than what actually turned out.
Not sure what you mean by "did the design." My focus has always been on the routing and hole concepts. The interpretation and execution of those hole concepts was left to Wilson and his committee. Had CBM and/or Raynor built the holes or supervised the construction, the course obviously would have turned out differently, but crucial aspects of the course would have remained the same.
-
One question.
Who created the five different layout plans after returning from their visit to the National in March/April 1911, after which CBM came down for a day and gave his approval to the one he thought best.
I'll try to answer your question, Mike, but it would really help make the conversation more productive if you would at least try to accurately present the record. Robert Lesley's Golf Committee report did NOT indicate that someone had "created" five different layout plans "after returning from the their visit from NGLA." Rather, Lelsey's report indicated that after returning from NGLA, they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans on the land. There is no mention of who came up with those five plans or when, but we'd have to fools to read it as if their time with NGLA didn't have anything to with the planning process.
So here is what we know about this stage of the process:
1. Wilson and others went to NGLA, where CBM and HJW made suggestions and offered advice about the layout. According to Alan Wilson, "their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."
2. Upon returning [from NGLA] they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans on the land.
3. Shortly thereafter, CBM and HJW returned to Merion, spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if Merion would lay the course out according to the plan CBM and HJW approved, 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.
4. The final plan as approved by CBM and Whigham was submitted to the Board, and the board determined to lay the course out on the ground according to that plan.
I don't think anyone can say with absolute certainty what Lesley meant when he wrote that upon returning from NGLA, they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans on the land, but it defies credibility to think that the five different plans had nothing to do with the advice and suggestions as to the layout that CBM had been providing them at NGLA. Looking at the event in context, my guess is that one of a few things were happening:
1)CBM and Wilson had worked out a number of possible options in NGLA, and when Wilson returned from NGLA he rearranged the course and laid out (marked off) the different options on the land for CBM to inspect upon his return. OR
2) CBM and Wilson had come up with a layout plan, but when Wilson returned to NGLA it didn't work as they had hoped, so they laid out some alternatives "on the land" for CBM to inspect when he returned. OR
3. CBM and Wilson had worked out part of the major plan, but couldn't work out the rest without actually going over the land (again) and when Wilson returned he tried his best to fill in these gaps with different layouts, knowing that CBM would be returning to choose the final plan.
4. OR something else of this nature.
As I said, I don't know for sure and no one else does either. But there is NOTHING in the record indicating that Wilson discarded what CBM had taught them and proceeded with their own design despite what CBM had been advising and suggesting. This cuts against everything we know.
Since Macdonald had no capacity within the club to approve anything I trust you mean the definition found at this link?
Quit playing games Mike. That's not even the same word. The context leaves little doubt that Merion left it to CBM to choose, determine, and sanction to the final plan. While he wasn't a club member, CBM had as much power to "approve" the final plan as Merion gave him, and it looks like Merion left the final decision up to him.
-
David,
As you know, the Merion Cricket Club Minutes do not say "they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans on the land", do they? The five design plans were in fact on paper, and at the Board Meeting in April of 1911 the selected plan was attached and "submitted here-with". That's a major and noteworthy distinction, don't you think?
Further, if Macdonald had been working with Merion on detailed plans, why did he need to come and re-inspect "the ground"? Wouldn't he have been intimately familiar with those grounds through laying out the course on topographical maps as you've intimated? But no, he had to come and compare the five paper plans to the ground because there is no record of him ever seeing a topographical map of Merion and he'd only been there once in person, 10 months prior.
If those plans had been "on the ground", in the form of stakes, are you really suggesting that they walked him around the property 5 times to look at perhaps five different routings indicated by five different color stakes? That would be silly, wouldn't you think? Why did they have Richard Francis survey the land if not to create maps, as he told us? Recall that he told us he was "added" to Hugh Wilson's Committee formed earlier that year because in his words, "...because I could read drawings, make them, run a transit level and tape" and that he wrote he "spent many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking" in contribution to the layout of the course?
If Macdonald provided a detailed routing that Merion adopted, it’s actually funny to consider what exactly Hugh Wilson and his Committee must have been doing all of those months.
You've told us that the many contemporaneous accounts effusively praising Wilson and his Committee with “laying out” Merion, or having “laid out” Merion meant simply that they constructed it to someone else’s plan, or perhaps meant that they simply placed stakes in appropriate spots on the property, again to someone else’s plan. Isn't this incongruous with their planning role, especially since the very experienced Fred Pickering was in charge of actual construction?
I have to laugh out loud envisioning these learned, staid captains of industry wandering around aimlessly with stakes in a field, perhaps with CBM shouting at them, “Mr. Wilson, ten paces to the left!! No...no...NO…MY LEFT you dunderhead!!!”
I do not mean to suggest that Macdonald did not have a major positive influence on the creation of Merion East; he clearly did and Merion was certainly appreciative of his advice and suggestions at critical times.
Was Merion directly inspired by what Macdonald had achieved at the National? Absolutely. Did they want to emulate his example of building eighteen top-notch holes on a single course? No question. Did they want to follow his example of borrowing from the strategies and features of the best holes abroad? Of course they did.
It could be argued, and I do believe, that the time the Committee spent at NGLA was likely the key turning point in the entire project. From my IMO article, "Who Was Hugh Wilson?";
Evidently, the time spent with Macdonald at NGLA had immediate impact to the group’s ongoing efforts. As recorded in the Merion Cricket Club’s Board minutes from April, 1911, “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.”
As instructors, Macdonald and Whigham seemed equally pleased by the Committee’s final efforts. In early April, Macdonald and Whigham came back to Ardmore for the second and final time (the first had been 10 months prior per invite of Mr. Griscom to weigh in on land Merion was considering for purchase) to review and advise on the newly developed plans. From the April, 1911 MCC Minutes; “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.”
I would argue, simply, that NGLA blew them away. I believe they suddenly saw the audacious potential of what was possible, and that potential was far greater than any of them had previously imagined, which clearly influenced their future thinking and subsequent plans.
CBM graciously provided Wilson and his Committee with exactly what they asked him for. Wilson later wrote that they received, ”…a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes…Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad…we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes.”
Wilson went on: ”May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses. Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.
But wait, I hear you say…didn’t Macdonald “approve” the final routing plan, as if he had the final say? Don’t the Merion minutes tell us that?
I believe this is an inaccurate interpretation, simply because CBM had absolutely no position of responsibility or authority acting for or within the club, or over Wilson’s Committee. Instead, I think the first definition below is clearly the accurate one;
ap•prove] ( -pr v )
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:
In fact, the only reason the golf course was discussed at all at the April 1911 Board of Governors meeting was that the recommended plan required the purchase of 3 more acres than the 117 the club had originally acquired in November of 1910, and again referenced by Hugh Wilson in his first letter to Piper & Oakley in February 1911. They didn't go there asking the Board of Governors to approve the routing plan they wanted; they could do that at the Golf Committee level. Instead, they were there asking them to approve the additional purchase of three acres!
And you know the Minutes reflect that fact, as well. It is very possible that a major reason for bringing CBM back to Merion in April 1911 was simply to get the blessing of his learned opinion that they could then use to help convince the MCC Board of the necessity and wisdom of spending the additional funds. After all, the Merion Cricket Club was a large, well-established, and multi-faceted club with many sporting activities and golf was a relative upstart at that time; a large capital purchase to acquire 120 acres was not a slam dunk by any means.
That plan was subsequently accepted by the Board and construction commenced in the spring of 1911. Others, such as AW Tillinghast shared Macdonald’s optimism when he wrote that spring; “I have seen enough of the plans for the new course as to warrant my entire confidence in the future realization of the hopes of the committee.”
Tillinghast never credited the course to Macdonald either in his multiple written accounts, but to Hugh Wilson's Committee. As with everyone else at the time, they simply said that Macdonald and Whigham advised Wilson's Committee, which is well documented.
-
Well that is a long and colorful post Mike. Might I suggest you reconsider the meaning of the phrase "in fact."
I wrote my previous post off the top of my head and didn't check it against the actual minutes, which is why I didn't put anything in quotes. It may be that I've put "on the land" in the wrong spot. Later today I'll dig up my copy of the actual minute passages and make any necessary changes and corrections. Assuming it reads as you said, it is a "noteworthy distinction" but ultimately I don't think it makes any difference to our respective interpretations. Given how Lesley and Merion repeatedly used "laid out" it is most likely he was referring to arranging on the land. This is especially so when we consider that this was in conjunction with rearranging the course. Of course this doesn't mean that there were no written plans. I think that we agree that there were written plans, although we don't know the nature of those plans. My disagreement comes when you insist that CBM could not possibly have had anything to do with the creation of these written plans, whether directly or indirectly. The record strongly suggests otherwise.
But as I said, when I get a chance I'll review the record and make sure my summary is accurate. I have a number of questions and comments which I'll ask later, but in the meantime, I'd appreciate clarification on one issue. You wrote that CBM "had to come and compare the five paper plans to the ground because there is no record of him ever seeing a topographical map of Merion and he'd only been there once . . .." This seems an unreasonable position to me for a number reasons but let me just focus on one. We know (from the Ag letters) that Merion had had a topo map prepared by this point in time.
Given that CBM had already expressed the need for a topo map, and given that Merion had that topo map created, don't you think they'd have given CBM a copy, or at least brought it with them to NGLA? Do you really think it reasonable to insist that CBM had never seen a topo map? Do you think Merion was hiding it from him?
I think if our goal is to really understand what happened we need to look at these events with at least a modicum of common sense.
-
David,
As you'll recall, in the ongoing debates about Merion over many years, no one has ever published the complete text about rearranging the course, in context, from the minutes. Apparently you now have a copy of the minutes. You and others attacked the Merion half of this debate for years for not posting the complete story in the minutes. Will you now post the complete relevant part of the minutes?
Having checked the threads from the past, you appear to have moved the "on the land" part from the rearrange part of the quote to the five plans part.
-
Apparently you now have a copy of the minutes.
Bryan, just to be clear, I don't have a complete copy of the minutes. A few years ago Merion Golf Club and Merion Cricket Club graciously agreed to provide me with all of the sections of the early club minutes dealing with golf and the new golf course, and (much to his chagrin) MGC instructed Wayne Morrison to provide me with all of those sections. So, unless Wayne lied to me (and to the chair of his committee at Merion) I have been provided all of those sections.
Will you now post the complete relevant part of the minutes?
I was provided the copies for research purposes and asked not to publish or distribute them, so while I'd like to I am not inclined to set them out in their entirety here.
That said, most of the material has already been published/posted by other parties, and when I get a chance I will post Lesley's April 1911 Golf Committee Report because I have it from other sources. I can also post all the mentions of Hugh Wilson's construction committee. This is easy to do because there are NO MENTIONS of Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee.
Having checked the threads from the past, you appear to have moved the "on the land" part from the rearrange part of the quote to the five plans part.
Thanks. Looking at it today, I think you and mike are probably correct, but I'll wait to make the change until I get a chance to pull up and review the copies of the actual minutes.
-
I'll be happy to reproduce the relevant parts here by Monday but would prefer David does so for obvious reasons.
-
I'll be happy to reproduce the relevant parts here by Monday but would prefer David does so for obvious reasons.
What obvious reasons, Mike? Are you really calling me out because my unscripted paraphrase does not exactly match the language in the original? You guys have extremely high standards for my participation here. If your standards were half as high for your own participation, these would be much more productive conversations.
Let me give you a hint so you don't get confused in the future. When I am quoting, I use quotation marks. If I don't use quotation marks then I am not quoting. Capice?
____________________________________________________
Bryan, Below is the Golf Committee report from what I believe to be the April 19, 1911 the Board meeting. I copied it from an independent source, but it matches my copy of the minutes (except I don't have an image of the date, and I cant vouch for whether or not the report ends where indicated.)
"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.
"We considered very carefully whether we should undertake the work with our own Superintendent, but not having any organization or tools, concluded the work necessary to put the course in condition for sowing in the fall could be handled most economically and to the best advantage by employing Johnson and Co., Contractors, to handle the work on a cost and percentage basis. They will plough, harrow, fertilize, grade, drain, clear out trees and brush.
"Under our agreement we can employ as many men as we desire, and can stop the work on a week‘s notice."
So the minutes say that they they went to NGLA "after laying out many different courses on the new land." Then later, "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans." As I explained above, it makes no difference to my position. Nonetheless I am sorry if any was confused, but as I explained, I never intended for my post to be taken as a direct quote.
____________________________
Mike, I've been trying to answer your questions. Care to answer my questions regarding the topo map?
Given that CBM had already expressed the need for a topo map, and given that Merion had that topo map created, don't you think they'd have given CBM a copy, or at least brought it with them to NGLA? Do you really think it reasonable to insist that CBM had never seen a topo map? Do you think Merion was hiding it from him?
-
Bryan, just to be clear, I don't have a complete copy of the minutes.
A few years ago Merion Golf Club and Merion Cricket Club graciously agreed to provide me with all of the sections of the early club minutes dealing with golf and the new golf course, and (much to his chagrin)
MGC instructed Wayne Morrison to provide me with all of those sections.
So, unless Wayne lied to me (and to the chair of his committee at Merion)
I have been provided all of those sections.
David,
It appears that Wayne Morrisson did lie to you.
It appears that despite instructions from the Committee Chair, directing Wayne Morrisson to send you ALL of the minutes, that he took it upon himself to disobey the directive from the Committee Chair and ONLY send you the minutes that he in his sole and arbitrary discretion thought you should have.
Now that we've seen evidence of Wayne's character and the level of intellectual dishonesty he exhibited, you have to ask yourself, what did he withhold from you ?
It had to be something that would further your position and undermine his.
Why else would he disobey a directive from the committee chair to send you ALL of the minutes ?
It can only be that the information he withheld, supported your position, undermined and harmed his.
That's disappointing and would seem to reflect a total lack of character on Wayne's part.
It's certainly not a very honorable way to conduct yourself and the act of insubordination certainly wouldn't please the Committee Chair.
What a joke they are.
Tweedledee and Tweedledum
-
For those who are lucky enough to not be harassed every day by TEPaul offsite, Patrick is referring to a group email sent by Wayne Morrison (and forwarded to me by TEPaul) wherein Wayne Morrison was apparently bragging about how he had sandbagged Merion Golf Club (and Merion Cricket Club) by not providing me with the documents that Merion Golf Club and Merion Cricket Club had agreed to provide to me. According to Wayne:
"Against my will, I was asked to send David Moriarty Merion's Board Minutes regarding the creation of the course. I was overruled by the chairman of my committee and I regret not persuading him otherwise. But as the point of origin of David Moriarty's access to the minutes, I can state beyond a doubt that he does not have all the board minutes nor the reports to the members. I chose to send him a majority, but he does not have them all."
This despite that a few years ago officials at MGC and MCC had agreed that MGC would "email [me] all copies of the Merion Cricket Club minutes about the Merion East course" that MGC had in their archives, and Wayne had informed me that he had sent me everything relating to the creation of the East course.
My guess is that Wayne was just posturing, again trying to create the false impression that there are some super-secret documents which I haven't seen and which somehow undermine my theories. It is a tactic Wayne and TEPaul have used for years, but fortunately both clubs thought better and graciously shared their information. It seems that Wayne was trying to build up that fake wall again, through subterfuge. (Alternatively, as Patrick speculates, maybe he really is hiding something. Who knows with Wayne?)
Anyway, I contacted Merion for an explanation, and I have been informed that Wayne has apparently clarified his story, and is now back to claiming that he did indeed send me every section of the minutes that MGC had relating to the creation of the East Course. I guess Wayne must have 'misspoken' when he told his email group that he had chosen not to send me all the documents he had been instructed to send me.
As an aside, in contrast to Wayne and Tom Paul, those who are actually authorized to speak for Merion Golf Club have always been cordial and fair to me, and I appreciate their professionalism and have great respect for the club. It is really a pity that those two keep embarrassing these great clubs.[/me]
-
I'm not sure of the wisdom of trying to continue in these poisoned waters, but I would like to thank David for posting the Golf Committee report all in one piece. Just to clarify for me, are the four paragraphs one contiguous piece in the minutes? I'm confused by the opening quotes for each paragraph with no closing quote. Is that the way it is in the original? Does that usage of quotation mean something? Does it suggest there are parts missing between the paragraphs? I think I'm beginning to succumb to the conspiracy theory ethos around here.
........................
____________________________________________________
Bryan, Below is the Golf Committee report from what I believe to be the April 19, 1911 the Board meeting. I copied it from an independent source, but it matches my copy of the minutes (except I don't have an image of the date, and I cant vouch for whether or not the report ends where indicated.)
"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.
"We considered very carefully whether we should undertake the work with our own Superintendent, but not having any organization or tools, concluded the work necessary to put the course in condition for sowing in the fall could be handled most economically and to the best advantage by employing Johnson and Co., Contractors, to handle the work on a cost and percentage basis. They will plough, harrow, fertilize, grade, drain, clear out trees and brush.
"Under our agreement we can employ as many men as we desire, and can stop the work on a week‘s notice."
...................................
____________________________
...................................
I know this has been debated ad nauseum, but a simple reading of these four paragraphs says to me that:
1. the Golf Committee had laid out many (no indication of how many) different courses on the new land before they went to see Macdonald. I could read that as laid out on a map or topo of the property or they may have put stakes in the ground in a literal sense. The writer doesn't say, so I don't know.
2. The Committee spent one evening looking over Macdonald's plans for NGLA and his data from abroad.
3. The Committee spent the next day out on NGLA studying Macdonald's template holes on the ground as built to that point, having seen the plans the night before.
4. When the Committee got back to Merion they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans. I would take it that the rearrangement was on paper as evidenced by five different plans on paper.
5. On April 6, Macdonald and Whigham came to Merion and looked over the land and reviewed the five plans (and maybe others).
6. On the same day Macdonald and Whigham advised the Committee of which of the five plans they recommended.
7. Macdonald said the course would be great if they used the plan he recommended.
8. It would seem that on his site visit Macdonald may have suggested some change to the plan he recommended that led to his idea that they needed three more acres.
I cannot simply read into this report that Macdonald routed or designed the course. The Committee went for an evening and a day to NGLA on what sounds like a tutorial on Macdonald's template ideal holes and their implementation on the ground at NGLA. No doubt this tutorial was helpful to and appreciated by the Committee and they probably learned a lot. Macdonald provided advice in one day on site at Merion on which of Merion's five plans he recommended and possibly amended it on the fly while there. No doubt Merion was appreciative of having his input and of having his approval of one of their plans.
Re your statement:
The context leaves little doubt that Merion left it to CBM to choose, determine, and sanction to the final plan.
isn't the use of "choose" and "determine" redundant? And, "sanction" seems a little over the top in terms of how it is normally used. How about "recommend"? He recommended and they accepted his recommendation of one of the five plans.
Can you clarify what you mean by "hole concepts"? No doubt the Committee learned a lot about the ideal holes and their principles at their tutorial at NGLA. No doubt they carried some of what they learned about those ideas and concepts back to Merion and incorporated them into their plans. Did you have something more than that in your idea of "hole concepts"?
-
Bryan,
I agree on all counts including the poisoned waters and except for one snippet indicating Board approval those sections posted by David are what I've been provided as well.
That snippet has been posted here previously and is in the book as well.
The only area I'd disagree is about the 3 acres additional, which I believe was related to the "Francis Swap" into adjoining lands owned by the Haverford Development Company. The club had secured 117 acres back in December 1910, needed to lease 3 acres from the railroad near the clubhouse (which we know they did) but the plan that got selected required an additional 3 acres to be purchased. If you recall, Wilson's first letter to Piper and Oakley in Jan/Feb of 1911 also mentioned Merion having secured 117 acres so we know whatever land swap took place happened after then.
End result is the course that opened was 123 acres in size. The Board of Governors needed to approve the larger purchase which is why the matter was before them in the first place.
David,
Regarding a topo map, CBM never to my knowledge "expressed a need" for one. He did tell Merion that he and Whigham thought they could fit it a good course on the land they were considering but without a topo map in front of him they couldn't be sure. Still, Merion went with his recommendations and the correspondence with Macdonald included in the November mailing to the board mentioned nothing further in that regard.
And while we may assume it would have been prudent for Wilson's Committee to bring one to NGLA neither Wilson's account nor the recap you posted above from the Minutes indicate that they reviewed a topo of Merion while at NGLA. Instead that meeting seemed very focused on the great holes abroad and what CBM had accomplished in reproducing their principles at NGLA and rightly so.
After all, that's what they came to learn as Wilson later recounted.
Per your email, the "obvious reasons" I wanted you to post the Minutes were so I wouldn't be accused of being a Homer who may have somehow edited or tampered with their contents. I was not calling you out on anything but did note that the Minutes didn't say they laid out the five plans on the ground as you were recollecting off the top of your head. Sorry if that came off as confrontational as it wasn't meant in that way.
-
Also hesitant to jump back in, but wanted to point out that 3 acres was along Golf House Road, generally conceded to be the area the developer had allowed a certain amount of flexibility. However, there was another 3 acre parcel they acquired via lease from the railroad for decades until purchasing it later, that is/was the site of the 12the green and original version of the short 13th. So, the total land acreage was 123, with 120 purchased from the developer.
just for those loosely following along.....
-
Rather than rely on what I wrote about topos from memory, perhaps someone could simply reproduce the letter that Macdonald wrote to Merion in July 1910? I'm not home but I'm sure it's easily found in the back pages. Thanks.
-
. . . I would like to thank David for posting the Golf Committee report all in one piece. Just to clarify for me, are the four paragraphs one contiguous piece in the minutes? I'm confused by the opening quotes for each paragraph with no closing quote. Is that the way it is in the original? Does that usage of quotation mean something? Does it suggest there are parts missing between the paragraphs?
Sorry for the confusion. I added the quotation marks so as to make clear I was quoting, just in case the blue text was not enough. Placing quotation marks at the beginning of the paragraph with no closing quotes (until the end of the entire quote) is standard punctuation indicating that multiple consecutive paragraphs are being quoted. The entire passage set out in blue is a single quote, with the paragraph breaks as indicated in the original. Comparing the quote to the image I have, I cannot see to the bottom of the page, so I don't know for sure that it ends where I suggest, but I assume it does. Next time I'll just stick to the color, I guess.
___________________________________________
Per your email, the "obvious reasons" I wanted you to post the Minutes were so I wouldn't be accused of being a Homer who may have somehow edited or tampered with their contents. I was not calling you out on anything but did note that the Minutes didn't say they laid out the five plans on the ground as you were recollecting off the top of your head. Sorry if that came off as confrontational as it wasn't meant in that way.
Not sure what you mean by "per your email" but thank for your explanation nonetheless. I'm sorry for my sharp reaction to your post. I usually try to ignore all the offsite nonsense, but I guess the constant harassment by TEPaul and the ridiculous accusations by TEPaul and Wayne Morrison have put me more on edge that need be. Time to go back to ignoring them altogether, I guess.
-
David,
Thanks for the clarification. It's pretty sad when the nature of these debates leads us to wonder about the importance of " marks. :'(
Re the offline crap, it still escapes me why you don't take the high road and just block the e-mails or send them directly to the trash.
-
Re the offline crap, it still escapes me why you don't take the high road and just block the e-mails or send them directly to the trash.
Over the years, many of TEPaul's unwanted emails have been extremely creepy and threatening, as well as libelous. (You and others on his email chains usually only see the mild stuff.) When anyone is being endlessly and repeatedly harassed and threatened through emails, phone calls, letters, in person, or any other form of unwanted communication, it is prudent to preserve records of the harassment. In short, if he is insists on continuing to harass me despite by request that he quit contacting me, I'm going to keep a record of it.
That said, I will probably refrain from regularly asking him to stop in the future, as it only seems to encourage him. Also, on my old email application I could automatically "sort" his emails into a segregated inbox where his messages were saved but I never saw them, and I think I'll try to figure out a way to do the same with my current email app.
-
Mike Cirba, regarding the rest of your post a few above:
1. You posit that the "three acres additional" was part of the "Francis Swap." By Francis's description of the "swap," this cannot be. The "Francis Swap" was a swap. Land-for-land. Not a purchase of additional acreage.
2. Regarding the topo map, you wrote, "CBM never to my knowledge 'expressed a need' for one." Here is what CBM wrote in his June 29, 1910 letter to H.G. Lloyd regarding the lack of a topo map:
"The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House."
If you are seriously contending that CBM is not expressing the need for a contour map in this passage, then I have to question whether or not you are attempting in good faith to understand this material. In short, he indicated that his judgment was limited by the lack of a contour map. His opinion would have been more certain (and may have been more detailed) had he a contour map. Merion needed a contour map if he (or anyone) was going to figure out for certain if 18 first class holes would fit.
3. You attempt to minimize the importance of the NGLA meeting by claiming "that meeting seemed very focused on the great holes abroad and what CBM had accomplished in reproducing their principles at NGLA . . ." Again, your position directly contradicts the record itself.
First, the Alan Wilson statement left no doubt that, at NGLA, CBM was advising Wilson about the prospective lay out at Merion. "They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."
Second, Hugh Wilson also had indicated that at NGLA they "learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."
Third, it defies common sense and good faith analysis for you to seriously suggest that they weren't discussing the potential layout, given that CBM had already been over the land and had already been considering how to make use Merion's natural features ("we think [the land] has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of. What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified . . . we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House."); and given the timing of the meeting during the heart of the planning phase; and given that Merion already possessed a contour map, and given that Wilson and/or Merion had already been communicating with CBM prior to the meeting, and given that on their return from the trip Merion "rearranged the course . . .. ", etc.
4. You state, "Neither Wilson's account nor the recap you posted above from the Minutes indicate that they reviewed a topo of Merion while at NGLA." Here you mistake the absence of evidence for evidence of absence, and this is a recurring theme in your analysis. There is no reason for you to expect that Wilson's statement and/or the minutes would contain a minutely detailed account of every single thing that CBM did. It is therefore unreasonable for you assume there was no topo just because these two documents fail to mention it.
In sum, Mike, your position does not seem to be consistent with the historical record, and it also seems to defy common sense.
Remember that CBM had already been over the land, and we know that, at the very least, he had already been considering how to make use Merion's natural features. And we also have been told that Merion had already considered a number of different courses on their land. Given all this and the rest of what we know, I have a few question I hope you will answer thoughtfully and reasonably:
1. Is it reasonable for you to continue to assert that Wilson traveled to NGLA and spent two days with CBM shortly before he was to begin building the course, yet they did not even bother discuss the the prospective layout?
2. Doesn't this position directly contradict Alan Wilson's statement, and common sense?
3. If CBM and HJW were not directly involved in the design process (at least with regard to the routing and hole concepts), then why would Merion trouble him to travel back to Philadelphia to again go over there land, consider the various plans, and approve a final layout plan?
-
I really must commend David for his calm and reasoned responses to everything that he has had to deal with on these threads. He research is so impressive. I also sense that Mike is trying hard to lower the tone of the debate, even if his lurker-supporters do not seem to have that ability. It has been a while since I've read Mike's "In My Opinion" piece (and I can't find that tab under this new gac.com format) but it strikes me that Mike only has to make a handful of relatively minor edits, ones that give CBM a little more credit, and Wilson a little less "divine inspiration" credit, and he'd have the story right. But perhaps after writing so many words,and fighting so hard, it is hard to admit even minor mistakes.
-
Bill,
The last thing in the world I'm looking for here is anything but a collegial tone and collaborative spirit.
Given that, if you can't find it here or in the back pages, let me know and I'll get you a copy of my IMO piece.
If there are factual corrections to be made please just point them out and I'll revise and send to Ran
Others are always welcome to do the same as I'd like my articles to be as historically accurate as possible.
Thanks.
-
Mike Cirba, Bryan & David,
Would it surprise you if the dominant cant within the putting surface on the Redan at NGLA was left to right, and not right to left ?
How would that impact your thinking regarding the Redan at Merion ?
-
Patrick. I am not sure what you mean by "dominant cant" but multiple reports over the years have indicated that that the green cants from higher left to lower right.
(The green (which is very deep) is higher in back than it is in the front. I think it is this characteristic which gives people pause.)
When I think of the Redan concept from a playability perspective, I think of it as a rare one shot hole which allows the golfer to get the ball to the same point on the green by two distinctly different routes and shots. One can take the direct line over the bunker, or one can take an indirect line at the opening and then work the ball back around the trap using a draw and the slope of the land. With Merion's redan, the ground doesn't slope away from the tee, but a lefthanded golfer can still hit a draw and hope to use the left to right slope to work the ball behind the bunker. Not saying that this qualifies it as a "Redan" by any modern definition or understanding, but it does seem that the two-route aspect is still at least somewhat present because of the left to right slope.
EDIT: Some of the above makes no sense. I thought Patrick was asking about Merion's Redan.
-
Mike Cirba, Bryan & David,
Would it surprise you if the dominant cant within the putting surface on the Redan at NGLA was left to right, and not right to left ?
How would that impact your thinking regarding the Redan at Merion ?
Patrick,
Yes that would surprise me.
But, looking at the pic of the hole on this website (courses by country, NGLA) it may be possible that the back portion of the green slopes right. Certainly, the front slopes left, as the high right edge is visible, but the left/back disappears to just a mere sliver behind the bunker, suggesting (since it is slightly downhill) that the green doesn't pitch up (at least much) towards the golfer.
Just out of curiosity, what is the source of that knowledge? Personal experience, of course, but did anyone ever measure that like the Merion 3 green contour map?
Any way, that got me curious, and using the Merion 1995 map, at no place is that green more than 0.5 lower on the right than the left side. The steepest slopes are near the back and the flattest area is actually adjacent to the bunker. David might be right that many shots sort of funneled down to that flat area.
Of course, the green surface has probably been rebuilt or evolved since the old days.
My gut feel is just what Patrick said - either they defined it differently (perhaps because the barn wall reminded them of the boarded bunkers) or were perhaps liked the idea using the hole names to describe them, even if very loosely modeled after famous holes. After all, both CBM at NGLA and Wilson wrote about "adapting them to our conditions" rather than making exact copies.
-
Mike Cirba, Bryan & David,
Would it surprise you if the dominant cant within the putting surface on the Redan at NGLA was left to right, and not right to left ?
How would that impact your thinking regarding the Redan at Merion ?
Patrick,
Yes that would surprise me.
But, looking at the pic of the hole on this website (courses by country, NGLA) it may be possible that the back portion of the green slopes right. Certainly, the front slopes left, as the high right edge is visible, but the left/back disappears to just a mere sliver behind the bunker, suggesting (since it is slightly downhill) that the green doesn't pitch up (at least much) towards the golfer.
Jeff,
The outer kick plate cants right to left and that influence continues into the right quadrent and along the back perimeter of the green.
But, as you face the green from the tee, starting where the kick plate meets the green if you draw a line from that point, roughly 4 O'clock to 10 O'clock, to the back of the green, the left side of that line slopes left to right and as you get to the back of the green, it too slopes left to right. Anywhere from roughly 1/2 to 3/4 of that gree slopes left to right, that why you can't see your goofball from the tee as it gets further into the green, despite the fact that the tee sits slightly above the green.
If the green sloped high right to lower left you'd be able to see your ball at all times, and that's not the case at the 4th at NGLA.
Just out of curiosity, what is the source of that knowledge? Personal experience, of course, but did anyone ever measure that like the Merion 3 green contour map?
In addition to 40+ years of experience, I spent 20 minutes on that green late yesterday afternoon, just examining the contours.
I did the same at # 1, 3, 6 & 12.
Any way, that got me curious, and using the Merion 1995 map, at no place is that green more than 0.5 lower on the right than the left side. The steepest slopes are near the back and the flattest area is actually adjacent to the bunker. David might be right that many shots sort of funneled down to that flat area.
One of the things I noticed on many of the greens at NGLA is their funneling nature, how marginal shots are fed into bunkers, rough or fairway.
Of course, the green surface has probably been rebuilt or evolved since the old days.
My gut feel is just what Patrick said - either they defined it differently (perhaps because the barn wall reminded them of the boarded bunkers) or were perhaps liked the idea using the hole names to describe them, even if very loosely modeled after famous holes. After all, both CBM at NGLA and Wilson wrote about "adapting them to our conditions" rather than making exact copies.
Agreed, I don't think their goals were to create exact replicas, in fact Macdonald often stated that he had improved upon the originals.
-
David,
I think there is more than one way to define the primary concept of a Redan,
In general.
1. structurally
2. functionally
3. Structurally and functionally
You've described the functional aspect as the primary aspect
-
I just realized I misread Patrick's question. I thought he was asking about Merion. I know . . . I'm a moron.
-
Pat,
I know where this will end up, but the slope of a green is not judged from the 4:00 position. It's always judged from the 6:00 position. Hell, from 12:00 the green is uphill...
If I were to hit a straight shot from the tee to the front apron center...would my ball roll to the left or right?
I assume based on your comments that the ball would roll to the left for a while and once it got into the back half or third of the green it would straighten or possibly move a little right. Is this the case?
-
There is simply no denying the number of people referring to the current 3rd at Merion as a Redan...what's always interested me is how far off the concept they seemed to have gotten.
Do we know if the beginning of the current green pad was initially maintained as fairway height? This would explain the motive behind William Flynn's decision to grow the grass longer. It would also play more into the Redan concept than what is on the ground today.
-
Jim, The Hagley Digital Library has a 1925 oblique aerial which unfortunately cuts off right at the 3rd green, But one can make out the about half the green-side bunker in the image clip below. It looks to me like the entire area between the tee and green (and all the way over to the 6th fairway) was cut as fairway.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1925-Merion-2nd-green.jpg)
Also notice there is a lot going on with various tee boxes in this early image. Looking at the course map published in 1916, my guess is that the original tee boxes were the smaller boxes closest to the 5th green (remember 5th was originally the 6th and the 3rd was the 7th.) If memory serves these two small boxes are still there. Playing off if these boxes changes the angle slightly and might allow a bit more potential to run the ball up along the bias of the plateau.
Here is the cutout of the hole on the map published in 1916, along with another rendering (by Flynn I think) from 1916.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1916-Merion-7th-diagram.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1916-Merion-3rd-Flynn.jpg)
The 2nd rendering is definitely not drawn to scale but it is interesting that in both these drawings the GREEN starts before the left side bunker and almost raps around it a bit to the left. In later renderings the green doesn't seem to extend that far forward and left.
-
David,
I've been on my phone and really can't make sense of what I'm looking at there. I'll get into a bigger screen this weekend and report back. Thanks!
-
David,
I'm not sure where you see fairway drawn short and left of the left side bunker on those drawings? Could you elaborate? Thanks.
-
Pat,
I know where this will end up, but the slope of a green is not judged from the 4:00 position. It's always judged from the 6:00 position. Hell, from 12:00 the green is uphill...
Jim,
You obviously don't understand the term "point of reference"
If I were to hit a straight shot from the tee to the front apron center...would my ball roll to the left or right?
I couldn't tell you because I don't know how hard you hit your approach shot, but let's stop the nonsense, more than half the green slopes from left to right.
But I only examined it again today in addition to the 20 minutes I spent on it yesterday. Just to make you happy, I'll examine it again tomorrow.
I assume based on your comments that the ball would roll to the left for a while and once it got into the back half or third of the green it would straighten or possibly move a little right. Is this the case?
NO, the left to right cant starts at the front left edge of the green and continues along that entire edge to the back of the green.
Hope that helps.
-
My mistake Mike. It should read "interesting that in both these drawings the GREEN starts before the left side bunker and almost raps around it a bit." I'll change it.
EDIT: Jeez I can't seem to get it right. Changed "fairway" to GREEN here and above.
-
David,
I've been on my phone and really can't make sense of what I'm looking at there. I'll get into a bigger screen this weekend and report back. Thanks!
It is a bit disorienting because the 3rd green is missing. The old second green is in the right of the photo. The 5th green is in the lower middle. The right green-side bunker on the "Redan" is the large bunker about 2/3 up the left edge of the photo.
[The photo also provides a great look at the original diagonal carry on the 6th hole, which was Merion's attempt at the Road Hole.) The bunker built into the corner of the adjacent property was functional equivalent of the "stationmaster's garden" (now the Hotel) on the original Road Hole.]
-
Here's a short article from the June 25, 1939 Philadelphia Inquirer that mentions the Redan at Merion. Apparently Richard Francis, the renaissance man - engineer, surveyor, construction company owner, writer of THE book on the rules and decisions of golf, and fictional novelist and short story writer, was also a pretty good golfer.
The article mentions the Redan having a fairway and a slanting green although it doesn't mention in which direction the green slants.
And, a hole in one on the Redan with a 4 wood by one of the Griscoms.
I've heard of being born with a silver spoon in your mouth, but a gold plated 4 wood in your golf bag!? ;D
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/327/18529310744_26991de713_c.jpg)
-
Thanks for posting that. Lloyd Griscom was Rodman (R.E.) and Frances's brother. R.E. and Frances had started the mixed family tournament sometime in the mid 1920's, I think. Interesting they were playing the hole from only 170 yards. One way to tell the amateurs from the professionals back then was that it was the amateurs who carried gold plated clubs, not the professionals.
As for Richard Francis, here is what he had to say about his own golfing abilities in in 1917, in his entry to his Harvard Class Update:
Life for me is nothing more or less than a constant struggle to keep my income to such a point that I have a little time and a little money left over to play golf. Having struggled with golf for some twenty years, I have reached the point where I am almost a good golfer. Over and over again I have come very close to being a great golfer, but somehow or other somebody turns up at the psychological moment with the idea in his head of demonstrating that I am entirely mistaken as to my skill. Most unfortunately the demonstration is accurate, forceful and to the point.
For those who still think that he might have been a bit of a stiff in real life, I'll post the rest of the description in the other thread.
-
David,
As regards the timing of the Francis land deal, where is it written that an "exchange" of land, or a "swap", has to be between two equal parcels? Particularly when compensation is offered for the difference? Particularly when both parties have officers who are some of the same persons, such as H.G. Lloyd?
To wit, from the April 1911 Board of Governors meeting, more of the Merion Cricket Club meeting minutes, copied from "The Nature Faker".; (italics and bold for emphasis are mine)
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion
Resolved, that this Board approve of the purchase and exchange, and agree to pay as
part of the rental the interest on the additional purchase.
In December of 1910, Merion "secured" 117 acres from the Real Estate Developer.
In February of 1911, Hugh Wilson wrote Piper & Oakley that Merion had obtained 117 acres.
Richard Francis told us that his brainstorm provided Merion enough room to fit the last five holes. He also told us that they exchanged land that didn't fit "with any golf layout" of the multiple layout plans stiill under consideration. This was sometime after he had been "added" to Wilson's Committee early in 1911 for his surveying and mapping skills.
Per that brainstorm and subsequent Board approval, Merion purchased 120 acres in July of 1911, not the originally agreed 117.
There is no theory here, simply a factual timeline.
This is really very simple and straightforward once it's recognized that this wasn't an acre for acre exchange.
I'll get back to your other questions as I'm able, thanks.
-
Mike, I've answered it all many times before, and I will again . . . as I'm able. I imagine that will be sometime after you get a chance to answer my pending questions above, and after we get a chance to discuss your answers. Thanks.
To refresh your recollection . . .
Remember that CBM had already been over the land, and we know that (at the very least) he had already been considering how to make use Merion's natural features. And we also have been told that Merion had already considered a number of different courses on their land. And we know that the NGLA trip took place in the spring of 1911, when they were actively planning the course. And we know that they had a contour map by this time. Given all this and the rest of what we know, I have a few question I hope you will answer thoughtfully and reasonably:
1. Is it reasonable for you to continue to assert that Wilson traveled to NGLA and spent two days with CBM shortly before he was to begin building the course, yet they did not even bother discuss the the prospective layout?
2. Doesn't this position directly contradict Alan Wilson's statement, and common sense?
3. If CBM and HJW were not directly involved in the design process (at least with regard to the routing and hole concepts), then why would Merion trouble him to travel back to Philadelphia to again go over there land, consider the various plans, and approve a final layout plan?
-
Mike, To refresh your recollection . . .
Remember that CBM had already been over the land, and we know that (at the very least) he had already been considering how to make use Merion's natural features. And we also have been told that Merion had already considered a number of different courses on their land. And we know that the NGLA trip took place in the spring of 1911, when they were actively planning the course. And we know that they had a contour map by this time. Given all this and the rest of what we know, I have a few question I hope you will answer thoughtfully and reasonably:
1. Is it reasonable for you to continue to assert that Wilson traveled to NGLA and spent two days with CBM shortly before he was to begin building the course, yet they did not even bother discuss the prospective layout?
2. Doesn't this position directly contradict Alan Wilson's statement, and common sense?
3. If CBM and HJW were not directly involved in the design process (at least with regard to the routing and hole concepts), then why would Merion trouble him to travel back to Philadelphia to again go over there land, consider the various plans, and approve a final layout plan?
David,
Thanks for your questions and I’ll try to respond thoughtfully and reasonably.
I think for starters we need a standard here separating fact and conjecture, as neither of us want to be accused of simply “making sh*t up”, as you sometimes contend. That is why I tried in my previous post to stick to the facts we know and how those affect the timeline of when events occurred and what conclusions we could reasonably draw from those events.
For instance, if we know that Merion had only secured 117 acres as of February 1st, 1911 and they eventually bought 120 acres that decision to purchase an additional three acres had to have happened after February 1st, 1911.
If we know that Richard Francis told us that his brainstorm allowed them to squeeze in the final five holes, by exchanging some land that didn’t fit in with “any golf lay-out” they were still considering for land they could use, then only one of two possibilities is true;
1) That Richard Francis had his brainstorm that allowed them to fit all the holes on the course prior to February 1st, 1911, yet in the next few months Merion decided they still needed an additional three acres for the golf course because, I don’t know, but we’d have to “make sh*t up” to try to rationalize or justify this belief as there is really no factual evidence to indicate otherwise, right?
2) That the Richard Francis brainstorm exchange took place after February 1st, 1911 but required an additional three acres overall to fit the golf holes, requiring them to authorize another capital outlay to cover the purchase. Indeed, the April 1911 Minutes would seem to substantiate this, as follow;
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about $7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion Resolved, that this Board approve of the purchase and exchange, and agree to pay as part of the rental the interest on the additional purchase.
Similarly, it’s a fact that Richard Francis’s 1950 account begins by telling us that he was “added” to Hugh Wilson’s Committee presumably for his engineering and surveying skills. That committee formed on January 11, 1911 according to Jeff Silverman’s Merion history book, and Hugh Wilson himself told us that his Committee was formed in early 1911, as well. Francis also tells us that the brainstorm he had related to the golf plan (other golf layouts were under consideration at the time) that was eventually approved and built. Similarly, the Merion Cricket Club Minutes indicate that various plans were considered prior to the Committee’s March 1911 visit to NGLA, and that upon returning, the Committee “rearranged the course and laid out five different plans” which were later reviewed by CBM as part of the decision-making process.
Thus, knowing those facts, only one of two things can be true;
1) That Richard Francis’s brainstorm happened after being “added” to Hugh Wilson’s Committee, which is consistent with all other known facts.
2) That somehow Richard Francis had his brainstorm prior to being added to Hugh Wilson’s Committee in January 1911, after which the Committee considered various other plans over several months before coming back full circle to the original Francis plan. There is no factual evidence to indicate this, so once again we’d have to make sh*t up, correct?
We also know it’s a fact that the November 1910 Land Plan submitted to the Merion membership is a scale drawing by civil engineers Pugh & Hubbard indicating the 117 acres secured for the golf course, and also showing the adjacent real estate development separated by an “Approximate” location of a road dividing the two, today’s Golf House Road. We also know as fact that Richard Francis told us that “the land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yds. wide by 190 yds. long – the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee.” However, it’s also a fact that the northernmost “triangle” on the Pugh and Hubbard 1910 drawing does not measure those dimensions at all, but instead measures approximately 95 yds. wide by 260 yds. long.
Thus, knowing those facts, only one of two things can be true;
1) Richard Francis had his brainstorm prior to the creation of the Pugh and Hubbard map in November 1910 and subsequently, Pugh and Hubbard made a gross error in indicating the northwestern border of the golf course on that map. However, there’s really no evidence to substantiate that claim, so we’d once again have to make sh*t up, right?
2) Richard Francis had his brainstorm sometime after the creation of that map, during which time that northwestern boundary was re-aligned to the 130 yards wide by 190 yards long dimension recalled by Francis, likely as a result of swapping land not used for any golf layout along that same border.
Admittedly, I think all of us fell into the trap of imagining that the land exchange Richard Francis mentioned in 1950 was a straight acre-for-acre exchange, when it is clear from the April 1911 Merion Cricket Club minutes that it was not. Indeed, an additional three acres was needed for the golf course along that western border north of Ardmore Avenue, which is the only place on the property where such flexibility was even possible. And, as mentioned, Merion authorized the payment of $7500 for those additional three acres at the April 1911 Board of Governors meeting.
So, I think it would be a very productive step for our discussion that we come to agreement that all of the factual evidence indicates that the Richard Francis brainstorm and subsequent land exchange took place after Wilson’s Committee was formed in early 1911, and likely after that Committee’s trip to NGLA in March of 1911. Such an agreement based on the known facts would also greatly benefit future discussions on this and other topics.
Thanks, and I’ll answer your other questions shortly.
-
Since much of this discussion related to the 3rd, or "redan" hole at Merion, and since David's questions bring up what Alan Wilson wrote in 1926 about the genesis of the two Merion courses, I thought it appropriate to reproduce that letter in whole here for easy reference. Note his comments about the Committee's usage of "natural hazards" wherever possible, particularly on the 3rd hole, which Hugh Alison evidently thought "the best green he had seen in America."
For the record, I have a somewhat different interpretation of Wilson's statement that Macdonald and Whigham's advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value." than does David, if I am interpreting him correctly. I think Wilson is discussing their advice and suggestions in general based on the three events he mentions, and not specific to the Wilson Committee's visit to NGLA. I say that because to my knowledge, Alan Wilson was not part of the Committee that ventured to NGLA and thus would have little basis to make that determination other than hearsay. Others can certainly intepret as they see fit in the context of the entire piece.
For your understanding, here is the Alan Wilson letter in entirety;
Mr. William R. Philler,
Haverford, Pa.
Dear Mr. Philler:-
You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history, and I warned you that I did this sort of thing very badly. You insisted, however, so I have done the best I could and enclose the article herewith. If it is not what you want, please do not hesitate to destroy it and to ask someone else to write you something which will better suit your purpose.
I am very glad you are writing the club history. It ought to be done because unless put on paper these things which are interesting in themselves are apt to be forgotten,-- and I do not know of anyone who would do the work so well as you.
With regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Alan D. Wilson
Merion’s East and West Golf Courses
There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” designed and built the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.
The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.
These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee laid out and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other. They imported bent seed directly from Germany when bent turf was a rarity and gave us not only bent greens and fairways and even bent in the rough and this seed only cost them 24 cents a pound, while it sells now for $2.25. They put in water systems for the greens and tees before artificial watering became a routine. They took charge of and supervised all the construction work as a result the two courses were built at the combined total cost of less than $75,000---something under $45,000 for the East and about $30,000 for the West, whereas it is not unusual nowadays for clubs to spend $150,000 or more in the building of one course of 18 holes.
The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.
We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.
The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.
………..The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.
It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”
Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.
-
Mike Cirba,
Is it your position that Alan and Hugh Wilson never discussed Merion in the pre and post design phase and pre and post construction phase ?
-
Mike,
As for your post No. 199, is this some sort of filibuster or something? My questions had nothing to do with the Francis land swap. Are you going to answer my questions, or not?
As for your post No. 200, if you are going to start throwing around terms like "hearsay" and start telling us that Alan Wilson didn't know what he was talking about, well then I guess we can all just forget about you answering thoughtfully and reasonably.
Again, Mike, are you going to answer my questions? Or are you going to continue on with this song and dance?
-
Mike, It doesn't seem like you are interested in forthrightly answering my questions. Nonetheless, I said I'd address your latest forays into the Francis land swap, and given that you seem be be tying yourself into increasingly convoluted knots (albeit with more and more self-assuredness each time), I might as well cut you free from this nonsense.
As usual, you have started with your desired conclusion then have tried to twist and bend the facts beyond recognition to fit that conclusion. Thus, while Francis described a "swap" of land for land, you have now completely convinced yourself it was actually a purchase which must have come about shortly before the board meeting. I'm not going to bother with every twist and distortion of the record, but I will highlight a few that ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that your theory (which you laughably call nothing but a recitation of facts) is flawed from beginning to end. We've covered all this before, you have just conveniently forgotten it all.
(Perhaps before I start you could pause for a minute and reflect upon how absolutely certain you are that you have it all figured out. Then, when it all unwinds, please go back and try and understand why it is that you keep doing this to yourself and the rest of us. What good are mistakes if we do the same thing over and over again?)
1. There was no purchase by Merion of "about three acres additional" for $7500 dollars from HDC. As Merion repeatedly indicated in summer and fall of 1910, Merion had negotiated a purchase price of $85,000 for the golf course parcel from Haverford Development Company. In July of 1911, when Merion finally purchased the parcel, the deed made no mention of 120 acres or 117 acres, or any total acreage. It simply provided the metes and bounds. [EDIT: Checked old posts and according to Bryan, the deed did list the acreage as 120.01 acres.] Merion paid Haverford Development company $85,000.00, as originally negotiated. Not $92,500, as you conjecture. This suggests they purchased the land they intended from the beginning, no more and no less, and for the price they had negotiated a year earlier, and no more or no less. As for the 117 acre figure, perhaps they mis-measured or mis-estimated back in the summer of 1910, and never got around to correcting the amount. Regardless, they bought the land they intended to buy from the beginning, and for the price they intended to pay.
2. The "about three acres additional" mentioned in the Thompson Resolution most likely referred to the approximately three acres of land next to the clubhouse, originally the site of the parts of the 12th and the 13th holes. Remember, back in June of 1910, Macdonald and Whigham had informed Merion that they needed to acquire additional land by the clubhouse if they wanted to be able to fit 18 first class holes? Well, as of April 1911, Merion had still not acquired this land, thus the resolution mentioned the need to acquire the land. But rather than purchasing the land for $7500.00 (an exorbitant price compared to the land sold to Merion by the Haverford Development Company), in July of 1911, Merion cut a sweatheart deal with the Railroad to lease the land for a nominal amount rather than purchasing it. It wasn't until decades later that they actually purchased the land.
3. Also, the "three acres additional" could not have been part of the Francis swap because the price is wrong. Haverford Development Company had agreed to sell Merion land for its golf course for approximately $726 per acre, and at the time of the resolution, H.G. Lloyd of Merion held all of the land in question on behalf of Haverford Development Company. But the asking price of the "about three acres additional" was about $2500 per acre, not about $726 per acre. Either H.G. Lloyd and Haverford Development Company were trying gouge Merion contrary to their original deal, or it wasn't the land in question wasn't held by Lloyd (for HDC) but rather was owned by someone else. The Railroad.
4. The mid-November land plan shows that the land identified by Francis as subject to the swap was already part of the golf course parcel as of that date, thus the swap must have already been in place prior to that date. (You can quibble that the land shown on the map is only 110 yards rather than the full 130 yards, but that isn't even worth addressing again.)
-
I've always been amused/confused/bemused, Mike (and Tom), by your absolute dismissal of what Richard Francis wrote in this instance while relying on his words as gospel in other areas.
The land swap was not a re-configuring of the road to reach that 130X190 dimensions...the road was not there to begin with. The Francis Swap established the triangle just as he said it did.
Would you agree that every person on the Wilson Committee was added to it?
This is a key question because you've taken his words to mean he was added LATER when he never said that. He simply said ADDED for his engineering expertise. Would they not have known he was an engineer at the outset? Do you think they put up a Help Wanted advertisement on the locker room bulletin board?
The other timing disagreement, which ties into this one, is whether or not anyone from Merion would be out plotting or planning golf holes in the late summer or fall of 1910 before the map was created and before the technical formation of the Wilson Committee. We know they were discussing golf holes with CBM and HJW in June 1910...
-
David,
Let’s stick to facts here. Your speculation about them mis-measuring is really not supported by any of the known facts, is it?
A November 10, 1910 letter from E.W. Nicholson, on behalf of the Haverford
Development Company was in reply to meetings with Lloyd representing the Merion
Cricket Club.
Board of Governors
Merion Cricket Club,
Haverford, Pa.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the terms of a letter from Mr. H.G. Lloyd to Mr. J.R. Connell
supplemented by several conferences with Mr. Lloyd acting on behalf of the Merion
Cricket Club, would say,
That this Company has in its possession either the title to or options in writing
(assigned in blank) for the purchase of the following tracts of ground on College and
Ardmore Avenues, Haverford, Pa.,
63.6 acres Haverford Development Co. property,
140 acres Phila. And Ardmore Land Co. ―
21 acres Dallas Estate property
56 acres Taylor property
58 acres Davis property
_________
338.6
Out of the said total of 338 acres a tract of 117 acres as agreed upon with Mr. Lloyd,
we agree to sell to a corporation to be formed on behalf of the Merion Cricket Club for
the purpose of establishing Golf Links thereon within reasonable time, clear of
encumbrance, for the price or sum of Eighty-five thousand dollars payable in cash on
or about December 10th, 1910.
Kindly forward us your written acceptance of this proposition,
Very truly yours,
(signed) E.W. Nicholson
Secretary
Allen Evans, then President of Merion Cricket Club replied in a November 15, 1910
letter,
E.W. Nicholson, Esq.,
Secretary of the Haverford Development Co.,802 Land Title Bldg., Philada
Dear Sir:
Your letter of November tenth, advising of the purchase of certain tracts of ground on
College and Ardmore Avenues, Haverford, by the Haverford Development Company,
has been received. I note that you agree to sell a tract of one hundred and seventeen
(117) acres, as agreed upon with Mr. Lloyd, to a corporation to be formed on behalf of
the Merion Cricket Club, for the purpose of establishing Golf Links thereon within
reasonable time, clear of encumbrance, for the price or sum of Eighty-five thousand
dollars, ($85,000.00), payable in cash on or about December 10th, 1910.
In accordance with instructions given me by the Board of Government of the Merion
Cricket Club, I beg to state that a Corporation will be formed on behalf of the Club,
which will purchase the tract of land above mentioned one hundred and seventeen
(117) acres, at the price or sum of Eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000.00), in
accordance with the terms of your proposition, as quoted above, and that as soon as
this Corporation obtains possession of the property, we will at once proceed to lay off,
and put in shape a Golf Links.
Very truly yours,
(signed) Allen Evans,
President Merion C.C.
As a result of this agreement, Evans sent the following to Merion membership on November 15th, 1910. You’ll note that the drawing is to scale;
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4135/4876469289_c59db3dc83_b.jpg)
(http://[url=https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4877079236_859567b801_b.jpg%5b/img]https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4877079236_859567b801_b.jpg[/img[/url]]
[url=https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg%5b/img]https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg[/img[/url]]
That same date a letter offering stock options to members from H.G. Lloyd;
[b][i]Philadelphia[/i][/b][b][i], November 15[/i][/b][b][i][size=8pt]th[/size], 1910[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]To the Members of the Merion Cricket Club:[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]The members of the Club who subscribed to stock of the Haverford Development[/i][/b]
[b][i]Company, in order to consummate the purchase referred to in the accompanying[/i][/b]
[b][i]circular letter of the President of the Club, did so with the understanding that all other[/i][/b]
[b][i]members should have the right to become subscribers on precisely the same terms and[/i][/b]
[b][i]conditions as themselves. The reason for this was that they were unwilling to put[/i][/b]
[b][i]themselves in the position of having received what may prove to be a privilege not[/i][/b]
[b][i]enjoyed by every other member.[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]The authorized capital stock of the Company will be $300,000. Of this amount[/i][/b]
[b][i]approximately one-half has been taken by others than members, so that about[/i][/b]
[b][i]$150,000 of the stock will be open to subscription by members of the Club. A[/i][/b]
[b][i]considerable amount has already been subscribed, but no preference will be given to[/i][/b]
[b][i]these advance subscriptions, as in the event of an over-subscription, there will be an[/i][/b]
[b][i]allotment pro rata among all subscribers. Any member desiring to subscribe to the[/i][/b]
[b][i]stock will please communicate with the undersigned not later than December 1, 1910.[/i][/b]
[b][i]The Company is unwilling to receive subscriptions of less than $1,000.[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]There will be acquired by the Company, five tracts of land, aggregating approximately[/i][/b]
[b][i]338 acres[/i][/b][b][i], so that after the sale of 117 acres for the Golf course, there will remain[/i][/b]
[b][i]about 221 acres, some of which has been improved. The average cost of the remaining[/i][/b]
[b][i]land will be less than $2,500 per acre. Of this amount, about $1,000 per acre will be[/i][/b]
[b][i]paid in cash and the balance remain on mortgage. It is estimated that the $300,000[/i][/b]
[b][i]Capital will provide ample funds for such development work as may be necessary,[/i][/b]
[b][i]including road building, etc.[/i][/b]
[b][i]Horatio G. Lloyd,[/i][/b]
[b][i]Chestnut and Fifth Sts.[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
On December 21[sup]st[/sup], 1910, Merion’s counsel T. DeWitt Cuyler sent the following letter to Merion President Allen Evans;
[b][i]Philadelphia[/i][/b][b][i], December 21, 1910.[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]Mr. Allen Evans,[/i][/b]
[b][i]President, Merion Cricket Club,[/i][/b]
[b][i]Haverford[/i][/b][b][i], Pa[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]My dear Sir:[/i][/b]
[b][i]Re Merion Cricket Club Golf Association,[/i][/b]
[b][i]In[/i][/b][b][i]accordance with Mr. Lloyd‘s request, I enclose herewith letter[/i][/b][b][i]from the Haverford Development Company of November 10[/i][/b][b][i][size=8pt]th [/size]and copy of your reply thereto showing the terms of the agreement to purchase the land for the golf grounds. I also enclose copy of my letter to you of November 23[/i][/b][b][i][size=8pt]rd[/size]. As I have duplicates of these three papers, I would thank you to return them or copies of them to me.[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]I would report that proceedings for the incorporation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf[/i][/b]
[b][i]Association are underway with a slight modification of the details of my letter of[/i][/b]
[b][i]November 23[/i][/b][b][i][size=8pt]rd[/size].[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as[/i][/b]
[b][i]yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it[/i][/b]
[b][i]was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in[/i][/b]
[b][i]Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you[/i][/b]
[b][i]to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon.[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the[/i][/b]
[b][i]second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property[/i][/b]
[b][i]have been determined upon.[/i][/b]
[b][i]I should be much obliged if you would at your convenience let me have a copy of the[/i][/b]
[b][i]lease of the Cricket Grounds from the Haverford Land and Improvement Company in[/i][/b]
[b][i]order that the lease of the golf grounds may conform therewith.[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]Yours very truly,[/i][/b]
(Signed) [b][i]Thomas DeWitt Cuyler[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b] [/b]
Careful readers will note that Mr. Cuyler states that it [i]”was[/i] found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in Mr. Lloyd’s name, so that the lines can be revised subsequently” as the boundaries (along the western edge north of Ardmore Avenue) had not yet been determined.
[b]In fact, by the time of that letter, Mr. Lloyd had already taken title of the entire 161 acres of the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate properties and had done so on December 10[sup]th[/sup], 1910. Thus, any further dealings for the negotiation of that land could be, and in fact needed to be done through Mr. Lloyd, who represented both sides of the transaction. You’ll recall that Richard Francis rode to Lloyd’s house on his midnight ride and it was appropriate to do so as Lloyd held the title to the property and would need to approve any land exchanges, particularly any exchanges that required additional property for golf.[/b]
On February 1[sup]st[/sup], 1911, Hugh Wilson wrote his first letter to Piper & Oakley and his first sentence indicates how much land Merion had acquired;
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/272/19289411552_d3608df3a5_b.jpg
Under normal circumstances, the decision on which of the golf course routing plans to approve would have been handled as a routine matter by the club’s Golf Committee. However, the ONLY reason that this transaction needed Board of Governors approval was because of the requirement to purchase 3 acres additional from what had been approved the previous November.
At the April 19, 1911 Board Meeting, the following was entered into the Minutes;
[b][i]Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:[/i][/b]
[b][i]Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the[/i][/b]
[b][i]new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the[/i][/b]
[b][i]evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard[/i][/b]
[b][i]to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,[/i][/b]
[b][i]which were copied after the famous ones abroad.[/i][/b]
[b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April[/i][/b]
[b][i]6[/i][/b][b][i][size=8pt]th [/size]Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and[/i][/b]
[b][i]after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay[/i][/b]
[b][i]it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would[/i][/b]
[b][i]result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to[/i][/b]
[b][i]any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to[/i][/b]
[b][i]acquire 3 acres additional.[/i][/b]
In response, on motion of Mr. Thompson, the following was resolved;
[b][i]Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new[/i][/b]
[b][i]Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased[/i][/b]
[b][i]for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about[/i][/b]
[b][i]$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion[/i][/b]
[b][i]Resolved, that this Board approve of the purchase and exchange, and agree to pay as[/i][/b]
[b][i]part of the rental the interest on the additional purchase.[/i][/b]
At the end of the day, you’re correct that Lloyd and HDC never charged Merion for the additional 3 acres, and stuck to the original purchase price of $85,000 for what was eventually the 120.01 acres that HDC (through Lloyd) sold to Merion, as indicated on the metes and bounds of that transaction.)
-
My apologies but it appears due to size limitations I'll have to enter this in multiple posts.
-
Jim,
I disagree with parts of your post as well as David's post 178, where he states, "Here you mistake the absence of evidence for evidence of absence" and "CBM had already been over the land, and we know that, at the very least, he had already been considering how to make use Merion's natural features."
As to the first point, while I understand that if my post doesn't mention the Civil War, its not proof that it didn't happen. However, the standard for concluding such things did happen is more than one source saying it did.
In the case of David claiming CBM was out there routing holes or considering holes in 1910 after the June meeting, he has already admitted that there is no evidence of that. There is no way a meeting to ask his opinion if land is suitable, and a follow up letter saying yes, it is, and it has some nice features you can use, is proof that CBM studied how holes might be arranged there. That is quite a stretch of the known record.
In fact, the biggest point of disagreement over these last 7 years is exactly that - just how much CBM did work on the project and when, and David seems to be trying to slip his opinion in as an agreed to fact, which is not the case for me, and I believe probably not others, so that is worth clearing up for anyone still following. And, you are making the same assumption, that picking property somehow equates to designing golf holes. First things first, and he was there to advise on whether the property was suitable. He would not have done any design until there was a property to design on, even if he was going to design it, which he doesn't seem to have done, at least from the written record, sans any "logical" interpretation, seemingly based on "just because they didn't say it, and its not in any record, doesn't mean it didn't happen."
Frankly, with the money TePaul has, and the passion he has for the subject, I am surprised he hasn't commissioned a committee of historians to "rule" on how valid David's theories are, instead of continued sniping in emails. His opinion, my opinion, David's opinion, etc. are all still rank amateurs in any kind of historic debate.
Now, I will agree that they probably did discuss the many plans Merion had brought over to NGLA in March 1911, as David opines, and am not sure why Mike won't agree to that simple fact. They brought those plans over for a reason, even if they basically wanted to route and design it themselves. However, I doubt that changes history all that much, and we all want to know just how involved CBM was.
The written record tells us just how many times he chimed in (3, from many sources) but we don't know how influential he was, exactly. To me, the question is who put pencil to paper to actually route the course and select the holes. It seems it was Merion, and Merion alone doing the routing, and CBM providing one day of review and selection assistance.
As to hole selection, at that March meeting, they really could have just seen what CBM did, and come away from it knowing they wanted a Redan, Eden, Road, etc. We know CBM couldn't have actually selected the holes for them then, because they went back and did five more plans. Whatever he may have selected would have most likely changed too much to use.
We know he approved the routing in April 1911 (to me, meaning he gave an opinion as to which was the best one) and MAY have suggested locations for the various holes then, but we just don't know, probably never will.
As to the land swap, my reading of all is more in line with Mike's, but I don't care to discuss it all again. The numbers do seem to add up.
-
The other points I have brought up over the years, but which seem to be ignored by most here are the facts from Bahto, that in June 1910, CBM was also pretty busy with:
The July 24 opening of NGLA
The new design contract for Piping Rock, signed at that time.
The new design contract for Sleepy Hollow signed at that time.
Whatever time he had left to devote to his full time job.
And, why, if he was wanting to be so involved, would Raynor not be in on the Merion job?
I have to believe CBM's entire mind set was on his "real" projects, as we know from Scotland's Gift that he was overwhelmed with requests and trying to get out of the free advice mode. It would seem Merion was his last one, although I am not totally sure.
Lastly, as to that meeting in March, it seems they got there in the late afternoon, (probably after a long day travel) had dinner and drinks and went over CBM's plans from famous holes in Scotland. The second day, they saw those holes on the ground. That is what they wrote, so why not believe that is what they did? IMHO, they probably left just after lunch the next day to get home by some reasonable hour.
Even if CBM looked at those many plans, which he probably did, there wasn't enough time in a 1.5 day meeting to go over any routings in detail. Certainly not enough time to put pencil to paper, even if we assume that CBM would be inclined to do so, which I am not even sure he was inclined to do from other reports. In most cases, Raynor got some instructions from CBM and drew the plans. Why would we expect CBM to do it here for Merion? No one says Raynor was at that meeting, and I don't think HJW was much of a draftsman either.
So, I am reasonably sure that CBM commented on the initial plans, and that, in combination with what they saw with their own eyes, convinced them that they needed to redo them all. Which, they recorded as helpful advice from CBM, which I am sure it was.
-
Continued...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4877079236_859567b801_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg)
(http://[url=https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4877079236_859567b801_b.jpg%5b/img]https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4877079236_859567b801_b.jpg[/img[/url]] [url=https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg%5b/img]https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg[/img[/url]] http://[url=https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4877079236_859567b801_b.jpg%5b/img]https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4877079236_859567b801_b.jpg[/img[/url]] [url=https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg%5b/img]https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg[/img[/url]])
-
Mike,
Third attachment doesn't show up for me.
-
Jeff,
On the topic of whether or not CBM was discussing possible holes/hole locations on the land proposed in June 1910; with several hundred acres of land surrounding that plot, why would he single out the small sliver behind the clubhouse if not to put a hole there?
Your reliance on evidence for proof is tough in this scenario because, unless I'm mistaken, Hugh Wilson wasn't mentioned until the course routing was complete...
-
continued...
That same date a letter offering stock options to members from H.G. Lloyd;
Philadelphia, November 15th, 1910
To the Members of the Merion Cricket Club:
The members of the Club who subscribed to stock of the Haverford Development
Company, in order to consummate the purchase referred to in the accompanying
circular letter of the President of the Club, did so with the understanding that all other
members should have the right to become subscribers on precisely the same terms and
conditions as themselves. The reason for this was that they were unwilling to put
themselves in the position of having received what may prove to be a privilege not
enjoyed by every other member.
The authorized capital stock of the Company will be $300,000. Of this amount
approximately one-half has been taken by others than members, so that about
$150,000 of the stock will be open to subscription by members of the Club. A
considerable amount has already been subscribed, but no preference will be given to
these advance subscriptions, as in the event of an over-subscription, there will be an
allotment pro rata among all subscribers. Any member desiring to subscribe to the
stock will please communicate with the undersigned not later than December 1, 1910.
The Company is unwilling to receive subscriptions of less than $1,000.
There will be acquired by the Company, five tracts of land, aggregating approximately
338 acres, so that after the sale of 117 acres for the Golf course, there will remain
about 221 acres, some of which has been improved. The average cost of the remaining
land will be less than $2,500 per acre. Of this amount, about $1,000 per acre will be
paid in cash and the balance remain on mortgage. It is estimated that the $300,000
Capital will provide ample funds for such development work as may be necessary,
including road building, etc.
Horatio G. Lloyd,
Chestnut and Fifth Sts.
On December 21st, 1910, Merion’s counsel T. DeWitt Cuyler sent the following letter to Merion President Allen Evans;
Philadelphia, December 21, 1910.
Mr. Allen Evans,
President, Merion Cricket Club,
Haverford, Pa
My dear Sir:
Re Merion Cricket Club Golf Association,
Inaccordance with Mr. Lloyd‘s request, I enclose herewith letterfrom the Haverford Development Company of November 10th and copy of your reply thereto showing the terms of the agreement to purchase the land for the golf grounds. I also enclose copy of my letter to you of November 23rd. As I have duplicates of these three papers, I would thank you to return them or copies of them to me.
I would report that proceedings for the incorporation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf
Association are underway with a slight modification of the details of my letter of
November 23rd.
In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon.
I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon.
I should be much obliged if you would at your convenience let me have a copy of the
lease of the Cricket Grounds from the Haverford Land and Improvement Company in
order that the lease of the golf grounds may conform therewith.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Thomas DeWitt Cuyler
-
continued...final.
Careful readers will note that Mr. Cuyler states that it ”was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in Mr. Lloyd’s name, so that the lines can be revised subsequently” as the boundaries (along the western edge north of Ardmore Avenue) had not yet been determined.
In fact, by the time of that letter, Mr. Lloyd had already taken title of the entire 161 acres of the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate properties and had done so on December 10th, 1910. Thus, any further dealings for the negotiation of that land could be, and in fact needed to be done through Mr. Lloyd, who represented both sides of the transaction. You’ll recall that Richard Francis rode to Lloyd’s house on his midnight ride and it was appropriate to do so as Lloyd held the title to the property and would need to approve any land exchanges, particularly any exchanges that required additional property for golf.
On February 1st, 1911, Hugh Wilson wrote his first letter to Piper & Oakley and his first sentence indicates how much land Merion had acquired;
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/272/19289411552_d3608df3a5_b.jpg)
Under normal circumstances, the decision on which of the golf course routing plans to approve would have been handled as a routine matter by the club’s Golf Committee. However, the ONLY reason that this transaction needed Board of Governors approval was because of the requirement to purchase 3 acres additional from what had been approved the previous November.
At the April 19, 1911 Board Meeting, the following was entered into the 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.
In response, on motion of Mr. Thompson, the following was resolved;
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion
Resolved, that this Board approve of the purchase and exchange, and agree to pay as
part of the rental the interest on the additional purchase.
At the end of the day, you’re correct that Lloyd and HDC never charged Merion for the additional 3 acres, and stuck to the original purchase price of $85,000 for what was eventually the 120.01 acres that HDC (through Lloyd) sold to Merion, as indicated on the metes and bounds of that transaction.
-
I've always been amused/confused/bemused, Mike (and Tom), by your absolute dismissal of what Richard Francis wrote in this instance while relying on his words as gospel in other areas.
Jim, I'm actually taking Francis precisely at his word. Whatever the dimensions of that area had been prior to his brainstorm, whether 0x0 or the 95x260 as indicated by the November 1910 Pugh & Hubbard drawing showing the "117 acres, shown on the plan in green, and marked "Golf Course", the fact remains that after Francis' brainstorm the area in question became 130x190 as it roughly remains today.
If you recall, Francis also told us that once Mr. Lloyd approved of his idea, within a day or two the men were out there blasting away with explosives on the site of today's 16th green. Does that sound like something that happened prior to November 1910 based on the rest of the evidence?
The land swap was not a re-configuring of the road to reach that 130X190 dimensions...the road was not there to begin with. The Francis Swap established the triangle just as he said it did.
The land swap was a re-configuring of the originally intended 117 acre boundaries however those acres were marked and measured on the ground prior to the construction of Golf House Road. In fact, the Francis Swap was that reconfiguration as well as the addition of 3 more acres from HDC for a total of 120.01 acres. The 3 acres of railroad land is a red herring introduced by others to confuse the issue. And yes, Francis established those new dimensions as he said he did.
Would you agree that every person on the Wilson Committee was added to it?
Yes, likely in conjunction with the creation of the Committee on January 11, 1911.
This is a key question because you've taken his words to mean he was added LATER when he never said that. He simply said ADDED for his engineering expertise. Would they not have known he was an engineer at the outset? Do you think they put up a Help Wanted advertisement on the locker room bulletin board?
The other timing disagreement, which ties into this one, is whether or not anyone from Merion would be out plotting or planning golf holes in the late summer or fall of 1910 before the map was created and before the technical formation of the Wilson Committee. We know they were discussing golf holes with CBM and HJW in June 1910...
CBM's plan for a theoretical course of 6,000 yards was not discussing any particular golf holes at Merion but instead a mix of yardages and pars to provide variety. As regards the property, his mention that the quarry and creek could be "made much of" is architecture abstracted to its highest 30,000 foot level. Their mention of Merion obtaining additional "land near where you propose making your clubhouse" seems to be something fairly self-evident, wouldn't you agree? Why wouldn't they want to control the land to the railroad tracks, utilizing the creek there, as well as providing access to both sides of the proposed clubhouse?
-
Regarding what took place during the visit of Hugh Wilson's Committee to National Golf Links of America, fortunately we have two accounts, the first in the MCC Minutes as read by Robert Lesley representing the Golf Committee and the second by Hugh Wilson himself a few years later writing for Piper & Oakley.
From the Minutes;
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.
From Hugh Wilson;
Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles
of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C.B. Macdonald and H.J.
Whigham. We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National
Course and in one night absorbed more ideas in golf course construction than we had
learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right
principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of
time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural
conditions. The next day, we spent going over the course and studying the different
holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr.
MacDonald‘s teachings.
While I think it's reasonable conjecture to assume that Merion brought him a topo and some of their plans to review at that meeting, that's all it is and there really is no factual evidence to prove that was the case.
Once again, I think it's critically important to separate fact from conjecture here.
-
Fascinating how Mike has time to regurgitate all of this stale garbage for the umpteenth time, yet he still can't seem to find time to answer my questions.
-
"While I think it's reasonable conjecture to assume that Merion brought him a topo and some of their plans to review at that meeting, that's all it is and there really is no factual evidence to prove that was the case."
Seems like all the answer Mike is going to give. And, probably all he needs to, given his opinion.
Are the minutes of the meetings really garbage? :-\
-
David,
My answers in blue below. David, I trust you won't mind me erasing the insulting invective that proceeded your answer and we'll just stick to the facts here.
1. There was no purchase by Merion of "about three acres additional" for $7500 dollars from HDC. As Merion repeatedly indicated in summer and fall of 1910, Merion had negotiated a purchase price of $85,000 for the golf course parcel from Haverford Development Company. In July of 1911, when Merion finally purchased the parcel, the deed made no mention of 120 acres or 117 acres, or any total acreage. It simply provided the metes and bounds. [EDIT: Checked old posts and according to Bryan, the deed did list the acreage as 120.01 acres.] Merion paid Haverford Development company $85,000.00, as originally negotiated. Not $92,500, as you conjecture. This suggests they purchased the land they intended from the beginning, no more and no less, and for the price they had negotiated a year earlier, and no more or no less. As for the 117 acre figure, perhaps they mis-measured or mis-estimated back in the summer of 1910, and never got around to correcting the amount. Regardless, they bought the land they intended to buy from the beginning, and for the price they intended to pay.
As shown in your correction above, the deed does indeed show 120.01 acres purchased from Haverford Development Company. As for why they ended up paying the same total amount ($85,000) for 120.01 acres than they did for the prior agreed upon 117 acres, you're a smart guy and you know with Mr. Lloyd representing both sides in this transaction he had the wherewithal to do what was deemed best for all concerned. Your idea that they hired a surveyor who mis-measured or mis-estimated is rather weak, and again comes under the category of just making stuff up without evidence. Isn't a more likely scenario that Macdonald told them they they generally needed 120 acres for a good golf course and clubhouse, just as he wrote previously to his Founders, and once they determined that they would rent the 3 acres of railroad land near the clubhouse just decided to purchase the difference (117) acres to get to the desired number? Yes, that's conjecture, but it's conjecture grounded in what CBM had previously written and what he did in the future on projects like Lido that was built on 120 acres.
In fact, on July 1st, 1910, well before any routing was done, Robert Lesley wrote for the Merion Site Committee;
It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres would be required for
our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000.00, we
believe it would be a wise purchase.
And we're supposed to believe that after routing the course they just magically came to the same number? Talk about making stuff up!
2. The "about three acres additional" mentioned in the Thompson Resolution most likely referred to the approximately three acres of land next to the clubhouse, originally the site of the parts of the 12th and the 13th holes. Remember, back in June of 1910, Macdonald and Whigham had informed Merion that they needed to acquire additional land by the clubhouse if they wanted to be able to fit 18 first class holes? Well, as of April 1911, Merion had still not acquired this land, thus the resolution mentioned the need to acquire the land. But rather than purchasing the land for $7500.00 (an exorbitant price compared to the land sold to Merion by the Haverford Development Company), in July of 1911, Merion cut a sweatheart deal with the Railroad to lease the land for a nominal amount rather than purchasing it. It wasn't until decades later that they actually purchased the land.
No, the 3 acres additional was land under control of HDC as evidenced in the July 1911 deed for 120.01 acres.
3. Also, the "three acres additional" could not have been part of the Francis swap because the price is wrong. Haverford Development Company had agreed to sell Merion land for its golf course for approximately $726 per acre, and at the time of the resolution, H.G. Lloyd of Merion held all of the land in question on behalf of Haverford Development Company. But the asking price of the "about three acres additional" was about $2500 per acre, not about $726 per acre. Either H.G. Lloyd and Haverford Development Company were trying gouge Merion contrary to their original deal, or it wasn't the land in question wasn't held by Lloyd (for HDC) but rather was owned by someone else. The Railroad.
The price was a worst-case scenario based on what HDC had purchased the land for, in effect, the retail price. As mentioned, in the end due to the influence of HG Lloyd the transaction for 120 acres came in at the originally agreed price for 117 acres, or $85k
4. The mid-November land plan shows that the land identified by Francis as subject to the swap was already part of the golf course parcel as of that date, thus the swap must have already been in place prior to that date. (You can quibble that the land shown on the map is only 110 yards rather than the full 130 yards, but that isn't even worth addressing again.)
No, actually it doesn't. The November 1910 Pugh & Hubbard land plan indicating 117 acres does not include a triangle of 130x190 yards but one vastly thinner and vastly longer. It also shows land as part of the golf course that was in fact given back to HDC in the deal. It was the redifinition of that border as well as the related need to buy 3 additonal acres sometime in the spring of 1911 that was the Francis land exchange.
-
I see our posts crossed. I'll pull mine so it doesn't get confusing.
The questions I was referring to were the ones you never answered from about a week ago. The one's you repeatedly indicated you would answer, but haven't.
Also Mike, it would really help if you wouldn't make shit up about my position.
-
It may be helpful to Jim Sullivan and others to read how land for the West Course was considered once the East Course quickly became over-crowded. From "The Nature Faker", I've copied a portion of a November 12, 1912 letter that was read into the MCC Minutes from the Merion Golf Committee;
To the President and Board of Governors,
THE MERION CRICKET CLUB:
Your Committee appointed to consider the question of additional golf facilities and the
cost of maintenance thereof, including interest and sinking fund charges, begs to
report as follows:
We have gone very fully into the question of the possibility of acquiring land available
for the purpose in the vicinity of the present golf links, and find that there is plenty of
land to be had. It will, of course, be appreciated that it was inadvisable to conduct our
inquiries in such a way as to show that the Club was seeking additional property,
which would cause a raising of prices. Through discreet inquiries, however, we have
obtained approximate prices at which different tracts can be purchased, which are
sufficiently accurate to enable us to make a fair estimate of the cost of the acquisition.
Considering, first, the question of a nine-hole course: This, in our judgment, would
have to be located on the land of the Development Company, as owing to the shortness
of the course, it would be impossible to go any great distance with it. This would
require, say fifty acres, and the cost would be between $175,000 and $200,000, or an
average of somewhere between $3500 and $4000 per acre, including developing work.
The Development Company has not been asked to quote a price on its land, but we
have reason to believe the figures named are approximately correct. It is possible that
land could be leased from the Company, with an option to purchase, for a period of say
five years. While such an arrangement, if it could be consummated, would obviate the
necessity of any present capital outlay, except the amount required for development
work, it would not reduce the annual charge, as the amount to be paid by way of rental
would probably be about the same as interest on the value of the land.
Considering, now, the question of an eighteen-hole course: We have not formulated
any definitive plan as to how, or just where it could be located. It would require, say,
one hundred acres, which we believe could be acquired and developed at an average
price of from $1750 to $2000 per acre. In order to start the play near the Club House,
it would necessitate the acquisition of some near-by land , but most of the holes could
be laid out on more remote land, which would reduce the average price of the whole, to
something less than $2000 per acre, as stated above. It has been suggested that the
new course be laid out entirely on land at some distance from the Club House, and that
a motor bus or other conveyance be provided to transport the players to and from the
course. While this would naturally reduce the immediate outlay for cash, your
Committee feels that the players would not use a course which did not start near the
house, and the desired result would not, therefore, be accomplished.
It would appear to your Committee that in case it is decided to provide additional
facilities the eighteen-hole course should be decided upon, for several reasons, among
them, being, first, that it would be a serious question whether a nine-hole course would
relieve the congestion sufficiently; and second, in the purchase of the larger acreage,
at a lower average price, it seems as though the Club would, in case at any time in the
future interest in golf should fall off, and it should be desirable to dispose of the land,
be able to secure a price that would at least bring it out whole. It must be remembered
that the land we purchased originally for the present links was secured at a very low
price. The total cost of the 120 acres, including the club house and improvements, of
$180,000, making the average cost per acre $1500.
If the Club should decide to go ahead on the basis of a new 18-hole links, at a cost of
$200,000, it would make the total investment in land, buildings, and improvements
$380,000, or an average cost of $1722 per acre, which, considering the price at which
surrounding land is held, would indicate that the Club would be amply secured against
loss on its investment...
-
1. Is it reasonable for you to continue to assert that Wilson traveled to NGLA and spent two days with CBM shortly before he was to begin building the course, yet they did not even bother discuss the the prospective layout?
2. Doesn't this position directly contradict Alan Wilson's statement, and common sense?
3. If CBM and HJW were not directly involved in the design process (at least with regard to the routing and hole concepts), then why would Merion trouble him to travel back to Philadelphia to again go over there land, consider the various plans, and approve a final layout plan?
David,
As mentioned, I was hoping that you and I could come to agreement that the facts indicate that the Richard Francis Land Exchange took place sometime after the Wilson Committee was formed in January 1911 and almost certainly after the Committee visited NGLA in March of 1911. I was also hoping we could come to agreement that that exchange wasn't an equal acre-for-acre swap, but instead required Merion to purchase an additional 3 acres as the April 19, 1911 MCC Minutes indicate.
I believe agreement in those areas will benefit future discussion and I'm still hopeful that we'll come to that shared understanding.
Nevertheless, in the interim, please allow me to answer your questions.
1) I think it's reasonable conjecture to imagine that during the Wilson Committee's overnight visit to NGLA in March 1911 (while they were knee-deep in their various course design plans) that they brought a topo map and perhaps some of those plans they had developed by that time. However, the two written accounts we have of that meeting don't indicate that happened. In fact, they seem to indicate that much of the time was spent on going over the principles of the great holes abroad followed by a next day tour of the golf course.
As I've indicated before, I think this provided much more value and had a huge impression on the Committee. For instance, here these guys were trying to squeeze their golf course into 117 purchased (and 3 rented) acres with a large quarry on the north end and then they see this vast undertaking CBM had accomplished across 200 acres, using about 160 acres for a golf course with huge fairway widths providing alternate routes around hazards, and they had to think to themselves, wow...back to the drawing board!
Yes, that's also conjecture, but it's based on what they saw on the ground at NGLA, which was massive in scale.
2) As mentioned, I don't believe Alan Wilson was at NGLA and I think his statement that CBM and Whigham's advice as to the layout of the East Course being exceptionally helpful was a statement made in totality of the three meetings, as well as agronomic advice, advice about the principles of the great holes, etc., as well as helping them pick the best of their five plans. Conversely, there is no evidence of CBM and Whigham actually creating any routing plan for Merion, is there?
3) Why wouldn't they have wanted their advice is the better question. Griscom and Macdonald were friends and Griscom had him out once prior when they were considering the land. To get his learned advice regarding which of their plans was superior would not only have directly benefited the final result, but also would go a long way to getting approval of the Board of Governors for a plan that required them to purchase 3 additional acres.
Let's not forget that at the time, golf at Merion Cricket Club was still a relative upstart, with many other sports much more well-established. The large capital outlay required of the membership to buy land for their own golf course was relatively revolutionary at the time as most clubs in the region were playing on leased land that was increasing in value. This was hardly a slam-dunk approval in the way we might think of it today.
I hope this helps.
-
As for why they ended up paying the same total amount ($85,000) for 120.01 acres then they did for the prior agreed upon 117 acres, you're a smart guy and you know with Mr. Lloyd representing both sides in this transaction he had the wherewithal to do what was deemed best for all concerned.
I have no idea what you think this means. You think that Lloyd just decided give Merion three additional acres of HDC's land? Ridiculous. A more reasonable interpretation is that Merion purchased the land they always intended for the price the always intended.
The Resolution contemplates a purchase of three acres additional for $7500. If Lloyd was just going to give them the land, then this make NO sense. It also makes no sense for the price to have been $2500 per acre, which is 3 times what was contemplated. What does make sense, is that this wasn't the HDC land. It was the RR land. That was the 3 acres additional they needed, and the only three acres of land which was still in play at the point.
Your idea that they hired a surveyor who mis-measured or mis-estimated is rather weak, and again comes under the category of just making stuff up without evidence.
You are the one who is making shit up, Mike. Where did I say they hired a surveyor? I don't know where they came up with the 117 acre figure AND NEITHER DO YOU. I don't know what, if anything had actually been measured AND NEITHER DO YOU. I don't know why the difference between the preliminary figure AND NEITHER DO YOU. The difference between us is I don't pretend to know, while you do. There are plausible explanations for the discrepancy, but none of the involve the purchase of three additional acres for $7500.
Isn't a more likely scenario that Macdonald told them they they generally needed 120 acres for a good golf course and clubhouse, just as he wrote previously to his Founders, and once they determined that they would rent the 3 acres of railroad land near the clubhouse just decided to purchase the difference (117) acres to get to the desired number?
Jeez, Mike, you twist everything. This makes no sense whatsoever. CBM's letter doesn't mention 120 acres. To the contrary, CBM told them that without a contour map he couldn't be certain if they had enough land to fit 18 first class holes, but he thought that they could provided that they add the land by the clubhouse. That you could read this as him generally telling them that they needed 120 acres? Well this speaks volumes about your willingness to look honestly at the source material.
In fact, on July 1st, 1910, well before any routing was done, Robert Lesley wrote for the Merion Site Committee;
It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres would be required for
our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000.00, we
believe it would be a wise purchase.
And we're supposed to believe that after routing the course they just magically came to the same number? Talk about making stuff up!
What the hell are you talking about? Lesley most likely came up with the 120 acre figure by adding the 3 acres CBM told them to add to the plot they were considering, which they said was 117 acres.
No, the 3 acres additional was land under control of HDC as evidenced in the July 1911 deed for 120.01 acres.
Really? Then what about the $7500? And why were HDC and H.G. Lloyd planning to charge Merion 3X what they had agreed? Face it Mike. This was NOT the three acres mentioned in the Resolution. That was the RR land.
The price was a worst-case scenario based on what HDC had purchased the land for, in effect, the retail price. As mentioned, in the end due to the influence of HG Lloyd the transaction for 120 acres came in at the originally agreed price for 117 acres, or $85k
This is sad. You are just making shit up, Mike.
The November 1910 Pugh & Hubbard land plan indicating 117 acres does not include a triangle of 130x190 yards but one vastly thinner and vastly longer. It also shows land as part of the golf course that was in fact given back to HDC in the deal. It was the redifinition of that border as well as the related need to buy 3 additonal acres sometime in the spring of 1911 that was the Francis land exchange.
Not according to Francis.
-
As for why they ended up paying the same total amount ($85,000) for 120.01 acres then they did for the prior agreed upon 117 acres, you're a smart guy and you know with Mr. Lloyd representing both sides in this transaction he had the wherewithal to do what was deemed best for all concerned.
I have no idea what you think this means. You think that Lloyd just decided give Merion three additional acres of HDC's land? Ridiculous. A more reasonable interpretation is that Merion purchased the land they always intended for the price the always intended.
The Resolution contemplates a purchase of three acres additional for $7500. If Lloyd was just going to give them the land, then this make NO sense. It also makes no sense for the price to have been $2500 per acre, which is 3 times what was contemplated. What does make sense, is that this wasn't the HDC land. It was the RR land. That was the 3 acres additional they needed, and the only three acres of land which was still in play at the point.
Your idea that they hired a surveyor who mis-measured or mis-estimated is rather weak, and again comes under the category of just making stuff up without evidence.
You are the one who is making shit up, Mike. Where did I say they hired a surveyor? I don't know where they came up with the 117 acre figure AND NEITHER DO YOU. I don't know what, if anything had actually been measured AND NEITHER DO YOU. I don't know why the difference between the preliminary figure AND NEITHER DO YOU. The difference between us is I don't pretend to know, while you do. There are lots of plausible explanations for the discrepancy, but none of the involve the purchase of three additional acres for $7500.
Isn't a more likely scenario that Macdonald told them they they generally needed 120 acres for a good golf course and clubhouse, just as he wrote previously to his Founders, and once they determined that they would rent the 3 acres of railroad land near the clubhouse just decided to purchase the difference (117) acres to get to the desired number?
Jeez, Mike, you twist everything. This makes no sense whatsoever. CBM's letter doesn't mention 120 acres. To the contrary, CBM told them that without a contour map he couldn't be certain if they had enough land to fit 18 first class holes, but he thought that they could provided that they add the land by the clubhouse. That you could read this as him generally telling them that they needed 120 acres? Well this speaks volumes about your willingness to look honestly at the source material.
In fact, on July 1st, 1910, well before any routing was done, Robert Lesley wrote for the Merion Site Committee;
It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres would be required for
our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000.00, we
believe it would be a wise purchase.
What the hell are you talking about? Lesley most likely came up with the 120 acre figure by adding the 3 acres CBM told them to add to the plot they were considering, which they said was 117 acres.
And we're supposed to believe that after routing the course they just magically came to the same number? Talk about making stuff up!
What are you talking about? The original golf course was 123 acres, not 120. It was the land purchased from HDC plus the 3 acres of land suggested by CBM.
No, the 3 acres additional was land under control of HDC as evidenced in the July 1911 deed for 120.01 acres.
Really? Then what about the $7500? And why were HDC and H.G. Lloyd planning to charge Merion 3X what they had agreed? Face it Mike. This was NOT the three acres mentioned in the Resolution. That was the RR land.
The price was a worst-case scenario based on what HDC had purchased the land for, in effect, the retail price. As mentioned, in the end due to the influence of HG Lloyd the transaction for 120 acres came in at the originally agreed price for 117 acres, or $85k
This is sad. You are just making shit up, Mike.
The November 1910 Pugh & Hubbard land plan indicating 117 acres does not include a triangle of 130x190 yards but one vastly thinner and vastly longer. It also shows land as part of the golf course that was in fact given back to HDC in the deal. It was the redifinition of that border as well as the related need to buy 3 additonal acres sometime in the spring of 1911 that was the Francis land exchange.
Not according to Francis.
-
The other points I have brought up over the years, but which seem to be ignored by most here are the facts from Bahto, that in June 1910, CBM was also pretty busy with:
The July 24 opening of NGLA
The new design contract for Piping Rock, signed at that time.
The new design contract for Sleepy Hollow signed at that time.
Whatever time he had left to devote to his full time job.
And, why, if he was wanting to be so involved, would Raynor not be in on the Merion job?
Even if CBM looked at those many plans, which he probably did, there wasn't enough time in a 1.5 day meeting to go over any routings in detail. Certainly not enough time to put pencil to paper, even if we assume that CBM would be inclined to do so, which I am not even sure he was inclined to do from other reports. In most cases, Raynor got some instructions from CBM and drew the plans. Why would we expect CBM to do it here for Merion? No one says Raynor was at that meeting, and I don't think HJW was much of a draftsman either.
So, I am reasonably sure that CBM commented on the initial plans, and that, in combination with what they saw with their own eyes, convinced them that they needed to redo them all. Which, they recorded as helpful advice from CBM, which I am sure it was.
Jeff,
I think your point about Seth Raynor being missing is a great point that has been largely unexamined here.
In every single one of Macdonald's project where he had direct, detailed involvement he used Seth Raynor.
It didn't matter if the course was on Long Island, or West Virginia, or St. Louis, Raynor was his guy, often doing all of the travelling. For instance, there is no record of Macdonald actually visiting Greenbrier.
That he was never sent to Merion speaks volumes about CBM's involvement, IMO.
David,
Pugh and Hubbard drew a scale map dated November 15, 1910 that purports to show the 117 acres Merion secured at that time in green, and marked "Golf Course". That's the surveyor I was referring to.
-
I think your point about Seth Raynor being missing is a great point that has been largely unexamined here.
The Raynor angle has been examined repeatedly. CBM did not build Merion. He helped plan it. Raynor was involved with the courses CBM/Raynor built. No one is claiming that CBM directed the construction of Merion. That was Hugh Wilson.
David,
Pugh and Hubbard drew a scale map dated November 15, 1910 that purports to show the 117 acres Merion secured at that time in green, and marked "Golf Course". That's the surveyor I was referring to.
Will you please stop twisting everything? The Pugh and Hubbard Map (most likely commissioned by HDC) does NOT "purport() to show the 117 acres . . . " There is no acreage mentioned on the Pugh and Hubbard map whatsoever.
-
Will you please stop twisting everything? The Pugh and Hubbard Map (most likely commissioned by HDC) does NOT "purport() to show the 117 acres . . . " There is no acreage mentioned on the Pugh and Hubbard map whatsoever.
David,
Let me try this again.
On July 1st, 1910, well before any routing and shortly after CBM's visit, Robert Lesley writing for the Merion Site Committee wrote;
It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres would be required for
our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000.00, we
believe it would be a wise purchase.
On November 15, 1910, a letter from the Site Committee was sent to the members of Merion with the Pugh and Hubbard Land Plan enclosed.
Here is the letter. Please read what it says about the enclosed plan of the property showing 117 acres in green and marked "Golf Course".
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4135/4876469289_c59db3dc83_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4877079236_859567b801_b.jpg)
Here again is the enclosed Land Plan, drawn to scale by civil engineers Pugh and Hubbard.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg)
-
I know what the circular to the members said. My problem is with what YOU SAID.
Merion said the land shown on the map was 117 acres. But the map as drawn up by Pugh and Hubbard does NOT say anything about 117 acres. The map indicated that the "Approximate location of the road" which strong suggests that Pugh and Hubbard had NOT measured out the land designated as golf course. So when you say that "surveyors" had designated that this land measured 117 acres, you are making things up. That is not in the record. We don't know if the surveyors had measured it or not. We know Merion thought the land shown was 117 acres, but this information is not designated on the map itself.
-
Let me put it another way. Show me where the surveyors "purported" that the land shown as golf course was exactly 117 acres? If you can't show me this in the record, then you can't state it as if it was a fact.
Merion said it was 117 acres, the surveyors did not say this. You can't just twist it to pretend it comes directly from the map when it doesn't.
-
David,
You don't find it remarkable that Robert Lesley wrote on July 1st 1910 that;
It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres would be required for
our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000.00, we
believe it would be a wise purchase.
and that the combination of the 3 acres of Railroad-owned land "near the clubhouse" that you believe CBM recommended in his June 29th, 1910 letter combined with the 117 acres that Merion secured from HDC in November of 1910 just happened to total 120 acres, as well?
Here again, for easy reference, is Macdonald's letter;
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of. What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.
We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly. The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.
The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House. The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee. They had a very difficult drainage problem. You have a very simple one. Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you. Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.
In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for anlaysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.
We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.
With kindest regards to you all, believe me,
Yours very truly,
(signed) Charles B. Macdonald
In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.
-
What the hell are you talking about? The 120 acre figure came from adding 3 to 117. What is the big mystery here?
-
Let me put it another way. Show me where the surveyors "purported" that the land shown as golf course was exactly 117 acres? If you can't show me this in the record, then you can't state it as if it was a fact.
Merion said it was 117 acres, the surveyors did not say this. You can't just twist it to pretend it comes directly from the map when it doesn't.
David,
Earlier you told us that the map in question with the existence of golf course land paralleling Haverford College was proof that the Francis swap happened before November 15th 1910 and now you're telling us that the dimensions drawn on that map are so questionable as to be essentially not worth the paper they are drafted on.
Either they are meant to represent the 117 acres of land Merion believed they had secured or they do not. Why hire a professional surveying company...Civil Engineers...to draw a scale map essentially signifying nothing?
Merion believed that 120 acres would be enough based on what Robert Lesley wrote months before any evidence of planning of a routing taking place; They proceeded to acquire 117 from HDC, 3 from the Railroad company.
In the end, the plan they selected required them to buy another 3 acres from HDC for a total of 123 acres. That plan also required them to exchange land already purchased for land adjoining in an effort to stay close to the original terms agreed to with Haverford Development Company. This was all determined and approved at the April 19, 1911 Board meeting.
Why this is complicated at this point is beyond me.
More importantly to the larger issues at hand, first you told us this map was essentially proof that the Francis Swap had to have happened prior to then and now you're telling us that the surveyors may not even have actually surveyed and mapped the proposed golf course land at all!?
Merion said the land shown on the map was 117 acres. But the map as drawn up by Pugh and Hubbard does NOT say anything about 117 acres. The map indicated that the "Approximate location of the road" which strong suggests that Pugh and Hubbard had NOT measured out the land designated as golf course. So when you say that "surveyors" had designated that this land measured 117 acres, you are making things up. That is not in the record. We don't know if the surveyors had measured it or not.
-
:-X
-
David,
Earlier you told us that the map in question with the existence of golf course land paralleling Haverford College was proof that the Francis swap happened before November 15th 1910 and now you're telling us that the dimensions drawn on that map are so questionable as to be essentially not worth the paper they are drafted on.
This is precisely the type of hyperbolic bullshit which makes these conversation so unproductive.
The map was important, but it does not say anything about 117 acres. Your fake incredulity doesn't change this fact.
-
David,
It never even occurred to me that Pugh & Hubbard may not even have surveyed and measured the proposed land for the golf course but you may be correct when you wrote;
The map indicated that the "Approximate location of the road" which strong suggests that Pugh and Hubbard had NOT measured out the land designated as golf course. So when you say that "surveyors" had designated that this land measured 117 acres, you are making things up. That is not in the record. We don't know if the surveyors had measured it or not.
After all, every other border was fixed based on what was owned by HDC at that time.
The only border where flexibility was possible was along the western border north of Ardmore Avenue, along the line of the "Approximate Location of Road".
Frankly, that would explain a lot, wouldn't it?
-
Mike,
From memory, wasn't there a separate price for any additional land over 117 acres previously agreed to, explaining the $7500 purchase price? And, did any document mention a certain amount of flexibility to change the boundary as needed? And, didn't MCC end up at 123 acres, which would be 117 + 3 from HDC + 3 from the RR?
Lastly, while the map doesn't say 117 acres, it appears the land contract does, no? Would there be any land contract that wasn't accompanied by a property description? And, that is why it had formerly change later?
-
As if it is not bad enough to have just Mike making things up that have no basis in the factual record, now Brauer is going to make up more stuff? I can't keep up.
-
Just asking questions, Dave! I did go back and re-read your essay to make sure I wasn't mis-stating your position, but the two questions above simply come from memory of 7 years of discussion here........
-
Mike,
From memory, wasn't there a separate price for any additional land over 117 acres previously agreed to, explaining the $7500 purchase price? And, did any document mention a certain amount of flexibility to change the boundary as needed? And, didn't MCC end up at 123 acres, which would be 117 + 3 from HDC + 3 from the RR?
Lastly, while the map doesn't say 117 acres, it appears the land contract does, no? Would there be any land contract that wasn't accompanied by a property description? And, that is why it had formerly change later?
Jeff,
Here's the document related to changing the boundary as needed from what I copied and posted here earlier;
On December 21st, 1910, Merion’s counsel T. DeWitt Cuyler sent the following letter to Merion President Allen Evans;
Philadelphia, December 21, 1910.
Mr. Allen Evans,
President, Merion Cricket Club,
Haverford, Pa
My dear Sir:
Re Merion Cricket Club Golf Association,
Inaccordance with Mr. Lloyd‘s request, I enclose herewith letterfrom the Haverford Development Company of November 10th and copy of your reply thereto showing the terms of the agreement to purchase the land for the golf grounds. I also enclose copy of my letter to you of November 23rd. As I have duplicates of these three papers, I would thank you to return them or copies of them to me.
I would report that proceedings for the incorporation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf
Association are underway with a slight modification of the details of my letter of
November 23rd.
In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon.
I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon.
I should be much obliged if you would at your convenience let me have a copy of the
lease of the Cricket Grounds from the Haverford Land and Improvement Company in
order that the lease of the golf grounds may conform therewith.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Thomas DeWitt Cuyler
Careful readers will note that Mr. Cuyler states that it ”was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in Mr. Lloyd’s name, so that the lines can be revised subsequently” as the boundaries (along the western edge north of Ardmore Avenue) had not yet been determined.
In fact, by the time of that letter, Mr. Lloyd had already taken title of the entire 161 acres of the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate properties and had done so on December 10th, 1910. Thus, any further dealings for the negotiation of that land could be, and in fact needed to be done through Mr. Lloyd, who represented both sides of the transaction. You’ll recall that Richard Francis rode to Lloyd’s house on his midnight ride and it was appropriate to do so as Lloyd held the title to the property and would need to approve any land exchanges, particularly any exchanges that required additional property for golf.
The previous month in an exchange of letters (also posted here earlier today) between Joseph Connell of HDC and Allen Evans of Merion, Merion agreed to secure 117 acres of property. (see my post #205 from today for the actual letters)
All of this became moot when H.G. Lloyd, acting under Cuyler's advice, purchased the entire 140 acres of the Johnson Farm and 21 acres of the Dallas Estate. This was evidently done so that boundaries could be revised subsequent to the design of the golf course.
As far as the $2,500 price per acre, on November 15th 1910, H.G. Lloyd sent a stock option opportunity letter to Merion members that included the following, also posted in full earlier today (bolding mine);
There will be acquired by the Company, five tracts of land, aggregating approximately
338 acres, so that after the sale of 117 acres for the Golf course, there will remain
about 221 acres, some of which has been improved. The average cost of the remaining
land will be less than $2,500 per acre. Of this amount, about $1,000 per acre will be
paid in cash and the balance remain on mortgage. It is estimated that the $300,000
Capital will provide ample funds for such development work as may be necessary,
including road building, etc.
Horatio G. Lloyd,
Chestnut and Fifth Sts.
-
Mike,
Thanks, should have looked more than a few posts back. So, it looks like there was not a defined 117 acres and that it would be determined later. Of course, this strongly suggests that the routing was either not in place, or far from final. I believe the latter, but I know David believes there was one in place.
Now, as to my recollection that any additional land over the 117 would be at a higher price? Am I making stuff up about that, or is my aging memory still somewhat still in place? LOL
-
Jeff,
I don't particuarly recall such an agreement although Lloyd did mention that any HDC real estate land sold to Merion members beyond this 117 acres secured for golf was seemingly set a a max price of $2,500 per acre. That amount is also why I feel confident that the 3 acres additional mentioned in the MCC April 19th, 1911 Minutes that needed to be purchased at $7,500 referred to HDC held land under Lloyd's control.
If a routing had been in place by December 1910 I'm sure Lloyd wouldn't have needed to purchase the entire 161 acres but instead Merion would have simply purchased only the 117 they had been routed on that they had agreed to the prior month.
And yes, although both our aging memories may be failing the end result was 117 acres secured in November 1910, plus 3 acres leased railroad land, plus 3 acres additional from HDC approved in April 1911 and purchased in July 1911 for a total of 123 acres.
Thanks.
-
Mike,
Is it your belief that Merion's Board approved the purchase of 3 acres for $7,500 and then HGL decided to pay that $7,500 himself to HDC? I am under the assumption that he essentially ran HDC by this point but the question remains...
If so, why would he/they have gone through the exercise of requesting the funds from the board? It makes no sense.
If not, what happened to that $7,500?
-
Mike,
Is it your belief that Merion's Board approved the purchase of 3 acres for $7,500 and then HGL decided to pay that $7,500 himself to HDC? I am under the assumption that he essentially ran HDC by this point but the question remains...
If so, why would he/they have gone through the exercise of requesting the funds from the board? It makes no sense.
If not, what happened to that $7,500?
Jim,
I honestly don't know.
What we do know is that he essentially controlled both sides of the fence in the transaction, although under fiduciary obligation to each respective group.
Did he eat the cost personally? Perhaps.
Did he convince the other officers of HDC that the sacrifice of this additional acreage would be all to the common good and they would re-coup their money through the excellence of the golf course plan that had the ringing endorsement of CB Macdonald? Recall that HDC first told Merion that they would be willing to sell "100 acres or whatever would be required" for the golf course.
The record isn't clear but we KNOW they bought 120.01 acres of HDC land in July, 1911, which was 3 more acres than their original agreement of 117 acres in November 1910.
-
Jim,
Recall as well that Francis told us the acquisition of the Railroad land preceded his Land exchange brainstorm. He said they were able to fit the first 13 holes through the aquisition of a little land north of Ardmore Ave. but the last five were another matter.
-
You guys conveniently keep forgetting the obvious. There was "approximately three acres additional" which still needed to be acquired at the time of the Thompson Resolution. It was the RR land, next to the clubhouse. The land CBM and HJW had suggested that Merion acquire the summer before. It had still not been acquired as of April 1911.
It would have made no sense for Merion to have resolved to purchase three acres from HDC for over 3X the agreed upon price. It would have made no sense for Lloyd to have allowed this to come up before the Board if he was just going to finesse it behind the scenes. It would have made no sense for Lloyd to steal the land from HDC on behalf of Merion despite his fiduciary duty to HDC, and no facts suggest this happened. It would have made no sense for Lloyd to pay for it himself and there are certainly no facts suggesting this happened. It would have made no sense for the Board to resolve to pay HDC an extra $7500 acres but then not pay HDC the extra $7500. Likewise it would make no sense for Francis to have referred to the transaction as a "swap" of land for land if it was in fact a sale of land.
In short, the theory that the "approximately three acres additional" refers to the Francis swap makes no sense.
But it does make sense that the "approximately three acres additional" would have been referring to the RR land. It had yet to be acquired, and it doesn't show up as golf course land on the Nov. map.
This is typical. You guys ignore the obvious answer and stretch and twist the facts to fit your convoluted theories. Even the Fakers realized that the "three acres additional" most likely referred to the RR land, yet you guys go on insisting it must have been something else.
The funny thing is, it doesn't matter anyway. Even if the Thompson resolution explicitly referred to the Francis land swap (and it doesn't), so what? The date the board approved the transaction does NOT tell us the date Francis came up with the idea.
Again, "approximately three acres additional" of RR land next to the clubhouse is illustrative. Merion didn't secure this land until July of 1911, after (I think) mentioning it in April 1911. So should we assume that Merion never considered adding this land until April or perhaps even July of 1911? This would be a faulty assumption, because the previous summer CBM and HJW had already recommended that Merion acquire the land next to the clubhouse.
Mike is trying to draw a similarly faulty assumption here.
-
Jim,
Recall as well that Francis told us the acquisition of the Railroad land preceded his Land exchange brainstorm. He said they were able to fit the first 13 holes through the aquisition of a little land north of Ardmore Ave. but the last five were another matter.
Mike, Once again, you are again playing fast and lose with the facts.
Francis did NOT tell us that "the acquisition of the Railroad land preceded his Land exchange brainstorm." The RR property was not acquired until July of 1911, after construction had begun and months after CBM and HJW had already approved the final routing plan. After the road had been built. After the swap had taken place.
As for when Merion first considered using the RR land for the golf course, the earliest mention we have goes back to June of 1910 when CBM and HJW suggested that they acquire the land next to the clubhouse.
So what does that tell us about the timing of the Francis Swap? Not much, except that it was probably sometime after CBM and HJW's visit in the summer of 1910.
[ADDED: It is pretty funny that in my previous post I held up the potential misinterpretation regarding the timing of the acquisition of the RR land as an obviously faulty assumption, and, as if to make my argument for me, at the same time Mike goes right ahead and tries to make this exact faulty assumption. Thanks for helping prove my point Mike.]
-
Mike, I just noticed your post No. 234:
It never even occurred to me that Pugh & Hubbard may not even have surveyed and measured the proposed land for the golf course but you may be correct . . .
You are talking about two things here - surveyed and measured - whereas I only mentioned one. What I wrote was that we don't know whether they measured out the acreage on the land designated as golf course. If they did, then they did not not indicate that it was 117 acres on the plan itself. My point was that it was Merion who said it was 117 acres, not the surveyors.
As for what they had surveyed at this point, I don't know for certain, and I don't think you do either. But my guess is that by this point the two sides had negotiated the approximate location of the road, and that the surveyors set out the approximate location on the map, and perhaps even in the field. (And of course both sides left flexibility for the exact boundary to change.)
In other words, I think that at this point, the two sides had identified the subject of the transaction. Merion knew what they were buying and HDC knew what they were selling, subject to some adjustment to the border later. Whether or not they had accurately measured that acreage of the subject property, we just do not know. Identifying property through stakes and surveys is sometimes easier than exactly measuring the acreage.
As for how they came up with 117 acre figure, we don't know for certain, but I'll concede that the most logical explanation may be that they may have used a mechanical planimeter on the Nov. 1910 map (or similar map) to calculate the acreage based on the approximate location of the road. I've tried to replicate this process by overlaying the 1910 map on google earth so as to get an accurate measure, but unfortunately (even using my flat scan of the original) the points don't quite line up. That said, doing the best I can to line up the map, the measure of the golf course land seems to be very close to 117 acres. Maybe Bryan has a better measure somewhere in the archives, but I don't recall it if he has one.
-
It's nice to see that the Merion minute documents that were top secret private six years ago have now been posted. What changed in those intervening six years? Is there anything new in this debate that has changed anybody's position?
I see the word "acquired" used regarding the RR land. I thought there was agreement that it was leased all the way up into the 1970's. I don't recall a date ever being put on when the lease began.
Re the 117 acre parcel that was announced in November, I don't think anybody knows precisely where that was to be, or even whether it was just a placeholder amount while they figured out the routing and design and knew the precise amount and location that they needed. In July they bought 120.01 acres. Since we don't know where the 117 acres was, it is impossible to know where the extra 3 acres was. It is unclear from the Thompson resolution whether they were talking about the RR land or the cost of adding 3 acres from HDC to the agreed 117 acres.
Re David's last question, I did, six years ago, overlay the land plan on Google Earth and measured the area. It's not accurate, but my best estimate at the time was that the land plan showed 124 acres. My guess is that Pugh and Hubbard had not, in November, surveyed GHR to get precisely 117 acres since the routing and design wasn't known at that time and Merion and HDC had purposely left the western boundary fluid until they knew precisely where the course was going to go. By July, Pugh and Hubbard had surveyed GHR (precisely where it is today) for the deed, and according to the deed the road was already in existence by then.
In the picture below the red line is the approximate land plan road, while the blue line is the surveyed road from the deed (and as it exists today).
Looking at the plan again, it is hard not to think that Francis' swap of land for the 15th green and 16th tee is not already approximately on the plan despite Mike's claims of "vast" differences in the measurements.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion1910-1913Overlay.jpg)
-
Just asking questions, Dave! I did go back and re-read your essay to make sure I wasn't mis-stating your position, but the two questions above simply come from memory of 7 years of discussion here........
Jeff
I haven't got the time nor the stomach to go back and re-read the 7-year old essay, but I do recall my participation in the debate then, which was to question the authors' conclusion that the use of the term "laying out the course" meant construction rather than planning (i.e. routing and further design). I argued then, with proof, that in the early 20th century the phrase "to lay out" did mean "planning" rather than construction but was cryit doon by the authors and their henchmen. Well, from the follwing minutes posted above, it seems that "laying out" did mean planning rather than construction, at least to the people involved in cereating the new Merion course, from start to finish.
"At the April 19, 1911 Board Meeting, the following was entered into the 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."
Surely, 5 courses were not "constructed" prior to the meeting with CBM, if "laying out" meant "constructing." To argue this would be laughable. To me it seems obviously that Lesley was reporting that the committee created and brought 5 possible routings to CBM, for his opinions on each, including which of the 5 was "best" in his opinion.
Rich
PS--in the quote above it is also obvious from the later context that "his plans" refers to CBM's plan for NGLA, not some plans he may have created for Merion.
PPS--all this IMHO, of course........
-
Rich,
Similarly, the term "construction" was very commonly used at that time to indicate both design and build, as in "Construction Committee". None other than Donald Ross and C.B. Macdonald made extensive use of the term during those years to indicate golf course architecture. I'd be happy to offer examples.
-
Bryan,
Great post, thanks! Please see my responses in blue below.
It's nice to see that the Merion minute documents that were top secret private six years ago have now been posted. What changed in those intervening six years? Is there anything new in this debate that has changed anybody's position?
I think lots of new information has surfaced, although it's been generally disregarded in this discussion for obvious reasons. For instance, who previously knew that Rodman Griscom had spent summers in North Berwick under the tutelage of Ben Sayers and would have certainly been very familiar with the Redan? Also, much more research on the life and work of Hugh Wilson has been done in the interim and are reflected in my IMO pieces on this site.
I see the word "acquired" used regarding the RR land. I thought there was agreement that it was leased all the way up into the 1970's. I don't recall a date ever being put on when the lease began.
I should have used the term "leased" as that's what they in fact did with the 3 acres of railroad land. Francis told us that it was relatively easy to place the first 13 holes with a little help from some additional land north of Ardmore Avenue, but fitting the final five holes was still a problem, all of which preceded his brainstorm. I find it interesting that the November 15, 1910 Pugh & Hubbard map does not yet indicate that railroad land as part of the golf course yet and wonder what that does to our understanding of the timing?
Re the 117 acre parcel that was announced in November, I don't think anybody knows precisely where that was to be, or even whether it was just a placeholder amount while they figured out the routing and design and knew the precise amount and location that they needed. In July they bought 120.01 acres. Since we don't know where the 117 acres was, it is impossible to know where the extra 3 acres was. It is unclear from the Thompson resolution whether they were talking about the RR land or the cost of adding 3 acres from HDC to the agreed 117 acres.
In concept, I like the idea of the 117 acres as a theoretical placeholder, but I'm not sure that meshes with the facts. For instance, we know in February 1911 Hugh Wilson again mentioned 117 acres to Piper and Oakley and we know he said he was going to send them a contour map, which I'm assuming indicated 117 acres....whether or not that was done by Pugh and Hubbard and based on their dimensions or something Richard Francis created is unknown. We also know that the Thompson Resolution indicated a swap of land "already purchased" for land adjacent plus three acres more so they had to have been working some some real boundary, and not just a placeholder by that time.
Re David's last question, I did, six years ago, overlay the land plan on Google Earth and measured the area. It's not accurate, but my best estimate at the time was that the land plan showed 124 acres. My guess is that Pugh and Hubbard had not, in November, surveyed GHR to get precisely 117 acres since the routing and design wasn't known at that time and Merion and HDC had purposely left the western boundary fluid until they knew precisely where the course was going to go. By July, Pugh and Hubbard had surveyed GHR (precisely where it is today) for the deed, and according to the deed the road was already in existence by then.
I recognize that part of the problem of determining actual acreage from that photo is that it's taken at an angle. The new Merion history book by Jeff Silverman has an image that seems shot right on, although it may not be large enough for accuracy either. Would a straight-on image help your estimate?
In the picture below the red line is the approximate land plan road, while the blue line is the surveyed road from the deed (and as it exists today).
Looking at the plan again, it is hard not to think that Francis' swap of land for the 15th green and 16th tee is not already approximately on the plan despite Mike's claims of "vast" differences in the measurements.
Bryan, I think if I'm sitting looking at the map late night with Richard Francis and trying to figure out how to fit in 14, 15, 16 I'm going to be perplexed as to how to both provide an alternate fairway around the quarrry on 16 and place the 14th green where I need to so I can fit two holes through there, and so forth. While we don't know if the Pugh & Hubbard property line is the one they were dealing with at that time, clearly it was too narrow for their purposes and I think your drawing exemplifies that very clearly. It would also point out how much land "not used for any golf lay-out existed across from the clubhouse due largely to the placement of the original 13th hole on the other side of the clubhouse.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion1910-1913Overlay.jpg)
-
The only thing that gives me pause is that on Bryan's drawing, it sure looks like an even swap of land, if not maybe MCC giving up more than they got. Sometimes, long slivers of land add up to more than they visually look like. And, Bryan is approximating, as well.
-
Jeff,
As I measured it 6 years ago, the area opposite the clubhouse was 6 acres and the narrower strip to the north was 2 acres, so the land plan was a net 4 acres larger on that boundary.
Mike,
Yes, a flat picture might be more accurate, but I think that it wouldn't change the likelihood that the land plan shows a greater area on that boundary. It might just change it by an acre or two.
Why would you assume that the contour map that Wilson said he would send Piper and Oakley would indicate 117 acres on it?
Rich,
I remember those arguments about "laying out". Did you notice in the Evans letter of November 15 that he used "laying off" and "put in shape"? Two more terms to add to the lexicon.
"In accordance with instructions given me by the Board of Government of the Merion Cricket Club, I beg to state that a Corporation will be formed on behalf of the Club, which will purchase the tract of land above mentioned one hundred and seventeen (117) acres, at the price or sum of Eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000.00), in accordance with the terms of your proposition, as quoted above, and that as soon as this Corporation obtains possession of the property, we will at once proceed to lay off, and put in shape a Golf Links."
-
Rich, regarding the meaning of the verb "to lay out" it seems your enmity has outlasted your memory. My argument was (and is) that as used, in the verb "to lay out" connoted actually physically arranging, sometimes according to a preconceived plan. In the case of golf courses, the verb almost always referred to arranging on the ground. For example, I theorized that Wilson was charged with arranging the course on the ground according to the plan. A good example of what I was talking about is the example you mention: "after laying out many different courses on the new land." They laid out, or arranged, the course on the new land.
The best example, though, also comes in the next paragraph of the minutes (my emphasis):
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.
Lay it out according to the plan. Or more precisely, lay it out according to the plan approved by CBM and Whigham. This is exactly how I suggested the term was being used. Wilson and Merion laid out on the ground according to plan. The plan CBM had approved. The plan preceded laying it out on the ground.
-
Since we're back to terminology discussion, here is what was recorded in the Merion Cricket Club Minutes of November 23, 1914, after Hugh Wilson resigned as Chairman of the Green Committee due to pressure of business (as copied from "The Nature Faker").
And no, they were not being redundant and it's interesting that Richard Francis used the exact same terminology.
“The resignation of Mr. Hugh I. Wilson, as Chairman of the Green Committee, was presented, whereupon, on motion of Mr. Lillie, duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLVED, that in accepting Mr. Wilson’s resignation as Chairman of the Green Committee, this Board desires to record its appreciation of the invaluable service rendered by him to the Club in the laying out and supervision of the construction of the East and West Golf Courses. The fact that these courses are freely admitted by expert players to be second to none in this country, demonstrates more fully than anything else that can be said, the ability and good judgment displayed by Mr. Wilson in his work.
The Board desires to express on behalf of the Club its sincere thanks to Mr. Wilson and its regret that pressure of business makes it necessary for him to relinquish the duties of Chairman of this important committee.
On motion duly seconded, Mr. Winthrop Sargent was appointed a member of the Golf Committee and Chairman of the Green Committee.”
-
Bryan,
I am confused. What measured 124 acres? The RR atlas or the Nov.1910 Pugh and Hubbard land plan? I assume you mean the Nov 1910 Pugh and Hubbard plan, but the image above is of the 1913 Atlas.
My copy of the 1910 land plan (the one from my IMO) is a flat scan. I am pretty sure you have a copy of that.
____________________________
Mike,
Nothing in your latest post changes the fact that, according to Lesley and Merion's board, Merion set out to lay out the course according to the plan approved by CBM and HJW.
-
Bryan,
Thanks for the clarification.
Mike,
Of course, the quote David mentions also means to lay the course out (in this case on the ground, but there are other examples of the phrase meaning plans) that was one of five they developed themselves, and asked CBM for his opinion as to which was best. (i.e., met his approval)
If, in David's opinion, they laid out many new courses on the land, then it must mean they dragged the land into whatever conference room they had at Merion, and for that matter at NGLA. You have provided examples of it meaning plans. I think we know better.
I guess my point is we are again getting repetitive. As seen above, many, if not most, accept that layout has different connotations. I doubt we will change anyone's mind on the use of that phrase, or David's take on the phrase "approval."
-
In complete fairness, even though the dimensions don't reflect Richard Francis's 130x190 dimensions, it's easy to see how someone could view the Pugh & Hubbard map in isolation and believe that the Francis Land Exchange must have preceded it's creation in November 15th, 1910.
However, over the past several years, so much more contemporaneous information has been unearthed that doesn't fit with the theory of the exchange preceding that map that it really isn't a practical interpretation. Recall the words of Richard Francis; he told us that it was a relatively easy matter to fit the first 13 holes "with the help of a little ground north of Ardmore Avenue", presumably the lease of the railroad land, "but the last five were another question."
Further, he stated that "We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some that we could use".
He also told us that after Lloyd agreed to the exchange, "Within a day or two the quarryman had his drills up where the 16th green now is, and blasted off the top of the hill so that the green could be built as it is today."
For instance, to maintain the opinion that the Land Exchange preceded the creation of the November 15, 1910 map, one would have to believe the Land Exchange;
- Happened prior to Joseph Connell writing Merion's Allen Evans offering 117 acres for $85,000 on 11/10/1910
- Happened prior to Evans responding on 11/15/1910 asking for time to setup a Corporation within Merion to do the deal
- Happened prior to Merion sending that map to Merion members identifying it as 117 acres they'd secured without any golf holes identified on it on 11/15/1910
- Happened prior to H.G. Lloyd purchasing the 140 acres of the Johnson Farm and the 21 acres of the Dallas Estate on 12/10/1910 upon advice of Merion's counsel because no boundaries had yet been determined as the land for the golf course had not been definitely located.
- Happened prior to Hugh Wilson's Committee "layout out many different courses on the new land" in early 1911
- Happened prior to Hugh Wilson's Committee visiting NGLA in early March 1911
- Happened prior to Hugh Wilson's Committee returning from NGLA after which they "re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans"
- Happened prior to CB Macdonald's visit on April 6, 1911 where he helped them select the best of those plans
- Happened prior to the Merion Board of Governors Meeting on April 19th 1911 where it was resolved to purchase the three additional acres that Merion somehow still needed after all of that
- Happened prior to the start of Construction shortly after that meeting.
Almost none of this information was available when these discussions started many moons ago.
So Bryan, when you asked if anyone had changed their minds based on new information uncovered over the intervening years, I'd guess I'd simply say that I hope to hell so! ::)
-
Mike,
Why would you assume that the contour map that Wilson said he would send Piper and Oakley would indicate 117 acres on it?
Bryan,
I have to think at some point they needed a working boundary on that west edge north of Ardmore Avenue if only to understand the parameters of their ongoing design efforts. Whether that map reflected the lines drawn previously by Pugh & Hubbard, whether Richard Francis did a new map for the Committee, or some variant, I think they would have needed something and I think the rest of the record reflects that they did have some proposed boundary prior to the Francis Exchange.
As mentioned above in my previous post, Richard Francis at the time of the land exchange wrote that "We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some that we could use".
Similarly, the MCC Minutes of April 19th, 1911 stated;
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional...
Of course, all of this implies ownership of the land in question, or at least some portion of it.
No land was owned by anyone associated with Merion prior to H.G. Lloyd's December 10th, 1910 purchase of the 140 acre Johnson Farm and the 21 acre Dallas Estate which encapsulated the 117 acres Merion believed they needed.
If the Francis Exchange happened prior to then it would have had to have been at gunpoint. ;)
-
Actually Mike, all one has to believe is that HGL had effective control over that land prior to the legal transfer...which he did. If not, why does the map label that land HDC Co as of November 15th?
At what point in the late summer or fall of 1910 did HGL assume control of HDC?
-
Rich, regarding the meaning of the verb "to lay out" it seems your enmity has outlasted your memory. My argument was (and is) that as used, in the verb "to lay out" connoted actually physically arranging, sometimes according to a preconceived plan. In the case of golf courses, the verb almost always referred to arranging on the ground. For example, I theorized that Wilson was charged with arranging the course on the ground according to the plan. A good example of what I was talking about is the example you mention: "after laying out many different courses on the new land." They laid out, or arranged, the course on the new land.
The best example, though, also comes in the next paragraph of the minutes (my emphasis):
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.
Lay it out according to the plan. Or more precisely, lay it out according to the plan approved by CBM and Whigham. This is exactly how I suggested the term was being used. Wilson and Merion laid out on the ground according to plan. The plan CBM had approved. The plan preceded laying it out on the ground.
No enmity, Dave. I just think that I am right and you are wrong.
Have a nice day!
-
Mike, we all understand your theory on the land swap. Restating it over and over again will do nothing to change the fact that, as Bryan notes, the subject land was already on the plan in mid-November of 1910.
I'd appreciate it, though, if, in endlessly rehashing your theory, you at least try to refrain from misrepresenting the record. For example you state that the swap would have had to have "Happened prior to Hugh Wilson's Committee 'layout out many different courses on the new land' in early 1911." While I am impressed by your ability to fit so much misleading information into a single sentence, your doing so does nothing to advance the conversation. There is nothing in the record which suggests that it was necessarily the construction committee who attempted to lay out the different plans on the land, and nothing to suggest that this occurred in "early 1911."
There may have been attempts to lay out "many different plans" on the ground long before early 1911. One such plan was Barker's plan which so often gets forgotten about in these conversations. Other such plans may have attempted to incorporate the land beside the clubhouse and apply whatever else CBM and and HJW had verbally suggested to them during their visit or after. Other such plans may have involved trying to make it all fit. Indeed, the Francis swap may well have paved the way for one or more of these plans.
________________________________________
As for your latest theory that the swap could not possibly have occurred prior to the transfer of title to Lloyd (for HDC) in December of 1910, and that any swap before that "it would have had to have been at gunpoint," such arguments betray an inability and/or unwillingness for you to discuss the material reasonably and honestly.
The swap occurred during the planning stage. For you to suggest that Merion couldn't have been planning before December 1910 says more about you and your methods than it does about anything that happened at Merion.
-
No enmity, Dave. I just think that I am right and you are wrong.
Have a nice day!
If I am "wrong" then so is Merion, because the minutes indicate that Merion understood and applied the phrase exactly as I had suggested.
_____________________________________
Jim, I don't believe that Lloyd (and other Merion investors) bailed out HDC until the fall of 1910. IIRC, the investment plan is discussed in the November circular.
But Merion obviously had access to the land for planning purposes before this, which is evidence by the CBM and HJW visit in June of 1910.
-
In complete fairness, even though the dimensions don't reflect Richard Francis's 130x190 dimensions, it's easy to see how someone could view the Pugh & Hubbard map in isolation and believe that the Francis Land Exchange must have preceded it's creation in November 15th, 1910.
However, over the past several years, so much more contemporaneous information has been unearthed that doesn't fit with the theory of the exchange preceding that map that it really isn't a practical interpretation. Recall the words of Richard Francis; he told us that it was a relatively easy matter to fit the first 13 holes "with the help of a little ground north of Ardmore Avenue", presumably the lease of the railroad land, "but the last five were another question."
Further, he stated that "We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some that we could use".
He also told us that after Lloyd agreed to the exchange, "Within a day or two the quarryman had his drills up where the 16th green now is, and blasted off the top of the hill so that the green could be built as it is today."
For instance, to maintain the opinion that the Land Exchange preceded the creation of the November 15, 1910 map, one would have to believe the Land Exchange;
- Happened prior to Joseph Connell writing Merion's Allen Evans offering 117 acres for $85,000 on 11/10/1910
- Happened prior to Evans responding on 11/15/1910 asking for time to setup a Corporation within Merion to do the deal
- Happened prior to Merion sending that map to Merion members identifying it as 117 acres they'd secured without any golf holes identified on it on 11/15/1910
- Happened prior to H.G. Lloyd purchasing the 140 acres of the Johnson Farm and the 21 acres of the Dallas Estate on 12/10/1910 upon advice of Merion's counsel because no boundaries had yet been determined as the land for the golf course had not been definitely located.
- Happened prior to Hugh Wilson's Committee "layout out many different courses on the new land" in early 1911
- Happened prior to Hugh Wilson's Committee visiting NGLA in early March 1911
- Happened prior to Hugh Wilson's Committee returning from NGLA after which they "re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans"
- Happened prior to CB Macdonald's visit on April 6, 1911 where he helped them select the best of those plans
- Happened prior to the Merion Board of Governors Meeting on April 19th 1911 where it was resolved to purchase the three additional acres that Merion somehow still needed after all of that
- Happened prior to the start of Construction shortly after that meeting.
Almost none of this information was available when these discussions started many moons ago.
So Bryan, when you asked if anyone had changed their minds based on new information uncovered over the intervening years, I'd guess I'd simply say that I hope to hell so! ::)
Mike,
As I mentioned several posts ago, you would also have to believe CBM took valuable time to route a course on land not yet controlled by Merion. Yes, HDC did control it in late 1910, but didn't right after the June 1910 meeting. I don't think they had full control (including the Dallas Estate) until sometime in October.
Why would a busy man do that, when all Merion did was ask him to come over and review their potential purchase? For free, even, when he was getting Raynor paid to do courses at Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock at the same time. And, still had pre-opening problems at NGLA to a degree?
You would also have to believe he entered some sort of agreement with Merion to do so, and that somehow, none of that got recorded, even once (as David has admitted to in this thread) as their is absolutely no evidence they did so.
Why would they take many plans to NGLA in March 1911, if he had already routed it to any degree?
Why would they draw five more if CBM had routed it to any degree?
Why would they ask him to come over in April to review their 5 plans, if CBM had already routed it to any large degree, either in 1901, or at the March NGLA meeting?
I re-read David's essay yesterday, and as you mention, it was prepared before any of these things came to light. And, in large part, they did come to light because of David's essay, which is a good thing. We do know more than we did.
But, I would be interested in knowing which parts of his essay David still stands by, and which may have evolved, as he said they might.
In any case, I am more than convinced that the routing occurred in the Feb-April timeline, and it was Merion that put pencil to paper, but asked CBM his opinion and input on three occasions:
Once on the land purchase
Once at the NGLA meeting where they learned the principles of golf design and perhaps discussed their preliminary plans,
And lastly, once where CBM was consulted on their five plans, one of which must have included the Francis land swap and been favored by the committee, perhaps with some unknown tweaks and suggestions by CBM),
Within those basic limitations of consultation, it is clear that CBM's advice was freely given, and very influential in forming what is now Merion.
-
"But Merion obviously had access to the land for planning purposes before this, which is evidence by the CBM and HJW visit in June of 1910."
David, that is a stretch of at least as great as Mike has done. They walked the property at least one day to see if it was suitable for golf, and asked CBM to advise on same. There is no record that they were doing any planning at that stage, other than assembling an adequate parcel, the Barker Plan provided by HDC notwithstanding.
-
No enmity, Dave. I just think that I am right and you are wrong.
Have a nice day!
If I am "wrong" then so is Merion, because the minutes indicate that Merion understood and applied the phrase exactly as I had suggested.
No David, you are just guessing as to the meaning of what they wrote.. So am I. I still think my guesses are better than yours, and that is the last I will say about this matter.
-
That you guys won't even acknowledge that CBM's visit in summer of 1910 was part of the planning process is really all that needs be said about your unwillingness to consider this information reasonably and honestly.
At the time of the visit there was already (at least) one plan in existence. Barker's. And CBM and HJW were considering whether or not Merion could fit 18 first class holes on the property, and even suggested that Merion needed to add the land next to the clubhouse in order to accomplish this. How the hell you guys think they could do that without "planning" is beyond me. They were also considering making use of the very desirable features, such as the the quarry and the brooks, and even contemplating the construction of artificial mounds. They even provided Merion with cost estimates!
In other words, they were planning. Maybe not in detail (although we don't know what all they discussed), but they were planning.
______________________________________
Also, while I am addressing Jeff's posts (against my better judgment), perhaps Jeff will stop misrepresenting the facts regarding Raynor, Piping Rock, and Sleepy Hollow. According to Bahto, Piping Rock was developed in 1911-1912. Not 1910. And there are newspaper reports from the fall of 1911 indicating that Piping Rock was being laid out then. And according to George, Sleepy Hollow came after Piping Rock was already under way.
So, if George Bahto is to believed, at the time CBM began helping Merion plan their course, CBM had not yet begun Sleepy Hollow or Piping Rock, and Raynor had not yet begun his career assisting CBM on his projects. According to George, Raynor had no "intention to continue to build courses, intent as he was upon returning to his landscape design and surveying practice in Southampton."
If the only information you bring to the conversation is misinformation, then you aren't really adding anything to the discussion
______________________________________________________________
No David, you are just guessing as to the meaning of what they wrote.. So am I.
Guessing? Here again is what they wrote: " . . . if we would lay it out according to the plan [CBM and HJW] approved . . . ."
One need not guess to realize that they were comtemplating laying the course out according to the plan CBM and HJW approved.
-
Not to divert the Shinnecock thread away from Merion, ;D but, written correspondence wasn't the only means of communication in 1910.
There was this device called a "telephone".
Hard to believe that the interested parties wouldn't use it, don't you think ?
-
Mike,
Would you please answer the question below, which I posed to you a few days ago ?
Thanks
Mike Cirba,
Is it your position that Alan and Hugh Wilson never discussed Merion in the pre and post design phase and in the pre and post construction phase ?
-
David,
My copy of EOG Says the contracts were signed and Raynor retained in 1910, with construction in 1911. That is from the timeline in the back. I am guessing they started design work soon after the contract was signed. I will admit, that without an exact date, perhaps both were signed in a drunken stupor on New Year's Eve. I also think construction would have taken more time in 1911, so I agree with what you are saying there in general.
I think we agree that site selection is part of the process, and in some ways, CBM did mention the RR land, which was probably pretty obvious to him as a short hole. So, yes, I agree its part of planning, but still think you have placed the routing process well too early, given all the other facts, and yes, the fact that most routings (NGLA was a rare exception) don't take place until they know the land they will be routing on. There is no record of CBM routing the course in November, and lots that it wasn't. I go with the body of evidence, rather than try to stretch site selection and purchase in to routing activity.
In fact, in re-reading your essay yesterday, I noticed lost of "must have happened" "most likely happened" type language. Most of the acrimony and pushback here can be traced back to your essay making so many assumptions and so little actual proof to make its point. And, I don't often see you discussing reasonably, either. We are all defending our beliefs, and you are not immune to stubbornly sticking to your guns, no matter what.
By all rights, this debate should have died a long time ago. None of us lets it go.
Pat,
Why is it Mike gets trashed for any assumptions, but you think you can come in here and assume there were phone conversations. Along the lines of David's comments, your last post (in fact, most of your posts) are not productive in the discussion. They are counter productive, in fact.
And, yes, my take is that unless there is some (preferably multiple) mentions of something in the record, that we shouldn't make the assumptions that there was all sorts of contact. It is more likely that there wasn't, beyond setting up the next meeting, which seems reasonable enough, whether done by phone, letter, etc.
I will agree that it seems as if it would actually be bad form to discuss either Ron Whitten or SHGC on this thread, despite its title! ::)
-
My version of George's book says nothing about "contracts being signed." Jeff apparently just made that part up. The timeline in the back of the book does indicate that in 1910 "Raynor was retained by Macdonald to help build Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow" but it provides no support for the claim.* More importantly . . .
- The same timeline indicates that the Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow projects began in 1911.
- The course listing indicates that both those projects began in 1911.
- The text indicates that CBM agreed to create the piping Piping Rock course in 1911.
- Press accounts indicate that Piping Rock was being laid out in the fall of 1911.
- In Scotland's Gift, CBM indicated that he was approached to build Piping Rock in 1911.
Frankly, I don't care when Raynor actually began working on Piping Rock, because it is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. CBM did not build Merion. There is no reason to expect Raynor, who built CBM's courses, to have been involved. This is yet another red herring thrown out by those who have proven they will say anything to try and create the (false) impression that CBM was not involved in the planning process.
*The entry in the timeline further makes no sense because, as I understand it, Raynor hired on directly with the clubs, not with Macdonald.
-
I think Jeff makes a great point about making sure we separate facts from conjecture, even if such seems reasonable.
Pat,
Yes, I think it's a given that Alan and Hugh Wilson spoke to each other about the project throughout all of the phases. Alan Wilson said that the advice provided by CBM and Whigham as to the lay-out of the East Course was of great value.
The problem is that's all he said.
So, if we're looking for facts, we could point out that Macdonald coming down in July 1910 and then writing a letter with fairly lukewarm support for purchasing the raw property was of great value. We know he referred them to Piper & Oakley and Baltusrol related to soil, seeds, and drainage and that was of great value. We know that the Wilson Committee's trip to NGLA in March of 1911 was of great value because it's confirmed by Hugh Wilson who was there and later wrote that;
We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National
Course and in one night absorbed more ideas in golf course construction than we had
learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right
principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of
time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural
conditions. The next day, we spent going over the course and studying the different
holes.
We know that CBM came back down to Merion in April of 1911 and helped the committee decide which of their five plans was best. That was certainly of great value.
Beyond that, there is not a shred of factual evidence that they provided anything further, despite years of folks here searching for it.
-
Jim Sullivan,
Speaking of facts, I think you brought up a good question earlier about when HG Lloyd became an active officer of Haverford Development Company and when he "controlled the land" essentially.
I'm not sure about the former but if memory serves, didn't the purchase of the 21 acres of the Dallas Estate take place around early November 1910? I'm not sure how long subsequently it would take civil engineers like Pugh and Hubbard to do a scale map of the 300+ acres for distribution November 15th but perhaps Jeff Brauer could weigh in there.
Speaking of questions, does it bother your understanding that the "appropriate road" drawn on that map bear little relation to what was already determined by the Francis Swap if it happened prior to then? Similarly, does it trouble you that no holes, not even stick diagrams appear on that map that you believe is the completed course? I mean, they had just obviously gone through a good deal of trouble figuring all of this out to great detail, down to swapping acreage back and forth, and now they just slap up some piece of crap to send to their members?
In fact, why even hire Pugh and Hubbard to draw the darn thing if they already had Richard Francis's final map with the holes on it???
-
I think Jeff makes a great point about making sure we separate facts from conjecture, even if such seems reasonable.
You guys think you can hold all of the evidence of CBM's involvement to a ridiculous standard where if it isn't explicitly spelled out it couldn't have possibly happened, but if you apply the same standard to the the rest of the evidence (for instance the evidence, or lack thereof, of Wilson's involvement) then you guys have some real problems.
But if you want to stick with your "no conjecture" standard, then let's first get rid of the notion that Hugh Wilson had anything to do with the planning of the course prior to the date that CBM approved the plans. Because this is all purely conjecture. There are no definite facts indicating that he had anything to do with planning of the hole concepts or the routing prior to this point.
Look at the minutes. Every time they discuss planning the course, CBM is the one to whom they refer and defer. There is NOTHING about Hugh Wilson. If no conjecture is allowed, then Merion was planned by Charles Blair Macdonald and H.J. Whigham, or no one at all.
-
Similarly, does it trouble you that no holes, not even stick diagrams appear on that map that you believe is the completed course? I mean, they had just obviously gone through a good deal of trouble figuring all of this out to great detail, down to swapping acreage back and forth, and now they just slap up some piece of crap to send to their members?
In fact, why even hire Pugh and Hubbard to draw the darn thing if they already had Richard Francis's final map with the holes on it???
More ridiculous hyperbole which tells more about Cirba and his methods than it does about Merion. As has been discussed repeatedly, the Nov. 15, 1910 map is a land plan of the type which are generally created by developers to help them sell their land. Note that the land is divided well beyond the Merion's land and even some of the property owners are designated, as are a few lots which had apparently already been sold. In other words, the map was most likely created by the developer, not by Merion.
Also, while Merion had most likely already been planning the course, the planning was not yet complete and final. That wouldn't happen until CBM and HJW returned to the property in April 1911 and approved the final plan.
-
More ridiculous hyperbole which tells more about Cirba and his methods than it does about Merion. As has been discussed repeatedly, the Nov. 15, 1910 map is a land plan of the type which are generally created by developers to help them sell their land. Note that the land is divided well beyond the Merion's land and even some of the property owners are designated, as are a few lots which had apparently already been sold. In other words, the map was most likely created by the developer, not by Merion.
David,
Merion is the one who sent out that Pugh and Hubbard Land Plan to their members on November 15, 1910, specifying that it shows the 117 acres they had just secured in green marked "Golf Course".
Again, if it indicated that the Francis Exchange took place prior why the great amount of inaccuracy from what was a carefully calculated attempt to fit the last five holes as described by Francis?
Why not just include the map Francis tells us he was laboring over? Why not include the routing Francis tells us his work completed?
Why include something that everyone of them at that point had to know was grossly inaccurate if Francis had already done his work?
And if that routing and design work was done, why wait six months for CBM's approval? Why work on numerous alternative plans prior and five new plans after their visit to NGLA?
Here again is what they sent to their members the very same day that plan was signed by Pugh&Hubbard - a copy of the plan of the land they were buying for their golf course;
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4135/4876469289_c59db3dc83_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4877079236_859567b801_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg)
And David...
No matter how ridiculous you think the facts are from what you through power of your own mind believe you can figure out based on your own total supposition and complete conjecture, please re-read the bottom of that map.
Thanks.
-
David,
Well, I guess once you apply your "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" theory of historic interpretation to your theory, then yes, anything goes. You did it all through your essay, using your own logical interpretations in place of any written record, so yes, I guess you really didn't have very high standards for your theories. I have to admit, when you told Mike that was your standard on this thread, it floored me. Also, I am struck by how often your defense, even more so lately, comprises of saying we made stuff up, we use hyperbole, etc.
Of course, you can find inaccuracies in the record that might point both ways. But to say there is nothing in the record, such as his letters to Piper, the applause of others, etc. you are being very selective your own self.
Here is my quick count of all the instances where your theory "makes stuff up" with no real evidence. In a few cases, these were later proved wrong when more evidence came to light.
All regular case type is quotes pasted from the original essay. The bold parts are what struck me as assumptions you ask us to take as fact, even if not in the written record. The red are some of my supplemental thoughts:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned….
In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best
It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase.
The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.
MY NOTES – AREN’T “PROBABLE” AND “NEARLY” EVIDENCE OF AN ESTIMATE OF APPROXIMATE ACREAGE, NOT A PRE-DETERMINED ACREAGE AS YOU NEED TO SUPPOSE TO MAKE YOUR THEORY WORK?
But the supposed land exchange must have occurred much earlier, before Merion secured the land, which was before Merion appointed Wilson and his Construction Committee.
The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910, when Merion obtained an option from Haverford Development Company
PLEASE PROVIDE SOME PROOF
The “swap” was not a swap at all but actually a small but significant reshaping of the large parcel Merion intended to purchase from Haverford Development Company. Before the purchase, the parties must have agreed to shave off a portion on the right side of the parcel and added the projection of land for the 15th green and 16th tee.
My NOTE- WE NOW KNOW THIS WAS IN JUNE 1911, SO YES, IT WOULD CONFIRM THE LAND SWAP AT THAT TIME
The Francis land “swap” allowed them to complete the routing plan. All before November 10, 1910.
MY NOTE – ELSEWHERE, WE KNOW FRANCIS WAS ADDED TO A COMMITTEE NOT FORMED UNTIL JAN 1911, SO WHY WAS HE WORKING ON IT BEFORE THEN? PROOF?
Moreover, the timing and the synopsis of the site committee’s report both strongly suggest that requirement for the specific “nearly 120 acre” site came about largely as a result of Macdonald’s and Whigham’s inspection and subsequent letter.
MY NOTE – NOT SURE WHY, AND NOT SURE THIS IMPLIES DESIGN IS DONE, NO RECORD. ALSO, YOU SAY SPECIFIC, THEY SAY “NEARLY 120 ACRES” YOU ADDED THIS, NOT THEM.
Macdonald and Whigham had given Wilson and his Committee “a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes,” thus implying that the Committee’s trip to NGLA occurred at the beginning of their endeavor.
The Committee’s trip to NGLA probably occurred in January of 1911, the same month Merion finalized the purchase of the land and appointed the Construction Committee.
WE NOW KNOW THAT MEETING WAS IN MARCH, AFTER WILSON CAME ON BOARD, WHICH WAS FEBRUARY BASED ON THE PIPER LETTERS
Thus, before February of 1911, Wilson and his Committee had already been in contact with C. B. Macdonald, discussing matters as specific to the construction as the type of grass Merion should try to grow.
CMB RECOMMENDED THIS IN HIS JUNE 1910 LETTER. MAY HAVE BEEN FOLLOWUP TO GET ADDRESS, AND TO SET UP NGLA MEETING, BUT NO EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONTACT.
Presumably, any such discussions between the Construction Committee and Macdonald occurred while the Committee was meeting with Macdonald and Whigham at NGLA. If not, then Wilson and his Committee had even more contact with Macdonald than is currently known. Either way, Wilson and his Committee began discussing the details of Merion East with Macdonald shortly after the Committee was appointed in January 1911.
AGREED, AND WITH NO OTHER RECORDED MEETINGS, THE MOST LIKLELY SCENARIO IS HE IMPARTED ALL KNOWLEDGE HE COULD IN A 2 DAY VISIT.
Notably, in the February 1st letter, Wilson also wrote that he was sending Piper a contour map so that Piper could mark sections from where he wanted topsoil samples. Of course such a map would have been most worthwhile if it showed the golf holes, so that Piper would know from where to choose the soil samples. Given that the routing had been known for months, and given that experts (most likely Macdonald and Whigham) had been working on preparing the plans, and given that Wilson and his Committee had just spent three days with Macdonald and Whigham learning how to build the course, it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald, and that he sent Piper a contour map of that plan.
YOU USED THE TERMS “MOST LIKELY” SEVERAL TIMES HERE….ASSUMPTIONS, NOT RECORDED FACTS. ALSO, WE DO NOT KNOW OF ANY RECORDED FACTS THAT THE ROUTING HAD BEEN “KNOWN FOR MONTHS” THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION ON YOUR PART.
Basically, the essence of your theory is all "most likely" in your opinion. It is really very weak historical argument. Of course, the fact that you have only really convinced a few that these big leaps of faith, contrary to much/most of the written record, and that most of us here, Merion, and the USGA seem to have disagreed, suggests as much.
Not saying flat out your theory isn't true, just that it isn't all that strong, all things considered. Just saying, again and for the last and most detailed time, that you haven't convinced me. And, I think you do need to provide more real records in many instances for your theory to stack up.
But, if you haven't found much additional proof beyond your own logical conclusions, I doubt you will convince me, but others are free to disagree. And, as a few posts back, I know you have subtly changed some of your thoughts as years have gone on.
Lastly, I always thought there was some middle ground here. We all agree CBM was of great influence, and always have. Sometimes, it seems you want us to agree with you 110% instead of just 95% or so. Sometimes, despite saying you just want to know exactly what CBM did (which is unknowable to all of us) it really seems as if you are beating the drum for CBM to get more credit than Merion has always given them, while we simply feel what exists is pretty appropriate. In the end, I never thought the difference of how far apart you and Mike (and Pat and I, etc.) might be was all that great, and yet, due to personalities, the argument continues.
Obviously, such a strong post against your theory is likely to anger you, and I understand, even if I am just asking for more proof from outside your own mind (and which you asked long ago for us to provide as your theory evolved.) For that, I am sorry. It is hard to discuss such difference of opinion without raising at least some anger and resentment.
-
Jeff Brauer, I stopped reading after the first paragraph, when it became clear that once again you were digressing in your bizarre and nonsensical critiques of my essay and me personally. That didn't take long.
I guess I'll go back to trying to ignore you altogether. I can only hope that others are not mislead by the constant stream of misinformation you introduce here.
-
David,
Sorry you feel that way, but felt that sort of non-response, rather than point out facts in your favor, was coming. It is your usual mode when even small facts are pointed out that go against your theory.
And, to be fair, there was nothing at all in that close to a personal attack, so I don't appreciate you putting that out there.
Also, hard to say I am critiquing you when I simply cut and paste your posts, showing how your words even allow you were making assumptions. Your words are damning your theory, not mine. At last, IMHO. I understand you may feel differently.....
-
Pat,
Why is it Mike gets trashed for any assumptions,
Because his assumptions are merely opinions to support his pre-determined conclusions.
Many make assumptions and based upon those assumptions, arrive at a conclusion AFTER piecing together the totality of those assumptions.
Mike has arrived at his conclusion/s long ago, and has typically and historically, fabricated and gerrymandered his assumptions to try to support his pre-determined conclusion.
You do understand the distinction............ yes ?
but you think you can come in here and assume there were phone conversations.
"Assume there were phone conversations" ? ? ?
You'd have to be a total idiot to exclude any use of the telephone as a form of communication when the two parties were far removed from each other in Phildelphia and New York
Along the lines of David's comments, your last post (in fact, most of your posts) are not productive in the discussion. They are counter productive, in fact.
Jeff, I rarely care what you think and the above is no exception.
And, yes, my take is that unless there is some (preferably multiple) mentions of something in the record, that we shouldn't make the assumptions that there was all sorts of contact.
The added weasel language, "all sorts" is strictly your disingenuous addition to dismiss a relevant factor.
It is more likely that there wasn't, beyond setting up the next meeting, which seems reasonable enough, whether done by phone, letter, etc.
So now you're admitting that there were phone calls, but, only for scheduling purposes.
Why would they limit themselves to only discussing scheduling ? ? ?
To adopt a position that the telephone was never used to communicate anything about Merion, pre-design and pre-construction seems contrary to what a prudent person would conclude, don't you think ?
I will agree that it seems as if it would actually be bad form to discuss either Ron Whitten or SHGC on this thread, despite its title! ::)
I knew, that sooner or later, we'd agree on something. ;D
-
No matter how ridiculous you think the facts are from what you through power of your own mind believe you can figure out based on your own total supposition and complete conjecture, please re-read the bottom of that map.
Mike,
Why don't you tell us what YOU think it means.
You may be surprised to learn that it doesn't mean what you think it means.
-
Jim Sullivan,
Speaking of questions, does it bother your understanding that the "appropriate road" drawn on that map bear little relation to what was already determined by the Francis Swap if it happened prior to then? Similarly, does it trouble you that no holes, not even stick diagrams appear on that map that you believe is the completed course? I mean, they had just obviously gone through a good deal of trouble figuring all of this out to great detail, down to swapping acreage back and forth, and now they just slap up some piece of crap to send to their members?
Mike,
No need to hyperventilate...I don't think the epiphany that is now known as the Francis Land Swap meant the course was completed and ready for construction. I do think it meant they (Merion AND HDC) knew where their golf course was going to go. I don't think they had 18 specific hole concepts created and ready.
If HDC owned this land, and HGL ran HDC, what would stop him from blowing the top off the rock where today's 16th green is prior to November 15, 1910?
-
Pat,
Why is it Mike gets trashed for any assumptions,
Because his assumptions are merely opinions to support his pre-determined conclusions.
Many make assumptions and based upon those assumptions, arrive at a conclusion AFTER piecing together the totality of those assumptions.
Mike has arrived at his conclusion/s long ago, and has typically and historically, fabricated and gerrymandered his assumptions to try to support his pre-determined conclusion.
And you haven't? Rich....
You do understand the distinction............ yes ?
but you think you can come in here and assume there were phone conversations.
"Assume there were phone conversations" ? ? ?
You'd have to be a total idiot to exclude any use of the telephone as a form of communication when the two parties were far removed from each other in Phildelphia and New York
Along the lines of David's comments, your last post (in fact, most of your posts) are not productive in the discussion. They are counter productive, in fact.
Jeff, I rarely care what you think and the above is no exception.
A non answer when you really have no answer
And, yes, my take is that unless there is some (preferably multiple) mentions of something in the record, that we shouldn't make the assumptions that there was all sorts of contact.
The added weasel language, "all sorts" is strictly your disingenuous addition to dismiss a relevant factor.
I added that phrase, remembering that you once stated they were "burning up the phone lines to NY" Nothing disingenuous, just remember your past.....
It is more likely that there wasn't, beyond setting up the next meeting, which seems reasonable enough, whether done by phone, letter, etc.
So now you're admitting that there were phone calls, but, only for scheduling purposes.
Why would they limit themselves to only discussing scheduling ? ? ?
I do think its reasonable to say polite gentleman wouldn't show up at NGLA unannounced, so its not that big an assumption that they did communicate, whether letter or phone. Please note you subtly changed my wording to suit your disingenuous purposes, as is typical.
Assuming they would be in contact more often truly is an assumption, especially given the written record doesn't support it. Also, Merion members recall that they really did most of the work themselves, only meeting with CBM on those three noted occasions. While they might not have recorded every detail, they detailed the main meetings in great detail. If we assume anything, we should assume they were smart enough to write reports that reflect what they did, no?
To adopt a position that the telephone was never used to communicate anything about Merion, pre-design and pre-construction seems contrary to what a prudent person would conclude, don't you think ?
Not at all. See above. You know what they say....ASS U ME. What is truly funny about you and David is that you go on offense to play defense. In this case, by accusing others of having a predetermined conclusion, when that is exactly what you have. BTW, you may not remember, but when David's essay first came out, I read it in full, initially supported it, and then gradually changed my mind as other evidence came out. So, no, I don't have pre-determined conclusion. I have stayed active in these gawd awful discussions for 8 years now, and made my opinion based on all that has been presented here. And, as noted in the post above, I don't think I am all that far from David, or Mike, but somewhere in the middle, as in gray, not black and white of Merion, no MacDonald!.......Merion, no MacDonald!
I will agree that it seems as if it would actually be bad form to discuss either Ron Whitten or SHGC on this thread, despite its title! ::)
I knew, that sooner or later, we'd agree on something. ;D
I hope you are near a lightning shelter, as I am! :D
-
No matter how ridiculous you think the facts are from what you through power of your own mind believe you can figure out based on your own total supposition and complete conjecture, please re-read the bottom of that map.
Mike,
Why don't you tell us what YOU think it means.
You may be surprised to learn that it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Pat,
Are you referring to "Map of Golf Course prepared for Merion Cricket Club"? Actually, I think that would shoot down David's theory that it was prepared for the developer. At least, in 37 years, when my plans say they are prepared for XX, they are prepared for XX and XX is the one who pays for it. That may not always happen, but it usually does.
Or, are you referring to something else?
I will also say that I agree with David, that there was likely no land survey at this time, and the road was drawn probably using a planimeter to get the acreage to 117. If they drew the line in light pencil, measured and found it off, they could adjust before inking the final, so I believe that road probably shows very close to 117 acres, and was what MCC was working their initial routing off of.
I have also pointed out in the past, that the northern part, across College Ave., which was already developed, meant that Golf House Road would have to line up with the intersection of Turnbridge and College. Intersections are safest if lined up, or well separated, and I believe that planning principle was known by that time. Not sure of the topo, but such roads usually are also best near a rise or valley, but not mid slope, which might have affected the alignment.
Basically, Francis just realized that the road planner gave them an unusable sliver up there near Haverford College, and corrected it, being an engineer himself.
-
Jeff Brauer,
Against my better judgment, I skimmed your post. It made be smile that you think you are trashing my essay by trying to cherry pick out quotes, because despite your attempts to make me look bad, almost everything you've quoted has been born out by the facts.
Your primary criticism of my essay seems to be that you don't like that I carefully distinguish between what is theory and what is fact. I consider this a compliment, not a criticism. That you think differently speaks volumes about your lack of understanding as to how these things work.
Unlike you and Mike, I know the difference between facts and theory. I don't pretend to have facts when I don't. I am capable of drawing logical conclusions based on sometimes limited facts, but I always try to leave open the possibility that more facts will surface and I will re-address by hypotheses. This is the way historical analysis is supposed to work.
Considering that I was dealing with a limited record when I wrote the essay, I am pretty proud of what I was able to figure out, especially when you consider that almost everything in the had never been brought forward before, and almost all of the facts which have come out since support my hypotheses. Thanks for reminding me that I am pretty good at this stuff. Next time you read my essay (even its its unfortunately garbled state) you should really try to learn something about proper methodology. Lord knows you could use it.
Too bad the essay seems to be permanently garbled almost beyond recognition. It was damn good work, if I say so myself.
-
Jeff,
Yes, that map showing 117 acres was prepared for the Merion Cricket Club by Pugh and Hubbard and they mailed it out to their members the day it was completed.
Seven months later those same Civil Engineers drafted the metes and bounds of the 120.01 acres Merion purchased from HDC.
-
David,
I understand your explanation, but with respect still don't agree. I believe in other cases you have stated and most generally agree that it is hard to report an event as fact without some corroborating evidence. Your theory may be 100% correct, although I doubt we can ever know, but IMHO, will be subject to criticism because there are so many instances where you draw conclusions without two or more real pieces of record. Say what you want about my lack of perspective on the process, but I think that is pretty standard stuff as these things go, not "absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence."
I don't think I cherry picked your essay. I was struck by the number of times you concluded something "must have" happened, sometimes completely out of left field, as it were, without really even providing the logic tree behind your thought process. I merely cut and pasted those examples, but do agree there are other examples in there where you are more thorough.
BTW, I had forgotten that your essay did suffer some in a transition to the new site a few years back. I didn't take that into account. And, I generally do agree with your idea of new facts changing positions........ Another reason (along with your possibly evolving position), to consider a rewrite......reasons not to re-write? Well, probably Mike and I would still pick at it, so I understand if you don't.
Cheers.
-
And for the record, if anyone has trashed me beyond insulting invective and profanity laden posts with anything even remotely factual I must have missed it.
The rest I just slough off as the inability or unwillingness of others to have a discussion based on facts but I doubt there are many who actually care who don't see through this transparent tactic.
-
Jeff,
Yes, that map showing 117 acres was prepared for the Merion Cricket Club by Pugh and Hubbard and they mailed it out to their members the day it was completed.
Seven months later those same Civil Engineers drafted the metes and bounds of the 120.01 acres Merion purchased from HDC.
Mike,
Thanks for sharing. I figured my "logical conclusion" based on my experience was right, but having the written record confirm it is a much stronger case.......
-
And for the record, if anyone has trashed me beyond insulting invective and profanity laden posts with anything even remotely factual I must have missed it.
The rest I just slough off as the inability or unwillingness of others to have a discussion based on facts but I doubt there are many who actually care who don't see through this transparent tactic.
Mike,
Just to be clear, are you referring to public or private trashing?
-
Jeff,
Yes, that map showing 117 acres was prepared for the Merion Cricket Club by Pugh and Hubbard and they mailed it out to their members the day it was completed.
Seven months later those same Civil Engineers drafted the metes and bounds of the 120.01 acres Merion purchased from HDC.
Mike are you again just making things up, or do you have a source for your claims?
Because I don't think you have any idea who commissioned that plan, although the contents of the plan itself strongly suggest it was the developer.
The fact (if it is one) that the same engineers were used to draft the metes and bounds in July 1911 tells us nothing because the same parties were involved. Surely you realize at least this, don't you?
ADDED: The seller is generally responsible for providing the legal description of the property, not the buyer.
-
David,
Didn't Bryan indicate that Pugh and Hubbard created the metes and bounds if the sales agreement?
-
Other possibilities, they split the cost, since it benefited both, or Lloyd paid for it privately, since technically he was or was going to be the land Owner.
I am not sure this affects the timeline of Merion, though.
-
David,
Didn't Bryan indicate that Pugh and Hubbard created the metes and bounds if the sales agreement?
I don't remember. If so, this would suggest that they were in the employ of Haverford Development Company, which was the seller. As I said, my understanding is that it is the seller who is usually responsible for describing the property to be sold.
Now, as for your claim that it was Merion who hired Pugh and Hubbard to create the Nov. map, did you just make that up, or do you have some fact backing this up?
-
I am not sure this affects the timeline of Merion, though.
It has nothing to do with the timeline.
Mike had thrown out yet another false condition: There is no plan on stick routing on the map, therefore planning hadn't yet occurred. I pointed out that not only was this nonsensical, but also Merion probably didn't even create the map.
That is what you and Mike do. You create false conditions. Another example is where you suggest that, because Merion didn't hire Raynor, CBM didn't help plan the course. That is a false condition. You guys do it again and again because the actual facts don't support your position.
-
The map was prepared by P+H for the Merion Cricket Club to show the 117 acres Merion had secured for their new Golf Course to its members and was sent out to them the day it came off the press.
I think it very accurately reflects the state of things as of that date.
Who cares if Merion or HDC paid? How is that material to the content?
-
David,
Assuming a blank plan of just the initially proposed property line means that is all they knew at the time is just as reasonable as an assumption that they had finalized a plan (which later turned out to be different)
In my case, I have drawn literally thousands of plans. I cannot think of one that had withheld known information at the time of preparation, just as I have never done one for a client and put someone else's name on it. If Merion was voting on buying that land, I would presume standard practice then (as now) is to pay the surveyor, so they are working for YOU, just to be sure its accurate. It could happen another way, but usually only when a client is so short of money, they are willing to accept compromises to save a dime. I don't envision that to be the case, or that to be those type of people.
So, I disagree that it is surely a false condition. In fact, I think it fairly likely, based on all I know, that it represents what they were voting on - the purchase of a property that they deemed suitable for their needs, but realizing they may need some flexibility (thanks to the experience of CBM)
-
The map was prepared by P+H for the Merion Cricket Club to show the 117 acres Merion had secured for their new Golf Course to its members and was sent out to them the day it came off the press.
Who cares if Merion or HDC paid? How is that material to the content?
Mike,
Our posts cross, and I agree. I guess I believe that the real false condition here is David's premise that CBM had routed the golf course prior to this. Its not this plan alone that makes that seem a false premise, its the combo of Merion drawing many plans in the spring of next year, visiting NGLA, and the preparing five more that combine with this blank property line map that make me think the course wasn't routed by then. In 7 years, I don't believe David has really shown that the routing was done by then. At least, see my post again. There are many references to his conclusion there, but it escapes me if he has connected the dots from A-B-C-Preliminary Routing in Nov. 1910.
I welcome the opportunity for him to show me where he does so.....but I don't see the balance of the evidence saying that, including this blank map. Or,just more explanation on why this is so "nonsensical." If you use such a strong term, it seems you could easily back it up with some simple and powerful explanation, no?
-
It's preposterous to assume that a course routing wouldn't have been included on a scale property map if one existed at that time, mailed to the membership the same day it was produced.
-
Mike,
IMHO, it would have to be an extraordinary case of the routing being done just a bit too late for P&H to send it to the print shop. Golfers would be interested in the golf course, if it was known. When I put up a routing plan at a meeting, they flock to it, and are mesmerized.
If it was a vote on the final golf course plan and configuration, wouldn't the meeting notes say that? They surely did in April 1911, when the committee told the board how they arrived at the routing, showed a plan, etc. Why would the minutes not record such a momentous event? Or, get it wrong?
Not to mention, I can't believe any club would put a property purchase up for a vote using a map they knew was wrong. It seems as if that would potentially be seen as criminal fraud. Perhaps the most perplexing thing about David's position, is as a trained lawyer, I doubt he would feel comfortable if his clients were doing this. (depending of course, on what kind of clients he had....as a defense lawyer, he may have had to make himself comfortable with it, but then, I don't know anything about his practice, just joking a bit)
I will say that I usually understand where David comes from. The minutes also say "experts are at work" suggesting some overlap, and I get that. That is why, despite 37 years of board votes, etc., I disagree, but wouldn't call his interpretation totally nonsensical. But, I don't agree, either!
-
These guys just make stuff up. I am not even sure what Jeff thinks he is talking about in his post above.
IMHO, it would have to be an extraordinary case of the routing being done just a bit too late for P&H to send it to the print shop. Golfers would be interested in the golf course, if it was known. When I put up a routing plan at a meeting, they flock to it, and are mesmerized.
What meeting? While I am sure Brauer's plans would have "mesmerizing" there was no such member's meeting at Merion. He is just fantasizing, I guess.
And who does he think would have come up with this plan? Pugh and Hubbard? What would the engineers who created the map know of the plan for the golf course?
Why would Merion have published a preliminary plan when CBM and HJW had not signed off on it yet, when obviously Merion was were following their lead?
This nonsense about how the map should contain a stick routing is nothing but a false condition, and a pretty sad one at that.
If it was a vote on the final golf course plan and configuration, wouldn't the meeting notes say that? They surely did in April 1911, when the committee told the board how they arrived at the routing, showed a plan, etc. Why would the minutes not record such a momentous event? Or, get it wrong?
A vote on the "final golf course plan and configuration?" Another false condition. Pretend the plan was final, then pretend they should have had a vote on it. Then pretend that because that there wasn't a vote, that this proves there was no plan. In other words, more fantasy.
Not to mention, I can't believe any club would put a property purchase up for a vote using a map they knew was wrong. It seems as if that would potentially be seen as criminal fraud. Perhaps the most perplexing thing about David's position, is as a trained lawyer, I doubt he would feel comfortable if his clients were doing this.
- A vote? What the hell is he talking about? There was no vote of the members on the November Land Plan. He is just making shit up. Again.
- Criminal fraud? In what jurisdiction is it "criminal fraud" to mark a road on a map "Approximate Location of the Road" when the location of the road is approximate?
- And who said the map wasn't accurate? I don't know if it was accurate or not.
I will say that I usually understand where David comes from. The minutes also say "experts are at work" suggesting some overlap, and I get that.
There wasn't just a mention of "experts at work," there were multiple press accounts suggesting that Barker and/or CBM/HJW were planning the course. But of course they will ignore this because facts that don't fit are ignored.
-
The map was prepared by P+H for the Merion Cricket Club to show the 117 acres Merion had secured for their new Golf Course to its members and was sent out to them the day it came off the press.
I think it very accurately reflects the state of things as of that date.
So then you have no evidence that it was Merion who had the map created. You were just making things up. No surprise.
The map is titled "Proposed Golf Course for Merion Cricket Club." It doesn't indicate who had the map prepared. Given that the map shows all sort of things that have nothing to do with Merion Cricket Club and which have a lot to do with HDC's development, it seems most likely that this HDC had the map created. It looks like their plat map.
Who cares if Merion or HDC paid? How is that material to the content?
It is only material to the false condition you have inserted into the discussion.
It's preposterous to assume that a course routing wouldn't have been included on a scale property map if one existed at that time, mailed to the membership the same day it was produced.
Whenever you start in on what is "preposterous" we know that you are outside the facts.
You noted that this map was created by the engineers, and sent out that very day to Merion members that very day. So who is it, exactly, who should have drawn the preliminary plan on the map? The engineers? Did Pugh and Hubbard design the course? Did the know anything about the plans? Of course not.
___________________________________________
Look at what you two have done here. You've arbitrarily invented a hoop for us to jump through which makes absolutely no sense. There is no reason to expect that a preliminary golf course plan would appear realtor's plat map when CBM hadn't yet even approved the final plan. There is no reason to expect that these engineers would even be aware of the plan, much less include it on the property map.
Yet you pretend that the absence of a stick routing means they hadn't even begun planning? Really? This is the crux of your argument? Give us a break.
-
These last few pages are indicative why these "conversations" will never go anywhere.
Mike and Jeff just come up with these strange hoops for the rest of us to jump through, and insist the hoops provide all of our answers.
It is unreasonable to expect that a real estate development plot map created by planning engineers who had nothing to do with planning the golf course would feature the preliminary plans for that golf course months before those plans had been approved.
But they'll keep at it, and when they are done with this one, they'll just recycle the next hoop (like Brauer's Raynor theory) and be off for another five or ten pages. It is almost as if they know that if they stop spinning out these fantasies and consider what we actually know, there is very little still at issue here, at least not among reasonable observers.
Who gives a shit about the Francis land swap? CBM was a major creative force behind the plan no matter when the swap occurred. Merion's own records establish that. All this fighting about the minutia is just a way for Mike, Jeff and their friends to keep hope alive. Just like Mike tried to do for years after I proved Wilson didn't travel abroad until after the course was planned.
-
Rich,
I remember those arguments about "laying out". Did you notice in the Evans letter of November 15 that he used "laying off" and "put in shape"? Two more terms to add to the lexicon.
"In accordance with instructions given me by the Board of Government of the Merion Cricket Club, I beg to state that a Corporation will be formed on behalf of the Club, which will purchase the tract of land above mentioned one hundred and seventeen (117) acres, at the price or sum of Eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000.00), in accordance with the terms of your proposition, as quoted above, and that as soon as this Corporation obtains possession of the property, we will at once proceed to lay off, and put in shape a Golf Links."
No, I didn't notice this, Bryan.
As I can find no evidence that "lay off" has never meant anything but what it does today (denoting a negative action rather than a positive one), so I assume that Evans meant to say "lay out" (i.e. design) and just had a senior moment. As for "put in shape" I take that to mean construction, including shaping (i.e.what happens after a course has been designed/laid out--tees and greens identified, general routing and fairway angles identified) .
My guess is that at that time, all they had was essentially a stick drawing (one of the five which they created and presented to CBM and Whigham for comment). Detailed planning had probably not been done yet, which is logical given that they didn't yet own the land.
David and others guess differently. Vive la differeance!
-
Sorry for the confusion. Back six years ago I was assessing the impact of the approximate road boundary from the land plan vs the deeded boundary along GHR on the overall acreage of the golf course property. I used this overlay with the RR map from 6 years ago because it showed the approximate and final GHR alignments. There is no significance to the RR map overlay. The alignment of the approximate road from the land plan contained 4 more acres than did the alignment of Golf House Road, as built and as deeded. So, the land plan measured approximately 124 acres and the deeded acreage was 120.01 acres since the other boundaries were the same. The point was that the plan which the letter purported showed the 117 acre golf course, did not. It showed an area more like 124 acres.
Bryan,
I am confused. What measured 124 acres? The RR atlas or the Nov.1910 Pugh and Hubbard land plan? I assume you mean the Nov 1910 Pugh and Hubbard plan, but the image above is of the 1913 Atlas.
My copy of the 1910 land plan (the one from my IMO) is a flat scan. I am pretty sure you have a copy of that.
____________________________
Mike,
Nothing in your latest post changes the fact that, according to Lesley and Merion's board, Merion set out to lay out the course according to the plan approved by CBM and HJW.
-
Mike,
Here's a picture of the land plan with a red rectangle of 130 yards by 190 yards that encompasses the current 15th green and 16th tee. Where else do you suppose Francis could have meant it to be? It is already largely included in the land plan.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3823/18723823334_b535833e6d_o.jpg)
-
Bryan,
I'm confused. Those dimensions of the triangle (rectangle?) don't match the width of the base you've previously measured using the scale ruler of the map.
Previous estimates of the base have ranged from my somewhat stingy 95 yards to David's generously philanthropic 110 yards.
Your own was tough to tell exactly as you used thick red and blue lines to delineate the difference between that drawing and the as-built although I greatly appreciate your efforts and recognize the limitations of working with such a scaled down representation.
-
Mike,
No one is making the leap that the triangle on the map is 130X190 so why debate the exact length of the 130 (or 110, or 95) yards when the big issue in Bryan's measuring is the 124 acres enclosed on that map which you have repeatedly insisted was to scale at 117 acres.
-
Mike, looking at old posts, I believe Bryan's previous attempt to measure came out at 115 to the road.
-
Who gives a shit about the Francis land swap? CBM was a major creative force behind the plan no matter when the swap occurred. Merion's own records establish that. All this fighting about the minutia is just a way for Mike, Jeff and their friends to keep hope alive. Just like Mike tried to do for years after I proved Wilson didn't travel abroad until after the course was planned.
I could go point by point and show where David does all the things he accuses Mike and I of, but there is no need. Despite him saying he just wants to know what happened, anyone who says "who gives a shit" about a major piece of the puzzle couldn't really care that much. Saying that "CBM is the creative genius behind MCC" really gets to the heart of the debate, doesn't it?
David's non-negotiable over these 7 years is that we give CBM what he feels is his due credit. I think Golf Digest has changed attribution on MCC. Merion itself and the USGA remain silent, and I presume it means they are satisfied with the status quo credit, and of course, the Merionettes (insulting and clever at the same time, Patrick, so I don't mind) sure haven't.
To be honest, while I disagree on small points (for about 6.5 years) at the very least, David's position is understandable. No doubt, CBM was a creative genius, at NGLA for sure, and Merion was a copycat, using his formula of template holes. Others were, too, as he set a style of design that was very fashionable for a while. (all of which may also be debated, since the amateur design committee declined, and only he and Raynor repeated the template style consistently)
There is no doubt Merion would have looked much different initially if they had not consulted with CBM, and everyone agrees to that. So, in that sense, David is correct, but as I alluded, he seems to want to be 100% correct. I think its less than 100% but let's try to explain my position a bit differently that using actual daily participation at MCC in 1910-11.
At Tidewater in Myrtle Beach, Rees Jones routed and maybe did a preliminary features plan, but the owner took over, and built a very non-Rees style course. Rees doesn't really acknowledge it as his course, the Owner does.
In a hypothetical case, imagine an owner contacts Tom Doak, pays an initial fee (yes, I know this is not 100% parallel to the MCC case) and gets a routing and maybe some sketches of Tom's best ideas. He then takes over and constructs it with his own crew, and the course ends up looking nothing like a Tom Doak course. If the end initial result looks and plays nothing like a Doak, was he, with his limited involvement really the creative genius? It would be hard for anyone, including Tom to claim or want to claim that. And, in today's world, and maybe back then too, there is an idea that a complex process ought to be credited to someone. It is understandable that MCC over the years and based on daily activity chose their committee.
So, why did HJW make the claim years later in the eulogy? I can only guess that the same sort of credit debates and thoughts existed back then as they do today, with HJW and David being soul mates across the decades.
It is perhaps best to acknowledge that David has a strongly held view (pretty obvious) and some reasonable notion to back it up, even if his essay was written before many documents were available (but caused them to be available) and he did IMHO interpret many things wrong, which happens in the historic process.
It is what it is. It's not likely to change, no matter how many times we go on the Merion-go-round.
-
Saying that "CBM is the creative genius behind MCC" really gets to the heart of the debate, doesn't it?
My goodness Jeff, you can't even resist misquoting me when you have just cut and pasted my exact quote. What I wrote was "CBM was a major creative force behind the plan no matter when the swap occurred." You may not understand the subtle distinctions between this and "CBM is the creative genius behind MCC," but I hope others do.
As for the rest, you seem to be talking about "credit" whereas I am I have always talked about input and influence. You also seem to be confusing aesthetic stylings with architectural principles such as the routing and hole concepts. I am glad, though, that you seem willing to acknowledge that CBM had input into and influence over the course at Merion.
ADDED: And I do care about details such as the land swap, but at this point, given all that we know now, my thesis isn't dependent upon any particular understanding of the land swap. There is plenty of evidence of CBM's influence over the course no matter when the Francis swap took place.
-
David,
Your post was animated, for sure, so maybe you didn't really mean you didn't give a hoot about a major detail. But, it seems your thesis doesn't really depend on a whole lot of truly established facts either, not just the land swap.
When facts don't really matter, it is hard to discuss. When you tell Mike words like hyperbole and preposterous mean he isn't really arguing with facts, but you use nonsensical, illogical, etc., it isn't the same thing? You attack the details we support, but never really answer the big questions?
To be fair, I agreed with you on influence, if not total input, which we can probably can never know, and can debate endlessly.
But to me, if they did the routing, and he reviewed and selected one, it is different than him doing the routing, which is NOT supported by any documents, despite your statement that "its all over the record". It simply is not, and you admitted many posts back that you don't have any evidence of any more contact/work than the three documented meetings.
Similarly, we know they used his templates, but did they simply learn about his templates at NGLA and use them, or did CBM specifically locate them on the course, most likely in that April meeting after the routing was finalized?
We will never know. Based on what I know about the golf course design process, I have my visions about what would have been like. You have different visions.
-
Stop with the distortions Jeff.
-
Jeff,
You created a hypothetical example with a predetermined conclusion and equated it with what happened at Merion. That's an invalid comparison.
As to the term "Merionettes", there was nothing insulting intended.
It was an apt description of a particular faction.
But, we agree that it was "clever" ;D
-
Mike,
No one is making the leap that the triangle on the map is 130X190 so why debate the exact length of the 130 (or 110, or 95) yards when the big issue in Bryan's measuring is the 124 acres enclosed on that map which you have repeatedly insisted was to scale at 117 acres.
Jim,
Great question, but I'm not the one who is contending that the area demarcated on the map in green is the 117 acres Merion had secured for their golf course on what is clearly a scale map. Merion said it was 117 acres, multiple times, in the letter accompanying that "Plan", as they called it.
Drawn on that map as well is what is today Golf House Road, clearly intended to be the boundary between golf course and real estate even back then. Because it didn't yet exist (because we know from Cuyler's letter over a month later that the golf course had not been definitely located and the boundary hadn't yet been determined), it was identified as "Approximate Location of Road".
Yet as you say, no one can say that the area in question at the top of the map is 130x190, which were the dimensions that Richard Francis told us he exchanged land for, and what the course is built to even today. In fact, it was much narrower and much longer.
What does that tell you? What does the fact that the golf course portion of the "plan" actually measures 124 acres and not 117 acres at that point in time tell you? What does that tell you about the state of the "planning" effort to date.
This wasn't some old map drawn during initial discussions. This was a hot-off-the-press, up-to-date, same day still cooling from the printer representation of the state of things as of November 15, 1910 and mailed excitedly to the Merion membership the same day it was created.
I think it's humorously ironic that David now doesn't give a sh*t about the map and rushes to disavow anything about its accuracy and heritage like a tow-headed stepchild in Ethiopia. When he first found it, he offered it as proof positive that the Francis Exchange had to have happened prior to January 1911 in an attempt to discredit Hugh Wilson with the routing even though I would think he had to have noticed that the area in question at the top of the map was not 130x190 as Francis needed, but instead something considerably narrower and longer.
Here is a portion of what David wrote in his essay, the italics and bolding for emphasis are mine;
As quoted by Tolhurst, Francis wrote that Merion gave up “land west of the present course which did not fit in with any golf layout;” land which was later “covered by fine homes along Golf House Road.” In exchange, Merion received a small section of “land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long – the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.” No doubt Francis was describing the land between the present practice area and Golf House Road, a small triangle of land that perfectly matches Francis’ description. More importantly, the land was acquired while Merion was putting the finishing touches on the routing plan for the course. So the date of the supposed “swap” will allow us to determine when the final touches were being put on the initial routing plan.
Surprisingly, as one can see in the land plan above, Merion acquired this small projection of land as part of the 117-acre parcel designated “Merion Golf Course” in the Plan. Merion optioned and purchased the land for the 15th green and 16th tee as part of their option and purchase of the bulk of the golf course property. Property records confirm this. The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910, when Merion obtained an option from Haverford Development Company. This was six weeks before the purchase was finalized and the Construction Committee appointed. The “swap” was not a swap at all but actually a small but significant reshaping of the large parcel Merion intended to purchase from Haverford Development Company. Before the purchase, the parties must have agreed to shave off a portion on the right side of the parcel and added the projection of land for the 15th green and 16th tee.
Francis and Lloyd had been fine-tuning the layout plan before Merion secured the land. Francis described his epiphany as having occurred while he was looking over a “map of the property.” He also noted that the land Merion gave up “did not fit at all in any golf layout.” So by this time the planning process was well underway, and the “swap” allowed them to better fit the last five holes into the plan for the routing. “It was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion – with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore avenue – but the last five holes were another question.” The Francis land “swap” allowed them to complete the routing plan. All before November 10, 1910.
This was the keystone of David's essay that sought to remove Hugh Wilson from authorship of the Merion East Course, his "Holy Grail" finding, if you will, and the lynchpin supporting his entire argument.
Now he tell us he doesn't even think Pugh and Hubbard measured the golf course for that map!! ::) And, I have no idea what he's referring to when he wrote, "Property records confirm this", do you?
But as you say, the dimensions of that triangle don't match what Francis told us he needed to fit those last five holes into the routing. The map itself isn't 117 acres according to Bryan, but more like 124 acres.
Do you think it would have mattered to Richard Francis that the proposed boundary was 100 or so yards wide when he needed 130 yards in width to fit those holes?
David's essay also tells us that the 3 acres of Railroad Land had not been yet acquired at the time the map was drawn by Pugh & Hubbard, and that's apparent by the fact that it is not shaded in green and identified as part of the "Golf Course" as of November 15, 1910. Here's some of what David's essay said about that matter;
But the “Plan Showing Proposed Golf Course” is a few acres short. The Site Committee had sought “nearly 120 acres,” not 117 acres. The Plan does not include one small tract – a little less than three acres – that the Site Committee needed for the course. Like the “Dallas Estate,” this last small parcel was not under the control of Haverford Development Company at the time site committee recommended its purchase. Unlike the “Dallas Estate,” the Merion may have been unable to secure this parcel prior to the date Merion secured the rest of the land.
Merion’s Unsecured Three Acres Like much of their original golf course in Ardmore, the remaining small tract of land needed for Merion’s “permanent course” was controlled by a railroad. The Philadelphia and Western Railway owned almost three acres located west of their track, east of Cobb’s Creek, and running north of Ardmore Avenue to a little past the old historic farmhouse that would become Merion’s future clubhouse.
And David's correct here; if Merion had indeed determined that those three acres were part of the golf course by that time it should have been included on the "plan", no?
Yet, it's not, so what what does that tell us about the state of planning at the time this map was drawn on November 15, 1910?
Here again is what Richard Francis wrote;
"Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field, and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the layout of the course. The land was shaped like a capital "L" and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright position - with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Avenue - but the last 5 holes were another question.
I was looking at a map of the property one night when I had an idea.
What map do you think he was looking at? Something from Pugh & Hubbard or something he had drawn prior to November 15th, 1910? Clearly his brainstorm happened after they had determined they could use those three acres of Railroad land they leased for decades, right?
If he had a map that indicated a completed golf course based on his brainstorm, why wouldn't they have mailed that to their members? Why wouldn't they put their best foot forward showing all of their supposed prior months of golf course planning efforts that they'd supposedly just concluded?
Instead, they sent a map with dimensions much unlike the course they eventually planned that did not include a single proposed golf hole. What does that tell you?
Related, if all of that land was under Lloyd's ownership for him to do what he pleased by November 15, 1910, why did he feel the need to purchase the entire 140 acre Johnson Farm and 21 acre Dallas Estate a month later? Recall that he made that purchase under the advice of Merion's counsel a month later because the boundaries of the golf course had not yet been determined and it was stated in Cuyler's late December letter to Merion that it was known that those determinations would be at some yet unknown future date.
Richard Francis was very precise. He told us precisely what he needed to complete the routing plan and fit in the last five holes. How is that congruous with any of the imprecision and uncertainty associated with this "plan", as well as the timing of other events?
-
I love that these guys keep posting snippets from my essay, as garbled as it may be. It holds up remarkably well considering the years of scrutiny, and considering I had not yet be given access to the MCC Minutes.
Almost everything in it has been borne out by the facts, and Cirba and friends are no closer to refuting the remaining key points than they were seven years ago.
-
Mike,
I can't process that entire post that was directed at me a couple posts ago...I can say that the golf course could have been routed and built almost exactly as it is today if the boundaries were in fact determined by that "Approximate Location of Road". This is a fact. You seem to think the route around the quarry on 16 had the committee stumped. This is a bad argument for a couple of reasons:
1 - The two holes that immediately follow the 16th have much longer carries than the carry required on 16 and neither has even the possibility of a bailout. Even if the "ladies aid' were never maintained as fairway, people could have gone around if necessary.
2 - The other is that there are several (I counted once but forget) green-next-to-tee areas fit into much tighter space than the 15th green/16th tee would have been if limited to the area on the map.
Francis makes it very clear that the 15th green and 16th tee were on newly acquired land...your interpretation of the swap only adds the side of the 15th fairway and half of the 14th green...
-
Jim,
Please see my comments below in blue, thanks.
Mike,
I can't process that entire post that was directed at me a couple posts ago...I can say that the golf course could have been routed and built almost exactly as it is today if the boundaries were in fact determined by that "Approximate Location of Road". This is a fact. You seem to think the route around the quarry on 16 had the committee stumped. This is a bad argument for a couple of reasons:
Jim, sorry you can't process my entire post because I think all of the material is very relevant to the timing of events. I'd really like to hear your answers to those questions as I think you know I respect your opinion a great deal and they are all sincere questions.
Related to your brief answer, however, your contention that the golf course could have been routed and built "almost exactly" as it is today is exactly the point, isn't it? Despite their efforts they couldn't fit the last five holes. I'm sure it was driving Francis crazy as he sat pouring over that map.
So, do you think it's realistic to conclude that they were so off in routing their first 13 holes that they'd essentially painted themselves into a quarry-bound corner, needing an entire almost 5 acre addition to fit those last five holes or do you think they needed to tweak their borders, giving back land not used for any of their possible routings across from the clubhouse to gain some more on top from their original projections to get to close to the desired 117 acre total purchase? In the end, they needed to purchase 120 acres.
1 - The two holes that immediately follow the 16th have much longer carries than the carry required on 16 and neither has even the possibility of a bailout. Even if the "ladies aid' were never maintained as fairway, people could have gone around if necessary.
Jim, where were they possibly going to built alternate routes on 17 and 18? 17 tees off from a cliff wall and 18 is tight to the eastern border against land that HDC didn't own. The only place that they could build one was around the quarry on 16, which they did.
The original 15th tee was right behind the 14th green, directly adjacent to Golf House Road. It was only years later that it was brought over near the alternate fairway on 16. Whether you think they needed to build that fairway or not, the fact is that they thought they needed to or they wouldn't have done it, right?.
2 - The other is that there are several (I counted once but forget) green-next-to-tee areas fit into much tighter space than the 15th green/16th tee would have been if limited to the area on the map.
It wasn't the area at the top of the triangle that was so much the problem, but the area at the base and below that wasn't wide enough that was corrected by the Francis Exchange.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion1910-1913Overlay.jpg)
Francis makes it very clear that the 15th green and 16th tee were on newly acquired land...your interpretation of the swap only adds the side of the 15th fairway and half of the 14th green...
Yes, I agree that it was newly acquired land, just not the entire 130x190 parcel.
I think at this point even David is in agreement that the Pugh & Hubbard November 15th 1910 Land Plan are NOT the boundaries that Richard Francis was working with when he made his swap. Heck, David now doesn't even believe Pugh & Hubbard measured the golf course for that survey! :o
If that map denoted 124 acres how could it have been? And if it was, why is it still so flawed and inaccurate after all of his detailed laboring?
-
I love that these guys keep posting snippets from my essay, as garbled as it may be. It holds up remarkably well considering the years of scrutiny, and considering I had not yet be given access to the MCC Minutes.
Almost everything in it has been borne out by the facts, and Cirba and friends are no closer to refuting the remaining key points than they were seven years ago.
David,
We ask legitimate questions. Even where there is a chance at differing interpretations (and much of the record does lend itself to that) ours is not an unreasonable one, even if it differs from yours.
The facts remain, that you have never offered any concrete proof of CBM's involvement beyond those three meetings, but still believe he was the creative genius. I can see the latter to a degree, but that isn't going to satisfy you, until apparently we all agree with your mostly undocumented, and largely inferred position on CBM's total role at Merion.
However, this and many of your posts simply presume you are right, and everyone knows it. Sort of your tactic of "vouching for your own evidence" which as you know, wouldn't be allowed in court for obvious reasons, and for similar reasons, isn't at all convincing here.
Add in most of your responses are attacks and deflections, and picking at any possible detail while avoiding the harder questions, etc. As stated, you are the type of person who (at least in your internet personality, I have never met you in person) just disagrees with everything, and really finds a way to disagree with something as a first priority.
I doubt too many neutral readers are changing their minds at this late date. A shame really, as people with common interest in golf architecture history would seemingly be birds of feather, not adversaries. Maybe I will go back in my hole a while......at least until another thread on another course morphs into a Merion thread.
-
Saying that "CBM is the creative genius behind MCC" really gets to the heart of the debate, doesn't it?
My goodness Jeff, you can't even resist misquoting me when you have just cut and pasted my exact quote. What I wrote was "CBM was a major creative force behind the plan no matter when the swap occurred." You may not understand the subtle distinctions between this and "CBM is the creative genius behind MCC," but I hope others do.
BTW, what is really funny about this statement is that in re-reading the essay, and as is obvious in the snippets posted even on this thread is the number of times David took partial quotes, inserted his interpretations, and then went back to quotes, as if to give the impression that the whole sentence was a quote from history.
Just another example of his long time modus operandi of a double standard for him (because he pats himself on the back as the smartest guy in the room so often) and the rest of us.
So, what is are the real things that have made these discussions so hard?
-
Jeff,
I agree 100%
I think if David's essay proved itself, it would have been accepted by the golf world at large and Merion in particular.
I think the net benefit of David's essay is that we all learned much more about the history of Merion through the additional digging for source materials so it wasn't a fruitless exercise.
But if you or I think he's going to budge 1 inch from even the most obvious of inaccuracies or make any concessions to advance the conversation, we're just pissing in the wind. Like you, I really am becoming redundant and if he's still proud of his essay and believes it's accurate, so be it.
-
Mike,
Well,, I agree 99%, is that enough for you? :)
Seriously, I agree that had it been a slam dunk, yes, most would have embraced it. Historical treatise like David's have no no scoreboard proclaiming a winner, but only a general consensus. I don't think the world at large has taken it as gospel, but could be wrong, and certainly the personalities involved here are never going to come to any consensus.
But, it did help bring more facts forward, so we are grateful to all who dig that stuff out, like David, Bryan, Joe, etc..
Excuse me, but I need to go out to the back 40, where there is another dead horse to beat......
-
Mike,
Not sure why you're confused. I simply drew a rectangle that's 130 yards wide and 190 yards high using the scale on the plan. My point was that the plan shows the golf course occupying a good portion of that rectangle. So, I wondered where else you thought Francis might have meant the 130 x 190 yard piece of land to be located (that they did not own, and where the 15th green and 16 tee ended up).
By the way, do we all agree that Francis didn't say it was a triangle?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
Bryan,
I'm confused. Those dimensions of the triangle (rectangle?) don't match the width of the base you've previously measured using the scale ruler of the map.
Previous estimates of the base have ranged from my somewhat stingy 95 yards to David's generously philanthropic 110 yards.
Your own was tough to tell exactly as you used thick red and blue lines to delineate the difference between that drawing and the as-built although I greatly appreciate your efforts and recognize the limitations of working with such a scaled down representation.
-
Bryan,
What are you coming up with as an estimate of the base of that triangle in yardage?
I first used the colored photo and came up with something short of 300 feet, or less than 100 yards wide, as seen here (note to everyone; that first marking should be 200 feet, although it looks like 100 feet);
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2340/3531414890_3f4515135b_b.jpg)
Then I thought perhaps I was introducing some unintentional distortion based on the angle of the photo so I went back to David's original, which he told us was shot straight on, but I really don't see a noticeable difference. It still appears to me to be about 90 or so yards, somewhere less than 300 feet wide, and that may be somewhat generous. Would you agree?
Even if it was 100 yards wide, which it doesn't appear to be, that would be a 25% margin of error. If it's 90, which is closer to what it looks like to me, that would be a 30% deviation from what Francis told us he needed.
These aren't trivial margins of error for a Civil Engineer.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2444/3531028447_48ef08a1da_z.jpg?zz=1)
I also came across an overlay that I believe you did way back when, although the connected red dots may have been something I added whose purpose escapes me now.
In any case, I think they do show pretty clearly how narrow that drawing was north of the clubhouse if it was truly meant to illustrate the golf course after Richard Francis had his brainstorm. Thanks for your insight.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3330/3637284692_1cb68912b8_z.jpg?zz=1)
-
Mike,
You're fixated on the notion that the moment Francis had his epiphany the exact shape of the entire course fell into shape...I don't think anyone else feels that way. His idea simply made it clear that this parcel would fit the golf course and they could then proceed to plan and build the holes.
-
Jim,
You're right, I am, and that's because of the way Francis described things.
I read Francis quite literally and I think they knew basically what they wanted for each of the final five holes and were having trouble fitting them due to the narrow corridor.
They certainly knew where they wanted to locate the 16th green because within a day or two they were blasting the top of the quarry hill "so that the green could be built as it is today". Once you know that hole's location as the midpoint of the final five, is it really so hard to conceive of the others?
I find it difficult to believe they would have identified that location if they were working under the previous pre-Francis-brainstorm assumption that the land for their course ended just beyond the quarry at the southern boundary of the Haverford College land. Given those constraints, where exactly would they be coming at it from and where would they go from there?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
Take a look again at what they were dealing with here and how they "swooped" land in near the clubhouse and had to bust it out around the quarry. In fact, the dimensions of the road looks to virtually parallel the shape of the quarry. If the land they were working with really ended just beyond the quarry prior to Francis brainstorm they'd have no prayer of creating anything like five holes in that space, much less knew where they'd put the 16th green within a day or two.
Also, to put Mr. Lloyd back into the picture, according to your understanding he also owned all the land of the Johnson Farm north of the quarry prior to November 1910 so why would this have even been an issue?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-1.jpg?t=1243442867)
-
Pretty funny that Mike get himself to accurately measure to all the way to the edge of the road, much less the middle of the road, which was the property line.
-
Mike,
If you read Francis at all literally you would not translate his words describing the area of the 15th green and 16th tee to mean 14th green and 15th tee. You would also probably not misunderstand his description of swapping land owned for land not owned to mean they redirected a hypothetical road with several gives and takes down the length of it and a net loss of acreage for the golf course...
-
Pretty funny that Mike get himself to accurately measure to all the way to the edge of the road, much less the middle of the road, which was the property line.
David,
Would it make you happy if I gave you another 15 feet and we'll call it 95 yards?
-
For those wondering what the Francis meant when he said that the property looked like a capital "L" before the swap, here is a closeup of a section of the Mueller Good Roads map published in 1913, rotated 90 degrees. Note: I have no idea from where the information on this map came, and as I said it wasn't published until 1913.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1913-good-rd-map-haverford-cty.jpg?t=1435783334)
This rendering is interesting because the golf RR land is not shown as part of the course, and because the "Francis swap" land is not part of the course, and because the middle of golf house road bows away from the clubhouse rather than toward it. (And of course the area across Ardmore is the wrong shape.)
If Francis was looking at a map like this, then it is easy to understand why he would have wanted to trade the land across from the clubhouse for the land next to the College property. As he said, adding the property next to the College land enabled him to fit the 15th green and 16th tee, and the land west of the course didn't fit in any layout anyway.
___________________________________________________________
Would it make you happy if I gave you another 15 feet and we'll call it 95 yards?
No. I measured it at about 115 yards. Bryan measured in the past at about 115 yards. I've duplicated Bryan's methodology above and it looks about right to me. You are kidding yourself if you think that area wasn't wide enough for a green and a tee.
-
Mike,
Re your statement:
I read Francis quite literally .....
What Francis wrote quite literally was that the land they could use was "about 130 yds. wide by 190 yds. long - the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee." That's the rectangle I drew below. I was reading Francis literally and placing a rectangle of those dimensions where he literally said it was. At 130 yards wide it extends beyond the current road or the approximate road of the land plan. For this literal reading of what he wrote it doesn't matter how wide the base is over to the road. He didn't mention the road as a constraint. He felt there was a need for a piece of land in that location that was 130 yards wide by 190 yards long. It fits there and it was all on the Johnson farm property, so presumably available for swapping.
You have so far not identified any other place where the land might have been, given a literal reading of what Francis wrote. I don't believe there is any other location where it could be placed.
The land plan of November 15th shows a good part of that rectangle as part of the golf course property. That implies to me that the swap was done before the plan. It also implies to me that the location of the approximate road was identified after the swap. It also implies to me that by the time the plan was drawn they had some idea that they didn't need all of the 130 x 190 rectangle for the routing since there was little choice but to go up that narrow area and come back out - what turned into the latter half of the 15th hole and the tee and beginning of the 16th hole.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3823/18723823334_b535833e6d_o.jpg)
-
David,
That's a very interesting map, distortions aside. Thanks for sharing it. If not part of the golf course, what would you call that green rectangle sitting atop the Johnson Farm property almost to College Avenue? The Haverford College lot never extended that far west to my knowledge.
Bryan,
I'm not sure what I'm missing. Of course a 130 yard by 190 yard wide rectangle would encompass the narrower width drawn on that map, right?
What do you measure from the middle of the road to the border because I'm not sure how David says you're getting 115 yards. Thanks.
-
David,
That's a very interesting map, distortions aside. Thanks for sharing it. If not part of the golf course, what would you call that green rectangle sitting atop the Johnson Farm property almost to College Avenue? The Haverford College lot never extended that far west to my knowledge.
Mike the green rectangle is the Haverford College property, which extends east off the bottom of the image. On this map it was drawn as bordering the road. Just like it would have been without the swap.
What do you measure from the middle of the road to the border because I'm not sure how David says you're getting 115 yards. Thanks.
The 115 yard figure is from an old thread. Bryan measured it at about 115 yards years ago. One of the many times we've had this same conversation.
. . .
For whatever it is worth, the distance from the real 1910 boundary to the middle of the current Golf House Road is 115 yards. Not 95 and not 130.
-
When did Haverford College buy the northernmost portion of the Johnson Farm all the way to Golf House Road?
-
What are you talking about? On the map I posted there are two rectangles up by the intersection of College Avenue and Golf House Road.
1. The rectangle closest to College Avenue (which is partially obscured by the bleed of the blue coloring of College Road) is not colored, and it was marked as owned by J. Franklin McFadden on the Nov. 1910 land plan then Lewis P. Geiger, Jr. on the 1913 road atlas.
2. The second rectangle is the rectangle which was owned by Haverford College, and is presently the location of the driving range. The area south of this rectangle is the golf course. On this map, there is no golf course west of this parcel.
Haverford College never purchased the northernmost part of the Johnson farm. But Golf House road was originally intended to be adjacent to the Haverford College property. This map is drawn with Golf House Road tight to the border of the Haverford College land, just as it would have been had the swap not taken place.
-
David,
I'll have to look at it on a larger monitor when I get home.
On my phone it looks as though the width of the L above Ardmore Ave. Is over twice the width of the L south of Ardmore Ave which would be well over 600 yards wide.
If so, I'm pretty sure that the rectangle of Johnson Farmland north of the Haverford College southern boundary would have been well within those parameters.
Do you have a copy of a larger area you can show that might indicate other reference points? Thanks.
-
Mike, the width of area south of ardmore is not bound by an roads or anything else that would show up on a simple road map and as I already said, it is obviously the wrong shape. So why would you choose that as your measuring stick?
Here is a rough overlay of the good roads map with the 1913 atlas, using the existing roads as my guide. The maps don't line up perfectly but as you can see the location of the intersection between Golf House and College is fairly close.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/overlay-of-1913-good-roads.jpg)
But I'm not going to argue with you about this map. It is what it is. I am not making any claims about it. Just noting that the road on this map shows what the golf course property might have looked like without the swap.
-
David,
I'm having trouble reading it but is today's "Golf House Road" called "Llewyllen Road" on that 1913 Atlas?
-
Certainly looks like it...what do you think?
-
Sorry Mike...misread your question. Llewelyn is written on an image of what was actually built. The Atlas roads were not built as depicted.
-
I don't know Jim, I don't recall it ever being mentioned here in previous discussions. The first mention I can find of "Golf House Road" is 1915, and I seem to recall some others back when saying that road was never built until 1913 or so.
There are several oddities about that map as David mentioned, and I'm really trying to determine if we can glean anything useful or revealing from it. For instance, I thought perhaps the plotting of the map possibly well preceded that 1913 date, back to the 1910 or 1911 discussion/debate we've been having here about the timing of the Francis Exchange. However, I was able to find the map David did and it also includes the land of the Merion West course which wasn't acquired until 1913 and didn't open until May 1914.
There are other strange anomalies, such as the Eaton property between the golf course and Ardmore Avenue (to the right of the 6th hole) showing as part of the golf course, but the 3 acres of railroad land does not.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3733/19443418646_54d1a9c9b1_b.jpg)
It would be interesting to track the history of those roads in the development. On the map, the areas in BLUE are roads that have macadam and presumably all the rest are dirt tracks. Since this map was apparently drawn a few years after the Pugh & Hubbard November 1910 map I'm not really sure how to interpret it, honestly.
Did a dirt track road exist prior to the creation of the golf course and Haverford Road? What were the dimensions? Also, I recall this picture (showing the dirt road) being posted previously from the Sayers Scrapbook and seem to recall it was related to an Opening Day program but don't have the specifics on hand. Obviously by Opening Day it would look something different than what's relayed on this map. It's a head-scratcher, for certain.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3876/19283336949_cda3a982dd_b.jpg)
One final point related to David's overlay is that it would be difficult to imagine a "like for like" acreage swap between the bulging land going west of the clubhouse as drawn to the triangle at the top. I'd estimate the difference in acreage in a final swap given those dimensions would be giving up about 3x as much acreage given up near the clubhouse as would be gained near the top.
That's especially difficult to reconcile with the fact that Hugh Wilson told P&O that Merion had purchased 117 acres in his February 1911 letter only to have the Thompson Resolution in April 1911 requring a swap of land and the additional purchase of 3 more acres, finalized by Merion buying 120.01 acres of HDC land in July 1911.
What do you think?
-
Don't really know what to make of it. Seems gathering data would take a great deal of time in those days so they would be outdated basically as soon as they were printed.
The shaping for the road bordering the golf course matches my thought of how Francis' words can make any sense at all.
-
Is it possible that the dimensions drawn on that 1913 map came sometime after the November 1910 Pugh and Hubbard map showing an "Approximate Location of Road"?
It might be an interesting exercise to determine what the total acreage north of Ardmore Avenue on that map ending at the Haverford College line combined with the known acreage south of Ardmore Avenue adds up to. Where's Bryan with his planometer? :)
-
"Llewellyn Road" is from the 1913 RR atlas which depicts the accurate location of the current road. Apparently at some point early on Golf House Road was to be called "Llewellyn Road." (Llewellyn was a land owner who owned the parcel across the RR tracks from the 3 acres RR land.) (The same company which produced the Good Road's Map also produced the RR Atlas, and the index for the RR Atlas is similar but not identical to the Good Road map. For example the RR Atlas includes the 3 Acres RR as part of the golf course, and has a more accurate shape for the Haverford College Parcel.)
The Fakers have claimed in the past that Golf House Rd was not built until later, but Golf House/Llewellyn Road was already in existence (and in its current location) as of July of 1911, as it was referenced in the Deed setting out the course boundaries.
The colorized photo that Mike suggests was from Opening Day is actually from the fall of 1911 at the latest. It was printed on a program, menu, or invitation (I forget which) for a Holiday dinner celebration, 1911.
These old maps were created using a number of different sources, including (but not limited to) plat maps, land plans, and USGS surveys, so it is possible that the information on the Good Roads map came from an earlier version of the HDC land plan.
-
For what it's worth, I believe it makes perfect sense for the RR land to not be listed as Merion property...because it wasn't until a few decades later. I would bet they had a routing map with the RR land identified as usable.
-
David,
Am I reading your overlay correctly that the southern boundary of the Haverford College property on the new map is well north of where it is on the Atlas? It looks to be almost as far north as the 16th tee if I'm reading it correctly.
I'm trying to determine if it's possible to get an acreage estimate based on known fixed points, thanks.
-
Jim, The RR property does show up as part of the golf course on other maps, including other Mueller maps, because things like golf courses were marked on such maps no matter whether the land was owned or leased. (see earlier maps of Merion's previous course for example.)
Mike, As you can see by the overlay the Haverford College property is too narrow from north to south on the good road maps. I don't see the point of trying to do an exact acreage estimate. This kind of map wasn't intended for such things. But here is a a very rough estimate showing approximately what land in a similar configuration might have measured. The area inside the yellow lines is 120 acres.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/120-acres-pre-off-good-roads.jpg)
-
David,
Thanks.
One has to wonder given that Macdonald told them that much could be made of the quarry why they would have arbitrarily truncated the Johnson Farm property by creating an artificial border where none existed previously that would significantly hinder any efforts to build golf holes using the quarry.
Perhaps when he said they could have room for 18 holes if they could get a little more land near where they proposed making their clubhouse they misunderstood and went west! ;)
-
Mike,
You've had that as your rationale for Francis' interpretation of the Swap being wrong from day 1...they could have gone all around the edges of the quarry with the initial plot but the swap enabled them to take it head on...three times.
I think the fact that CBM mentioned the quarry in June 1910 but didn't indicate a solution at any known time...and Francis figured out how to deal with it carries a ton of weight in Macdonald's actual participation (or lack there of) as part of the Merion Committee through the rest of 1910.
-
Mike your post above is precisely the type of response that makes discussions with you so unproductive and frustrating. You asked for an acreage measure. Against my better judgement, I took the time to give you an approximation of the information you sought. You take my good faith effort at a productive conversation, and use it to launch into nonsense that has nothing to do with anything. No one said anything about anyone having "arbitrarily truncated the Johnson Farm property by creating an artificial border where none existed previously that would significantly hinder any efforts to build golf holes using the quarry." You are just making things up and throwing out garbage because you don't like to deal with the actual factual record.
-
David,
Chill out. I sincerely thanked you for taking the time to do that and you have to admit that it's an open question why they would create an artificial border where previously none existed at the north end of the Johnson Farm property given the quarry's location if that's your belief.
My west of the clubhouse line was meant to be humorous.
Most importantly, I'm trying to understand how they secured 117 acres in November 1910, still had 117 acres in February 1911, and then needed three more of HDC land by July 1911.
None of our theories effectively address that question and the math doesn't work in anything we've collectively conceived to date so I appreciate the ongoing discussion and attempts to figure this out.
**ADDED** I'm definitely willing to consider that this map might be based on either an earlier HDC Land Plan crafted before November 15th, 1910 and may even be one that was crafted AFTER that November 1910 map with the Approximate Location of Road.
I say this because the April 19th 1911 MCC Minutes tell us that the Committee did numerous plans prior to their visit to NGLA so who among us can say what any of those plans looked like with any degree of certainty, or what portions of the Johnson Farmland they were located on?
-
This "artificial border" stuff is just plain nonsense. HDC not only controlled the Johnson farm, they controlled everything west of it as well. So whatever western "border" they created to set off the golf course would be "artificial."
Francis indicated that the location of the 15th green and 16th tee were not originally considered to be part of the golf course. Jim, Bryan, and I believe him. You don't.
Here are the western section of the Dallas estate and Johnson Farm properties, with the area containing the 15 green the 16th tee cut off. Looks like a capital "L" sitting on its side.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Johnson-Dallas-pre-swap-127.jpg)
-
As for the 117 vs. 120 acres. We don't know. Your theory makes no sense for reasons I have repeatedly explained. My guess is that HDC and Merion agreed to the location of the dividing road, agreed to the price for purchase of that land, built the road, then when they did the legal description for the deed it came out to 120.01 acres.
But, as I said above, all this comes down to one thing. Francis told us that that the location of the 15th tee and 16th green were not originally part of the golf course land. Some of us believe him. You don't.
-
David,
Sure, in theory they could have gone further west off the Johnson Farmland but my point about them creating an artificial boundary to the north of the former Johnson property is that it seems counter-intuitive to what they were told by Macdonald at the very top of his letter;
Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.
If Macdonald was told by Merion that the land they were considering stopped just past today's 17th green don't you think they might have suggested that Merion try to get additional land north of there? It would seem fairly obvious in retrospect, especially if he was told that HDC controlled the whole shebang, aside from the Haverford College parcel.
I know what Jim believes but I'm not sure about Bryan who I suspect likes to shoot holes in both our theories and would possibly say he's looking for more information before making a determination, but I may be wrong.
I also wouldn't characterize my position as saying the land for the present 16th tee and 15 were always part of the golf course. The most plausible explanation IMO based on all of the evidence is that much of the land of those two holes (and the #14 green) was too narrow for the holes they planned up in that neck of the course and Mr. Francis recalled the final dimension that were created, 130x190.
One reason I'm being a stickler for the math here is that we know they purchased more land they they originally secured. If, for instance, that new map you produced indeed showed land they were working on prior to the Francis exchange, I don't understand how it could have been an even swap to trade the land not used west of the clubhouse for the parcel you indicated above the Haverford College southern boundary. As I mentioned, I would think the size of the parcel across from the clubhouse that would need to be traded would have been roughly triple the size of the triangle they would have traded for. What's your thoughts on that?
-
You've distorted Francis's words beyond recognition.
As for what Bryan thinks, see his post 330.
As for what you think Macdonald should have said, it is all self-serving speculation on your part and adds nothing productive to the conversation.
As for the the 117 acres vs. 120, I know what they said, but I've seen nothing other than the 1910 plan identifying the land they supposedly secured, and that plan has more than 117 acres included in the golf course. In my opinion they thought they were purchasing the land equal to identified on that map, which is why the sent it to their members. (This was your opinion too, before you knew it wasn't 117 acres.)
As for your theory about 3x the land, I don't know what you think you are looking at. Look again at the image I just posted showing 120 acres. Merion eventually purchased 120 acres. So the net difference between what is shown and what they bought is zero.
-
David,
Please see my comments in blue below, thanks.
You've distorted Francis's words beyond recognition.
Where did I mis-quote Francis? You think he meant that he acquired the entire 130x190 plot in the land exchange and I think he meant that's the dimension of what he ended up with after the exchange. Whether the original pre-exchange dimension of the northern-most land of the Johnson Farm was 0x0 as you believe, or 100x260 as the November 15, 1910 Pugh & Hubbard scale map measures, or some other dimension mapped by Richard Francis after the Wilson Committee was formed indicating 117 acres that were secured, we know that the final dimension of that plot after the exchange was 130x190.
We also know that Francis told us that they had already routed 13 holes prior to his brainstorm with the help of a little land north of Ardmore Avenue, which I hope we can agree was the leased Railroad Land. We also know Francis told us that his brainstorm solved the problem of how to fit the last five holes. We also know that within a day or two of his brainstorm they had workmen blasting away at the site of the 16th green so we can assume that they knew more or less where to place the last five holes prior to his brainstorm but didn't have enough room. We also know that this plan was the one the Committee settled on after creating numerous plans on the new land prior to their visit to NGLA in March 1911 and re-arranging the course and creating five new plans (on paper) after returning from NGLA. We also know that Francis told us that the land he exchanged across from the clubhouse did not fit in with "any golf layout" so we can reasonably assume that multiple plans were still under consideration at the time of his brainstorm. We also know that Merion didn't own any of the land in question prior to December 1910 when HG Lloyd purchased the entire 140 acres of the Johnson Farm and the 21 acres of the Dallas Estate. We also know that was because Mr. Cuyler, Merion's counsel, recommended in December 1910 that Lloyd do so because the boundaries of the golf course had not been determined at that juncture.
We also know that Merion reported to their members in November 1910 that they had secured 117 acres from HDC for the golf course, after five months earlier in July 1910 having stated that they would need "about 120 acres" for golf (which with the addition of 3 acres of leased land would equal the desired 120 acres which eventually became 123 acres in total as the plan they approved required them to purchase 120 acres from HDC, not the 117 they originally secured).
We also know that in February of 1911 Hugh Wilson wrote Piper & Oakley that the club had purchased 117 acres for the golf course and attached a contour map of the property, which was likely the work of Richard Francis. They would have needed to know what the working boundaries of the property were by that time as they were working on various routings (at least one of which evidently didn't fit). We also know that the Merion Cricket Club minutes of 4/19/2015 stated that the plan in question required them to exchange land already purchased for "adjoining" land plus the purchase of three additional acres. We also know that the final purchase from HDC was not the 117 acres originally secured but instead 117 acres + 3 acres additional for 120.01 acres.
Those are the facts. For someone to believe that Francis had his brainstorm prior to November 15, 1910 based on him saying 40 years later that he exchanged land not used in any golf layout for land 130x190 up where the 15th green and 16th tee are located, and the fact that a portion of that land is partially identified in green next to an approximated drawing of a road on the November 15, 1910 Pugh & Hubbard map (which also includes land identified as golf course in that triangle that never became golf course land), a map you recently stated you believed that Pugh & Hubbard never even attempted to measure the golf course, then they would have to either ignore or explain away all of those facts that fly in the face of that contention. To date, I've yet to hear a viable explanation from anyone reconciling all of the facts above with that November 1910 date for a finalized routing. That's why I was excited to see your new map, but that one has problems, as well, as I'll point out below.
As for what Bryan thinks, see his post 330.
I have great respect for both Bryan and Jim and give their positions serious credence. In this case, I think they are missing the forest for the trees, however. But, if we're looking to others for support of our position I'm happy to side with Jeff Brauer and others but I'd rather not get into that tit-for-tat. Everyone here can speak for themselves on what they believe and no one is very shy on-line.
As for what you think Macdonald should have said, it is all self-serving speculation on your part and adds nothing productive to the conversation.
I repeated exactly what Macdonald told them in his first paragraph, that the quarry and brooks could be made much of. If you think he wouldn't have advised them to take as much land around the quarry as they could for flexibility, and instead wouldn't have noticed that the land they were considering acquiring painted them into a quarry bound corner when much more land was directly availble to them north of the quarry, I think that gives us a very good idea how much actual routing CBM was actually doing for the Committee.
As for the the 117 acres vs. 120, I know what they said, but I've seen nothing other than the 1910 plan identifying the land they supposedly secured, and that plan has more than 117 acres included in the golf course. In my opinion they thought they were purchasing the land equal to identified on that map, which is why the sent it to their members. (This was your opinion too, before you knew it wasn't 117 acres.)
David, respectfully, it sounds like you're trying to have it both ways. The other day you told us that you don't think Pugh & Hubbard measured the golf course for that map and now you're saying that "they thought they were purchasing the land equal to identified on that map, which is why they sent it to their members." If you thought that that map specifically identified the land they were acquiring for the golf course, at what point did you notice that the triangle on the northern part did not measure the 130x190 that Francis specified but instead measured something like 100x260, much narrower and much longer than the land they actually purchased?
As far as the 117 acres they secured, you know that figure was specified in every club document during the period from November 1910 into February 1911, all before needing to go to the Board of Governors to gain approval for the purchase of 3 additional acres in April 1911 in conjunction with the swapping of other land "already purchased" for other land. In fact, this exchange and additional purchase is the only reason that the Golf Course plan with Macdonald's blessing had to go to the Merion Cricket Club Board of Governors for approval at all.
We can pretend that they didn't secure 117 acres but that isn't consistent with the facts. Instead, that November 1910 Pugh & Hubbard map with an "Approximate Location of Road" serving as the golf course boundary that actually measures about 124 acres, not 117 acres is simply consistent with the fledgling state of the planning effort at that point and is consistent with what Cuyler wrote in late December 1910 that the boundaries of the golf course had not yet been determined.
As for your theory about 3x the land, I don't know what you think you are looking at. Look again at the image I just posted showing 120 acres. Merion eventually purchased 120 acres. So the net difference between what is shown and what they bought is zero.
The Johnson Farm property was 140 acres and the western boundary could flex many more into other properties under HDC control. Drawing 120 acres south of Haverford College is not a difficult exercise, but lets not forget that the 130x190 property you say they acquired in the Francis Exchanged measured 4.8 acres, so under your premise, any give across from the clubhouse had to measure exactly 4.8 acres, as well and it looks to me like you've got considerably in excess of that, no?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/120-acres-pre-off-good-roads.jpg)
However, my initial comment about 3x the land referred to your overlay map. If you think the new map you found is perhaps an earlier HDC Land Plan, then for your theory about an even swap to be real, the amount of land across from the clubhouse should equally match the land they would newly aquire up in the triangle. Yet, compared to the as-built of the Atlas, the land across from the clubhouse fitting outside the final boundaries is considerably greater (I estimated 3x) than the land falling out in the triangle above. For this map to support your theory, those acreages should be exact, correct?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/overlay-of-1913-good-roads.jpg)
***ADDED***
For discussion purposes, let's consider that November 15, 1910 Pugh & Hubbard map on it's face with the “Approximate Location of Road” as just that – it wasn’t accurate, because Merion simply didn’t know the exact 117 acres at that point or even over a month later according to Cuyler's letter.
So, let’s roll with that. You and Bryan claim it doesn't represent 117 acres, that it is more (124 acres) and we know it changed, with me and Brauer and others believing the road was simply re-aligned a bit.
However, the corollary is that it doesn’t mean anything, then why should it mean anything in particular, i.e., including that a land swap had taken place? Most likely Pugh & Hubbard just drew a curving line that approximated the existing roads in the area, connecting with College Ave. on the north, right?
Given those known inaccuracies and uncertainties, why is it logically ok to assume it meant the swap was in place? Isn't that fallacious on its face given the dimensions of that land on the map doesn't equal the 130x190 that they ended up with?
If a finalized routing was in place by November 15, 1910, wouldn't it logically follow that the map commissioned "For the Merion Cricket Club" would include a stick drawing, much like is seen on the Atlas above and/or at least the finally correct property line?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
I have always found this to be among the most compelling pieces of David’s position, and considered it carefully before making any conclusions. As you allude, I have generally felt the road was merely re-aligned, probably after the NGLA meeting and before the April meeting, when they prepared five different plans.
For the swap to be in place by November 15, 1910, we have to believe that November plan was a unique combination of being accurate in some specific ways and yet approximation of the land parcel under consideration in many other ways. It is a small chance, IMHO.
Besides, from memory, the following other positions need some explaining for a pre November routing to have taken place, and I don’t think satisfactory evidence best fits that timeline has ever been presented. For instance, from memory, we also have to believe:
Francis was not only on the golf committee but on the land search committee, but somehow, never credited. (His remembrance only mentions he was on the golf committee, when he came up with the idea)
Or, the golf committee was started well before the January date we assume. Neither are in the record, and of course, David is against this, because it puts Wilson in the design again.
We would also have to believe that the many plans they took to NGLA had a nearly final routing, and focused on tee, green and bunker design. (Which, BTW, doesn’t seem impossible, because they said they were there to study feature designs of NGLA) and the later 5 revisions were merely feature designs, not routing plans.
Also, then CBM came to Merion in April were only to make recommendations on bunkering, hole designs, etc. But, the report said ”lay them out”, which sounds like approval of routing more than bunkering, etc., but it is possible.
Lastly, we would have to believe that the quarry was still a working quarry in Nov. 1910, and that Merion had the right to go out and tell them where to blast for 16, even though they didn’t own the land. (Also possible, because I am not sure the Quarry would care where they got their few remaining stones/gravel)
More importantly, if the swap was in November, and they told them to blast the 16th green, again, at least the 16th green location would have to be settled, when the rest of it wasn't (presuming the later many plans and five plans were routings) Also, but it seems from the story that it was the last thing settled. It doesn’t seem to fit with being settled in November, but then consulting CBM and presenting the plans to the board in April, expanding the land to 120 in a board meeting in July, etc.
More importantly, we do know that is when the board made it official, upon seeing plans and recommendations from the committee.
Settling the land swap in April makes for a more logical and linear sequence, which is more in line with that record, and also, how it actually goes in golf course design, even admitting that the process does go round and round to a certain degree, as well as back and forth. But why select a hole concept or design bunkers until you know the hole will actually be there?
Also, if it was November, and Francis took the plans to Lloyd (which does make sense as land owner) he doesn’t think to mention CBM. And, as David admits, there is really still nothing in the record saying CBM was involved in that period. So, it doesn't support CBM as the "creative genius" behind the project, it seems to favor the committee doing the work by itself.
As you can tell, I went over this in my mind again, and do see the other side, but I don’t recall anyone offering up any rational timeline that fits those known records/facts/occurrences to prove a November routing, no matter what the map looks like on that day. We agree its an approximation, so how can we be sure THAT part of it is accurate, in light of all the other things mentioned above?
I can't, but am happy to re-read it or other opinions to be convinced, as there is a bit of logic in there.
-
So many blue words. It says something about your position that you have to keep typing so many words to try and explain away so few.
1. You are distorting Francis beyond recognition. Francis described the land involved in the exchange as follows: "The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House road was exchanged for land about 130 yds. wide by 190 yds. long - the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee."
You've distorted this so that in your version the swap really wasn't about the approx. 130x190 yd. location of "the 15th green and 16th tee" but rather was about a long, thin sliver of land hugging the current location of the road. That is NOT what Francis wrote. In your version, the 16th tee and 15th green were not even involved in the swap. That is absurd.
2. You repeatedly and purposefully distort my position by falsely claiming that I believe that there was a "finalized" plan in place by November 1910. This is not my position. My position is that the plan wouldn't be "finalized" until CBM returned to Merion and approved the final plan many months later.
3. Your continued speculation about what you think CBM should or should not have told them provides a good example of the type of fallacious logic which pervades so much of what you write. You make up fake conditions (CBM should have told them to acquire as much land around the quarry as the could for flexibility), draw fake assumptions about the evidence (CBM must not have told them this), and then draw fake conclusions (this tells us something about the level of CBM's involvement). The record supports none of this! Once again, you are just making shit up.
4. You are (again) misrepresenting my position regarding the 1910 map. There is a difference between identifying land to be purchased and exactly measuring that parcel in acres. For example, to identify the parcel, the parties could have staked out, drawn out, or even built the road, while agreeing that everything on one side would go to MCC. That would not necessitate determining the exact measurement of the area in question until the deed was drawn up. No doubt Merion thought the land they would eventually secure for $85,000 measured 117 acres . Turned out got 120 acres for their $85,000. Lucky for them, but that they got what they bargained for is evidenced by the price they paid.
5. As for your speculation about the Good Roads map, you are making so many unsupportable assumptions that I cannot really keep up. In response to your request, I provided you with an image of what 120 acres would look like with the property approximately shaped like the road on the Good Roads map. On the image I showed you, the parcels inside and outside the current course net to zero. Simple as that.
-
Mike,
I don't have time to go at all the points you're trying to make, but re the following statement,
Isn't that fallacious on its face given the dimensions of that land on the map doesn't equal the 130x190 that they ended up with?
I still suspect/guess that Francis was describing a rectangle and not a triangle. At some point prior to November 15 HDC and Merion agreed that the golf course was going to be bounded on the western side by a road - no doubt to aid in selling estate lots on that road overlooking the golf course. Somebody told Pugh and Hubbard approximately where the road was to go before November 15th.
[/size]In the end, Merion did not end up with 130 yards by 190 yards up there, as you state above. They ended up with an odd shaped piece that was about 115 yards wide on the southern end, about 327 yards up the eastern edge, 4 yards wide at College Avenue, and a curvlinear length I can't be bothered measuring along the western boundary along the Golf House Road.
[/size]
[/size]Golf House Road was built, in it's current location by July 1911 as described in the deed. How long do you suppose it took to build a road in 1911. Could they have done it between April 19th and July, 1911?
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]
-
Bryan,
I'm sure that I don't understand your evolved position but I'm eager to hear more as time permits.
Perhaps it might help me conceptualize what you're saying if you break it down in terms of what (if anything) existed north of Haverford College southern boundary and after the Francis Exchange.
Also, when you say they ended up with about 115 yards on the southern end, how are you measuring that?
Thanks.
David,
Do you believe that the course routing was complete once Francis had his brainstorm? If his brainstorm was before that November 15, 1910 Land Plan was created, as you contend, what more needed to be done as far as routing the course after he made room for 15 and 16 and created the site for the 16th green a day or two after the brainstorm? After all, the first 13 holes had already been routed prior to then and they clearly knew where they wanted 15 and 16 to go.
Thanks.
-
David,
Yes, I'm making stuff up in assuming that CB Macdonald would have advised the Merion Committee during his June 1910 visit to get as much land around the quarry as possible so that they could use it for golf holes. The fact that he recognized its potential, even mentioning it first and foremost in his letter to Merion after his June 1910 site visit suggests to me that the only way to utilize that potential was to acquire surrounding land that could be used for golf.
One thing that I don't recall ever being mentioned here before is the simple fact that from a golf standpoint, the quarry could only be reasonably approached from one direction, the north. If approached from the south, or west, it would be like playing off a cliff so dramatic is the fall and played from the east is impossible because the quarry extends to that eastern boundary.
So, there really is only one place the 16th hole could have realistically been approached from. I think Macdonald and anyone else out on that property for 30 seconds or more would have instinctively recognized this.
So yes, in my flight of fancy I'd imagine the following conversation;
CBM: (standing at the site of today's 17th green) Aye, laddies...this quarry is quite dramatic. Much can be made of it for golf purposes.
Merion: Oh wow...and here we thought we might have to fill the whole thing up, Charlie. Thanks for the idea.
CBM: I'm assuming ye lads are bright enough bulbs to insist that the Developers give you the surrounding available land which stretches several hundred yards north of here, yes?
Merion: (looking at each other nervously) Well, actually, we thought that particular land would make for some nice quarry-side housing units.
CBM: What?@?!@
Merion: (embarrassed) Yes, in fact, don't back up or you'll be trespassing.
CBM: Egads, you dunderheads!!...how in Hades did you all get your Ivy League degrees??
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/120-acres-pre-off-good-roads.jpg)
-
Mike, Looking at his old posts, I think that has been Bryan's position all along.
Francis described an area "about" 130x190 yards, the location of the 15th tee and 16th green. This roughly, but not exactly, describes the area between the Haverford College property and the road. A 130x190 yd. rectangle is 5.1 acres. So Merion swapped about 5 acres of land next to the Haverford College property for "land now covered by fine homes along Golf House road."
The white rectangle below is 130x190 yards and measures 5.1 acres. The orange rectangle also measures 5.1 acres. I am not suggesting that these represented exactly what was swapped because obviously they do not. But I do think they give a rough idea of the swap that Francis was describing.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/5.1-for-5.1.jpg)
Apparently, prior to the swap, Merion was trying to fit the golf course on land which excluded the white triangle from consideration. The swap allowed them to use the area in the white triangle, and thus resolved a routing problem, but they gave up land across what is now Golf House road to get access to the land in the white triangle. I don't think it is any more complicated than that.
__________________________________
Also Mike, thanks for further demonstrating the extent of your reasoning powers in that last little flight of fancy. It is too idiotic to take seriously, and this includes your strange conjecture that the quarry could only be approached from the north. So much for the 17th hole!
-
You keep substantively changing your previous posts, so it is a bit hard to keep up. You added the following question to one of your posts above:
Do you believe that the course routing was complete once Francis had his brainstorm? If his brainstorm was before that November 15, 1910 Land Plan was created, as you contend, what more needed to be done as far as routing the course after he made room for 15 and 16 and created the site for the 16th green a day or two after the brainstorm? After all, the first 13 holes had already been routed prior to then and they clearly knew where they wanted 15 and 16 to go.
As for fitting the first 13 holes, back in June of 1910 CBM had suggested that they add the land which made this possible. Thus Francis's description of fitting the 13 holes"with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Avenue."
I think the Francis modification was most likely one of the "many different courses" which had been laid out on the land prior to Wilson's visit to NGLA, and it sounds like the one CBM ultimately approved. Another would have been whatever they were trying to do before the swap, which may have been suggested by CBM. Barker's plan was another.
-
Mike,
I understand your quarry point, and that to use it twice for anything other than a tee fronting hazard, it would need multiple approaches. As an architect, I really think in broader terms early in the routing, I.e., is there enough space to fit 18 holes? CBM hints at the same, and the logic of what David is saying is that prudent men, given a minimum of acreage, would probably do a test routing before the purchase. It doesn't always happen, and they may have felt comfortable knowing the parties would give them some wiggle room.
That said, I always got the impression that in June, something in the Barker routing showed them they needed more room south of Ardmore in the form of the Dallas Estate. Basically, the land was 4 holes wide in rectangular form. To get 12 holes, it would need to be 3 holes long, using an average hole length of about 350 yards, just to have a chance to fit the required holes in, even without considering topography.
It doesn't take us long, looking at the finished product, to realize that they needed to get 7 holes in, and needed 2 wide by almost 4 long, or 4 wide at two long. The final routing is a combo of both. Even a quick look probably would show they needed that property up to College to have a chance. The question is when.
Other than the inconsistencies noted from the record, and one more I forgot to mention last time - it appears the topo map was commissioned and arrived about Feb. 1, 1911. I wonder if they could/would route without one? CBM seemed to think topo info was necessary, both in his letter and in how he worked at NGLA. I assume they followed his advice.
And, given the secrecy they worked under in buying the land, I am pretty sure no survey crew was sent out as a visible sign they were interested, until the Dallas Estate land was at least under option, if not fully under contract. Was that August, or October?
Like I say, the theory of a rough test routing, is possible. In my world, it does happen, maybe 25% of the time, and in other cases, the owner just presents us with property - for better or worse. It would have made sense, including identifying the "triangle" in rough shape, but did it happen, given the other points of the historic record?
-
As for fitting the first 13 holes, back in June of 1910 CBM had suggested that they add the land which made this possible . Thus Francis's description of fitting the 13 holes"with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Avenue."
I think the Francis modification was most likely one of the "many different courses" which had been laid out on the land prior to Wilson's visit to NGLA, and it sounds like the one CBM ultimately approved. Another would have been whatever they were trying to do before the swap, which may have been suggested by CBM. Barker's plan was another.
Agree with this being possible, but then I still think we have to discount the blasting for the 16th hole soon thereafter. If it was still an active quarry, then it might be possible as there would be no cost to MCC. If it had gone dormant, then MCC wouldn't have gone to the expense to blast on their $40K construction budget unless they were sure of that hole location. Either way, if the routing wasn't firm, blasting makes little sense as the topo might be used differently for another hole design.
-
Jeff Brauer wrote above that it appears that the contour map was commissioned and arrived about Feb. 1, 1911. While Wilson wrote of sending a contour map to Piper/Oakley on February 1, there is nothing in the record indicating when Merion first obtained the contour map.
Further, whatever Brauer's experiences with developers who locked themselves into land before considering whether a course would fit, this does not seem to have been the case with Merion. Otherwise, why trouble CBM and HJW to come to Philadelphia to determine whether 18 first class holes could fit on the property they were considering? And why leave the road border flexible? The very existence of the Francis swap indicates that they figured out the routing before setting the boundaries, otherwise there would have had to have been an actual legal exchange of property.
-
David's post highlights some obvious things:
Maybe I don't know when the topo maps arrived, and just assume it was sometime near when it shows up in the record. (And why not, they commissioned it, they needed it for planning, and why would they sit on it until February?)
Of course, neither does David, but it hasn't stopped him from assuming it arrived earlier, was used by CBM, etc., etc. etc. His non answer is also typical and illustrative of his argumentative style, but don't bolster his assumptions at all. There are some inconsistencies in the record that should ideally be resolved to be sure of any theory, which he expertly ignores for the past 7 years.
Lastly, as to his contention that
"Further, whatever Brauer's experiences with developers who locked themselves into land before considering whether a course would fit, this does not seem to have been the case with Merion. Otherwise, why trouble CBM and HJW to come to Philadelphia to determine whether 18 first class holes could fit on the property they were considering? And why leave the road border flexible? "
They asked CBM to the site one day, as a counter point to HDC's bringing Barker in. They wanted their own expert to assist in forming the development. In my post no. 276 I outlined many assumptions David made without support in his original essay, including the fact that David has assumed that CBM told Merion to do things as he did.
Think about it. Offer to buy 120 acres from a developer in an area planned for active development, without a routing plan in place? Sounds more like CBM's first option at NGLA, not his ideal one. And, there is no hint in CBM's follow up letter that they should follow his second NGLA attempt, it only notes that their problem would be to fit 18 first class holes in the property available. He knew the score at Merion, and Merion wasn't NGLA, so he advised accordingly.
And, the fact is, 99% of golf courses buy the land, route the course, figure out the features and then build the course. The Merion record shows June-Dec. 1910 focused on the purchase of the land, Jan-April 1911 focused on the design of the golf course, with construction activity after that. Nothing in their record suggests this was that far out of the ordinary process, including anything CBM wrote.
That is what they say in their own words, and the record says. To extrapolate any further is a stretch of the record. If David thinks differently maybe he will answer some of our questions, with some real facts in the record to support it, rather than his tired assumptions.
-
Jeff Brauer wrote above that it appears that the contour map was commissioned and arrived about Feb. 1, 1911. While Wilson wrote of sending a contour map to Piper/Oakley on February 1, there is nothing in the record indicating when Merion first obtained the contour map.
Further, whatever Brauer's experiences with developers who locked themselves into land before considering whether a course would fit, this does not seem to have been the case with Merion. Otherwise, why trouble CBM and HJW to come to Philadelphia to determine whether 18 first class holes could fit on the property they were considering? And why leave the road border flexible? The very existence of the Francis swap indicates that they figured out the routing before setting the boundaries, otherwise there would have had to have been an actual legal exchange of property.
David,
The question of the when that contour map was created is an interesting one. Considering that CBM caveat-ed his comments to Merion in his July 1st, 1910 letter that he couldn't be certain whether they could fit 18 good holes in the space they were considering without a contour map, I always found it odd that the next map mentioned in any of the Merion correspondence was the Pugh & Hubbard November 15, 1910 map that didn't include contours. All we know for a fact is that they had one by February 1st, 1911, when Hugh Wilson offered to send one to Piper & Oakley. It's very likely that the contour map in question was created by Richard Francis after he was added to the Merion Committee in January 1911.
Jeff Silverman's Merion history book mentions that Wilson's Committee was formed on January 11, 1911, so that would have given Francis about 20 days to create a contour map which seems reasonable to me.
You're also correct that Merion didn't lock themselves into a property before routing the golf course, at least not in the way we would think of it today. H.G. Lloyd and his deep pockets was the reason for that.
From a timeline perspective;
- June 1910 - Rodman Griscom asks his friends Macdonald and Whigham to visit a site in Ardmore that Merion is considering for their new golf course and they follow with a letter that is a somewhat lukewarm endorsement that expresses concerns about the total acreage and suggests they could possibly do it by acquring a bit more land near the clubhouse
- July 1910 - Merion's search committee sends an internal letter mentioning that HDC is willing to sell them "100 acres or whatever would be needed" for their golf course. The letter states that they would likely need 120 acres.
- October/Nov 1910 - HDC acquires the 21 acre Dallas Estate
- November 10, 1910 - Connell of HDC sends Allen Evans of Merion a letter indicating that he's been talking with Lloyd and offers 117 acres to Merion
- November 10, 1910 - Evans responds to Connell that he's interested in buying 117 acres but asks that Connell give Merion a little time to put together a corporation that would do the deal and lease the course to the Merion Cricket Club.
- November 15, 1910 - Evans/Merion sends a letter to its members describing the opportunity to purchase 117 acres that includes a freshly drawn map from Pugh & Hubbard done "for Merion Cricket Club" that the accompanying letter states shows the 117 acres the club has secured. The boundary between golf course and the adjacent real estate is shown by a proposed road connecting the existing Ardmore Avenue and the paved College Avenue and whose location is "approximate"d. The drawing shows no golf holes and modern technology shows the area indicated for the golf course was probably closer to 124 acres.
- December 10, 1910 - H.G. Lloyd, acting on advice of Merion's counsel, because the boundaries for the golf course have not yet been determined, purchases the entire 140 acres of the former Johnson Farm and the 21 acres of the former Dallas Estate from HDC, effectively putting that land under Merion's control but also having fiduciary responsibility to HDC as an officer of that organization. Of that, Merion is still operating under the assumption that they'll build their course on 117 of those acres.
- December 21, 1910 - Cuyler, in letter form to Allen Evans, describes what he has advised Lloyd to purchase, which was a done deal at that point. The letter, in part read; In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon.
- January 11, 1911 - Merion forms the committee charged with laying out and building their new golf course
- February 1, 1911 - Hugh Wilson, writing for the Committee and on the advice of CB Macdonald contacts Piper & Oakley seeking agronomic advice. He tells them that Merion has purchased "117 acres".
- March 1911 - Merion's Committee visits NGLA and stays overnight. Descriptions of the activities from both Wilson and the MCC Minutes indicate the first night spent going over the principles of the famous holes from abroad and the next day seeing Macdonald's versions of those holes and concepts through a tour of the NGLA course. A letter to Piper & Oakley also mentioned some pamphlets Macdonald provided related to seed companies.
- April 1911 - CB Macdonald comes back to Merion 10 months after his initial visit for his second and final time. During his visit he looks over the land and helps Merion by selecting one of the Committee's final 5 plans.
- April 19 1911 - At a Board of Governors meeting, the proposed plan is presented but asked for Board action because the plan that had Macdonald's blessing required an additional purchase and a land exchange from Lloyd acting for HDC. The meeting minutes read in part, ; In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional. On motion of Mr. Thompson, the following was resolved; Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about $7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion Resolved, that this Board approve of the purchase and exchange, and agree to pay as part of the rental the interest on the additional purchase.
- July 1911 - Merion purchases 120.01 acres from HDC. With the inclusion of the lease of 3 acres of railroad land which we know from Francis happened sometime prior to his brainstorm, the new Merion course would require a total of 123 acres.
-
Mike, Looking at his old posts, I think that has been Bryan's position all along.
Francis described an area "about" 130x190 yards, the location of the 15th tee and 16th green. This roughly, but not exactly, describes the area between the Haverford College property and the road. A 130x190 yd. rectangle is 5.1 acres. So Merion swapped about 5 acres of land next to the Haverford College property for "land now covered by fine homes along Golf House road."
The white rectangle below is 130x190 yards and measures 5.1 acres. The orange rectangle also measures 5.1 acres. I am not suggesting that these represented exactly what was swapped because obviously they do not. But I do think they give a rough idea of the swap that Francis was describing.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/5.1-for-5.1.jpg)
Apparently, prior to the swap, Merion was trying to fit the golf course on land which excluded the white triangle from consideration. The swap allowed them to use the area in the white triangle, and thus resolved a routing problem, but they gave up land across what is now Golf House road to get access to the land in the white triangle. I don't think it is any more complicated than that.
__________________________________
Also Mike, thanks for further demonstrating the extent of your reasoning powers in that last little flight of fancy. It is too idiotic to take seriously, and this includes your strange conjecture that the quarry could only be approached from the north. So much for the 17th hole!
David,
If that's Bryan's theory then I'm really not sure how it makes more sense to include a 5.1 acre rectangle than a 4.8 acre semi-triangle which is what's there in actuality?
Your drawing indicates much of that rectangle crossing the boundary across Golf House Road into the neighboring estates. "Most", or "close" only counts in horse shoes, not real estate transactions.
Regarding my "idiotic" contention that the quarry could only be reasonably approached from the north, of course one could stand on the edge of the quarry cliff and play down into it on a par three as they do on 17 today. That's hardly "approaching" the quarry but instead standing atop the ledge.
But instead of me responding to your continual and ineffectual insults, I'm feeling like I'm again channeling the original Committee participants...aaarrgggghhh...
Mr. Francis: Mr Lloyd, we have a problem.
Mr Lloyd: And what would that be my dear Mr. Francis?
Mr. Francis: You know that land that Mr. Macdonald told you and Mr. Griscom would be suitable for 18 good holes? Well, I've been pouring over maps and...well...you know how he told you that the quarry can be made much of? Well, I've been trying to make much of it and not much is happening but I'll keep trying much more.
Mr. Lloyd: For heaven's sake man, calm down...what do you mean?
Mr. Francis: Well, for starter's the quarry is fricking HUGE! I mean, it's 250 yards wide and 150 yards long! And it's deep with a steep cliff wall on two sides so I can't come at it from the west or the south. And the east side is more land owned by the railroad and we really don't want to deal with those bastards again right?
Mr. Lloyd: I won't have you using that type of profanity in my house. Why some of those railroad robber baron...er...railroad officials are among the finest upstanding citizens of this community. And afterall, they did help you locate those first 13 holes by leasing us those 3 acres if you recall.
Mr. Francis: (frustrated) I know, I know...I'm sorry.
Mr. Lloyd: Tut tut, there now my good man.
Mr. Francis: Ok, so back to the problem. Our problem. We've got those 13 holes and then we go north with 14. I'm envisioning a big, uphill, challenging par four that will set the stage for an amazing finish. And then...
Mr. Lloyd: And then??
Mr. Francis: Nothing.
Mr. Lloyd: Nothing?
Mr. Francis: Nope. Nothing but quarry. Oh, you guys left me 150 yards to the left of it and a hefty 80 yards beyond it...thanks for nothing!
Mr. Lloyd: But surely that young whippersnapper Mr. Wilson can help solve this problem?
Mr. Francis: Who? That guy? Is he still a member? Oh, that's right....But he won't even be appointed to head a Committee for months yet, and he's a Princeton fellow don't you know, so I have my doubts.
Mr. Lloyd: True Dat.
Mr. Francis: So here's what I'm thinking. We get the 14th green up near that quarry wall and then for the next hole we can stand right on the edge and play to a par three on the quarry floor below. But then how do we get down there?
Mr. Lloyd: I'll have my workmen build a large spiral staircase down into the depths! Problem solved!
Mr. Francis: Ok, now we're cooking with kerosene! Then, we need to get out so I'm thinking another par three in the opposite direction to the top of the quarry cliff wall for 16. Kinda blind, but we can call it an Alps or something that will keep Macdonald happy.
Mr. Lloyd: Will that require an additional staircase?
Mr. Francis: Perhaps. But I still have two holes left. Would it be considered gauche by future GCA afficianados to have three par threes in a row?
Mr. Lloyd: Some of them might think it's cool because it breaks the rules. I can see that Naccarato guy asking for the distance to the quarry wall, just to watch his tee ball deflect back at him at 200 mph! ;)
Mr. Francis: Ok, then we go with the three par threes in a row. That will make Mr. Macdonald pleased i'd imagine as we would be certainly making much of the quarry! But then...
Mr. Lloyd: Spit it out Francis!
Mr. Francis: But then we still need to get back to the clubhouse and my 17th hole ends down in the depths of the quarry. Do you think Mrs. Biddle and the other members will like to finish with a 200 yard carry out of the quarry and a long downhill run to the green?
Mr. Lloyd: Probably not, but too many members are taking up the game anyways. That finish you describe ought to discourage a good number of them!
Mr. Francis: Yes sir.. I knew we could solve this problem. By the way, how did Wilson get that plum future committee assignment? We do all the work and I just have this sinking feeling that history is going to give him all the credit.
Mr. Lloyd: He has pictures.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/120-acres-pre-off-good-roads.jpg)
-
Your last post is apt. Your analysis has always been more about fantasy than reality. The same applies to many of the items in your timeline.