GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
Ron Whitten on Shinnecock
MCirba:
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?
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?
***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?
Jeff_Brauer:
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.
DMoriarty:
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.
Bryan Izatt:
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?
--- Quote ---
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]
--- End quote ---
MCirba:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version