Bryan, as usual a thoughtful and insightful analysis, but one with which I dont entirely agree.
I think you are putting too much weight on the notion of there having been a formal definition, probably because I used the word. I should have been more clear and said "understanding" or "definition and usage." I think I usually have said the latter, but will try the former.
The reason I distinguish this from your formal definition is that, when it comes to understanding what is meant by words, looking at how the words are used is really 'where the rubber hits the road,' as our friend Matt Ward would say. This is especially true when we have the examples of usage from the person who set forth the supposed definition, and more true still when such usage occurs contemporaneously (in the same article) with the supposed definition.
So let me reprhase the three possible scenarios:
1. Their understanding of the term was the same as yours, and at the time the hole was consistent with this understanding. Or . . .
2. Their understanding of the term was different than yours, and included holes (at least in their reverse form) that had the other characteristics (benchland, sideslope, deep bunker, angled green) but that did not slope away from the front. Or . . .
3. Their understanding of the term was the same as yours, but for some reason (stupidity?, pride?, laziness?, confusion?, misinterpretation? bolstering? trickery? dishonesty?) they didnt use their own terms correctly.
CBM's definition was in the article as follows:
"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. At North Berwick, of course, all these
things were done in the beginning by nature. The
only original thing that the greenkeeper did was to
place the tee so that the shot had to be played cornerwise,
so to speak, instead of directly down the tableland."
You call this a definition, JES thinks it is a construction manual, and I think it is simply descriptive. I see no reason to believe that MacDonald meant to limit himself so specifically, especially given the examples he cites and also his continued description. For example, he says
the principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course. It is hard for me to reconcile this with trying to apply an extremely formal definition.
But setting all this aside and assuming he meant this introduction to his article as a specific definition, your this old 'definiton' is different from the modern understanding in that it does not mention the front to back slope, and after a quick reread of the article I dont think the article does either.
4. Their definition was the same, but they wanted to take credit for the use of their ideas on other GCA's holes, so they ascribed their ideas to holes that really didn't fit (perhaps that's like "pride" or "bolstering" you mention above.
I'd definitely place this under my third scenario. One problem with this theory is that MacDonald was far from the only one to compare the Merion holes to holes which MacDonald also used for inspiration. What was in it for them? Filthy Lucre?
Also, your theory is way too speculative. Where is your proof?? It is beyond pop-psychology to simply attribute a lie to the guy because he was arrogant and we dont like what he was saying. And as far as I know there is no evidence that anyone ever disagreed with him or called him on this. And people were certainly not afraid to take an MacDonald-- there are some extremely critical reviews of NGLA. One would think that they would have jumped at the chance to prove him an idiot using one of his own holes to do it.
You seem to keep mis-stating this point. The tilt of the green from the tee is neither side to side or front to back. The angle of play makes the tilt at some angle (say 45*) from the line of play. The essential part is that it slopes down and away to the left at some angle as seen and played from the tee.
I am surprised you make a point of posting what you call the definition, and then you almost immediately move beyond that definition. He doesnt say the tilt from the tee, he says a tilt a benchland right-to-left. If we buy JES's theory of taking these things in order, then the right to left reference has nothing to do with the tee, which hasnt even been located yet.
My point is that you guys are obviously twisting (literally?) to try to get what MacDonald said to fit into your definition. If the definition is unclear to you, look at the usage. Which contradicts what you guys are saying.
So, while I understand that we now all think that the hole needs a downslope, that is not really what MacDonald said, at least not in this article. And his usage may indicate that this is not what he meant either, (at least for reverse redans and at least at this time.)
If the benchland had even the slightest back to front slope then the hole could easily tilt left but not away. And with hard ground the hole would still play generally as he suggests. Keep in mind that he is very clear that it was the wind which was the primary determinate of how the hole played, and the wind would have a very similar impact on the tilting hole with a slight upslope as with one which slopes away, provided that the ground was hard.
CBM described the tilt as the essential part of a Redan. The evidence seems to suggest that the required running away tilt of the tableland, at some anle to the left of the line of play from the tee, was not to be found at Merion.
There you go again, messing with your own definition. He says left-to-right tilt, not front to back tilt. What evidence suggests that the "essential" tilt is front to back, as opposed to right-to-left?
(I thought Patrick was arguing in favour of CBM didn't really say (or write it). He was alleged, by person or persons unknown to have said it under his byline.
He presently is. In the past, he has quoted these MacDonald articles as gospel. I think he may have gone off the deep-end with this time! That being said, in the past he has been a stickler for insisting that these guys were very much in control of their language and word usage.
Based on the "evidence" number 4 is as logical a conclusion as any.
Bryan, in other contexts you have asked me to support my claims with facts. So with all due respect, let me ask you . . . WHAT EVIDENCE?
--What is the evidence that MacDonald didnt mean what he says in this article?
--What is the evidence that he was trying to bolster his own reputation, aside from amateur pathologizing. (And if this hole was so obviously not a redan even then, how would taking credit for a crummy redan that didnt work as a redan bolster his repuation?)
--What is the evidence that the other commentators, all respected and knowledgeable men, would misuse the term as well?
People keep talking about the evidence, but the only evidence I have seen is that the present hole doesnt fit the present definition of a redan. That surely is not enough to rewrite history, or impose our modern understandings on the past.