Lord...I'm at a loss here. This thread has become much too unintentially humorous.
David,
WHO is saying that Macdonald didn't have any influence on Wilson? That's preposterous, and I haven't heard it from anyone on this thread. Could you please point me to the definitive post?
WHO is denying the historical record of Wilson's 2-day visit to Macdonald, his tour of NGLA, Macdonald suggesting an itinerary? Tell me, and I'll hunt them down and correct them for starting this train wreck!!
Who is denying that Macdonald was known to have had some advisory capacity of an indeterminate nature during the construction process? Who said he didn't help with a routing problem? I'll get some ammo together and go after them pronto...just show me where they said it!
Who is denying that some of the authorities of them time; Macdonald, Lesley, Whigham, and perhaps Travis, called today's 3rd hole a Redan (however loosely, as has been proven and stipulated), the front bunker on 10 an "Alps like feature", and I believe someone quoted Travis talking about the 15th green being like an "Eden"? How could anyone possibly deny the written documented words those men used? If they did, point me in their direction and prepare to plug your ears as protection for my forthcoming verbal blast!
No, I don't think that's what happened here. I think instead you came forward and speculated that the old 10th hole was very, very similar to the Alps at NGLA, in elevation change, length, and shot values. Some of us said, no, that's not really possible. I went so far as to defend the fact that I understood why Lesley would call it an Alps due to the fronting bunker, and the likely blindness of the approach, but it ain't an Alps in the way Prestwick is and NGLA is.
I think what also happened is that the fact that the 3rd was called a redan was questioned, because it is frankly not a redan that anyone with a objective reasoning would state. Yes, Macdonald called it a redan, and the name stuck, but it bears almost no playability relationship to any redan hole overseas, or any that Macdonald, Raynor, Banks, or anyone else ever built.
Why would you have forwarded this hypothesis about the 10th hole if not to try to prove that Macdonald had some actual design input to Merion? I'm not understanding what you're trying to assert?
We know that Macdonald did have an influence, and he certainly pointed WIlson in the right direction and probably helped him with questions of indeterminate nature along the way. NO ONE is denying that, unless you can show us otherwise.
However, David...when all is said and done, we know that Macdonald had at least 72 hours of influence over Wilson. It may have been more but there is NO DOCUMENTATION OF ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IN EITHER THE MERION ARCHIVES OR MACDONALD'S PAPERS, FILES, ARTICLES, QUOTES, etc.
I'm sure that his advice was invaluable. We all are. Without Macdonald's advice and early direction, Merion may have gone on a far different course. That's stipulated.
However, after Wilson left Macdonald and NGLA he went to study overseas for EIGHT months. I don't know the exact days, but let's think about it...
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
What did Wilson learn during all that time? Perhaps he saw the ALps hole...the redan...the Valley of Sin...Principal's Nose...the Eden? Of course he did, David, and when he returned to the states he built a course that were less direct copies of those templates, straying from Macdonald's more direct copying model, and instead utilized their strategic aspects on the unique piece of ground that was located inland at Merion.
Now, if he had come back and built a course similar to NGLA INLAND, I'd have to believe Macdonald's input was far greater than what has been recorded. However, he didn't, and instead continued the forward evolution of American architecture using old world principles in a new and different way.
That's all I can say on this topic. You've exhausted me.